Fresh pile of taqiyya, attempting to set the "record straight" about Islam once and for all from the Saudi Gazette. "Islam and concept of peace," by Dr. Ghulam Mursaleen for the Saudi Gazette, August 25:
According to Islamic belief, Allah’s original message that was received by Moses and later by Jesus over time had been distorted. Thus Muslims recognize the Torah and Gospel as a combination of original revelation but later human additions were made, such as the elevation of Jesus from Prophet to the son of God. Therefore, the Qur’an is the Islamic scripture, which was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from God through the Archangel Gabriel, to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the last or ‘seal’ of the Prophets and hence the Qur’an is the eternal, literal word of Allah preserved in Arabic language.Sure, if one overlooks the "sword verses" (e.g., 9:5 and 9:29), the doctrine of abrogation, which makes these verses supreme vis-a-vis the "peaceful" verses, the "pattern" of Muhammad's life (his sunna, which Sunnis are to emulate), and which consisted of violence and intolerance to all non-Muslims, the decrees and fatwas of Islam's most authoritative ulema, and sharia's division of the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb that must be in constant struggle until Islam prevails. Once we can move past these problematic "inconveniences," then we can safely say Islam is a religion of peace.The basic beliefs and tenets of the three beautiful and monotheistic religions are almost similar to each other as well as all the three are descendants of Abraham who worship the same God. However, I have taken this topic to counter the allegations that are being leveled against Islam and Muslims. Actually, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, which does not allow its followers to harm any one.
There are numerous verses in the Qur’an which emphasize peace, tolerance and tranquility while it strongly prohibits violence. The term Islam itself means peace and it is based on compassion, love, tolerance, gentleness and forgiveness whereas violence, aggression and cruelty are against its nature.So, added to Mursaleen's theological distortions, is this linguistic error: Islam means submission; "salaam," means "peace." Subtle but important distinction.
Muslims are made target of violence and terrorism in some places and they are themselves taking resort to violence and terrorism in some other places. Now, some questions arise in mind that in what circumstances Islam allows force and what are the Islamic ethics of war? When does use of force become terrorism and when does Islam allow terrorism in any situation? Can Muslims prevent violence against them by counter-violence?Oh, as in the famous hadith, where Muhammad proclaimed: "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Yes, surely nothing indicative of offensive warfare in that!There are many verses in the Qur’an and sayings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) which confirm that offensive force is strictly prohibited in Islam.
But there are also such cases in the Qur’an according to which violence could have been answered with violence but it was not done, (e.g., Qur’an, 5:27-32)What about the offensive wars for nothing short of land and domination that were launched by the four "righteous caliphs," and which took Islam to the heart of France to the west, and India to the east, in but a few decades? Was that also "defensive" in nature?
Permission for use of force that leads to loss of human life and property was granted in a very specific situation. It was the time when Muslims were living in Madina in the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the enemy targeted Muslims, attacked their land and some Muslims living in Makkah were also tortured, only then Allah permitted Muslims to use force against those who hurt them.This permission to fight was not an offensive war to occupy other people’s land but it was a war to defend Muslims and to prevent such attacks in the future. It was the time when the aggressors were not only attacking Muslims in Madina but they were targeting Muslims elsewhere too and forcing people not to accept Islam. Thus the purpose of fighting a war was to end aggression.
Hence, use of force to punish for crimes, or to defend Islam and Muslims or to fulfil Allah’s mission or to regain human freedom and right to choose one’s way of life, is permitted only to the extent that it is necessary. Otherwise, it becomes itself an act of tyranny and aggression, which is strictly forbidden by Islam. The Qur’an does not give people the right to take the law into their own hands. Islam also does not encourage violence in response to violence.And under what circumstances, pray tell, did Palestine become Muslim majority? By bloody Islamic conquest in the year 636.Violence and terrorism
Some individuals or groups who are living under the jurisdiction of any other authority or state and resorting to violence, their use of force will be characterized as terrorism. Terrorism is an act of killing the enemy’s men without discriminating between belligerent and non-belligerent. As a result, innocents, particularly children, women and elderly people lose their lives and their properties are destroyed. Islam strictly prohibits all these acts of violence because as mentioned earlier, there is no place for violence or terrorism in Islam.
But some Muslims have engaged in violence and try to justify their actions. Many people, who have very little knowledge of Islam and Muslims, think as if Islam fosters violence and terrorism. But, this is not the case. Islam, like all other religions of the world, neither supports nor sanctions illegitimate violence. It only permits Muslims in very specific cases to defend themselves, their families, religion and community from aggression.
Violence and the current situation
Now an attempt to examine Islam’s position on violence may be in the fitness of things. For this, the most hot and explosive issue of Palestine may be discussed very briefly and then the cases of American aggression in the name of combating terrorism.
Palestine had been a Muslim majority land, which was occupied and subjected by the Jews who have been unleashing violence and oppressing its inhabitants since 1948 and especially since 1967.
The occupiers are not willing to vacate the land despite the UN resolutions and international pressure. The Palestinians are living without a homeland. In view of the known fact and situation of Palestine, one may say that the defensive use of force should be permitted by Islam to the Palestinians to defend their rights.Key word: under -- as in, subdued dhimmis, according to Koran 9:29, and as recorded in history.As a religion, Islam does not put itself in an attitude of conflict towards other heavenly religions. It is a religion of peace and tolerance and has always advocated the cause of human rights, brotherhood, freedom and equality and hence Islam is a model religion for the development of pluralistic society in the modern age of globalization. An Islamic society is not formed of Muslims only, but of Muslims, Christians, Jews and people of other faiths living together under the rule of Islam.
Today, the world is striving for peace; but unless there is greater understanding among the followers of different religions there is very little hope for success.Now we get the famous conclusion that all these problems have nothing to do with Islam, but are "misunderstandings" -- since Islam, as opposed to any other religion, is the perpetually misunderstood faith, by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.Conclusion
There is a misconception that Islam and Muslims are a thereat [threat] to the world peace. But my argument is that all this misunderstanding about Islam and Muslims is simply because of lack of proper knowledge about Islam and its followers. As far as Muslims are concerned, they should understand this reality that violence is not at all a strategy to deal with Muslims’ issues and problems. It is only a mistake, a big mistake that Muslims must realize and abandon the path of deviation. They should instead follow the path of righteousness, wisdom, patience and tolerance.Because, the real weapons of Muslims are their Islamic character and their ideology in which they believe and which they want to communicate to the entire humanity. Since the Qur’an is a message of peace as well as a unique divine book – a source of guidance for the entire humanity, all people have an equal right to benefit from this eternal source of wisdom and guidance.
Islam and concept of peace
well, they convinced me! i think we should start building a mosque now!
The misconception of the believers in Islam is that islamic doctrine overrules reason, so anything that is not conform with Islam cannot be true or fact.
If Islam says that the world is a cube, then it is a cube, whatever evidence says.
Saudi, isn't he. No concept of truth or honesty. We have to teach that to managers visiting the magic kingdom. There is no trust, and no honesty. They think that saying it makes it true. Probably the most dishonest people in the middle east
Ha Ha i am bursting with laughter. Did i commit Blasphemy? Please dont lynch me and blow me to peices. Islam religion of "peace," "tolerance," and "pluralism", Let us confer the nobel price of peace to mohammed angel of peace. Takkiya doesnt work always, go and tell some Lunatic he will have no senses so he will believe this story.
Palestinians are living without a homeland."
Palestinians have a homeland - it's called JORDAN.
Palestinians were offered a SECOND HOMELAND, on the West Bank and in Gaza, and they turned it down.
If Palestinians are without a homeland, it's of their own volition.
Someone, please help me. I must not have my reading glasses on today. I read this:
Actually, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, which does not allow its followers to harm any one.
and then read this:
Islam also does not encourage violence in response to violence.
So, I'm not reading something correctly, right? If Islam doesn't allow its followers to harm anyone, then why say it also doesn't "encourage" its followers not to harm people?
And then:
Islam, like all other religions of the world, neither supports nor sanctions illegitimate violence. It only permits Muslims in very specific cases to defend themselves, their families, religion and community from aggression.
SO, now violence is permitted? I thought it wasn't. Whew!! Islam is very subtle. Much too subtle for me.
Since the Qur’an is a message of peace as well as a unique divine book – a source of guidance for the entire humanity, all people have an equal right to benefit from this eternal source of wisdom and guidance."
-- from the article above, quoting "Dr." Ghulam Mursaleen
And since all people "have an equal right to benefit" from the Message of Islam, we, the Believewrs, have a divine right to force it on them, as much as we can, by removing all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, by treating any opposition to such spread - including the laws and political instiutions of non-Muslims -- as acts of offensive warfare, to which we can respond in "self-defense," and, once Islam has triumphed, we can generously offer those who have an "equal right to benefit from this eternbal source of wisdom and guidance" three choices:
Death
Conversion
The permanent status, as dhimmis, of humiliatiion, degradation, and physical insecurity.
And even that option is available in theory only to "People of the Book" (ahl al-kitab, Christians and Jews) but, for practical reasons, in certain places and at certain times in the history of Muslim conquest. others -- including Zoroastrians in Persia and then Hindus (after tens of millions had been systematically killed) in the Indian subcontinent -- have had a kind of honorary dhimmi status and so managed to survive, with that same or worse humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.
But what's wrong with that?
Isn't it justified in order to make sure that as many people as possible "benefit from this eternal source of wisdom and guidance"?
Of course it is.
Islam strictly prohibits all these acts of violence because as mentioned earlier,there is no place for violence or terrorism in Islam.
Who ya gonna believe, this or your lying eyes?
The word Islam does mean peace if you look at it from the perspective of 8:39/9:29 and others...'Fight them until'...
'Until'...There is an assumption of victory...That eventually dar al -Islam will extinguish and absorb dar al-harb, then there will be peace. This peace requires submission first...Islam. There are no kufrs in Islams peace on Earth or Allahs paradise.
In the end, there are not even dhimmi's save a few slaves to do dishes and take out the garbage.
To never have to take out your own garbage...now there's peace...If Allah wills it, but of course he will, he always does...
Hmm, I'm going with my lying eyes........
One of the great tragedies for those who revere the "recitation" is that they have ignored its clear teaching. If they hold the words chosen to make up the "recitation" to be the very utterances of God, they must consider what those words teach. If the recitation declares, as it does in Sura 18:86, that the sun sets in a puddle/bog/swamp, then, based on what we have been allowed to observe, namely that the Earth is a sphere revolving around the Sun, then the message is clear - the "recitation" is declaring itself to be, in at least this case, metaphorical. Before the confirmation by circumnavigation of the Earth, previous generations could not understand the meaning of this verse. But, now, if true believers hold the "recitation" to be the very words of God, they must submit to what He has revealed. Or, they may choose the unwise course of emulating the Roman Catholic Church when it prosecuted Galileo for acknowledging scientific facts that can be confirmed empirically. If this passage is in the "recitation" to reveal rather than confound, will they submit to it? Perhaps, this pivotal verse is the key to understanding the rest. If it is metaphorical, and it must be or else the "recitation" must contain factual error, how can they know that the rest is not metaphorical? Submission is submission.
How many heads did the Saudi's cut off this past year because of the violation of Islamic law? Religion of peace, ridiculous.
The needle on a certain meter just wrapped around and broke.
When the pile of violent "in the name of Islam" outcasts begins to grow, I'll start believing Muhammed's Islam is peaceful.
Until then, the evil actions of Muhammed's Islam speaks for themselves.
"The basic beliefs and tenets of the three beautiful and monotheistic religions are almost similar to each other as well as all the three are descendants of Abraham who worship the same God."
Why are the Churches prohibited in Saudi Arabia, or nearly impossible to build a new Church in any Islamic country including Turkey and Egypt?
The Palestinians are living without a homeland.
The moment the Palestinians stop the worthless Islamic violence, Israelis will most probably treat them like brothers and sisters. It is really up to the Molims to stop preaching violence in their places of worship and homes on the dinner tables.
As a religion, Islam does not put itself in an attitude of conflict towards other heavenly religions. It is a religion of peace and tolerance and has always advocated the cause of human rights, brotherhood, freedom and equality..
This is seriously amazing! How many Molims take to the streets spewing hate and intolerance every Friday after so called ROP prayer service?
?other heavenly religions ?
"An Islamic society is not formed of Muslims only, but of Muslims, Christians, Jews and people of other faiths living together under the rule of Islam."
I think the key words here are "under the rule".These words bring images of total domination. Who does this guy think he's fooling?
I sometimes wonder if there's a problem in translation, or if they think we don't know the meanings of our own English words well enough to decipher a verbal threat. Or, even worse, are they so brainwashed by their own dogma that the words have lost real meaning for them no matter what language or translation is used?
the day that mecca and medina fall will free the world of islam, as they will not have a place to pray, the sowdis are cleaver by putting out their lies. enough time will pass and more western people will come to know the lies of sowdis and their minions.
A thousand blessings on the head of George Orwell.
His discussion of 'newspeak', in '1984', should be required reading in every kafir high school; right alongside a study of Jacques Ellul's 'Propaganda', and an examination, guided by the likes of Raymond Ibrahim, of the phenomenon of taqiyya and kitman.
I wonder whether, in the famous hadith about Mohammed, where he describes his mission and modus operandi,
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand"
the line about being given 'the shortest expressions with the widest meanings' is, in fact, an oblique reference to the way in which Islam uses, and has always used, language...to deceive.
Ibn Ishaq puts it a little differently:
Ishaq: 326 - “Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’
"Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’
Note well: "I was given the most powerful words". This too could be a reference to the use of language to deceive; language as weapon.
Now let's remember, one more time, as we reflect on the doubletalk of this Saudi writer and his discussion of the 'permission to fight', that ALL resistance to the dominance of Muslims, ALL refusal to submit to Islam/ Arab despotism, may be regarded by Muslims as oppression and persecution, as an attack on Islam, and therefore as a sufficient casus belli.
Sez 'Dr Mursaleen': "This permission to fight was not an offensive war to occupy other people’s land but it was a war to defend Muslims and to prevent such attacks in the future. It was the time when the aggressors were not only attacking Muslims in Madina but they were targeting Muslims elsewhere too and forcing people not to accept Islam. Thus the purpose of fighting a war was to end aggression."
Compare the loci classici of Muslim expediency, Qur'an 2: 191 -
"Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage...".[Dawood translation]
or Yusuf Ali:
'And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter...".
and 2: 217 -
"They ask you about the sacred month [in which fighting was forbidden, in pre-Islamic Arabia]. Say: 'To fight in this month is a grave offence; but to debar others from the path of Allah, to deny him and to expel his worshippers from the holy mosque, is far more grave in his sight. Idolatry is worse than carnage".[Dawood translation]
Yusuf Ali reads:
"They ask you concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say, 'Fighting therein is a grave (offence), but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter'.
Mr Spencer discusses 2:217 in his discussion of the Nakhla raid in 'Truth About Muhammad', pp. 97-99 and in 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades', pp. 5-7.
Mr Spencer observes (p 7) that "this was a momentous revelation, for it led to an Islamic principle that has had repercussions throughout the ages.
"Good became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, regardless of whether it violated moral or other laws.
"The moral absolutes enshrined in the Ten Commandments, and other teachings of the great religions that preceded Islam, were swept aside in favour of the overarching principle of expediency".
DDoresarmy - I think you're right about the "shortest expressions with the wildest meanings."
There seems to be no other possible reason for them to continue to lie to the world and even to themselves. They have given themselves a "divine" right to lie. It's just hard to fathom, for a person who has grown up with the right, and encouragement, to question. It's almost as if millions of people have decided to be "in denial" about the basis of their "faith" and the rest of us are being told, more and often, to keep quiet about it, to stay out it, to let them live in their denial, and to even enable them in their mass delusion. Unfortunately, a major facet of their delusion includes our own demise.
By way of an antidote to the slippery lies entwined within lies of Dr Mursaleen, let's hear two great men of the Western world - the 17th century Scottish philosopher David Hume and the 19th century American statesman and relentless opponent of slavery, John Quincy Adams - giving *their* informed and commonsensical judgement upon the ethics and politics of Islam.
David Hume first, courtesy of a poster here some time ago who did a little quiet research and found this gem which shows that Hume saw exactly what Mr Spencer described, above - that for Islam the only 'good' is whatever benefits Islam, i.e. whatever benefits Muslim power and profit. I will include the name and source of the original poster.
"But would we know, whether the pretended prophet [Mohammed] had really attained a just sentiment of morals?
"Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society.
" No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers."
David Hume (1711-1776) "Of the Standard of Taste: Paragraph 4" (1757) http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume%20on%20taste.htm#p4
- Posted by: Rublev at September 4, 2004 1:17 PM
And from John Quincy Adams, 1829, this splendid paragraph, which deserves to be translated into any number of languages and learned off by heart by every high school child in the entire free non-Muslim world, as well as by every kafir politician, general, diplomat and businessman who may have the displeasure of having to deal with the rulers and representatives of Muslim polities:
"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
"The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute;
"the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace;
"and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat:
"but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective.
"The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force".
Abject apologies, my friends - I should have proofread what I wrote - David Hume is 18TH-CENTURY, not '17th century'.
I thought "islam" meant "submission"--not "peace."
It seems that there is a significant difference between the two. Another spin.
Islam is submission or downgrading to inferiorism. Islam is downgrading from freedom opression. This is what makes Muslims bitter, they are opressed and they cannot stand the west becasue it is land of freedom. Muslims cannot escalate themelves to where we are so they would rather drag us down into submission. Submission to opression. If you take out the Islam from Europe, Europe is a peaceful place. The Middle East is Dar Al Suicide Bombing and they are trying to export their terrorism to Europe and the West.