| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Stephen Schwartz, a convert to Islam, makes a momentous announcement in TechCentralStation, via FrontPage:
On March 25, seven American Muslim activists joined me in founding a new, and much-needed platform for moderate Islam in America. Our organization is titled the Center for Islamic Pluralism. We have a website, www.islamicpluralism.org, at which our inaugural press release may be read, and have gained tax-exempt status as a public charity under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.Our founders represent the main Muslim communities in America: Sunnis and Shias, born Americans and immigrant Americans, of Arab, Turkish, and south Asian descent, as well as "new Muslims" -- Islam eschews the term "convert" -- originating in the U.S. and elsewhere in this hemisphere.
We define moderate Islam in the American context as an Islam that finds its proper and equal place as one among the many religions represented in America, with rights neither greater nor lesser than any other.
Moderate Islam recognizes its own history, the need to evolve, and the urgency for an intellectual revival, especially with regard to non-Muslims, women, and political governance. The CIP emphasizes pluralism to signal that it believes not in the tolerance of non-Muslims, but in their true acceptance as fellow believers in the one God, creator of the universe.
In addition, Islamic pluralism defines our approach to intra-Muslim relations. We seek mutual respect and dialogue between Sunnis and Shias, among Sufis, or spiritual Muslims, of both traditions, and full recognition within Islam of those who define themselves as cultural and secular Muslims.
Dialogue is the foundation of our activity. We come to this work with no preconceived program or demands, aside from our commitment to moderation, our loyalty to Western democratic principles, and our firm defense of American citizenship and obedience to American laws.
It's ironic that a man like Schwartz, who returns requests for dialogue with abuse and haughty refusals to answer, would now be heading up an organization with "dialogue" as its "foundation," but such are the vagaries of life.
And of course, despite Schwartz's unwarranted hostility to me, I will be the first to wish his new organization success. I'd rather see millions of Muslims belonging to the CIP than to Al-Qaeda. In fact, I'll even start the ball rolling on that dialogue with a few questions.
Schwartz says:
Islamic fundamentalists depend on the warped and distorted Wahhabi interpretation of Qur'an, but the stoning of adulterers appears nowhere in the Book itself. The situation of woman's rights is advancing in many Muslim countries, and may be improved without contradicting Islamic scripture.
It is true that the Qur'an prescribes lashes for adultery (24:2), but it also says that "if any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way" (4:15). The great Qur'anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains: "The early ruling was confinement, until Allah sent down Surat An-Nur (chapter 24) which abrogated that ruling with the ruling for flogging (for fornication) or stoning to death (for adultery)." He says that this is "a matter that is agreed upon." And indeed, it is the opinion of Ibn Abbas, 'Ikrimah, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Al-Hasan, Ata Al-Khurasani, Abu Salih, Qatadah, Zayd bin Aslam and Ad-Dahhak.
None of these are "Wahhabis": all of them predate Wahhab. How does the CIP plan to respond to Muslims who invoke them to justify the traditional practice?
Schwartz also says:
Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) command us to moderation; we can do no less than to fulfill these high responsibilities in that spirit.
Schwartz in this seems to be calling Muslims back to adherence to the Qur'an and the example of Muhammad. Interestingly, just today, "a group calling itself al Qaeda in Iraq" said that "Terrorizing enemies of God is our faith and religion, which is taught to us by our Koran." Another Muslim group set about "justifying violent acts through ideological and doctrinal arguments." I could give hundreds of examples of jihad terrorists pointing to the Qur'an and the example of Muhammad to justify violence. And Schwartz's all-purpose bogeymen, the Wahhabis, are just today touting Muhammad, apparently just as would Schwartz himself, as "the perfect role model in all situations." So will the real Muhammad please stand up? How will the CIP respond to jihad terrorists when they invoke Muhammad and the Qur'an?
In another place, Schwartz has decried those who "demand a revision of the Muslim holy book, Qur'an," and asserted that "Islam needs no Reformation, merely to return to its long-established tradition: pluralistic, spiritual, and committed to the protection and refinement of its civilizational heritage."
What we got here is more than a failure to communicate: it is a case of dueling traditionalisms. If Schwartz is correct that all Islam needs to do is go back to the books and recover its traditions, what does he make of Muslims who invoke the same tradition to argue for violence? For example, take this article, "The True Meaning of Jihad." It argues for jihad violence from the Qur'an and Hadith, and then adds this from the Sira:
Moreover some will say that Jihad was only defensive; this is incorrect. A quick study of the Life of the Prophet (SalAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) shows us something different:• The Battle of Mut’ah was instigated by the Muslims against the Romans the Muslims were 3,000 faced against a Roman army of 200,000.
• The Battle of Hunayn was inevitable shortly of the Muslims had conquered Makkah.
• The Battle of Tabuk was also instigated to finally destroy the Romans.
Clearly this is not the Muhammad that the CIP is calling Muslims to follow. So where are we to find this Good-Joe, Rotarian Muhammad? Not in the earliest biography of him, Ibn Ishaq's Sira. Not in the Hadith of the Sahih Sittah, the six collections considered most reliable by Muslims. Not in At-Tabari's history. All these portray a man of violence. So where is CIP's Muhammad?
Questions like these have led one member of the CIP's board, Tashbih Sayyid, editor of Pakistan Today, to reconsider his role in the organization. Sayyid explained to me: "I don’t know much about the group as yet. Since I am not participating in the process of evolution or development, I have no idea what the group is actually doing. But my whole life is devoted to one end: to make the Muslims understand that their theology needs to be reformed and reinterpreted. Anybody who thinks that there’s nothing wrong with their theology is either a blind person or an apologist."
Sayyid continued: "I have to find out if they’re on the same page with me. There are many things in Muslim Scripture that need to be reshaped and reframed and reinterpreted, so that they cannot be used by terrorists to justify homicide bombings and honor killings. I need to talk with Schwartz. If Schwartz believes that there is nothing wrong with Muslim theology, I cannot be part of this group."
I myself will be very interested to learn the outcome of that conversation.
Posted by Robert at March 31, 2005 1:06 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I think you mean "lashes for adultery," not "lashes for stoning."
Posted by: Adrianne Truett![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 31, 2005 2:04 PM
Dear Adrienne Truett:
Fixed. Thanks.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 31, 2005 2:11 PM
Robert:
While you aren't an Islamophobe, you hold Islam up to the light of day and for most non-apostate Muslims that's a problem.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 31, 2005 2:50 PM
The most intriguing part of the article at FrontPage announcing urbi et orbi that at long last "the Battle for Islam is joined" (stop laughing, please) was this:
"Our primary aims are to challenge control over the mosques and schools in America in which Wahhabi Islam holds a monopoly, and to introduce moderate Muslim voices into the Western media and academic discourse, and as expert advisors to governments."
"...and as expert advisors to governments."
Hmmm. And hmmm. What do you think that is all about? Do you think that Stephen Schwartz might just possibly have in mind getting contracts from the American government, and possibly from a few Arab governments, eager to show -- what's a few hundred thousand dollars to them -- that they have even retained "Schwartz and Co." to help "advise them" -- as self-desribed "expert advisors" -- on the who, and the what, and the why, of "reforming" Islam.
A perfect arrangement. Fat contracts for Schwartz & Co., and a reputation for "doing something" for -- oh, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, god knows who. And of course the American government.
It is not quite Jesse Jackson, having his group bought off by various corporations. But there is a certain similarity.
One would feel better if, somewhere in the Grand Plans about the Battle for the Soul of Islam, Schwartz announced that "We Will Not Take a Penny For Our Efforts, for the Cause Is Too Important To Profit From."
Yes, I like the sound of that. I await that announcement.
Posted by: Hugh at March 31, 2005 2:52 PM
You are not the only one who has faced the hate of Mr. Schwartz. When I asked him to explain specific verses of the Quran and how they fit into his schema he replied...
"Who issued your credentials as an inquisitor? You don't even know what taqiyya is.
"Would you practice this form of ideological aggression against Jews and Christians that don't share your views?
"You do not practice dialogue. You practice a form of pseudointellectual quasiterrorism. You are the mirror image of the Islamist enemy.
"That will not win the battle to defend the world from extremism. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
"Stephen Schwartz"
at March 31, 2005 3:25 PM
The battle to defend the world from extremism will be waged with words as well as bullets, and words which speak the truth have the sharpest edges to cut deep and cut through all the BS. Who would debate those kinds of words when you are only armed with the language of dhimmitude?
Posted by: crusader rabbit at March 31, 2005 3:42 PM
I sent them this.
Well I for one appreciate
What your trying to do.
I started studying Islam shortly after the 911 attacks.
I felt it was my duty to find out if Islam was being twisted or
hijacked.
After a year of full time research i could hold my tongue no
longer hope I would have done the same during the rise of Hitler
if I had gotten my hands on Mien Kampf
If your goal is to get Islam to change laws so apostates can leave
Islam or not leave their homes fight without facing death .fine
that is needed .
But you are coming across as an apologist by calling good Muslims
extremist as it is fundamental Islam that is the problem .
Mohammed was not a prophet of god he was a flat out terrorist who
raped children tortured mutilated people ordered slaughter
starvations and sanctified Holy lying to allow Islam to succeed
.If you don’t know this you need to study Islam if you do know
this you are practicing holy lying/ taqiyya
It is my opinion what you are doing taqiyya and hoping the
violence stops and people for get about Islam’s threat to freedom
.You look forward to more immigration high birthrates and an
eventual Islamic take over or the USA just like the people at CAIR
want .
If I’m wrong your purpose would be much better served if you
announce you cannot make chicken salad out of chicken shit and
publicly leave Islam you may be killed but if you want to make an
omelet your going to have to break some eggs..
at March 31, 2005 3:46 PM
"The situation of woman's rights is advancing in many Muslim countries, and may be improved without contradicting Islamic scripture."
Give me a break! Schwartz insults my intelligence with this ridiculous statement. He is either an idealistic dreamer living in an islamic fantasy of his own making or he has now totally internalized the dual ethics of mohammed.
The genius of dual ethics is that in islam, one can pick and choose between good (from the meccan koran) and evil(from the medinan koran); it's all there. As a noted muslim scholar once told me, "There's somthing for everyone."
Unfortunately, the good and the evil are believed to be the words of allah, immutable, eternal and, under the shade of the sword, not to be tampered with by mere mortals.
Schwartz wants so desparately to have his religion respected, to be free and at the same time, to submit to the will of allah, that he will become known by the jihadis as an apostate. He plays with fire.
at March 31, 2005 3:56 PM
This is OT, so please bear with me. I also rarely post, so please bear with me doubly!
Interesting experience: I had to teach a class in Wash. DC this AM and the office was near George Washington University. I have a "Professional Firefighters for Bush" sticker--I just can't find it in my heart to remove it--as well as a "Proud to be an Infidel" sticker, more or less just to be provocative.
Well, when I came back outside after teaching, I saw what looked like a parking ticket (no big surprise to anyone with any DC experience; that's the one part of the govt. that works like a well-oiled machine) on my windshield. In fact, it was a three-page missive, obviously from a college idiotarian, explaing that I shouldn't be "proud to be an a$$hole" and "what about the Hispanic victims of the WTC whose families never received any money" and so forth and so on. It was a veritable cornucopia of anti-American, morally relativistic nostrums, cliches, and aphorisms.
I was quite amused that someone took that sort of time to stand there and waste time writing that letter. Upon further reflection though, it is a perfect example of the "Ward Churchillism" of the American college campus, and prima facie evidence of professorial indoctrination of students; unless, of course, it WAS a professor who left the note.
Anyway, that is what we're up against: an institutional synthesis of utopian socialism & pro-jihadi idealism. I'm sure this is no surprise to any of you regulars here, but that was my first "up close and personal" encounter with this particular form of deluded thinking.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at March 31, 2005 4:10 PM
Of course, Islam eschews the term "convert". It holds that anyone who "converts" is, in reality, someone who "reverts" to Islam, Islam being the first monotheistic faith, as most Muslims understand it. Hence, Islam's ability to disparage both Judaism and Christianity as late- comers and claim the premier place amongst the three montheistic faiths. It can then assert that both Judaism and Christianity have distorted the original message of Islam and are, thus, false doctrines and faiths. So much for the argument of Islam's much vaunted tolerance and its respect for both Judaism and Christianity. It has none. And will never any - at least, in our life times.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 31, 2005 4:23 PM
Hi Doug, glad to see you posting.
You might find these links to be provocative too:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/rlkocher_index.htm
===++++++++++++=========
Stephen Schwartz is a Pragmatist too it appears. And we have to play along.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/P/Pr/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth.htm
"The theory states that something is true only if it is useful to believe."
at March 31, 2005 4:38 PM
The question is, of course, "useful" to whom??????????????
Posted by: kentim at March 31, 2005 4:42 PM
The comment by "iconoclast" immediately above about the use, by Muslims, of the phrase "reverts to Islam" for converts, and what it reveals, is most apropos.
In Schwartz's original piece Announcing the Big News the World Has Been Waiting For, he lists a taxonomy of Muslims who have joined in his Grand Coalition of seven (or is it by now six) people. Aside from his wonted clumsiness with words (e.g., "born Americans and immigrant Americans" when he could have quick-fixed it with "American-born and immigrant Muslims"), he also mentions "'new Muslims' -- Islam eschews the term 'convert'" -- I like that pseudo-genteel "eschews" -- his failure to explain just why Islam "eschews" the term "convert" is telling.
For he could have done two other things. He could simply have decided to use, forthrightly, the word "converts" in the same manner as is used, without fear or favor, for "converts" to Christianity or to Judaism. He could, in other words, have signalled with his choice of words that he is not one of those Muslims who is going to insist that everyone in the world was born a Muslim, and somehow turned away from the True Path.
But he didn't do it. Instead, he "eschewed" the word "convert" and used the phrase "new Muslims," but did not explain -- as he should have -- why Muslims do not use the word "convert." The reason they do not is given in the posting immediately above, and it offers one more detail about the mental makeup of Muslims, who believe that being a Muslim is everyone's natural state, from which we fall away, and that to be a non-Muslim is, in fact, contra naturam.
Perhaps in another Message to the World, once he's gotten beyond the stuff About the Battlelines That Have Now Been Drawn, and I Can Do No Other, and Non Serviam, and Brave Statements To That Effect, Schwartz can clear this up.
For some reason that staircase-to-the-stars trompe-l'oeil trickster -- Escher -- suddenly comes to mind. I wonder why.
Posted by: Hugh at March 31, 2005 4:47 PM
I have to wonder if they found their Schwartz in a Crackerjack box.
Posted by: 2468 at March 31, 2005 5:55 PM
Stephen Schwartz is a Pragmatist too it appears. And we have to play along.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/P/Pr/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth.htm
"The theory states that something is true only if it is useful to believe."
Posted by: kentim at March 31, 2005 04:38 PM
Yeah, he certainly plays into the hands of the Pragmatists, in addition to a lot of other intellectual jokes. This is one of the reasons we need to study philosophy, so we can file trash like Pragmatism and this definition of "truth" where it belongs.
As a slightly related aside, John Dewey, known to many as the "Father of Progressive Education," was also one of the developers of the American philosophy of Pragmatism. That's positively embarrassing! And just to add to my argument that philosophy isn't just some sort of trivial game, it is in no small way that John Dewey, Pragmatism and all, is largely responsible for the American school system's uncritically welcoming attitude towards Islam.
Posted by: cubed at March 31, 2005 6:04 PM
Mr. Schwartz could be invoking the Qur'an's deceit for the infidels clause all too easily.
To say the things Mr. Schwartz is saying is one matter. For this man to actually mean them and abide by them--and see to it that others do the same--is quite another matter. And even in the (unlikely) case he DOES mean what he says, there is no assurance to the American citizenry that his version of Islam will prevail over the other (more usual) versions of Islam in America.
Caution: Islam's history of unparalleled and unmitigated brutality, aggression, and totalitarianism definitely require extreme caution and skepticism when it is being dealt with--even if it is accompanied by speeches of reforms and good wishes for non-Muslim neighbors (as we are currently receiving from Mr. Schwartz).
Mr. Schwartz, intentionally or otherwise, could be giving the Muslim world's theocrats a trojan horse to attack the United States with. Beware!!
Posted by: pythagoras at March 31, 2005 6:19 PM
Ten-to-one Schwartz has to go into hiding after the Wahhabiists get a load of his new crock of sh*t.
Posted by: 3812Michelle at March 31, 2005 6:24 PM
Interesting. When I post links to these very articles, kj, giaour and company trash them out of hand.
The very same articles show up here by way of Mr. Spencer himself... and not a word is heard from either of those two.
Curious how the very articles I read and post to this site each morning, are precisely the kind of thing Mr. Spencer feels Everyone should be reading.
More or less. I don't wish to second-guess our host.
Now the question comes down to: why do giour, kj and company feel that these very articles / situations, are not worth informing the general public about?
Let's say, at the very least, President Bush is part of the problem by way of not knowing what he is talking about. (House of Saud, according to at least a few others posting here such as Waterdragon, has already been soundly discredited).
Fine. He may (but more like may not) be selling us out (according to kj)- but the Academia are Indoctrinating our students in the very thing we are fighting against!
I'd really like to know from either of you- giaour, kj- why these articles should NOT be seen by the general public? Why is it neccesary to keep them ignorant of what their own children are being brainwashed into believing? And is this Not the best place among several to be posting them to, especially seeing the Mr. Spencer himself is also posting / analyzing them here?
Posted by: Gary at March 31, 2005 6:57 PM
Mr. Schwartz's narcissistic "magical mystery tour" of self-deception appears to have reached a new level. I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald that Islam is likely totally incapable of any fundamental change that could approximate any of the western liberal enlightenment ideals encompassing basic human rights. Islam is not a "religion" and needs to be defined for what it truly is, a dogma of fear and submission which has declared war on mankind, especially those who resist it and have any knowledge of the actual tenets of the Qu'ran and hadith. This "religion" is not worthy of US First amendment protection, and should be categorized along with other false pseudo-religions such as Nazism. To Robert and Hugt, keep up the good work and fight the good fight with the best weapon available, the truth.
Posted by: neurorenegade at March 31, 2005 7:11 PM
Stephen Schwartz is just another 1960's-70's-vintage Westerner who, being told his God is dead, went out to find a new one.
Somebody needs to tell him that the heart and soul of jihad in the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Loess Plateau, and Mindanao were Sufi brotherhoods. I think it's true of the slave-raiding tribes of Sahel Africa, too.
It's also fun to watch Hollywood-style "Buddhists" grow dismayed when they find out that the home-grown kinds says that a woman who gets an abortion gets paraded around Hell in a portable stock with the aborted child tugging at her skirts. The law of Karma, after all, doesn't provide for forgiveness or grace.
Posted by: Kepha at March 31, 2005 7:14 PM
HAVE WE NOT LEARNED FROM OUR PAST???
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/T/Tr/Treaty_of_Versailles.htm
Treaty of Versailles
[Categories: World War I, Weimar Republic, Peace treaties, Germany]
The Treaty of Versailles of 1919 is the Quick Facts about: peace treaty
A treaty to cease hostilitiespeace treaty created as a result of the six-month-long Paris Peace Conference of 1919 which put an official end to Quick Facts about: World War I
A war between the allies (Russia, France, British Empire, Italy, United States, Japan, Rumania, Serbia, Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Montenegro) and the central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria) from 1914 to 1918World War I. The ceremonial signing of the treaty with Germany occurred June 28, 1919. The treaty was ratified on January 10, 1920
NOW A BIG Q?? DID THIS WORK OR NOT??
HELL NO IT DID NOT WORK THERE WAS ANOTHER WAR AND THE LON BECAME THE UN BUT NOW THE UN IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE ARAB LEAGE??
The Military conditions of the Treaty of Versailles were harsh and were put in action to prevent Germany from starting another World War. The German army was to be restricted to 100,000 men, there was to be no conscription,
BOY THAT WORKED WELL??
Article 231 of the Treaty (the 'war guilt' clause) held Germany solely responsible for all 'loss and damage' suffered by the Allies during the war and provided the basis for Quick Facts about: reparations
(usually plural) compensation exacted from a defeated nation by the victorsreparations. The total sum due was decided by an Inter-Allied Reparations Commission. In January 1921, this number was officially put at 269 billion gold marks, a sum that many economists deemed to be excessive. Later that year, the amount was reduced to 132 billion marks, which still seemed astronomical to most German observers. The economic problems that the payments brought, and German resentment at their imposition, are cited by some as one of the causes of the end of the Quick Facts about: Weimar Republic
The German republic founded at Weimar in 1919Weimar Republic and the dictatorship of Quick Facts about: Adolf Hitler
German Nazi dictator during World War II (1889-1945)Adolf Hitler, which eventually led to the outbreak of Quick Facts about: World War II
A war between the Allies (Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Luxembourg, Mexico, NetherlWorld War II.
BOY THIS LOOKS LIKE A REPEAT TO ME??
AND ONCE AGAIN THEY SAY IT HAS TO DO WITH BEING POOR???
ARE WE REALLY SUCH SUCKERS??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
at March 31, 2005 7:16 PM
Dear Kepha:
You say, "Somebody needs to tell him that the heart and soul of jihad in the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Loess Plateau, and Mindanao were Sufi brotherhoods."
Schwartz knows that, and applauds it. He says this in his conversion story:
"Then I met Shaykh Hisham of the Naqshbandi order, and, within weeks, had made shehadeh, hamdilullah. I was immensely inspired by the role of the Naqshbandi tariqat in the freedom struggles of the Chechens."
http://www.naqshbandi.org/events/articles/conversion_schwartz.htm
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 31, 2005 7:18 PM
Hi Guys,
I have read this article and I must say I am honoured. I am a Muslim and the fact that you think so much of my religion brings me much joy. You say you want to study more, well be my guest. I am a Muslim and I can tell you about some good books. Since you already are of the opinion that Islam is a threat I would suggest you avoid reading Wahabi/Salafi propaganda that will only reinforce this view.
If you want a balanced view read books that most Muslims read, The Quran has many verses that you attack. Well Wahabism is the sect in Islam that takes the verses of the Quran literally; they claim that a Muslims don’t need a Scholar in order to understand the Quran. Sunni Muslims however ensure that this doesn’t happen, a student needs the help of a Scholar when it comes to interpretation.
For you to win your battle you need to realise the difference here. Just as there are sects in Judaism and Christianity, there are also sects in Islam. These sects can be distinctly different, ensure you study the differences.
I am a Sunni Muslim in the Naqshbandi Tariqat that is a Sufi school of thought.
I recommend you read books by Shiekh Hisham and Sheikh Nazim Al-Haqqani.
Many people here seem arrogant towards Islam, you may have studied Islam, however I was born Muslim, I breath Islam.
Bye ^_^
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 7:22 PM
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 07:22 PM
LAST TIME I LOOKED I AIN'T SEEN NO JEWS OR CHRISTIANS CUTTING OFF PEOPLES HEADS IN THE NAME OF GOD??
LAST TIME I LOOKED I AIN'T SEEN NO JEWS OR CHRISTIANS SHOOTING CHILDREN IN THE BACK AND RAPING CHILDREN OR STONEING PEOPLE TO DEATH IN THE NAME OF GOD??
BUT I DO SEE MULSUMS DOING THIS ALL OVER THE WORLD DON'T LOOK GOOD TO ME FOR MULSUMS??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORRLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
at March 31, 2005 7:29 PM
Hi Robert Spencer,
'Schwartz knows that, and applauds it. He says this in his conversion story:
"Then I met Shaykh Hisham of the Naqshbandi order, and, within weeks, had made shehadeh, hamdilullah. I was immensely inspired by the role of the Naqshbandi tariqat in the freedom struggles of the Chechens."'
What is wrong with this. The Cold war was fought between the Americans and the Soviets. Who ever was fighting the Soviets was considered the ‘good guy‘, such as the Taliban during the War in Afghanistan. Why is it that you now attack them, Americans applauded the Taliban when they defeated the Soviets with American weapons. I'm sure during the Cold War Americans would have applauded the struggles by the people of the Caucasus.
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 7:36 PM
With all due respect I want Robert Spencer to reply to my second post on this thread.
Thanks
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 7:44 PM
Catherine,
You need to open your eyes. Americans forced Africans to convert to Christianity during the Slave trade, this is an established fact. As Crusaders entered Jerusalem they boasted about how they killed everything in their sight, Muslims and Jews.
I quote 'When the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 they murdered virtually all of its inhabitants, boasting that parts of the city were knee-high in blood. When Salah-ad-Din re-took the city in 1187, he spared his victims, giving them time to leave and safe passage - it was, after all, a holy city, and this was fought as a 'just war' by the Muslims.'
These are facts. Also read this http://www.home.earthlink.net/~benven/annivers.html
It is about how Jews in Portugal were held captive and forced to become Christians. I will not use these instances to attack Christianity, I never have and never will. I will not go down to your level. You claim that the Quran has verse that are violent, okay then explain these verses below:
"This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head ... that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel." 1 Samuel 17:46
will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. 1 Samuel 17:47
"He ordered the guards and officers to slaughter them all, and to let not a single one escape." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 25) "God said to Jehu, 'you have done well in carrying out what is right and have completed what I wanted done to the house of Ahab. Therefore your sons will be kings over Israel to the fourth generation." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 30)
"Joshua destroyed everyone. They did not leave anyone alive." (Joshua 11:14) "They were put to the sword, destroying them all." (Joshua 11:12)
They were "cut down until they had not a single survivor." (Joshua 11:8) "Their cities were destroyed," (Joshua 11:12) and the people living there were "put to the sword, destroying them all". The Israelites then "plundered the cities," (Joshua 11:14) and "every living soul they put to the sword until they had destroyed everyone. They did not leave anyone alive." (Joshua 11:14)
"Kill every woman." Numbers 31:7
"Kill every little boy." Numbers 31:7
"Kill all the infants and suckling babies." 1 Samuel 15:3
"Joshua killed everyone. He did not leave anyone alive." (Joshua 11:14)
"Devour the nations the lord your god delivers over to you. Show them no pity." Deut. 7:16
"You must completely destroy them; you shall make no peace treaties with them, and show no mercy to them." Deut 2:1
"Utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling baby." 1 Samuel 15:3
"Joshua and the men of Israel had finished slaying them with a very great slaughter, until they were wiped out." Joshua 10:20
"They pursued them and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword" Joshua 8:24
"He struck them hip and thigh with great slaughter." Judges 15:8
"Joshua put them to the sword, destroying them all." (Joshua 11:12)
"Put the inhabitants to the slaughter without giving any quarter and burn their town down." Deut. 13:15
And David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand." 1 Samuel 17:54
"Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take off his head."... And there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim; but when he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the LORD, saying, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword.' Now therefore hold him not guiltless, for you are a wise man; you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol." 2 Samuel 16:9, 1 Kings 2:8
"And a certain woman threw an upper millstone upon Abimelech's head, and crushed his skull." Judges 9:53
"She put her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen's mallet; she struck Sisera a blow, she crushed his head, she shattered and pierced his temple." Judges 5:26
Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri." 2 Samuel 20:21
King Jehu ordered the people to behead Ahab's sons and to bring him the heads of Ahab's sons "at Jezreel by this time tommorrow...And when the letter came to them, they took the king's sons, and slew them, seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him at Jezreel. When the messenger came and told him, "They have brought the heads of the king's sons," he said, "Lay them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until the morning.". (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 6) "God has now fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet Elijah. So Jehu put to death all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, as well as all of his close friends and priests, until he had left not one single survivor." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 10) "He put to death all of Ahab's house, who were left there and so blotted it out, in fulfillment of the word which YAHWEH had spoken to Elijah." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 7) "He ordered the guards and officers to slaughter them all, and to let not a single one escape." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 25) "God said to Jehu, 'you have done well in carrying out what is right and have completed what I wanted done to the house of Ahab. Therefore your sons will be kings over Israel to the fourth generation." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 30)
You are a wise man; you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his head down with blood to the grave." 1 Kings 2:
Thank you for reading
at March 31, 2005 7:51 PM
Hi,
Has any one here read the Jewish Talmud, it is very interesting. I have pasted an article below, the people on this site may find it interesting.
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
The Talmud is a book that contains many verse regard Christains.
I have copied some below. (These are from the site)
Talmud Attacks Christians and Christian Books
Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.
Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come.
Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.
Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).
Teachings of the Talmud
Gittin 69a . To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix with honey and eat it.
Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.
Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.
Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.
Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).
Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.
Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."
These are not made up, read the Talmud on the web now if you want.
Talmud (tăl'məd) [Aramaic from Heb.,=learning], in Judaism, vast compilation of the Oral Law with rabbinical elucidations, elaborations, and commentaries, in contradistinction to the Scriptures or Written Laws
at March 31, 2005 8:06 PM
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 07:44 PM
WISH IN ONE HAND AND SH=T IN THE OTHER AND SEE WICTH ONE FILLS UP FIRST??
HERE IS YOUR BOOK EXPLAIN IT TO ME??
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.”
SO IS THIS WHY HE CONVERTED BECAUSE HE WANTED TO KEEP HIS HEAD??
TORTURE:
Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”
WE SEE THIS STUFF HAPPENING IN IRAN AND OTHER MULSUM COUNTRIES TODAY??
Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
AL JIZZI SHOWS TODAY SOME PEOPLE BEING HELD BY ISLAMIC TERRORIST?? WILL THEY LOSE THEIR HEADS IF THEY DON'T PAY??
WHERE IS YOUR CODEMING OF THE ISLAMIC TERRORIST KILLING THE IRAQI PEOPLE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A LIER!!
Qur’an 8:1 “They ask you about the benefits of capturing the spoils of war. Tell them: ‘The benefits belong to Allah and to His Messenger.’”
SO IT IS ABOUT MONEY AGAIN YOU LIE!!
Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
WHAT IS THAT ABOUT BEING PEACIFUL??
AGAIN I AIN'T SEEING IT??
Ishaq:521 “Khaybar was apportioned among the men of Hudaybiyah without regard to whether they were present at Khaybar or not. The spoil was divided into 1,800 shares.”
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT ALL THAT LOOTING NOT BEING THE MULSUM WAY??
Qur’an 48:19 “He rewarded them with abundant spoils that they will capture. Allah has promised you much booty that you shall take, and He has made this easy for you.”
NOT WORKING FOR IT BUT WARING AND KILLING AND TAKEING IT?? SAD SAD SAD??
Qur’an 8:40 “If people are obstinate, and refuse to surrender, know that Allah is your Supporter. And know that one fifth of all the booty you take belongs to Allah, and to the Messenger, and for the near relatives (of the Messenger).”
OH MY USA THESE COLORS DON'T RUN AWAY!!!
Qur’an 8:69 “So enjoy what you took as booty; the spoils are lawful and good.”
OH MY??
Bukhari:V9B84N59 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me.’”
MOST DAMMING OF ALL WE WILL NOT SUMMIT TO YOUR WAYS WE LOVE OUR BACON AND SHORT SKIRTS!!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE HEROS AMEN
PITY THE COUNTRIES WHO NEED THEM
at March 31, 2005 8:09 PM
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 07:51 PM
WA WA??
YOU BRING UP 1000 YEARS AGO I'M TALKING REAL TIME AND WHAT WE SEE TO TADAY!!!
ANOTHER MULSUM WHO WILL NOT FACE THE REAL TIME !!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
PS
Current events not 1000 years ago!!
at March 31, 2005 8:15 PM
Hi Catherine,
I condemn the terrorist action committed world wide by Wagabi/Salafi fanatics I don't consider them Muslim. I have not attacked you and I have never forced you to Islam, lets get this straight
'WE WILL NOT SUMMIT TO YOUR WAYS WE LOVE OUR BACON AND SHORT SKIRTS!!!'
If you wish to wear skirts so be it, what has it got to do with me, eat bacon if you wish I am not telling you what to do. Calm down, this is only healthy discussion.
I would like you to read my earlier posts and put together a proper counter argument, thank you
at March 31, 2005 8:35 PM
ia786:
Most of us have seen all of your arguments and your lame attempts at false moral equivalencies many, many times before. What exactly do you think you are bringing that's new?
Posted by: Suzan at March 31, 2005 8:48 PM
Catherine:
Not to be rude, but you might want to consider checking your spelling before you post messages. It looks as if a child has written them.
And no, not all of us love bacon, or short skirts. Like everyone else who posts on this site, Muhammad deserves to be treated in a respectful manner.
Cheers
Thomas
at March 31, 2005 9:14 PM
To qualify my previous statement, Muhammad should be dealt with, albeit respectfully. Muhammad, you are misguided in so many ways, it is hard to know where to begin. Yes, you still can be Muslim, and critical of your faith. You have mentioned Salafists and Wahabiists, but fail to recognise that the problems facing Islam have always existed!
Wa salam
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at March 31, 2005 9:20 PM
Thomas,
Thanks for your response, it was very refreshing and respectful, if only everyone on here was like you. We all have our own opinions and this should be respected.
However there are a few people here who are just obsessed with attacking me and insulting me because I don't share the same views as them.
Thanks
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 9:31 PM
Salamu aleykum Muhammad
I understand that you are of the Sufi persuasion. Sufi's do tend, in my view, to be more peaceful than standard Sunnis or Shiite Muslims, partially because they have a more spritual/humanist approach, so to speak.
Stephen Schwartz views that Sufism, is the "saviour" to Islam. But as this website has repeatedly highlighted over and over again, classical Sufi scholars have advocated violent jihad, dhimmitude, and the killing of apostates.
I have lived and worked in Sudan, and I have seen the unconventional marriage of Sufi/Sunni extremism. Bin Laden, who lived in Khartoum for several years himself was known to have practiced aspects of Sufism. I watched on 11 Spetember 2003, in Khartoum hundereds of Sufis praising the work of the 11 Sepetmber hijackers, incorporating their praise into their Sufi chants and dervish dancing. I hope this help illustrates the misguided notion that Wahabbism/Salafism is THE source of Islams travails.
I urge you to take a more critical look at the sources of Islam's problems. Personally, and many will disagree, I beleieve that a primary source is the Sunnah and the entire man made tradition taht brough us "naksh". (Problems still remain with Qur'anic exegesis, and the book itself).
Think critically. Look beyond the rhetoric. I implore you to explore some of the darker aspects of our faith.
salam
Posted by: Thomas at March 31, 2005 9:43 PM
Salam Thomas
I have been a Muslim from day one. I have had many heated debates with Salafis/Wahabis, they consider us Sufi/Sunnis as out of Islam, as you may know in many Saudi funded Mosques many people hear the words 'Bidah' (innovation) 'Shirk' These are what these fanatics say to us. If you study Wahabism you will realise they are completely against Sufism.
Yes you have stated you saw people celebrating the 9/11 attacks. I condemn these actions, I cannot emphasis how much pain I felt for Americans on 9/11. Scholars have stated that Suicide is not allowed in Jihad, full stop. However these Wahabi/Salafi fanatics claim it is permissible. I have heard that many Mosques in the US are funded by Saudi Wahabis, I tell you now my friend, put a stop to this or you will have much larger problems in the near future. HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, Islamic Brotherhood these are all based on Wahabi teachings. In order to spread peaceful moderate Islam in the US instead of fanatical Islam you need to distinguish between Muslims, isolate the wahabis so they have no where to hide.
I have never celebrated what happened in the US on 9/11. I have been going to Mosque for many years I have never heard any Imam attack the 'West' these are Sunni Imams by the way. However I have heard of Wahabi Imams encouraging hate, however when we Sunnis try to do something to stop this we are told we cannot do anything. In England there have people handing out extremist leaflets, the organisation is Hizb Ut Tahrir, you must have heard about them. When we try to put a stop to this the police tell us they can't d anything about it.
Peace
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 10:08 PM
I would like to ask our Muslim posters here...
IS THE TEXT OF THE QURAN PERFECT AND DIVINE?
Because if you do there is no escaping the fact that you condone slavery and polygamy as a divine right, albeit in "certain circumstances".
Quran 033.050
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;
This is in direct conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human rights Article 4...
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
What is more, you must confess that Democracy is inferior to theocracy because the law of Man cannot be equal to the law of Allah.
So...is the Text of the Quran Perfect as well as Theocracy, Slavery, and Polygamy OR do you decide to join the rest of rational humanity?
--Trupolitik
at March 31, 2005 10:11 PM
Salam Thomas,
Just curious, what do you think about the state of Islam today. What is your opinion and what do you think about the future.
at March 31, 2005 10:11 PM
Greetings TruoPolitik:
Is the Qur'an problematic? Absolutely. There are numerous contradictions, within th Qur'an which are not fully explained. Most Muslims deny this. These contradictions are the reason for the creation of the man made doctrine of abrogation. The Qur'an, contrary to popular belief has been passed through the hands of men.
But yes and obviously, many ayah of the Qur'an present direct conflicts with international human rights, this is why we see gross subjugation of women and dhimma.
Fe Muslims are willing to face the question of literalism and the Qur'an.
Cheers
Thomas
at March 31, 2005 10:19 PM
wa leykum salam
Muhammad:
The state of Islam today, in my view is no different than it was at its inception. It is in a state of disarray as it always has been. To me, there has never been a "golden age" or age of enlightenment.
I believe that all man made traditions relating to Islam should be discarded, and that Muslims hsould follow a non-literal approach to the Qur'an.
But I firmly believe that Islam must be relegated to the personal. Can this be achieved? It's doubtful. As a secular Muslim, I have been able to achieve this.
at March 31, 2005 10:26 PM
Hi Trupolitik,
Just want to point out that the Quran came before the Universal Declaration of Human rights. During the time of Mohammad (peace be upon him) slavery was prevalent. They were often treated badly, however the Prophet took steps to abolish slavery. This is well before slavery was abolished in European countries. Globalisation today can be seen as a form of slavery and I don’t see any Western Governments complaining about this.
In the Quran, God tells us that we should obey Gods laws. Scholars state that in a non-Muslim country Muslims HAVE to abide by the rules of the land, we are told in the Quran to obey those in authority over you. This could be a Christian, Jew or Atheist. Now that Slavery has been abolished in the World the chapter is over.
'What is more, you must confess that Democracy is inferior to theocracy because the law of Man cannot be equal to the law of Allah'
I personally think democracy is inferior, this is my opinion however I am not forcing this opinion on anyone. Islam has told me to obey those in authority over me and I have and always will. In the UK now we are going to have elections soon, the labour party led by Tony Blair is very unpopular at the moment with the state of public services and with the War in Iraq. However the democracy in this country is slightly biased as Labour have such a large majority that it is almost impossible for them to lose. I think this system is unfair as smaller parties with good polices such as the Liberal Democrats have no chance. With this monopoly the labour party has passed a lot of controversial polices such as tuition fees for Universities but we have no say. I do criticise this system as I think it is unfair, however I do participate in it as a good citizen, There is no contradiction with this and my religion.
I have been following the advice of Sunni Scholars in the UK and have never faced any problems what so ever. I am a law abiding citizen.
Yes I do believe the Quran is perfect and divine. As I mentioned earlier the Quran came before the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Polygamy is allowed in Islam although it is rare now. Polygamy is not about lust, just as marriage is not just about sex.
Polygamy is not allowed in the UK, and we Muslims obey this law. We are peaceful law abiding people.
at March 31, 2005 10:36 PM
Want to see the true character of Mr Schwartz? Read the forum discussion over at Tech Central Station.
What a prick....
Posted by: Rupert at March 31, 2005 10:36 PM
Hi Thomas,
When you say there are contradictions in the Quran, can you please state what they are.
'Muslims should follow a non-literal approach to the Qur'an'
It is the Wahabis/Salafis that follow a literal approach to the Quran, Sunnis follow the interpretation of Scholars.
When Church was separated from the State, don't you think this damaged society. I say it was a bad move as a Muslim. I would rather live in a Christian country than a secular one.
I was just reading about Terri Schiavo, it nearly made me cry. God bless her and grant her paradise, what happened to her is something called murder. The whole country wanted her to live even the President but a few people stopped this. This could only happen in a secular country, if it were a Christian country she would still be here and that is a good thing.
Salam
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 10:48 PM
Wa leyk Mohammed
I want to list some of these inconsistencies chapter and verse for you, but do not have the time. But you of course, know that they exist, because the doctrine of abrogation exists. Some of these inconsistencies arise in the treatment of non-Muslims, treatement of women, the issue of compulsion and religion, and the issue of apostacy, among many others.
Sunni and Shia scholars often interpret the Qur'an and Hadith in a literal way. Relying on scholars to tell you what Islam says is backwards, and ndoes not foster independent thinking.
You are against secularism. However, you cannot seriously point to one legitinate and truly Islamic regime, in Muslim history that treated women, non-Muslims in a manner consistent with principles of human rights and guaranteed equality among all citizens. Secularism, and relegating Islam to the personal, allows for all religions and cultures to flourish, not just Islam.
I wonder how well Terri Sciavo would have fared in a society based on principles of Islamic governance. Her status as a Christian, would have undoubtedly placed her on the bottom rung of medical care priority. I fear her fate would have been worse.
Salam
at March 31, 2005 11:01 PM
Salam,
I am going to go to sleep now as it is 5.40 am here (Find it hard to sleep. I am not aware of any inconsistencies in the Quran, if the Quran states one thing it is stated throughout.
Yes I am against secularism, however I don't attack people for their beliefs, i personally think secularism is bad for any country. Again as I have stated the Quran came before the principles of human rights. A Muslim country has the right to establish shariah. However I am against implementing partial shariah. It is pointless adopting a few shariah rulings and ignoring the rest, to me its all or nothing, that is fair for the people of the country. If they don’t desire this system they can easily leave. Many Western countries breach the principles of human rights, such as the US when it comes to torturing, The US sends suspects to Corrupt Arab regimes that use torture. As I stated earlier is Globalisation not a form of slavery, it is to me. It is mainly Western countries that exploit poorer countries such as Muslim nations, China and India.
'Secularism, and relegating Islam to the personal, allows for all religions and cultures to flourish, not just Islam'
Look at France, religion has not flourished, look at the West in general. Secularism has not allowed religion to flourish, secularism has only brought about more confusion and ambiguity. This is where you and I differ.
Its been nice talking to you, I will be back later on it would be nice if we can carry on then.
Bye for now, take care my friend.
at March 31, 2005 11:44 PM
Regarding the sad case of Terri Schiavo, I am sure that if she weas in a Muslim country that followed Islam according to the Quran and Sunnah, she would have been well cared for. It was the Christian politicians in the US that ignored her and did nothing.
Salam.
Posted by: ia786 at March 31, 2005 11:48 PM
Thanks for the info, Robert. It's interesting, but the Naqshabandi are big not only in the Caucasus, but also in Chinese Islam (see Dru Gladeney's _Chinese Muslims_) and Eastern Turkistan.
As for religious figures involved in freedom struggles, I'm still a lot more moved by Phlippus Marnix van St. Aldegonde, John Knox, Philippe Sieur DuPlessis-Mornay, Samuel Rutherford, and John Witherspoon.
Most of all, by Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty due our sin and freed us from the fear of death in his resurrection.
Posted by: Kepha at March 31, 2005 11:49 PM
Thomas...
First, you are right, it is a very rare Muslim that will publicly state that the Quran has "inconsistencies" due to the hands of man. Not to seem rude, but even you are reluctant to call them "mistakes", but that is in essence what you are saying. The fallibility of man and greed et al find their way in all texts and traditions.
It seems Mr. Schwartz could learn alot from you as he is unwilling to acknowledge these man-caused mistakes nor willing to engage in a civil discussion about them. I salute you in your strength to admit the mistakes of the text and not apologize for them.
If any of you would like to see the true character of Mr. Schwartz, you should see his name calling (of me) and hateful remarks at
http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/?ID=17546
at April 1, 2005 12:01 AM
Faith is such a fascinating phenomenon. It is at the heart of all successes, yet seems to be the cause of many collapses and horrors.
It is a delicate concept to grasp indeed, like the one of some perfect statue hidden in a stone bloc before some genius comes around and just reveal it, rather than sculpt it.
My faith is that each stone has its statue within; that each being has his genius within. So I think we should hit, hit, hit at one's faith, until the statue emerge.
It's not that difficult; just take off everything that is not perfectly fitting with the message of reality. Maybe it will be a very small statue, then, yes, but even if there's nothing left, you'll have gotten rid of much heavy and unserviceable stone. You'll feel free.
Posted by: ajm at April 1, 2005 12:46 AM
ia786 and Thomas,
I have respect for the 'messengers' military and political guile, but as a man of G-d, he is an abject failure, an embarrassment, unworthy.
To put this as strongly as i can, if the 'messenger' speaks G-d's word, i am against G-d.
I know that the 'messenger' is NOT G-d's prophet - i KNOW that to be true; that, together with death and taxes, may be the only three things i can be sure of.
As to slavery ia786, a large part of the quoran, but of course you know this because you know your quoran, is devoted to ensuring the continuation of slavery under islam, and it is continued, to this day, in a few moslem countries.
You should also know that women had property rights in Medina and Mekah before the 'messenger', which is how he was able to be married to an older woman with a substantial business who, by the way, did not wear a veil. There were also women who fought on the battlefield against the 'messenger'. It would appear as if women had far more rights before the 'messenger' came, than after, in Arabia.
Oh yes, Christians, Jews and Hindus all have histories much older than islam's, all have tried theocracies, and all have fought hard to replace theocracies with democracies. So, we have been there, done that, and moved on to better things. You, and islam, are very late to the party, and are just going through stages of understanding that the other theologies i mentioned went through many hundreds of years past.
You, and islam, need to learn from us, not the other way around.
at April 1, 2005 1:59 AM
Robert, time to kick the annoying troll.
If Muslims were running the world, Terry Schiavo would never have had any life support to begin with. With all the Jews and Europeans murdered, who else would have invented the necessary apparatus?
Even if Arabs had the brains to do it they would not have spared the effort, what with the requirement to interrupt their research 5 times a day and submit their life to studying the Koran.
Posted by: 2468 at April 1, 2005 5:18 AM
Ia786,
I think you need to really open your eyes to history. Americans approved of fighting against the SOVIETS, not 'Russians' per se, during the Cold War, as they were the greater threat. Now, however, as islamofacism seems to be the greater threat (a greater one, perhaps, than Soviet ideologies) Americans wouldn't really be expected to support Chechen terrorism, nor perhaps the Russian efforts to resubjugate the region. So, I think you need a history refresher.
Your second post is no attempt at all to respond to Catherine, save by the old and deplorable 'tu tuoque' method of accusing people debating you through false assumption. I'd like very much for you to show me where modern Jews and/or Christians follow this OT text that you quote so lovingly, or explain why you think they should. Unfortunately, there are Muslims all over the world (even - gasp! - Sunnis) following Mohammed's dictates and example on the use of violence and force, not to mention intolerance of women and minorities. So, while you might (although you didn't) claim that the text Catherine quotes is 'taken out of context', you don't seem to be able to make the connection that it's very much used and applied in the modern context. The same applies to your smearing of the Judaic faith here - to what end do you post those quotes from the Talmud? Are modern Jews following them? Really? So, in essence, they don't really represent the same thing at all.
The prophet abolished slavery?? He most certainly did not. The Quran is rife with comments about the disposition of people 'taken with the right hand'; which is to say, slaves. Thus, it can hardly be said that the Quran is perfect; certainly not after one considers the abrogation rife within it. Does Q 2: 106 not ring a bell? This itself was early on in the order of 'revealed' hadiths, before the abrogation was scarce necessary.
So, again, we're waiting for a complete refutation of Sura 9 and other similar ayah.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 1, 2005 7:00 AM
Hi all,
2468 you state it's time to 'kick the annoying troll' Are you referring to me! Are you obsessed with calling everyone here with a different opinion a troll. Lets not forget that in the real world people like you are in the minority. I have had great discussions on this thread and have met some very interesting people.
I again would like to reiterate that the Quran is divine and perfect, this is my belief and it is strong as a mountain. Regarding what you stated about the Quran, you are making your own conclusions. You are no Scholar and I think you should leave this for them. There will be no repression of the Quran, As God has promised the Quran will stay until the End of time, untouched. There have been conspiracies from day 1 to corrupt and change the Quran, all to no avail. Is that not a miracle? There have been many well documented conspiracies by many western counties however not one has come close. Wish the same could be said about other religious books, there are so many different Bibles. When we Muslims recite from the Quran, we get great pleasure as we know the Words we recite were recited by the companions of the Prophet, the Prophet himself, Gabriel the Archangel, generations before us and will still be read by our future generation.
Geoff I am not 'smearing' Judaism. I have taken quotes directly from the Talmud, now you say that the Quran is controversial at the least what about the verses from the Talmud. Give it the same treatment as you give the Quran.
"The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from
the body of [members] of all nations of the world ... The difference
of the inner quality [of the body], ... is so great that the bodies would be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the
Talmud states that there is an halachic difference [a distinction based on
Jewish religious law] in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed
to the bodies of Jews] "their bodies are in vain." ... An even greater
difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul
stems from Holiness."
-(Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, in Shahak & Mezvinsky.
Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto Press.1999, 59f)
I am not smearing Judaism, I have taken a quote from a Rabbi, I think he knows more about Judaism than you and I.
Looking at the state of Israel I think this raises important issues such at the treatment of Ethiopian Jews, they are considered a lower race as they are black.
http://www.arc.org/C_Lines/CLArchive/story_web00_04.html
Israel is a military monster, it terrorises the Palestinian nation with no mercy. There was a recent case of a soldier shooting a young girl in the head more than 10 times!!! An investigation was carried out and it has been stated that the girl was no threat. With the Talmud laws I am not surprised that this incident occurred, this murder was committed with the full blessing of the Talmud. Please don't run away from this issue, I am not smearing Judaism, I am raising issues that need to be looked at. The Talmud contradicts with the principles of human rights.
at April 1, 2005 7:51 AM
muhammad deserves as much "respect" as Hitler - maybe less.
Why don't the muslims go find their own forum to discuss their differing perceptions of their cult?
They're boring us.
Posted by: CGW at April 1, 2005 7:54 AM
Susanp:
Pardon me for re-posting your response to the muslim from the other thread (which he has abandoned).
"Yusuf, can't you be specific in your challenges for debate? What do you wish to debate?
Also, please identify the putative "hate" you find on this site. Is Islam's inherent hate reserved for only muslims? Why is it so disturbing to muslims for infidels to acknowledge and discuss the same hate that you are inculcated with from birth until death? Are you ashamed of the hatred that literally oozes from the Qur'an, or are you afraid that too many infidels might find out about it? That would put muslims in a rather awkward and precarious position and would defintely inhibit the Islamic agenda. I'm afraid it's too late, your secrets are already exposed and guess what? Millions of informed infidels do not share your passion for Islam; we find it revolting, threatening, and blasphemous.
And by the way, Allah, the Arabic and Islamic word for God, is not the God of the Bible. Your Allah in no way, shape, or form resembles the Christian God. As any good muslim can attest, the Christian Trinity is thoroughly and irreverently disparaged in Muhammad's collection of delusions, the Qur'an, and Christians are designated as polytheists, the most despicable of all people. As you know, polytheism is the only unforgivable sin in Islam. You can kill, lie, steal, cheat, covet, etc. with no fear of damnation, but polytheism is the ultimate transgression. Islam is devoid of morality. Christians and muslims DO NOT WORSHIP the same God. Contrary to the lies you have been taught, which are easily dispelled by historical facts, Islam followed Judaism and Christianity and was the last Abrahamic religion. It would not exist had Judaism and Christianity not preceded it, and it is loosely based upon plagarized, albeit convoluted, material from its predecessors.
Until you have been to the U.S. and experienced it for yourself, you would be wise not to pay too much attention to the BBC. They are the most egregious anti-American propagandists on the planet next to the infamous media farce, al-Jazeera.
I suppose we all exist in some form of an insulated world where the "other" is ignorant, naive, or brainwashed. But my dear little British muslim, you are suffering from total media and religious indoctrination. I guess nobody ever told you that you can't believe everything you see on television, hear in the mosque, and read in the British tabloids but maybe after a few years of university education, you'll learn to think for yourself in spite of Islam and the BBC. In the meantime, we will remain ever vigilant just in case the one or two muslim fanatics out there attempt to massacre us on a massive scale again as demanded and sanctioned by your holy and peaceful Qur'an.
Posted by: Susanp at April 1, 2005 01:48 AM"
Posted by: CGW at April 1, 2005 8:34 AM
The Taliban did not "defeat the Soviets". They did not exist at the time of that war. The Taliban came into existence as a result of civil war and power struggles between various tribal/warlord/religious factions afterwards.
+++++=====++++++
The "koran is the perfect word of god". Don't be a sap, unless "god" actually showed itself to you and gave you "his" koran(and witnesses would be good, to confirm it was'nt an hallucination or overly vivid daydream), ANYBODY WHO THINKS THAT IS NOT PUTTING THEIR FAITH IN "GOD", THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR FAITH IN IMPERFECT HUMANS.
+++++=====+++++
Cubed you're very right about philosophy understanding, it is at the heart of all human motivations and actions, second only to instinct I think.
Unfortunately the average Joe Blow, like myself up until a few years ago, is woefully ignorant of the importance and consequences of philosophical thought. People have adopted various philosophical outlooks without even knowing the validity or source of the core principles, or actually looking into what influence/impact those world-views have had on history. Cause and effect has been seemingly purposely been blurred or projected elsewhere.
You mentioned John Dewey, I learned about him and some others a few years ago, it's more than embarrasing, it is infuriating, the influence and power of all these degenerates and con-artists and god wannabes.
I recently came across this free on-line book(that I have been plugging relentlessly) that documents the history of "mass forced government schooling", and the various actors and what they believed and envisioned. I have not finished it yet and I am not sure yet to what degree I will agree with the author's conclusions, but the historical facts presented in context and confirmed independently by myself previously,indicate that some very serious games have been and are being played on "we the people", as in psychological games that are very sophisticated.
Of course they have not been 100% effective, and there still remains a significant segment of society that has been able to defend against it, but I think they are the minority presently. I think apathy and ignorance rules the day-- as desired. Of course the 1st American revolutionists were the minority in their day as well.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm
at April 1, 2005 8:44 AM
I am puzzled by ia786's qualification of the seizure of Byzantine Palestine as a "just war". I am also puzzled by Islam's assertion that wars may be fought in defence of Islam and muslims anywhere in the world. How does this square with the fact that there were no muslims settled in what is now known as the Maghreb -Arab North Africa? This area was largely Christian with many Jewish communities and pagans. Any excuse will do, I guess. If such an excuse could do then, presumably it will do now. No doubt we can look forward to many more "just wars", ia786? Fact is, Islam is far from the "religion of peace" it purports to be. Rather it is an endless source aggression.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 1, 2005 9:08 AM
Hi Susanp,
So you are saying that their is a hidden agenda in Islam, something that 1 billion people didn't pick up however you did, I believe you ^_^ (just kidding)
'Why is it so disturbing to Muslims for infidels to acknowledge and discuss the same hate that you are inculcated with from birth until death?'
What do you know about Muslims, are you a Muslim. I was born Muslim and for someone to say I was inoculated with hate from birth is very offensive. You obviously don't know much about Muslims.
I may have said this to you before. Do you speak Arabic or Hebrew, what do you know about the Arabic word for God. Have you ever been to the Mid-East, it is a lot different to how you see things. There is only one God for mankind, one God for this Universe, there is only one creator, the merciful and forgiver of Sins. God (Allah). God states in the Quran how the Gospel and Torah were corrupted by man, do you get the picture. There can only be one God. If I say God Bless America as a Muslim, does this mean I am calling on a different God to you when you say the same thing! I don't think so. We Muslims do not believe in the trinity, we believe that there is only One God, we believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a Prophet of God. We believe in his return to earth and we will follow him when he returns with you Christians. I can honestly say that I love Jesus (peace be upon him) as much as any one here does. I always mention his name in my Duas (prayers). Christians by the way are known as people of the book not polytheists, and killing, lying and stealing are forbidden in Islam as well as in other heavenly religions. Get your facts straight. In certain Gospels Jesus is never referred to as the Son of God, he is referred to a Messenger of God. If I say God Bless America as a Muslim, does this mean I am calling on a different God to you when you say the same thing! I don't think so.
You want me to pay less attention to the BBC!!
Come on, you seem to have dictatorial tendencies. You are calling everyone who disagrees with you anti-American. I may have said some bad things about the state of American society, I apologise if I offended anyone but I will never attack the American public. I wish to go to America one day so I can enjoy the country. I love American movies as well as music. I am not anti-American, you seem to think everyone with a different view to you wants to see America hurt, I shed tears for America on 9/11, I sent America my condolences and prayers.
Peace, Salam, Shalom
at April 1, 2005 9:23 AM
CGW
I am insulted by your comment. I am boring you? I fully and completely support Jihad Watch and its mission, so I do not think my opinions should be so casually dismised. I and and IA786, have just as much right to comment as you do. This is an open forum by the way.
Cheers
Thomas
at April 1, 2005 10:28 AM
muhammad will get as much "respect" here as we afford to other pedophiles, rapists, thieves, brigands, plunderers, and mass murderers - which is exactly NONE.
We've read your texts, his actions are not even in dispute.
Don't dare demand "respect" for them.
Posted by: CGW at April 1, 2005 10:46 AM
CGW, I am not asking you to respect Muhammad, I am asking you to respect the right of individuals, Muslim or non-Muslim to post responses on this site, without being the subject of vicious attack. If you read my previous posts, you will see that there is not much divergence between your view and my view...
Posted by: Thomas at April 1, 2005 10:53 AM
Hi,
Well said Thomas. CGW you are entitled to your own views but don't attack others who have slightly different views.
Salam
Posted by: ia786 at April 1, 2005 11:00 AM
Thomas:
I thought that you were asking for respect for your "prophet", not the poster. (On this thread he goes mostly by "ia786"; I did not recall his pseudonym from the first thread on which he posted.)(Add in a momentary reading comprehension misfire.)
I apologize for that error. Nor do I wish to insult you personally, but one tires of the constant stream of IDENTICAL rhetoric coming from the occasional muslim visitor to this site (especially the young ones) and their absolute inability or refusal to answer arguments substantively without resorting to tu quoque strategies or lame, absolutely LAME da'wa attempts. (I do not include you in this group; I am aware of your identity.) They are completely unaware of the level of on-topic scholarship of many, if not most of the regular posters here, and label us all as "ignorant" simply because we have STUDIED ISLAM IN DEPTH AND REJECT IT UTTERLY.
One simply tires.
CGW
Posted by: CGW at April 1, 2005 11:12 AM
I believe...
that pigs are secretly telepathic, and control the World through human cortex-controlling enzymes in their flatulence...
I believe...
Mars is not a planet but a mass-hallucination begun by wily Mesopotamian priests as a method of obtaining extra alms money on slow Thursdays, and that the habit become so ingrained in a docile species that, to this day, we all still mistake a blood-vessel-colored mote in our vision for an actual planet...
I believe...
cows wrote the first five book of the Old Testament in randomly arranged markings on their hide, and that ancient Hebrew herdsmen (and women!) merely copied this information down and went on to found the first globally-reaching monotheism (failing to give credit to Ikhnaton in Egypt, which was the cows' main intention, since they never liked the guy)...
I believe...
tin foil can be used as a cheese substitute...
I believe...
angels cannot pronounce the word "pickle"...
I believe...
Jivaro indians are actually expanding the heads of very tiny people, and not shrinking the heads of normal human beings...
Belief.... a joy to those who are unwilling to think. And too lazy to do a comparatiove religious inquiry, from Marduk to Moroni.
Belief... perfect panacea... a charming way to answer disturbed children and get them to go back to sleep, but of no particular value except as a rorschach test for exposing the mental state of the claimants.
Now, knowledge... that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish!
With knowledge you can actually determine and cure actual diseases (cowpox noticed in milkmaids leads to a vaccine for smallpox), can change the dray beast method of locomotion and transportation into the Machine Age, and begin the exploration of the infinite...
But, damnit, knowledge is a little harder to come by.
Belief, however, falls on the tongues of the supernaturally docile like snowflakes on an Eskimo's uvula.
It answers ALL, while demanding nothing. But obedience. To Thoth. Or Odin. Or Tezcatlipoca. Or Astarte. Or any number of dead or discredited gods.
Belief... the soup of planetary schism, since no two believers MAY ever agree. (" 'Mysticism' begins in 'mist' and ends in 'schism' ", as one angry church father mocked of those who eluded the dogma by a direct claim to divine experience.)
Belief is the mortar joining the rocky good intentions on the proverbial road to Hell.
And I don't 'believe' that, I have the red record of history as a sickening and sorry testament.
Knowledge makes your car engine start when youturn the key.
Belief makes you hate your neighbor when you disagree with their 'God'.
Can't all these 'Gods' all take care of themselves and let us muddle through down here with the imperfect organs of intelligence they supposedly bestowed upon us? And not order eternal war in order to prove their celestial manhood?
A believer would say: "Never!"
Is there no hope as long as "belief" reigns over knowledge in the human mind?
You know it.
at April 1, 2005 11:37 AM
ia786: You say there is a problem with the Talmud? Did you forget about all the terrible crimes that Muhammad commited and then sanctioned by claiming divine inspiration to do so? Because when A Muslim says that stealing and killing are rejected in Islam they really mean the types that Muhammad said were bad, not the ones that Muhammad partook in. I do wish that you would come to America, and I pray to Christ creator, sustainer, and redeemer of all the world that you meet a true beliver in Christ, not one of the many possers that are so common over here. And what do you know about Yeshua in the Gospels? Apparently not very much. I can't recall HIM ever being called the Messenger of God, that must be one of those things applied to Christian thinking by Muslims to convice stupid Christians that we have a lot in common. I don't know about the person you were adressing, but I speak Arabic, not fluently, but I continue to learn it, and I study Islamic teachings mostly from Muslims, so don't get on a tangen about how we in the west are ignorant and that is why we don't accept your beliefs, and please read a bible not tainted by a Muslim, read it for yourself, I learned arabic to read the Quran in the original language, the least you could do is oblige the gesture and actually read the word of YAHWEH for yourself and not what someone tells you.
Posted by: KentuckyGentry at April 1, 2005 11:48 AM
"CGW you are entitled to your own views but don't attack others who have slightly different views. - ia786"
Good. All settled then. It seems your initial complaint has been addressed, and that you are, in fact, bereft of argument. For, as you can see, we merely have different opinions about islam that we are well entitled to, too. Thus I think I might dismiss out of hand the tired old "I'm muslim and you're not, so you can't talk about islam" argument - seen it too many times to care much.
Now, on to the 'perfection' of the Quran.
The salient fact of course, is that the Quran is hardly unchanged. There is little way of knowing exactly what form the Quran was in prior to the Collection in the Third Caliphate (Uthman ibn Affan). Ayah were written, literally by the tradition, on palm leaves, bark, and the like. Others were reconstructed from the memory alone of a mere two (two! for the word of Allah) witnesses. No one knows what they may or may not have remembered (let us pray, Yusuf, that it was not women who memorized it, for surely then at least four witnesses would have been required, or maybe two women and a man - see Quran 2: 228, 282; even 24:6). Indeed, no one really knows what form the Quran was in prior to its Collection. Gilchrist gives this a fairly complete if extremely favourable treatment; he has no reason whatsoever to make the assumptions of continuity he does, but he does anyway.
What proof is there that any of it is really the word of this 'Allah'? I might add that the Third Caliphate was one of the most bloody of them, conquering North Africa, Iran, some of Western Asia. So it seems more than a little likely that altering the Quran by him would have been a fairly useful tool. He was not exactly a fair ruler in the sense of his kinsmen, and there was suspicion that he had, indeed, tampered with the text.
Almost makes one wonder which culture is really being 'obstinate' about islam, eh? Heh.
The claims of Christians and Jews (although less so for the latter, of course, in the eyes of islam) as being 'People of the Book', I might add, are found - where? In the earliest 'revealed' ayah of the Quran, of course. Mohammed seems to have changed his mind partway through and come to the conclusion, by Sura 9, that non-muslims deserved three choices: death, conversion or punitive taxes. This is of course, well known and documented.
And lastly, you didn't answer the question about the violence of the Quran. Merely posting violent verses from the OT is simply not a response - no one today follows those verses. Simple fact. No one is killing apostates from Christianity or Judaism, nor has religious authority to do so. Islam does, and is. I recommend you read the site more thoroughly. So, I regret to tell you that you have effectively lost your argument there. By contrast, iconoclast raises a very appropriate point: what happened to the Christians of the Middle East? How could their fate be called "defensive" in any way?
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 1, 2005 12:01 PM
God (Allah). God states in the Quran how the Gospel and Torah were corrupted by man, do you get the picture. There can only be one God. ~ ia786
Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic inheritance law. When a man dies, and is leaving behind three daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together
[both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife [4:12] which adds up to more than the available estate. A second example: A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property.
Maybe now ia786, you will tell me that in Arabic it adds up?
So either your book is corrupt or Allah lacks some basic math skills, which do you think it is?
at April 1, 2005 12:16 PM
ia786,
Your intentions are immaterial. Islam is bigger than you. You are a "denial-ridden believer". You are delusional, and your attempts to suck others into your fantasyland image of islam is an assualt on logic,reason and rational thought.
Most people don't give a flying f-ck what others believe, they are free to be stupid and ignorant to their hearts content-- as long as they do not try to impose their corrupt beliefs and the unpleasant consequences that follows irresponsibility and insanity,onto others.
What you and others are attempting,is to FORCE others to deny what their eyes,ears, and mind, through history to the present,has told them about islam. We are expected to play "lets pretend", in what amounts to a rape on our conscience,senses and intellect, just so the bizarre and incompetent can feel good about themselves, and concrete reality no longer exists,and the headshrinkers and globalizers can create their self-preserving utopia.
You think you're defending islam?? Hahaha! You're a pawn, a tool, of the elitist relavitists.
They did the same thing with homosexuality.
Homo-phobe/islamo-phobe???????
And they've done it in many other areas for many years. Drugs?? Alfred Kinsey?? Gangsta rap??? Satanism??? Consumerism?? Ritalin??? It is the normalizing and celebration of the bizarre and irrational and incompetent, cloaked in enlightenment and "humanism". The consequences of their actions have been disasterous, but the rest of society is expected to pay the bill-- subsidizing insanity and corruption and national suicide.
Oh, it's out of control now, there's no conspiracy, except a conspiracy of corrupt and subversive ideas, and corrupt and subversive elites who only want to fix their positions safely above it all.
BinLadin knows it, and he is following the example of the "prophet" according to the authorative texts. He is of the miss-guided opinion that he can create an islamic utopia. The islamic elites only have it half right, the part that says islam is the answer is dead-wrong, for the same reasons the relavitists are wrong-- totalitarianism is not the answer.
at April 1, 2005 12:26 PM
Quran (if you can figure out how to spell it)
Talmud
Bible
The Vedas
I Ching
Book of Urantia
or the Liber O vel Manus et Sagitae just to name a few.
Let's see, out of the millions of texts revered as "sacred" in the world I have to find the one book that is telling "The Truth." Then, I need to learn the native language and customs of the period and find a scholar, priest, or shaman to interpret it for me? Wow, that’s a tall order. I’d say it would be an impossible task to accomplish even in a hundred lifetimes. What reasonable person (or deity) would require that of someone? No one. It’s quite unreasonable. Also, it’s absolutely arrogant for a human being to proclaim that his “beliefs,” give him a special relationship with a supreme being let along that they give him authority over his fellow human beings! Get out! What a child’s game. The world is going to remain a cluster of festering hatred as long as the “ridiculous” is sacred and “life” is given second billing to “the here after.”
Good grief. If this yahoo Schwartz can throw some water on the fire more power to him. The scriptural back and forth in here is ludicrous and only illustrates the enormity of the problem that religious thought posses when applied to real world problems.
All the books, scriptures, texts, or whatever that exist in this world were conceived and written by human beings just like you and me. Recognizing that simple fact would make solving our social problems so much easier. No way that's going to happen though.
f.g.
at April 1, 2005 12:28 PM
I quoted a few verse from the Talmud, would you like to explain these verses to me. Right Wing Zionist are using these verses to justify there attacks on Palestinian Muslims. Please refer to the murder I gave details about.
Muhammad did not impose double standards in Islam. The Prophet said that if his beloved daughter were to steal anything, shariah would apply to her. It is simple, you approach issues regarding Islam with your opinion already cemented, you only look to reinforce this view.
Geoff, you know Islam is a spiritual religion. I have avoided mentioning this until now as I would be branded a mad man. It is almost like another dimension, its very hard to explain. The Quran that was recited by the Archangel Gabriel is the Quran that I read. You are right about how the Quran was recorded but many thousands of Companions had memorised it. Our religion is linked with the heavens, it is a heavenly religion we have many secrets that you would not be able to comprehend. My friend you should read what Scholars have said regarding Islam. Islam is a lot deeper than you think it is. You can make assumptions about the Quran, you can attack it all you like but the truth is crystal clear. The Quran that I have at home right now is what came from God, was recited from Archangel Gabriel’s blessed mouth, The Prophet Muhammad and his companions. My descendant’s recited the same thing and so do I. No one can challenge the Quran, no one can alter it. It has been the same for what 1400 years. End of story. It is perfect and divine, I say this with pure conviction.
It is from God. The stories in the Quran regarding earlier prophets e.g. Moses, Joseph, Jesus, Mary, Noah (God bless them all) are perfect, not one detail is wrong. No one can argue about the truth in the Quran. God has challenged anyone to make even one verse equal to a verse in the Quran. 1400 years later I hear nothing from the critics. I only hear people attack ‘violent’ verses that are in all holy books. Many people have tried this challenge all have failed, such is the glory of God. God has stated that the Quran will stay untouched until the End of Time, as we can see the Quran has been unchanged, unlike the Torah and Gospel.
There are some verse in the Quran that are 'violent' okay this is your opinion. I am a Sunni/Sufi Muslim. It is the Wahabis/Salafis that take these verse literally not Sunni Muslims, we are not allowed to. Get this straight. There are violent verses in the Talmud and Bibles but I will never attack these books because I am above that, I don't wish to offend people, just know they exist. Fanatics commit crimes against Islam, Yet you give us all the same label. Look at what is happening in Israel, ethnic cleaning, doesn’t the Talmud technically speaking justify this. People do follow these teachings today. Do you think that a Muslim can kill someone just because he/she is Christian, of course not. Now if some fanatic says yes, why do you take his word. You are only looking to justify your own aggression.
I have read many articles on this website, however they are all similar in a way. Mr Robert Spencer claims he is interested in Islam and blah blah but in every article he subtlety tries to give the impression that all Muslims are Wahabi fanatics. For example an article about Jihad in the Caucasus. He states that Aslan Maskhadov (Sunni/Sufi) was responsible for the Beslan atrocity. Aslan Maskhadov DID NOT orchestrate the Beslan atrocity, it was Shamil Basyev a wahabi fanatic. Many Europeans supported Aslan Maskhadov’s struggle against Russian aggression and against the Saudi funded wahabi fanatics. Aslan Maskhadov never once targeted civilians, not once. He condemned the Beslan Atrocity as did all good God fearing Muslims.
I have posted an authentic hadith below, please read.
Anas related that the Prophet said:
Go in the name of Allah and fight the enemy. But do not kill the elderly, children or women. Do not be transgressors, for Allah loves the muhsinin (Those who keep the highest standards of discipline and do not harm people)
This is Islamic etiquette when it comes to war, no civilians can be targeted. Terrorism is wrong in Islam. If only the wars led by western nations were undertaken with the same moral code. Lets not forget that the US is the only country to ever have dropped nuclear weapons, they still use depleted uranium shells as well. However I will not use this to attack Christianity . Two wrongs don’t make a right, just because eye use Islamic principles out of context doesn‘t mean I have to return the favour regarding Christianity,.
at April 1, 2005 1:05 PM
'I’d say it would be an impossible task to accomplish even in a hundred lifetimes'
Well, not really. But it is required in order to give a balanced understanding of the Quran and to stop ignorance.
Posted by: ia786 at April 1, 2005 1:10 PM
troll ia786,
If you are sincere,then these are the five obligations imposed upon you,and other members of the cult of islam you say you belong
(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.)