| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Al-Hilali Update. Tanveer Ahmed says in The Australian what I get called "Islamophobic" for saying. Is it true if a Muslim says it, but "Islamophobia" if a non-Muslim says it?
As long as Muslims view their religion as sitting above history and culture - with the Koran as the literal word of God, which in their view makes Islam undebatable - there will always be Hilalis who can point to certain texts and argue for a social and legal structure consistent with 7th-century Arabia. Let's not forget that a senior British cleric lavished praise on Hilali in response to this incident, saying Australia was lucky to have him, and suggesting he was "one of the greatest Islamic scholars in the world".This is a man who knows the Koran in intimate detail and his views are consistent with a strict reading of the Muslim holy book.
And if you believe the Koran is the literal word of God, how is anything other than a strict interpretation appropriate?
All the world's religions have passages that are abhorrent or inappropriate to the modern age. But they were revolutionary in their time and can still inspire us today.
If Islam is seen in its context, as a product of history and not above it, there could be a meaningful debate about whether a version of the religion, inspired by but not chained to its past, can and contribute to modernity and human progress.
The Hilali incident and the loud chorus of his defenders suggest this is still some way off.
Posted by Robert at October 29, 2006 8:19 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
If the Koran is indeed direct from Allah then he has to be the worst of gods. He gave a book to the world that is repetitive, boring, poorly composed and lacking anything to improve the spiritual lives of its adherents. This must explain why, by default, virtually all Muslim "holy" men are given to saying the most ridiculous of things and inspire nothing but evil in their followers.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 29, 2006 8:33 PM
Ahmed's essay is refreshingly frank (and courageous).
Not only does he acknowledge that Hilali is reciting "pure" or "true" Islam, but he also points out that Muslims today are a long way off from doing anything significant to alter/reform/transform Islam into a palatable 21st century "religion."
at October 29, 2006 8:33 PM
This is like a line from a bad science fiction movie “when hell is full, muslims will walk the earth”
Posted by: Ronin at October 29, 2006 8:38 PM
"I want to clear this uncovered meat and woman controversy once and for all. This Mullah wrongly says that in our great religion woman are considered equivalent to uncovered meat. If any one takes uncovered meat without the permission of owner, it is prescribed by our prophet that his hands should be chopped off. But if someone rapes a woman it is the fault of the woman, it is considered adultery and she should be stoned to death. This sums up that in our great religion uncovered meat is held in much higher regard than a woman. I would like to get this from respected scholars what is the fate of an infidel who makes a pass at a Muslim woman.
Al-Borat"
at October 29, 2006 8:48 PM
from the article: "If Islam is seen in its context, as a product of history and not above it, there could be a meaningful debate about whether a version of the religion, inspired by but not chained to its past, can and contribute to modernity and human progress."
A meaningful debate on this issue? OK I'll bite.
Claim: If Islam is seen in a purely historical context it has nothing unique to contribute to modernity and human progress.
Rebuttal anyone?
Posted by: Caroline at October 29, 2006 8:48 PM
Any set of source texts claiming to be revelation from God are either true or they're not. If Muslims admit that the claims of divine revelation in the Koran and Hadith are no longer to be considered authoratitave, then the only resposible position they can take is to either convert to another faith, or become secularists whose interest in the Islamic sources is purely historical or allegorical. Is this a realistic expectation?
Posted by: Clive at October 29, 2006 9:12 PM
When Hell is Full, Muslims will Walk the Earth.
Let me tell you, Hell is full. Hell filled up around 630 AD.
If we ever get bin Laden, that won't be the end of him, he'll be munching on somebody's brain in no time. In fact, I would bet atta is taking a chunk out of some guy's arm in a taxi in Minnesota as we speak. The muslims have already eaten all the brains of the leftists, now they are coming after our asses. I know this war is going to cost us an arm and a leg, and I am willing to pay that price, but when the muslims start looking at our women like uncovered meat, then you know it's time to give them something to chew on.
Posted by: August22 at October 29, 2006 9:19 PM
It's always good to hear from so-called "moderate" Muslims and this is no exception. When (if) Islam modernizes, and allows critical analysis of its texts in a historical light, it will be a step forward towards peaceful coexistance with the West. Islam will always appeal to feeble, ignorant, misognystic, bearded old men, but the young suicide bombers might reconsider their actions when their "war manual" is viewed historically rather than divinely.
Posted by: Xero G at October 29, 2006 9:41 PM
In an article on an Indonesian news site Australian Muslims rally behind cleric it says the mufti said only white women were victims, and they were told they were targeted because they were "Aussie pigs."
Where are the lynch mobs? This guy should be dead already. And 24 years in Australia and he can't speak English yet? Talk about not wanting to integrate!
Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel at October 29, 2006 9:44 PM
Let's try that link again here at Australian Muslims rally behind cleric
Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel at October 29, 2006 9:47 PM
Clive, it's a realistic expectation for a person with somewhat logical reasoning and common sense but for a Muslim it's not. But how can you reason with someone who denies world history and scientific facts?
My favorite argument here in Indonesia is 'how was man created?' According to the Qu'ran there are three conflicting possibilities. I'll use Ali Yusuf's translation:
Quran 6:2 It is He who created you from clay, and then decreed a stated term (for you). And there is in His presence another determined term; yet ye doubt within yourselves!
Quran 25:54 It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things).
Quran 96:1-2 Proclaim in the name of your Lord and Cherisher, Who created, Created man out of a mere clot of congealed blood.
So my question to Muslims is which Surah is correct? Clay, water or congealed blood? This is one simple example that the Qu'ran is not infallible and is wrong. If all three Surahs had said clay or all three had said congealed blood then okay, that would be within acceptable parameters. But three completely different sources? I got kicked out of an Islamic studies course for bringing this up. Remember Allah (Muhammad or any Muslim)does not like to be questioned. I didn't even get a chance to bring up the question of where the sun goes during the night (according to Muhammad, the sun prostrates itself under Allah's throne during the evening). Ha ha ha!!
Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel at October 29, 2006 10:20 PM
"Clay, water, or congealed blood..[three possible substances from which, according to the Qur'an, man was created]"
-- from a posting above
I was always led to believe that there were only two possibilities: sugar and spice and everything nice, for the babies who wore pink, and snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails, for the ones dressed in blue. Apparently I was misinformed.
Posted by: Hugh at October 29, 2006 10:42 PM
How man was created according to the Koran is simple. Man was created by all three substances. Allah took a little clay, some clots of blood and threw in some water. Then he stirred it all up and there he was, just like Kool Aid. This Kool Aid theory may also explain why people come in all sorts of colors too. Mo would have explained it to the faithful just like this in his day except the infidels hadn't yet invented Kool Aid, causing the all this confusion.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 29, 2006 11:07 PM
This is like a line from a bad science fiction movie “when hell is full, muslims will walk the earth”
Posted by: Ronin
They're fast starting to run out of room...
at October 30, 2006 12:10 AM
Claim: If Islam is seen in a purely historical context it has nothing unique to contribute to modernity and human progress.
Rebuttal anyone?
Posted by: Caroline
As much as I like to argue about pretty much anything.. You got me.
Anyone else?
[the silence is deafening]
Posted by: germaninamerica at October 30, 2006 12:14 AM
All the world's religions have passages that are abhorrent or inappropriate to the modern age. But they were revolutionary in their time and can still inspire us today.
If Islam is seen in its context, as a product of history and not above it, there could be a meaningful debate about whether a version of the religion, inspired by but not chained to its past, can and contribute to modernity and human progress.
No reason to even attempt to build them any bridges. It's up to them to conceptualize these things and prove themselves as Human Beings to us. We can't do their THINKING for them, fer chrissakes!
at October 30, 2006 12:16 AM
Any set of source texts claiming to be revelation from God are either true or they're not. If Muslims admit that the claims of divine revelation in the Koran and Hadith are no longer to be considered authoratitave, then the only resposible position they can take is to either convert to another faith, or become secularists whose interest in the Islamic sources is purely historical or allegorical. Is this a realistic expectation?
Posted by: Clive
I think you already know the answer to that one, Clive :-)
at October 30, 2006 12:18 AM
I would like to get this from respected scholars what is the fate of an infidel who makes a pass at a Muslim woman.
Al-Borat"
Posted by: pagan
His fate would be to admit he has homosexual tendencies [no disrespect to gay people]. Why any red-blooded heterosexual male would make a pass at a killjoy type woman with a bag over her head is beyond me.
One thing the islamists don't have to worry about is our appetite for "their" women. Just imagining she may have been with one of these slimy smelly beard-swine [german expression] would be more than sufficient to quell any nascent desires.
our own Western Women not only LOOK way better than anything out of the islamic world - they're also way more independent-thinking and intelligent than any of you or your women. They have style and class and they choose their mate - something that must be threatening to those 'who can't get any'. And we know who those are :-)
Posted by: germaninamerica at October 30, 2006 12:24 AM
In an article on an Indonesian news site Australian Muslims rally behind cleric it says the mufti said only white women were victims, and they were told they were targeted because they were "Aussie pigs."
Where are the lynch mobs? This guy should be dead already. And 24 years in Australia and he can't speak English yet? Talk about not wanting to integrate!
Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel
They're really pushing the envelope now. Why is this huy een breathing Australian Air?? Where are the snipers..? Is there Not ONE person in the WEST who can take these rats out in the dead of night?!
Where are all those gun owners and collectors? I guess everyone is truly just a collector like the NRA keeps on saying.. :-) Silly me, to ever have thought they were hoodwinking the rest of us. I amn beginning to change my views on gun control though, I CAN tell you THAT!
Posted by: germaninamerica at October 30, 2006 12:29 AM
Quran 96:1-2 Proclaim in the name of your Lord and Cherisher, Who created, Created man out of a mere clot of congealed blood.
Sounds like something out of "BLADE"..
at October 30, 2006 12:32 AM
Australian cats rally behind Muslim cleric. Also,
Imam Abdul Jalil Sajid, the chairman of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, who is visiting Australia, sprang to the mufti's defence. "I know he is one of the greatest Muslim scholars on earth and Australia is blessed with him," Sajid said.
More blessings on the way perhaps?
Posted by: pagandkapitat at October 30, 2006 3:21 AM
MUFTI UPDATE
And in latest news, the Mufti has done his usual trick of collapsing and being taken to hospital (with a police escort no less). I seem to recall him doing so on a previous occasion when he was in trouble with the NSW police. What crap.
Also, we newspaper readers downunder have been inundated with articles by kind gentle muslims bagging the mufti and assuring us that islam is very hard on rape and abhors rape etc. etc. and how islamic law views rape as am abomidation etc. etc.
Funny how in all these articles - despite numerous "jurisprudential" islamic references, there is never any mention of the fact that 4 male witnesses of good character are needed to prove a rape - essentially, an impossible task.
The thing that pisses me off most about all this furore is that it gives all these "moderates" a chance to pull the wool over our eyes with all this nonsense about wrong the mufti is.
Not, of course, because he is wrong, but because the time is not yet right, and it would be bad for the ummah to let the cat (sorry mo') out of the bag.
Why the sight of a group of young hijab-wearing girls on the nightly news celebrating the eid festival and singing the Australian national anthem almost had me fooled!
And finally, Paul Keating, the labour Prime Minister who apparently interceded to allow the Mufti in Australia rather than deport him - against I might add the advice of his Immigration Minister and ASIO (sort if our CIA)- is refusing to comment beyond abusing journalists who are pestering him for some explanation.
at October 30, 2006 8:10 AM
Robert:
I'm a bit older than you, so perhaps you don't recall a song, "It's not what you say, it's the way that you say it..."
Tanveer Ahmed acknowledges that what you and Wafa Sultan say is true, but holds a hope for a kindler, gentler Islam becoming ascendant if only people turned away from old literalists like Hilali.
And he also misses one big point. Islam pretty stands alone as the only "faith" that came into being for the express purpose of justifying the plundering of non-believers. I don't pretend to be a great religious scholar, but doubt you'd find the Torah, the New Testament, or the holy books of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. full of such exhortations as are found in the Koran, hadiths and suras, and that is a very big distinction.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 30, 2006 8:11 AM
So how do we encourage peace-loving Muslims to moderate Islam?It's in all our best interest to welcome them into modern-day times.
Oh..what's that?Even the moderates won't moderate?How much moderation could a moderator moderate if a Muslim could chop heads?
I sadly predict that we will never see division in Islam and the madness will continue.
at October 30, 2006 8:56 AM
I have news for these guys. In Islam, the human body is NOTHING more than meat to be slaughtered.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 30, 2006 8:19 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)