Jihad Watch: Al-Qaeda vs. the Qur'an?

August 26, 2004

Al-Qaeda vs. the Qur'an?

In NRO Mustafa Akyol has replied to Andrew McCarthy's criticism of his initial piece claiming that radical Muslims were violating tenets of Islam by beheading hostages. My own initial reply to Akyol is here.

Looks like it's time for another long post. My apologies.

I have been criticized by people I respect recently for making trouble for moderate Muslims. Leave them alone, they say. They're doing important work, refuting the radicals. Well, sure -- if they are indeed refuting the radicals. But my problem with these articles by Mustafa Akyol and similar ones by others is that they don't refute the radicals: if a radical Muslim read them, he would be able to invoke multiple verses of the Qur'an and Sunnah to refute them. So I wonder again: what is the real intended purpose of articles like Akyol's? Is it to convert radical Muslims to moderation, or just to reassure jittery Westerners that Islam isn't as threatening as it may seem? And if it's the latter, and it's done on false or shaky pretenses, what kind of reassurance is that?

This time Akyol starts with a common canard:

McCarthy begins by defining jihad as "violent holy war." Yet the term "jihad" does not necessarily refer to armed conflict. It simply means "effort" and it can include nonviolent struggles, such as an intellectual endeavor against atheism. Of course, there is also military jihad in the Koran and in the Islamic tradition; that is the point we have to discuss and, perhaps, redefine.

Redefine? Interesting. So is Akyol rejecting traditional understandings? If so, I'm all for it, but what kind of a following does he have? But anyway, yes: no one who has studied these matters at all doesn't know that jihad doesn't always mean armed conflict. But so what? The Shafi'i legal manual (the Shafi'is are a school of Islamic jurisprudence) 'Umdat al-Salik devotes one paragraph to jihad as spiritual struggle and seven pages to jihad as warfare. Blandly asserting that jihad is also a spiritual struggle doesn't move one inch to stop the groups that are right now waging armed jihad all over the globe.

Akyol then argues that Qur'an 8:67 and 47:4, which enjoin killing unbelievers,

were revealed in seventh-century Arabia, where battles were fought by swords and spears. Winning a battle meant killing a great number of your enemies. Any reluctance during the battle to attack and kill the enemy could bring defeat, and, in Muslims' case, annihilation of the whole umma, or community of believers.

It's interesting that the rhetoric of radical Muslims often parallels this: just the other day I posted a piece from the New York-based Salafi Society of North America. It says:

Don’t the Muslims know that our struggle against the Jews is a struggle of Creed and a struggle of Religious livelihood? Don’t they realize that it is a struggle of culture, a struggle to remain in existence, a struggle of identification?

It would follow, then, that the Salafis of North America, reading Akyol's piece, would say that that is true: the context of verses 8:67 ("It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land") and 47:4 ("Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks") refers to times when the very existence of the Islamic community is threatened. And that time is now.

Then Akyol criticizes McCarthy's reasoning:

McCarthy finds in this a justification for the beheadings in Iraq. His reasoning goes like this: (a) When jihad is ongoing, the taking of prisoners is frowned on, and (b) jihad should be ongoing until the enemy is subdued.
Here is a crucial flaw in McCarthy's argument; a failure to distinguish between a military jihad (a war) and a battle. Early Muslims of Medina were at war with the pagans of Mecca for many years, but they took prisoners of war after the battles they won. If they thought along the lines McCarthy suggests, they should never have taken any prisoners of war, which was obviously not the case.

This argument is rendered irrelevant by the fact that Islam allows for the killing of prisoners of war, as I outlined in my previous response. Quoting again from 'Umdat al-Salik, which is endorsed by Al-Azhar University, the supreme institution of Sunni Islam:

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph considers the interests ... (of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy. [o9.14]

Then Akyol assails McCarthy for invoking the account of the Bani Qurayza massacre, which I also discussed in my reply:

McCarthy criticized me at this point for leaving out the account of Bani Qurayza, the Jewish tribe whose men were reportedly beheaded by order of the Prophet because they had secretly collaborated with the pagan army attacking Medina. I had a reason for leaving this out: I strongly doubt its historical accuracy. There is no reference to such a dramatic event in the Koran and it only appears in the biography of the Prophet written by Ibn Ishaq, a man who died 145 years after the event. In a detailed article that questions the accuracy of this story, scholar W. N. Arafat explains why it was probably a "later invention." Ibn Hajar, an Islamic authority, denounced it and other related stories as "odd tales." A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik the jurist, denounced Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" and "an impostor" just for telling such fables. Moreover, as Rabbi Brad Hirschfield of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership says, the "massacre... hardly shows up in Jewish literature."

This all seems impressive, but it falls apart on closer examination:

1. "There is no reference to such a dramatic event in the Koran..."
True -- sort of. Even the scholar Akyol cites, W. N. Arafat, along with many others, acknowledges that Sura 33:26 refers to the massacre:

And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.

Hardly a clear reference, I know. But anyone who thinks that the Qur'an relates stories of the early Muslims in a clear and straightforward manner has not read the book. The Qur'an is largely a dialogue between Allah and Muhammad. In it, they often refer to events and people that they know, but that we don't -- unless we have recourse to ahadith and other extra-quranic texts in order to elucidate what the Qur'an is saying. Take, for example, Sura 9:81:

Those who were left behind rejoiced in their inaction behind the back of the Messenger of Allah: they hated to strive and fight, with their goods and their persons, in the cause of Allah: they said, "Go not forth in the heat." Say, "The fire of Hell is fiercer in heat." If only they could understand!

The translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali, along with many other Muslim authorities, is certain that this verse refers to Muhammad's last military adventure, his trip to Tabuk to take on the Byzantines. He even inserts a parenthesis after "left behind": "(in the Tabuk expedition.)" But "Tabuk" does not appear here, or anywhere, in the actual text of the Qur'an.

2. "...and it only appears in the biography of the Prophet written by Ibn Ishaq, a man who died 145 years after the event."

Akyol doesn't tell you that, removed from the events as he was, Ibn Ishaq is Muhammad's FIRST biographer. There is no earlier source outside the Qur'an for details of the Muslim Prophet's life.

3. "In a detailed article that questions the accuracy of this story, scholar W. N. Arafat explains why it was probably a 'later invention.'"

And on what grounds does Arafat do this? He says, among other things, that "to kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an." Therefore it didn't happen? Come on. Even if this were true, which is not at all clear in light of verses like 9:5 ("slay the unbelievers wherever you find them") as well as the legal injunctions I have already quoted, there is no reason why we must assume that the Muslims at this time and place acted scrupulously according to the injunctions of the law.

Arafat also says that "it it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war, which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed." I have already quoted authorities saying that killing prisoners is an option also. Here's another: According to the renowned jurist of the Hanafi school, Ya’qub Abu Yusuf (731-798), "There is no objection to the use of any kind of arms against the polytheists . . . one can even pursue those that run away, finish off the wounded, kill prisoners who might prove dangerous to the Muslims."

Then Akyol attacks Ibn Ishaq's reliability:

Ibn Hajar, an Islamic authority, denounced it and other related stories as "odd tales." A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik the jurist, denounced Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" and "an impostor" just for telling such fables.

Akyol doesn't say why they considered him unreliable. It wasn't because of his historical accounts: it was because of his legal judgments. He was suspected of quoting legal traditions with incomplete or inadequate chains of transmitters establishing their authority (although he scrupulously includes such chains for most of his historical accounts). He was further accused of Shi’ite tendencies and other deviations from orthodoxy. But the great Islamic jurist Ahmed ibn Hanbal (780-855) summed up the prevailing view: "in maghazi [Muhammad’s military campaigns] and such matters what Ibn Ishaq said could be written down; but in legal matters further confirmation was necessary."

Then Akyol invokes the Jews:

Moreover, as Rabbi Brad Hirschfield of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership says, the "massacre... hardly shows up in Jewish literature."

I am no authority on Jewish literature, but I know an argument from silence when I see one.

As for the Bani Qurayza massacre istelf, it is amply attested in various ahadith. One summarizes Muhammad’s dealings with several groups of Arabian Jews:

Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again. He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa‘, the tribe of ‘Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina.

That's from the hadith collection considered most reliable by Muslims: Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, book 64, no. 4028. (That's the book numbering, not the online one. I don't have time to check for the online numbering right now.)

Akyol's final point is that the "'enemy' refers only to combatants." Unfortunately, however, again Islamic law is against him. It prohibits the killing of women and children "unless they are fighting against the Muslims" ('Umdat al-Salik o9.10, cf. al-Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2). This has been interpreted as allowing civilians to be killed if they are somehow aiding the war effort — hence the common assertion that "there are no civilians in Israel."

There is more: Akyol asserts that "in the Koran Jews and Christians are called 'The People of the Book,' and salvation is promised to them if they worship God sincerely (2:62). True, but the Qur'an also says of both Jews and Christians: "Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" (9:30).

So in sum, Akyol's second piece is yet another example of the shallow and incomplete presentations from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims, which, for all their power to reassure Westerners, do nothing to take the wind out of radical sails.

Akyol is right when he says: "The Koran was revealed in the seventh century and some verses refer to events that do not or could not take place today. This means there are some parts of the Koran that we can't — and aren't supposed to — implement literally now."

I couldn't agree more. Now, Mr. Akyol: please construct an argument that takes all the data into account, so that it will be more likely to convince your coreligionists to lay down their arms and take a place in civilized society.

Posted by Robert at August 26, 2004 5:58 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

Seams it is number 6 ye we are fighting now mulsum stile?

When you are winning you call for a break so your enemys can regroup?

Seams that the mulsums don't care about their children or women but BUILDINGs?

Mr. Spencer I'm in auh and hope with all my heart that you stay with this Fight! This is how we will win the people need to hear the storys from around the world and the hate that these people bring to their doors!

Once again thank You!

Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen

PS
And to all who help in the Fight!

PSS
Seams that this killing in Cal. campers is not the frist there have been 2 other border campers killed in the same fashion?
A couple in AZ and another couple in SoCal,

Posted by: Catherine

at August 26, 2004 7:20 AM

I think that Robert Spencer is contradictive. In his FAQ he explicity mention the fact that he is not against Muslims however Muslims believe in the Quran; if they don't they aren't muslims. However he says that radical extremists can use the authentic sources (which are accepted by most muslims) to justify their actions.

So to conclude Robert Spencer actually is calling for a different interpretation for the Quran or not acting by those passages which are clearly written in the Quran. But what is Robert Spencer doing? Is he actually taking the right verses in the right context?

Let's take a look to one of his most used verse:
"It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise."

The context taken by Robert Spencer is a false one and a decieving one because a couple verses earlier the Quran clearly says:
"But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower."

We can conclude the gives quotes of Robert Spencer are only usable when Muslims are been attacked and not by initiative.

Posted by: bugmenot

at August 26, 2004 7:50 AM

Bugmenot~ Uhm. I shall leave it to the much more eloquent to shred your argument, leaving only this little bit:

We didn't declare war. Osama Bin Laden did, on five different occasions. And he is using the Koran to justify it.

We incline towards peace. So why does he continue to use the Koran to justify his war?

Posted by: Gary

at August 26, 2004 8:17 AM

We can conclude the gives quotes of Robert Spencer are only usable when Muslims are been attacked and not by initiative.

To be perfectly honest with you bugmenot, no one gives a stuff, simply because Muslims will, and have interpreted these passages however they feel will further their cause.

Even your use of "Attack" is so open to interpretation,, it seems like Muslims and Islam are always under "Attack" now that may not be literaly, but couls also be ideologicaly, so this then would be construed as an attack on Islam, calling for retaliation....blah blah blah blah.....

You can spin it any way you want to buddy, the fact of this world on Islam prove otherwise.....in fact Islams followers are showing all of us by example how the Quran is being interpreted......and by all accounts nothign seems to have changed since Muhammad's days.

Posted by: Joe Bananas

at August 26, 2004 8:18 AM

We can conclude the gives quotes of Robert Spencer are only usable when Muslims are been attacked and not by initiative.

Posted by: bugmenot at August 26, 2004 07:50 AM

Then what do you say about this line in your book?

Qur’an 6:66
“The people reject this (Book) and call it a lie though it is the truth. Say: ‘I am not a warden over you.’ ...When you see men who meddle with Our Revelations, turn away, withdrawing from them. Satan makes you forget.

Or what about this one?

Qur’an 5:17 “Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.’”
Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”
Qur’an 5:72 “They are surely infidels who blaspheme and say: ‘God is Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ But the Messiah only said: ‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’

Yes we see your decite and our eys are open!!

What about these lines?

Ishaq:243 “I heard the Apostle say: ‘Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!’ He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks…. Allah sent down concerning him: ‘To those who annoy the Prophet there is a painful doom.” [9:61] “Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ‘If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey’s.’”

So all the killing of black mulsums by arabs is normal? So why have Black American joined mulsums? They want to be killed by arabs?
And you say we should except the killings in Africa because you FOOLOW YELLOW MEN??

reza said we were going to see her YELLOW man UBL but again no video?

What a stupid woman who would follow YELLOW MEN!!

What about these lines?

Tabari VII:159 “The Messenger of Allah besieged the Banu Nadir for fifteen days until he had reduced them to a state of utter exhaustion, so that they would give him what he wanted. The terms in which the Prophet made peace with the Jews were: he would not shed their blood, he would expel them from their lands and settlements, providing for every three of them a camel and a water-skin.”
Ishaq:438 “The Jews loaded their camels with their wives, children, and property. There were tambourines, pipes and singing. They went to Khaybar with such splendor as had never been seen from any tribe.”
Ishaq:438 “The Nadir left their property to Muhammad and it became his personal possession, to do with it as he wished.”

In todays world we call a man like this nothing but a Theif by brute force? Yes he was Jelouse for the women were more Beautiful and he wanted them this is why he took as many Jewish women to bed as he could?

and then there is this?

Tabari VIII:38 “The Prophet selected for himself from among the Jewish women of the Qurayza, Rayhanah. She became his concubine. When he predeceased her, she was still in his possession. When the Messenger of Allah took her as a captive, she showed herself averse to Islam and insisted on Judaism.”

Ishaq:461 “Muhammad besieged them for twenty-five nights. When the siege became too severe, Allah terrorized them. After the siege exhausted and terrorized them, the Jews felt certain that the Apostle would not leave them until he had exterminated them. So they decided to talk to Ka’b Asad. He said, ‘Jews, you see what has befallen you. I shall propose three alternatives. Take whichever one you please.’ He said, ‘Swear allegiance to Muhammad and accept him; for it has become clear to you that he is a prophet sent from Allah. It is he that you used to find mentioned in your scripture book. Then you will be secure in your lives, your property, your children, and your wives.’”
Tabari VIII:30 “The Jews said, ‘We will never abandon the Torah or exchange it for the Qur’an.’ Asad said, ‘Since you reject this proposal, then kill your children and your wives and go out to Muhammad and his Companions as men who brandish swords, leaving behind no impediments to worry you. If you die, you shall have left nothing behind; if you win you shall find other women and children.’ The Jews replied, ‘Why would we kill these poor ones? What would be the good of living after them?’”

Yes this guy is all about killing if you don't follow him well in the USA we call that a bully and know how to take down a bully!!!

Them mulsum world has awakened a sleeping giant who has FRIENDs and will take out those who want to kill us!!!

Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen

Posted by: Catherine

at August 26, 2004 8:32 AM

Qur�an 5:17 �Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, �The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.��
Qur�an 5:51 �Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.�
Qur�an 5:72 �They are surely infidels who blaspheme and say: �God is Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.� But the Messiah only said: �O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.�

Do they incite violence? No.

Further on, you're not completing using Quranic sources but narrations. Give me Quranic proves.

Posted by: bugmenot

at August 26, 2004 8:59 AM

Bugmenot~ Again:

Osama Bin Laden is using the Koran to justify war (which he declared) against us. What are his Koranic proofs?

We incline towards peace, yet the war is still being waged against us.

Posted by: Gary

at August 26, 2004 9:05 AM

Do they incite violence? No.

Further on, you're not completing using Quranic sources but narrations. Give me Quranic proves.

Posted by: bugmenot at August 26, 2004 08:59 AM

You mulsums are like Lib's you never answer the who ? You make things up without an answer these are from tour book not mine?

and you say nothing about the death that is demanded from the Theif you follow ?

here are a few more for you to explain if you can?

Tabari VII:149 “I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said [lied], ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad.” Tabari VII:150 “I had tied my prisoner’s thumbs together with my bowstring. The Messenger of Allah looked at him and laughed so that his back teeth could be seen. Then he questioned me and I told him what had happened. ‘Well done!’ he said, and prayed for me to be blessed.”

Yes kill those who will not believe? What a bunch of crap and in this country we have the right to say it is crap and will always have that right!!!

here is another for you to answer if you can?

Tabari VIII:22 “Hassan was with the women and children. A Jew passed by and began to walk around his settlement. There was no one to protect them while the Apostle and his Companions were at the Meccans’ throats. So I said: ‘Hassan, this Jew is walking around. I fear he will point out our weakness while the Muslims are too busy to attend to us. So go down to him and kill him.”

Yes this man was walking around and you are afraid this is why you kill Jews because they show your weekness because they can see your evil!!!

Tabari VIII:22/Ishaq:458 “‘Allah forgive you, daughter of Abd al-Muttalib,’ Hassan said. ‘You know that I am not the man to do it.’ When he said that to me I saw that nothing could be expected from him. I girded myself, took a club, and, having gone down from the fortress to the man, I struck him with the club until I killed him. When I had finished with him, I returned to the fortress and said, ‘Hassan, go down to him and strip him—only his being a man kept me from taking his clothes.’ Hassan replied, ‘I have no need for his spoils.’”

Now was he killed because he was a threat or for his wallet?

I say for his wallet Yes a bunch of thiefs this is why G.Kaun killed your mo-ham-od because he was nothing more than a thief!!

Her are a few more for you to answer about your kind of peace?

Ishaq:464 “The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.”
Tabari VIII:40 “The Messenger commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.”

Tabari VIII:38 “The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.”

Yes there was suprise in the west when the mulsums were looting in Iraq but the mulsum world knew what they were doing! Yes your Thief god tells you to kill and steal!

Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen

PS
Remember the God of Israelis says have no other God before me and do not bowe to man or any but me well you mulsums bowe to a shrine and man how many times a day?

The only one to see God was Moses and he could not look upon him!

Yes it is the Children of Israel who God gave his commandments the 10 laws he gave to Moses and all mulsums break them all the time You lie,steal,and murder all in the name of your false belief! and covent another's wife?
Yes one of the ?s you didn't answer?

Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fihting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen

Posted by: Catherine

at August 26, 2004 9:25 AM

Marines have found a huge weapons cache!!! near where they were hold up in someones house in Najifi!!

Way to go!!

Fox News! guess them wont get to regroup with their stuff this is big!!

God Bless the Country who has HEROS and pitty the country who needs them!

The Iraqis will be Free!!

Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen

Posted by: Catherine

at August 26, 2004 9:56 AM

Somewhat off topic, but it's about the great religion of peace, so i wanted to touch on the subject. I read Mr. Spencer's article on Frontpagemag.com this morning.

It's become commonplace for Muslims to attempt to somehow sneak in the back door of important historic events, falsly making themselves a part of them. Attached is a list of Christopher Columbus' crew: Please find me an Arab name from this list if you can:

Crew of the Santa Maria:

Cristobal Colon (Christopher Columbus), captain-general
Juan de la Cosa, owner and master
Diego de Arana, master-at-arms
Pedro de Gutierrez, royal steward
Rodrigo de Escobedo, secretary of the fleet
Rodrigo Sanchez, comptroller
Diego de Salcedo, servant of Columbus
Luis de Torres, interpreter
Rodrigo de Jerez
Alonso Chocero
Alonso Clavijo
Andres de Yruenes
Antonia de Cuellar, carpenter
Bartolome Biues
Bartolome de Torres
Bartolome Garcia, boatswain
Chachu, boatswain
Cristobal Caro, goldsmith
Diego Bermudez
Diego Perez, painter
Domingo de Lequeitio
Domingo Vizcaino, cooper
Gonzalo Franco
Jacomel Rico
Juan, servant
Juan de Jerez
Juan de la Placa
Juan Martines de Acoque
Juan de Medina
Juan de Moguer
Juan Ruiz de la Pena
Juan Sanchez, physician
Lope, joiner
Maestre Juan
Marin de Urtubia
Pedro de Terreros, cabin boy
Pero Nino, pilot
Pedro Yzquierdo
Pedro de Lepe
Rodrigo Gallego, servant

Crew of the Pinta:

Martin Alonso Pinzon, captain
Francisco Martin Pinzon, master
Cristobal Garcia Xalmiento, pilot
Cristobal Quintero, ship's owner
Francisco Garcia Vallejo
Garcia Hernandez, steward
Gomez Rascon
Juan Bermudez
Juan Quintero
Juan Rodriquez Bermejo
Pedro de Arcos
Alonso de Palos
Alvaro Perez
Anton Calabres
Bernal, servant
Diego Martin Pinzon
Fernando Mendes
Francisco Mendes
Gil Perez
Juan Quadrado
Juan Reynal
Juan Verde de Triana
Juan Vecano
Maestre Diego, surgeon
Pedro Tegero
Sancho de Rama

Crew of the Niña:

Vincente Yanez Pinzon, captain
Juan Nino, owner and master
Francisco Nino
Bartolome Roldan, apprentice pilot
Alonso de Morales, carpenter
Andres de Huelva
Bartolome Garcia, boatswain
Diego Lorenzo
Fernando de Triana
Garcia Alonso
Juan Arias, cabin boy
Juan Arraes
Juan Romero
Maestre Alonso, phyiscian
Miguel de Soria, servant
Pedro de Soria
Pero Arraes
Pero Sanches
Rodrigo Monge
Sancho Ruiz, pilot

Allahu Snackbar!

Posted by: DCWatson

at August 26, 2004 10:03 AM

Further on, you're not completing using Quranic sources but narrations. Give me Quranic proves.

Posted by: bugmenot at August 26, 2004 08:59 AM

I have nothing to prove to you. You have to prove to me that your beliefs are peace-ful as far as I can see. Is that it is for death!!

Yes in my world if I have a point it is my job to make others to believe so you see it is your JOB to prove that you are part of the peace plan and not a part of the problem I am a woman who believes that to take out a muder is to kill him not put him in jail at tax-payers expence[My Money] I would help to feed the children with my money not feed the killers I say kill the killers!!

Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen

Posted by: Catherine

at August 26, 2004 10:05 AM

Bugmenot~ I am hoping you are still watching this thread. I realized I have mis-stated my question to you.

You criticize Mr. Spencer- and you have every right to do so in Western Society- but the point he is making is that Al-Queda is misinterpreting the Koran in the war Osama Bin Laden declared against the US, the West, and the world in general.

According to your own teachings (if you are muslim), misinterpreting the Koran makes Osama Bin Laden and his organization murtad. Yes, not quite the right word, but I am just learning. Please advise me as to what word describes Osama Bin Laden for going against his faith in declaring this war?

We- the US, the West, and the rest of the world- incline towards peace. Osama Bin Laden, his organization and many others are using the Koran to justify their declared war, which, as you point out, is against the will of Allah.

Judging by this, isn't it in your best interests to declare Against Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaida?

Posted by: Gary

at August 26, 2004 10:09 AM

"A Struggle for Existence" is the most pertinent line in the argument on Robert Spencer and ALL THE OTHERS. We are in a struggle for existence that ONCE AGAIN has spilled over from the Middle East.

Which group is on the offensive? Which group enters and refuses to assimilate and compromise with other groups so that all may live in peace? Which group's maxim "peace means the absence of enemies," meaning the enemies have been subdued or eliminated? Which group enters and demands special treatment and, in cavalier fashion, tramples the rights of other groups until they are no more? There is only one group that fits this description: Islam. The struggle for existence between Islam and everyone else is perpetual for Islam offers no quarter, only enslavement or death.

Posted by: epg

at August 26, 2004 10:14 AM

We can conclude the gives quotes of Robert Spencer are only usable when Muslims are been attacked and not by initiative.

Posted by: bugmenot at August 26, 2004 07:50 AM

It would appear that the English language is under attack yet again.

Example of peace by Islam regarding wives for Boogermont:

Qur'an 4:34- Admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Let us not forget the measure of peace brought to us by the false God Allah and false Prophet Mohammed:

"And slay them (the infidels) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter". 2:191

"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppressions, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression". 2:193

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not". 2:216

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him
who fighteth in the cause of Allah, whether he is slain or gets victory soon shall we give him
a reward of great (value)". 4:74

"Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or
helpers from their ranks". 4:89

"Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home". 4:95

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly". 8:60

"O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred; if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding". 8:65

"Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you to victory over them, and heal the breasts of the Believers". 9:14

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which
hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of truth, from
among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel
themselves subdues". 9:29

If you wants "proves".......read the above, and you'll have your "proves". Renounce Islam before it's too late.

Posted by: DCWatson

at August 26, 2004 10:21 AM

There are way too many unethical and inhumane statements in the religous texts (primary and secondary) of multiple religions. Frankly I think I can logically argue that it would be in the best interests of mankind that whenever there is a statement by god to be inhumane and unethical towards anyone or anything it should be blotted out permanantly.
Whether it is a commandment by god to kill/stone someone for apostacy or having consentual sex with someone, whether it is statement calling a group of people perverse names because they just belong to a different religon, or whether it is statements allowing for the existance of slavery in any form at any time of history. What really disturbs me is that a ethical and humane god would not logically send us such statments ambigous or not- for any god would know that sending even ambigous unethical statments would cause great suffering to people. To argue for a god that sends us inhumane and unethical statements, ambigous or not, is to logically argue for an unethical god and I can't reason/understand the benefit to anyone of recognising/worshiping such a god. The fact is that as long as such statements are in religous texts someone is going to interpret them to justify hurting innocent people.

Posted by: ethical

at August 26, 2004 10:27 AM

My dear "bugmenot":

I will do my best not to bug you, but I think a few remarks are in order.

"But what is Robert Spencer doing? Is he actually taking the right verses in the right context?"

Actually, I am not doing anything but reporting on radical Muslim exegesis of the Qur'an and other sources. I do not make any interpretations of Islamic texts on my own.

"Let's take a look to one of his most used verse:
'It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.'"

I thought your phrase "one of his most used verse" was interesting, and suggested a larger knowledge of my work than just this post. So I checked. I don't mention this verse in my book "Islam Unveiled," and I mention it only once in passing in "Onward Muslim Soldiers."

If you want to talk about what are really my "most used" verses, they would have to be 9:5 and 9:29, because those are the foundations of the Islamic doctrine of offensive jihad (for which see here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002530.php.)

"The context taken by Robert Spencer is a false one and a decieving one because a couple verses earlier the Quran clearly says: 'But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.'"

Sure. But Islamic scholars have traditionally interpreted "inclining to peace" as placing no obstacle in the way of the propagation of Islam -- in other words, effectively surrending their cultural and religious identity. And if they don't do this, they must be fought. Cf. again the words of Mufti Ebrahim Desai.

When you are prepared to denounce Mufti Ebrahim Desai as a heretic, we may have something to talk about.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at August 26, 2004 10:28 AM

A word of reason and clean advice to any Muslim or Muslim posers that enter the domain of Jihad Watch;

Save yourselves the embarrassment of debating the Qur'an and its verses with Robert Spencer....

You'll achieve the same results that you would by peeing into the wind, or paddling upstream, you cannot win. The Qur'an says what it says. Since Muslims are so into wanting to alter historic events, the Qur'an would be a great reason for them to begin talking about Islamic reform, instead of lying and maneuvering.

Ummkay?

Posted by: DCWatson

at August 26, 2004 10:38 AM

Two Russian planes simultaneously explode in the sky and we wonder if it is just coincidence. Much like many wondered if the first plane into the WTC was just an accident.

Where is the common sense? I have NO doubt that this will prove to be another abominable act of the brain dead Islamic cult.

Islam is providing this world no enlightenment, no intellect, no creativity, no industry, no productivity of any kind, no art, no music, no theatre, no compassion, and no intelligent thought.

Islam offers this entire world war, death, destruction, rhetoric, deception and mindless adherence to a Manson–like cult and a whole lot of stupidity.

Like a mosquito Islam sticks its poisonous beak into the earth to suck out its oil and use liquid gold to spread its invasive larvae. Like a mosquito, Islam wishes to suck secular, tolerance, compassion, love, joy and kindness from the world in a binge of beheading, bombing, mutilation and mind-numbing ignorance.

As I previously said, May all terrorist be shot and buried next to the rotting carcass of a pig. Can’t get those virgins if you sleeping with a hog. Remember Allah hates pork.

Let’s burry these bastards with Porky.

No Islam, Know Peace

Toro

Posted by: Toro

at August 26, 2004 11:43 AM

BUGOUT you are just another in a long line of apologists who assume incorrectly we are, as a group ignorant of the swill you demand we consume.
Islam requires ignorance on my part to seem ration. I have chosen not to comply.
Your attempt to deceive has fallen flat despite the fact your were kind enough to not include the verse numbers you were referring to and claim of others being insincere well here’s the entire thing in as much context as Islam affords

8.56. They are those with whom you made a covenant, but they break their covenant every time and they do not fear Allâh.

Mo’Allah (contraction of Mohammed and allah) tells Muslims you cant trust these folks

8. 57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.

Mo’Allah says if you have them in a position that may call for mercy torture them to create terror in others who may follow.

8. 58. If you (O Muhammad ) fear treachery from any people throw back (their covenant) to them (so as to be) on equal terms (that there will be no more covenant between you and them). Certainly Allâh likes not the treacherous.

You cant trust them so deceive them its OK

8. 59. And let not those who disbelieve think that they can outstrip (escape from the punishment). Verily, they will never be able to save themselves (from Allâh's Punishment).

Allah will get them someday.

8. 60. And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allâh and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allâh does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allâh shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.
9.
Make ready for war allah will provide the enemy its your duty and you will be rewarded

8. 61. But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allâh. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.

Here the set up you used

8. 62. And if they intend to deceive you, then verily, Allâh is All-Sufficient for you. He it is Who has supported you with His Help and with the believers.

Allah told you you cant trust these folks

8. 63. And He has united their (i.e. believers') hearts. If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allâh has united them. Certainly He is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

8. 64. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Allâh is Sufficient for you and for the believers who follow you.

8. 65. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do not understand.

8. 66. Now Allâh has lightened your (task), for He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the Leave of Allâh. And Allâh is with As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.).

Mo’allah will lead you to victory and slaughter

8. 67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Some kind of religion you have there, slaughter, ransom death conquest.

8. 68. Were it not a previous ordainment from Allâh, a severe torment would have touched you for what you took.

This describes how stealing used to be a crime but no more

8. 69. So enjoy what you have gotten of booty in war, lawful and good, and be afraid of Allâh. Certainly, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

8. 70. O Prophet! Say to the captives that are in your hands: "If Allâh knows any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you, and Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

This is the basis for not turning over a captive for ransom if you think you will gain more in the future kill them you will get more to ransom in the future I Mo’allah promise.

8. 71. But if they intend to betray you (O Muhammad ), they have already betrayed Allâh before. So He gave (you) power over them. And Allâh is All-Knower, All-Wise.

And don’t release them because, you caught this one and no reason to have to catch him again killem.

8. 72. Verily, those who believed, and emigrated and strove hard and fought with their property and their lives in the Cause of Allâh as well as those who gave (them) asylum and help, - these are (all) allies to one another. And as to those who believed but did not emigrate (to you O Muhammad ), you owe no duty of protection to them until they emigrate , but if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, and Allâh is the All-Seer of what you do.

Spread Islam immigrate sura nine abrogates the treaty nonsense 9. 1. Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allâh and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh), with whom you made a treaty.

8. 73. And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you (Muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so (i.e. become allies, as one united block with one Khalifah - chief Muslim ruler for the whole Muslim world to make victorious Allâh's Religion of Islâmic Monotheism), there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism, etc.) and oppression on earth, and a great mischief and corruption (appearance of polytheism).

All the world is against Mo’allah and they are making ready for war.

8. 74. And those who believed, and emigrated and strove hard in the Cause of Allâh (Al-Jihâd), as well as those who gave (them) asylum and aid; - these are the believers in truth, for them is forgiveness and Rizqun Karîm (a generous provision i.e. Paradise).

Good muslims leave their homes and make war in other lands.

8. 75. And those who believed afterwards, and emigrated and strove hard along with you, (in the Cause of Allâh) they are of you. But kindred by blood are nearer to one another regarding inheritance in the decree ordained by Allâh. Verily, Allâh is the All-Knower of everything.

So what you were using to obscure the truth when seen in full reveals the truth. what is your agenda why would you try to hide the truth?

Posted by: KAOSKTRL

at August 26, 2004 12:34 PM

One of the most outstanding Clue Bat sessions I have ever witnessed...

Posted by: Rottweiller

at August 26, 2004 12:59 PM

Robert,

Excuse for using the name "bugmenot" but it refers to a website which tries to avoid any registration to log in in a website (which can take a minute or two and I wanted to react fast)

As for your named mufti he is a blind follower of taqleed (i.e. immitating). And opposes the salafi thought.

I invite to read the following book about Osama and "Wahhabism"

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/

It's free to download and read it with Adobe Reader.

Yours,

A. El Haji

Posted by: bugmenot

at August 26, 2004 1:52 PM

A. EL HAJI/BUGENOT
Have read your link. First thought which comes to mind is how much are Saudis paying Haneef James Oliver to write this drivel.....??

Posted by: Morgane

at August 26, 2004 3:23 PM

Bugmenot/ El Haji

I have read sections of your referenced citation and I wanted to puke.

How sweet and loving Islam must be,

to quote, Shaykh Saalih (an Islamic “MODERATE”

"Hence, Islam is a balanced and moderate way, and it does not enter into negligence on the one hand, nor exaggeration or extremism on the other. It is balanced in between (these two extremes)… In addition, Islam encourages equity and justice amidst both Muslims and non-Muslims.
"Verily, Allah enjoins justice, the doing of good, and giving to kith and kin; He forbids all shameful and prohibited deeds, and oppression. He admonishes you, that you may take heed."
Allah….. also forbade those fighting in jihad from killing women, children, the elderly and the ascetics who are devoted to worship, as well as forbidding the cutting down of trees and so on."

HORSESHIT, PURE UNADULTERATED HOSESHIT!

How can anyone with an ounce of self respect believe such crap.

81 Muslim countries in the world and something like 80 of them are at war. Woman and children are fair targets and anything is ok in the name of that bastard Allah.

Yeah Islam encourages equity and justice amidst both Muslims and non-Muslims alright, their equity and their justice.

The lies of this cult are unfathomable.

No Islam, Know Peace

Toro

Posted by: Toro

at August 26, 2004 3:32 PM

Morgane:

So your conclusion is that he is paid by the Saudi government?

Did the book made too much sense to you? Please elaborate your thoughts about it and try to be objective instead of accusing his motive.

Posted by: bugmenot

at August 26, 2004 3:33 PM

Image rehabilitation, anyone?

Posted by: Rottweiller

at August 26, 2004 4:07 PM

I hope the Muslims don’t kill me because I said that Islam is not a religion of peace. That Mohammed was a false prophet and its ok to kill infidels. They should have never printed the Koran in english, see we can read in this country so we know what it truly says. So your lies don’t files. No Islam, Know Peace!

The only way to end the war on terror is to end Islam.

Posted by: Bar

at August 26, 2004 4:08 PM

Strange how a search under OSAMA BIN LADEN WAHHABI yields so many results.

Posted by: Mike

at August 26, 2004 4:14 PM

Indeed. I guess Omar al-Bashir will have to be the poster child for Wahhabism now.

Posted by: Rottweiller

at August 26, 2004 4:16 PM

Mike:

I guess the internet is taken by Islamic websites which all say Osama = Wahhabi.

Please be reasonable.

Posted by: bugmenot

at August 26, 2004 4:18 PM

HAJI aka bugmenot,

Evidently you are a Muslim in self denial of the "facts" concerning your vile and evil ideology.

Here's some of the Islamo-garbage that Mohammed, the child raping pedophile created with his demented mind.

"Common in our times are the ugly scenes prophesied by Allaah's Messenger (SAW) in which men and women gather to entertain themselves with musical instruments and other prohibited acts. (Al-Bukhaaree, Abu Daawood, al-Bayhaqee and others)"

"Ibn Hibban entitled the chapter: "The Allowance (Ibaahah) of Young Women [perhaps the meaning here of "young women" is young girls who married at an early age, as was the cause with Aisha (RA), whose marriage to the Prophet (SAW) was contracted at the age of six and consumated at the age of nine. (Bukhari)] To Play With Toys (al-lu'ab) [dolls]."

"Al-Haleemee mentioned that if it (the toys/dolls) were made from wood, stone, brass (sufr) or metal (copper), in the shape of a human, complete with limbs like the idols (wathn), it would be obligatory to break it up. It would absolutely not be permitted for them (the young girls) to possess it".

"On the other hand, if one of them (the young girls) takes a rag or piece of cloth and twists and turns it into the shape of a child and calls it a baby girl or a mother and plays with it - she is not prohibited from this".

LISTENING TO MUSIC AND SINGING
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said,

"They use musical instruments, drums and female singers. (One day) they will go to sleep after a night of drinking and having fun. In the morning, they will be transformed (by Allah (SWT) into monkeys and swine." (Ighathat Al-Lahfan)

"All the picture makers would be in the fire of Hell. A soul will be breathed in every picture prepared by him and it shall punish him in the Hell."

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 4:31 PM

Son of Infidel,

Is this a respone to th book called the Wahhabi Myth or just again an anti-islam shot in the air?

Posted by: bugmenot

at August 26, 2004 4:49 PM

How am I being unreasonable?

Posted by: Mike

at August 26, 2004 4:52 PM

Because you questioned them.

Posted by: Rottweiller

at August 26, 2004 4:54 PM

I don't have a problem checking out Oliver's book, I'm getting a little pissed-off about being call unreasonable, though.

Posted by: Mike

at August 26, 2004 4:57 PM

I am pissed. I can't spell "called" all of a sudden.

Posted by: Mike

at August 26, 2004 5:00 PM

What about this?
http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2001/11/01/Osama_profile/index.html
Says here he was born with a Wahhabi spoon in his mouth.

Posted by: Rottweiller

at August 26, 2004 5:02 PM

Bad link.
It's the OBL profile in Salon - number 13 under a Yahoo search "Osama bin Laden Wahhabi". Quite detailed.

Posted by: Rottweiller

at August 26, 2004 5:05 PM

Haji aka Bugmenot,

The previous post is not as you say "an anti-Islam shot in the air", it is on "target" factual information that is just one example why Islam should be eradicated.

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 5:12 PM

There are a lot of responses to bugmenot, Reza, and the like; then there are people like me, who just don't give a damn about them or their fellow-travelers.

We give a damn about the fact that their religion gives them the moral authority to go on an unremitting rampage against the rest of the world, a rampage that has gone on for 1400 years and to which there is no end in sight.

Eventually, we will weary of our PC countrymen, our ignorant neighbors, and all those foreign states whose governments and populations are in fundamental agreement with Islam's goal of bringing the U.S. to its knees.

That, and not Islam's or Osama's declaration of when a war has started, will be the beginning of the end of Islam.

That will be when we take the PC gloves off and declare a REAL war, with or without Congress.

That will be when we begin to fight fire with fire, because we recognize that this is a conflict unlike any we have ever faced before, and it requires a different approach from any we have used before.

Islam had better be afraid, very afraid, when that day comes, because the people who brought you MIT and the Constitution of the United States will get you. If you SOBs think that you can outwit us, fight dirtier than we, or are more motivated, you have another think coming.

Lock and load.

Posted by: cubed

at August 26, 2004 5:20 PM

Haji aka Bugmenot,

Here is more Islamic idiocy

How to trim nails Islamic way?
(Darul Uloom Amjadia, India, Printed in Monthly Kanzul Iman-India)

Q: What is the Masnoon (Sunnat) way to trim nails and on which days nails should not be trimmed?
A: The Masnoon (Sunnat) way of trimming nails is to start trimming nails from the index finger (Shahadat) of the right hand and work your way down to pinkie finger. Then proceed to the left hand starting from pinkie finger and finishing up at thumb. Finally the thumb of right hand should be trimmed. There is no sequence has been mentioned for feet nail trimming though it is better to use the same sequence used to do Khalal of feet (Start from the pinkie of right foot and finish it up at the thumb, then start from the thumb of left foot towards pinkie). Same is mentioned in Bahare Shariat (part 16, page 196) and Fatawae Alamgeri (part 5, page 358), *1. There is no prohibition regarding the days to avoid trimming nails. Whichever day the nails are trimmed on is Masnoon because there is no proven Hadis about prescribed days. But in some Zaeef (weak) Ahadees Wednesday is prohibited for trimming nails. Therefore if Wednesday is the day of Wajoob (Wajib to perform nail trimming). For example if a person has not trimmed nails for 39 days and 40th day is on Wednesday and if he/she does not trim nails on Wednesday than 40 days would be completed. Then it will be Wajib on him/her to trim nails on Wednesday because it is prohibited and Makrooh-e-Tehreemi to exceed 40 days without trimming nails.

Allah Tala Knows The Best.

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 5:23 PM

P.S. DC, the REAL "backdoor" to the discovery of the Americas by Muslims is the fact of their raping and concubinage of Spanish women for so many years during their occupation of that land.

There were surely many bits and pieces of Muslim genetic material which had stowed away on Spanish chromosomes for the voyage aboard the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria.

Yuk.

Posted by: cubed

at August 26, 2004 5:28 PM

Bugmenot~ I take it from your silence on my question, that Osama bin Laden is Indeed within the boundaries of the Koran, in justifying his declaration of war against the West? An Unjustified war, I will add.

Posted by: Gary

at August 26, 2004 5:58 PM

Looks like thats the end of Bugmenot...

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 6:06 PM

Another Islamo-fascist bites the dust...

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 6:08 PM

All I'm asking was to read the book.

But I'm attacked with:

-- A 'reliable' google search result number
-- Given quotes by sources I've never heard of. (e.g. Ighathat Al-Lahfan)
-- A preparation of war (cubed)
-- Accused of being an Islamo-fascist although I said that Usama doesn't represent Islam.
-- Connected the discussion to the head of Sudan.

Robert: is this what you want? I've been trying to be polite and decent. All I'm asking is to read the book. Nothing more nothing less.

Peace.

Posted by: bugmenot

at August 26, 2004 6:25 PM

BUGMENOT
Hey, like the name!Like most apologists you try to
convince yourself and others by volumes of explanations, theories etc. Just go to any Muslim
country where Wahhabi sect predominates and see the results; women have no rights, wonderful Sharia Law with stoning, amputations and beheadings and gore galore - Jeez call that 'peaceful and tolerant' or even civilized!!
Unfortunately, Muslims insist on living in seventh
century while rest of the world wants to be 'Modern'. You either join us Bro or you will left behind in overpopulated third world economies, stagnating in what your rock God was supposed to have said to his epiletic, pedophile
prophet 14,00 yrs ago...

Posted by: Morgane

at August 26, 2004 6:49 PM

'-- Accused of being an Islamo-fascist although I said that Usama doesn't represent Islam. '

Not according to the search I just did in this thread. You never mentioned him by name. If it on the links you provided, my apologies, but I see nothing by you Here, suggesting that Osama is not abiding by the Koran.
And if he doestn't represent Islam, then should he not be denounced, here in this thread, as well as in the muslim press and mosques?

Posted by: Gary

at August 26, 2004 6:50 PM

bugmenot:

I don't see anything that indicates that Mr. Spencer has declined your invitation.

Actually, I tend to agree with the notion that Bin Laden is being true to the Koran, and if Mohammad were alive, they would be getting along just fine and working together.

So, what is the big deal? Islam is at war for many reasons and on many fronts; and that is pretty much the end of that discussion in all intellectual honesty.

You have two choices -- submit or not. Its nothing personal really, but I just happen to be in the latter camp.

Personally, I'll be polite to you as many I am sure will. However, don't expect courtesy from everyone.

War is kind of like a wedding -- it can bring out the worst in some people. It's all emotion, so get past it if you can.

Posted by: witness

at August 26, 2004 7:01 PM

Well its starting already,four left wing idiots who came here to protest the Republican National Convention were arrested for taking off all their clothes.

Looks like there will be more of this stupidity over the next few days.

These fifth column socialists would be well suited as "human sheilds" somewhere in Najaf.

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 7:13 PM

Akyol's comments have been answered, in sober fashion, as to the use made of the Qu'ran and Sunna (the hadith, or more correctly, ahadith). What might possibly need fleshing out is history -- that is, the actual history of how Muslims, in India, in North Africa, in Mesopotamia, in Syria, in Judea, in Egypt, in Spain, dealt with those non-Muslims whom they conquered.

It may be true that in the list of possible ways of dealing with non-Muslim captives, it is not always and everywhere necessary to kill them. But it is also true that the entire emphasis is doing what is best, most convenient, most expedient for Islam, and that instead of suggesting that only if necessary (for example, if it is impossible to guard the captives, or to bring them back to a villege or a city) should they be killed, the emphasis is entirely otherwise: only where Islam can be furthered more effectively -- say, by obtaining ransom, or by living off the potential jizyah of such captured dhimmis -- would one wish to spare their lives. Between 60-70 million Hindus were massacred, over 250 years, by Muslim invaders. Why did they stop? Why did they allow the Hindus, like the Zoroastrians in Persia, to be treated as "honorary" People of the Book? They did so not because they suddenly became horrified at this, not because Muslim rulers were stricken with guilt -- one has only to read the completely matter-of-fact accounts of Muslims themselves, including Ibn Battuta in the Rihla, to see that all this killing and mayhem was regarded as a matter of course, hardly worth discussion. No, it was done because the Muslim state depended for its revenues on the non-Muslims, and Hindus alive, paying the tribute of the dhimmi, were needed.

Indeed, once the tribute paid by the dhimmis diminished, because they had been so reduced in size, or converted (reverted), or killed, the Muslim states had difficulty meeting their revenues. Pressure by the European powers over time, beginning in the 19th century, made it more difficult for the Ottoman Empire to receive tribute from its dhimmi population. This was hardly the sole reason for the misrule and decadence which had led, over many centuries, to a steady decline. But even from the time of Mehmet Fatih, Mehmet the Conqueror, the murderous treatment of the non-Muslims was in evidence.

Akyol may not like this. He may wish it had been otherwise. Very good. But he is not entitled to ignore, to omit, or to tamper with the history of Muslim acts. He is not permitted to engage, as a historian (if that is what he claims to be, rather than someone engaged in "dialogue" with non-Muslims on the basis of spreading pious disinformation, perhaps not out of malice but because, as a Muslim, he simply cannot bear to recognize what is contained, and what has been acted on, and what very likely will continue to be acted on, in Qur'an, hadith, and sira), in falsification.

Does he really believe that the story of the Bani Qurayza, is NOT believed by most Muslims, or is NOT taken to heart? Does it matter if it is in the Sahih Bukhari or in the Qur'an? Does it matter that in the Qur'an explicit mention is not there, but that every commentator has taken to explaining that reference to the Bani Qurayza has always been understood? How much of the canonical texts, and of the main Muslim writers, jurisdonsults and commentators both, does he expect us to ignore? Does what al-Ghazali write about the necessity for Jihad -- you know, the "dreamy, otherworldy, Sufi" al-Ghazali (if the views of certain innocents are to be believed)-- matter? What about Ibn Khaldun and his matter-of-fact discussion of Jihad? What about a thousand others? What about history itself?

Oh, we can all get along all right -- as long as we pretend that history does not matter, and what people hear in the khutbas, and the prayers that used to be said against the Infidel, all over the Ottoman Empire (you can find the Egyptian version in Lane's Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, and there are others pertaining to Turkey itself).

Akyol should ask himself what it was Ataturk did. He constrained Islam. He understood he could NOT change the doctrines. He did what he could to limit its power. He helped to create the conditions in which a sufficient number of Turks could grow up in conditions of relative mental freedom -- freedom, that is, from the stifling effect of Islam. That is why, in Turkey today, perhaps 30% of the population acts, more or less, like reasonable inhabitants of the same moral and intellectual universe as Western man. Some of those beneficiaries of Ataturk have not sufficiently understood to whom, and to what, they owe their own mental freedom. They ignore the slow undoing of Kemalism by Erdogan. They like to think of themselves as something, and the something that comes to mind is "Muslim." They are ungrateful to Ataturk and those who supported them. They are not sufficiently alarmed by the clever use Erdogan is making of the EU application by Turkey -- he is managing, step by step, to undo elements of the Kemalist structure, including his attempts to take power away from the army, Turkey's last best hope against the encroachments, which will alwys increase, by the forces of Islam now embodied in the sly Erdogan, by using the demands of the European Commmunity to justify these measures.

Will Akyol be honest about Islam? Or is he incapable of it? And will those involved in the attempt to encourage the "moderates" be satisfied if those "moderates" keep engaging in the wholesale rewriting of both the central tenets of Islam -- not as he or others would have them be, but as in fact they are taken to be by the overwhelming majority of Believers.

Bin Laden is a good Muslim, an orthodox Muslim. It would be difficult to rebut him on the basis of the teachings of Islam. The history of Islamic conquest suggests that he, and many others who share his views, have history on their side. The Infidels need to learn that history. And if the "moderate" Muslims have not learned that history, and if they, in the end, in the choice they will have to make, between loyalty to the word "Islam" and loyalty to the intellectual and moral freedom that only the non-Islamic world offers them, should also learn that history--and not accept substitutes.

Posted by: Hugh

at August 26, 2004 7:31 PM

Bugmenot:

The one lesson Muslims have yet to learn is that simply because a Muslim put something in writing does not mean that it is the truth.

Mohammed no more talked to Allah than Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson or the Boston Strangler did. Moe’s fiction, the Koran is as much a fairy tail as Alice in Wonderland.

Don’t expect the West to worship the Komic Book Koran. Our bullshit detectors are now turned on.

Nor do we have to dwell on this suggested piece of crap, it is obvious from even a partial overview that it was written by a moron.

Toro

Posted by: Toro

at August 26, 2004 7:37 PM

This is how stupid and ignorant these leftists are.

The word "blew up" could be used in this context. I had an argument with my boss today and blew up at him.

It can also be used in this context. The terrorist blew up the plane.

Does this now mean if people use the word "blew up" in the course of a conversation it automatically it has a non-violent meaning because some people dont infer violence when they use it??

Posted by: SonofMoses

at August 26, 2004 8:21 PM

Bugmenot:

Tell me this...

If a man stands under a roof during the rain. Can he use the fact that his clothes are dry as proof that it was not raining?

If a nazi can be shown being kind to his family while at home, does this mean he is a good man?

Islam is based on the TOTALITY of its actions. Those actions are abundantly clear in islamic countries like Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan etc. One can read the many accounts of people who are not muslims who have suffered under islamic law, both past and present.

You present theory as if it somehow supercedes reality. If you can show some quote from some muslim book that does not advocate violence, you think that proves that islam is not violent.

People who follow islam, and their actions, are the true determinants of its true meaning, not isolated books written by well meaning scholars.

Posted by: SonofMoses

at August 26, 2004 8:41 PM

As I said the religous texts we have been looking at whether ambigous or not still are full of a huge number of inhumane and unethical statements....now it could be said that in any religous text if there were just a handful of unethical statements, ambigous or not, that then when applying that religion by the large majority of the population in a secular democratic society..then that religion would still be compatible in that society. However the problem is that when there is a critical mass of such unethical and inhumane statements, commandments, behaviours and precedents from god or his/her messengers it becomes ever harder (for a true beleiving practitioner of that religion who wishes to fully live that religion) to still be prepared to live by the ethical and humane laws and norms of the secualar sdemocratic society they live in. The problem for islam in the west and the world over is that there such a critical mass for too many people in its religious texts...in the primary koran and all the secondary texts....infact one has to ignore the multitudinous unethical commandments of god AND THEN a multitude of unethical and inhumane behaviours/precedents of its prophet in islams secondary texts consistently to be able to comply with secular democratic laws. That is why unlike many other religions that have much less unethical statements contained in them you do have so many muslims joining extensive islamist movements...movements that have and wish to set up totalitarian islamist states...or at the very lest set up states that are extremely intolerant to any people who are different to themselves. The problem isn't that there a few unehtical statments in the koran...and hadisths and sunna..the problem is that it has just too many of them...and that the result is that there is alawys the risk that in any given secular democratic society... at any time where that society undergoes socio-economic problems islamists will use it to gain enough adherents to set up an islamic state. Even in the most secular democratic muslim country on earth...Turkey the strongly secular miliatary has often had to step in on many occassions and kick out popularly elected governmants becuase the majority of "secular democratic turks" wished to change the country from a secular deomocratic scoiety to a more islamist society. WAnd now recently in turkey...due to economic stesses it has recently endured..again a majority of the people have eleceted a government is moving more towards an islamist agenda....just this time the military is just watching it to see this new government attempts to abandon a secular democratic state before it acts to stop this happening. What does turkeys example mean to the west...it means that as muslim populations grow and they if they become sufficently socio-economically unsuccessful then the best system we can hope for is a secular democracy with a strongly interventionist military that has to constantly remove elected governments becuase the majority want an more islamic or islamist state.

Posted by: ethical

at August 26, 2004 8:47 PM

Son of Moses,

Speaking of "lefists"

New York is in the process of being invaded by these socialist leftwing swine.

The fifth column America hating maggots have come here to try and disrupt the RNC.

There are two groups involed, the anti-war ANSWER coalition,run by Leslie Cagan that communist slut and United for Justice and Peace which stated that "the Rev. Jesse Jackson,liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and actor Danny Glover will join the march"

This would be a good opportunity to pelt these marching idiots with rotten eggs.

The whole lot of them should be arrested and incarcerated for being traitorous slobs.

the Rev. Jesse Jackson, liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and actor Danny Glover were expected to join the march.

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 9:18 PM

Please excuse the mistake at the end my last post. I was a bit perturbed, as I just ran into one of these "protesters" on the street.

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 9:27 PM

p.s. I could be wrong...I can't look into the future..maybe most majority muslim socieites in the future will be able to become very stable secular democracy's...it is just that the fact is this hasn't happened yet. But I think the odds of this occuring would be greatly increased if there was an islamic reformation of some kind..However there is a big problem...the general trend of even the few muslim scholars who invovlve themselves in such a reformation consistently make the mistake of just reinterpreting the unethical and inhumane statements in the koran and islamic second texts as really just misunderstood and ethical and human afterall..For example the statment that a woman should be stoned to death for having consentual sex is unethical period!!!!!there is no point in saying that it is a ethical and human statment after all because i have read another stamernt elsewhere in a religous text. That is getting us nowhere...in the west we have long ago acknowledged that some of the old testement laws and behavioural precedents arn't ethical by modern standards and so have been put in the waste bin of history. The large majority of us don't keep trying to reinterprete them and say they are ethical and human afterall. Likewise with a historical account of an atrocity we don't say oh we weren'there so how do we know...we say that the concept of such an atrocity is unethical and is to be condemned. It is this completely free and unhibited thaught that has given us our secular democratic civilisation. It is the same kind of thaught that needs to flourish in the islmamic world if it wants to be modern, democratic, stable and prosperous.

Posted by: ethical

at August 26, 2004 9:58 PM

Ethical:

So who decides what is ethical or humane? In a secular world where everything is relative and there is no objective truth -- what gives anyone the "right" to take a moral high ground regarding...anything? It's all absurdity.

Son of ... infidel:

Why do you insist on insulting all the "traitorous slobs" in the world by associating them with the ilk of Rev Jackson, and Mr. Moore?

What wrong have these "traitorous slobs" done to you that you should be so unkind to them ???

Posted by: witness

at August 26, 2004 10:06 PM

From http://www.debka.com

Abducted Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni has been killed in Iraq according to Al Jazeera reporting on video received. Islamic Army in Iraq say he was killed because Italian troops were not withdrawn.

I do believe that some people think they are God, and have "rights" to murder regardless of what any other diety might have to say about it.

These are not warriors, they are devils -- its about time for a little exorcism I think.

Posted by: witness

at August 26, 2004 10:23 PM

ethical,

Are you suggesting that the problem of Islamo-fascism could possibly be solved by the reducation of the worlds Muslim population, estimated to be in excess of 1.2 billion?

Futhermore your speculation that Islam in the future may somehow undergo drastic reforms, I am sorry to say is absurd.

In the 1400 years since this vile and evil scourge came into the world, it has not reformed itself.If anything it has become more radical with the spread of Wahabbism.

Finally, the Islamic world has no desire to be democratic. What it does desire is a new world Islamic order under the law of Sharia.

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 10:23 PM

witness,

I read this news story online also.

More bloodthirsty slaughter by the Islamo-barbarians.

It is truly time to unleash the "dogs of war" on the Islamists.When will we finally have the resolve to properly deal with these bastards.

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 10:32 PM

Son of Infidel ...

I think the kids would enjoy a little hunting trip this weekend..."inshaAllah."

Posted by: witness

at August 26, 2004 10:41 PM

witness,

"Why do you insist on insulting all the "traitorous slobs" in the world by associating them with the ilk of Rev Jackson, and Mr. Moore"?

I did not associate the Rev Jesse Jerkson and fatboy Michael Moore, they are part of the problem and have asscoiated themselves with the fifth column socialist scum by participating in their activities.

"What wrong have these "traitorous slobs" done to you that you should be so unkind to them" ???

I am not sure this is a serious question,please clarify.

Posted by: Son of Infidel

at August 26, 2004 10:42 PM

Dear Witness...
the ultimate ethical truth is to live ones life to ones maximum happiness without harming another person and to provide the maximum freedom possible to all others so all others can acheive also the most happiness possible with the least possible suffering. To do otherwise through other so called truths is only to create suffering where that suffering is not necessary for the most happy society. If someones wants to tell me that living ones beleifs at the expense of anothers happiness (and freedom required to acheive it) is ethically justifiable (when that other person doesn't do anyone any harm) please post it here for everyone to read and logically debate. It is true in the past that in the west we did aweful things to people like burn supposed witches at the stake...we believed that this was ethical because it benefited society and in the long run (bizarely according to theological beliefs/thought) the accused witch too. But what has changed now is that we are not so ignorant of reality...we now know such treatment of a woman only causes incredible suffering to the woman and in no way benefits society or the accused witch. It only creates suffering and suffering must never be allowed to occur if it doesn't benefit society period!!!!!!!! It is true that in some situations it is ethical to do harm to others (for example when a democracy has to defend it self from totalitarian movements). However it is only ethical to do this by in flicting the minimum suffering possible...even to those who despise us....vengence is unethical. We have found in the west from knowledge/experience that it is not in any way necessary to use religion at the state/government level to create the most happiness and the least suffering in society. And infact to use relgion to manage a state at the government level actually creats much less happpiness and much more suffering. So therefore using religion to run a governemnt/state is seen as logically unethical and is not pursued in the west...but ethics that result in the most human (and free) society possible is.

Posted by: ethical

at August 26, 2004 11:15 PM

THE MYTH OF THE "MODERATE" MOSLEM

Where is this "moderate" Moslem that disputes the Koran and stands up against the jihadists? We have yet to hear him admonish them. Endlessly quoting from the Koran to show how Islam is not what we perceive it to be (by the actions of its adherents) proves nothing.

The Koran without the human beings that turn its words into actions would be a meaningless agglomeration from various sources of no interest to us who are not Moslems.

The "moderate" Moslem would be the one following the rituals of Islam such as prayer, fasting, etc. and studying the Koran for its instructions about the relationship of the individual with its god.

If the ethics elaborated in the Koran, however, are followed by the "moderate" Moslem--the relationship of the Moslem to other human beings--he cannot any longer be considered a "moderate" Moslem. This is where we, the non-Moslems, are affected.

We think of the "moderate" Moslem as the one who is not trying to kill or convert us. The "moderate" Moslem, however, is not adverse to demanding special rights not given to other ideologies in non-Islamic countries.

The "moderate" Moslem is on the side of the jihadists. His heart rejoices when Islam scores a victory in his view. He feels humiliated when it does not.

He cannot and should not be trusted. Why? Because he is not as "moderate" as he appears on the surface. When push comes to shove will he side with us when we finally get around to confront the Islamic enemy on our soil?

Your Moslems "friends," the nice, quiet Moslems next door might not be as harmless and peaceful as you thought.

The "moderate" Moslem to be "moderate" will have to be a Moslem who does not follow all of the Koran. I do not mean that he can be an apologist, explaining the verses to us and showing that they do not mean what they say. I mean he must reject major portions of the Koran, and then he will no longer be a Moslem--moderate or otherwise.

We see Islam by the actions of Moslems, not be what is written in the Koran and how its meaning can be twisted by apologists and deceivers to make Islam appear as an ideology of "peace and compassion."

Islam (Moslems) prides itself on how by lies and subterfuge it has conquered its enemies. We see how throughout history, Islam (Moslems) have brought death and destruction, followed by slavery of the survivors, and occassional windows of tolerance of constantly humiliated and heavily taxed non-Moslems.

By their actions we know them. There is nothing "moderate" about Islam (Moslems). If it seeks to destroy us, we must destroy it first

Posted by at August 27, 2004 01:09 AM

Posted by: unicorns62000

at August 27, 2004 1:24 AM

Just read this story on WorldNetDaily for a laugh!

Sheik: Allah sent giant spiders to combat U.S.
Cleric says arachnids as big as a chair killed soldiers in battle

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40167

It's hard to take any of these guys seriously.

Posted by: Degenerate Artist

at August 27, 2004 3:12 AM

That spider story is nothing compared to what our God did. Our troops brought GI Joe dolls and set them up on the battlefield. Then a priest said a special prayer and the dolls came alive and grew to be 7 feet tall. These new soldiers fought all day and all night and killed all the spiders as well as the attacking Iraqis. I saw it myself, it was all over CNN.

Posted by: SonofMoses

at August 27, 2004 3:46 AM

Have you heard the links between Sadam and Castro in the Nile Virus
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y01/ago01/27o11.htm
http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmc177.php

Greetings

Posted by: Franze

at August 27, 2004 6:27 AM

Dear Son of Infidel
I understand what your saying when you think that engaging in a islamic reformation through just education seems absurd. When I said that maybe I was wrong and that it may one day be that majority islamic socieites will someday become stable secular societies..i said maybe...I didn't say it was likely with the present historical precedents BECUASE IT DOESN'T YOUR RIGHT...I should have clarified myself there..sorry....i do very much take your point. The historical evidence so far does seems to strongly suggest that islam countries have had an EXTREMELY if not impossible hard time becoming even partially secular and democratic...the few countries like pakistan, turkey, pakistan and indonesia that claim to be fully secular and democratic (now or in the past)have at the present not fully acheived this political system to say the least. Indonesia and Turkey have come the furthest...(though indonesia is decimating or oppressing some of its minorities and its murderous generals are getting off scot free for it...not very secular and humane i am afraid and turkey isn't all that great either as the non-muslim minorities have also dissapeared (e.g. the armenians so how can we now really judge how they would treat non-muslim minorites when 99 percent of Turkey is muslim...they don't like non-muslim greeks much and the kurds havn't been treated that well in the past)...pakistan has regressed into dictatorship the most. And also Algeria needs a strong secular military to constantly stop isamic theofascism from coming to power. The basic message I am trying to get across is that the current historical evidence seems to suggest that one of the ways to stop totalitarianism if only in a partial way in islamic countries is modern western style education.
For example when Algeria had its first free democratic elections 90 percent voted for an islamic dictatorship..but their education system was decrepid and illiteracy was extremely highy. Whereas in Indonesia where education and illeteracy was much much better than algeria, only 10 percent supported a parliamentary bill to support implementing sharia law. But as I said Indonesia is still decimating its non-mulsim minorites in papua according to huma rights groups...the Acehnese arn't being treated that well...and the generals had a go at leveling east timor. So you can seem what I am saying.. that education does have an impact at reducing the tendency for islmaic countries to become islamic dictatorships...but nowehere as effectively as in the west where true secular democracys are far more frequent and stable. But So I do concede its seems absurd education will stop islamic theofascism like its does non-islmaic dictarhips in the west if you look at past history...just that education does have an effect to reduce the incidence and severity of islamic thoefasism to atleast some degree. Also it is important to note the in Iraq we should wait and see what can be done there in terms of secular democracy...it is a profoundly important litmus test. If the west can't with all its hundreds of billions of dollars and over a hundred thousand soldiers be able to create a true secular democracy there THEN I would TRULLY say that the prospects of islam becoming more tolerant and democratic will look VERY unattainable. And the islamic theofascists know that...that is why they are fighting so very hard to stop a secular democratic state from occuring. This is becuase if just by chance the west succeds in securing secular democracy in iraq even in just a limited way and the country as a result greatly improves socio-economically..then it will diminish ideologically the argument in the islamic world for theofascism. IRAQ IS VITAL...IF WE FAIL THERE THINGS WILL BECOME VERY BLEAK FOR THE FUTURE OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD AND ITS PRESENCE IN THE WEST.

Posted by: ethical

at August 27, 2004 7:40 AM

Ethical:

"the ultimate ethical truth is to live ones life to ones maximum happiness without harming another person and to provide the maximum freedom possible to all others so all others can acheive also the most happiness possible with the least possible suffering. To do otherwise through other so called truths is only to create suffering where that suffering is not necessary for the most happy society."

Witness responds:

Okay, so all ethical truths are realitive. To make the assessment that you have, i.e. "...the ultimate ethical truth ...," you must take a moral stand that is higher than the rest of the ethical value systems from which we are otherwise free to pick and choose or mix and match.

Ethical:

"If someones wants to tell me that living ones beleifs at the expense of anothers happiness (and freedom required to acheive it) is ethically justifiable (when that other person doesn't do anyone any harm) please post it here for everyone to read and logically debate. "

Witness:

It's called "utilitarianism." Usually, in the Philosophy 101 classes, the TA's show how this one falls apparent in deductive reasoning sections.

However, in practice; "utilitarianism" takes on new manifestations at the same time its practicioners deny it all levels.

Utilitarinism is a very useful tool for politicians, clergymen and women, philosophers, drunkards, business men and women, used car salesmen and women ... and the list goes on.

Ethical:

"suffering must never be allowed to occur if it doesn't benefit society period!!!!!!!! It is true that in some situations it is ethical to do harm to others (for example when a democracy has to defend it self from totalitarian movements). However it is only ethical to do this by in flicting the minimum suffering possible...even to those who despise us....vengence is unethical."

Witness:

Sounds very noble, with a twang of self-contradiction which we should of course ignore. It's not important after all, right? So than your moral highground is higher up than say, the mufti who hanged a 16 year girl last week in Iran because of her "sharp tongue?"

Vengence is "unethical?" Who decides that one? Which moral highground are they on compared to others?

Ethical

"And infact to use relgion to manage a state at the government level actually creats much less happpiness and much more suffering."

Witness:

You have read the Federalist Papers, have you?

Ethical?

"So therefore using religion to run a governemnt/state is seen as logically unethical and is not pursued in the west...but ethics that result in the most human (and free) society possible is."

Witness:

Ever hear of the Mayflower compact? May I suggest that you pick up an American history book and read it.

Yes, yes, I know all about the feminist commentary, interpretations, and revisions. It's getting a bit trite and I am no longer "shocked" by much of anything.

Take a look at what the Founders of America wrote about themselves and one another, as well as, their ideas about government. You are in for a surprise.

You may have to step down off the moral pedistal momentarily. I know, you might need a parachute, but its only temporary you see. Read their thoughts in their own words, and then you can leap back up to the empyrean strata of moral highground.

Oh, by the way, -- would you be willing to die for my sins if I make you -- god?

Posted by: witness

at August 27, 2004 8:46 AM

You can say what you like about the predominant ethical value ssytems of the west such as utilitarianism... but they are adopted in the west and they work...maybe you can argue that theoretically using academic reasoning that the ideas I have mentioned in my last post fall apart wherever it is atleast partially implemented in the west...HOWEVER these ethical concepts DO WORK. It works in creating the most tolerant human and ethical society. Yes ethics is all relative...in the west we constantly debate about where the line should be drawn from one extrmeme to the next...the key is to find a balance from these two extremes so as to provide the maximum benefit to society and providing the maximum benefit to the indidvidual. I know that in America the founding fathers might not have been perfect...but then ethics didn't stop two hundred years ago...take for example the issue of slavery...some argued for and others against....some thought it could be justified some didn't. But ethical thought developed as people gradually gained the knowledge about the consequences of slavery. They realised that it wasn't justified to enslave people becuase these people were full huma beings...not animals..and as full human beings they so deserved to be treated as such. Once people became less ignorant about the false beleifs of racial superiority then they could throught his self knowledge undertstand that to treat blacks as slaves wasn't justifiable...how can the treating of a human being as a slave ever in any age be justifiable. And yes I have not heard of the Mayflower compact at all but if it espouses ideas that arn't ethical by the standards of today as I have discussed already then it is likely I that these ideas were seen as ethical principly because these people were more ignorant of reality than they are today and so ended up therefore making unethical decisions. And also I acknowledge that many americans may not accept all my ethical standards...but that is not important if enough do...becuase that is all that is needed for these humanistic ideas and ethics to take hold...say waht you will but america with all its faults does in effect provide a more ethical and human society than any dictatorship in human history.

Posted by: ethical

at August 27, 2004 9:24 AM

By the way Witness..I am not cristian...am a agnostic

Posted by: ethical

at August 27, 2004 9:28 AM

Also through the ethical principles I stated you can already reason why vengence is unethical..it is simple...only justice according to set legal standards is justifiable where that justice benefits the society the most (i.e. protects it the most but also protects the individual). If one feels free to exact punishment on someone in excess of what is necessary to protect society for everyones maximum benefit with the least suffering then the result is people WILL make personal errors about how much punishment is justified...people will be hurt beyond what is ethically justifiable...especially when some individuals don't reason the issues as much as they could becuase they are ignorant. Often vengence only benefits the emotions of one person or amybe a few..but it sets a precendent in society where people can say...I want to harm others because i feel like it (or think it is right) and I want to do it according to my own personal idea of justice. Unfortunately we can't do that...in anicent athens where the judiciary wasn't seperated from the governemnt the result was that people just voted who they wanted to hurt..not becuase of any set laws but becuase they had a grudge and so decided they would extract venegence as they saw fit regardless of what that targeted person did.
The result was disastrous during the pelloponesian wars against sparta becuase when some great generals made a decision the people didnt like the people were enraged..the mob (ignorant by modern standards) developed a grudge beleiving these generals deserved death...but by modern ethical standards they didn't. These generals