For years non-Muslims have been asking where moderate Muslims in any significant numbers are actually speaking out against Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism. And now here they finally are.
Much as I hate to be the one to throw a rotting cabbage onto the sofa, I must yet again point out that Qadri "says killing innocents is forbidden in Islam," but who defines who is "innocent"? Islamic jihadists believe that "non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet." So if they believe that non-Muslims are never innocent, a Muslim who declares that killing innocents is forbidden in Islam is not going to stop them from mounting attacks against non-Muslims.
And what do they mean by fighting "extremism"? Last year Qadri published a fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombings. "Terrorism," of course, is a tactic, and as liberally as the term is applied in common usage, condemning it doesn't tell us a whole lot. After all, nobody likes terrorism. Abbas at the UN on Friday condemned terrorism, "especially state terrorism," by which he meant that he was condemning the actions of Israel, not of Islamic jihadists. Qadri really is referring to Islamic terrorism, evidently, but what about the jihad imperative to impose Sharia? He said yesterday: "I want to address those who are lost, who have a total misconception of jihad -- I want to send them a message -- come back to normal life. Whatever you're doing is totally against Islam." Do those who have a proper conception of jihad still wish to work in non-violent ways to impose Sharia and subjugate non-Muslims?
Qadri is a member of the Barelvi movement, a Sufi-tinged form of Islam that originated in India and, although as much as half of the Pakistani population subscribes to it, has been violently persecuted by Islamic hardliners. His membership in a group that is considered by the larger body of Muslims to be of doubtful orthodoxy at best makes it unlikely that his stands will gain wide acceptance. And al-Qaeda even infiltrated his anti-terror summer camp.
"Muslims rally against Islamic extremism: London gathering of thousands intended to promote inclusive vision," by Sylvia Hu for the Associated Press, September 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):
LONDON — Thousands of Muslims gathered at a rally in London on Saturday to fight extremism and promote a moderate, inclusive version of Islam.The event’s organizers Minhaj-ul-Qur’an International say some 12,000 Muslims are expected at Wembley Arena. The event will be broadcast live to dozens of countries around the world.
The group’s founder, the Pakistan-born Islamic scholar Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, says killing innocents is forbidden in Islam and Muslims must integrate into the societies in which they’re living.
Some Islamic scholars have warned that a power vacuum in North Africa and the Middle East could lead to militant and extremist groups gaining ground in elections arising from the so-called Arab Spring.
"If these elements come into power, it will be a big disaster," Tahir-ul-Qadri told The Associated Press.
Minhaj-ul-Qur’an International says it represents a moderate vision of Islam that works for peace and integration....
I want more proof about this "moderate" version of Islam. What are they prepared to say should be chucked out of it?
More details, please, brothers.
Seconded
By it's nature Islam cannot be moderate.
Neither can Fascism and Nazism.
War is fast approaching.
So can we expect these "moderate" Muslims to accept members of their families becoming apostates, their daughters or sisters marrying non-Muslims, or for the message of other faiths to be spread in Muslim countries, just like Muslims are doing in Western Europe and North America? I won't hold my breath...
Non-Moslems are guilty of being unbelievers. And before they enter an eternity of suffering in the afterlife it is
permissible in Islam to make their lives a living hell on earth
A showdown definitely. Not war with a bit of luck.
when they can show you a "moderate nazi" than perhaps the "moderate muslim" will exist.. but then have we ever seen the unicorn? more myths
Well, let's be thankful for small favors. And, I'm gratified to see that somewhere there's an 'Alim who worries about the extremist element in the "Arab Spring".
It'd be interesting, and quite possibly informative, to hold a debate between the leader of these self-professed 'moderates' and MAC.
It's useful to bear in mind that the movers and shakers in Islam are worried about the growing number of Muslims leaving Islam. Playing up the 'peaceful' schtik for a while is probably an attempt to persuade them that Islam is reviewing the 'violent jihad' doctrine.
But it doesn't change a syllable of Al Qur'an!
. .Prehaps Mr Spencer could chair it to add some 'frission'.?
''frisson'. .always was crap at French-isms.
What a telling commentary about Robert, that he would publish this story at JW...even with the cautionary commentary added. Most media deliberately black out stories that don't conform to their narrative. Once again, Robert is not only the exception, he is exceptional.
"Qadri is a member of the Barelvi movement, a Sufi-tinged form of Islam that originated in India and has been violently persecuted by Islamic hardliners."
Hmm, how could I get that wrong?
I was under the impression that he was the leader of the Ahmadiyya sect. Don't they have the slogan 'love for all, hate for nobody' or some such?
10 things to think about when thinking about Moderate Muslims.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/11/hugh-fitzgerald-ten-things-to-think-when-thinking-of-muslim-moderates-print.html
If I recall correctly, Salman Taseer, the assassinated governor of punjab, came from this barelvi sect.
While are academic training in "critical thinking" may lead to a high degree of skepticism I join Kepha in appreciating this new opportunity. While this group may not be perfect they have had the courage to stand up in London to make a very public statement against the practice of jihad, an action that is fraught with a lot more danger there than in the US. I respect their courage and would hope the English JW-ers could attend such events to learn how mutual support could be developed.
I too worry about the "Arab Spring". In May I had postulated the young Twitterites would be a stronger more prevailing force. That does not seem to be the case, but these events are bringing out into the light of day the true values, feelings and desires of the "Arab Street" for review and evaluation. While there may be dark storm clouds on the horizon this could also be part of a great cleansing process, admittedly slow in nature, whereby deepest level thinking is changed? Westerners too will need to examining their thinking as well as we seek to establish what could be called a "harmonious global ideology"?
Best wishes, TS
The first thing that struck me about the article was that it started with "Thousands of Muslims..........." Where is the ever-present misnomer "South Asians?"
I guess if "south Asians" do something that is perceived as good, they are "muslims," but when they're killing, raping, robbing, maiming, blowing up buses and subways, or otherwise plotting for the destruction of Western society, they're referred to as "south Asians."
I also wonder how many of these people will be marked for death for daring to speak out against islamic extremism.
The following quote I heard from someone at the screening of "The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks" sums it all up:
"The moderates are not powerful, and the powerful are not moderates."
Buraq, however, hit the nail on the head when he said "But it doesn't change a syllable of Al Qur'an!" As this will never happen, Islam will never change, regardless of whether a small minority of wishful thinkers hopes it will.
Ima
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim....it's a contradiction in terms. Anybody who believes there is need to see a doctor.
"Last year Qadri published a fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombings"
But fails to include any comments on the other methods of jihad, such as Stealth Jihad. I believe this man, from his comments on "innocents" (thanks Robert for your insight) is intentually misleading the non-Muslums world. Is he using Taqiyya? Given these reasons I believe he is.
What is ironic is the fact that the Btitish elites allowed this gatherinf, even if it seemed right and how the media fell upon it. My point being the elites have instructed the police in the UK to disperse law abiding non-British groups that use their right to peaceful protest and disperse them from doing so. There are the extremist side of British protesters that are violent in their attempt to re-establish Brits rights. There is one particular group there that leads peaceful marches in an effert to keep their British freedoms, customs and comdem extremism of any kind. They are violently attacked by extremist from both sides, British groups and Muslim, while the police attempt to break them up and harass their members even outside of when they march.
My point is the British elites are in a difficult situation with all British citizens across all of the UK fearing violent breakouts. They are totally blind and concentrate on appeasing the Muslimside by demonizing any group, of course the violent ones, but, sadly the non-violent ones as well.
I also covered this at the blog and, seeing the hundreds of MSM articles proliferating this morning, couldn't help thinking that we were witnessing a phenomenon not too distantly related to the 'Breivik Effect' - the lemming-like (orchestrated?) clamouring of credulous MSM journos to desperate to discover the other half of their matching set of wish fulfilment unicorns.
And so it transpires that, with the addition of the the rare, elusive Denouncement Of Terrorism From The Islamic Mainstream™ to their common-or-garden 'Christian Conservative Terrorist'; they may well have have achieved just that.
London Jim:
What's the reaction (if any) of Brits to the polygamy-on-benefits story?
Regards,
CGW
If so, it is a waning achievement, a next-to-last gasp before they get flopped in the has-been bucket.
Couldn't tell you CGW, being a maverik.
Tahir al Qadri is a fake Muslim, he has been refuted by Muslim scholars several times, not by modern ones wither, but by the statements of the original Muslims (i.e., the Salaf). To think that there are still thousands who follow the cult of this man is incredible! I wish I had a following like that... Maybe the Zionist Jews who control the media, banks and world in general can hook me up... Inshallah.
Please don't summon the Devil on this site, Jacob. :-)
What is the moderate interpretation of the Verse of the Sword? Perhaps a moderate imam can explain that for us.
Another OT (not exactly sure where to put it):
Herman Cain says that he will prosecute CAIR if elected President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxQSXFcJCYE
Unless Qadri and Minhaj-ul-Qur’an International disavow the death sentence for apostasy, homosexuality, blasphemy and adultery, it's little more than another slick PR exercise. I remain unimpressed.
There's no 'moderate' Islam. There is no 'moderate' mainstream muslims. That is a fact.
There are only fringe muslims like qadri who can be termed 'moderate'. But, they would be called heretic by mainstream muslims. The vast majority who follow islam are radicals. If you follow mo' you are a radical.
"There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim....it's a contradiction in terms. Anybody who believes there is need to see a doctor"
Exactly.
Hi TS. You wrote:
"While there may be dark storm clouds on the horizon this could also be part of a great cleansing process, admittedly slow in nature, whereby deepest level thinking is changed? Westerners too will need to examining their thinking as well as we seek to establish what could be called a "harmonious global ideology"?""
________________________________________
Sorry, but this Westerner doesn't need to examine his thinking, and NO, I am not at all interested in "seeking to establish a harmonious global ideology", in order to somehow, show obsequiousness to ANYONE WHO CALLS THEMSELVES A MOSLEM.
It's as simple as that. They need to "fess up", first, then I'll consider analyzing how I feel about Muslims and Islam.
As long as there are Muslims and Islam there will never be a "harmonious global ideology." End of story.
Right-on Mr D, right-on.
A very long comment published on thread on this topic at 'Harry's Place':
Joseph K.
25 September 2011, 6:29 pm :-
Dr Tahir-Ul-Qadri: 'I would have no hesitation in saying you are enjoying the rights and freedoms much better than in many other Muslim and Arab countries.'
They are certainly better than the rights minorities enjoy in Pakistan, courtesy of the efforts of the eminent Dr Muhammad Tahir-Ul-Qadri.
Qadri is feted by Western liberal governments for his proclamations, most notably his widely publicised fatwa against terrorism. In his native Pakistan, however, he showed a very different face. While Juris-Consult [legal advisor] to the Federal Sharia Court of Pakistan in the mid-1980s, he gave his religious sanction to a number of rulings that had appalling consequences for that country’s religious minorities. His arguments led directly to the criminalising of Ahmadiyya belief, the imposition of the death sentence for blasphemy, and the reintroduction of stoning to death as a punishment.
But these are the truths that his followers and supporters don’t want you to know. Indeed, when I first pointed this out on HP, over a year ago, the article praising Qadri (and the comment section highlighting his barbarity) was pulled from HP, and the webpage that glorified his record of “achievements” in Islamic jurisprudence disappeared from the website of his organisation, Minhaj-al-Quran International.
Never mind. It still exists in cyber space, thanks to the magic of Google. So here is the embarrassing record of this “special kind of superstar”. Judge for yourself whether he deserves the acclamation granted to him in the above article.
Qadri speaks of the rights extended to Muslims in the UK, yet his own organisation boasted of his part in denying civil rights to religious minorities in Pakistan:
In the same way, he defended the Government of Pakistan when the Qadianis [ Ahmadis] filed a writ against its decision in July-August 1984. His precedence-loaded and reference-padded intellectual defense of the rights and religious liberties of non-Muslim minorities in Islamic state, carries a historic significance on the basis of his convincing arguments. The Federal Sharia Court rejected the petition of the Qadianis on 20th July, 1984 by furnishing a legal justification on the philosophy of finality of Prophethood, They were disallowed to use for them Islamic terminology and call their worship places as mosques.
But of course, as history has shown us with these types of religious bigots, denying people religious rights and criminalising their belief is only the start. The next move is always more sinister, and Qadri was only too happy to enable it. The Ahmadis do not believe that Mohammed was the final prophet of Islam. For Qadri, this was unacceptable.
For three days from November 14 to 17, 1985 Dr Qadri presented his arguments continuously before the Federal Sharia Court of Pakistan to determine the quantum of punishment to be awarded to a person guilty of contempt of the finality of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), an extremely delicate legal matter.
He established, on evidence from the Quran and Sunna, that a person guilty of contempt of the finality of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) deserved death sentence and the punishment will be imposed as Hadd.
The act of contempt of the finality of the Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) is a crime, which cannot be tolerated whether its commission is direct or indirect, intentional or un-intentional. The crime is so sanguine that even his repentance cannot exempt him from the penalty of death
Dr Qadri placed a massive array of arguments before the learned Court and particularly stressed the point that no lacuna should be allowed in the legal structure of an Islamic state to encourage this form of sacrilege. The chambers of the Court will continue to reverberate with the passion and eloquence with which Dr Qadri conducted his defense of the sanctity and dignity of the the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him).
So, thanks to the efforts of Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, followers of the Ahmaddiya sect were forbidden by law from using Islamic terminology, and faced the death penalty for publicly declaring their beliefs. And not just any death penalty, thanks to again to Qadri.
When the Federal Sharia Court of Pakistan gave its verdict against “Rajm” (stoning to death) as Hadd, the Government of Pakistan filed a review petition against the decision of the court. In his capacity as Juris Consult, Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri came to the help of the Government at this crucial juncture, and through cogent reasoning and profuse illustration spread over four days from 20th to 23rd June, 1982, forced the Federal Sharia Court to reverse its decision and uphold Rajm as Hadd.
Get that? The Federal Sharia Court of Pakistan, not known for being a gathering of liberal pantywaists, nevertheless found against stoning to death. Then up pops a “special kind of superstar” and forces them to reverse their verdict and reinstate this most barbaric and medieval of punishments. Take a bow, Dr Muhammad Tahir-al-Qadri!
In another case the Blasphemy Law protecting the esteemed station and reverence of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) was also passed for the first time in the history of Pakistan after Shaykh-ul-Islam presented his arguments to the court, over a period of three days, culminating in an Act of Parliament. Shaykh-ul-Islam presented his arguments to the federal Sharia Court for long 18 hours which culminated into formulation of section 295-C
[295-C is from the part of Pakistan's legal code that covers blasphemy. It makes it an offence "by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad". Whoever transgresses shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. It was their vociferous opposition to 295-C and the other blasphemy laws that cost Pakistani politicians Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti their lives earlier this year.]
I am almost certain that the author of the above article knows nothing of Qadri’s dark past. But the continued promotion of Tahir-ul-Qadri, even though the facts about him are readily available, proves that we in the West are so desperate for the emergence of a moderate Islamic voice that we will grasp at any fellow who preaches tolerance and understanding, even when his record shows that he has previously believed in and practiced neither.
[Footnote: This is the third time that Tahir-ul-Qadri has been promoted on HP as a "refreshing" beacon of Islamic tolerance. Either his name slipped through the net - again - or else the HP powers that be have decided that his record as the architect of what are, in effect, Pakistan's Nuremberg Laws, should have no bearing on his current efforts to establish himself as the liberal West's favourite cleric.]
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/09/25/dr-tahir-ul-qadris-peace-humanity-conference-is-a-ray-of-hope/
These Muslims logically say and imply that there are more than one versions of Islam. And when Muslims and defenders of Muslims deign to answer challenges from counterjihadists, they too emphasize that there are many different versions/ interpretations of Islam. And we should hold them to that.
But it gets confusing when these defenders of Muslims start saying that the so-called extremists, the definitely anti-democratic Muslims misunderstand or misuse (for power) some kind of "real Islam". Because then they imply again that there is only one true Islamic version. This almost always involved lying or gross ignorance.
My point is that we point something out to Muslims and their Western defenders. We can point out that yes, we want to see proof of different versions of Islam out there. Not that the Muslims will give this to us, but for the sake of the ignorant Westerners we need to ask for a Democracy-compatible version of Islam.
It is in my view reasonable to demand the formation of democratic Islam, in exchange for trust in the so-called "moderate" Muslims. Without that democratic Islam-version, we should argue that trust in default-Muslims is impossible.
Because mainstream Islam and the position of it's religious schools, the outcomes of enquetes among Muslims are too well known to be in large part anti-democratic or interpreted as such by many Islamic leaders and hundreds of millions of their followers.
Trust in a part of the Muslims, the so-called moderates, should only be restored if they were member of an organisation that would kick members out if they behaved detrimental to democratic conditions.
And if after long discussions the doctrine of that Islamic Democratic Organisation was democracy-compatible and improvable in the future.
But now, we should argue, members of the Islamic organisation, do not secede from mainstream Islam, or kick out any anti-democratic, terrorist, oppressive, crazy members. And they should be held accountable for that.
So ordinary Muslims should be considered members of an organisation that in regard to democracy is criminal (this can be said respectful, in the sense that for many Muslims some parts of democracy are criminal and that is OK too).
Criminal because of it's anti-democratic doctrines and the hundreds of millions of members who are anti-democratic. And the spearpoint to point is the death-penalty for apostasy that Islam has.
Only those Muslims who are member of Democratic Islam can in future be allowed in democratic countries and only those already resident-Muslims should in future be given trust.
Because default-Muslims do not deserve trust from really democratic people. Because they remain in a criminal organisation, or an organisation that has such a criminally vague, ambiguous doctrine, that hundreds of millions arguably view it as anti-democratic in many ways.
"Qadri is a member of the Barelvi movement, a Sufi-tinged form of Islam that originated in India and has been violently persecuted by Islamic hardliners."
Barelvis form the majority of Pakistan's population!
Most non-pashtun population of Pakistan is barelvi, while taliban is pre-dominantly pashtun. So barelvis take a strong stand against taliban.
Any sect with anti-taliban stance is celebrated as 'moderate' by the learned analysts in west. However on issues of blasphemy/apostasy etc, barelvis are no different.
Salman taseer who was assasinated for opposing blasphemy law was most likely an atheist.
jajaja! Hey London - long time no talkie!!
Cheers!
What's the word in Arabic for "baby steps?" Maybe what we're witnessing here is an historic first step in the Reformation of Islam. We do have to acknowledge and encourage these first steps.
Probably it is unrealistic to hope for the development of nonviolence and Islamic tolerance for others to supplant terrorism and Islamic supremacism in our lifetimes. But it would be a welcome spiritual breakthrough for them and mankind.
Truthseeker (the one with lingual bifurcation) said
Westerners too will need to examining their thinking as well as we seek to establish what could be called a "harmonious global ideology".
In his playbook, by the phrase "harmonious global udeology" he means Islam but expects you to understand it as some sort of multicultural multifaith world-peace-in-our-time anodyne pabulum. He's just inviting the West to collaborate in its own downfall.
I don't think it's about "versions" or "interpretations". It's only about degree of application. "Moderates", that is, Muslims WE see as moderate, prefer non-application of certain parts of Islam.
I was just talking to a friend, who is obsessed with "moderate" Muslims and how they are going to save the day, and she said we must get them to say they "don't like" this or that about Islam. But, I said to her, it's not about what they like or don't like. Even if they "don't like" stoning, etc, they don't necessarily think it's WRONG. They still believe such punishments are the will of God and must be followed; presumably they just prefer their countries' leaders find ways around applying the laws...or hope that people don't spy on each other with malicious intent. And maybe it usually works, with the help of Allah, who rather approves of hypocrisy and deception.
"Harmonious global ideology": over my dead body...the mind boggles as to the ghastliness of such a thing!
I heard an MPACUK (Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK) spokesman on the radio saying he wasn't attending because most of the people at the conference would be white middle-class Christian converts to Islam - the implication clearly being that the whole event wasn't worth a bowl of warm spit.
Had to rack my brain there David. You Seaangel's fellow warrior in the Carolinas ?
Nope. Think, "Bartok" and "Baja".
That should do it, London.
Off to campus. We'll continue later, but you almost got it, my friend.
These whitewashers of Islam in Great Brittain and elswhere are even more dangerous because they are skillful in propaganda and apply it to gullible Westerners who are not familiar with Amin al Husseyni (the Mufti of Jerusalem) the Nazi war criminal allowed to go to Cairo in 1946 by the British and French in order to keep Arab oil flowing. This nasty evil man (Mufti) then promptly agitated Arab masses to murder Jews, just as he did during his WWII in Berlin where he was egging Hitler on to hurry up the extermination of all Jews. Even some prominent Jews fell for this Islamic criminal propaganda. Currently we have similar situation where otherwise intelligent people like Noam Chomsky, J-street Jews, and that old French guy fall for Arab anti-Zionist propaganda. Mufti had no problem lying through his teeth, murdering his opponents (Muslims and non-Muslims), stealing money from his people and virulent Jew-hatred spreading. Arafat, Osma bin Ladin and leaders of Hamas, Hetzbollah, who are taken PC Europeans and Americans for ride into never land under the name of religions tolerance ;-)!
When one compares Muhammad with prophets and leaders of other religions, such as Moses, Jesus, Bahaula, Lao Tze, Dalai Lama and others one is stricken by the contrast.
Mohamed was a pedophile polygamist (married Aisha, one of his 12 new wives, after old wife from whom he inherited wealth died, when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9 and he was 56 years old). When he already had followers, he ordered a gruesome murder (by beheading) of 900 Jews from Medina who did not bow to him as THEIR prophet (Jews only listen to God's word directly). If 1,600 millions of Muslims around the world consider this guy as their ultimate role model, the world IS INDEED in a serious trouble!
While 80% of the Muslims may not be Jihadists (guy ready to die for their blood-thirsty Allah), they still are not dealing with the facts of Mohamed's life and hateful teachings of Koran,and Sharia, and are engaged in whitewashing Islamic roots of current days Jew-hatred and terrorism.
Sharia, Koran and Hadit are INCOMPATIBLE with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and one should support Congressional Investigation of what is happening in Mosques in North America. Having 300 millions of crazed (mostly) men ready to die for their Allah and chanting Allahu Akbar while committing murder of the OTHER needs to be investigated in depth and prevented those nuts to come to North America. Keith Elliot, the US Congressman is the biggest white washer of Islam in USA, and one can observe this by what is happening with Detroit which is filled with burkha-clad creatures. Burkha is NOT a fashion statement, but a symbol of medieval misogynistic religion, which has not place in a modern world, since it is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Islamic center close to 9/11 where the men would change those same words, that had been chanted when the planes were plunging into WTO would indeed by unconscionable. If Muslims want to atone for the murder committed by their coreligionists in the name of Islam, they can build an International dialogue center, not specifically catered to Muslims but for all people of good will to prevent further terrorists' stacks in the world in the name of Radical Islam. It should be paid by the funds from Saudi Arabia and Iran, which had been sponsoring terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
Qadri agrees with the death penalty for blasphemy and has, in light of the Muhammad cartoon rioting, demanded that the West criminally prosecute and punish those involved in making and publishing the cartoons. He argued that the West should impose Islamic blasphemy laws. Once, when given a platform at CNN (see link below), implored the U.S. government to stop the Florida pastor Terry Jones' proposed Quran burning. Qadri warned that the event, if allowed to go ahead, would destroy world peace. He demanded that the U.S. government "stop" Jones "at any cost." "Any cost" is a serious phrase coming from someone who thinks the death penalty for insulting Muhammad is appropriate justice.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/09/qadri.quran/index.html
Here's Qadri from the above source (my emphasis):
"If this event had gone ahead it would not be less than 9/11 in the sense of far-reaching consequences and after-effects. It risked religious clashes and riots. It would have impacted badly upon peacemaking efforts worldwide, the culture of dialogue, and the processes of cohesion and integration between different religions and communities."
[...]
"Such actions in the U.S. should be stopped by the U.S. government at any cost; allowing it does not fall within the constitutionally protected scope of freedom of expression and it is also against the concept of basic human rights."
"Denial of the Holocaust is regarded as a crime in many countries and there is an agreement between many nations that such a ban is not against freedom of speech and freedom of expression because it infringes the sentiments of a religious community."
"On the same grounds, any act of an individual or group which is detrimental to world peace and hurts the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslim should be stopped at any cost."
------------------
Robert asks "...what about the jihad imperative to impose Sharia?"
Indeed, what does Qadri have to say on the question of the situation where sharia is not implemented in a Muslim country, and the state won't let anyone set it up? What if the state allows conditions that allow people to freely express criticism of and even insult toward Islam, as well as open proselytizing to Muslims, leading to widespread disbelief and abandonment of Islam? This is a condition that Qadri, if he is consistent in his beliefs, could not allow to continue, since this would result in the end of Islam and the loss/death of the souls of Muslims (due to their disbelief and then being destroyed in hell-fire by Allah). Logically, if all other options failed, he'd have to advocate a forceful overthrow of the non-Muslim regime. But would he? I doubt that he would answer questions like this one.
a couple of clarifications to my previous post:
"...as well as open proselytizing [by non-Muslims] to Muslims [to convert them out of Islam],"
"Logically, [applying Qadri's logic consistently] if all other options failed, he'd have to advocate a forceful overthrow of the non-Muslim regime."
"Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri"
Another name to add to the list of dangerous Muslim poseurs as men of peace. The info above about Qadri shows that he is every bit as intolerant of deviations even within Islam away from his particular brand of Islam that he is willing to kill for their sake.
Apparently "...the major opposition to the Barelvis in the Indian subcontinent comes from the Deobandi movement...Ahmad Raza Khan, along with other religious figures, issued fatāwā of apostasy against the founders of the Deobandi, Wahhabism, Shia Islam and "Qadiani" (Ahmadiyya) sects of Islam." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barelvi
It's therefore not surprising that Qadri is unpopular with followers of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence.
Slightly OT, but I wonder - we have come to know about converts to Islam dropping names like "Michael" or "John" to pick up Muslim names like "Muhammad" or "Hussein" or "Hasan". Anyone know of the reverse, i.e., an apostate from Islam who publicly changes his name from "Muhammad" to "Michael" or "John"?
Flint Badger. Is that you?
A short followup on the Barelvi Sufis, of which Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri is one. The movement was shaped by one Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Raza_Khan_Barelvi .
-----
Beliefs
-- Muhammad, although human, possessed a noor (light) that predates creation. This contrasts with the Deobandi view that Muhammad was insan-e-kamil ("the complete man"), a respected but physically typical human.
-- Muhammad is haazir naazir (can be present in many places at the same time, as opposed to God, who is everywhere by definition).
-- God has granted him ilm-e-ghaib (the knowledge of the unseen).
-- God has made him mukhtaar kul (having the authority to do whatever he desired).
Quran and hadith studies
-- Ahmed Raza Khan translated the Quran into Urdu, which was first published in 1912...[He] also wrote several books on the collection and compilation of hadiths.
Fatwas
-- Raza Khan's main work was Fatawa Ridawiyya which runs in 27 volumes of over 1000 pages each. The Raza Foundation under the leadership of Abdul Qayyum Hazarwi revised the work, translating all the Persian and Arabic sentences in Urdu, and published it in 30 volumes, running across 90,000 pages.
Religious research
Raza Khan investigated numerous religious questions:
-- In 1915 he wrote a treatise describing 160 types of water which are acceptable for wudu (ablution), and 146 types of proscribed water.
-- He identified 181 acceptable and 130 unacceptable materials for tayammum (alternatives to water for ablution).
-- He was able to fill up the Naqsh-i-Murabba (a sixteen column quadrilateral) by 1152 methods.
-- He knew 800 names of Muhammad from books, and was able to gather 1400 more.
-- He analysed whether it was credible that Hussain was able to travel from Mecca to Kerbala on 3rd Zilhij and reach there on 2nd of Moharram. He investigated the types of horse, the loads they carried, the route of the caravan, the types of terrain, and other factors, and finally concluded that the caravan could feasibly have reached Kerbala by the 2nd.
Works in physics
-- Raza Khan opposed the belief in a heliocentric universe, instead stating that the sun and moon circulate around the Earth.
...
Antagonism towards Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Ahmadiyya Cult
... When Ahmed Raza visited Mecca and Medina for pilgrimage in 1905, he prepared a draft document entitled Al Motamad Al Mustanad ("The Reliable Proofs") for presentation to the scholars of Mecca and Medina. Ahmed Raza Khan collected opinions of the ulama of the Hejaz and compiled them in an Arabic language compendium with the title, Husam al Harmain ("The Sword of Two Sanctuaries"), a work containing 34 verdicts from 33 ulama (20 Meccan and 13 Medinese). The work concluded that Ghulam Ahmad's beliefs were blasphemous and tantamount to apostasy.
Raza Khan condemned many practices he saw as bid'at (forbidden innovations), such as:
-- Qawali (religious music)
-- Women going to vist mazaar (tombs)
-- Tawaf (ceremonially walking in circles around a holy site) of tombs.
-- Sajda (prostration) to those other than God
-- Ta'zieh, plays re-enacting religious scenes
-----
My final comment: The founders of Barelvi Islam are every bit as delusional and given to navel gazing as the founder of Islam itself. Consider the case of Raza Khan above. Writing a treatise on the 160 types of water which are acceptable for wudu (ablution) and 146 types of proscribed water, as well as 181 acceptable and 130 unacceptable materials for tayammum (alternatives to water for ablution), would undoubtedly amaze even the Church scholars engaged in documenting the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin. And 27 volumes (over 1000 pages each) documenting fatwas?! Of course, it is exactly this sort of activity that is admired and emulated, and institutionalized as "religious science," in such places as Qom and al-Azhar.
The belief concerning heliocentrism needs no comment.
That there is an entire school of Shia Islam based on the drivel issued by this man is amazing. But of course Islam in the main is driven by the output of such men, starting with its founder.
I do not disagree with you. But I am living among political correct Westerners, both leftists AND Christians. And what I wrote was about reasonable requests a majority of Western Citizens could ask of Muslims. I think these political-correct multi-cultural Western Citizens are the biggest problem, our highest priority target. And what is it that is reasonable to ask of Muslims that can be endorsed by 51 % of our voters? Hence politicians, hence parliament, government.
Re Muslims who leave Islam.
The only apostate whose apostasy I personally witnessed - as he underwent baptism in a Christian church - adopted the name 'Michael'.
And he insisted firmly on being known by that Hebrew-derived Biblical name ever after, even though the name he had previously had was not a blatantly Islamic name such as 'Muhammad', 'Ali' or 'Abdul/lah'.
Another apostate of whom I know - a Persian surnamed Shayesteh - took the name 'Daniel' upon his baptism. Or at least, he's known as Daniel today, and I don't think 'Daniel' is a very common name among practising Muslims. (Google 'Daniel Shayesteh' and 'Exodus from Darkness' to find out more about him).
Oh, and I forgot - another instance of a name-change upon leaving Islam, is probably Patrick Sookhdeo.
He was born in British Guyana to 'moderate' Muslim parents of Indo-Pakistani background (mother a born-Muslim, father a born-Hindu who converted to Islam to marry his Muslimah) but even so, I doubt that 'Patrick' is the name he was given as a baby; it looks much more as though he chose it when he was formally admitted into the Christian church.
(I shall have to ask him, next time I see him; which I am likely to do, as he visits Australia quite often, and usually has a speaking gig in my hometown).
Thanks, DDA, for the information about the adoption of Christian names by Muslim apostates. One hears about the large number of Western converts to Islam, but it is rare to read or hear about the opposite, even though there are reports that it is occurring in large numbers.
Nope- damn, London- read this backward: kotrabeed.
Remember? Samuel Adams? Self-censorship?
This is getting fun, my friend. Pls. tell me you recognize.
This
have a pleasant sleep. Tom.
Nope. Try again. Think, "Horse" and self-censorship...
Oho.
I had a sort of suspicion it was you.
Nice to see you posting again.
A bit more about apostates.
I've spoken with Sookhdeo and heard the story of his conversion. He was in his late teens at the time, living in London - his family had migrated from British Guyana to Britain - and he fell in with a bunch of dear, sweet old Christian people who took their missionary duties seriously. When he announced his conversion to Christianity, his parents threw him out of the house and disowned him - they were 'moderate' Muslims after all, since they didn't actually kill him or send any hitmen after him. The story has a happy ending, however, because in the long run both his parents followed him out of Islam into the Christian faith. His brother - he has a brother - also apostasised from Islam and became...a red-hot nonreligious Trotskyite. I think Patrick is still praying hard for his brother; but at least his brother is no longer a Muslim.
There's a book by Sookhdeo's wife Rosemary - 'Stepping Into the Shadows' - in which she tells a lot of cautionary tales about the 'marriage jihad' and western women who convert to Islam...quite a few of whom, having done so, ultimately came to their senses and apostasised right back out. She also includes accounts of born-Muslims apostasising from Islam. Sookhdeo and his wife spent some twenty/ thirty years working in inner-city heavily-Islamised parishes in the UK and I suspect they've had a hand in shepherding quite a few people gently and discreetly out of the Ummah to freedom.
Part of the reason we don't hear too much about those who - within the West, even in supposedly-post-Christian Italy, Scandinavia, France, the Netherlands, etc. - are apostasing from Islam to Christianity (and then there are the others who like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq choose western secular reason), is that most of them aren't in a position to afford heavy-duty security. They have to change their names, change their places of residence, and fly under the radar, hoping that nobody from the continuing-Muslim 'community' finds out who and where they are and decides to carry out the sharia punishment for apostasy.
I don't know how many there are. But it's a steady persistent trickle. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in 'Nomad', says that when she gets letters from disaffected Muslims - resident in the West - who confide to her that they want to leave Islam, but who also explain that they still think there is a God and that they don't feel they can become atheists like her, she advises them to check out Christianity.
An Italian poster here, some years ago, said that the church **in Italy** was getting enough new converts, that they had had to dust off the form of the baptismal service that is used not for the baptism of infants but (as the old C of E prayerbook puts it) for the reception into the church of " those of riper years". Only the Pope knows how many Alis and Mohammeds are now Giovannis and Giuseppis and how many Fatimas and Aishas are now Marias and Lucias...
. .returned a month late to this thread. .if you read this David, yes the penny has dropped . .:)