Here, once again, is an example of the flaws of Islamic apologetics, and why it's so easy to dismantle them: "What Does Islam Say about Terrorism," from Pakistan Daily, September 26:
A look at the various principles of Islam which show that Islam is truly a mercy to the world, and the indiscriminate violence and terrorism is not condoned by the religion.Let's see if the following proofs support this rather categorical statement.
Islam, a religion of mercy, does not permit terrorism. In the Quran, God has said:Now, let's invert 60:8 to 8:60 and see what the Quran says there:"Muster against them what fighting men and steeds of war you can, in order to strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy." So, making the argument from the Quran is obviously out.“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.” (Quran 60:8)
The Prophet Muhammad, may God praise him, used to prohibit soldiers from killing women and children...As for all that, when asked if it was permissible to indiscriminately attack infidel strongholds in the cover of night, including setting fire to their fortifications and using catapults against them, even if women and children were sheltered there, Muhammad is said to have responded, "They [women and children] are from among them [infidels, i.e., the enemy]" and thus allowed the attacks, where women and children were killed; from the canonical hadiths of Sahih ("authenticated") Muslim B19N4321.
In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims.
As we've seen, they are not; for every point this article raises and tries justifying from the sources, there are any number of counterpoints also from the same sources. Indeed, al-Qaeda justifies much of its actions -- terrorism, the killing of women and children when they are in the way -- straight from those counterpoints provided above. At any rate, the dividing line isn't what any one Quranic verse says, but rather how it has been articulated by the ulema and codified into sharia. And to discover this, the doctrine of abrogation is pivotal. While such one-dimensional works of apologetics such as this may suffice for the casual reader, those more acquainted with the religion -- Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- will always see right through them.
To confuse and counteract the bloody history and continued massacre of non Muslims by Islam and Mohammedans, Muslims continue to use taqiya and keep on killing. Yes they just keep on Killing infidels. I feel really angry because it is the ordinary non Muslims who pay the price and not to forget the Men and Women in uniform fighting for a cause that the top brass has whitewashed and obfuscated inorder to appease the UMMAH and the UN.
...which is not nearly the same as saying Allah requires that same mercy to and just dealing with infidels. Quite different, indeed.
say this again and again. interfaith folk just don't BELIEVE this. seems they think it only a minor detail of praxis which can be corrected. interfaith folk just don't BELIEVE this doctrine is used to achieve SUPREMACY for the benefit of the mosque, supposedly to please Allah, save the adherant from Hellfire.
If someone tells a person on Monday that he loves him with all his heart but on Thursday says to that same person that he wants to rip that person's heart out of his body and watch him die, only to repeat these respective statements on many succeeding Mondays and Thursdays, I hardly think the person spoken to will only focus on what was said to him on Mondays. So should the same kind of scrutiny be given by any sensible person to the Islamic faith and to those who propagandize and make excuses for it, be they Muslims or unwitting dhimmi apologists.
From what I have read and learned, I'm not seeing that the Islamic apologetical claim here is unsound or is properly refuted. What's being claimed in this apologetical advocacy does indeed seem to be the standard, conteimporary, mainstream Islamic orthodox position on such matters, as formulated by figures such as Mohammed Abduh and Mahmud Shaltout, and has been espoused now by any number of prominent thinkers, jurists, and theologians. They seem to have provided proper, or at least plausible, exegesis for such views, such as what can be found in Shaltout's treatsie on Quran and Jihad.
Rather than looking at naskh, it appears to me that the multiplicity of levels that ijtihad can function on has been the key to Islamic development on such topics. That the distinctions among the gradations of ijtihad appear to have been all but ignored on this site, I think, has fostered an excessively truncated view of such topics here.
Please provide citations from Abduh, Shaltout, and the other "prominent thinkers, jurists, and theologians" you're referring to.
The Koran also says Muslims will not kill other Muslims, they are your brothers; but that is not the case. Interpertation, declare them apostate and kill them. Whose interpertation? Why, is not every Muslim taught the Koran and how to interpert it?
While wearing the cloak of a religion, Islam morphs itself into whatever form it takes to subjugate or eliminate Kaffurs. Hollow statements of "peace" and "mercy" are interwoven into Islamic texts to deceive the unsuspecting, leading into the bottom like "War is deceit". In that context, Islam is like the elephant and west, the blind man. Without seeing the whole/big picture, each blind man, seeing only bits-pieces, describes Islam his/her own way. The true nature of Islam cannot be understood until the big picture is visible and contradictions, obvious. e.g. "Killing an innocent is like killing humanity" quickly and silently followed by "Whoever changes his religion, kill him". Islam is full of such confusing contradictions because confusion eases deception, leadint to the bottom line: "War is deceit".
I think what Fairuzfan is trying to say, though I could be wrong, is that some Muslims are trying to civilize Islam without getting their heads sawed off for apostasy.
It's a tricky act to start with; and given the usual bloody finale, it's not one you'd like to follow.
Kamala,
For starters I would point to the following excerpt from the Open Letter to Pope Benedict, issued in 2006 in response to the papal Regensburg address, and was endorsed by dozens of prominent Islamic thinkers and jurists:
"1. Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate
targets. This was emphasized explicitly time and
again by the Prophet, his Companions, and by the
learned tradition since then.
2. Religious belief alone does not make anyone the
object of attack. The original Muslim community
was fighting against pagans who had also expelled
them from their homes, persecuted, tortured,
and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic
conquests were political in nature.
3. Muslims can and should live peacefully with their neighbors. And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God (al-Anfal 8:61).
However, this does not exclude legitimate self defense and maintenance of sovereignty."
Shaltout's treatsie says pretty much the same thing, and specifically develops the concept that while unbelievers are cited in Quran as targets to be fought and killed, their unbelief is not a sole, sufficient basis for such action against them.
I have personally heard substantially the same position myself in discussions with Muhammed Fadlallah in Beirut, Muhammed Taqi Usmani in Karachi, Hasan Turabi in Khartoum, as well as a number of Islamic theology professors and scholars in multiple places throughout the Middle East.
Why is it that apologists think they can come here and make the most outlandish, ridiculous and comprehensive false statements and pretentiously pretend that the burden of proof is on US?
"...distinctions among the gradations of ijtihad..."
I don't give a rat's ass about Islam. I wish I had never had to know ANYTHING about it. I want ALL of my hours, days, weeks, months and years back. Islam is only INTERESTING in that it is DANGEROUS. So forgive me if I focus on HOW IT IS DANGEROUS. Go spend your time at jihadi sites and convince them of your benign Islam, and there won't be a site here for you to voice your poorly targeted complaints.
fairuzfan: Perhaps one's unbelief is not sufficient reason by itself to be "fought and killed" (and even here I'm deeply skeptical, especially for those who are not Jewish, Christian or Zoroastrian), but it is certainly reason enough under Islamic law to be treated in a second-class way pretty much across the board.
I know of no major school of Islamic theology which has extended complete political, social and cultural equality in this life to those who are not Muslim. As far as I have been able to tell, Islam requires non-Muslims to be subservient in sundry ways to Muslims wherever Islam is the dominant religion. If I'm correct here, then deep shame on Islam. It's one thing to project what will happen to unbelievers in the next life; it's an entirely different matter to subjugate or discriminate against them in this life for not believing a certain way.
Spencer discussing the "Open Letter"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22950
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018436.php
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018509.php
Answering-Islam.org on the "Open Letter"
http://www.answering-islam.org/Letters/common_word.htm
Shaykh Mahmud Shaltout (1893-1963) was an Egyptian Islamic scholar. He was the shaykh or grand imam, i.e. the leader, of Al-Azhar Islamic Institute in Egypt from 1958 to 1963. He is known for introducing the teaching of the fiqh (jurisprudence) of Zaydi and Twelver Shi'a Islam to the university alongside the fiqh of the four Sunni madhhabs (traditions of jurisprudence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Shaltut
Islamic Beliefs and Code of Laws
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1656&C=1639by Mahmud Shaltout
"However, this does not exclude legitimate self defense and maintenance of sovereignty."
In practice, "maintenance of sovereignty" would the enforcement of Islamic law on all residents of an area: the systematic limitation of both public and private rights of non-Muslims. Any resistance to this "sovereignty" would, of course, trigger the divine right of Muslims to violent action.
Thus, "unbelief" is not enough for Islamic murder -- so long as this unbelief is silent, submissive, and continuously obedient to Muslim law.
It's the Alice in Wonderland nature of Muslim "interfaith" arguments that you see here. You literally have to drill down into basic definitions, despite the slick evasions and deceptions of the apologists, to determine what "legitimate self-defense" and "maintenance of sovereignty" and "compulsion" and "honor" and basically what every single term in the debate means.
Muslims like "Fairuzfan" know that what Westerners think of as "legitimate self-defense," for example, bears absolutely no resemblance to the Muslim concept. To Muslims, the Ummah can "defend itself" against any resistance to its dominance. It's Mohammed, waiting to hear the howling of the dawn azhan over a sleepy farming village, and when he doesn't hear it he burns the village to the ground. He is, to Muslims, "defending" Allah's right to absolute obedience from everyone, everywhere.
The apologists will not explain our misunderstanding of their definitions to us. They count on it.
Muhammad Abduh (or Muhammad 'Abduh) (Arabic: محمد عبده) (Nile Delta, 1849 - Alexandria, July 11, 1905, ) was an Egyptian jurist, religious scholar and liberal reformer, regarded as the founder of Islamic Modernism....He was exiled from Egypt in 1882 for six years, for his participation in the Urabi Revolt. Abduh spent several years in Lebanon, helping establish an Islamic educational system. In 1884 he moved to Paris, France where he joined al-Afghani in publishing The Firmest Bond (al-Urwah al-Wuthqa), an Islamic revolutionary journal that promoted anti-British views. When he returned to Egypt in 1888, Abduh started on his legal career and he was appointed a judge in the National Courts of First Instance in 1889 and in the Court of Appeals in 1891. During this time he continued to press for reform and published his main philosophical treatise the "On Monotheism" (Risālat at-Tawhīd) in 1897. In 1899, he was appointed an official mufti (Islamic legal counselor), a title he held until his death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Abduh
And, of course, we are eternally grateful for the influence that 'Abduh had molding the young Hasan al-Banna.
Intercontinental empire expansion and the mass murder of 270 million over 14 centuries is also not explained by "legitimate self defense and maintenance of sovereignty".
Perhaps we should keep in mind, that, when dealing with Islamic agit-props, they view the world trough the prism of their environment. Pakistan may not be quite as bad as Afghanistan or Bangladesh, but it also not much better, and illiteracy is somewhere around 70 to 80%. That means people, especially clerics who have an education, as long as they know how to read and write, hold certain authority over those who don't. Thus they can manipulate superstition, absurdities, lies and distortion, they can pull every register to whip the easily enraged masses into their fanatical frenzy at the drop of a turban. Its harder when dealing with Westerners who have a somewhat built in resistance to such nonsense and a natural skepticism regarding the supernatural.
In my travels to these parts I have never come across anyone I could describe as highly intellectual, spirited or able to discuss matters other than those peripheral to Islam. The Indoctrination of the doctrine is all pervasive and inbred. Islam does indeed stifle mental growth. The article above is but one example.
slamic Beliefs and Code of Laws
by Mahmud Shaltout
Islam requires of non-Muslims only abstention from hostility to Muslims and from sedition or opposition to the Islamic way of life....Islam does not turn from friendly relations with non-Muslim countries unless it is the victim of an aggressive attack, or obstacles are placed in the path of Islam, or attempts are made to seduce the people. When Islam is exposed to such hardships, its believers are permitted, and indeed it is made incumbent upon them, to repel aggression, to restore peace, and to establish a just situation in which people can think and act freely.
This is so ambiguous, nebulous, and utterly meaningless unless one understands that muslims do not define or interpret words in the same way as Westerners because they do not think like Westerners. Simple, seemingly innocuous statements like: "Islam does not turn from friendly relations with non-muslim countries unless it is the victim of an aggressive, attack, or obstacles are placed in path of islam, or attempts are made to seduce people." Translated into Western thought: An example of an "aggressive attack" would be the war in Afghanistan which was launched after 9-11 to destroy the terrorist training camps, find bin Laden, and crush the taliban. It was a retaliatory and self-defensive campaign, justified and rational by Western standards, an "aggressive attack" by islamic reasoning.
"Obstacles placed in the path of islam" translated for Western minds means: Self-defense against muslim terrorism and aggression; efforts to assimilate muslims in Western countries; the refusal of Western countries to recognize and codify sharia as a dual legal system;
scrutiny and criticism of islamic doctrine; the association of islam with terrorism by non-muslims; attempts to convert muslims to other faiths; and any other actions on the part of non-muslims that reject or dispute islamic supremacy or inhibit the spread and dominance of islam. Islam is like a giant steamroller; once it starts moving in any particular area, muslims expect everyone to get out of the way or get flattened.
"Attempts to seduce people" simply means Christian proselytization in islamic lands or among islamic populations in Western lands, although muslims are obligated to "spread islam" through da'wa. Typical islamic double standard.
"Sedition or opposition to the islamic way of life" amounts to the mere existence of non-muslims and other religions, both egregious affronts to islam, especially in predominately islamic countries. Anti-dhimmitude would be considered sedition, as would efforts to sustain the practice of other religious faiths.
As has been pointed out many times in the past, Muslims can use semantics to say one thing but mean another. They can assure the infidels that Islam is a religion of peace without truly saying so.
I'm sure this is true. Muslim terrorists probably know exactly who they want to kill. But what constitutes terrorism in Islam? And the old classic: what constitutes "innocent" or "civilian" in Islam?"In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims."
So it's okay to incite terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians and it's ok to do the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties and bomb and maim men, women and children--as long as they are not "innocent".
Now all we have to do is figure out how Muslims define "innocent".
This is just another example of islamic pork barrel apologies. The violence is in the quran and other islamic books and "teachings." The spread of islam is based on violence, conquest, death and subservience to allah and his love for us infidels. Ya right! There are more than enough proofs of this going back 14 centuries(sp?) that serve as fine examples of the so called religion of peace. Try as they might to apologize and put us at ease, their efforts can always be, and should be attacked and torn apart to expose the lies and violence that truly drives islam.
"any number of prominent thinkers, jurists, and theologians... seem to have provided proper, or at least plausible, exegesis for such views[that terrorism is condemned in Islam], such as what can be found in Shaltout's treatsie on Quran and Jihad." -written by fairuzfan
Is that why Muslims all over the world from the Philippines in the Pacific to America in the Atlantic and nearly everywhere in between -- are attacking people, driving people out of their villages and homes, killing people, kidnapping people, torturing people, beheading people, threatening violence in public demonstrations, threatening violence in mosque sermons, spreading hatred of non-Muslims in educational materials, blowing up schools, hospitals, hotels, airports, planning & plotting to do more of the same, etc?
Your "Shaltout" doesn't seem to be doing much good does he?
fairuzfan
I wish I could make it all just go away as well, but from my perspective action speaks louder than words, and as much as I would love to take your niceties at face value, I would have to ignore all other sensory input to make your claims come true. For me it is simple. I have a mathematical type of equation for which has become a litmus test for me. This is a threshold equation. The day apostasy law in Islamic Jurisprudence can be wished away we can talk. Until then there isn't reciprocity or equality in coexistence between Muslims, and non-Muslims. Anything you say will always be seen as lip service. Sorry.
Now all we have to do is figure out how Muslims define "innocent".
Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 27, 2008 2:47 PM
Answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related
Susanp wrote: ""Obstacles placed in the path of islam" translated for Western minds means:..."
I'd add to your list also any situation where fundamental criticisms of Islam,Mohammed and the Koran are allowed to flourish in freedom: a situation like that is probably in the Muslim mind an "obstacle in the path of Islam", so it would have to be fought against by Muslims in all ways including violent if necessary.
So this Shaltout that fairfuz is holding up as an example of a Muslim thinker who opposes terrorism is actually in an underhanded way laying down the theoretical foundation for legitimizing the kind of terrorism that's ok,by re-defining what we consider to be terrorism as legitimate self defense.
“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.” (Quran 60:8)
What is left unsaid is that Muslims are not EXPECTED to deal kindly even with those who have not fought them about religion. Whether or not to show kindness or respect is the individual's prerogative.
Double negatives are a good way to cloud an issue. Rather than compare this verse with Quran 8:60, just see what it says when you remove all occurrences of "not":
“God does forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have fought you about religion and have driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.”
This is hardly a suggestion that Islam calls for its followers to turn the other cheek. If if did, THEN it would be a religion of peace. A "religion of peace" would have a verse that reads more like this:
“God calls on you to not refrain from showing kindness and dealing justly even with those who have fought you about religion and have driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. By loving your enemies and by showing kindness to those who have wronged you, you show yourselves to be just dealers.”
Muhammed Fadlallah
Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadl-Allāh) (born 16 November 1935) is a prominent Lebanese Twelver Shi'a Muslim cleric associated with the Shia Islamist group Hezbollah. According to Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), many regard him as Hezbollah’s spiritual leader[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyed_Mohammad_Hussein_Fadlallah
Muhammed Taqi Usmani
He was a key member of a team of scholars that helped declare the Qadiani as non-Muslims by Pakistan's National Assembly during the era of former Pakistani president, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in the 1970s. During the presidency of general Zia-ul-Haq, he was instrumental in making laws of Hudood, Qisas and Dayiat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Taqi_Usmani
Hassan_Turabi
He became the preacher and follower of Wilayat-e-Faqih School of thought and tried to work to preach the thoughts of Hazrat Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Syed Ali Khemeni.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allama_Hassan_Turabi
"I have personally heard substantially the same position myself in discussions with Muhammed Fadlallah in Beirut, Muhammed Taqi Usmani in Karachi, Hasan Turabi in Khartoum..."
Is this an Islamic form of name-dropping? Sorry, sweetie, but I've never heard of any of these fellows, and I don't think I've missed much.
You beat me to it. 'Does not forbid' simply means that Mohammedans may, if they feel so inclined, show mercy towards those who have not attacked them (and here, the term 'attacked' needs to be understood in its Islamic context i.e. raising doubts about Islam is an 'attack'). In other words, Jihadis who choose not to show any mercy aren't violating the Qur'an: they are just not making use of one of its loopholes.
Inspiring stuff indeed, and more Islamic logic at work.
Non-Muslims are Not-Innocent, just by virtue of not believing in Allah.
Muslims may be innocent or not, but that doesn't concern me much. Islam must be separated from non-Muslims. How do we kafirs live with deceit, violence and basic lack of civility? Islam will crush our promising future. Do you really want your kids subjected to Islam? Educate your neighbors and leaders and fight back!
I'm with Concerned Citizen.
Hummmm I think someone missed your memmo fairuzfan.
The zero tolerance for Christians was epitomised by the words of a Sheik who pronounced a death sentence on them in a 2003 interview:
“… Sheikh Nur Barud, vice chairman of the influential Somali Islamist group Kulanka Culimada…stressed that “all Somali Christians must be killed according to the Islamic law. A Muslim can never become a Christian but he can become an apostate. Such people do not have a place in Somalia and we will never recognize their existence and we will slaughter them”. The Sheikh concluded his interview by saying “Somalis are 100 percent Muslim and they will always remain so”.
hummmm
Ahhh, the open letter to the pope.
For everyone to see, the open letter is here:
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/media/pdf/open/b/openletter-8238DA.pdf
It starts with a misleading argument about 2:256 ("no compulsion in religion"), a verse which Spencer and Fitzgerald have explained over and over here means not what most gullible non-Muslims think it means, regardless of early scholars' differing opinions about whether or not the verse is abrogated by sura 9.
The letter makes a point of Tabari's analysis, that Muslims "could not force another's heart to believe." What the letter does not point out is that this assessment is perfectly complementary with 9.29, giving the option to non-Muslims to keep their religion as long as they accept second-class, dhimmi status. According to Muslim scholar Ayoub, that same Tabari wrote: "The people of the Book are not to be compelled to enter Islam if they submit to paying the jizyah or kharaj [land tax]." (http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/taqiyyah.htm)
I'm sure that bit just slipped the scholars' mind.
I'm sure it also slipped their mind, despite their "spirit of open exchange," that other respected scholars take the view that 2:256 was indeed abrogated by verses in sura 9, including Abu al-Kasim Hibat-Allah bin Salama (http://www.meforum.org/article/1754) and Ibn Kathir (http://jihadwatch.org/archives/017392.php, who said this about 2:256:
But perhaps Ibn Kathir was an out-of-touch islamophobe, just like the contemporary scholar Muhammad Salih Al-Munajid, whose website says, flat out:
I'm sure the 38 scholars -- and fairfuzan too -- will be sending the good Sheik a letter similar to the one written to the pope, to "point out some errors in the way [he] mentioned Islam."
It's easy but oh so tedious to go on and skewer the rest of this ridiculous letter. It's been dismantled in so many other places, such as http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what_the_islamic_scholars_forg/
But let's try a different exercise.
Let's learn a bit more about one of the 38 scholars who signed this letter: Mufti Taqi Usmani (Uthmani), #35 on the list, "Vice President, Dar Al-Ulum, Karachi, Pakistan."
The same Usmani fairuzfan says he has had "discussions with."
Usmani is the author of the book, "Islam and Modernism." That full book is available here: http://www.fahmedeen.org/books/islamandmodernism.pdf
Here's are some choice words from Mr. Usmani, taken from his book:
#1:
#2:
#3:
Brings a bit of "color" to the open letter's drivel: "Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle."
So, fairuzfan, how should we reconcile Usmani's words from his own book with the fact that he ostensibly supports the open letter's hope that we can all "live together in the future in peace, mutual acceptance, and respect."
Perhaps Usmani had a change of heart between 2002, when that book was written, and 2007, the year he signed his name to that letter?
Or perhaps Usmani -- along with who knows how many of his co-signatories -- realizes what a huge, steaming pile of bullshit that letter actually is. It's a letter meant exclusively to mislead gullible non-Muslims with a steady stream of half-truths -- half-truths carefully constructed so he (and any other Muslim) can willingly approve them without contradicting any of his own previous writings, without contradicting Islam's explicit goal of worldwide domination over non-Muslims through conversion, subjugation, or death.
To everyone who has, so far, contributed to the unmasking/ decoding of the Pakistan Daily article, and of fairuzfan's little effort in misdirection...bravo, bravissimo!
I remember, some time ago, Hugh Fitzgerald advising us that we needed to learn the art of 'close reading'. Well: I think today some of you should be graduated summa cum laude.
I will add my own small contribution. Note, in the 'Pakistan Daily' article, this Quranic phrase " those who have not fought you about religion".
But: ALL kafir refusal to submit to sharia and all insistence on continuing to practise non-Muslim customs, is reckoned as gross offence to/ oppression of/ aggression against Islam and Muslims and may constitute therefore a casus belli.
See the following article by an ex-Muslim, on the topic "When is Islam Oppressed?" which draws out in more detail the special Muslimspeak meaning of terms like 'oppression':
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/IslamOppressed.htm
And as a companion piece, from Mr Hugh Fitzgerald, writing in October 2006, 'Ninety-Five Things That Fuel Muslim Extremism"
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/013525.php
Innocent...definition of? Well, if Indonesian schoolgirls beheaded by islamists don't meet the definition..who would?
PMK says,
EXCELLENT! That is always the way I read double negatives.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Furthermore, there's 7:11 in the Koran: "Be kind to your web footed friends, for a duck may be somebody's mother."
Islam does indeed stifle mental growth. The article above is but one example.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 27, 2008 2:28 PM
I would also add when they marry cousins over and over again will add to their mental degradation over time.
fairuzfan: By now, assuming you have read the above posts, you must surely realize that many kuffars are not just content to lay down and accept what Muslims (or non-Muslim apologists for Islam) have to say about Mohammed's creed. I would vigorously contend that any informed assessment of Islam should lead to the following conclusions: 1) Mohammed was a gigantic fraud and very possibly a psychopath and a schizophrenic; 2) the Koran is a highly repetitive, tedious mishmash of religious sentiments which are often contradictory and frequently deeply disturbing, the overall effect of which is that if the deity actually did authorize this work (it didn't) it does not redound to the deity's credit; 3) Islam is the one major religion which calls for war to be made upon the unbeliever (this is repugnant to say the least); 4) Islam is the one major religion that will not treat non-believers with complete respect in this life (i.e., Islam is a retard where the Golden Rule is concerned); 5) it is far easier to insult a Muslim than a Red Fox fan in old or new Yankee stadium; 6) no sane, rational human being (this would exclude those, of course, who have bought into the nonsense of multiculturalism, deficient in common sense as such people are) could ever accord to Islam the label of "tolerant" as long as churches, synagogues and other non-Muslim houses of worship cannot arise in Mecca and Medina as mosques do in Rome, New York City and other dar-al-harb urban centers.
Well, these are enough points for now (but please be assured that many more could be made). What say you or any apologist for Mohammed's creed? Waiting.
fairuzfan,
Your man Usmani really is a piece of work.
He's the man who signed the open letter to the pope, which, as you so kindly pointed out, claims:
Turns out he signs other letters too: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD184608
According to this Feb 8 letter:
Just last month, the Taliban claimed responsibility for an attack against an ordinance factory, killing 65 and injuring 100 workers -- all civilians. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan22-2008aug22,0,1360317.story
Three days earlier, the Taliban claimed responsibility for a suicide blast in a hospital emergency ward, killing 30: http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=52589
That's just in three days, last month.
fairuzfan: I'm glad you're here to sort this all out for us, especially since you've had discussions with Usmani himself.
I can't wait.
fairuzfan, you just don't get it, do you? We'd be happy to discuss this with you, but the noise from all the Muslim suicide bombs tends to drown out your argument. (You do get this point, don't you?)
counterpoint:
http://tabsir.net/?p=670#comment-56980
Tarek Fatah is founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and author of “Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State” (Wiley 2008).
The MCC website is:
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/
This is a good one.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5a6-WhxVPPs&feature=related
Islam condemns the "Killing of innocent humanbeings" everywhere, but that begs the question of the meaning of ‘innocent’. This suspicion deepens when it adds:
The Holy Quran declares: “Whoever kills a human being… then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.“ (Quran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32) Islam’s position is clear and unequivocal: Murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity.”’
But it is not unequivocal at all, because the verse that is quoted here contains another, absolutely crucial phrase which has been left out
"That was why we laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having saved all mankind.
‘Our apostles brought them veritable proofs; yet many among them, even after that, did prodigious evil in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land." (Sura 5:31)
In other words, where there is ‘villainy’ killing is expressly permitted; and since villainy can mean anything, and since Islamists regard western or democratic influence as villainous, it follows that the slaughter of western or reformnist Muslim innocents is expressly permitted – because they are not regarded as innocent in the first place.
now watch again and listen very carefully:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5a6-WhxVPPs&feature=related
Thx, ethoman. Once again the main point of Islam: Believers good, unbelievers bad. Oppose believers and be severely punished.
The Muslims portray themselves as wonderful people: Merciful, generous, kind...but only as long as they are unopposed and the unbelievers submit to them. Step out of line, the man come and take you away, or worse. It's a big power trip.
This thread is Jihad Watch at its very best:
a lot of educated, knowledgeable posters who are able to make valuable contributions to exposing the vile and insane Islamic doctrine of genocide and subjugation.
A link provided by skevin above is an eye-opener: it shows you how moderate, secular Muslims (if they exist) like Tareq Fatah are instantly being attacked by the 'real, true or fundamentalist' Muslims. Just go this website and read the comments, very revealing:
http://tabsir.net/?p=670#comment-56980
Good points raised by Raymond and posters above.
I have one minor criticism of Raymond's presentation. The apologist presents a nice-seeming verse, then Raymond counters with another that is not nice. When new readers to JW see that, they might get the impression that the issue is undecided, with equal points and counterpoints on both sides of the argument, with no clear conclusion. I think that seeing these apparently contradictory statements will confuse new readers. Also, one could get the (mistaken) impression that Raymond is granting the apologist claim that 60:8 is a nice verse.
A way to avoid this confusion is to tackle 60:8 directly. Is it really a nice verse, as non-Muslims understand "nice"? The Islam critic can expose the problems with the Islamic meaning of the terms (as some posters above have noted) and the textual and historical context associated with the verse.
Consider "dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion" in 60:8. In Islam, someone who criticizes Islam is deemed to be fighting Muslims over their religion. It is considered "just" to kill apostates for mere public apostasy, or to kill anyone who insults Muhammad. These policies are clear from the Hadith and Sira, which provide the context necessary to make sense of the Quran. Essentially, a major theme of the Quran is that it is "just" to follow and promote Islam, and "unjust" to not accept it. Indeed, to not believe in Islam is considered the worst crime, the most "unjust" thing anyone can do.
What is meant (Islamically) by "kindness"? A thorough reading of the Quran shows that it does not contain any permission for Muslims to be genuine friends with non-Muslims. On the contrary, the general policy toward non-Muslims (especially those deemed polytheists) is one of opposition and indeed hatred (as expressed in 60:4, not far from 60:8). Muslims may act "as though" they were friends with non-Muslims in the context of da'wa activities (i.e., preaching, or discussing Islam for the purpose of converting non-Muslims to Islam). Muslims can also act outwardly politely to non-Muslims. But if non-Muslims don't accept Islam, the three-pronged policy applies: The non-Muslims must convert to Islam or else accept dhimmitude or be killed. The dhimma fits with the strange Islamic notion of "kindness" or mercy. The non-Muslims are humiliated and subjugated, but they are allowed to live. Muslim apologists routinely cite the dhimma as an example of Islamic tolerance.
Further information on 60:8:
Tafsir of al-Jalalayn
Note: regarding abrogation, which Raymond mentions, the above tafsir states regarding 60:8 that "...this was [revealed] before the command to struggle against them..."
Asbab al-Nuzul (al-Wahidi)
Maududi's commentary on Sura 60
Ibn Kathir's tafsir of Sura 60
Yes, these silly "cocktail" Muslims are just soft in the head.
Real Islam is about world domination at any cost and one-upping your neighbor on how much like Mohammed you can be.
"Islam is a religion, but Islamism is a political ideology." from Tareq Fatah
Any hope this could be a way to tear religious Muslims away from the TOTALITARIAN Muslims? With the true test being if the cocktail Muslims will fight and kill their totalitarian bretheren in any war.
The simplest way to challenge statements like this is to ask the speaker why Bin Laden and his followers have not been kicked out of Islam for their apostacy. Why have 11,592 terror attacks since 9/11 and so many dead in the name of Islam not triggered an official religious separation? Ask the speaker how many more "Allah-inspired" heinous atrocities need to occur worldwide before the majority of Muslims declare them un-Islamic. They need to be declared apostate at the highest accepted levels of Islam and completely disavowed as Muslims. As long as the "terrorists" can easily defend their actions with accepted Islamic texts, we will not see this happen...only more lies as peaceful Muslims remain cowed by their own twisted, self-policing ideology.
Yes,and if jihadists were declared apostate, their blood would be halal and they would be killed.
Also, there is no shame/honour mechanism triggered in these cases. If they brought shame on their families or on islam, they would be honour-killed. Families are swift in executing this on their female members for any supposed infraction.
Can't happen, won't happen. They are neither acting unislamically nor bringing shame on their families.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense by Islam to a charge of conspiracy to murder infidels is:
"A look at the various principles of Islam which show that Islam is truly a mercy to the world, and the indiscriminate violence and terrorism is not condoned by the religion.
Let's see if the following proofs support this rather categorical statement.
Islam, a religion of mercy, does not permit terrorism. In the Quran, God has said:
“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.” (Quran 60:8)."
We respectfully submit that this defense is insufficient as a matter of law to be considered as a contradiction to an indictment for conspiracy to murder infidels. Moreover, we would ask a judge to instruct the jury to ignore this alleged affirmative defense which ostensibly offers contradiction to indictment for murder of infidels on the ground that the statement alone does not state the murder of infidels is forbidden. The statements from the koran carefully considered are inadmissible by the court as an affirmative defense to the claim of a conspiracy to murder infidels because no reasonable person would take these statements as support for a conclusion from the text cited, that such statement forbids the murder of infidels.
As infidel pride succinctly put it: "'Does not forbid' simply means that Mohammedans may, if they feel so inclined, show mercy towards those who have not attacked them (and here, the term 'attacked' needs to be understood in its Islamic context i.e. raising doubts about Islam is an 'attack'). In other words, Jihadis who choose not to show any mercy aren't violating the Qur'an." Moreover, any reasonable person will take the term "does not forbid," to mean "allows."
For these reasons the court cannot allow a jury to believe muslims would not murder infidels because of these sentences. The sentences do not create a genuine issue of fact that a muslim would not conspire to murder an infidel. In contrast, in trial for conspiracy to murder infidels, the court should consider allowing the use of the statement to affirmatively prove that the muslim legitimately believed he had license to kill an infidel.
"[Those who advocate terrorism] need to be declared apostate at the highest accepted levels of Islam and completely disavowed as Muslims."
Isn't a big problem with Islam that it HAS no highest level? There is no one akin to the pope. Anyone can issue a fatwa. Isn't each mosque effectively a wholly-owned subsidiary of Islam? Isn't each imam pretty much his own boss, able to preach the message of the Koran as he sees fit?
Muslims who are serious about stopping terrorism cannot look to higherups to solve this problem. They need to take matters into their own hands.
It does seem like all sorts of hackles are up and about here. I'll make some points in response here.
1) I'm not a Muslim. Actually, I'm a rather hard-line traditionalist Roman Latin Catholic.
2) Perhaps I was mistaken, but I understood the post and thread to pertain to Islamic apologetics regarding the basis for war, and the licit/illicit methods by which to conduct war. I did not see the topic as pertaining or dealing with ridda, the sharia precepts that govern how an Islamic theocracy is to be constituted and how non-Muslims are to be treated. While it's certainly a topic worthy of discussion, I fail to see how it fits in or is relevant to THIS particular discussion, and simply seems to be a theological ad hominem tactic.
3) The fact that any number of Islamic jurists may have deeply dubious or highly questionable views as to how certain normative Islamic teachings they are espousing are to be applied in various political matters in our time in no way establishes that such folks are crazed pathological liars, that they are espousing views that are utterly untrue or implausible, or that such normative bedrock views aren't subject to an altered interpretative application in particular political contexts.
4) Whatever injustices that any Muslims are engaged in in our present time doesn't necessarily or automatically say anything about normative Islamic sharia law, any more than any injustices committed by adherents of Christianity or any other religion are accurate, true embodiments of the fundamental tenets of those faiths.
The fact that there haven't been any truly systemically formulated and solid refutations to what I stated simply seems to be a reconfirmation of what I originally stated.
fairuzfan
"The fact that there haven't been any truly systemically formulated and solid refutations to what I stated simply seems to be a reconfirmation of what I originally stated."
Are you blind?
Your minimum qualification to be taken seriously by us is for you to go back and read at the very least the following four comments and write up a detailed response that refutes all of them and all their points. Otherwise, you are wasting your time here.
1) http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022863.php#c582316
2) http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022863.php#c582347
3) http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022863.php#c582355
4) http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022863.php#c582362
Otherwise you are wasteing OUR time here.
Otherwise you are wasting OUR time here.
Civilus, I don't think he cares about *our* time here.
Regarding the post by fairuzfan at September 28, 2008 1:11 PM
I don't believe you. How about a simple confession of faith?
The original article clearly attempts to paint pictures of how non-combatant non-Muslims are not to be treated. Note the appeal to 60:8. So, yes, you are mistaken
.Sorry about the stilted reconstruction of your bloviation. No one here has said these jurists are crazy, liars, implausible, or even should be considered normative (though you seem to imply that). We are stating that they are correctly quoting the Qur'an, plausible within traditional Islamic jurisprudence, and quite consistent in what they espouse. But that is the problem. The other problem is that many of the current Islamists say one thing in their native tongue, and something quite more benign in English or non-native language and damage their credibility with their duplicity, as in the case of numerous individuals you appealed to earlier, which were easily exposed above.
Here is a formula for you:
1) the Qur'an/Sunnah says do something
2) a Muslim does that thing
3) the Muslim says he did it because of his Islam
4) history is found to be replete with the same
5) the Muslm's view is found consonant with established traditional Islamic authorities
The above in NO WAY exculpates Islam from culpability. The onus is then upon adherents to prove it is not and should not be foundationally normative. It is your presentation of an inverted reality and "logic" that defines you as an Islamic apologist.
Ijtihad is not "normative" in Islam, in fact, historically it was outlawed. Don't misunderstand that as our seeing ijtihad as being unwelcome towards reform. We all wish Islam would become universally as innocuous as a teddy bear so we could get on with our lives. Reform is needed; obfuscating plain realities like an ostrich with its head underground is not helpful.
Doesn't everyone love pretentious false claims of victory? Everything you've stated has been beaten into the ground. What exactly (be specific) do you think remains?
Fairuz is not the first Muslim to come here and claim to be "hard-line traditionalist Roman Latin Catholic."
The taqiyya smells worse than a stink-bomb.
No, Concerned Citizen, my fundamental claims at the outset have not been refuted at all. That Islam doesn't call for attacks on unbelievers soley because they are unbelievers as well as ruling out terrorism as a method both stand as plausible, normative, Islamic precepts. And that ijtihad can be seen as operating on a multiplicity of levels and has a real bearing on the subject.
As for some of the 'meta concepts' of Islamic theology, as I like to call it, I would recommend academic theologians like Muhammed Hashem Kamali as well as Wael Hallaq. If you do enough digging, I'm sure you can turn up some dirt on them as well.
What I find truly astonishing,is that when I tell you what my religious affiliation is, you say you don't believe me. Really? Why, then, don't you tell me what my affiliation is? And show all of us the irrefutable proof of it? I'm sure my priests, as well as I, would be most interested. Do you really think you represent the Western tradition properly by causually calling others liars without a shred of evidence or decency?
DR,
I care about the waste of my time.
I would like to forget Islam. I would like to resume my life as it was. But I feel compelled to be a political warrior so my son won't become a physical warrior and my grandchildren don’t become brain-damaged in madrassas.
fairuzfan,
This has been roundly refuted above. Qur'anic verses state exactly that. E.g. 9:29
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
This is addressed above, including the muliple duplicitous uses of language to disguise it (e.g. the definition of "innocent").
And thank God for it, but it is not the end of, or the most important part of the discussion. The ineffectual impotence of those using ijtihad to disclaim things traditionally Islamic in motivation, that is, their inability to stop the inciting rhetoric, and to stop the actual violent occurrences, reduces to academia its "bearing".
Is this some game of pious "one-upsmanship" to you? You name-drop, as though authoritative, lists including terrorist mentors and collaborators, and when we expose it, that is supposed to reflect poorly on us as "dirt digging"? Maybe in your universe it is avant garde to pony up to such, but not in mine. It makes everything they say and write suspect.
I'm sorry, didn't Jesus call you to profess your faith? Why is that so difficult or offensive? I merely gave you opportunity to confirm in you that which you should hold most dear. It should be really easy. It is also not without a point, should you choose to participate.
Not only is fairufzan a "Roman Latin Catholic" (never heard of that, I've only heard of Roman Catholics but anyway)--he's also "a person of Jewish heritage":
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020413.php#c523765
Seems like he's a chameleon--he adopts whatever spots suit the occasion.
The gates of itjihad are closed, Fairyfuzz.
You did your Islamic duty, Fairuzfairy. You deposited your taqiyya like smoke and mirrors. You tried Prevarications, deflection, lies , obscuring and the above posters have shown you the door. We've had your kind a dime a dozen, here on JW.
You better spent your time educating your co-religionists why Islam is a RoP, because they all seem to misunderstand the peaceful sura's like kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
JW is not a fishing expedition.
Maybe I'm just a masochist, but let's try this one more time:
Fairuzfan writes:
Fairuzfan quotes a letter to back up his point that
My first post above made it clear just how misleading other portions of this letter are. But forget that for a moment.
Let's come back to Taqi Usmani. Usmani signed the letter containing the quote above. Apparently Usmani communicated "substantially the same position" to Fairuzfan in person.
Yet Usmani also signed a letter praising the Taliban, saying the "Taliban are not terrorists." (http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD184608) The same Taliban that themselves just last month claimed two attacks that together killed over 100 people that international law would call non-combatants. We can only presume that Usmani does not condemn these attacks (and the many other similar attacks from the Taliban).
How can this be? This allows only two rational conclusions:
* Usmani is a hypocrite
* The definition of a "non-combatant" in the eyes of Fairuzfan, Usmani, Muhammad, and Muhammad's companions differs from international law's definition.
Let us assume Usmani is telling the truth.
Then the confusion comes down to the definition of non-combatant.
First, let's start with a Hadith that any good Islamic apologist might bring out:
But look at the previous hadith in that same book:
So women and children killed as collateral damage is fine, but still, that doesn't say they can be targeted.
But now look at this hadith: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4457
Also, when the Qurayza surrendered, Muhammad ordered execution of every male child that had reach puberty: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4390
According to Professor Ella Landau-Tasseron, Hanafi scholar Ibn Nujayim wrote that the "ability to shout, the ability to have children, and mental clarity all make a non-Muslim a combatant. (http://www.futureofmuslimworld.com/docLib/20061226_NoncombatantsFinal.pdf)
Given Muhammad's own words, the historical record, and assessments from classical Islamic scholars, it's not surprising that even today Muslims have very interesting definitions of non-combatants.
As Robert Spencer wrote in his book, "Religion of Peace?" (p. 53):
So fairuzfan, perhaps you do not consider this tedious explanation "a truly systemically formulated and solid refutation" of your argument.
But until you and the Muslim scholars you regard highly are willing to agree to and express an unambiguous definition of "non-combatant" consistent with international law (and essentially any other non-Islamic definition of the word), then the entire conversation is moot.