| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
What kind of reaction do you think Soheib Bencheikh, who is a member of the French Council for the Muslim Religion and head of the French Institute for Islamic Science, as well as a candidate for President of France, will get to this? Will his words be welcomed and taken to heart? Or will he be treated like Jamal Miftah? Probably he will get a little of both. "Former Marseilles Mufti Soheib Bencheikh: 'Islam Must Be Criticized, Just as Christianity Was [Criticized] During the Enlightenment; Islam is a Message for All Humanity – Therefore It Is Not the Property of Muslims [Alone],'" from MEMRI:
Bencheikh says that Islam came into being in tribal societies and is still focused on the tribal lifestyle. Thus, he says, it should be reformed to address the needs of modern life: "...Religious teachings were developed and formulated between the eighth and 12th centuries, and have not undergone any reform or updating since that time... In the 60s, most Muslim countries chose political modernity. Most of them became either republics or constitutional monarchies. But these choices remained completely theoretical. [There] was no reform to [adapt] Muslim theology to this historical transformation. Consequently, [Muslims today] experience a dangerous discrepancy between their status as citizens and their status as believers...
I have maintained just this for years: that there has been no significant Islamic theological movement to buttress the cultural Islam that has prevailed in areas of Central Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere for several centuries now. Consequently cultural Muslims in those areas are vulnerable to jihad recruitment based on Qur'an and Sunnah.
"This static theology we inherited was conceived for an Islam that was the religion of the majority and had sovereignty over its lands. Moreover, it was conceived for tribal societies. This theology was meant for times when nations hardly came into contact [with each other] - and if they did, it was in a spirit of rivalry for dominance. This theology could not care less about living in harmony with other cultures, and knows nothing of pluralism based on universal principals like secularism and religious freedom - [principles that are] applicable to all religions and granted to all." [3]Bencheikh also explains that Islamic jurisprudence was aimed at managing Muslim life in a tribal society and must therefore be reformed: "[To take] Islamic jurisprudence - which was inherited from [tribal] societies - and turn it into a kind of universal jurisprudence applicable to all periods means to 'bedouinize' Islam and prevent Islamic societies from evolving... In Algeria, for example, fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence] is still applied... If I divorce my wife, she will have to leave our apartment with her children. Why is it like that? Because at a time when life was organized into tribes - and not into city blocks [as in modern times] - the divorced wife had to leave her husband's clan in order to go back to her father's clan. [In fiqh,] nothing has changed, even though the social framework has changed completely."
Political Islam Is Heresy
Bencheikh states that political Islam is a heresy promoted by the Arab states: "The first heresy in Islam in the 20th century was the politicization of Islam. As soon as Muslim countries became independent came the birth of political Islam - i.e. a kind of Islam that is dictated by the state, obeys only the state, and is merely an organ of the state - since it helps the state to increase its power and oppress the people... We are all familiar with the failures and the bloody [inclinations] of political Islam.
"In the Muslim countries, the state still pays the imams' salaries. It is the state that promotes Islam - but what kind of Islam? The kind of Islam that is not familiar with [the concept of] citizenship, but only [the concept of] subjects; the kind of Islam that is not familiar with [the concept of] a state [based on citizens'] rights, but only with the rights of the prince; the kind of Islam that is not familiar with democratic elections or with the free expression of a sovereign people, but only with the oath of allegiance [to the ruler].
"I am convinced that the Islamic state promotes its own destruction by teaching a kind of Islam that does not reform itself, and that still relates to traditional, patriarchal and tribal societies." [4]
Bencheikh draws a distinction between Islam as a humanist religion and Islam as a political tool, stating that Muslim theologians have a responsibility to promote humanistic Islam: "It is up to us Muslims who are versed in religious science to make the distinction, in the minds of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, between a religion based on spirituality, humanism, and civilization [on the one hand], and a purely instrumental use [of religion], which aims at seizing worldly, material power [on the other]..." [5]
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at November 28, 2006 2:24 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Look for this guy to be excommunicated right soon. My advice: he shouldn't plan any trips to turkey anytime soon!
He may want to visit the Vatican instead and have a chat with the Pope. The Pope can feel him out and see if he's for real or if he's doing taquiya.
Posted by: germaninamerica![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 28, 2006 2:46 AM
He is a wise , brave , but likely soon to be dead FORMER Mufti .
Posted by: DUGGY at November 28, 2006 2:56 AM
ohh I can smell the coming faRtwa from hear....
Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 28, 2006 3:01 AM
Reformed or not, I would never trust ay form of Islam that accepts the koran as the words of something called allah given to an archangel and passed on to Mohammed, who is the example of the "perfect man."
They can reform it all they like, but who would be so insane as to trust them, liars and deceivers that they are. Can the leopard change his spots? Can the Moslem become a peaceful human being who accepts all other human beings as equal?
The answer my friends is as plain as the nose in your face. And it is not affirmative.
No quarter.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 28, 2006 3:02 AM
argh remembering to spell check is not my best habit--but at least Im not a muslim and i do not desire 9 year old brides
whew!
hey is that the kind of criticism mufti meant?
cauwe you know having relations with A LITTLE KID shows Muhammed was a demented idiot. And if you really want enlightenment style criticsm of Islam --well Islam unlike Christianity will not survive at all! Christianity has these universal laws like "treat others as you want them to treat you"
Islam says "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" yeah Im sure THAT will survive any honest criticism
Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 28, 2006 3:04 AM
Yes, the Imam is perfectly right. But, as the previous commentators have remarked, will he survive his comments ?
Society has come to this stage of nil superstition (at least in non-Islamic areas) because of Voltaires, Socrateses and Galileos.
Let the Muslims take a look around. The Hindus have improved their lot because they are only nominally religious. They have taken their mythology and religion for what it is in spirit and not what it is literally. Also, the Christians and Jews.
Let us hope Voltaire has reincarnated in Islam.
Posted by: rajagopalan at November 28, 2006 3:04 AM
It's always exciting to see a Muslim reformer speaking out that way. If only outspoken reformers weren't such a tiny minority among Muslims. Too often all we seem to get from Islam are threats to freedom of speech and religion.
For example, one of the biggest shareholders of Fox News is a Saudi prince who called up Murdoch and got him to change the Fox terminology for the Muslim intifada in France: the disturbances would no longer be called "Muslim riots"; they became "civil riots."
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=437838
How is it that we allow a channel like Fox, which is under FCC license, to be partly owned by a member of a totalitarian government, particularly one like Saudi Arabia, which pushes Islamic law and hate worldwide, including in the U.S. through U.S. mosques?
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-01-28.htm
Anyone who knows what Islamic law is and knows what it says, and who seeks nevertheless to propagate it, deserves no more respect or rights than someone seeking to propagate racial apartheid. To see how barbaric Islamic law is, one need only consider a single example: it's not just a "tiny minority" of Islamic scholars who agree that Islamic law demands capital punishment for those who leave the Islamic faith and refuse to return. Most Islamic scholars agree on death for apostates.
http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=Gz9HCK.
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=286
What's more, Islamic law pushers are far more dangerous than apartheid supporters because the world contains many more supporters of Islamic law than apartheidists. Pressure for Islamic law is increasing in Europe as the Muslim population there grows rapidly through immigration and high birth rates and the non-Muslim population shrinks through very low birth rates.
But it's not just Fox that can buckle. Other parts of the American media are influenced by Islamic pressure, warnings, threats. Islam has already taken away some of our freedom of speech. At what point is enough enough? One cannot on one's own initiative take direct violent action against propagators of Islamic law and Islamic intimidation, not without violating one's own government's laws. Law in a liberal democratic culture is a basis of civilized conduct, conduct based on social contract and conversation among citizens rather than on the arbitrary will of an individual or group acting unilaterally or dictatorially. To break the laws of a democratic nation, except in non-violent civil disobedience, is to behave as a little tyrant. Socrates' respect for conversation, and for a society based on it, and his contempt for the hubris of the tyrant, are part of what made him refuse an easy escape from prison and hemlock. Though the verdict at his trial stained ancient Athens, Socrates had been condemned to death in open and fair proceedings (by the standards of the time) and by a jury of his peers. Socrates chose to accept his lawfully determined punishment.
But even though, as law-abiding citizens, we can't and don't want in our fury to just go out and kill people who are destroying the foundations of liberal civilization -- people who are spreading Islamic law's totalitarianism and increasingly suppressing freedom of religion and speech in the West -- still, we can certainly do as much as possible to elect politicians who will recognize Islamic law and jihad for what they are: aspects of a movement striving for world domination. We should demand the three things Fjordman recently suggested:
We should completely stop Muslim immigration. This could be done in indirect ways, [thus avoiding potential First Amendment objections] such as banning immigration from nations known to be engaged in terrorism. All Muslim non-citizens in the West should be removed. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” etc should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.I added the emphasis. The rest of Fjordman's article is excellent and a great morale builder. Posted by: traeh
at November 28, 2006 3:05 AM
/sarcasm off
at November 28, 2006 3:05 AM
While Soheib Bencheikh's candor is admirable, my main problem with his hypothesis (granted, he can't scream 'Mohammed was a pedophile' the way we can) is in his opening sentence above:
Bencheikh says that Islam came into being in tribal societies and is still focused on the tribal lifestyle.This is nothing but defamation of the murdered/massacred pre-Islamic Arabs who didn't get to write their histories, or have descendents to carry on their pre-Islamic heritage with them. It casts an aspersion on tribal societies, as if that was the problem. But read the history of Mohammed, and how he interacted with the various tribes around him, and what effect he had on their heritage - namely, wiping it out. And note some of the societal values that the pre-Islamic Arabs had - from not fighting during their holy months to honoring treaties, having a respectable role for women (see Khadijah), attempting to do away with stoning (something that earned Mohammed's ire), etc.
Contrast that with say, the history of Christ or Buddha, and the influence they had on the tribes in which they lived. Christ, among other things, served to smoothen some of the rough edges of the religious traditions of the people at the time, such as the injunction: 'Let he who is sinless cast the first stone'. Christianity grew up in a tribal environment every bit as much as Islam did, but had a largely positive influence on the people who came unto it (although one can argue about the growing pains it underwent, such as the Spanish Inquisition, the 30-year war, and other religious wars between Catholics and Protestants).
Buddha served to reduce the tensions that were there in society by formulating his 8-fold path, and also, on the political front, persuaded some leading rulers at the time to avoid invading each other's territory for conquests, which dovetailed neatly into his injunction to eschew desire as a key to attaining contentment. And while it is legitimate to question the underlying assumption that an absence of all desire leads to contentment, no one can argue that Buddhism had a net negative effect on the world (other than not preparing its adherents for defense against ruthless aggressors, such as Mohammedans who overran Gandhara.)
Neither Christ nor Buddha lived in modern, urbane societies, and yet, while Christianity underwent its own reforms throughout history as it grew and fragmented, Buddhism didn't need to undergo any reforms to allow Buddhists in India, Sri Lanka or Thailand to adjust from the 5th century BC to the 21st century. Similar arguments can be made about Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Similarly, there are still countries like Bhutan that are largely tribal societies, and they do not have the sort of bloodletting that one sees in Iraq, Somalia, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, et al.
It's been said that history is written by the winners/survivors of all wars, but even there, what is disclosed about Mohammed's enemies makes most of them look virtuous even by today's standards. Therefore, to blame Islam's evils on tribal societies, rather than on its evil founder, is just one more exercise by a Mohammedan in defaming the prophet's hapless victims.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 28, 2006 3:07 AM
We should demand the three things Fjordman recently suggested:
We should completely stop Muslim immigration. This could be done in indirect ways, [thus avoiding potential First Amendment objections] such as banning immigration from nations known to be engaged in terrorism. All Muslim non-citizens in the West should be removed. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” etc should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.
I added the emphasis. The rest of Fjordman's article is excellent and a great morale builder.
Posted by: traeh
Where do you find the politicians to implement these things? Do you think this will fly in France or in Germany or in Sweden? I am afraid not even USA or AUS will have the guts to implement these very sensible and intelligent measures.
I saw a post where a Swede had his house surrounded by 300 moslems - YES this was in SWEDEN!!! - simply becuase he objected to the blaring loudspeakers they have on a mosk near his house. The fact they can even get permission to put thse loud speakers on there and disrupt the lives of the NATIVE SWEDES is an abomination!
Where is that English guy who was researching the UN declarations on the Rights of Natice Peoples?
WE are the NATIVE EUROPEANS!!! WE have our rights!!!
Let's DEMAND THOSE RIGHTS!!! I read the link to the UN page he gave and it didn't say these rights only apply to Eskimos or to Native Americans. I want to open a gambling casino in Germany. Preferrably on top of a mosk that's been bulldozed. I want champagne.. caviar! One TWO THREE!!
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 28, 2006 3:30 AM
Infidel Pride:
Your main point seems right. In a number of respects, though apparently not in all, the pre-Islamic Bedouins seem to have been more humane than the Islamic ones. I say "not in all," because I gather Muhammad ended the Bedouin tolerance for the killing of female infants. Perhaps there were a few other ways in which he represented an advance on the existing practices around him.
But in a number of respects he seems to have taken the worst aspects of the nomadic Bedouin culture and sublimated them into a totalitarian ideology of peculiar effectiveness. The Bedouins had been pagan believers in many gods, of course, and that pluralism was no doubt reflected in certain kinds of tolerance between the Bedouin tribes, who populated Arabia. It may also have permitted greater equality for women than did the later Islamic culture, insofar as the Bedouins worshiped female gods as well as male ones.
However that may be, the Bedouin tribes were extremely warlike and predatory and attacked and raided each other with ferocity, and there was, one would think, great value placed on the instinct for and techniques of conquering and domination and defense. Muhammad took that highly warlike, predatory culture and universalized it into a religion. A religion that declared all but one of the gods non-existent and made that declaration part of a hugely ambitious "raiding strategy" to be used against all the tribes of Arabia. Muhammad motivated his warriors with the ultimate booty of martyrdom, of course: virgins awaiting the warrior in heaven, lush couches, wondrous food and drink. Muhammad stalked, preyed upon, and finally killed off Bedouin religious pluralism, and in the process created a predatory, warlike tribe based no longer on blood, but on ideology. Unless I'm missing the forest for the trees somehow.
I also think that the relatively isolated and largely nomadic Bedouin society of Arabia was a good deal more backward than the Mediterranean nation in which Jesus passed his life. Israel was not a nation of nomadic predatory tribes periodically raiding each other. Settled agriculture and urban life surely came to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean much earlier than to the Arabian peninsula.
But these are quibbles with your quite interesting post.
Posted by: traeh at November 28, 2006 4:19 AM
for mufti is absolutely right Islam is still mired back in the days of tribal societies but then most Arab societies less than a hundred years ago living in deserts and small villages in mud huts and knew nothing beyond their immediate village several of the Royal families i.e. the turkeys of Saudi Arabia got there by supporting infidel countries that ran the Middle East for a time there people are still mired in a peasant mentality and if Islam is to grow you must be criticized freely and openly and customs of the past like overrunning infidel lands in the belief that Islam has a right to do so with no argument from the people in the occupied lands. Israel is a good example of this six times the Jews and tossed back and defeated invading Islamic armies and now the refugees that were not allowed to join other Arab countries and demanding land that was never theres because a schizophrenic believe that Muslims haven't land once overrun by them is always Muslim land. There are even some Muslims that want Spanish land back because they held it up to 1492.
Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 28, 2006 4:19 AM
germaninamerica:
Where do you find politicians to implement these things?
I didn't mean to suggest Fjordman's proposals would be implemented overnight. But it's a start if people hear about them. It's a start if we try to create such politicians by making our opinions known, as intelligently and civilly as we can, to the current politicians, and telling them what kind of politicians we'll vote for.
Posted by: traeh at November 28, 2006 4:31 AM
i completely agree with all the analysis of Infidel Pride above but i want to also say that Soheib Bencheikh has gone an extra mile than a lot of other moslems.
At least he has agreed that Islam needs reformation. This hard true is what may actually earn him some punishments. Ofcourse he may not have said that if he were in Paksitan because it may cost him his head and he'll not live to see his proposed reform.
If moslems everywhere accepts that islam needs a reform, then the next question will be: where and what needs to be reformed? That is when the texts and their interpretations are considered.
The reformation Christianity underwent took people back to the texts. My only fear is that if moslems go back to their texts, they may not have a lot remaining after the reform to practice.
Well i wish Mr Soheib Bencheikh goodluck and watch to see what happens to him in next few days. The other teacher is still in hiding.
Posted by: Nwachinemere at November 28, 2006 5:07 AM
Lol i meant by Infidel Pride and not analysis of
Posted by: Nwachinemere at November 28, 2006 5:14 AM
A Muslim verson of Martin Luther?
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 28, 2006 6:52 AM
It is regrettable this man will soon be dead. More of this type of Muslim and less of the Bin Laden type would help the world immeasurably.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 28, 2006 7:42 AM
MEMRI's introduction:
"Recently, he announced his candidacy for the April 2007 French presidential election and launched his election website... In addition, one of his supporters maintains a blog... that includes interviews he has given to the press, as well as links to other French Muslim reformist websites. The following are excerpts from interviews Bencheikh gave to French and Algerian newspapers that were posted on his official website..."
I'm glad to read that such a prominent Muslim is calling for reform in such an intelligent way. I'm not sure I'm glad he's calling for reform while at the same time trying to be elected as president of France. Perhaps it isn't fair of me but it makes me doubt his motives.
Posted by: Josephine at November 28, 2006 7:46 AM
This guy is running for President of France?
I'd be afraid. VERY afraid.
Posted by: freewoman at November 28, 2006 7:51 AM
Is this guy sucking for political power, or is he suicidal for the muslim equivalent of death by cop ?
The first problem with a muslim commentator is that they are muslim: with no tradition of truthsaying, one has to ask - who are they stroking ? Like that puke Salmon Rushdie speaking to the applause in a Western audience - but he really supports the palestineans and the kashmiris. Like puke Cat Stevens: "I love the world" - ya and why do you support militant islam through 'charities'.
A coven of devils, a pit of snakes.
Posted by: dgene at November 28, 2006 8:59 AM
Since Islam belongs to everyone then its mine as well. So, then, may I toss it out with the rest of the trash?
Posted by: Seymour Paine at November 28, 2006 9:21 AM
Reading about muslims making these statements is always encouraging. The Muslim world is not monolithic. Many decent men, women and children live in dar al-Islam and would be fine citizens under non-Islamic forms of governance.
Unfortunately Islam will not allow them to flourish. It's improbable that Islam can undergo anything resembling a Reformation. Islam is inflexible and rigid as a system, has no non-violent and spiritual role model like Jesus of Nazareth and is devoid of appeals to higher ethical standards, like the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule. It lacks reflection, personal responsibility, free will and empathy.
Islam can't be bent into something new. Submission by definition can ask no questions because submission is slavery.
It's encouraging to hear that some people will openly question the system. It gets the steamroller turning. But once it starts it won't stop at a 'kinder, gentler Islam' or 'Islam as a billion points of light'.
Everything that weakens the grip of submission is good - whether it's successful in its own reckoning or not.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at November 28, 2006 9:44 AM
Anyone ever read the jpost.com interview with Yigal Carmon, founder of the memri translation site?"
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378407552&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
From the interview, regarding jihad:
Speaking of "facts" and "truth," how was it that there was such a huge controversy over the translation - or meaning - of the word "jihad?"
Many words begin with a certain meaning and develop into other meanings and connotations over the years. The original meaning of "jihad" in the Koran and in early Muslim history was "holy war by sword."
Over time, this concept evolved, so that, in the Hadith [oral traditions], one can find the word "jihad" in different connotations. For example, the Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying, "We have returned from the little jihad [the actual war], and now we are heading toward the big jihad [the struggle against the evil within each of us, not the external war with our enemies]."
A similar linguistic phenomenon exists in other languages, as well.
When we say that we are waging a "war against drugs," for example, we mean it metaphorically; it's not a war in the literal sense, with weapons. We just want to express how serious we are about this fight against drugs, so we equate it with war.
Apologists for Islamic extremism like to remind everybody that the root of the word "jihad" is "jahada" (to exert).
But so what? The root of the word "revelation" is "reveal." And though the word "reveal" is neutral, the word "revelation" is a religious concept. The same goes for the root of the word "trinity," which is "three." So, yes, the root of "jihad" is indeed "jahada." But "jihad" is a religious concept.
Is it possible to alter the religious connotations of "jihad" and other concepts in Islam, the way Christianity and Judaism have done - in order for Muslims to be able to live in the Western world?
Absolutely. Redefining such concepts is a voluntary act on the part of communities of believers.
Look, in the Book of Esther, there are many problematic passages, such as the revenge against the Persians. Today, the only remnant of that commemoration is a noisemaker. But for Jewish fundamentalists, it's not that way. For fundamentalists like Baruch Goldstein, the day of Purim is the day of revenge. Which is why he chose to commit his crime precisely on Purim.
Another example: Ramadan. For the fundamentalists, Ramadan is the month of jihad and martyrdom - the month in which Allah grants victory to his believers. Today, for many Muslims, Ramadan is a month of spirituality, fasting and feasting.
Unfortunately, in the Palestinian school books - and I mean those used today in the PA - the children are taught that Ramadan is a month of jihad, martyrdom and Muslim victory, and that it has been like that throughout history, with specific examples of known historical battles which took place during the month of Ramadan.
In 2004, I participated in a conference organized by the Spanish government to commemorating the March 11, 2003 Islamist attacks in Madrid. Among the participants were Europeans and Muslims of different nationalities. I dealt with the issue of jihad. And, following a comment by a Muslim participant that we shouldn't mention jihad in connection with the terrorist attacks - because jihad is something that Muslims respect - I got up and responded as follows: "I'd like to relate to this comment not as an academic, but as a Jew."
The entire audience became electrified when I said that, because it was so unheard of. I then went on: "We Jews have in our Bible the edict of 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But our sages - many centuries ago - replaced this principle with the principle of compensation. God, of course, knows the word 'compensation.' If He had wanted to say that, He would have said it. But He chose the explicit command of 'an eye for an eye.' Our sages decided that this was no longer acceptable, and dropped it. The same is true of the Christians with regard to the Inquisition: First they believed that it was God's will, but later dropped it. It's only because we've already been through this that I take the liberty of suggesting to you Muslims that you, too, drop the edict of jihad, which isn't even one of the five pillars of Islam. It doesn't suit the humanistic principles of the 21st century."
What was the reaction on the part of the audience?
The non-Muslims began whispering among themselves, as though they were happy that someone had said what they were thinking.
How did the Muslims present respond?
They were very angry, and the session ended shorty thereafter.
Posted by: Dum Dhimmi Dum Dum Dum at November 28, 2006 10:34 AM
Traeh: I gather Muhammad ended the Bedouin tolerance for the killing of female infants.From the evidence, I take this with a pillar of salt. Like Ali Sina pointed out, in pre-Islamic Arabia, polygamy was quite common. If female infanticide was as common as is made out to be, there's no way that could have been possible, even if they had all their little girls marry much older men, and make the younger men wait for the next generation. Despite Khadijah's career, I'd not claim that pre-Islamic women in the Hijaz were emancipated in the sense that modern Western women are. Nonetheless, all the negative claims made about Mohammed's enemies should be treated very skeptically, considering the fact that the only sources were Mohammed's propagandists.
Nwachinemere
I wasn't engaging in a wholesale dissing of Soheib Bencheikh - I was just criticizing what I consider to be an absolutely crass act of besmirching some thousands of dead pre-Islamic Arabs who didn't have anybody to tell their story, or defend them.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 28, 2006 12:53 PM
How can anyone bring any enlightenment to that dark abyss called Islam?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 28, 2006 1:22 PM
Posted by: germaninamerica
I saw a post where a Swede had his house surrounded by 300 moslems - YES this was in SWEDEN!!! - simply becuase he objected to the blaring loudspeakers they have on a mosk near his house. The fact they can even get permission to put thse loud speakers on there and disrupt the lives of the NATIVE SWEDES is an abomination!
GIA
I do not know where you read that post,if it was here or on the Swedish Forum FOMI nu
You got the facts a little bit wrong,so please allow me to correct you.
The incident did not happen in Sweden,but in East Java Indonesia in 1998,and the person was not Swedish.
It was me.What started it all was I became pissed off with be woken up at 4.00 every morning
From an earlier post on this forum
"Well Thomas It so happens I live in Indonesia,and a lot of the time I am traveling into the small towns and villages.I have for the last 7 yrs mingled with Muslims on the streets and in the rice paddies.Daily I mix with muslins who do not know the art of Taquiyah,you cannot discuss with these people,you say one word against Islam,they will cut your head off.I have even had 300 Muslim outside my house,threatening to kill me and burn my house down,just because I asked them to turn their speaker down when calling for prayer at 3 o,clock in the morning
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006235.php
From the Swedish forum
The day that opened my eyes for the Truth Passed a long time ago, when I saw Churches being burnt in Situbonbo,when i saw riot after friday prayers in Jember,when I had 300 moslems outside my house,with the intent to burn it down with me insde,when 10 friends(moslem) where blown to pieces in the Bali Bombing
My eyes where opened when I was invited to a wedding where the girl was only 10,and the husband was 26.when I see 12 year old mothers,and 30 year old grandmothers.
My eyes where opened when a chinese friend had his mother,wife and 11 year old daughter raped, murdered,and then burnt
My eyes where opened when i asked myself WHYwhy are muslims doing these things,and to find out I looked at the Un-,holy scriptures
THATS WHEN MY EYES REALLY OPENED
http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=11853&sid=c379483be57f46df460dfc030c8660fb
And another comment at FOMI which has been removed
A few years back,one morning,at about 3 am I went to the mosque that was about 25 meters to where I was living and asked them,politely,if they could turn there speachers down.
The next evening there where moslem 300 ouside,with the intention of burning it down,and of liberating my head from my body
at November 28, 2006 1:56 PM
Ah oui. So the presidential election is only a few months away - what better way to win votes then through a good dose of taqiya. Let the infidels see the 'progress' of some Muslims - especially those who wish to take over the running of the country prematurely, et voila, Mohammad's your uncle - a sure vote winner amongst the electorate - a forward thinking politician, and Muslim too. And who ever said that France discriminates against its minorities? Bear in mind though, French people do not, in general like progress or modernity. Try and change any law to modernise the state and the country shuts down. Bencheikh may have found a niche however where these silly infidels may want to see a bit of modernity and change - that is in their future, in Islam. I however am not impressed by all this. The only Muslim I trust is an ex Muslim, none other.
Posted by: GreekFrenchInfidel at November 28, 2006 2:00 PM
The essential problem here is that Christianity was founded on principles that include respect for human life, and, when as in the Middle Ages it was failing to live up to them, reformers like Martin Luther were able to force the Church to behave the way it was originally intended to.
BUT---
That will not prove to the the case with Islam, which is NOT founded on the Golden Rule (and deosn't even include it anyway)and has absolutely ZERO respect for human life and thus cannot be brought into line with any other faith (except possibly for Commmunism) as they are all virtually opposed to everying Islam stands for.
Islam has never responded to voices of sanity or reason. It isn't going to now either I predict.
Posted by: pythagoras at November 28, 2006 3:32 PM
Mufti Soheib Bencheikh says that the politicization of Islam is only a 20th-century heresy.
Just what were Muslims doing -- beginning with Prophet Muhammad (SAW 3) and continuing with subsequent Fight-Guided Caliphs -- in spreading Islam by the sword and establishing Islam as politico-legal regimes in the lands they conquered? Islam has always been "politicized".
This Mufti is merely practicing a cleverer form of taqiyya, or he is one of those Muslim unicorns with his Own Private Islam that he doesn't realize is disconnected from the real Islam of history.
at November 28, 2006 5:39 PM
Poor guy is a marked man.
Posted by: ujaklija at November 28, 2006 9:17 PM
(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.)