This report corroborates the account in a Newsweek article last December of a twelve-man team training in Pakistan to stage attacks in Western countries. Apparently, there is more than one such team. "Qaeda camps in Pakistan to train operatives: US official," by Jim Mannion for AFP:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Al-Qaeda is believed to have established compounds inside Pakistan to train small groups of operatives for possible attacks in the West, a US official said.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the compounds had been detected over the past year in a semi-autonomous tribal area along the mountainous border with Afghanistan.
The compounds are "not big ones. These are small," the official told AFP. "They are not like the big camps that they had seen in Afghanistan previously."
But they were being used to train groups of 10 to 20 people at a time for what were believed to be operations in the West, particularly in Western Europe, the official said.
The Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Mahmud Ali Durrani, played down the developments.
"There may be an odd place. And when we find out we take it out. We have done that recently," he said in an interview with CNN. "But saying they have reestablished themselves, and there are a lot of compounds, and they have rejuvenated. That is incorrect."
The compounds suggest that Al-Qaeda, once seen as having been reduced to a largely inspirational role in an increasingly dispersed, decentralized international jihadist movement, is rebuilding its capacity to mount international operations.
The US government is concerned about a stream of Muslims with British passports traveling between Europe and Pakistan as a source of recruits for Al-Qaeda operations, the US official said.
Also known as the "Al-Qaeda Pipeline."
In the intelligence community's most recent public threat assessment, former director of national intelligence John Negroponte told Congress January 11 that Al-Qaeda's core elements continue to plot attacks against the United States and other targets.
"And they continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, northern Africa and Europe," he said.
A sharp increase and timeliness of public messages by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's number two, is among the indications that the group has reconstituted its command and control over networks of operatives, the official said.
"That's part of his command and control -- how he communicates," the official said.
The New York Times, which first reported the new developments, said the compounds were operated under the loose command of groups of Arab, Pakistani and Afghan militants allied with Al-Qaeda.
According to the Times, with cited US analysts, they receive guidance from their commanders and Zawahri. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared to have little direct involvement, the Times said.
[...]
Incidentally, a report in today's Telegraph does suggest bin Laden is increasingly back in control, though it was said he had not been for a while. The AFP article continues:
The Times said intense debate within the administration failed to resolve a dilemma over what to do.
Some in the Pentagon advocate air strikes on the camps and while others in the State Department worry that too much pressure will undermine the government of President Pervez Musharraf.
"Muslims with British passports"
'We've lived next door to him for several years and he was such a nice young man. He couldn't possibly do something like that.
"In the intelligence community's most recent public threat assessment, former director of national intelligence John Negroponte told Congress January 11 that Al-Qaeda's core elements continue to plot attacks against the United States and other targets."
AQ jihadis plotting attacks???
Who would have guessed?
I guess we should be thankful the "intelligence" community actually found Pakistan on the map. Forget it. Negroponte probably paid some "moderate" jihadi to point out where it is for the "intelligence" community.
Billions and years for these turd lickers and they aren't worth squat.
Where are these people getting the funds to do this?
Always the detractors of action to meet the threat in a timely manner, this Dept. of State, these career diplomats, these tenurial resistors.
Oh, to know the totality of the daily intellegence report, the inner workings of the NSA, the daily Pentagon briefings.
Without the benefit of the aforementioned, we all look through a glass darkened.
But then to hear of intense debates, a call to prayer is in order for the one on whom all decisions ultimately rest. Pray that Devine Wisdom rest on him who, above all else, wants to do the right things for our nation.
Pray that indecision and bad decisions made because of bad advice be somehow transformed by Grace from above and that we prevail against the enemies of our State, these United States, and against this force of evil that wants to again dominate the World.
Amen
"Where are these people getting the funds to do this?
Posted by: payingattention "
saudi arabia. independent sheiks (bin laden was one such sheik). mosques (zakat). ISI.
My very own generalization on generalization, titeled :Generalization and Discrimination
I have a very valid point to anounce here. The fact is that I didn't realize it's so important to actually say until today. I though everybody who was against discrimination understood it. Well they don't. The point is that Generlization and Discrimination are excessively linked, and it is a fact that even I, who realise this am sometimes gulity of generalization myself.
How many times have you heard someone say something like "Homa el Felesteneyeen kolohom keda, makareen" or "Ya lahwi!! Danta bakhil awi! enta feek 3er2 yahoodi yalla?" or something equally general? Maybe you can't read arabic, and aren't familiar with these comments, common in egyptian society. But if you're British then I could almost bet you heard a few jokes on how scots are supposed to be miserly, or a joke of a an irishman filling a poll and how he answered the question, do you drink? and he answered I'm Irish.......Or if your egyptian you probably heard our jokes on upper egyptians and how stupid they are, Damietans and how miserly they are. Then again, maybe you're someone who's prejudiced against bhuddism, and tend to call all their monks gay. Or islam and u think its a flawed religion that violates humans rights to peace and promotes violence. Alot of the people who make these comments are actually people who say that they AREN'T prejudiced, and are one hundred percent against discrimination.BULLSH*T. You might realise discrimination is wrong, but while you take pleasure in repeating these jokes you still enjoy it. And while you generalise so badly on Jews, Bhuddists, Muslims, or anything else without bothering to read about islam, meet every bhuddist monk, and test the generosity of every Jew, then you are being discriminant. Don't ask me how you're meant to speak to all these people, you're not. Just as long as you haven't met and talked in depth to everyone of them(and you won't in this life) You have absoloutely no right to judge them like that. And as for believing a religion, any religion promotes an idea that is flawed in its essence You should bother to take the time and read its essential orriginal text. If you're not well versed in the language of the original text than you have no right to comment until every view by everyone who is capable of reading and translating the text is explained to you :).Heck, you might as well learn the language! Boring isn't it? Boring but true.
I assume (Generally :D) That most people know enough about christianity to know it does not promote homosexuality. So we all agree that if you hear of a priest who was found out to be gay, and he came up with some complicated theory of his own to christianly justify that, you wouldn't be so dumb as to believe him and accuse all christians of promoting homosexuality, even if they do not actively practice it. Yet why do you know that? The answer is very simple. You know alot of christians. You know alot of them do not promote the idea, you know that alot of christian priests religiously condemn the idea. You KNOW. How many Bhuddists do you know?5? 12? 50? How many christians do you know? and if you live outside the middle east and some areas of the far east, how many muslims do you know? and I mean know as in sit and talk to in depth.
I have read MORE than once(for referrence where ask) that some people condemn religion, more specifically monotheistic religions, because some of the followers of these religions commit attrocities in the name of God, weather truly believing that they are serving Him, or simply using it as an excuse. So they're generalizing. If i say God said it doesn't mean God said. Just because Some Catholics and Protestants fought thinking they were doing it for God, it doesn't mean Catholocism or Protestantism promote fighting and violence. And if you say the human mind should be robbed of every excuse to interpret violence in God's sayings, I would like to tell you that, stripped of every excuse for violence, a mind with violent intentions will not bother with excuses and generalize its violence upon everyone. For example, if you catch one of the extremist muslims who believe in excessive violence, a brainwashed youth, and ask him why he believes in these things on the basis of islam he will tell you. If you are a well learned muslim, you can explain away these violent thoughts, and explain how islam does not promote them and if he is not by nature, bloodthirsty he will be convinced. It may take work but you can convince him. If he is bloodthirsty he just won't listen. He'll hear, but he won't listen. Changing someone's nature is possible but that's a whole different story. Now if you're a very powerful atheist, not a well learned muslim, you could convince this man that his faith is invalid. Again, if he is not violent by nature he will not go through with his violence. If he is, he will say "ah, so i have no God have I? I can do what I want" and the minute you untie him he'll probably skull-kick you to death for daring to tie him up, HE, a being with no superior. He's violent, he enjoys killing, he doesn't believe in God. before he just confined his energy to non-muslims. Now he's going to happily kill everyone and anyone who contradicts him. That's all just a little thing beside the point.
You see where generalization can lead u? lots of places. If you're against discrimination, you're against generalization and a good day to all of you :D
I copy n pasted this article from someone's space but as im not sure about your website's policies about advertising i refrained from giving the link, if it's possible to show the link let me know.
See this as a catch 22 Situation.If Jihadi sites
aren't bombed there will be more attacks on the West...If sites ARE bombed Musharref's leadership
becomes weakened-not to mention he could be assassinated any time! With Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal this is a nightmare scenario.
Anyone want to toss a coin for an answer?
unrepentant,
The majority here want the opposite of conflict with individuals of quality who exist in spite of the restraints of the ideology of Islam. It is the primary inspiration for the justification of jihad that we are interested in. This is the heart of the matter, what drives these people? Is this view all pervading? Is it winked at by a majority of the Muslim populace? Who knows the answers to these things. It's somewhat speculative. But one thing is more than certain; one can not rationally blame "infidels" for being a little skeptical after 1400 years of worldwide "visitation" from Islam.
"Where are these people getting the funds to do this?
Posted by: payingattention "
There is some serious fund raising going on in the pak/bangla business community.
I know of paks in the UK who are involved.
As sad as this is, I honestly feel that before the UK politicos and public wake up there will have to be a few thousand dead people on the streets of the UK.
When the Dispatches documentary "Undercover mosques" was aired it wasn't actually given much publicity because of that Big Brother "situation"
3 tarts being rude to an Indian actress gets more attention in the British parliament from our Beloved Leader Blair than a real and growing internal security threat.
At the present time I do not believe that there is a system to record who is leaving & entering the UK and where they are flying to or from.
I am of Indian descent and I can tell you all of this is like a slow motion replay to my parents who had the misfortune to witness the partition of India into that abortion called pakistan.
Regards
AI
Thanks to those who commented to me on where these terrorists are getting funds. I think we are aware that it is supposed to be illegal to provide direct or indirect funding to terrorists but it seems this problem continues.
I hope the current worldwide effort to bring money laundering under control will assist to prevent such funding.
Those who are interested in learning about the funding of the Jihad, may find this an interesting place to visit on a regular basis.
http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/
"The Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Mahmud Ali Durrani, played down the developments."
.....I watched this man during his interview on TV and I found myself thinking, "This man is aware of more than he lets on." I suspect the Pakistani government is well aware of the terrorist training camps and are funding and supporting them....Even if the terrority is formidable and rugged, it is not unreachable (after all, the terrorists get there).....One of the main problems is the policy of the Pakistian government of not allowing the US to conduct proper search and destroy operations...The Pakistanian military has shown it is unwilling to do the job properly and consistantly. This infers, to me, the Pakistanian military is part of the problem and not part of the solution....
.....Do no put much faith is any support our Muslim "allies" claim to offer...It truly does not exist....THe Muslims are just biding time until they feel they have the upper hand...
...Ban Muslim Immigration...
Assalamau Laikum Morgane,
Indeed it is a catch22 situation for us in Pak.
If the Amerike bomb in Pak (on the border)...and in particular if muslims (Allah's chosen) are killed/injured then this certainly is a headache for Mushi (and those who get injured).
Consider as an analogy for example if surrounding countries like Canada for example...bombed peoples just inside the border for the US....will this not be a political hot potato for Mr. Bush.
One of the problems here is the artifical borders around Pak. Tribal families have lived here for generations ...and don't like the idea of borders...it's restrictive. It's like having checks done between New Yoak and Washungton...you know.... Why?
Morgane, the MMA is very strong in the punjab...they hold about 20% of parlimentary seats, and they hold sway with the pushtan tribals near the border. The MMA are not happy with Mushi ...pandering to the Amerike.
They hold him responsible for retrograding ....i.e. away from Allah's and Muhd's edicts. Mushi is as a good a leader as we can get right now. ...you need to understand that and work in that framework.
Is bombing Pak to kill the odd taliban in our borders really that big a deal when you campare it to a possible assisination of Mushi.
There is no natural replacement...somebody from the MMA would no longer want to deal with India...and also feel that nucleur is an option.
Can the Amerike really have on their collective conscience the killing of millions of Allah's chosen?
I would say no...I say go back home to your families...your loved ones need you more than the taliban or Pak.
Let us deal with the Taliban's in our way ..through jigra negotiation on the border. If they are in Afgan....blast them all you want...if they are in Pak ...leave them alone...it's worth considering the bigger picture here.
A dead terrorist is one who will not kill someone tomorrow...
Pakistan is a terrorist supporter to the core.
The govt and the people are both aware of terorrist camps and support it although showing the world vice versa.
They feel they are fooling us by bieng ally in the war of terror and doing jihadi training in background and feel we do not know it.
What they dont know is soon their need in war of terror will be over and soon they will be tossed aside like a used bathroom tissue paper but only after the Coa-altion forces take away their nukes and weapons and stop the arms sales to them.
Then co-alition forces can leave and India will take care of the rest whatever remains of Pakistan.
Ill bet my saving this is future of pakistan becasue as we all have seen the USA has made future maps of pakistan which show baluchistan and few other new countries obviously from the partitioned pakistan.
Make hay while the sun shines Pakistan. Soon your stone age days are around the corner.
Mark my words Naseem cos we will miss you later when this happens.;)
The overlap of the Cold War onto the Jihad war has been disastrous.
Our great freedom loving nation never would have supported such a greasy nation of scumbags had it not been for the hegemonic conflict with the Soviets and Commie China.
But, our elites still stick to the alliance with Pak, idiotically thinking that this time this awful nation will be a bulwark against Islam, a notion too dangerous to be laughable. But enough scumbaggery, the time to give up the ghost on "our ally" is long past.
Musharaf exists only to entice America into continuing to give money to the inhabitants of this sad-sack place. In truth, Pak has been Jihadist since the start of the Soviet-Afghan war. Sooner or later the ISI must emerge from its hiding place and announce for Mohammed, and all for which he and the grotesque god he created stands. The ISI will move into the sunlight and stand against America and freedom everywhere. And they'll be making their stand with nukes.
As is always the case with Islam, only the money grubbing fraud remains.
Will India's Moslem President return the fusillade when it flies? Let us hope so.
The sad awful truth is that people see what they want to see.
The people at the top of various US and British administrations want to believe that they have allies, moderate moslems against the fanatics.
However the truth is slowly dawning.
This is a link to a story about the Indian AF aquiring BVR missiles, the reason they are aquiring them is because the USA has supplied similar missiles to the Paks.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=8235
And then there is this regarding our other friends and allies the saudis and gulf states.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1400655.ece
And this regarding Condomessa Rice
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1400656.ece
The USA has to realise that they cannot cosy up to India as a counter to China and then supply weapons and assistance to pakistan.
Alot of talk is heard, quite alot racist about the Indian "threat" to jobs in the USA/UK.
It is on the contrary an amazing business opportunity.
Think of all that nuclear technolgy that the USA/UK can sell for billions to India, all those products ?
And India will not sponser terrorists to attack us.
This is an example of short sighted bigotry getting in the way of logic, it is from Jesse Helms, everybodies favorite "southern boy"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1998_h/98051302_npo.html
What has the USA gained from pakistan ???
Assalamau Laikum Youni kafir,
Even if the Amerike did strive my beloved Pak with Nukes ...do you think that would be the end of the matter? Why...in my opinion that would only kick start the matter.
Do you honestly rate yourselves so highly...so above Allah SWT even? Who the bloody hell do you think you are? Never forget you have only been around for a few hundred years...Islam has been around since Moses and Noah and Abrahim.
You are not above Allah SWT....your faithless society could go the way of others if you attack Pak with Nukes. I am NOT threatening here...I never do...what is the point and who am I?...as ever only Allah's will prevails.... you would do well to always remember this point...5 times a day.
Muslims remember with gusto...you only have to look at the way the shia revere at the Assura.
We ARE giving you assistance with Taliban eridication albiet slowly...why do you have to constantly critize...you obvioulsy cannot remove them yourselves...you have been trying for a long time...without (complete) success.
I know my shops and streets of Lahore...and the ancient forts which some lilly livered englishman wearing a red uniform would have controlled for a while....but they are no where to be seen now...not even their graves.
I want to (through my slim and trim body)be able to shop and walk through Lahore for decades to come...not for some ferangi to bomb it to kingdom come.
Yoni...Allah is our saviour ...never forget that...he will deal with the Taliban...you need to go home!.
SWT - now I work with something called SWT ( I think its the 'Standard Windowing Toolkit'). But I'm sure thats not the meaning being bandied here.
Shirts Without Ties?
Shoes with Thongs
Shafted with Tungsten?
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/feb/20samblast13.htm
Hindu extremists behind blasts: Pak media
Zonie Kafir,
Always enjoy your postings and especially when you interact with this zombie.
Yoni...Allah is our saviour ...never forget that...he will deal with the Taliban...
>>>If that is what you wish to believe, but only after we have had a word with them as well. That is not too much to ask.
This reminds me of a dialogue of Amitabh Bachchan, from the movie "Ek Ajnabee" (A Stranger).
"Nyay karna Uparwale ka kaam hai. Uparwale se mulakat karana mera kaam hai." ( Judgment is His job. My job is to ensure that these people meet Him.)
See how revealing of Muslim attitudes Naseem's posts are? And how much fun one can have answering them? And to think that some criticized me for keeping her on.
Multiple groups of jihadists training in Pakistan for attacks in West
Hurry George!
We need to get our military trainers over there on the double, so that they can teach the jihadists how to correctly use the equipment we gave them to more accurately kill our troops!
Hurry up with those bails of cash!
We need them loaded on the C5A's YESTERDAY so we can litter the Pakistani countryside with $100 dollar bills just like we did in Afganistan a few years back.
That way, we can prove our good faith in being dummies -- err, uhh, -- dimmihis.
One last thing, get Condi to practice her meanest sounding snarl and most fearsome scowl; that way it will have more theatrical effect when we tell the Isrealis to stop restoration efforts on the temple mount!
We need G.C. Scott I will tell you what drives "these people". Extremist muslims who invoke violence fall into two categories: The Brainwashed, And The Brainwashers. The Brainwashers were the people born to the muslim community that saw the potential control they could have over uneducated people or people with intelligence in a way inferior to theirs using a means that at first seems socially acceptable i.e. religion. This process is not exclusive to islam. These Brain Washers are driven by various things. A desire for power (maybe an inferiority complex, maybe they were terrorized in their youth.) or a desire for financial gain, or whatever. A class I neglected to mention are "Brainwashed unconscious Brainwashers". These are people who were brainwashed and keep believing what they were told was true, and are so convinced of it, that they can brainwash others with, unaware that they're brainwashing them. is it winked at by muslims? I can tell you that as a muslim in a muslim community we certainly don't wink at it. to us educated muslims, it is one of the many paths to damnation, just as gambling or drinking. There are certain people who may seem to agree with it in the community, but generally, even muslims who are not very well versed in their religion, oppose it through their sheer kind nature. a true muslim does NOT wink at terrorism. And know that if I were not muslim, I would have no qualms about killing people who could be far superior, inferior, or equal to me, simply because I don't like them. I mean, if i can get away with it, and i dont believe in hell, and i really have no sort of goodfeeling for someone whatsoever, why not commit the arrogant and base action of murdering them, giving myself the right to do it? I don't actually have that right but if i weren't muslim, i wouldn't care. Note the difference, I'd KNOW I didn't have the right, but come on, I'm not going to hell or heaven after i die, so who cares?
Why the f*** is the US still cozy with the deceitful Paki bastards? I've always said this, India would be a far better ally in the War on Terror. F*** the Indira Gandhi days. F*** the previous alignment with the USSR. Those days are gone. The leaders are not as leftist as they used to be (although there is definetely room for improvement), and India has been attacked so many times by Pakistani funded groups like LeT. So with that common threat, India has a better chance of being a good ally of the US.
The US government is concerned about a stream of Muslims with British passports traveling between Europe and Pakistan as a source of recruits for Al-Qaeda operations, the US official said.
We can thank the multicultural-loving and Muslim pandering Liberal government of Britain for having made Britain a hotbed of jihadist activity over the years and the biggest terrorism import threat to the USA with all those Muslim-held British passports.
This is a great British blog.
Heroin jihad and the rest.
http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/index.html
http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2007/01/bin-laden-and-ayman-al-zwahiri-al-qaeda.html
As long as we keep culling the herd with the pointy end of our spear.
Assalamaua Laikum wrathofasma
you say "Why the f*** is the US still cozy with the deceitful Paki bastards"?
With our close family ties ...you can hardly accuse us of being bastards now can you?
Please remove your anger from these postings ane be more precise...this will be appreciated by all.
Pakistan ISI is in on this now just like it was on 9-11. We have to denuke Pakistan. Invade Iran, surround and blockade Pakistan.
Iran is worried about us now because we almost surround it and they can't defend it. If we had the same leverage over Pakistan, we could make them denuke.
Naseem u seem like an intelligent person. I think I respect u. We'll see.
I never advocate putting policy measures in public as it alerts enemies, but something has to be done to get the Pentagon, MI 6 and the CIA operational on measures to neutralize the Pakistan threat.
First one does not bomb Pakistan nor the camps. All that does is rile things up and as Bush said all you blow up is camels and tents.
The answer is two fold. Carlos Hathcock is the first. For those who do not know the "white feather sniper of Vietnam" who is now deceased, he implemented the US Marine Sniper program to it's finest. There are finite routes into these camps as it is mountainous. Drop and snatch operations can put snipers in range of the camps to strike and fade away in hunting. One does not blow up the camp as it is a focal point of killing your enemy. They gather there so kill them with TOW, aluminum hypersonic bullets and infared scopes to "watch the passes" along with microwave radiation.
Second, you know the passports which means you have the Pakistani terrorists. Drug them, implant radio beacons on them and yes the CIA does have lethal measures where they can inject thing where people get sick from "natural maladies" in 6 months to a year and die.
When one has the rats on a ship you do not blow up the ship so the rats swim away and you have to find them. You kill the rats with high tech means. I hope someone tagging this site in the webcrawler NSA reads this and passes it on as what is going on in public is not the way to be handling these operations. America, Israel, Britain and France have the finest of forces in the world to implement this without putting our troops in harm's way nor in focusing scrutiny on America.
One blows up things to send messages. In this case the terrorists have the message.....simply kill them quietly and quickly and let the long trang du kiche do their work.
Assalamaua Laikum wrathofasma
you say "Why the f*** is the US still cozy with the deceitful Paki bastards"?
With our close family ties ...you can hardly accuse us of being bastards now can you?
Please remove your anger from these postings ane be more precise...this will be appreciated by all.
posted by Naseem
Memsaab,
I'm sorry I called Pakis "bastards". I really am. There are worse words in English and Hindi/Urdu that I should use for the Pakistani military establishment. I know. How about maderchod (that means mofo in Hindi/Urdu for those non-speakers here).
I bet the memsaab is going to faint at the sight of this.
"We ARE giving you assistance with Taliban eridication albiet slowly"
...Pakistaniis assist the Taliban in every way possible...they are on the same team....
wrathofasma
Memsaab was reserved for the Brits and the aristocrats. For Naseem, Begum sahiba, or better still, taqiyya sultana suits her better.
"And know that if I were not Muslim, I would have no qualms about killing people who could be far superior,inferior or equal to me, simply because I don't like them."
-unrependant
If you believe islam is all that keeps you from murdering others, you must have a real difficult time with those sacred texts(koran,hadith) condoning such methods as a means to an end to establish allah's will supreme and allow islam to dominate and not be dominated. To deny this is,at its core,is to be an apostate. (See what Khomani said about compulsory fighting in islam) And please don't say we don't understand the "subtlety" of the original Arabic. The historical track record of conquest sure makes that one pretty unbelievable,ie; Assyrians, Hindus,Zoroastrians,Armenians, Coptics, Jews,Greeks,African pagans, simply because they would not submit or pay submission tribute. Still, it's nice of you to imply,by proxy, that all non-muslims have no qualms regarding killing simply because of the absence of such a "faith" as islam in their lives. The day a Muslim MAJORITY nation can live side by side with minority faiths,without trying to convert or economically exploit via jizya, you will have my attention. Till then I will INVITE(note I said "invite" not deceive,not force,) you to look into the truth of God's only son, who is the Alpha and the Omega for all time,doesn't pass judgement or demand all to be slaves,but asks all to redeem their lives and wash their robes through him and thus find redemption.
What needs to be done is clear: Revoke the Passports. These people need to stay in Pakland. They use their passport as shields when we capture them. You know.. all of a sudden they are "British citizens" and they use the resources of the host society they wish to bring down. We all need to WAKE up!
You see where generalization can lead u? lots of places. If you're against discrimination, you're against generalization and a good day to all of you :D
Posted by: unrepentant
What are you? Some kind of a jihadi sympathizer? so much relativism you spew here in several comments. I don;t wish to waste my time to read it all and then have to untangle your web of lies.
Anyone who's ever gone fishing [will this bucolic activity be outlawed as 'haram' if islam take over?] will surely know that snagging a reel of fishing line can happen in seconds. Undoing the mess can take hours. It's usually better to cut the snag and start with a fresh spool.
We need less relativism when we fight this enemy!
Assalamau Laikum wrathofasma,
You say "How about maderchod (that means mofo in Hindi/Urdu for those non-speakers here."
So you are Indian are you, hindoo probably. Do you know your own extremists killed over 50 pakis on the "samjotha" yesterday.
Itni galen kahay koo, kaal tou hum tum bhai bhai thaye. lighten up pandit ji.
ok i cant be bothered to copy n paste ur website name, too long, BUT, mr scot thingy, read the following.
1- i didnt imply others, i meant me, im not like others, i have very little compassion towards human beings who don't deserve it in my opinion i.eHumans I don't like.
2-Islam clearly states that violence can only be used in retribution of a violent act, or in protecting islam's right to be preached anywhere, as anyone with a good not SUPER understanding of arabic can see The islamic empire that imposed Jizya was not 100 percent islamically correct, yet polictically i could explain it to you if you email me at yowateva@yahoo.com.
To Allahfanculo. Dude, I'm not answering u until you take a good look at what you just said
and just for the record, if there's one class of people I can't stand, it's racists. this includes violently extreme muslims, violently extreme christians, violently extreme hindus, violently extreme jews, AND you guys.
Just an update on the blasts in the Samjhauta express
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/feb/21samblast.htm
Also another piece of news about a Pakistani woman minister being killed
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070220/india_nm/india288475;_ylt=A0WTUfDiSdtFSh4BRgHerGIF
Ahhh, so now everyone with an alternative view on this site is a racist eh,unrependant? Tsk,Tsk, please see Emily Post's propaganda etiquette 101 for best results please. That "mr. Scott thingy" guy did raise some valid points regarding koranically inspired ideologically(BTW the type being taught in mandrasses worldwide today) drivin violence,but like most apologists for this militant and proselytizing faith,you usually manage to tap dance around the issues. Having seen firsthand the behavior of Muslims in the '91 Gulf War, I also know a thing or two from lifes best teacher:experience.
"i didn't imply others,i meant me,im not like others,i have very little compassion towards human beings who don't deserve it in my opinion i.eHumans I don't like." -unrependant
Correct, you do not resemble most people, for most people possess some degree of compassion toward others,along with empathy, which is vital to such compassionate understanding. However,the characteristic behavioral pattern you avow is synonymous with,more ofter than not,criminal behavior.
I do not deny it, I am a criminal. Perhaps not by action but certainly by desire. I'm a criminal, you can't change that. In a way we all are, everyone has a criminal side, mine is just more pronounced.The sort of criminality that makes u think have the right to generalize upon around 1 billion people is not mine however. My criminality is based solely in my emotions, not my thoughts and emotions are far more difficult to control than thoughts, almost involuntary. If I were not a muslim I would be by action.
And I resent being called an apologist, I apologise for nothing some fool did. And The Koran has no loopholes,what i suggest u do is take arabic lessons for ten years and try re-reading. Note that a famous method for discrediting a saying is by using just part of it. To absorb an entire meaning u cannot use a one sentence extract. You must use the entire article. signifying "don't use an AYA but read the whole SOURA." in ARABIC
Did you even BOTHER to take the time to read the Koran in ENGLISH, leaving out the more important original version?
This guy is a wacko! Only a few short steps from SJS!
Unrepentent
So we are into the Arabic issue again? Well, here are some things for you to chew on (with thanks to Archimedes):
- Arabic is not especially difficult to translate.
- It is the meaning, the ideas, values, and goals expounded in the Quran that are important--not the surface forms of the words.
- Most people don't know Arabic and never will, but the Quran is supposed to be a message to all humankind.
- The Quran does not say it must be read or heard recited in Arabic.
- Because the Quran is mostly in Classical Arabic, even Arabic-speaking people must rely on translations.
- Anyone learning Arabic is unlikely to come up with an interpretation that is more accurate than those provided by the professional translations available in one's native language.
- Numerous professional translations generally show high concordance in translation (i.e., they match up well for most verses).
- Where there are differences in translations of certain phrases or words, these often reflect ambiguities in the Quranic expression, not Arabic per se.
- Because the Quran's exposition is vague even in Arabic, for understanding its meaning, knowing the extra-Quranic sources, such as tafsirs, Hadith, Sira, etc., is more important than knowing Arabic.
- Hearing the Quran in Arabic in context, directly from Mohammad, failed to convince most of the people who listened to his recitation, until they were forcibly converted at swordpoint.
- Some Arabic terms are worse-seeming than their translated counterparts, once they are understood e.g. corruption/mischief (fasad), the wrong-doers (az-Zalimun), oppression/persecution (fitnah), "cursed" (qutila- killed).
- The translation issue does not have any impact on Islam as it is actually practiced and interpreted by the mainstream. The major problems in Islam remain unaffected by the translation.
Try another one on us.Point number 10 is nonsense, for explanation email me at yowateva@yahoo.com
1- in arabic there are at least 55 words for the word "Dog" and one word could signify 55 different things.
2-Try to make sense sir, meanings are explained by words, or God wouldn't have bothered with the quoran would he? or assuming you don't believe in God, the idea of whoever writing would be pointless if he didn't mean anything with the words.
3-Quoran certainly is a message to all human kind But if you bothered to exert yourself you could find more than one translation for it, each signifying different meanings
#-You particularly ignored my demand to know weather you read the entire Koran in english
4-The Quoran does not say it must be recited in arabic but it DOES identify itself as an originally arabic script.
5-Arabic speaking people must rely on translations, not arabic reading people. When you're taught to read arabic (the official language in arabic schools) you're taught to read it classically so i can triumphantly tell you (take that :D)
6-Your sixth point is an entirely opinion based statement. I can just as easily state that I think America is likely to economically collapse in 50 years, A)that doesn't make it true, B)I have made this statement entirely without support.
7-Same thing, how do you know?
8- I disdain to answer this until you read more about it.
9-despite what extremist muslims will say (and if they find me after reading this i have little doubt that im dead, but for the sake of islam, the true islam, i will say this) Hadeeth and Seera Are both unreliable sciences and the prophet himself had commanded his sayings never be recorded so that people could not forget them, when he died, these sayings were recorded. Omar Ibn El Khatab collected all these forbidden texts and burned them in public in the midst of the city before many eye witnesses in accordance with the prophet's wish of his own personal sayings not be recorded. The sayings were then re-written making them prone to MORE errors. There is more than one tafseer, I know at least of four, possibly more. And many muslims don't need any of them to understand the quoran, I repeat, the quoran is entirely independant of hadeeth.
11)you have fitna translation wrong, and u just pointed out urself, inaccuracy in translations, I could close my case right there!! You just admitted it yourself, what could i possibly add here?
12)Islam is not defined by who practices it, islam is a set of instructions.
And don'e misunderstand me, I'm not a "da3ia" somebody who urges conversion to islam. I couldn't care less what your religion is, or if you don't even follow one. My concern is towards ignorance and lies. I will not permit muslims rights to practice their religion to be contested by racists unanswered. If that doesn't snap u out of thinking im an apologist i don't know what will. Just because I have no racist inclinations towards any other religious or ethnic group I'm an "apologist". Nix gentlemen (for lack of a better word).
I might add that while we're having huge political trouble controlling a religious extremist group here, it WOULD be helpful if you people didn't start spreading misconcepts they promote about, making the management of my country all the more difficult. You have no idea how threatened I feel that this group could become a parliament power in my country. The laws they could vote to curb liberty already have me quaking. Don't complicate things for a whole nation By spreading just what they believe by tagging all muslims with the same tag. That way you create a sense of "Us against Them" and even muslims less inclined to extremist views will line up with persuasive extremists out of fear.
if we are to talk of folly sir you would come off very much the worst from that encounter :D.
Now since I don't have to be civil to you, then listen up you self-centered prick "IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THE US, THERE ARE OTHER PLACES OF THE WORLD YOU KNOW, STOP THINKING US AND START THINKING "wow!! there's a f****** globe!!""
And if the term racism upsets you then "religious discremination"
Part of being unbiased is being unbiased at heart. What's the use of not saying things with your tongue but writing them on the internet? how hypocritical can you, and anyone who accepts you as a representative get? and JUST so you know, the american police is often a very active tool of promoting racism (not saying that every one of your cops is a racist). Do your history, see how the police was extremely racist to black people along with the country in the early twentieth century. Moral"in your country, what the majority of the nation thinks, the majority of your police force thinks."
And yes, a special olympics for which I always score the gold :D
PS
ur contesting a muslims right does not involve just closing down mosques, it's social pressure ur attempting to apply right here at least. It's a call for "don't give him that passport, he's muslim he's one of THEM" it's "keep ur gun handy if you have muslims in the neighbourhood" or it's the codswallop you're coming up with :).
Some in the Pentagon advocate air strikes on the camps and while others in the State Department worry that too much pressure will undermine the government of President Pervez Musharraf.
+++++++++++++++++
so more Americans are murdered so this muslim can stay in power.......
Nuke the paki nuke sites and nuke all military bases and camps across pakiland.............
Remember......Bush said he would attack any nation harboring terrorists.............
what lies................
"That way you create a sense of "Us against Them" and even muslims less inclined to extremist views will line up with persuasive extremists out of fear.
Posted by: unrepentant "
You don't really get it do you ? Seems you need to study the 1400 years of jihad history. Don't get me wrong, but people like you are part of the problem, not the solution.
I have read various verses of the Quran - ones that I consider significant. In a lot of the places, the verses just get repetitive and boring, which is why I don't bother about them. If you can convince me that after reading the entire Quran, ayats 2:191-193, 2:256-257, 5:32-33, 9:5, 9:28-29, 9:111, et al aren't applicable, it might be worth it. Otherwise, I haven't read the complete texts of any religion, including my own. And I don't need to - there aren't Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Confucians, Taoists, Rastafarians, et al threatening to at some point make me either convert, or a 2nd rate citizen.
I just see the same point about Muslims good, Infidels bad, Mo supreme scattered throughout the Quran.
The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, so why don't we see Jews and Christians claim that the English translations are invalid? How many of the world's 3b Christians know Hebrew, Latin or Aramaic? The Hindu texts were originally written in Sanskrit, which at least 70% of Hindus do not know: yet you don't see them having any problems following Hinduism, or claiming that certain texts mean one thing in Sanskrit, and another in English, Hindi, Nepali, Gujrati, et al.When all the translations of the Quran have resulted in meanings very close and consistent with each other, why should one expect that someone new who knows Arabic and does an honest job translating it would come out with something completely different?
As for item 7, just check quranbrowser.com, select any verse, and show me cases where the translations of different translators contradict each other. I've done that for a few.
Point 9 - I'll respond completely to this in the next post.
Point 10, which you summarily dismissed, points out that most Arabs of various tribes rejected the original message from Muhammad as long as they felt that they had the upper hand and were safe in doing so. You think Kaab al Ashraf, Abu Akaf and Asma bint Marwan had problems with Arabic? They knew what Mohammed's message was, heard it in the original, without the benefits of Bukhari and Muslim, and determined that it was an evil message and so rejected it. So did the people of various tribes that Mohammed went to war against.
The point that supporters of the Quran make is that if one knew Arabic, one would get a better impression of the Quran. But the point here is precisely the opposite - that if one knew Arabic, one would be even more wary and hostile to Islam. You are right about inaccuracy in translations, but you don't have Muslim apologists correcting people when they hear 'persecution' and think that Muslims oppose oppression, when what they really oppose is temptation away from islam.Two things here:
practice, Islam. Therefore, how it is practiced by the overwhelming majority of its followers, how life is for Infidels in all countries from Senegal to Brunei, how Muslim immigrants in Infidels countries behave towards Infidels, etc are all relevant to Infidels in forming their opinions. What's in the Quran and Sunnah is relevant insofar as what Muslims are taught from the seminaries in Jeddah to the Madrassahs of Peshawar is what Infidels ought to be using in formulating policy towards Muslims.
Without the Hadith and Sira, how does one explain these verses: The verses call for killing of hypocrites. And what is “spreading false news,” and why does it receive the death penalty? Who are "those in whose hearts is a disease"? (Note that the parenthetical insertion pertaining to "adultery" in the above quote of 33:60 from Hilali-Khan is based on tafsir and Hadith). Some answers to these questions can be found in the contextual information provided in the Hadith and Sira. The tafsirs generally rely on those sources. Removing the Hadith and Sira, in the Quran-only approach, removes many of the apologetic options that defenders of Islam may use for in explaining away these verses (e.g., that the hypocrites in question had allegedly attempted sabotage or had committed treason). Consequently, the Quran-Only Muslim is left with trying to explain why the killing of mere hypocrites, or those who spread false news, is a religious duty. The defender of the Quran-only approach, in this case, can only imagine that "Allah" must have had a "just cause" to order Muhammad to order Muslims to kill the hypocrites. But what is a "just cause"? The Quran is too ambiguous, and contains too many injunctions to kill disbelievers without clear or sufficient justifications provided in the text (e.g., 9:5, 9:29, 9:12-14, 9:123, 8:39, 8:35), for us to have any confidence in a notion of "just cause" that is derived only from the Quran itself (i.e., without importing context from Hadith and Sira, and without importing modern legal principles and moral values).
3 (a). The Quran says that Mohammad is a good example for Muslims to emulate. The Quran is lacking in information about Mohammad’s own words and deeds, so how is the Quran-Only Muslim supposed to follow this dictim without knowing who Mohammad was, and what he did and said, in what contexts? The wikipedia cites a defence from the Qur'an-Only Muslims: Rebuttals:
Comment: It is reasonable to assume that Allah in 33:21 is not telling all or even a small number of Muslims to follow Mohammad's example in terms of claiming to be prophets* and revealing more prophecy. Therefore, if they are not being asked to emulate Mohammad by self-declaring prophethood, it must be the case that they are being asked to follow Mohammad's example in other respects. Those other respects could only reasonably include the behaviour, specifically those words and deeds of the prophet which Allah has approved. The Hadith and Sira are the only original Muslim sources for those.
Comment: Clearly it says that if you love Allah, follow Mohammad.Comment: Judging and decision-making are referred to here as roles to be played by Mohammad. We do not see such roles played out, as examples for Muslims to follow, except in the hadith and Sira.
Comment: If the Quran-only Muslims are correct that only Mohammad's message (in the Quran) is to be followed, then it would be redundant for 'Allah,' through his messenger, to say "obey Allah, and obey the messenger."
Obey Muhammad (3:32, 3:132, 4:13, 4:59, 4:69, 4:80, 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)
3(b). The Quran itself is not complete and certain ahadith attest to this. For example, Aisha reported that the verses of stoning (for adultery) were lost. Also, the Quran alone is not sufficiently detailed for believers to follow many basic aspects of Islam such as the five pillars* without the Hadith and Sira. *[None has the right to be worshipped except Allah and Mohammad is his messenger, the procedures for prayer, paying zakat, performing hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), fasting during Ramadan]. These are mentioned or alluded-to in the Quran, but not as “the five pillars” and not described in sufficient detail (see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 7, for the 5-item list).
This is a problem for apologists. One of the most common defenses of the Islam apologists is that critics are taking the verses out of context. But Quran-Only Muslims cannot make such a defence at all. To even talk about the historical context of the verses from a Muslim perspective, one needs the Hadith and Sira. In fact, the Qur'an-only approach involves taking verses out of historical context.
Related to that point above, it must be added that we need the context and details from the Hadith and Sira to make sense of what’s in the Quran. The Quran is often vague, ambiguous. It is difficult to know what the meaning or usage of certain terms is, without having Hadith and Sira. Inevitably, disputes will arise over differening interpretations of the Quran. Verse 4:65 says that Mohammad's judgements and decisions should be followed in resolving disputes. Mohammad's judgements and decisions can only be found in the Hadith and Sira.
The Quran is basically a cut-and-paste job, with statements taken out of their original context. Verses are only partially ordered in terms of sequence and categorical subject matter. Chapters are mixed up in terms of temporal order of revelation. We need the Hadiths and Sira to sort out the chronological order of revelation. This is important for establishing a coherent storyline.
The chronology is also needed in deciding issues of abrogation. The doctrine of abrogation is approved in the Quran, whereby later revealed verses cancel out earlier ones where there is a contradiction between them. One needs to know the order. (Those of the Quran-Only Muslims who reject abrogation must nevertheless try to resolve some obvious contradictions, e.g., 2:256 is contradicted by 9:5 and 9:73-74, and others).
The other problem is categorization. The Quran is not organized into different categories of subject matter. But if we don’t know the exact meaning and usage of certain words and phrases (as would be detrmined by reading the hadiths and sira), how do we know the categorical subject matter of the verse? For example, does a particular instance of “those in whose hearts is a disease” refer to adulterers or hypocrites?
Given the ambiguity of the Quran, there's nothing to stop a Quran-only Muslim from taking a harsher interpretation, especially of the violent verses. How can anyone ever know what is the correct interpretation if they are only using the Quran?
If we assume that Qur'an-only Muslims can interpret the Quran as they wish, then by that standard it must be admitted that non-Muslim critics can also tackle the Quran as they wish. (Indeed, the Quran itself states that it is a message to all humankind [34:28, 7:157-158], which obviously includes non-Muslims). "Quran-only critics" can carry out their criticism without a pre-conceived bias that the messages in the Quran are always necessarily good, benevolent, or true. Thus, the Quran-only approach is in no way a refuge from criticism.
This Qur’an-only movement generally, at present, happens to seek to interpret verses in light of modern moral standards, or standards of the individual reader, but if those extra-Quranic standards are used, why bother with the Quran? Note also that it is the standards of modern society or individuals that are being used as the primary grounds for rejecting the Hadith and Sira.
Not every aspect of every hadith is bad. For example, Aisha reported that the prophet said that the worst creature in Allah's sight was the one who was most aggressive or quarrelsome. But the Quran says that the worst creature in Allah's sight is the disbeliever. Also, in Mohammad's farewell address, it is stated that Arabs are equal to non-Arabs* (i.e., it is arguably a statement against racial discrimination), whereas this statement is not found in the Quran. Quran-only Muslims thus throw out the the good-seeming propositions when they throw out the whole Hadith. If the whole Hadith can be discarded due to some bad propositions, then by the same logic the whole Quran should be discarded for the same reason. *Note that that statement is contradicted by other statements in the sahih hadith which state that Arabs (especially the Quraysh) will rule over others.
Quran-Only Muslims often claim that the Hadith and Sira can be rejected on the grounds that they contradict the Quran. However, the Quran is often not clear enough to provide for a definite contradiction of the Hadith and Sira in many cases. For example, the Quran does not forbid the killing of apostates, and many scholars believe that some verses in the Quran are consistent with the death penalty for apostasy (2:217, 5:54, 9:12, 4:89-91). Nevertheless, if apologists insist that the Quran contradicts the Hadith and Sira, then by this standard it is probably also the case that the Quran contradicts itself, and therefore--using the presence of contradiction as the criterion--the Quran itself should be rejected.
There are many verses where the context is irrelevant, e.g., 22:15 tells disbelievers to go hang themselves, 4:66 tells believers they should be willing to slay themselves in Allah’s cause, 4:34 tells husbands to beat their wives if they “fear disobedience.” Verses of ethnic cleansing (2:193, 8:39) and imperialism (9:33, 48:28, 61:9) remain. The hundreds of verses of hate and enmity against disbelievers remain in the Quran. Major problems are not improved by ignoring Sunnah.
Rashad Khalifa (1935-1990) believed he was a messenger of Allah and advocated a Quran-only approach, which has been adopted by his followers, the "Submitters." In his translation of the Quran, Khalifa inserted himself, in parentheses, into Quranic verses (see *Note 1), e.g.:
Where Khalifa has inserted his name, Pickthall (whose translation is conventionally-accepted) has inserted in parentheses "Mohammad." The verse is generally understood to be referring to Mohammad. Khalifa had also inserted words into other parts of the Qur'an. For example, in verse 9:29, he has added "Fight back..." where the other translations state only "Fight..." In fact, there is no word corresponding to "back" in that verse.
Just for the record, The Torah and The Bible ARE in many ways altered sir. U should knwo yourself that several versions of the bible are written per language.
And islam DOES point out that islam is just one of the ways of salvation (although as a muslim, naturally, I believe it's the easiest to follow, however not my point) There are certainly other ways as extremist muslims on whom u allow ur opinions on islam be modelled will NOT tell you.
There ARE differences in context along with translation, you should know that before you talk of quran browser, compare ALL the translations for every verse. not very pracitcal is it? but without doing that you have absoloutely no right to judge, so just don't. but the Arabic version of the Quoran is unchangeable for a reason, if you remove or substitute a single word from an aya, it's like removing a number from a balanced chemical equation. But ofcourse, you wouldn't know that. no matter how i explained, only learning a language (which isn't a bad thing), the language of arabic, can teach you that. So no the translational meanings did NOT mean things very close to each other sir.
Prophet Mohamed (upon him be prayer and peace) has a very famous and celebrated saying, said before many eyewitnesses, and repeated many times if i remember right. "You have your religion, and I have mine." And Mohamed did not choose war until his enemies ostracised muslims for their islam. Jizya was not imposed on non-muslims in muslim territory until after mohamed's death, in the reign of the islamic empire, so not that Mohamed did not actually approve starting an empire and EVEN so, it is politically explainable like i said, if you choose to email me.
The saying (you have your religion and I have mine) was then put into execution in medina and mecca, when mohamed unconditionally released all his captives of war after capturing mecca, though he could have forced islam on them by the tip of the lance. It is clearly stated that islam is not to be imposed by force in the Quoran. These released captives did not have to pay Jizya if what they taught me in Islamic Studies at school (which i resented for many extreme views it taught by the way) is true. Jizya was a political thing as far as they taught me.
The people you named had no problem in Arabic, but they didn't reject the verses as evil. They refused to listen to them. They heard them, but refused to listen.
did you ever hear the aya from the Koran (I'm not sure how its translated in the english versions but this is my translation): "So remind, for you are but a reminder,upon them you are not a controller."? The Quoran openly commands you to pass no judgement on an infidel for his infidelity for God's alone is the right to judge faith. You may only punish an infidel for his violation of somebody else's rights, just as a muslim should be punished.
Islam's true meaning might not concern you, but remember it is of islam, not just its people that you are speaking!!if you wish to signify the muslims that threaten ur freedom say :THESE extreme muslims and i wont say a word against u, but dont just generalise and go "muslims" I resent, as do many others, being classified as a terrorist.I have never shot a man in my life nor approved of somebody being killed for what they believe and say. I had some dogmatic views that did not concern infidelity before(concerned muslim men wearing silk and gold) which i corrected as i studied islam more extensively.
NB: Islam, although not banning slavery, did not state a situation in which the aquisition of slaves was proper, and stated several situations in which the releaseof slaves was favoured by God, which is why many slaves joined Islam, at the cost of severe torture by their masters. Islam also states clearly that every man is equal before God, and only your deeds and intentions diffrentiate you as superior or inferior before God. And there was a code of treating Slaves well among muslims, they were higher in the household than servants, almost part of the family.
arjun.sevak I'm not getting you wrong sir, but you have been misled by anti-islamic media and studied Jihad based on the disgraceful deeds of some who call it Jihad. Jihad originally means better, and u have only been exposed to the negative view. Im not solving the problem, and im certainly part of it, they'll have me decapitated if they knew who i really was? how much more a part of the problem can I be??!! however I'm TRYING to solve it. Help me out. You sound like a guy who gives a damn about the following:
1)human lives.
2)truth (whatever I think, you think, or the devil thinks.
3)Liberty.
So help me!! Read the other sides, if something confuses u ask me! yowateva@yahoo.com
correction: Jihad originally means effort, i meant, effort to make things better
By all means follow Mohammed's sayings. Only if you can foolproof he said them! The Quoran is simply impossible to repeat, a linguistic mircale, not mohamed's words, but mohamed's wordscan be faked which is why as a propher worthy of being obeyed, he ordered his personal sayings not be recorded after his death.
and there's nothing "immoral" in the quoran, you just don't understand it.
btw, I'm bored of posting here, anyone who's interested in hearing both sides of the story and not just taking a one side-bias, can contact me at my email, yowateva@yahoo.com
unrepentant
You seem to believe in a completely fictitious version of Mohammed, rather than the one that has been institutionalized and universally accepted in the ummah based on the sunnah. In other words, you seem to be taking contemporary morality, and given the impossibility of proving what the real historical, Mohammed was like, projecting your morals on to him. In other words, your own personal Islam.
You are free to do that. However, don't expect us to take that seriously, until such time that a majority of Muslims and Islamic governments do as well. Like I said, what we are concerned with is how Infidels are treated in Muslim countries by both Muslim governments and people (e.g. Christians in Pakistan), how Muslims in Infidel countries behave (e.g. Muslims in UK), and how Muslim countries confront Infidel countries (e.g. PA vs. Israel, Pakistan vs. India, etc).
Also, your comment about there being nothing immoral in the Quran is plain stupid - I challenge you to rationalize/justify 9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193, 5:33, just for starters. Also your quote about there being no compulsion in religion is an abrogated quote (unless you believe that nothing is abrogated, in which case one has to ask you what criteria you use in cherry-picking which Quranic verses to follow, and which to reject?) In the historical context, it came about when Mohammed was negotiating with the Quraysh about whether the followers of each could worship both Allah, as well as the pagan gods, and was Mohammed's initial response to them. In that context, that whole surah is actually more intolerant than it's made out to be, since Muslims didn't have the liberty to worship Allat, and the mushriqs didn't have the liberty to worship Allah (unless they converted).
I also decline to make this an e-mail conversation - part of this exercise is for other readers who are still following this.
arjun.sevak I'm not getting you wrong sir, but you have been misled by anti-islamic media and studied Jihad based on the disgraceful deeds of some who call it Jihad. Jihad originally means better, and u have only been exposed to the negative view. Im not solving the problem, and im certainly part of it, they'll have me decapitated if they knew who i really was? how much more a part of the problem can I be??!! however I'm TRYING to solve it. Help me out. You sound like a guy who gives a damn about the following:
1)human lives.
2)truth (whatever I think, you think, or the devil thinks.
3)Liberty.
So help me!! Read the other sides, if something confuses u ask me! yowateva@yahoo.com
Posted by: unrepentant
I have not been misled by the media. I was a great fan of urdu poetry (shayari), and have actually studied the language. I think that the deeds of muhammad were disgraceful and inhuman. He was a murderer, rapist and a paedophile. I have arrived at my conclusions by studying the history of 1400 years of jihad, and on a more personal level, by observing the behaviour of islamic societies in my country. I visit muslim ghettos regularly, and see bearded sack wearing loons trying to emulate uswa hasana al insan al kamil. In every respect. And this is also a fact that riots are a regular feature of any city that has a substantial muslim population. And any state/region in any country that has a substantial muslim population tends to ask for "independence from oppression". Violently. Throughout the whole world. What part of jihad do you think I am confused about ?
I didn't get my own morals out of thin air, many muslims taught me the same thing. Believe me, I would happily disregard these morals if i could, to do a number of immoral things.
if you want me to explain anything of the verses to you, dont' just give me numbers, give me the name of the soura, and the ayas you find contradictory. I don't know the ordering number of every soura, I read them randomly, not upon a particular order.
Certainly a Muslim is not free to worship pagan Gods and call himself Muslim!! The main law of islam is to believe that there is but one God!! but a person is free to be a non-muslim and worship whatever he likes. He can't be muslim and worship something muslims don't :S. that's just a different religion from islam then. so that part doesnt make sense u can re-explain that.
You don't cherry pick verses from the quoran, they DON'T contradict each other as im about to prove (I think you didn't realise they discribed a different set of circumstances, i know this doesnt sound right but when i explain it it will, I had some intial confusion like you did earlier in my life)
And don't come to me with the officious statement of "universally accepted..." God you sound like a british government official, or the queen or something. The word universal signifies everybody, without exception, and it certainly HASN'T been universally accepted. I am not the only one who rejects that idea, and I am not a lone wolf, snarling an opinion that no one expressed before. See? that's the kind of generalization that leads people into trouble, read the Generlization and Descrimination Article I posted above. And stop calling Christians and Jews infidels. I have many Christian friends who read these posts and resent that. You may be an infidel, that is your free choice, but don't generalize your infidelity upon them. Don't go on about palestine and israel, Israel is using Apache's against palestinians with barely enough firepower to survive!! What, the palestinians (which aren't an islamic nation by the way, you just say that because more palestinians are muslim than christian, but there are many christian palestinians, although not for long if israel has anything to say to it, there won't be palestinians at all!) are oppressing the israeli's now?? obviously you need to listen to what Mr.Galloway has to say on THAT subject :D.I feel no shame in admitting that I know very little of the affairs of India and Pakistan.
to arjun sevrak. I want you to carefully read what I was telling you. What muslim ghettos, or muslims populations do is NOT islam. Islam is the set of instructions these people try to follow. Many people follow these instructions wrong, but do not be blinded to those who follow them correctly!! studied 1400 years of effort? that's what jihad is you know. what i'm doing now, is jihad. Jihad isn't the stereotypical image you people have of "bang em on the head, or blow a hole through em". Jihad can be trying to get the truth across, to promote justice. Like I said, if you studied 1400 years of Jihad the way you studied them you need to consider your sources, and i promise you i will re consider mine. I assure u i studied the same 1400 years, and my sources were different. However, note that Mohamed has not lived all this time. With the death of the prophet people are bound to deviate and make mistakes and lie and kill for their personal gain and call it "Jihad". But the miracle of islam is that the quoran unchangeable, and so the original, good qualities of a muslim can always be traced back. That is the lasting miracle (as I am about to prove when Infidel Pride gives me the actual names of the souras and the numbers of the ayas.) and though urdu and arabic are similar they are certainly not the same. Hebrew is closer to Arabic than urdu if what some linguists say is true, yet there is a huge difference(this is a purely by the way remark that has nothing to do with religion).
by the way, out of curiosity, how old are you people? not Zonie Kafir, I don't want to know anything about you.
Hello there. I just heard something robert spencer had said to Fox News. Now, I do not know weather he is purposefully lying or weather he simply went about studying islam the wrong way. However I give him the benefit of the doubt. Note the following Mr.Spencer.
The prophet Mohamed (upon him be prayer and peace) has an accredited saying. "Yours is your religion, and mine is mine." This saying was directed to those who did not believe in him.
Also, islam favours self defence, tolerates retribution, and favours forgiveness. The Prophet and his followers only waged war on those who did not believe in islam when the none believers violated the rights of many muslims to be muslims, and ostracised them for their islam. Thus you see how self defence is covered. When Mohamed and his followers captured Mecca the prophet said to the none-believers whom he had captured in wat "What think you will be done to you by me?" Their answer was, "Goodness, for you are a generous man, the son of a generous brother" and the prophet said "Go, for you are free." Like that. with no condition. Forgiveness fullfilled. Of retribution I will post later.
Now you must note that the prophet was not raised a warrior. First he worked as a shepard, then as a tradesman, and before that he assisted his uncle in his trade. The prophet only embraced war roughly around the age of forty, when defending, note the word "defending" islam was necessary. At risk of having my neck hewed by extremist muslims, I will inform you that the evidence does not show Mohamed to be a competent warrior. Not like his friend, Omar Ibn El Khatab for example. There is a known story of a lady named "Naseeba bent Kaab" who stood by the prophet's side in one of the battles and and defended him from enemies. A competent warrior (and I say this at the risk of sounding sexist) does not usually need a woman to defend him. Be it understood that my uncertainty of my prophet's prowess as a warrior in no way diminshes my respect for him in any way, on the contrary, it argues extraordinary faith and courage to be outmatched and still ride into battle, and for all i know, i could be wrong and he could have been a great warrior, what i am almost certain of is that he was not raised as one, which was rare for bedouin arabs, which is why it is notable.
The wars that established the islamic empire took place after Prophet Mohamed's death, so striclty speaking you can't call them the one hundred percent islamically correct. so now we are rid of what u argue is the "violence of islam" we will discuss these wars as a seperate issue. In theory, a perfect war of faith spreading was conducted thus.(remember that at the time, kings imposed their faiths on subjects, and religious tolerance was rare to find)
1-The man or woman who ruled a territory were approached with a messenger, inviting them to embrace islam if they will, or if not, to allow it to be preached in the city alongdside the pre-existing faith, and that no restriction be passed upon those who would wish to embrace islam in that city. A rejection of islam's right to be preached meant war. I see that as only fair.
2-if the Islamic Army won the city, the city was goverened on a basis of tolerant equality, where everyone could worship as they pleased. There is an annual religious tax muslims payed called "zakat" that wa seperate from trading taxes and so forth. This zakat in the strictly religious sense is voluntary. Under the islamic empire this was not so, every muslim had to pay this zakat to something called "The money house"
The "gezya" money (money payed by non-muslims) was in theory, supposed to equal "Zakat" (only fair i suppose!!) gezya and zakat money went to ensure that no one in the city was hungry or unclothed in winter or so on, be these people muslims or otherwise (equality so far). But in practice, Gezya was not equal to Zakat, it was much less!! for the following reasons:
A) Orphan Children (even those with huge inheritance) were exempted from Gezya
B)Widows were exempted from gezya
C)Senior Citizens were exempted from gezya
D)Monks were exempted from gezya
E) any of the families whose conditions were none of the above but simply could not afford to pay gezya were also exempted.
The only inequality I will concede in this system is that Non-Muslims could not volunteer for military service. And yet that was changed when Lord Salah el deen Al Ayoubi employed the Arab christian general "Aiesa Al Awam" to repel the crusades. Can you tell me why a christian would lead forces against the crusaders? Because he was a true Christian, and believed that religion should not be used for distribution of wealth among the greedy wealthy. Islam promotes a personal relationship with God, and lessens from humans judgement upon other humans as much as possible (only violations of someone else's rights could islamically expose you to rightful punishment by another human).
Islam also openly acknowledges Christianity and Judaism, acknowledges, Joseph, Jonas, Soliman,David, The Virgin Mary and many others and speaks of many prophets which God ommits to mention in the Koran merely that they existed with previous messages, you will notice for example that Buddhists do not worship Buddha as a God. For all we know Buddha could have been a prophet. Maybe, maybe not, I don’t know, but a true muslim doesn’t close his eyes to these possibilities.
Finally, I will tell you that the "hadeeth" is a very uncertain science, and based on blatant disobedience to the prophet, since the prophet forbade anyone to write his personal sayings weather alive, or after his death, knowing that many could misinterpret his human sayings, or alter them, and so his sayings were recorded after his death with no true way of verifying each of them, and his friend Omar ibn al Khatab, bearing the Prophets wish in mind, declared that all who had written texts of the prophets sayings should bring them to him that he may verify them. When he had them all, he placed them in public in the city in a huge pile, and burned them all, re stating the prophets command that his sayings not be recorded. People then recorded them again, making them prone to MORE mistakes, and alterings. The Koran is certain because it is a linguistic miracle if you are well versed in arabic you would see that, there is nothing written yet in arabic to equal it's force, and if so much as one word is altered or removed from a koran verse, the entire verse (aya, not soura) sounds wrong and unbalanced. Kind of like a chemical equation. and although the Koran is immune to alteration it is NOT immune, to misunderstanding and mistranslation and misreading. Thank you, this was exhausting :D
comment i posted on a previos article
"to arjun sevrak. I want you to carefully read what I was telling you. What muslim ghettos, or muslims populations do is NOT islam. Islam is the set of instructions these people try to follow. Many people follow these instructions wrong, but do not be blinded to those who follow them correctly!! studied 1400 years of effort? that's what jihad is you know."
So you are trying to tell me what 1 billion + do is not islam ? That genocides were not carried out in the name of islam in the past 1400 years ? That cities of infidels were not wiped out to the last child across three continents in the name of islam ? I studied 1400 years of genocides, recorded by both muslim and non-muslim historians. And that is jihad. You might want to check out this link. It covers just a little bit of jihad over here, just a little bit.
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/ch6.htm
And we do not need to study the koran or argue over its verses. The actions of muslims, past and present, speak volumes about what islam was and is, a death cult founded by a looter, murderer, rapist and a paedophile. And all muslims emulate him. Have emulated him for the past 14 centuries. I don't have any reasons to believe they will not continue to do so.
oh, so I'm a terrorist now am I? Tell me Arjun, when Catholics and Protestants cut each other to ribbons in Ireland, did anyone say "The actions of Catholics and Protestants speak volumes about what Christianity it is, it is a deathcult?" no I'm not saying that more than 1 billion people are following islam wrong, im saying that the majority of more than 1 billion muslims have incorrect perceptions about islam, some violent some not. I'm saying that many political figures used islam to drive herds of ignorant muslims to do their will and commit genecide. These political figures could have either been charismatic fanaticals or power hungry maniacs, or greedy people or all three together or just two of these things. It is not what Islam commands. There is a fanatic branch of Judaism that states that all non-jewish humans are put on earth for Jews to make use of like animals. Does that mean every Jew believes that? The actions of a son do not condemn his father, and the actions of a father do not condemn his son. Remember it.
The link you gave me concerns the islamic invasion of india. Do your history. The muslims who invaded india were converted mongolians. when the mongols were defeated by the muslim mamelukes at the battle of ein jalout, they were convinced that God was on the side of the muslims, for their army had not seen defeat in many years. Thus, many of them and their nobles and leaders converted to Islam. They then proceded to invade countries the way they always did, also in the name of islam, but really, they were indulging in the habits of a lifetime that had nothing to do with islam, like i said, political figures. To Zonie Kafir, although I carry nothing but disdain for you, I will give you an answer. Read it, you might learn something about evidence and proof. What is it about Mohamed raped the woman? He did not. She was his captive yes but how could you possibly know what happened between them? you say he raped her, I say he didn't. Who's going to prove one of us right?
unrepentant,
You failed to address any of the points presented by Infidel Pride. Simply typing in the number of the claim and adding a bunch of text does not constitute a rebuttal much less a direct response to the points.
Note re "fitna", where you say "persecution/oppression" is a "wrong" translation. (Actually, the claim made initially was not that persecution/oppression was the only translation; the point was that that translation, presented in English to readers today, makes the 7th century Arabic "fitna" seem not as bad as it really was, in context, in the Koran.
By stating categorically that the translation is "wrong," you set yourself up to be easily refuted.
Verse 8:39
fitnah =
Pickthall: "persecution"
Yusuf Ali: "oppression"
Shakir: "persecution"
Sher Ali: "persecution"
Khalifa: "oppression"
Arberry: "persecution"
Clearly, these expert translations have been made on the asumption that the appropriate translation to be presented to English-speaking audiences in the context of 8:39, is persecution or oppression. If you think those expert translators are wrong (not just toned down, but "wrong"--your word), let's see you make a case for that.
You state:
"Finally, I will tell you that the "hadeeth" is a very uncertain science, and based on blatant disobedience to the prophet, since the prophet forbade anyone to write his personal sayings weather alive, or after his death, knowing that many could misinterpret his human sayings, or alter them, and so his sayings were recorded after his death with no true way of verifying each of them, and his friend Omar ibn al Khatab, bearing the Prophets wish in mind, declared that all who had written texts of the prophets sayings should bring them to him that he may verify them. When he had them all, he placed them in public in the city in a huge pile, and burned them all, re stating the prophets command that his sayings not be recorded."
LOL! I think you are an "unrepentant" comedian! You use a saying attributed to the prophet to invalidate all the sayings attributed to the prophet!
Unrepentent
I mentioned quite a few chapters and verses above - 2:193, 109:6, 5:33, 2:257, et al. Enter any of them in Quranbrowser.com, pick your favored translation (or even the original Arabic, which is there), and demonstrate the miracles of the Quran, like you claim. Don't start nitpicking about the names of the surahs in question - these verse# are consistent, and in Quranbrowser, you won't find translations where they may go off a few.
On Indian history, you are wrong, and Zonie, whom you disdain, is right. The first invasion of India was done by the Arabs, and had limited success in Sind. Subsequent invasions were by Afghans and Turks. The Mongols who invaded India were non-Muslim, and were invading the Delhi Sultanates. And the Moghuls weren't scions of the Mongols - even though 'Moghul' is a Farsi term for Mongol, Timur, Babur and their descendants were Turks: Timur originated in Samarqhand, and Babar in Ferghana, and neither claimed Mongol ancestry. So quit trying to blame the massacres in India on 'converted Mongols'.
Also, when I use the term Infidels, I'm talking about all non-Muslims, not just Christians and Jews (of which I'm neither). Like I said before, spare us the ahl-al-qitab spiel: Jews and Christians are treated like dirt in Islamic countries, and their plight isn't any better than other non-Muslims. Therefore, this division between Judeo-Christian non-Muslims and other non-Muslims might be something you Mohammedans want to make, but for us, it's a distinction without a difference.
unrepentant,
Some specific responses to yours re Arabic translation issue:
U: "Point number 10 is nonsense, for explanation email me at yowateva@yahoo.com"
-failed to address the point.
U: "1- in arabic there are at least 55 words for the word "Dog" and one word could signify 55 different things."
-irrelevant. The point that the Arabic of the Koran can be translated into other languages stands untouched.
U: "2-Try to make sense sir, meanings are explained by words, or God wouldn't have bothered with the quoran would he? or assuming you don't believe in God, the idea of whoever writing would be pointless if he didn't mean anything with the words."
-you missed the point: meanings can be translated from Arabic, and that's what's important.
U: "3-Quoran certainly is a message to all human kind But if you bothered to exert yourself you could find more than one translation for it, each signifying different meanings"
-irrelevant to the point. The “must know arabic” apologist is caught in a contradiction. He must admit that the Quran is a message to all humankind (the Quran says that), but, because (a) most people don’t know arabic and never will (and Allah supposedly created all humankind, with their different languages), and (b) the “arabic-only” apologist insists that the message can only be understood in Arabic, the apologist is caught contradicting the Quran: The Quran says it is a message to all humankind (and Allah allegedly gave humankind different languages). The arabic-only apologist implies that the Quran is a message to only those who know Arabic, not all humankind—a clear violation of the Quran.
U: "4-The Quran does not say it must be recited in arabic but it DOES identify itself as an originally arabic script."
--irrelevant to the point. The point stands that the Quran does not say that it cannot or should not be translated into a language other than (classical) Arabic.
U: "5-Arabic speaking people must rely on translations, not arabic reading people. When you're taught to read arabic (the official language in arabic schools) you're taught to read it classically so i can triumphantly tell you (take that :D)"
-You can’t triumphantly tell us anything unless you provide evidence or sound arguments to support you claim.
U: "6-Your sixth point is an entirely opinion based statement. I can just as easily state that I think America is likely to economically collapse in 50 years, A)that doesn't make it true, B)I have made this statement entirely without support."
-it is an opinion based on what is plausible, and is based on the assumptions that the expert translations are reasonable competent and generally accurate, i.e., that experts are likely to have a better interpretation than the numerous apologists who harp about the arabic translation issue. But if these expert translations are inaccurate, you should be able to show us where they are inaccurate—and that should be easy for you. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that you are bluffing.
U: "7-Same thing, how do you know?"
-simple. I’ve read multiple translations, and on most verses there appears to be general agreement across translations on the general meaning of verses. There are minor differences in some cases, and there is also blatant fraud (e.g., Khalifa added himself into some verses!….though even Khalifa often follows the standard translations), but these problems can be detected and the existence of some minor differences does mean that the Koran must be read in Arabic only.
U: "8- I disdain to answer this until you read more about it."
-dodging the point. The point stands untouched, "disdain(ing) to answer" is an unacceptable response.
U: "9-despite what extremist muslims will say (and if they find me after reading this i have little doubt that im dead, but for the sake of islam, the true islam, i will say this) Hadeeth and Seera Are both unreliable sciences and the prophet himself had commanded his sayings never be recorded so that people could not forget them, when he died, these sayings were recorded. Omar Ibn El Khatab collected all these forbidden texts and burned them in public in the midst of the city before many eye witnesses in accordance with the prophet's wish of his own personal sayings not be recorded. The sayings were then re-written making them prone to MORE errors. There is more than one tafseer, I know at least of four, possibly more. And many muslims don't need any of them to understand the quoran, I repeat, the quoran is entirely independant of hadeeth."
-nonsense (see my response above this: you are using sayings to invalidate sayings of the same kind). Also: Without the hadith and Sira, one is reading the Quran out of context. It’s that simple. If you reject those sources as invalid—and they may be invalid—you are concluding that the Koran must be read only in its existing, totally decontextualized form. The Koran is often difficult to interpret without these additional sources, yet those sources may be invalid. Thus Muslims, not the non-Muslim critics of Islam, are in a real bind due to this problem. Why would Allah reveal a Koran without context, or without reliable, certain context?
U: "11)you have fitna translation wrong, and u just pointed out urself, inaccuracy in translations, I could close my case right there!! You just admitted it yourself, what could i possibly add here?"
-that issue has been addressed above. Your claim has been refuted. All that is needed is the Islamic definition of persecution/oppression (what fitnah entails) provided in English and the problem is solved. Thus, again, one does not need to know Arabic or read the Koran in Arabic to criticize its policies.
U: "12)Islam is not defined by who practices it, islam is a set of instructions."
-does not address the point about the policies remaining unaffected by the translation issue. The apostasy penalty, blasphemy penalties, wife-beating verse, verses of intolerance and policies of intolerance, all remain and are unaffected by the translation issue. None of these policies are going to be changed by discovering that there has been some terrible error in translation whereby 9:5, 9:29, etc., don’t mean what they appear to mean in non-Arabic languages, and thus approx 1400 years of Islamic history involving jihad slaughter and dhimmitude subjugation is all a mistake due to translation error.
Islam is partly defined by how Muhammad practiced Islam; Muslims get some of their instructions by reading about Muhammad’s conduct, and then they seek to emulate him.
Islam is defined at least to some extent by those who practice it (Muslims) because they must interpret the instructions.
typo: "and the existence of some minor differences does mean that the Koran must be read in Arabic only"
should say ...does not mean..."
unrepentant,
In regards to Classical Arabic vs Modern Arabic, by Ibn Warraq (bolding added):
http://challenging-islam.org/articles/warraq-debate-muslims.htm
If Warraq and his linguist are wrong, please show us where, citing evidence. The above at the very least implies that those who read Arabic, even Modern Classical Arabic today, must rely on commentaries (tafsir) and translations to make sense of the Koran's Arabic.
I will reply and prove wrong every one of you three if you start by prioritizing what you want, because it is unfair to expect me to put an amount of writing three people can put in one day and much as truth is important to me, i don't have the TIME or effort, to answer all this now. as an appetizer, the translation of fitna is "Discord" how far away from persecution/oppression could that be? not a thousand miles but pretty far.
And I wasn't making an islamic point when i said "don't call them infidels". I was merely expressiong the wish of some christian friends, a wish they ASKED me to express. I couldn't give a toss what you say about them, they can defend themselves very well. I was only delivering the "Amana". The message they entrusted me with.
unrepentant
Khaybar was contesting the fact that your rebuttal of my points wasn't a rebuttal. If you do actually rebut the first two posts I had made in response to your assertions about the Arabic requirement, and the Quran only argument, that will do.
'Discord' does sound like an accurate translation of fitna, given how fitna has been interpreted as any temptation away from the path of Islam. Since none of us are planning to learn Arabic, can you point us to a better translation than the ones listed above?
and i need the names of the souras because i use an actual "Mushaf" and I'll be translating for you myself Infidel Pride. You COULD appreciate the effort but knowing ur suspicion ull just say "ur going to lie about translation." If that is your belief then don't hold a discussion with me. When I say I truly believe. Whoever is right about islam between us, my word is good. If you think it is not, tell me, and i will not bother with the translations, in the meantime, NAMES, because I need them.
I will translate myself if you will trust me to.....
And Khaybar sees that i did not refute. I see that I did. I never throw in a bunch of claims out of the air, read again. and though Khaybar can argue that the prophet did not say "do not record all my sayings" he cannot deny the historical occurence of a huge pile of paper being burned in the middle of a city by Omar Ibn El Khatab during his reign as the second Khalifa (not the khalifa you people were reffering to, the khalifa is the "successor" to the prophet in issuing instructions to muslims, a succession that was later abused to create kingship, part of why i disagree with the islamic empire among other things, even though i clarified how the islamic empire system was theortically perfect, the sad truth is, this perfection did not last long, and where in some parts, the harmony was maintained, in other parts no.), Or Omar clearly stating before many witnesses why these papers were being burned. Among all the muslims, Omar, who, when he was a non-muslim, was a power-hungry man, Omar the muslim was one of the men who shunned power the most. He is said to have punished himself for his mistakes as well as any impartial judge would have done, and Omar, who was rich before islam, spent all his money in the cause of islam, i dont know if it was charity or military, and remained poor after he became Khalifa, even though he could have been rich, least of all by claiming a huge share of the spoils of war, not for being a Khalifa, but for being one of the most celebrated warriors of the muslims. He is known as one of the bravest muslims, never afraid to own a mistake, never afraid to speak the truth. There is a recorded occurence about when he rode into Jerusalem with his army, and while in a meeting with church officials in the church prayer time came, and he refused to pray in the church so that the muslims would not take that as a sign that they could claim the church as a mosque of their own. He was nicknames "Al Farouk" (The Separator) for his ability to separate right and wrong. Further, he had no motive in burning the prophet's sayings and saying before so many people that he was enforcing the prophet's wish. I thus conclude that he was telling the truth. If you wish to contest this I will have to answer but I am growing tired and i still have more of your points to cover.
unrepentant,
Re fitnah, your claim was not that "fitna" translation was "off". Your claim was that it was "wrong". That's what I refuted. If you had understood the point in the first place, we would not be talking about fitna, for which we already have many definitions in our records and which varies somewhat depending on the context in the Koran and the translator. The point was simply that the translators (not all of them; Hilali and Khan do not tone it down and include disbelief in the category of fitna) were toning down the meaning for western audience.
Again, your claim about Umar burning the papers is just another saying and there are all kinds of sayings. So what? You are using sayings to discredit sayings. It makes no sense.
We do not intend to be hostile. We are just fed up with the apologetics. If we have made mistakes, please show that we are wrong.
unrepentant
Since this thread is near the bottom of the pile, I hope to re-engage you in some future thread, and won't pile on you for now. I appreciate your offer to translate these texts for me, and no, I don't distrust your translation of Arabic, but I'll probably take you on that offer some other time. I do have one question for you, though. You state that you reject the hadith and the sira. Given that, what is your source for all the supposed actions of Mohammed that you discussed above? E.g. where did you learn that Abu Akaf heard Mohammed's message, but refused to listen, or the details of Naseeba bent Kaab? Are there sources outside the sunnah that Quran-only Muslims go to for their historical info on what Mohammed did and said?
Also, since you seem to admire Caliph Omar ibn al Khatab, what do you think of his campaigns and conquests of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran? How come he didn't understand Jihad as a mere effort in becoming a better Muslim? How was that project of his much different from, say, Tamerlane some 5 centuries later?
I grow weary of the term apologetic...Though I do not mean to be hostile either you force me to use a hostile phrase. I am NOT a bloody apologetic. Again, I apologise for nothing some fool did.
Zonie Kafir. You are, again, relying on the hadith and the sira to draw your conclusions. Mohamed did not sanction "coerced sex" as you phrase it. The hadith and sira were manipulated many times. And men who were prisoners of war were not killed just because they're men. Some of them were people who murdered muslims just BECAUSE they were muslims before ever the muslims engaged in battle, and so they were wanted for retribution, like I said, Islam tolerates retribution. Those who were not guilty of crimes of murder or violation of honour upon other muslims were not exectued, they either served a sentence as slaves until their amount of work payed off their ransom, or they were ransomed to any of their kin who had money and were willing to pay the ransom. It is certainly NOT sanctioned to murder innocent children in Islam. Yes they were taken as slaves but Mohamed URGED his people to release these children if they could, to the kin of their parents, for a ransom if they could afford it. And yet when a child is orphaned and has no kin, where then will he or she go? Some of these children are adopted into muslim families. Remember that islam did not directly prohibit slavery, but it DID directly state appropriate rewards for releasing them. How slavery was based then was how it was always based tribaly before islam, in that particular region of the world and Mohamed did NOT support it, nor condone forced sex. There is a difference between having a woman as your slave/captive and forcing her to have sex with you. Islam draws limits and these are one of them. Like I said, if you accepted unto yourself a slave, you accepted also unto yourself a set of responsiblities, these responsiblities largely involved the RIGHTS of this slave. When it was a woman that was captured her consent to any sexual activity WAS required. What some men did is one thing. What Mohamed told them to do is another. It may interest you to know that in my country, a rapist convicted hangs. As high as a kyte. If you want an example of stuff "made up" in hadith and sira ask me in the next post and ill give you one.
Khaybar, I STILL claim the translation is wrong, I cannot explain to you the difference between "discord" and "persecution" as I am not an english teacher. You either see it or you don't. "Toning down" is a highly diplomatic phrase, and if anyone saw fit to "tone down" what's in the quoran i still see that as wrong. God delivers ultimate justice. It is why he is God, among many other reasons. There is no compromise with such a force, no "toning down".
Now Omar did not just say. He burned. Set flame to a huge pile. Before a mass of people these words were said. These are one of very few situations in which histroians can "ALMOST" be sure that the occurence is true, in the presence of hundreds if not thousands of eye witnesses. These witnesses act as insurance. Everybody seeing something is not like the prophet speaking to no more than fourteen men. There are nine accredited Hadeeth uttered in the presence of fourteen men which I am prepared to blindly accept, for these are the most confirmed ones. And yet everybody prays, not through recorded description, but through observance. Mohamed led a whole city into prayer, many people saw him pray with their own eyes, and taught their children the prayer and so on. So when a whole city witnesses the burning of a huge pile of paper and you dismiss it as "sayings" (the sayings of an entire city!!) then you dismiss history in its eternity, every battle that took place, every treaty that was written on paper, everything. Sterling Bridge never happened, Falkirk never occured, Jankis Khan never invaded persia or china. You can dismiss a saying, not a saying accompanied by a major occurrence. Speaking of Jenkis Khan, somebody mentioned Timur from Samarqand. Wasn't that Timur Lenk? or Leng? because even though he was not a mongol,Turk I think, he DID claim to be a direct descendant of Jenkis Khan which was why many Asian tribes payed him homage. including some mongols. Other descendants of Jenkis Khan contested his claim.
U: "1- in arabic there are at least 55 words for the word "Dog" and one word could signify 55 different things."
-irrelevant. The point that the Arabic of the Koran can be translated into other languages stands untouched.
Khaybar, if one word can signify 55 different things, then you could have 55 different translations for the quoran meaning completely different things.
A leader once captured a fortress (Khalid Ibn Al Walid, I am almost sure you know him) and it was a cold night. So he commanded his soldiers by saying "Adfe'o Al Asra" Asra means "prisoners" and the "Adfe2o" I know and most Arabs know is "Warm". Conclusion "Warm the Prisoners." His soldiers however, descended upon wherever the captives were kept and slaughtered them. Khaled was most surprised, and demanded to know what cause they had to slaughter the prisoners, if the prisoners had tried to harm them. a soldier told him "Lord, did you not tell us "Adfe2o Al asra?" This may or may not have happened, a recorded occurence in islamic history which you may disregard. Language however is not history, it cannot be falsified if it is true. Tell me how far apart from each other murder/slaughter and "warm" can be?
And to Infidel Pride, I think very well of his campaigns in Syria, Egypt, Palestine and Iran :S. I come from one of these countries myself, and All I know of these campaigns was that they were conducted in the "terms of a perfect war of faith" as specifiec above. First A king is approached invited to islam or if he refuses, to allow Islam to be preached in his realm, alongside whatever pre-existing faiths, and that whoever chose to embrace Islam not be persecuted. A Refusal meant war. I see that as only fair, every religion has the right to be preached you know....They're not fighting to FORCE people to convert, they're fighting to have the right to present their point of view to people.
And to Infidel Pride, I think very well of his campaigns in Syria, Egypt, Palestine and Iran :S. I come from one of these countries myself, and All I know of these campaigns was that they were conducted in the "terms of a perfect war of faith" as specifiec above. First A king is approached invited to islam or if he refuses, to allow Islam to be preached in his realm, alongside whatever pre-existing faiths, and that whoever chose to embrace Islam not be persecuted. A Refusal meant war. I see that as only fair, every religion has the right to be preached you know....They're not fighting to FORCE people to convert, they're fighting to have the right to present their point of view to people.
btw Timur Leng IS Tamerlane isn't he??
"Hearing the Quran in Arabic in context, directly from Mohammad, failed to convince most of the people who listened to his recitation, until they were forcibly converted at swordpoint."
RE:a perfect war of faith spreading was conducted thus.(remember that at the time, kings imposed their faiths on subjects, and religious tolerance was rare to find)
1-The man or woman who ruled a territory were approached with a messenger, inviting them to embrace islam if they will, or if not, to allow it to be preached in the city alongdside the pre-existing faith, and that no restriction be passed upon those who would wish to embrace islam in that city. A rejection of islam's right to be preached meant war. I see that as only fair.
2-if the Islamic Army won the city, the city was goverened on a basis of tolerant equality, where everyone could worship as they pleased. There is an annual religious tax muslims payed called "zakat" that wa seperate from trading taxes and so forth. This zakat in the strictly religious sense is voluntary. Under the islamic empire this was not so, every muslim had to pay this zakat to something called "The money house"
The "gezya" money (money payed by non-muslims) was in theory, supposed to equal "Zakat" (only fair i suppose!!) gezya and zakat money went to ensure that no one in the city was hungry or unclothed in winter or so on, be these people muslims or otherwise (equality so far). But in practice, Gezya was not equal to Zakat, it was much less!! for the following reasons:
A) Orphan Children (even those with huge inheritance) were exempted from Gezya
B)Widows were exempted from gezya
C)Senior Citizens were exempted from gezya
D)Monks were exempted from gezya
E) any of the families whose conditions were none of the above but simply could not afford to pay gezya were also exempted.
-it is an opinion based on what is plausible, and is based on the assumptions that the expert translations are reasonable competent and generally accurate, i.e., that experts are likely to have a better interpretation than the numerous apologists who harp about the arabic translation issue. But if these expert translations are inaccurate, you should be able to show us where they are inaccurate—and that should be easy for you. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that you are bluffing.
U: "7-Same thing, how do you know?"
-simple. I’ve read multiple translations, and on most verses there appears to be general agreement across translations on the general meaning of verses. There are minor differences in some cases, and there is also blatant fraud (e.g., Khalifa added himself into some verses!….though even Khalifa often follows the standard translations), but these problems can be detected and the existence of some minor differences does mean that the Koran must be read in Arabic only.
RE: You see that? in an original Quran it is impossible to commit fraud undetected, no one can ADD anything to it. Now what do you mean experts. Who appoints an expert? Self-Appointed experts? experts accredited by universities like Al-Azhar? what, so Al-Azhar is a superior authority on translation now? The sad truth is, there is no institute who is expert in enough in arabic AND english together to be a superior authority on arabic translation to english. They are expert enough to translate yes, but not translate unerringly.
U: "4-The Quran does not say it must be recited in arabic but it DOES identify itself as an originally arabic script."
--irrelevant to the point. The point stands that the Quran does not say that it cannot or should not be translated into a language other than (classical) Arabic.
RE:highly relevant, when the Quran STATES that it is a script sent in Arabic by God Himself, you learn that you must CONTINUE to refer to the arabic version for any translation that seems illogical. Hope that satisfies you
did you ever hear the aya from the Koran (I'm not sure how its translated in the english versions but this is my translation): "So remind, for you are but a reminder,upon them you are not a controller."? The Quoran openly commands you to pass no judgement on an infidel for his infidelity for God's alone is the right to judge faith. You may only punish an infidel for his violation of somebody else's rights, just as a muslim should be punished.
U: "8- I disdain to answer this until you read more about it."
-dodging the point. The point stands untouched, "disdain(ing) to answer" is an unacceptable response.
RE: What you may find unacceptable I find perfectly acceptable, however if you MUST know, then ask The Experts whom you so revere. I have never yet met a linguistic scholar of arabic who will deny the Koran to be the complete, nay perfect accomplishment of arabic
Infidel Pride, if you read carefully about Naseeba bent Kaab in my article, you'll notice that I'm uncertain about the occurence, not 100% sure of it, even though it was the middle of a battle and many eyes were on the prophet so it is likely to be true.
nonsense (see my response above this: you are using sayings to invalidate sayings of the same kind). Also: Without the hadith and Sira, one is reading the Quran out of context. It’s that simple. If you reject those sources as invalid—and they may be invalid—you are concluding that the Koran must be read only in its existing, totally decontextualized form. The Koran is often difficult to interpret without these additional sources, yet those sources may be invalid. Thus Muslims, not the non-Muslim critics of Islam, are in a real bind due to this problem. Why would Allah reveal a Koran without context, or without reliable, certain context?
U: "11)you have fitna translation wrong, and u just pointed out urself, inaccuracy in translations, I could close my case right there!! You just admitted it yourself, what could i possibly add here?"
-that issue has been addressed above. Your claim has been refuted. All that is needed is the Islamic definition of persecution/oppression (what fitnah entails) provided in English and the problem is solved. Thus, again, one does not need to know Arabic or read the Koran in Arabic to criticize its policies.
U: "12)Islam is not defined by who practices it, islam is a set of instructions."
-does not address the point about the policies remaining unaffected by the translation issue. The apostasy penalty, blasphemy penalties, wife-beating verse, verses of intolerance and policies of intolerance, all remain and are unaffected by the translation issue. None of these policies are going to be changed by discovering that there has been some terrible error in translation whereby 9:5, 9:29, etc., don’t mean what they appear to mean in non-Arabic languages, and thus approx 1400 years of Islamic history involving jihad slaughter and dhimmitude subjugation is all a mistake due to translation error.
Islam is partly defined by how Muhammad practiced Islam; Muslims get some of their instructions by reading about Muhammad’s conduct, and then they seek to emulate him.
Islam is defined at least to some extent by those who practice it (Muslims) because they
RE: The Quran isn't a story book about Mohamed's tribe and their era in Mecca and Medina.These are told to a certain extent to confirm the Prophet's standing as bearer of the message (I think), but not the main theme of the Quran. Ofcourse it must be decontextualized if that's what you mean. Could you possibly think anything else when you were harping on about how islam is a message to all humanity? If however you mean no actual context of meaning independent from the hadith ill tell u to go back and read. you should easily Discern what the context is. Don't cheat, God likes not cheaters. Don't lie, God likes not liars. Don't Tyranize, God likes not Tyrants. Don't hypocritze, God likes not hypocrites. Pray, Fast, Pay your zakat and a lot of other things. These are basic contexts (which i probably didn't put 100% correctly I'm just jotting down thoughts for you here) that can easily be understood with hadith, sira, etc.
I gave u the ftina translation and demonstrated the difference. It literally means discord, discord between people and that doesnt prove your refutation
don't tell me the verses said and give me numbers. NAMES of the soura because i simply don't understand these numbers, names of the Souras, numbers of the ayas.
Mohamed is merely the bearer of the message, but any command he gave was never wrong. He made personal mistakes of action but never when issuing a command. These mistakes were commented about in the Quoran. but much of what u think he did he actually did not. even if he had (which he hadn't) Mohamed is the messenger not the message. and islam is the message, not the messenger, and not the reader.
You can only be certain of the context of the Quran if you adhere to the obvious messages of the Quran first. "Be good of heart, have mercy, forgive people." if you think in a good way you can see the context well.
See me damned if I post here again today :D you guys take too much of my time, I'll reply to more later.
Its time to stop calling them pakistanis and start calling them punjabis.
Who is behind all this violent jihad? Punjabis
Who is recruiting terrorists? Punjabis
Who is financing terror? Punjabis.
It is most unfortunate that other ethnic communties are being labeled terrorists when the only community involved in evil is Punjabis.
I request jihadwatch to make it very clear that these violent islamic terrorists are Punjabis.
Also, to answer your other question, Tamerlane is the same as 'Timur Lenk'. He was a Turk, who created a huge empire around his capital Samarqhand. His descendent Babur started the Moghul empire after repeatedly losing Samarqhand to the Uzbeks. A regrettable part of history - had Babur managed to hold on to Samarqhand for most of his life, that would have kept him busy, and he wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to invade India. Also, in India, the Lodi dynasty was under threat from the Rajputs, and could have been ended had the Moghuls not intervened.
Screw the Uzbeks.
Unrepentant (U),
U:“Now Omar did not just say. He burned. Set flame to a huge pile. Before a mass of people these words were said. These are one of very few situations in which histroians can "ALMOST" be sure that the occurence is true, in the presence of hundreds if not thousands of eye witnesses. [….] So when a whole city witnesses the burning of a huge pile of paper and you dismiss it as "sayings" (the sayings of an entire city!!) then you dismiss history in its eternity, every battle that took place, every treaty that was written on paper, everything.”
1. Dismiss history?! Please get a grip. I’m not at all against sound historical work, as you are attempting to imply. Rather, my challenges and requests are in the very interests of sound historical inquiry. Present the evidence, not strong insistences and please no more “sayings.” You reject nearly all of the sayings (hadith) and claim to have rigorous standards. Therefore provide the source of the evidence that this is not just hearsay. Describe the methodology. Did a whole city of people sign their signatures testifying that this burning took place? Or was it a small number of people saying that the whole city saw this? Did they read all the words on the papers to confirm that in fact these were so-called bad hadith that were being burned? What process did Umar allegedly use in the first place to determine whether the hadiths were “bad”? Umar’s claim that Muhammad told him to destroy the sayings is hearsay. Who else but Umar heard it? There is no evidence beyond hearsay that Muhammad ever told anyone to burn those papers—if they were burned.
2. Why do you not apply your rigorous historical standards to the Quran? The claim that the Quran is the word of Allah has only one alleged source: Muhammad. Everything in the Koran depends on a single person’s testimony, and much of it is incredible, the rest immoral or too ambiguous to interpret. Everyone else who believes Allah relayed messages through Gabriel to Muhammad, like cult and religious followers of such personalities, is taking it on faith. When it comes right down to it, the Quran is just another hadith collection—a collection of sayings about what so-and-so said to so-and-so.
U:“if one word can signify 55 different things, then you could have 55 different translations for the quoran meaning completely different things.”
I’ve already addressed this point. Of course many words have multiple meanings—also a basic fact of English. It is the translator’s job to pick the most appropriate words. But now you are generalizing from one word (55 Arabic words for dog) and saying that all the words in the Koran are subject to 55 meanings. This is absurd. Take a look at multiple translations. Of course there are minor disagreements and discrepancies between translators here and there. But overall, there is close agreement. Take a look at quranbrowser with the ten translations.
U:“RE:a perfect war of faith spreading was conducted thus.(remember that at the time, kings imposed their faiths on subjects, and religious tolerance was rare to find)
1-The man or woman who ruled a territory were approached with a messenger, inviting them to embrace islam if they will, or if not, to allow it to be preached in the city alongdside the pre-existing faith, and that no restriction be passed upon those who would wish to embrace islam in that city. A rejection of islam's right to be preached meant war. I see that as only fair.”
[Bolding added]. Define “Islam’s right to be preached”, define “Islam,” and how can an ideology have a “right”? Islam contains the Koran and because the Koran contains orders to kill people (e.g., these are clear enough in the Koran, 9:5, 33:60-62, etc.), and to dismember thieves (5:38), etc., yet prescribes no viable method of determining guilt or innocence, then you are saying that these orders to carry out killings and violence should be allowed to be preached. Actually, such preaching is illegal in all advanced societies today on the grounds that the limits to free expression do not protect orders and incitement to carry out violence. Thus, if we put some radical violence-advocating clerics in jail you are saying that Muslims have a religiously-based “right” to wage war on our society?
U: “But in practice, Gezya was not equal to Zakat, it was much less!!”
First of all, let’s back up a bit and get some perspective. Jizya is money that must be paid by non-Muslims to the Muslim rulers, as a punishment, in lieu of “protection” (and for other things). If an able-bodied adult male dhimmi decided not to pay, he will be killed by Muslims. In other words, this is extortion. It is first imposed by force, and maintained by threat of death on each family’s earner. If the dhimmis try to escape, they will be punished as highway robbers (for the punishments for highway robbery, including execution, crucifixion, amputation, or banishment, see corruption on earth, Koran, 5:33), because they are stealing from Muslims by removing themselves. (They are considered property of the Muslim state; hence Islam regards them as thieves for taking away the Muslims’ source of revenue and labour). See Edmond Fagan, The Jihad or Holy war According to the Malikite School, in Andrew Bostom, (2005), The Legacy of Jihad, pp. 251-266.
Here is source from a Shia authority:
And if the dhimmis run afoul of Islamic sensitivities?
The above quote is from Muhammad al-Majlisi (d.1699), a Shia jurist, quoted in Andrew Bostom, (2005), The Legacy of Jihad, pp. 217-220.
This jurist goes on to describe how the dhimmis must wear distinctive clothing, conform to numerous restrictions, and generally follow the sharia laws.
Please cite your sources indicating that it was generally the case that the jizya itself was less than zakat. (I don’t believe it was; though I am aware that there was great variation in the amount paid depending on various factors, because the Muslim leader is given discretion in regards to how much can be charged and to whom, e.g., as quoted in my above source). However, you fail to mention that whereas jizya went directly to the Muslim authority, Zakat did not go to non-Muslims. Muslims were not forbidden to give charity to non-Muslims, but the zakat was not for that purpose. You also fail to mention that there were numerous other restrictions on the non-Muslims (e.g., they could not criticize Islam or Muhammad or would be put to death) and that, moreover, dhimmitude was intended as a punishment, a humiliation (and that is supported by 9:29, e.g., see Ibn Kathir’s commentary). Non-Muslim farmers also had to provide food to the Muslims. If a Muslim wanted to stay at a non-Muslim’s house, the non-Muslim was required by law to look after his needs for three days; but Muslims were not required to reciprocate.
It should also be noted that, according to the sahih Hadith (which you, personally, reject, but which mainstream Islam accepts), Muhammad collected taxes from the dhimmis and stated that his livelihood was under the shade of his spear, i.e., from war booty. According to the Sira, the Khaybar Jews (many of them farmers) agreed to give Muhammad and the Muslims half of everything (and of course they had lost their property rights entirely).
U: “any of the families [who] […] could not afford to pay gezya were also exempted”
Please cite your source. You are saying they were “exempted” and did not have to pay at a later time, i.e., they did not owe money, labour, etc. to the Muslim authority?
U: “RE: You see that? in an original Quran it is impossible to commit fraud undetected, no one can ADD anything to it.”
1. The hadith and Sira indicate that Muhammad allowed at least one scribe--Abdullah bin Sa'd--to alter the wording. That is no less credible than the claim that the the Quran has not been tampered with.
2. In a massive ego-trip, Khalifah added his own name to his Koran! If you don’t believe me, have a look at it. It is cited in the Arabic Translation article cited by Infidel Pride above. My claim is based on examples such as this:
Khalifah’s Koran, 25:56. “We have sent you (Rashad) as a deliverer of good news, as well as a warner.”
Pickthall, which is widely accepted, has “Muhammad” in the parentheses.
U:“Now what do you mean experts. Who appoints an expert? Self-Appointed experts? experts accredited by universities like Al-Azhar? what, so Al-Azhar is a superior authority on translation now? The sad truth is, there is no institute who is expert in enough in arabic AND english together to be a superior authority on arabic translation to english. They are expert enough to translate yes, but not translate unerringly.”
I didn’t say unerringly. Multiple expert translators are in high agreement on the translation of the Koran into English. But if you have a better translation, let’s see it. Provide the evidence. Show us your Koran translation which is better, more accurate, than theirs.
U:“RE:highly relevant, when the Quran STATES that it is a script sent in Arabic by God Himself, you learn that you must CONTINUE to refer to the arabic version for any translation that seems illogical. Hope that satisfies you”
But it is not relevant to this Arabic translation argument. We are talking about the apologist/obscurantist claim that translations are so utterly inadequate that one must spend years and years learning Arabic to figure out what the Quran says. Our claim is that that is not true in regards to the overall messages as understood by ordinary readers. For Koranic scholars and translators, yes they must study Arabic for years and years. But the average person does not, except for a small number of key words (fitnah, fasad, etc.), and knowing a smal set of key words does not constitute knowing a language.
Does reading the Koran in Arabic remove the wife-beating verse (4:34) and turn it into kiss your wife? No.
Does the command to slay the idolators wherever you find them (9:5) become hug the idolators wherever you find them? No.
Does the command to never help the disbelievers (28:86) become help the disbelievers? No.
Does the statement that those among the non-Muslims who reject Islam are the worst of created beings (98:6) change into the claim that disbelievers are wonderful in Allah’s sight? No.
Do the hundreds of statements condemning disbelievers to hell-fires for being disbelievers suddenly change to praising the disbelievers and awarding them paradise when we read Arabic? No.
And so on.
U: “did you ever hear the aya from the Koran (I'm not sure how its translated in the english versions but this is my translation): "So remind, for you are but a reminder,upon them you are not a controller."? The Quoran openly commands you to pass no judgement on an infidel for his infidelity for God's alone is the right to judge faith. You may only punish an infidel for his violation of somebody else's rights, just as a muslim should be punished.”
There are several verses that say basically the same thing, but they are addressed to Muhammad during the Meccan phase. When we get the complete statements, even in the Meccan phase, they are coupled with a veiled threat that the disbelievers “will come to know.” (43:89). During the Meccan phase Muhammad is making numerous threats against the polytheists, reviling their gods, insulting their ancestors (i.e., who “had no sense”, etc.). The claim that Muhammad is only a messenger is not inconsistent with the fact that Muhammad is delivering messages in the form of orders to Muslims to carry out violence and killing. The claim that it is only God’s judgement is not inconsistent with the premise that Muhammad can relay God’s judgement and that Muslims are expected to take heed of the message and obey it, e.g., 4:80—to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah; making a pledge to Muhammad is making a pledge to Allah, 48:10, etc.
But the Koran states that disbelievers should be punished simply because they are disbelievers. Allah uses punishment in the afterlife, punishment in this world, and punishment through the hands of the believers who are acting in the way of Allah (9:14, 9:52, 8:17), when Allah tests them (47:31). It says if Allah did not use one set of people (meaning, believers) to check another set of people (disbelievers), then the world would be full of fasad (mischief/corruption) (2:251). Allah tries some people by means of others (6:53). Allah “brought down iron” (57:25) so that Muslims could implement “justice” on earth. If Muslims abandon the religion, Allah will replace them with believers who are struggling in his cause (5:54).
U: “RE: What you may find unacceptable I find perfectly acceptable, however if you MUST know, then ask The Experts whom you so revere. I have never yet met a linguistic scholar of arabic who will deny the Koran to be the complete, nay perfect accomplishment of arabic”
You believe the Koran is perfect? Then why does “Allah” swear by the city of Mecca (90:1)? Does that make any sense? Doesn’t that constitute idolatry?
U:“RE: The Quran isn't a story book about Mohamed's tribe and their era in Mecca and Medina.”
I didn’t claim that. I said you need to read contextual information (e.g., Sira) to understand it or at least reduce the Koran’s ambiguity. This is not to say those contextual sources of information are valid; but they (accepted Sira and sahih Hadith) are what mainstream Islam accepts.
U: “These are told to a certain extent to confirm the Prophet's standing as bearer of the message (I think), but not the main theme of the Quran. Ofcourse it must be decontextualized if that's what you mean. Could you possibly think anything else when you were harping on about how islam is a message to all humanity? If however you mean no actual context of meaning independent from the hadith ill tell u to go back and read. you should easily Discern what the context is.”
I didn’t say there was no context. There is textual context provided by the whole Koran. What the Hadith and Sira provide are the historical contexts, some portion of which mainstream scholars accept.
U:“Don't cheat, God likes not cheaters. Don't lie, God likes not liars. Don't Tyranize, God likes not Tyrants. Don't hypocritze, God likes not hypocrites. Pray, Fast, Pay your zakat and a lot of other things. These are basic contexts (which i probably didn't put 100% correctly I'm just jotting down thoughts for you here) that can easily be understood with hadith, sira, etc.”
Those are commands, propositions, not contexts.
U:“I gave u the ftina translation and demonstrated the difference. It literally means discord, discord between people and that doesnt prove your refutation”
1. No, you claimed that the translation of Pickthall, Shakir, Yusuf Ali, et al, were “wrong.” Not “off” but “wrong.” A single counterexample refutes it and you have not shown how “discord” is more accurate or meaningful in the context of 8:39, the example I provided.
2. I have already told you there are multiple meanings to the word fitnah in the Koran. If you don’t believe me, look them up in the Koran. This can be done easily on quranbrowser.
U:“don't tell me the verses said and give me numbers. NAMES of the soura because i simply don't understand these numbers, names of the Souras, numbers of the ayas.”
This is not a serious request. You are trying to screw around with us. Numerous sites have the list of sura numbers and names. If you have one you can get the other. Most people use numbers.
U:“Mohamed is merely the bearer of the message, but any command he gave was never wrong. He made personal mistakes of action but never when issuing a command. These mistakes were commented about in the Quoran.”
What about the commands re alcohol, which changed over time? Did Muhammad err or did Allah err? Or did one of them simply change his mind as circumstances change?
U: “but much of what u think he did he actually did not.”
Lol! Prove it without the hadith and Sira.
U:“even if he had (which he hadn't) Mohamed is the messenger not the message.”
33:21 says Muhammad is a fine example for Muslims to follow.
U:“You can only be certain of the context of the Quran if you adhere to the obvious messages of the Quran first. "Be good of heart, have mercy, forgive people." if you think in a good way you can see the context well.”
1. There is not full certainty about the Koran because the extra-Koranic sources needed to interpret it--as Muslims themselves admit--are probabilistic or uncertain, subject to human error, etc.
2. To find out what “good” means according to Islam, one must indeed read the whole Koran. For the specifics, they must turn to extra-Koranic sources because the Koran is too ambiguous.
Rule number one Khaybar. If you do not trust me, you do not ask questions of me. I am not attempting to "screw around" with anyone. Believe it, or forsake all your questions, after this post. My education did not include numbers and I WON'T use the internet for browsing the Koran, because anyone can put what they want unmonitored on the internet. If you have any hope that I will answer you upon a verse whose name is not mentioned you can get stuffed. Not because I'm indulging in a private battle of wills with you, but because I simply don't know otherwise. Names of Souras, numbers of ayas, AND if you can, numbers of which of the thirty parts. Is that too much to ask? I am taking unto myself the task of translating an entire text correctly for your benefit, and yet you hold up your nose at giving me its title of which I stand in need? Fortunately for both of us, I know the verse of which u speak and refer to as 90:1 though i dont understand how the numbers signify. God does not idolize Mecca in it. God is confirming its holiness, to the holders of the city who did not believe in him. They also believed its holy, and God is confirming that to them. That is a clear statement that the God that Mohamed tells people of claims the sacred area of Mecca as a spot made sacred by Him.However I am not fooled, and do not play me for a fool, i explained the context to you to prevent any readers from being misguided but ware this. I meant perfect linguisically and you understood that full well. it is you who are trying to play with me. Don't do it, or be more discreet about it I may not be experienced in all aspects of life but I recognize obvious deception.
"When we get the complete statements, even in the Meccan phase, they are coupled with a veiled threat that the disbelievers “will come to know.” (43:89). During the Meccan phase Muhammad is making numerous threats against the polytheists, reviling their gods, insulting their ancestors (i.e., who “had no sense”, etc.). The claim that Muhammad is only a messenger is not inconsistent with the fact that Muhammad is delivering messages in the form of orders to Muslims to carry out violence and killing. The claim that it is only God’s judgement is not inconsistent with the premise that Muhammad can relay God’s judgement and that Muslims are expected to take heed of the message and obey it, e.g., 4:80—to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah; making a pledge to Muhammad is making a pledge to Allah, 48:10, etc.
But the Koran states that disbelievers should be punished simply because they are disbelievers. Allah uses punishment in the afterlife, punishment in this world, and punishment through the hands of the believers who are acting in the way of Allah (9:14, 9:52, 8:17), when Allah tests them (47:31). It says if Allah did not use one set of people (meaning, believers) to check another set of people (disbelievers), then the world would be full of fasad (mischief/corruption) (2:251). Allah tries some people by means of others (6:53). Allah “brought down iron” (57:25) so that Muslims could implement “justice” on earth. If Muslims abandon the religion, Allah will replace them with believers who are struggling in his cause (5:54)."
I am sorely tempted to answer all that and some other verses you say you're quoting. based on my knowledge of these issues which i discussed many times before, however, as I am (if you will but bring yourself to believe it) ignorant of the exact context of these verses and uncertain of their refferences I will curb my temptation, until you provide me with an adequate refference. You mentioned "The corruption Of the earth" somewhere and I have looked again to see which ayas you meant and could not find it again so I'll just read the whole soura and post u the translation if that's alright with you. if You don't want to read the whole translated soura just copoy n paste the bit where u mentioned it (really sorry about this) and ill translate the parts you want.
And read my words carefully please, unworthy of your notice though they may be. Omar did not burn "Bad" Hadith. He burned every hadith he could lay his hands on. I never said the Prophet commanded the Hadith be burned. He commanded it not be recorded in the first place. It was recorded after his death. The burning of a huge pile of paper under these said conditions is an occurence and the literate of the city who wished to record the occurence did so. I will concede you the possibilty that no burning occured at all, and you, in turn, will concede me the possiblity that Hanibal didn't engage in battle with the Roman army. After all, did every soldier in Hanibal's army write about that? They were eye witnesses certainly but many of them couldn't read or right. Get a grip yourself brother. May I call you brother or does it annoy you? And unlike you, I don't make suggestions or implications. I wasn't not implicating that you are discarding history. I was stating it. I will give you one thing that could be in your favour and could be in mine. History can be forged, manipulated and re-written. Fact. Honest fact. use it well against me instead of resorting to implications.
"U:“Don't cheat, God likes not cheaters. Don't lie, God likes not liars. Don't Tyranize, God likes not Tyrants. Don't hypocritze, God likes not hypocrites. Pray, Fast, Pay your zakat and a lot of other things. These are basic contexts (which i probably didn't put 100% correctly I'm just jotting down thoughts for you here) that can easily be understood with hadith, sira, etc.”
Those are commands, propositions, not contexts."
A mistake. Though not an english teacher I can well recognize the definition of context. A context can be given in the form of a command, a proposition or summarized points (as these are). I repeat, play discreetly, or don't play at all, and take a break and be honest. Do you a world of Good believe me.
"A rejection of islam's right to be preached meant war. I see that as only fair.”
[Bolding added]. Define “Islam’s right to be preached”, define “Islam,” and how can an ideology have a “right"
"hence Islam regards them as thieves for taking away the Muslims’ source of revenue and labour). See Edmond Fagan, The Jihad or Holy "
Just as islam "regards" so can it also have "rights." :D. Play me not with words of you'll make this too long for both of us. Shall we agree that you become more direct? I have more demands to meet than yours you know, there is still Infidel Pride and Zonnie Kafir, so stick to your points and don't try to tickle me with your mind games.
you said it yourself, Khalifa's Koran, the minute he tampered with it is the minute it was distinguished as a tampered version. Khalifa's Version of The Koran is not the most common Version in arabic print, the original, unaltered version is the common one.
Sorry brothers but I really do have to sleep now. I will post the translation of the said soura today(by timing of the 24 hour clock) or tommorow. Yours exhaustedly.
Unrepentant.
Zonnie Kafir. You very nearly saw me damned, I was sorely tempted to post here before 12 am came.
"I am glad that you admit that they were slaves and that islam permits slavery. Many have here asserted that it does not allow this and they were loudly shouted down."
Don't put words into my mouth. Islam never said"unto yourselves take slaves" and quoth me not hadith and sira for I am weary of showing u invalidation. The women and children were not being punished. They were taken as slaves as was the custom of Arabian war, the others had they been victors, would have done the same. It was the custom of that region, a wrong one. What islam DID was bring rights to those who WERE captured, who were already slaves. When "Southern Plantaion Owners" in your beloved America had slaves, they owned its life. Did you know that? If a slave was killed by its owner there was no trial. Further, it was a slavery based on race, on a belief of superiority and inferiority. It was not so in islam. You could not kill a slave and walk untouched. That is how it was at some point at least but I daresay that with the growing arrogance of Khalifas who transformed the "Khilafa" (succession) into kingship that some of them might have bent laws for friends or family or etc, which is of course, islamically incorrect. It did not say "You may take more slaves unto yourselves", quite the opposite. The penalty for most sins was to release slaves until you had none left. Then consider other penalties. So releasing slaves was a priority in islam. Then Now in capital letters that we may get this over with. THERE IS NO ISLAMICALLY CORRECT WAY OF AQUIRING A SLAVE. THAT DEPENDED SOLELY ON THE CUSTOM OF A COMMUNITY, AND AS IT IS NOT CUSTOMARY IN ANY COMMUNITY NOW, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACQUIRE A SLAVE, ISLAMICALLY OR OTHERWISE LEGALLY.
And don't tell me "She was a prisoner so yes meant no." if You were my prisoner and you didn't like bread with food (assuming i fed u the proper amount of food) and I asked you, do you want bread? Would you say "Yes" when you want to say "no"? Get real, as long as no force is involved, of course a consent is valid. It is customary in eastern societies that the man pays a woman a dowry, and this money is supposed to be hers, not her fathers. It is the same for a slave girl. She was required to be payed a dowry, just like any married woman, and she was required to consent to any sexual activity. What was not required was that she be married to the man, and that is God's concern alone, the tie that ties man and woman. The things that concern us mortals is the consent of both sides to the arrangement. More's comming up soon, including the soura translation, though i have checked again and am begging to think I have read "The Corruption Of The Earth" somewhere else. Please confirm Khaybar.
By the way, I tried to figure out how your numbers work and simply decided to copy and paste to see if that is how it works (though I do not trust your quran browser and won't use it for my translation when I have names I need.) however I entered the number u refered to in a wife beating verse, read Sher Ali's translation. I see no beating in it. Chastisement is not beating. I didn't even take the effort to re-translate, I don't even know if its a correct translation or not, and yet, your browser disproves your own point. Implaed on your own sword sir :D?
Error in post before last "beggining to think"
unrepentant,
This conversation is going nowhere and you are just resorting to wild claims and false accusations.
Your statement about Sher Ali and the wife-beating verses is nonsense because you are implying that chastisement cannot be beating. Of course there are some minor variations in the wording. That is to be expected. That's why we use multiple translations instead of just one. As our rebuttal showed, tafsirs reveal the meaning of the verses. Now the verse 4:34 (which I cited), which refers to physical beating. That is confirmed by the hadith and by Islamic law. Now are you going to say all those scholars and jurists has misunderstood the Arabic of verse 4:34?
"I do not trust your quran browser and won't use it for my translation when I have names I need.)"
You are being paranoid (paper copies or internet copies may have mistakes such as typos here and there, but so what? We identify the mistakes when we catch them and move on. What makes you think your quran has no errors? Do you even have a Koran?!). If there are gross mistakes--not just difference in opinion or minor differences in meaning--then point them out. Otherwise there is no basis for what you are saying.
Either that or you are just trying to waste our time with this nonsense about the verse names and numbers.
Almost everyone cites numbers. It is a way of cooperating with others so that they can rapidly check up on a verse. Let me help you out, at the same time giving those few readers who might still be following this some references:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
(scroll down for Sura names with numbers)
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
(also has sura names)
http://www.mquran.org/index.php/content/section/1/2/
Ibn Kathir tafsir, has the Sura names with numbers
http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/koran.html
additional English translations, has sura names and numbers
http://www.quranbrowser.com/
ten translations, plus Arabic transliteration
Also click on “Sura Names” to see Sura names and numbers.
P.S. You have still not provided a source for your claim that Umar burned those papers, that the papers were sayings of the prophet, and that Muhammad's wishes were that such sayings should be destroyed (i.e., that Umar was not simply acting on his own whim). When I say "source," I mean cite me a reputable historian who has the evidence that this happened. I'd like to read about it from someone other than you. That is a basic requirement in any such discussion. I provide my sources (almost entirely the Islamic texts), you should provide yours.
You still have not addressed Infidel Pride's initial posts re Arabic translation, and Quran-only.
So the difference between telling someone off and beating them is nonsense? don't dismiss it with an "ofcourse their are minor differences..." There's nothing minor about such a difference.
let me tell you that part of my personal pride, and, I admit, arrogance is that I never need to resort to false accusations, or in effect, true accusations, or any reason whatsoever to express my dislike of someone. I have no dislike of you, or liking, I don't even know you. My accusations were levelled because I believed them to be true. I couldn't have an ulterior motive without knowing you. If they are not, then in your own celebrated requirements, answer to them and don't dismiss them.
Certainly I have a Koran!! A pretty cake I have been making of myself for the past few days an I had no Koran!! What sort of a muslim do you believe me to be exactly?
You gave me websites with names of suras I am grateful, but my Koran has an index already. I will be still more grateful if you explain this. does numberx:numbery signify number of soura:number of aya?
Part of the reason why the Quoran through reprinting over the years is that muslims like me ARE paranoid about it. A sample of the Koran Mushafs from the print print are checked, re-checked, and re-checked by several different readers ( so that tiredness does not consume one and has it checked wrong) before the Mushafs are sold. We don't say "so what?" about a typo error. it's not a small error to us, but a mistake.
I will provide you with the source of the actual burning occuring if I can find the book in my house or possibly my grandfather's. However, if I can prove that Omar did actually have the piles burned and DID actually state before witnesses that the reason he burned the papers is the reason I said, you will have to be satisfied with Omar's word. If he burned them according to a whim he would have said so. Omar was not a liar, and was far too powerful a man in the Islamic Empire to need to lie to anyone. He was not a liar as an infidel as far as i can learn and was certainly not a liar as a muslim as far as I believe. Like I said, most of what Mohamed said as hadeeth is impossible to prove, as it was said in "majales" kind of like meetings, and anyone can claim to have had a meeting with mohamed after mohamed died and say "mohamed told me thus." As far as I was taught in islamic studies at school, Bukhary made his "sahih" by asking several men who knew the prophet and were known not to lie, and who's sayings agreed with one another exactly by letter. Although I doubt the by letter part, my faith in normal men's memory being as it is, I will concede it possible. I will even be fair and say that Bukhary could easily have done all his recording honestly. However, Bukhary himself could have had his scripts manipulated in several ways. The fact that these men could have all re-iterated the prophet's sayings to the letter is in itself suspicious. Some of the men who knew they were going to be asked, and had simply never been caught lying before could easily meet and decide on what to be saying, once the word was out that Bukhary was inquiring. Assuming that every single one of them was truly honest, the script's of Bukhary are centuries old. How many men in different positions could have accessed these scripts over the centuries and slipped pages in and alterations? Many. Why this can't happen with the Koran? Why I believe there are no errors in the Koran? For a start, The Koran was written in Mohamed's lifetime and re-read in his presence, not recorded after his death. It was gathered into a single "Mushaf" after his death but not written after his death. But these reasons aren't enough, I admit it. We come to your experts of language. As I have said, not one of these experts will concede a grammatical error or weakness in the Koran, infact, many Arabic experts use it apart from religion as a refference source to grammatical correctness. Also, although many have tried, No one has been able to write verses(stories, poetry, prose, every type of writing, as you like it) as expressive, forceful, or in general, in anyway equal, to the Quoran in arabic. (this part is for Infidel Pride also) It is why those arabs who actually "listened" to the Koran, converted. When you hear you hear with your ears, when you listen, you open up your mind. They were amazed that such verses could come from the mouth of an illiterate, further, that the most accompished minds of their language, failed, (and the most accomplished and able minds in arabic are failing today.) to come up with something more forceful, balanced, and powerful in expression.
That is why My Koran is untouchable. That is why your Khalifa's fraud was instantly detected. Where the Koran is concerned there is no room for error. You will argue about human mistakes, etc ,etc ,etc, and I will tell you that the Koran is not human. It is The word of God. Not the instructions God gave us (like the bible written by the companions of Jesus) in human words. It is the ACTUAL word of God. The final word, the lasting miracle. That is why there is no error in it. If you can find any error in the Koran that is not sufficiently refuted I swear to you I have not heard of it. And yet bring it to me and I will cite you refutation if you can find it. I trust that satisfies why I say Koran Only? Now why only Arabic, even though it is a message to all mankind. No I didn't say only Arabic. I said only in Arabic can you fully comprehend Without continual refference to various Arabic translations, i.e. Without a sufficient competence in Arabic you are simply at the mercy of every translator. Like I said, the difference between blame and beating is huge. not a minor error of translation. This occurs because each translator has different perceptions. Why God chose to send this miracle in Arabic? My knowledge is as good as yours but I have a few better guesses I think. Arabs were tearing each other apart in tribal wars and corruption of morals and violation of honour. But there was one area in which they were truly great, an area unaffected by all this corruption. It was language. I am a fan of pre-islamic poetry which I find utterly fascinating, beautiful. So since theye were so corrupt, God chose them to have the final message, and since they were so accomplished in their language, God demonstrated a God's ability, The One God's ability, to surpass all their accomplishments, through the mouth of an illiterate. That is why I THINK Arabic was chosen.
"Let me make that a bit more clear.
Please show references in the qur'an which detail the crimes comitted by certain people at Khaybar against the muslims. This should also show that an attempt was made to settle things peacefully but the bani whoever refused to give up the perps nescesitating war. I will be most interested to see this and should you be able to provide it this will certainly alter my view of mohammad.
nabi ZK
Posted by: zonie kafir "
RE: The Quran isn't a story book about Mohamed's tribe and their era in Mecca and Medina.
And yes Khaybar, I am prepared to defy every single one of these scholars and say that the hadith cannot be blindly accepted, not bein God's word and thus, subject to mortal altering, Although if I knew for certain that Mohamed said something, yes, I would blindly take it, specially a command, since like you said, the Quran orders us to obey Mohamed.
By the way, if posting is closed here and u wish to continue u know where to find me, i have left my email often enough.
PS do i understand that u do not require a full translation of that soura? a huge relief if you don't
unrepentent
Yes x:y ==> Surah x; Ayat y
No, we don't want you to translate the whole surah when we ask for a verse.
Just take me surah 2 (al Baqara), and reconcile for me verses 193 and 256.
Infidel Pride. Thank you for the explanation (and the name, very helpful). In order to explain aya of 193 of sourat al baqara i muse translate starting from aya 190 till aya 193. In the name of Allah the merciful:
And fight (in the way of God/for the sake of God) Those fight you, and violate not, God does not (like/love) the violators(190)And kill them where you (find/perceive) them and out them from where they outed you and (discord/violent discord) is (severer/more severe) than murder, and don't fight them at the Holy Mosque until they fight you (in it/about it's posession/....), (so/but/and) if they fight you, kill them, such is the repayment of (unbelievers/infidels). (191) (so/but/and) if they cease then God is forgvingly merciful. (192) And fight them that (discord/violent discord) would not be, and becomes religion to God, (so if, but if, and if) they cease, then no (aggression/animosity/enemity) save upon the (tyrants/unfair) (193)
Now in the way of God could mean a moral code, for the sake of God could mean justice, since one of islam's names for God is not just "The Just" but "The Justice" or countless other things. The kill them were you find them is a continuation of the aya before is about those who started the fighting. You'll notice it also says in 192 that if they cease, God is forgivingly merciful, if they cease what? fighting and attacking unjustly. The other level is those who fight you at the holy mosque, these did not respect God's bar of no fighting (for/about) the mosque and so become infidels and their repayment for fighting in God's sacred areas is to be killed, and Yet if they cease the fighting then God could yet forgive them. further, in 193, your concern and my concern "And fight them that (discord/violent discord) would not be, and becomes religion to God, (so if, but if, and if) they cease, then no (aggression/animosity/enemity) save upon the (tyrants/unfair) (193)" like I said, discord is the right translation, because persecution is a one sided thing. Discord could be unfair treatment of someone from one religion, and he resents it and cheats and treats others equally unfairly in revenge unfairly, etc until a society is tearing itself apart and not growing or prospering, and it could be the outbreak of fighting between different factions of society and suppressed resentment on both sides as they grudgingly concede peace, and are soon fighting again. A direct command to fight so that this discord does not slowly sap the community of even more lives by murder and other things and ways, until religion becomes to God makes sense. Now I can understand your confusion about religion becomes to God. You think until they convert. Nay. Religion becoming to God is that each and every person has no rule or control over another's religion, that it becomes God's concern alone, who worships correctly and his reward, who worships incorrectly and his punishment. in simple children's logic (which simplifies extraordinary things and helps us understand them) If they fight you fight them back until you kill them or they stop, and muslims don't punish infidels for their religion, and infidels don't punich muslims for theirs.
Happy? I'll translate the next verse in a bit
PS and don't assume my translation is perfect, I'm only human. It's my explanation that's valid and I assure u I got no assistance from Hadith or Sira for it.
Certainly God promises infidels that "they shall know" not a veiled threat, a fact, and certainly an OPEN threat with God's punishment if they do not believe in God, however, it is not the place of a Muslim to punish an infidel. Just warn him of God's sayings. God punishing an infidel need not concern a muslim. All that concerns a muslim is fair treatment as a muslim, etc.
In the name of Allah The Merciful:
No compulsion in religion, Has been shown wisdom from folly, so who he disbelieves unfairness and believes in God, (thus/so) has (binded/linked) to the certain collar(circle/ring), no weakness to it, and God is a knowledgeable listener. (256)
What's the problem there? No compulsion in religion, should please you.
Typing error: disbelieves (IN) unfairness.
Some may interpret the arabic word as tyranny, falsity(stating that worshiping anything else but God is false) etc, and these interpretations I believe could be valid.
Khaybar. Now that I understand numbers I will answer your questions though they were rhetorical.
"Does reading the Koran in Arabic remove the wife-beating verse (4:34) and turn it into kiss your wife? No.
Does the command to slay the idolators wherever you find them (9:5) become hug the idolators wherever you find them? No.
Does the command to never help the disbelievers (28:86) become help the disbelievers? No.
Does the statement that those among the non-Muslims who reject Islam are the worst of created beings (98:6) change into the claim that disbelievers are wonderful in Allah’s sight? No.
Do the hundreds of statements condemning disbelievers to hell-fires for being disbelievers suddenly change to praising the disbelievers and awarding them paradise when we read Arabic? No. "
1- Now that I have looked in the Koran (My Koran) we will dispense with Sher Ali's translation, the word for people used to translate into "beating" DOES mean many different things in arabic, among them "repel, push, ignore, boycott, etc" as far as I know. I'm relatively competent in Arabic but I'm not a master, I'm not about to list you all the meanings.
2-Read from the beggining of the soura and you will understand "from the context" that the quoran is describing a war condition in that soura. So the slaying is conditinal to Muslims and Infidels AT WAR. like I said before, a famous way of discrediting a saying is by quoting just a part of it. As for the part of leaving them if they pray and pay zakat, it means that if one of the ways they wish to stop war is by declaring their islam then you have no option but to cease war even if you believe they are decieving you at heart, that is not for you to decide.
3-I have to go eat, I'll cover this when I'm done eating.
Done eating, now
3-it does not say do not help(as far as my understanding goes) but do not support, big difference.
4-The statement may mean what you said, I have never bothered to find what else it could have meant for a reason. It is God's concern not mine. They are the worst of human beings if that is what God said. Argue with Him.If you don't believe in God and his hell, that shouldn't trouble you, if you do but you don't believe he said that it is your choice not to believe him :S. why are you arguing that point with me?
5-Certainly non belivers are condemned to hell fire!! That is part of the theme of islam!! If you don't believe that then it need not trouble you. Your going to hell or to heaven is God's concern alone, and He alone decides weather you go to hell or heaven.
unrepentent,
1. Once again, you continue to avoid Infidel Pride's two initial posts re Arabic Translation and Quran-Only.
2. I recommend that you use the quranbrowser to search keywords such as corruption/mischief, which you could not find. I have a hard time believing you know the Koran as well as you imply, because there are many such verses that refer to corruption, corruption in the land/earth, spreading corruption, etc.
3. Chastise in English most generally means punish. Beating is a form of punishment; therefore beating can conceivably fit under the category of chastisement. Sher Ali like the other translators was probably embarrassed about the wife-beating verse and so tried to tone it down. (Yusuf Ali adds "lightly" in parenthesis). Toning it down to an English audience by adding a more general term than "beat" which has other implications, e.g., it could refer to non-violent punishment. The issue is settled by reading tafsir, reading the Hadith and Sira which refer to this incident (and there is no question whatsoever that it says beat as in physical beating). Now if you reject those sources that is fine with me but don't pretend that you have any way of resolving what meaning of "beat" is used there without those extra sources. You are guessing. The Quran is vague so people must guess at the meaning. But we are interested in what mainstream, canonical Islam states, and that gives permission to beat the wife "from whom you fear disobedience." Even if it were true that the verse didn't say beat as in physical beating, that would not be of much importance to us because mainstream Islam takes a certain interpretation of it and we oppose the policy; we are less concerned about linguistic or theological issues which have no significant bearing on real life today. We don't want the wives to be beaten; that is why we criticize Islam on this point.
Work to convince all the major schools, all the imams, and all the Muslim males around the world that the Koran says they cannot beat their wives, or else drop Islam and adopt a clear system that clearly states in unambigious terms principles which preclude anyone from beating their wife because they "fear disobedience" from her. If your book the Quran is so ambiguous that you must waste time enaging in arguing over what every word means, then it is useless. Get something clearer so that you can move on to important issues instead of trifling over linguistic minutiae while the world burns.
M-W dictionary.
"Main Entry: chas·tise
Pronunciation: (")chas-'tIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): chas·tised; chas·tis·ing
Etymology: Middle English chastisen, alteration of chasten
1 : to inflict punishment on (as by whipping)
2 : to censure severely : CASTIGATE
3 archaic : CHASTEN 2
synonym see PUNISH
- chas·tise·ment /(")chas-'tIz-m&nt also 'chas-t&z-/ noun
- chas·tis·er /(")chas-'tI-z&r/ noun"
Unrepentant (U),
U: "3-it does not say do not help(as far as my understanding goes) but do not support, big difference."
Not a big difference; anyways you are wrong because this sense of support in that verse means help, assist, etc. Support is help; again you are wasting our time with trifles and making something out of inconsequential differences.
28:86.
Pickthall “never be a helper to the disbelievers”
Yusuf Ali “lend not thou support in any way”
Sher Ali “so never be a helper”
Hilai Khan “So never be a supporter of”
Shakir, “be not a backer-up of the unbelievers”
As for your attempt once again to make a mountain out of a molehill, support and help have similar meanings.
Encarta:
"sup·port
transitive verb (past and past participle sup·port·ed, present participle sup·port·ing, 3rd person present singular sup·ports)Definition: 1. keep something or somebody stable: to keep something or somebody upright or in place, or prevent something or somebody from falling
Those pillars support the roof.
2. bear weight: to be strong enough to hold a particular object or weight in place without breaking or giving way
Are you sure the ice is thick enough to support our weight?
3. sustain somebody financially: to provide somebody with money and the other necessities of life over a period of time
She succeeds in supporting her family on what she earns.
4. give active help and encouragement: to give active help, encouragement, or money to somebody or something
We support the charity through voluntary work.
5. be in favor of something: to be in favor of something, e.g. a cause, policy, or organization, and wish to see it succeed
Do you support the committee's policy on membership fees?
6. be present and give encouragement: to give encouragement to somebody or something by being present at an event
Why not come along on Saturday and support the school team?
7. give assistance or comfort: to give assistance or comfort to somebody in difficulty or distress
He supported me throughout the crisis.
8. corroborate story: to give something greater credibility by being consistent with it or providing further evidence for it
There is further evidence that supports the defendant's claim.
9. enable something to live: to provide sufficient food and water or the appropriate conditions or facilities to enable people or animals to live or allow something to function
A better irrigation system would enable the area to support a larger population.
10. provide assistance with computer system: to provide technical advice and assistance to the users of a product, especially a computing system or package
11. comput permit use of software or devices: to be designed to allow something, e.g. a specific type of software, computer device, or programming language, to operate with it
This card cannot support parallel and serial ports.
12. performing arts play small role alongside somebody: to play a subsidiary role alongside an actor with a leading part in a play or movie
13. tolerate something: to put up with something unpleasant ( formal )
The Court will not support such behavior."
U: “4-The statement may mean what you said, I have never bothered to find what else it could have meant for a reason. It is God's concern not mine. They are the worst of human beings if that is what God said. Argue with Him.If you don't believe in God and his hell, that shouldn't trouble you, if you do but you don't believe he said that it is your choice not to believe him :S. why are you arguing that point with me?”
See? You blindly follow an opinion alleged to be “God’s” without thinking for yourself. Would a reasonable and just God punish people so violently--indeed the maximum punishment in Islam which is hell-fires/eternal torture--punish people for mere disbelief? Does that make any sense ot you? Who on earth punishes people for mere disbelief? It is only the tyrants and criminals who do this. If it is not right in the real world, why do you think it is okay in your Allah-Satan fantasy world? Don't you accept universal morality, or are you a relativist? Or merely an Islamic supremacist who does not give a damn about morality as long as the interests of imperialist totalitarian Islam are being served?
But many people who believe in a “God” do not believe that he/she/it would punish anyone for mere disbelief—yet there is no denying that that’s what the Koran says. It says disbelief is the worst sin/crime. For the record, for anyone who is still following this, here (below) is the verse which Unrepentant dismisses above as not his responsibility, even though it is his belief. Unrepetant thinks he doesn’t have to defend the verse at all. He is implying that he is not responsible for his own moral opinions.
Koran, 98:6. (Pickthall) “Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.”
What were you saying about racism and intolerance, Unrepetant? Clearly, Islam contains the quasi-racial notion of najis (9:28) whereby disbelievers are “unclean, filthy, etc.,” and because disbelief is the worst crime it is the worst form of uncleanness, filth, which is why the Koran says the disbelievers are the worst of created beings. Islam also contains elements of Arab cultural and genetic supremacism (e.g., Caliph must be Arab male, pref. of Quraysh tribe of Muhammad; Arabs (esp. Quraysh must rule over others [Sahih Bukhari] etc)), the latter making it a racist doctrine in the normal sense of the word racist. Clearly, Islam contains significant elements of linguistic, cultural, racial and quasi-racial supremacism.
U: “5-Certainly non belivers are condemned to hell fire!! That is part of the theme of islam!! If you don't believe that then it need not trouble you. Your going to hell or to heaven is God's concern alone, and He alone decides weather you go to hell or heaven.”
Thanks for the admission. You believe it is morally right that people should be burned and tortured for all eternity simply because they did not believe a bunch of ambiguous, incredible, immoral mumbo jumbo, i.e., Koran etc. (Hey, they are your beliefs, not mine. I’m criticising your beliefs, not mine). Glad that you are showing your true opinions on this point, because it is important for us to expose these immoral views in Islam’s core texts.
U: “And yes Khaybar, I am prepared to defy every single one of these scholars”
You may feel prepared, but it does not appear to me that you are prepared in terms of having your sources and your arguments lined up to show that your case is better than theirs. In the long run, in the larger perspective, you must convince those Muslims using sources that they will accept (Koran, which is too vague), not me.
Have I so cornered you that you must resort to repeating your points which i answered? I said, I have nothing against your using the phrase (extremist Muslims) as long as you don't generalize on Islam in General. what you're doing is an Academic Skills of writing error called circular argument. Knock it off. Don't generalize. You can say, "Extremist Muslims believe that....and then say whatever" period. As long as you continue to generalize I continue to protest.
As for your first point, I already DID answer it and I resent having to point that out to you, I'll just copy and paste again shall I?
"Like I said, most of what Mohamed said as hadeeth is impossible to prove, as it was said in "majales" kind of like meetings, and anyone can claim to have had a meeting with mohamed after mohamed died and say "mohamed told me thus." As far as I was taught in islamic studies at school, Bukhary made his "sahih" by asking several men who knew the prophet and were known not to lie, and who's sayings agreed with one another exactly by letter. Although I doubt the by letter part, my faith in normal men's memory being as it is, I will concede it possible. I will even be fair and say that Bukhary could easily have done all his recording honestly. However, Bukhary himself could have had his scripts manipulated in several ways. The fact that these men could have all re-iterated the prophet's sayings to the letter is in itself suspicious. Some of the men who knew they were going to be asked, and had simply never been caught lying before could easily meet and decide on what to be saying, once the word was out that Bukhary was inquiring. Assuming that every single one of them was truly honest, the script's of Bukhary are centuries old. How many men in different positions could have accessed these scripts over the centuries and slipped pages in and alterations? Many. Why this can't happen with the Koran? Why I believe there are no errors in the Koran? For a start, The Koran was written in Mohamed's lifetime and re-read in his presence, not recorded after his death. It was gathered into a single "Mushaf" after his death but not written after his death. But these reasons aren't enough, I admit it. We come to your experts of language. As I have said, not one of these experts will concede a grammatical error or weakness in the Koran, infact, many Arabic experts use it apart from religion as a refference source to grammatical correctness. Also, although many have tried, No one has been able to write verses(stories, poetry, prose, every type of writing, as you like it) as expressive, forceful, or in general, in anyway equal, to the Quoran in arabic. (this part is for Infidel Pride also) It is why those arabs who actually "listened" to the Koran, converted. When you hear you hear with your ears, when you listen, you open up your mind. They were amazed that such verses could come from the mouth of an illiterate, further, that the most accompished minds of their language, failed, (and the most accomplished and able minds in arabic are failing today.) to come up with something more forceful, balanced, and powerful in expression.
That is why My Koran is untouchable. That is why your Khalifa's fraud was instantly detected. Where the Koran is concerned there is no room for error. You will argue about human mistakes, etc ,etc ,etc, and I will tell you that the Koran is not human. It is The word of God. Not the instructions God gave us (like the bible written by the companions of Jesus) in human words. It is the ACTUAL word of God. The final word, the lasting miracle. That is why there is no error in it. If you can find any error in the Koran that is not sufficiently refuted I swear to you I have not heard of it. And yet bring it to me and I will cite you refutation if you can find it. I trust that satisfies why I say Koran Only? Now why only Arabic, even though it is a message to all mankind. No I didn't say only Arabic. I said only in Arabic can you fully comprehend Without continual refference to various Arabic translations, i.e. Without a sufficient competence in Arabic you are simply at the mercy of every translator. Like I said, the difference between blame and beating is huge. not a minor error of translation. This occurs because each translator has different perceptions. Why God chose to send this miracle in Arabic? My knowledge is as good as yours but I have a few better guesses I think. Arabs were tearing each other apart in tribal wars and corruption of morals and violation of honour. But there was one area in which they were truly great, an area unaffected by all this corruption. It was language. I am a fan of pre-islamic poetry which I find utterly fascinating, beautiful. So since theye were so corrupt, God chose them to have the final message, and since they were so accomplished in their language, God demonstrated a God's ability, The One God's ability, to surpass all their accomplishments, through the mouth of an illiterate. That is why I THINK Arabic was chosen."
Read.
The Quran is not vague, the Quran is demanding of thought. You don't need hadith and sira to think. Have I not just proved that through the two translations of the aya, and my instructing u to read the soura about slaying infidels from its beggining?
Quraysh has to rule.....this alone should make u realise how forged the sahih's can be. Was it not Quraish that was unfair to my Prophet, turned him from his own home, attempted to kill him, and started by waging war on him? was it not????
and about God condemning somebody to flames eternally, its not because u refuse to believe a bunch of bla di bla, it's because you refuse to believe in Him. Simple. God tells you, not just through islam, but through several other messages and prophets, I'm here, I, your maker, creator and lord( as such has every claim and right over you) command you to believe in me. You do not have to believe in me, or my punishment, but I warn you it is there, and if you do not believe then you need not fear the punishment until it comes.
And it IS my fault for not explaining to you about support I admit it. Support as in Back-Up. You can't back-up their idolation. ya get it? but islam commands you to help them certainly, part of that help is because (from the Quran's point of view, which I share) a Muslim is enlightened and an idolator no. Thus it is the duty of a muslim to pity those who do not see with their minds (but also to protect himself from them). If you want me to go back n translate it for u just ask.
so u can say "We do not agree with wife beating, tell those extremist muslims to stop" u can't say "every muslim believes the Quran to sanction wife beating."
Besides, what do u care if u view us as a bunch of long bearded fanatics who believe ur going to go to hell? as long as we treat you with proper respect as a human being and don't attack you in any way for your being non-muslim then you shouldn't give a d***. You should feel comfortable that we're all fools and think with a big smile on your face "I'm not going to hell when this is done with :D" You should only care when fanatics think they have every right to make ur life miserable for being non-muslim, or have every right to kill you, and I already clarified the point that this is not the case. Those who do not believe in the One God are God's concern alone. If you don't believe in Him just smile and shake your head and go "You poor misguided fools" and move on.
in a week or so I won't be able to talk to you guys that much by the way. I'm on leave for a bit right now, so any more questions, keep em logical.
And do u think I have not been fighting to convince extremists to understand islam more fully? do you not? But people like many on this website encourage people to more persecution of Muslims, and hold me back from my mission of arguing my points with extremists
Also, I don't agree with your taking 2:190-192, because this same verse also appears in al Anfal, verse 39. These 2 verses - 2:193 and 8:39 are identical, so you'd have to make it stand on its own.
PPPPPLllleeeeeaaasseee don't keep me at this that way. The meaning of one aya cannot be always understood without reading more ayas. like I told you, a famous way of discrediting a saying is by saying only part of it. Like I said, it's like a part of a paragraph or part of a sentence, no sense to be made until everything relevant is read. like this:
Scenario A) Kill them.
Scenario B) If they fight you, kill them.
Do you see the large difference? "A person who offers violence to me.....can only to me, be, my enemy" (Some dude I read something for, can;t remember his name)
So no it's not a contradiction. if you want I could translate 8:39 that's upsetting you, and some ayas around them, but I'm sure that if you read around the ayas before and after your said aya 39 you will comprehend the matter. if Not , post again, and I will translate for u myself. But know this of the Koran. You cannot take a verse without the verses linked.
and also there was nothing about compulsory religion in 2:193 I explained that. Till religion is for God means till religion is only God concerns and no mortal, infidel, muslim or otherwise, still thinks they have the right to interfere in one another's religion. THEN the fighting stops. that's how discord could be avoided.
Since I know arabic and you don't, you can't properly refute my words by just going " yeah, bla di bla di bloody bla." I invite you to start a life study in arabic, it can't hurt you, it doesnt have to be religious, if u have any interest in poetry arabic will be a beautiful experience for u, maybe even make u less irritating :D.
I already said:
""Let me make that a bit more clear.
Please show references in the qur'an which detail the crimes comitted by certain people at Khaybar against the muslims. This should also show that an attempt was made to settle things peacefully but the bani whoever refused to give up the perps nescesitating war. I will be most interested to see this and should you be able to provide it this will certainly alter my view of mohammad.
nabi ZK
Posted by: zonie kafir "
RE: The Quran isn't a story book about Mohamed's tribe and their era in Mecca and Medina."
If you don't trust what The Quran says of Mohamed and his good nature and justice after all the clarifying I have done, then to trust it you will have to learn the language yourself for nothing your convince u that I say. You have closed your heart to me, though I will not believe you are blind of my heart, that is between you and God (maybe u believe in Him maybe you don't but it's still between you and Him). If you don't believe the Quran saying Mohamed was fair, then u wont believe the Quran bringing details about Khaybar, which as far as I know it didn't. But the fact stands. You won't take the Quran's word for Mohamed being a good example for Muslims. Why will you accept the Qurans assurance that only the wanted men were executed? The only evidence you will find on that are different, conflicting and disagreeing sources, some with Mohamed said against him. I trust the best in my Prophet because me Quran says so. You need not.
type error: nothing WILL convince you*