Here is a stunningly frank account -- by a Muslim, in a stridently pro-Islamic paper -- of Islamic scholars' changing their answers on religious questions based on whether the question is presented publicly or privately. That a supposed moral "truth" can depend upon the audience speaks volumes about the pitfalls of "interfaith dialogue," and ultimately confirms something we have seen time and time again from Islamic apologists. "A source of mercy," by Samir Al-Saadi for Arab News, July 3:
JEDDAH: A wise man once told me, “If you want to ask a scholar a question whisper it in his ear to get an accurate answer. If you do it in public there is a chance you might get a different answer.”
Hadi Fakeeh, a journalist for Al-Hayat newspaper, recently asked Sheikh Abdul Mohsin Al-Obaikan, a prominent Saudi scholar, a question relating to the mixing of genders in Islam.
The question was asked on the sidelines of the Seventh National Dialogue.
Sheikh Al-Obaikan, who is also a member of the Kingdom’s Higher Religious Committee, replied that not every form of mixing is forbidden. Only if there is “fitna” (strife), citing that there is mixing at the Holy Mosques in Makkah and Madinah, and in the Kingdom’s malls.
He added that Shariah does not ban “intermingling,” it only bans “Khalwa,” which is when a man and a woman are in a state of isolation away from other people.
“In the workplace, if there is a number (of people, more than one) and the woman is wearing a Hijab, then this is not considered Khalwa,” said Sheikh Al-Obaikan.
Fakeeh reproduced the comments in an article. However, Sheikh Al-Obaikan retracted his comments calling the report a fabrication.
“Luckily for me, I taped the entire conversation,” Fakeeh told Arab News. He further provided a copy of the recording.
When asked why Sheikh Al-Obaikan retracted his comment, Fakeeh said this is something for the Sheikh to answer. “He needs to obtain the courage to do so,” he said, hinting that the sheikh may have been pressured to retract his comments.
Meanwhile, Sheikh Al-Obaikan gave a slightly different statement on mixing when he addressed the audience at the Seventh National Dialogue in April. He said Shariah does not prevent women from working, as long as they do not mix with unrelated men. “We have to understand that the basic duty of women is to remain at home and look after the children,” he said.
He further called for the establishment of separate women’s sections at companies and offices — a position shared by the majority of scholars here. When contacted by Arab News on the issue, Al-Obaikan stood by his retraction, adding that he has filed a lawsuit against Al-Hayat.
“It is forbidden for women to work with men in the workplace,” he said, adding that he has not retracted his comments.
Sheikh Al-Obaikan said that he previously issued three other religious edicts, which he stands by even though they attracted enormous public criticism. One was regarding the legality of using magic to undo spells when all other means do not work, the second fatwa was the legality of women traveling outside or inside the Kingdom without a legal guardian (mahram), the third was regarding the permissibility of insurance.
Speaking about the criticism his edicts have attracted, Sheikh Al-Obaikan said, “I see that I am right and they are wrong on this… I base my rulings on correct Shariah evidence.”
He added that there is nothing wrong with women working in the market and interacting with male customers because contact is for only a few minutes and in the eye of the public.
“But in modern workplaces, they interact for longer hours, something that results in fitna,” he said, adding that there are numerous examples that prove this. “Companies should follow banks in opening separate female sections,” he added.
In response to a question whether it was true that scholars reply differently when speaking in private, he said, “In some cases fatwas are better not mentioned in public. For example, those that deal with marriage have to discuss a personal issue, which is unsuitable for other listeners. It is suggested that they deal with these subjects on the side with the person concerned to avoid embarrassment.”
He added that fatwas are the same and do not change according to the number of people listening or where it is being given.
Commenting on the intermingling of the sexes, Sheikh Abdul Aziz, a Saudi scholar who asked his full name not be published, said people in the Kingdom have lived with dignity and in happiness for centuries. “So what is the problem now? Countries are facing tremendous problems due to the mixing of the genders. The problems that we see today stem from allowing un-Islamic behavior to penetrate our societies,” he said.
When asked why a scholar may change a statement depending on whether he is speaking in public or private, Sheikh Abdul Aziz said, “It is the scholar’s duty to reply to questions, answers should be given from the Qur’an and Sunnah.”
He added that hospitals should avoid the mixing of men and women, and that there is no problem in opening women-only hospitals.
Mushari Al-Thayedi, an Islamic researcher and journalist with Arab News’ sister publication Asharq Al-Awsat, said, “Throughout Islamic history, some scholars in some cases have made different statements when speaking in public. They then say something else when speaking individually.” He added, “The change is due to several reasons — this includes wisdom to avoid misinterpretation, or fitna, or directives from the state.”
“In principle, a correct religious ruling is made for everyone. In public, sheikhs take into consideration the fact that they are speaking to a general audience, which includes the educated and non-educated. On a one-to-one basis, scholars are able to clarify issues to avoid misunderstandings by giving more explanations. It is not an organized process. It can be a whole different answer.”
Al-Thayedi believes Sheikh Al-Obaikan retracted his comment due to pressure from the general public and other religious scholars. “This is not the first case when a prominent scholar has backed out from a statement. Sheikh Abdullah Al-Mutlaq retracted a statement he had made two years ago when he said there was nothing wrong in a woman not covering her face,” said Al-Thayedi, adding that the sheikh retracted his statement due to public pressure.
Isn't this behavior, or theprinciple that underlies of it, of justifying the Janus-faced simply the principle behind taqiyya, the religiously-sanctioned dissimulation that has its roots in the Shi'a desire to avoid persecution or even murder by Sunnis, and kitman, the "mental reservation" according to which Muslims "hold back" from revealing their full views.
When, I wonder, will it dawn on them that truth is meaningless if you have to lie to hide what it is.
Sheikh Al-Obaikan said that he previously issued three other religious edicts.... One was regarding the legality of using magic to undo spells when all other means do not work....
Sony and/or Panasonic are missing a big market here. They should come out with compact, portable spell-checkers. I suggest two versions: the simpler one would simply check for spells, in a given place or attached to a certain object; the deluxe model would do that but also would actually check the spell, in the sense of blocking or neutralizing it. They'd sell millions in the Islamic countries.
Also, congratulations to our saboteur-squirrels for their fine work spreading spells. Originally introduced into Iran last year, I see they have reached Arabia and are keeping the mullahs busy there. I expect more teams of them to be sent soon to other Islamic wonderlands like Pakistan and Sudan.
A big question for me is: where does this sheikh expect these policies to be implemented? If he wants to open women-only workplaces or hospitals in a Muslim country, that's okay by me.
If he wants to change my way of life to suit him even though I have never been and will never be a Muslim (practicing or in name only) I have a beef.
“It is forbidden for women to work with men in the workplace,” he said, adding that he has not retracted his comments.
So either stay out of the workplace or open your own companies for women. You realize you would be required to hire women of all races and religions. Don't force the rest of us to segregate the sexes just for you.
He added that hospitals should avoid the mixing of men and women, and that there is no problem in opening women-only hospitals.
I see a huge problem but far be it from me to "impose my values" on Muslims, as long as they don't try to do the same to me.
The problem is they already are.
Muslims regard pigs as unclean so any greeting card with a pig on it is considered offensive. Will greeting card companies stop offering them so as to avoid offending any Muslims who might be browsing?
How long before bacon and other pork dishes are taken off restaurant menus so as to avoid offending Muslim patrons or creating a hostile work environment for Muslim employees?
Scottish Muslims were outraged over the postcards they received from local police. The cards were sent out to the community to notify everyone of a new telephone number for non-emergency calls. The Muslims took offense because the cards showed a young police dog in training. Why? Because Muslims consider dogs unclean. So that means the rest of the population must give up its heritage in order not to offend Muslims.
Be prepared for prohibition. Alcohol is banned in Islam. How long before a liquor store is deemed offensive?
We think none of this can happen in the West. We're wrong.
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2008/07/scottish-muslims-flip-out-over-rebel.html
Sheikh Abdullah Al-Mutlaq retracted a statement he had made two years ago when he said there was nothing wrong in a woman not covering her face,” said Al-Thayedi, adding that the sheikh retracted his statement due to public pressure.
..........................
"Due to public pressure"? Well, this is a man of conviction.
And Al-Thayedi doesn't even address the issue of being truthful when speaking to infidels, where one would assume the bar is even lower.
But then, look at the over-all tenor of Al-Obaikan's discourse:
"Sheikh Al-Obaikan said that he previously issued three other religious edicts, which he stands by even though they attracted enormous public criticism. One was regarding the legality of using magic to undo spells when all other means do not work, the second fatwa was the legality of women traveling outside or inside the Kingdom without a legal guardian (mahram), the third was regarding the permissibility of insurance.
..................
Women have traveled by themselves in the West for centuries, and any prudent person who can afford to buys insurance. It is the first "issue", though, that catches the eye--these are people who still believe in evil magic, which tells you a lot.
A woman was recently convicted of witchcraft in Saudi Arabia.
These are people for whom reason and logic--including the making of consistent statement--mean nothing.
Here's the link:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019957.php
He sounds,unfortunatley, like a certain US presidential candidate with the flipflops.
Obaikan isn't the same guy I knew last year.
Montjoie
Godfrey Boullion
Kashmiri muslims may have joined Al Qaeda
http://timesnow.tv/Newsdtls.aspx?NewsID=10890
Confirming TIMES NOW's Special Report on indigenous Kashmiris joining the Al Qaeda. Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor has said that he did not rule out the presence of Kashmiris in the terrorist organisation.
TIMES NOW had accessed a confidential army report confirming for the first time that Jammu and Kashmir is facing a threat from groups of Kashmiri youth trained by Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
The report also said that the Kashmiri Qaeda and Taliban cadre are being assisted by Pak's intelligence agency the ISI to carry out terror strikes on Indian soil.
The Army Chief has now gone on to confirm your channel's report saying categorically that he didn't rule out the possibility of indigenous Kashmiris having joined the al qaeda.
At a press conference on the Kashmir issue, when quizzed about the report, Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor confrimed the contents and said, "I dont think I'd like to rule out the possibility of the presence of Kashmiris in the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda. It is based on a certain amount for fundamental criticism and a certain amount of Jehadist tendency for which they are trying to do some kind of Jehad wherever they go. So that possibility can never be overlooked." General Deepak Kapoor also added that there is also a possibility of militants belonging to foriegn origin being part of the terrorist organisation.
With the elections just around the corner there is a possibility of militants creating trouble. This fact was confirmed by Gen Deepak Kapoor who said thats the army is indeed expecting militants to create trouble just before the elections in an attempt to disrupt them.
Yesterday 11 infiltrators were caught and gunned down. This is a definite sign that militants have been entering India.
17 Indians onboard ship captured by Iran
http://timesnow.tv/Newsdtls.aspx?NewsID=10921
Iranian authorities have seized four Saudi fishing vessels crewed by 17 Indian nationals in territorial waters near its first nuclear power plant. The boats were seized around 30 nautical miles from the Bushehr nuclear plant, off Iran's coast - which is being completed by a Russian firm and is due to go online later this year.
Speaking to an Iranian news agency, Bushehr province's police commander confirmed the news saying "The Bushehr marine police sized four foreign fishing vessels for violating territorial waters and illegal fishing. The vessels belong to Saudi Arabia and all the 17 crew on board are Indian nationals".
Highly placed government sources have told Times Now - that if those captured are confirmed to be Indian nationals and have accidentally sailed into Iranian waters - then the Indian government will effort to ensure their release.
The Islamic Republic takes serious action against any illegal entry into its territorial waters. In March 2007, Iranian naval forces seized 15 British sailors and marines in the Gulf claiming they had entered Iran's territorial waters. However, Britain insisted that they had been engaged in anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi waters. The group was freed after two weeks in captivity.
One should not use the word 'scholar' when writing about these fools, perhaps witch doctor or shaman would be more appropriate.
"Meanwhile, Sheikh Al-Obaikan gave a slightly different statement on mixing when he addressed the audience at the Seventh National Dialogue in April. He said Shariah does not prevent women from working, as long as they do not mix with unrelated men. “We have to understand that the basic duty of women is to remain at home and look after the children,” he said."
hahahaha - I guess having the women suckle all the men she would work with would just... wear her out! Because that is the only way she can be in the same area with these men - according to them! hahahahaha They didn't mention that part! Can you imagine the men lining up to be in her presence if that little known fact was let out!!!??!! hahahaha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQd1CRBQs0
ya gotta watch this video!
And the muslims are the ones who tell us that WE are depraved! We are the ones who have laws to take care of rapists, etc - they do not - if the woman doesn't have 4 witnesses. Gee, how many rapists bring along company so they can tattle on them?
The more I read about Sharia the more it seems to me to be an elaborate way to imprison the mind. There is an inner twisted logic to it but it's so crushing to human initiative and freedom. Why would any sensible person want to accept it? But then why would any sensible person want to have anything to do with Islam?
All of the above was just written by a proud beer-drinking, America-loving kuffaar (me) who ain't ever gonna' go the Muslim route on anything. Enough said.
If there is any wonder why Muslims and Rugs go so well together, it is because they Lie so well.
But if women and men work together in the office, all's they need to do is have the man suck on the woman's bare breasts, and then, presto, it is permissible to work together.
Why do I get the impression that Allah, who makes up these rules, wears a ripped tanktop t-shirt that doesn't quite cover his hairy belly, carries a six-pack wherever he goes, scratches himself, and belches?
As a woman I would just like to say....GRRRRRRR!!!
Seconding Hugh.
And let's reflect on these observations by Nonie Darwish, from 2007, at Berkeley University.
"On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions
1- Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam. 2- Lying to Muslims if it will end conflict between them.
And
3rd: Lying to one’s wife to improve the relationship.
'Lying thus has become an obligation in international relationships, Muslim relationships and family relationships.
'Any wonder why Muslims were silent after 9/11?
'Those who expose the lying game are considered traitors.
'By allowing lying, Muslims have created a culture unable to distinguish between lies from truth; truth has become a convoluted game of saving face for the best interest of Islam."
They lie to each other. They lie to us. They lie even to themselves. And their religion allows and encourages them to do it - in every imaginable way, as illustrated by the posted article. The whole thing is a game of lies;it may be that many have passed, terribly, beyond a point where any conception of an objective truth, of 'That Which Is', of either truth or troth, has any meaning for them.
Over the gates of the Empire of Islam one should, perhaps, write the same words that Virgil speaks to Dante before they enter Hell:
Noi siam venuti al loco ov'io t'ho detto
che tu vedrai le genti dolorose
c'hanno perduto il ben de l'intelletto [Canto III: 16-18].
D L Sayers translated it:
'We've reached the place I told thee to expect
where thou shouldst see the miserable race,
those who have lost the good of intellect.'
PMK [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 3, 2008 10:42 AM
"...Scottish Muslims were outraged over the postcards they received from local police. The cards were sent out to the community to notify everyone of a new telephone number for non-emergency calls. The Muslims took offense because the cards showed a young police dog in training. Why? Because Muslims consider dogs unclean. So that means the rest of the population must give up its heritage in order not to offend Muslims. ..."
My response: Hide behind a tree and yell "HEY MUSLIM! there is an unbeliever hiding behind me"
When the Muslim comes over give him a copy of the advertisement - attached to a very large rock.
Wellington, I think that people like being led. Why else would islam be so pervasive? And look at communism - once they kicked out/killed the Christians or at least get them under control - things go into stagnation.
The thing that gets me is that, for example, when thugs like Stalin, or Mao, etc came to be - there were so many so willing to just kill for these creeps. In the case of mohammed, it took awhile to build up a force big enough to attack others. And the difference with them is that they mixed religion in with their fascism. But, once the ones willing to do the killing got it all straightened out what they are to do - they do it. This is what gets me. Their own (mostly the boys) sons and daughters are willing to kill their own for some thug who should either be ignored or he be the one who is shot.
I guess I am over simplifying it. I understand that there is a progression within the power structure and by the time these megalomaniacs get the right amount of power - people are already brain dead. In some cases (not mohammed's case though) the people were starving, or going through some pretty bad times, and I suppose hoping that the thug will help them out.
But, look at how they twist history. Right now I am blogging with muslims - they are on a Catholic website doing their da'wa and I am not letting them get away with their fairy tales of history and life! But their viewpoints make my brain go into jelly. And every, single time - the threads get shut down because they are not able to handle what their own koran says and what their own mohammed did, and what their own history is about. Every, single time!
There are even ex-muslims refuting what the muslims say - and the muslims just keep in lock step, marching forward, with their eye's glazed and their arm raised (picture the Hitler marches - that is what they seem like to me - dazed zombies just mouthing the same thing over and over again).
Oh well, I still think that people like 'sleeping' and it takes a lot to rouse them up and in many cases we are witnessing many countries being taken over and the population never really rises up and stops the forward march of the zombie-muslim hordes.