My God. I must be living in some sort of alternative universe.

This crap is really happening in America? Good God.

This "Note Left At Falls Church 9/11 Memorial Calls For Removal Of Public Art,"

makes me so mad I could scream. GET OUT OF OUR COUNTRY ISLAMIC BARBARIANS!

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 10:26 AM

To Mohammedans who left the Note:

Go F yourselves. How I wish I could say that to the actual Mohammedans behind this Note.

If I lived in Falls Church, I'd put that sentiment on a sign and hold a vigil (hopefully with others) beside this 9/11 Memorial.

C'mon Falls Church people! Do something!

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 10:30 AM

Falls Church?

This should not surprise.

Paul Sperry via Frontpagemag.com June 22, 2007

via Militant Islam Monitor, May 13, 2005

via Stratfor May 31, 2005

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at September 15, 2008 10:39 AM

IF WE WAS TO PUT A STATUE OF ALLAH WITH HIS TEARS BECAUSE OF YOUR WARS IN OUR FRONT YARD. YOU WOULD BURN IT TO THE GROUND. YOU
WILL TAKE THIS DOWN TODAY. YOU WILL TAKE THIS AWAY NOW OR WE WILL DO THIS .
........................................

So even a commemoration of the horror of 9/11 is an affront to the "Peaceful Ones"? Note the immediate turn to threat--"YOU WILL TAKE THIS DOWN TODAY. YOU WILL TAKE THIS AWAY NOW OR WE WILL DO THIS .--"burn it to the ground", presumably.

Of course, "IF WE WAS TO PUT A STATUE OF ALLAH WITH HIS TEARS BECAUSE OF YOUR WARS IN OUR FRONT YARD. YOU WOULD BURN IT TO THE GROUND." is not true. If "they was" to erect a statue of Allah, it would most likely be burned to the ground by other Muslims enraged at the the thought of idolatry. After they finished burning it to the ground, they would issue a fatwa on the life of the artist and his entire family.

Posted by: gravenimage at September 15, 2008 10:51 AM

Also, gravenimage, it would be an impossibility to render "allah" with "tears" because "allah" has no heart and doesn't cry. "allah" only kills - that's his job.

Now, as for the "statue" part, that's 100% right-on, as "allah" is nothing but a sandstone idol pagan deity.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 10:56 AM

Over the sees(seas), I mean it has to be the Mohammedan mind. You know reading this does make you recognize how Islam retards the minds of its followers. Threats, murder, killing the way of Islam and Mohammedans. They are trying to justify their horrible mass murdering religion which has killed millions upon millions of humans which is unparalleled in human history. A religion of Sharia that is guilty of crimes against humanity and civilization with a list that cannot be matched by anyone. Continue to put the onerous on all Muslims because this is their faith and they are responsible completely.

Posted by: savsiv at September 15, 2008 11:00 AM

Disgusting!!!

But what can you expect from this evil, satanic cult!

Posted by: Sencit at September 15, 2008 11:12 AM

If "they was" to erect a statue of Allah, it would most likely be burned to the ground by other Muslims enraged at the the thought of idolatry.

gravenimage,

That would happen in Saudi Arabia. Muslims here wouldn't call for its destruction because there would be too much publicity. Here it would more likely get round-the-clock police protection to prevent its destruction by "vengeful Christians". It would serve as a symbol of diversity! It would never be destroyed.

Posted by: PMK at September 15, 2008 11:15 AM

Hello, Coward:

You can't honestly believe, even in your frothing Islamic fervor, that a note from some unnamed idiot with an inkjet printer is going to be sufficient reason for any American to do your bidding, let alone your illa's.

No, if you put a statue in your front yard, we would not burn it. We have laws against trespass on private property, vandalism, arson, oh--and against stifling your complete freedom to express yourself as you will. The silliness of your assertion is manifest in the fact that there are still mosques standing, in America.

Casting yourself in the role of victim will indeed work with some Americans, but not with every American. If you are suffering in any way, and not reporting it to the proper agencies for redress, relief, or remuneration, that is your problem, and you must be the one to address it.

However, if you are determined to follow the illegal course of criminal trespass, destruction of public property, vandalism, and arson, go right ahead. We don't worship statues or big black rocks, and anything done by you can be undone.

Trespass, and be prepared to be arrested. Destroy public property, and prepare yourself face the wrath of your fellow citizens. Vandalize and burn--but be ready to watch a new statue go up in the same place. If we can send money for aid to the cesspits you originate from, we can certainly afford to replace anything inanimate you care to destroy.

Your demands show that you are illogical, irrational and irrelevant. And suggest, as you despise a memorial to the thousands who were mass murdered on 9/11 by your correligionists, that your conscience, in return for your tolerating and lauding the act, might be bothering you, just a little bit.

If you think the opposite emotion of love is hate, you're wrong. It's indifference.

So, buzz off, little fly.

Posted by: Abscedere at September 15, 2008 11:17 AM

It was bound to happen. Now, even the remembrance of the victims of 9/11 is going to be seen as interolerant, and "Islamophobic." No, no, no, our tears must all be for suffering Islam, awash in unearned oil wealth and the jizya---oh, excuse me, the foreign aid, we silly Americans send it. And, of course, the noble Palestinians, who have suffered more than anybody else on the planet has ever suffered, never mind their suffering seems to be mainly self-inflicted, and their murders of Israeli civilians. . .

Islam wants us to forget the heroes and victims of 9/11. But we must never forget.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 15, 2008 11:20 AM

And, of course, the whole thing about the statue of Mohammed is absurd (as other posters have pointed out.)

It would be considered a graven image. If it was burned down, it would be by aggrieved Moslems, indignant over this "blasphemy." Then, they'd proceed to riot throughout the country, until somebody, somewhere, apologized for the horrid Mohammed statue, just as they did over the dread Mo-Toons.

Then they'd blame it all on the Jews.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 15, 2008 11:24 AM

They'll push as far as we give. If we're building a mosque to celebrate the terrorists on Flight #93 what do you expect?

Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 15, 2008 11:33 AM

IF WE WAS TO PUT A STATUE OF ALLAH...

I, nabi ZK , nabific, wise, etc., peace and blessings be upon me and all my buds, think this is a hoax. No mohametan would ever think to make a statue of allah. So it's prob a hoax IM(not so)HO.

nabi ZK (pbumaamb)

Posted by: zonie kafir at September 15, 2008 11:35 AM

A nasty note left by the wizards of islam. Such a noble, peace loving religion, oops I mean CULT. The only way they know is through fear, hate and intimidation. I challenege every "peaceful, moderate muslim" to raise your voices loud against this type of threat, no matter where these cowards threaten us... wait, What do I hear? Absolutely nothing, but the wind stirring the dying leaves, and crickets singing their final
song as fall sweeps in. It is a cult that is washed in the blood of innocents around the globe. No other religion is safe, no one individual is safe from the sword of islam. Be vigilante, be aware but do not be afraid for this what these sickos feed off of. The United States has been alseep for way too long and I pray that we awaken soon to this insidious threat that is consuming us from within. To my last breath, I WILL DEFEND MY FREEDOM AND THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS who are rising up against the plague of our times.
Let us not go the way of the U.K. and Europe.

Posted by: PatriotUSA at September 15, 2008 11:41 AM

"IF WE WAS TO PUT A STATUE OF ALLAH...

O Revered Nabi,

I think it's possibly a hoax, too. Note the grammar. Sounds like several of my cousins, male and female, got drunk, and tired of cow-tipping. I can almost hear the southern accents.

Such an innocent world it used to be (although I've never approved of cow-tipping).

Posted by: Abscedere at September 15, 2008 11:44 AM

So when do Muslims plan to erect a statue for all the Copts, Iraqi Christians, blacks in Darfur, southern Thais, Filipinos, Ahmadiyyas, apostates, and so forth?

Posted by: Audacity at September 15, 2008 11:50 AM

Musims don't erect statues, they just wreck them.

Posted by: duh_swami at September 15, 2008 12:17 PM

"So when do Muslims plan to erect a statue" by Audacity.

Muslims don't know how to construct, only destruct.

Posted by: gymgal at September 15, 2008 12:19 PM

I've been unable to find an image of "The Dust Cries Out", but I did find an image of the commemorative plaque at the church, here:

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/13f72485-369d-4211-95e1-0f33843bc1a0.jpg

Karen Swenholt appears to be a very good sculptor--her art brings to mind Auguste Rodin.

By the way, I do believe the note to be genuine. The odd combination of grievance and threat sounds very much in line with the tone of other Muslim missives. I doubt that bored local cow-tipping teenagers could easily replicate that tone.

Posted by: gravenimage at September 15, 2008 12:23 PM

Well, we'll know it wasn't a hoax when we hear the BOMB go off.

Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left at September 15, 2008 12:25 PM

I'm against al-ikhwaan al-muslimun and their ilk as much as anyone, but this letter is a fake.

The errors strike me as unnatural, and no Muslim would ever refer to Allah's "tears," or to building "a statue of Allah."

Just my two cents...

Posted by: ouwetinva at September 15, 2008 12:34 PM

Am concerned for one and only one reason. No matter who wrote the letter, their message is clear. Ignorance breeds evil.

Lan astaslem,

GoingThere

Posted by: GoingThere at September 15, 2008 12:38 PM

Kind of reminds me of that retarded Anthrax letter that was sent out during the scare:

09-11-01
YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
YOU DIE NOW.
ARE YOU AFRAID?
DEATH TO AMERICA.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.
ALLAH IS GREAT.

Now who was it that planted that note and mailed the Anthrax?

Oh, yeah, an American Roman Catholic named Bruce Edwards Ivans, military weapons research scientist at the US government's biodefense labs at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland specializing in ANTHRAX.

Now back to the current nefareous letter, consider the language, and then the suggestion of something that is not possible coming from a Muslim...the erecting of "a statue of Allah"?

Don't get so caught up in your hysteria that you will beleive anything people tell you just for the sake of demonizing Muslims.

Who benefits from the placement of this letter?

Use your brain, folks...someone planted a note, who did it?

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 12:51 PM

Ouwetinva wrote:

The errors strike me as unnatural, and no Muslim would ever refer to Allah's "tears," or to building "a statue of Allah."
..........................

I'm no expert on this, but I know there *is* a whole tradition of the "tears of Allah". I think the reference to a statue of Mohammed was just the usual Muslim trope that Infidels would be terribly intolerant if Muslims did what Infidels do (when, so often, it is the other way around).

By the way, here is more Muslim outrage over just proposing to commemorate victims of Islam:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015948.php

Posted by: gravenimage at September 15, 2008 12:51 PM

I'm no expert either, gravenimage, but it does sound like the sort of trope Moslems use, and it does seem they're becoming increasingly angry about the remembrance of any victims of Islam.

As I said, I think that's going to be the next thing they'll push; that any remembrance of the victims of 9/11, or any other Islamic atrocity, is "Islamophobic". I notice that, ever since 9/11, the trend has been to celebrate that day with some sort of Interfaith ceremony---usually held at a local mosque; actual mourning, or remembrance of the victims, is, in many places, seen as gauche.

And I have seen references to "Tears of Allah" in other places, and, judging by numerous illiterate and misspelled Islamic posts I've seen on blogs, I think, yeah, this missive is authentic.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 15, 2008 1:13 PM

You tell us, Abdullah? Who do you think benefits from this letter, and what do you think they'd gain from doing such a thing?

(Um, three guesses---it's the Mossad, right? Sarc.)

If you have some real proof this is fake, please bring it forward, don't just make strained comparisons with the anthrax mailings, or vague hints about "Who benefits?"

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 15, 2008 1:17 PM

If this is not a prank, then surely it points to how insecure the Muslims are about their murderous cult of Islam. Even a memorial to Islamic victims becomes an insult to them. That is how Muslims are: we will do whatever we want, don't dare to criticise us even obliquely. They have done it in my country, with the active support of PC politicians. That is why Hindus fought back in 2002 in the state of Gujarat and lately in Jammu. Please Americans, don't ever yield to Muslim demands. They will keep escalating until you have nothing left to yield. Fight and fight hard. Strike back hard at them and let them know their demands belong to the dustbin. You give an inch to the Islamic scum, they will demand a mile.

Posted by: IndianTiger at September 15, 2008 1:19 PM

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 12:51 PM

The letter might have been planted by a non-Muslim, then again, it might not. It certainly would not be an unusual response coming from people who threatebn to kill over cartoons and teddy bears misappropriately named.

Hell, from the sound of it, it might have been Michael Scheurer who planted it.

The statue of Allah seems inappropriate since Islams forbids idolotry of any kind, but the well-documented, far too numerous pool of misunderstanders of Islam can easily offset that contradiction.

..."and then the suggestion of something that is not possible coming from a Muslim...the erecting of "a statue of Allah"?"

You likewise, cannot state with any certainty, that it is impossible that this letter was composed and left by a Muslim.

Truth.

Posted by: awake at September 15, 2008 1:22 PM

Abdullah, why isn't it possible that this comes from a Moslem? As is seen in gravenimage's link to the Beslan memorial, they're certainly capable of protesting this sort of thing, and, in other matters---the Mo-toons issue, for instance, they've certainly shown they're capable of issuing threats, and carrying them out.

And who do you think benefits? (Let me guess---the Mossad, right? Or maybe the Pope? Sarc.) If you have some real evidence that somebody is trying to frame Moslems here, bring it forward. Vague hints about "Who benefits" and strained comparisons to the anthrax case don't count.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 15, 2008 1:23 PM

Sorry for the double post---the comments section is loading slowly today, and I thought it had eaten my first entry.

Off topic, but I'm alarmed to hear that Olmert has, apparently, officially announced the end of a unified Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital!

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 15, 2008 1:26 PM

Good grief, what are the Mohammidians demanding now? They need to grow up and get a life and not try the patience of the non-Mohammidians.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 15, 2008 1:32 PM

This allah god the Mohammidians worship is simply satan.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 15, 2008 1:36 PM

This allah god the Mohammidians worship is simply satan.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

I second that! Allah doesn't shed tears, as the author of the note alleges, but he cracks a blood soaked mighty whip, demanding that his minions get busy destroying everything in their path. Just another terrorist who is brainwashed-4-allah.

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 1:41 PM

FYI - The Dust Cries Out

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cizauskas/2852556887/in/set-72157607266342343/

"TO AWAKE EVERY MORNING TO SEE THIS REMINDER"
... that might help the cops find him ...

Posted by: Occupant at September 15, 2008 1:42 PM

awake,

Glad to see you're not picking up the pitchfork like the rest of the circus and storming down to your local mosque.

The point I am trying to raise is be cognizant...think like a detective not like a lynch mob.

Yes, it is possible this note was left by a very stupid unedjucated Muslim who does not even understand their own faith, yes, I can admit to that.

By pointing to the Anthrax letter I wanted to show an example of hysteria that rose to the highest levels...even government officials going on record as saying there was a "Saddaam" connection and he was responsible...but no, a home grown Roman Catholic "nutjob" was responsible.

I am just saying, read the world like a teacher and not a student lacking knowledge.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 1:48 PM

Text of note stabbed onto the chest of Theo van Gogh. Who does it demonize? Think.

OPEN LETTER TO HIRSHI ALI

In the name of Allah the kind, the merciful.

Peace and blessings upon the Emir of the Mujahideen, the laughing killer Mohammed Rasoulou Allah (Sala Allaho alaihie wa Sallam), his family and companions and those who follow him truthfully till the day of judgment.

There is no agression except against the agressors.

The following:

Peace and blessings upon any who follows the Leadership (Dan: could be 'guidance' instead of 'Leadership').

This is an open letter to an infidel fundamentalists, Ayaan Hirshi Ali, of the Thaghoet party VVD.

Dear miss Hirshi Ali,

Since your entrance into the political arena of Holland you have been constantly terrorising Muslims and Islam with your words. You are not the first and you won't be the last to join the crusade against Islam.

With your apostacy, you have not only turned your back on the truth, but you also march along the ranks of the soldiers of evil. You mince no words about your hostility against Islam, and for this your masters have rewarded you with a seat in parliament. They have found in you a companion in their crusade against Islam and Muslims. A companion who gives them the "gunpowder" so they don't have to do the dirty work. Seeing as that you're blind by the burning infidelity which rages inside you, you are incapable of seeing that you are just an instrument of the true enemies of Islam.

U are being used to spew various hostilities about Islam and the most noble, Mohammed Rasoul Allah (Salla Allaho aleihie wa Sallam).

I don't blame you for all of this Miss Hirshi Ali. as a soldier of evil you are merely doing your job.

The fact that you can openly spew your hatred is not to blame on you, but on the Islamic ummah. They have ceased their task of resistance against injustice and is sleeping it off.

All your hostilities can thus only be blamed on the Islamic ummah.

This letter is Insha Allah an attempt at silencing your evil once and for all. These written words will Insha Allah make you drop your mask

I would like to start with your recent proposal to 'screen' (profile) on their ideology at job interviews. (Dan: could maybe be the request for a staying permit/passport)

Your proposal is very interesting, more so because the application of it unveils the rotten faces of your political masters (when they would of course be tested honestly and they would openly reveal their ideology)

It is a fact that Dutch politics is dominated by many Jews who are a product of the Talmud schools; that includes your political party-members.

Seeing as you always propagate "self-criticism", we shall test your proposal in your own political surroundings.

The same politics that with their policies has joined the terrorism against Islam and Muslims.

I would like to ask you the following questions:

How do you feel about the fact that Van Aartsen (leader of the VVD) subscribes to an ideology where non-Jews are considered as non-humans?

Baba Mezie 114a-114b: Only Jews are people ("Only you are called people"). Also see Kerlthoth 6b under subtitle ("Oil of anointing") and Barakath 56a, where gentile (non-Jews) females are called animals ("female-donkeys")

Yebamoth 92a: All Gentile children are animals.

How do you feel about the fact that a mayor is leading Amsterdam, whom subscribes to an ideology where Jews can lie to non-Jews?

Baba Kamma 113a: Jews may lie ("listen") to mislead a Gentile.

How do you feel about the fact that you are part of a government that supports the state with an ideology that proposes genocide?

Sofarim 15, line 10 (Minor Tarcctates): These are the words by rabbi Simom ben Yohai: Tod shebe goyyim herog ("Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed").

Since you are a fighter for equal rights, you will probably (after learning this knowledge) ask with your Jewish masters in chambers to reject the teachings of the Talmud. You will also probably make work of asking the Jewish community in Holland to reject it.

Our actions now and then betrays your cowardly courage (Dan: i have no idea what he means with this contradiction) with which you ask attention for your battle. Like how you had the 'cowardly courage' to ask Islamic children in school to make a choice between their creator and the constitution.

The answer from these young, clean souls you have used immediately to come up with arguments to justify your crusade. With these hostilities you have released a boomerang and you know its only a matter of time before this boomerang will seal your fate.

However, you will get the opportunity, Miss Hirshi Ali, to prove you're right and crave it forever in the pages:

There is one certainty in the whole of existence; and that is that everything comes to an end.

A child born unto this world and fills this universe with its presence in the form of its first life's cries, shall ultimately leave this world with its death cry.

A blade of grass sticking up its head from the dark earth and being caressed by the sunlight and fed by the descending rain, shall ultimately whither and turn to dust.

Death, Miss Hirshi Ali, is the common theme of all that exists. You, me and the rest of creation can not disconnect from this truth.

There shall be a Day where one soul can not help another soul. A Day with terrible tortures and torments. a Day where the injust shall force from their longues horrible screams. Screams, Miss Hirshi Ali, that will cause shivers to roll down one's spine; that will make hairs stand up from heads. People will be seen drunk with fear while they are not drunk. FEAR shall fill the atmosphere on that Great Day:

When the sun is overthrown,

And when the stars fall,

And when the hills are moved,

And when the camels big with young are abandoned,

And when the wild beasts are herded together,

And when the seas rise,

And when souls are reunited,

And when the girl-child that was buried alive is asked

For what sin she was slain,

And when the pages are laid open,

And when the sky is torn away,

And when hell is lighted,

And when the Garden is brought nigh,

(Then) every soul will know what it hath made ready. (81:1-14)

On the day when a man fleeth from his brother

And his mother and his father

And his wife and his children,

Every man that day will have concern enough to make him heedless (of others).

On that day faces will be bright as dawn,

Laughing, rejoicing at good news;

And other faces, on that day, with dust upon them,

Veiled in darkness,

Those are the disbelievers, the wicked. (80:34-42)

(Dan: the killer has actually left out some verses in his letter which i added by looking at the sequence in the Quran. e.g. He left out 80:39-40)

You as unbelieving extremist of course won't believe in the above described scene. For you the above is merely a made-up drama piece from a Book like many. And yet, Miss Hirshi Ali, i'd bet my life to claim that you are sweating with FEAR when you read this.

You, as unbelieving fundamentalist, of course do not believe that a Supreme being controls the entire universe.

You do not believe that your heart, with which you cast away truth, has to ask permission from the Supreme being for every beat.

You do not believe that your tongue with which you deny the Guidance from the Supreme being is subject to his Laws.

You do not believe that life and death has been given you by this Supreme being.

If you really believe this, then the following challenge should be no problem for you.

I challenge you with this letter to prove you are right.

You don't have to do much:

Miss Hirshi Ali: WISH for DEATH if you are really convinced you are right.

If you will not accept this challenge; know then that my master, the Most High, has unmasked you as an injust one.

"then long for death (for ye must long for death) if ye are truthful. But they will never long for it, because of that which their own hands have sent before them. Allah is aware of evil-doers." (2:94-95)

To prevent that i were to be accused of the same, i shall wish this wish FOR you:

My Rabb, give us death to make up happy with martyrdom.

Allahoemma Amien.

Miss Hirshi Ali and the rest of the extremist infidels: Islam has resisted many hostilities and opressions in History. Every time the pressure on Islam was added, the fire of Faith was merely alighted.

Islam is like a whithered plant, which has been rendered by the years-long pressure and extreme high temperatures, a diamond.

A whithered plant which is formed by the fancies of time into the strongest jewel on this Earth. A jewel on which the hardest hammer breaks itself.

AYAAN HIRSHI ALI YOU SHALL BREAK YOURSELF ON ISLAM !

You and your companions know very well that the current Islamic youth is a rough diamond that only needs smoothing, so that it may spread her all-invading light of Truth. Your intellectual terrorism will not stop this, on the contrary you will only hasten it.

Islam will conquer by the blood of the martyrs. It will spread its light to every corner of this Earth and it will, if necessary, drive evil to its dark hole by the sword.

This unleashed battle is different from previous battles. The unbelieving fundamentalists have started it and Insha Allah the true believers will end it.

There shall be no mercy for the unjust, only the sword raised at them. No discussion, no demonstrations, no parades, no petitions; merely DEATH shall separate the Truth from the LIE.

Say: Lo! the death from which ye shrink will surely meet you, and afterward ye will be returned unto the Knower of the Invisible and the Visible, and He will tell you what ye used to do. (62:

And like a great prophet once said:

"I deem thee lost, O Pharaoh. " (17:102)

And so we want to use similar words and send these before us, so that the heavens and the stars will gather this news and spread it over the corners of the universe like a tidal wave.

""I deem thee lost, O America. "

"I deem thee lost, O Europe. "

"I deem thee lost, O Holland. "

"I deem thee lost, O Hirshi Ali

"I deem thee lost, O unbelieving fundamentalist. "

Hasboena Allah wa ni3ma alwakeel

Ni3ma alMawla wa Ni3ma anNasseer

Saifu Deen al Muwahhied

http://www.zachtei.nl/2004/11/05/000430.html

Abdullah,

You did well to question the attribution. Frankly, we don't know who wrote it or why. Perhaps video surveillance will yield some clues. On the other hand, your post were better before you began to seemingly deny that there were those within the ummah who would be inclined to write such. Why not rather explain, from your perspective, why such would be against Islam as you understand and promote it?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 1:49 PM

Yes, it is possible this note was left by a very stupid unedjucated Muslim who does not even understand their own faith, yes, I can admit to that.

I see you've already responded to that, but I believe Theo's composition and facility with the Qur'an, as well as the educational background of most suicide bombers, excludes stupidity and ignorance, and shows their issue to be ideological as opposed to acerebral.

Also, whether or not the Antrax letter writer was that person or not, or whether they were Roman Catholic, or not, seems extraneous. The issue is, is it logical or not to presume that statistically, it is more likely that the writer of the current (NYC) letter is a Muslim? I would say, statistically, yes. What say you, and why?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 1:57 PM

Context is key here. I think that the note was more than likely written by a Muslim due to both the context and the nature of his message. It's true that Muslims don't go around erecting statues of allah, but I don't think that the author was really serious about doing that, he was simply making a point, making a comparison, over the Memorial erected for those who lost their lives on 9/11.

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 2:01 PM

.....it has a "HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT" message within the note.

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 2:03 PM

Truth
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail

--

Remember guys, "abdullah" means "slave of alla".

The slave will always do whatever it must do in service of its master.

Disinformation is one of those things.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at September 15, 2008 2:19 PM

Typical Muslim reaction, do the dastardly deed, kill non Muslim women, men and children throughout the world and write death threats and hate messages then we have the typical Muslims commenting and doing damage control. Twisting the facts making up facts and hashing unfounded truths and shoving the blame on non Muslims. This is the MO of the criminal minded Mohammedans who follow their despicable lowlife thug n chief Mohammad. The sickness is pervasive in the Mohammedans. This the life they lead a life of deception, lies, deceit, lust and perversion for young girls and boys, mass murder, killings and bombings of non Muslims. A race of demons. They whole lot of them a responsible.

Posted by: savsiv at September 15, 2008 2:30 PM

To Abdullah,
Your points are well taken BUT where are the moderate, peace loving muslims? We never hear from them, why? Are they afraid of retribution from their peace loving brothers who preach the radical jihad in mosques and on the streets, even in this fair but far from perfect country. I do not see or hear Christians, Jews, Buddhist, or other religioins suing for footbaths, halal food, special prayer rooms, demands to change uniforms so muslim women can work covered at the expense of other employees, trying to change the Labor Day holiday? So what gives? The FACT that someone did leave this is what matters. The actions of muslims across this country is what is really angering quite a few of us and is casting suspicion on all muslims. If you want to be in the USA then adopt to our standards or get out! NOW! There is FREEDOM of religion in the USA but it is never enough, it seems for alot of muslims.Can you say Stealth jihad? How about some answers from you that many of us here would be interested in reading? I am all for peace but I will defend FREEDOM for this country, to my death!

Posted by: PatriotUSA at September 15, 2008 2:32 PM

The sad part is that if I posted this on my blog, I'd get some folks excusing it. Maybe even agreeing with it. Because you know, we do such awful things as a country, and Christians do the same sorts of things and...

On and on the madness goes.

I'd love to send this note back to whoever wrote this:

Allah with his tears? It's Allah's followers who are responsible for 9/11, and therefore responsible for the memorial to be here to begin with!

***

How DARE these people threaten us this way? Not just on our own soil, but at a memorial that was created because of the atrocities that THEY inflicted upon US!

Posted by: Mo at September 15, 2008 2:32 PM

I am just saying, read the world like a teacher and not a student lacking knowledge.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail

Sounds like words you yourself need to live by, you pompous, arrogant ass.

"Truth", huh? One can only laugh.

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 2:33 PM

"then the suggestion of something that is not possible coming from a Muslim...the erecting of "a statue of Allah"?" Abdullah Mikail wrote.

The note doesn't talk about "erecting" a statue of Allah. It just says *if* Muslims did that as a commemoration of all the suffering of Muslims, just like this 911 commemoration of all the suffering of Americans, then Americans would "burn it to the ground".

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 15, 2008 2:47 PM

Several posters have pointed out how Islam forbids idolatry, but don't the Shia have their own anniversaries and shrines that Sunni Muslims might consider idolatrous? Shia are Muslims. And is it Sunni Islam or Wahhabist Islam that considers this idolatry? Many memorials (for lack of a better word) to Mohammed were maintained in Mecca until just the last few decades, when Wahhabists in SA decided they were idolatrous and began wiping out almost all of Mecca's history, leaving nothing but the Grand Mosque and the Kaaba.
And why isn't their veneration of the Kaaba idolatrous?

Posted by: PMK at September 15, 2008 3:06 PM

And why isn't their veneration of the Kaaba idolatrous?

Silly antijihadist. Refer to definition of right and wrong in Islam = what did Mohammed do versus what did he forbid.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 3:21 PM

I am here typing, aren’t I?

I am also a Patriot, I was disabled in the service to my country, this country, the United States. I am a Muslim. There is no conflict in my life at all in that paradigm. I understand freedom of religion, but some people want to force immorality upon others and cal it something else…freedom. That is not freedom, that is oppression. So I support the sisters who refused to dress immodestly…it is not allowed in our religion to do as such.

I don’t recall any suing for footbaths…I do remember an MSA that offered to pay for it themselves, and the whole issue arose from other students being uncomfortable watching Muslims wash their feet in a sink, also maintenance department issues with sinks pulling away from walls due to this. If there was a lawsuit filed please let me know a web address where I can learn about it. I personally advised the university rector about the issue through a few e-mails we exchanged and offered a simple Sharia compliant solution to his problems. He was ill advised by others not to take my advice.

There is a dominant religious culture here that is why you don’t hear of any of the same issues. One has everything, special holidays, tax funds that support religious events, state expenditures on religious holidays, etc. There is no need for the majority demographic to ask for anything…they have everything already.

The demographic I am in is a rising demography and you are simply experiencing the effects of this. Yes, we will have our part of the American landscape and we will have freedom of religion. Some may not like it. Tough. This is America and you get what you work for and sometimes you have to work hard to get it. We do.

“The FACT that someone did leave this is what matters.”

Yes, and as I said who benefits most from a note like this in times like these? In any crime follow the money, (power, influence, etc) that arises from an action and see who is helped the most by a note like this. That’s all. Remember the Anthrax band wagon? Common sense is all I am asking for people to use.

“If you want to be in the USA then adopt to our standards or get out! NOW!”

Here is where you are wrong. I was born here, raised here, served here, and I live here with my family. This is home. My people lived here before any Vikings, or Europeans even set foot on these shores. Remember who you are and where you come from…or you will never know where it is you are going.

I have served my country and I continue to.

I am a Muslim, and I am American. There are ten million of us here in North America and hardly an incident arises among us…yet pulp media dredges up all the third world conflicts and brings them here to use as a drum beat for conflict and cause negative public stigma against American Muslims.

I am all about peace as well, and I will seek to establish it here between many diverse groups…and any one of them steps out of line and does anything illegal will get the constitution used on them as a club and the gavel will be the hammer pounding the nails into their coffin.

Just use your head when you read and remember there are many more of us like me than there are like anything you read here on JW.

Peace.

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 4:02 PM

Ummah Gummah,

What does Israel mean?

Isra = Servant (Slave) il = Allah (God)

What does Abdullah mean?

Abd = Servant (Slave) Allah = God

I tell the truth. If you don't think so, prove me wrong, I'll print a retraction and apologize.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 4:08 PM

"Sounds like words you yourself need to live by, you pompous, arrogant ass." --champ

Yes, Abdullah "Slave to allah" Mikail IS a pompous, arrogant, supremacist, Mohammedan ass.

No doubt about it.

Also, who sez that "note" was written by Bruce Ivans? Abdullah? LOL, I don't believe anything a "slave to allah" has to say! "Al-Taqiyya," you know.

BTW, Ab, Muslims "demonize" themselves. Just think - post 9/11, over 10,000 Islamic Terrorist attacks worldwide! And the slave to a non-existent pagan moon deity has ONE example of (perhaps) non-Mohammedan terrorism! LOL!

Abdullah the Slave to allah is a total fool. Imagine being a slave, and to something that doesn't exist! Pitiful. Pathetic and pitiful. Use your brain, AbDULLah, if you have one!

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 4:09 PM

"This is home. My people lived here before any Vikings, or Europeans even set foot on these shores." --Abdullah, slave to a non-existent pagan moon deity.

That's a pile of crap. There were no Mohammedans here before Vikings and Europeans!

That's as big a pile of crap as there were Muslims prior to 7th century Mohammed!

There were NO Mohammedans prior to Mo, circa 620 AD. Johnny-Come-Lately FAKE prophet Mo! Total Con Man. And poor brainless slave-to-a-sandstone-idol-Abdullah is 100% CONNED! Pathetic.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 4:15 PM

Jesus is God.

allah is Not.

End of story, Conned Abdullah, Head-Whacker to a desert sandstone idol!

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 4:17 PM

"...leaving nothing but the Grand Mosque and the Kaaba.

And why isn't their veneration of the Kaaba idolatrous?

Posted by: PMK at September 15, 2008 3:06 PM

The meterorite? Obviously an idol. Idol-worshipping Mohammedans.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 4:29 PM

Darcy,

I believe Abdullah is Irish-Cherokee, if memory serves.

Abdullah,

Just for clarification, since this seems an unintended veiled threat:

Just use your head when you read and remember there are many more of us like me than there are like anything you read here on JW.

I believe you are saying "there are many more moderate Muslims than wack pseudo-Islamic wack jobs". Right? The juxtaposition with the legal threat metaphors could cause confusion.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 4:30 PM

The sickness of Islam can be seen here too by this poster named Abdullah. Islam and Mohammedans have been sick for a long time. They cannot free themselves from that mime called Islam and sharia. Again they live on the blood of killing non Muslims, women, children and men. They enjoy the sound of bombs and the screams of non Muslims dying and the blood sacrificed to their hateful and bigoted blood thirsty pagan god allah. The savages worship a man who sleeps with 9 year old girl, who made a living as a robber and rapist and murder. He was illiterate. No wonder the Mohammedans are so screwed in the head. Violence, their pedophile sex filled heaven screws their head up. Barbarians. Islam is sick. Sharia is sick and Mohammad was a disgusting man.

Posted by: savsiv at September 15, 2008 4:33 PM

Very succinct, savsiv! I second your post!

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 4:40 PM

Isn't it strange, how muslims rail against the commemoration of the dead, despite their disavowal of muslim culpability in that act of mass murder?
------
You shall not commemorate your dead. In case we might have done it. But of course we could not possibly have done it, so you must never say we did it. But if you don't do as we say, we might just do it again....
..not that we did anything....

--------

We don't have a problem in the middle east. We have a problem right here. It's them.

Posted by: Monty at September 15, 2008 4:42 PM

savsiv, exactly right.

And this is because they are still stuck in the 7th century in their heads.

Abdullah, your reasoning is abstract and twisted IMHO. Just like the rest of the cult. You may eventually get the population to outnumber us, but that will do you no good in N America. There are many, many of us who won't go quietly, and we're armed, thanks to our constitution ;o)

Posted by: gymgal at September 15, 2008 4:43 PM

Darcy,

I believe Abdullah is Irish-Cherokee, if memory serves. --Concerned Citizen

Really? How does that translate to "Muslim?"

You mean a pervert to Mohammedanism? That's even worse than being born one, over which one has no control. But, to voluntarily convert (pervert) to the Religion of Hate, Racism, Bigotry, Violence, Mass-Murder, Misogyny and Death is downright contemptible. What ignominy. A low-down dirty shame. Like Dougie Hooper and Ingrid Mattson.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 4:45 PM

"You may eventually get the population to outnumber us..." --gymgal

Mohammedans LOVE using the "wombs of their women" (Mohammed "Houari" Boumedienne) against us, and referring to such. As AbDULLah-the-idol-worshipper did, like this: "Just use your head when you read and remember there are many more of us like me than there are like anything you read here on JW."

Right, Abdullah, we know that Mohammed said a woman's job is to "manufacture men," and that you Barbarians continue to oppress girls and women as "baby factories" to this day.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 4:51 PM

Abdullah Mikail,

As the saying goes, "thou protests too much". What you are seeing is just interesting commetary to a jihad-issue current event. This creates disscusion.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 15, 2008 5:09 PM

Darcy,

He is a convert, ex-Navy; Indonesian wife. Quite industrious and erudite if you respectfully engage him. He is posting under his actual name, Abdullah Mikail (nee Michael) McKay.

I have only the following issues with him:

1) finds fault with CAIR for supporting moderate muslim groups
2) proximity to and apologist for Ghassan Elashi, Texas CAIR founding board member found guilty of conspiracy to falsify export documents and of exporting technology to countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism - Libya and Syria.
3) avid Shari'ah enthusiast and apologist
4) and the usual tu quoque and minimalization techniques.

Other than that, he's quite respectful and knowledgable if you give him a chance to explain his positions.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 5:17 PM

I am also a Patriot, I was disabled in the service to my country, this country, the United States. I am a Muslim.
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail

Two oxymorons for the price of one. You cannot be in “service to my country” if you belong to the Dar-al-Islam “country”. And you cannot be a “Patriot” in service to the United States if you are a member of the “Ummah”. As a Muslim you are not free to choose your allegiance to any nation but the Ummah. If you do not believe this, then you are on dangerous grounds as a potential mischief maker, or apostate, punishable with death.

The part about our immorality wreaking your freedom, understand that it is not up to you to judge us. We as free humans have a right to choose how we interact with our fellow humans, peacefully and without forcing our beliefs on anyone else. It is called freedom of conscience, which is something you Muslim do not understand, nor are you free to practice it as “slaves of Allah”. Demonstrably, all evidence is to the contrary, that your tribe of Islam is a cult that is totally devoid of morality. Worship your god of death in peace.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at September 15, 2008 5:26 PM

Abdullah,

When you get time, I'm quite curious how you perceived Tashbih Sayyed.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 5:33 PM

CC - sorry, but I am a bit bewildered by your defense of AM, not even my Tums is offering any relief to the indigetion created by your post. Oh well, to each his own, my friend.

AM states:

"What does Israel mean?

Isra = Servant (Slave) il = Allah (God)

What does Abdullah mean?

Abd = Servant (Slave) Allah = God

I tell the truth. If you don't think so, prove me wrong, I'll print a retraction and apologize.

Truth"

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail

AM - your definition for "Israel" is one massive stretch from the True definition; so much for any Truth coming from you, I guess, so I await your apology as promised.

"Is·ra·el 1 (zr-l)
n.
1. Bible
a. Jacob.
b. The descendants of Jacob.
2. Judaism The Hebrew people, past, present, and future, regarded as the chosen people of God by virtue of the covenant of Jacob."

And all God's people said, Amen!

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 5:40 PM

Excellent post, Battle_of_Tours! You're the man!!

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 5:44 PM

Concerned Citizen,

First, not a convert. Was never any religion but Islam.

Second, I am Tsitsistas (Northern Cheyenne) - Irish, not Cherokee.

And Third, you do me no service with your #1) comment.

I specifically pointed out to you that the "moderate" group CAIR once forwarded were investiagated by me and found to be promoting abandonment of Islam, not moderation. Thus they were moderate "Non-muslim" groups.

Other than that, yeah, I have nothing to throw stones over or be upset about. I am just here to tell the truth...and sometimes it hurts...but, hey, I am going to say it anyway.

Tu quoque? You gathered that? I say you have "minimalized" my efforts to share knowledge!

: )

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 5:47 PM

Re: Israel and etymology, I have to interject:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Israel

Posted by: MarisolJW at September 15, 2008 5:52 PM

Champ,

Arabic, ever heard of the laguage?

Israil = Servant of God
Abdullah = Servant of God

This is what it means in Arabic.

Any questions you cheeky little bander?

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 5:52 PM

How Jacob, son of Isaac, came to be called 'Israel'.

Hebrew Bible, or TaNaKh, Genesis 32: 24-31.

"And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

"And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

"And he [the stranger] said, Let me go, for the day breaketh.

"And he [Jacob] said, 'I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.'

"And he [the stranger] said unto him, What is thy name?

'And he [Jacob] said, "Jacob'.

"And he [the stranger] said, 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but ISRAEL (lit. A prince of God, or 'ruling with God', or 'he struggles with God'): for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.'" (alternatively, this final phrase is translateable - 'because you have struggled, or striven, with God and with men, and have overcome.')

And Jacob asked him, and said, 'Tell me, I pray thee, thy name'. And he said, 'Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?' And he blessed him there.

"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [lit. 'Face of God'], for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

'And as he passed over Penuel, the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh'.

And, just to clinch it, here is the Hebrew etymology, given by a person of Jewish background and upbringing:

"Yisrael has two related meanings. The technical meaning derives from the root 'sara', 'to strive, persist, or exert oneself') and El, referring to God. Jacob has striven with God all through the night of his life...Second, Yisrael stands for 'prince with God', from a play on the Hebrew words 'sar' meaning 'prince' and 'el'. Combining both meanings, we could say that Yisrael is a prince who has striven with God and men, and overcome.'

(Jewish posters with knowledge of Hebrew, and of Talmud and Mishnah, please feel free to elaborate in order to utterly demolish 'Abdullah Mikail's' ridiculous attempt to claim that the name 'Israel' means SLAVE of God!).

Israel is a prince, not a grovelling slave.

Note that in the story he wrestles with the numinous stranger - and though crippled in the encounter, nowhere does it say that he crawls or grovels; afterwards, he declares 'I have seen God face to face'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 15, 2008 6:08 PM

AM - seems you are outnumbered on the true definition of ISRAEL; so now that makes two of us who are waiting for an apology. Come on, pal, you're the one who posed the challenge.

....waiting!

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 6:09 PM

AM - that makes 3 of us! We're waiting.....

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 6:11 PM

Concerned Citizen: thanks for the text of the raving maniac's murderous note...if anyone/anything needs editing badly, it's Islam....

Posted by: jewcat at September 15, 2008 6:23 PM

Concerned Citizen,

Tasbih?

First, I do not know Tasbih in the least and never met him. So I will state a humble opinion on what Robert wrote about him.

Tasbih is wrong in one major respect, as is the majority of the JW mantra.

There is no mandate to wage war against the whole world and seek a one world government dominated by Islam in the Quran.

There is none.

And furthermore, there is no such thing as “war in the name of God”, or Holy War. War is simply a necessity of state....another subject...I will return to topic.

From the Quran here are some verses that are interellated that confirm that nations are indeed a mechanism created by God. Furhter that there is a need for borders, that borders and boundaries must be respected, that people’s individual rights must not be trampled, and a firm denial of concept that Islam is here to ‘take over the world” in that God says clearly that if there were a one world government only chaos would result:

Here is the evidence of the necessity and the creation of different nations:

Al-Hujraat, Chapter #49, Verse #13

13 O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

Here is more evidence of the necessity of borders and different nations checking one another for the sake of peace and the warning against pulling down places of worship:

Al-Hajj, Chapter #22, Verse #40

40 They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah.. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

And here the denial of the “take over the world” rhetoric you hear, as only chaos would result from a one world government:

Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #251

251 Allah’s will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and Allah gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But Allah is full of bounty to all the worlds.

And here is the denial of the tyrant who respects no borders bounds or peoples rights:

Ash-Shura, Chapter #42, Verse #42

42 The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous.

So here are four clearly laid out proofs from the Quran for you to consider. I abide by them fully and with faith.

I hope you have a better understanding of the legislation for separate nations, respect of borders, the need for different nations checking one another for the sake of peace, the order for the respecting of individual rights, and the denial of an order in the Quran to "take over the world."

Secondly,

Tasbih seems to have been of the “there is a problem with Islam” camp.

I am of the “There is a problem with humanity” camp.

If you understand the succinct and yet interminable legislations of Islam, and the nature of the Quran in it’s entirety, and the example of the Prophet in the Hadiths, then you find its application in your life harmonious with human nature and the result is peace.

Human beings, even at the outset of our Ummah, immediately after the passing of the Prophet, showed their weakness and the turmoil began immediately.

We are here fourteen centuries later and people argue “there is something wrong with Islam!” because of all the third world messes they see…no, that is a direct result of the dissolution of the Caliphate and the loss of a strong central government.

Human nature is the problem there and external forces that haave interferred since the fall of the Caliphate.

As far as his quote:

"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. 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 would say Tasbih lacked honest introspection into his own human nature. From this comment, he seems to me to be, as men often are, seeking externally for the root of their problems when it is not the external life that needs “reshaping or reframing or reinterpreting”…the root to the problem is inside and needs no external stimulus to blame. Cane had nothing to blame externally and yet he slew his own brother Able…to what do we blame that on? The two first sons and one murdered the other…human nature is the problem. Unguided it is a coin toss as to whether you get the Cane or the Able. Islam is the guide and like anything it must be learned from the proper sources, guided by the right education, and utilized in the proper practice.

There is no external way to prevent people exercising their frustrations in violence, there is no external way to guide leaders from making war, there is no external reformation of faith that can be done to stop this…it has to come from within.

Raw material must be fired and the foam skimmed from the top so that what is left is pure, and then it must be cast, cooled, molded, and formed into something useful for humanity. If you have an unskilled artisan who ignores all the masters of the past and attempts to make his own forge and take bits and pieces from the masters books, you will only get tragedy, and a coin toss…will it be Cain or Able who arises?

Tasbih sounds like he was a decent human being who had his faith in the wrong place and got in with the wrong people who had an agenda other than truth and peace and that is just my opinion. I would have like to have met Tasbih and talked for a while, all the same.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

P.S. Honor killing is once again given the wrong association as if it were condoned in Islam. It is not, and legislation in the Quran spells it out very clearly in the basic foundation of the religion itself. Whole other topic...

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 6:23 PM

Abdullah Mikail:

You say "There are ten million of us here in North America ... yet pulp media ... cause{s} negative public stigma against American Muslims".

(1) "... two authoritative studies carried out by scholars found that American Muslims number under 2 million - less than a third" of the 7 million trumpeted (or just trumped up) by CAIR
according to
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/76
And Canada still has fewer than 1 million Muslims, per http://www.torontomuslims.com/thinking/muslimsincanada.asp

(2) Media can only publicize what happens. They don't make this stuff up. Since you're a Muslim, you must, by the very tenets of your religion, believe that the Quran is the literal Word of God, eternal, immutable, perfect. Your God says to kill me and mine because we're Infidels. Islam's happy-to-comply crazies, and yes there have been several right here in the good ol' US of A, quote chapter and verse about "apes and pigs" and "duty of all Muslims" and "slaughter the infidel" "until all religion is for Allah". YOU as one individual Muslim may not believe in slaughtering your fellow Americans. That's nice, I appreciate your restraint. However, it IS right there in the Quran (2:216), in the hadiths and commentaries, and in the glorious example of the Prophet. The wild-eyed murderers can, and do, claim justification in holy scripture. You, regrettably, will have a difficult time finding verses that counter such scriptural justification. The peaceful verses have been abrogated. (And anyway, 5:32 "if any one slew a person -unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land- it would be as if he slew the whole people {all mankind}" is often rebutted by fundamentalists who say we Infidels are de facto "spreading mischief" throughout Muslim lands via the internet and cell phones.)

However, I don't mean to be a wet blanket about the possibility of a peaceful Islam. It would be wonderful if you and other moderate Muslims would engage your violent brethren and tell them it's THEIR ACTIONS which are causing the West to associate Islam with violence. If they didn't slaughter schoolgirls, journalists, aid workers, teachers, priests, nuns, and each other, we wouldn't be drawing cartoons of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. The savagery of the "tiny minority of misunderstanders" brings shame and disgrace (and cartoons and mockery) down on all of Islam.

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at September 15, 2008 6:32 PM

Dumbledoresarmy, champ, and any other person who doesn't read Arabic, contact Robert and ask him to get Raymond ( because I doubt Robert reads Arabic) to tell you what the defenition of "Israil" is in Arabic.

You can take his word for it...don't believe me, I don't care.

Gotta go...caio.

Peace

Concerned Citizen I would like to get that 'super secret coded self destruct in five seconds" e-mail from you so I could send you my Ingrid Mattson comments you asked for...you know, good conversations here tend to be trailed by slugs and thugs..

challengingreddyneck@yahoo.com

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 6:36 PM

A_Nonny_Mouse,

Reagan administration estimated Muslim population in the US to be 3,000,000...that was around two decades ago. This was the only scientifically based population study of Muslims in the US to ever be conducted. They projected numbers based upon the immigration from source countries and extended those numbers based upon % of Muslim population from source and came up with 3,000,000.

The pew study you refer to is politically motivated to marginalize. The Pakistani embassy viewed their results and noted that they had documentation on the exact number of Muslim immigrants from Pakistan and it was very much higher than the pew study cited.

And population growth in Texas alone is 247% over a thirteen year period from the early 90's to the 2000's.

From 150,000 to over 400,000 in early 2000... in less than twenty years. If you extend that growth rate across the nation from the Reagan years until now you get a projection well over 12 million...there are not that any of us here.

Bridges TV, America's first Muslim Broadcast station has something to sell.

In otherwords, survival means knowing one's market group...who are they going to sell to in order to keep the paychecks coming? Muslims.

What does Bridges TV estimate their target market, Muslims in North American, to be?

10,000,000.

Things become very clear when people are buying and selling...reality for most men only equates to dollars and cents...I trust the person stocking shelves to know who they are selling to.

Believe what you want...I have a scientifically based study from the Reagan Administration, an accurate growth rate in Texas (checked it myself!), and a commercial entity estimating their North American Market group...

You can trust whatever you want...I trust what I can prove.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 6:43 PM

Any questions you cheeky little bander?

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 5:52 PM

champ - you see how the arrogant, pompous, supremacist, misogynist Mohammedan addressed you?

And then he has the nerve to say "Peace!"

Mohammedans are such creeps. Like AbDULLah. Pity poor AbDULLah, the idol-worshipper.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 6:44 PM

AM - note Marisol's link concerning the definition of ISRAEL; and Newsflash, pal, she works for Robert, so she is just as reliable a contact as Raymond is!! Guess he only trusts Raymond, so is Raymond around? I even tried to research your Arabic definition on-line and came up empty handed. Must not be the definition of choice worldwide. Hmm.

You can believe the valid definition presented here about ISRAEL by numerous other posters, or not, I don't care. For someone who captions "Truth" in his comments, you sure don't seem to be interested in reading other presenting arguments.

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 6:49 PM

Any questions you cheeky little bander?

What's a bander?? really, I don't know....duh.

Posted by: gymgal at September 15, 2008 6:54 PM

champ - you see how the arrogant, pompous, supremacist, misogynist Mohammedan addressed you?

And then he has the nerve to say "Peace!"

posted by: darcy

Yes, I did, and thanks for pointing that out; but it doesn't surprise me at all since the word "Peace" means something very different to Muslims than it does to those of us who understand it's true & proper meaning and usage. I took his Peace-Offering as I would if he had given me the middle finger, so he can take his Peace and shove it up his "cheeky"; but then using the Peace word improperly is just so typical, isn't it? AM doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Take care, darcy!

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 6:57 PM

Hey People -

Honor Killings ARE Islamic.

Check this out (2nd paragraph):

"A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.

However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.Why does this stipulation appear in a manual of Islamic law if this has nothing to do with Islam?"

Exactly.

Abdullah is a certified al-Taqiyya liar.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 7:01 PM

Abdullah, if your people lived here before any Vikings or Europeans, then you really have to be an Indian, because they're the only ones who lived here before the the colonists. (And, if you're Irish, you're European, cuz last time I checked, Ireland's in Europe.)

So, either you're an Indian, or you're European---you yourself say you're Irish. So, your people could not possibly have lived here before Lief Ericson, Pocahontas, Captain John Smith, the Sioux, the Aleut, the Northwest Coastal tribes, the Plains Indians, the California Indians, the Southwestern Mound Builders, etc..

If you're Irish, youre people hail from the auld sod. They drank whiskey, ate potatoes, were mostly Catholic and came here in boats. They didn't originate on the North American continent.

Neither the Irish, nor the Indians, were Moslems. The historical record's quite clear on that.

It would seem to me that the kind of person who'd most benefit from leaving such a note, at such a site, would be---well, angry Islamists, who don't like the reminder of 9/11, and would like to see it gone. There's always the possibility that it's a prank, though that seems to me a bit far-fetched. . . and certainly, nobody's getting any money, or prestige out of it, that I can see.

So, until there's actual proof to the contrary, I think it's likely, yes, angry Moslems left that note.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 15, 2008 7:02 PM

"...so he can take his Peace and shove it up his "cheeky"; but then using the Peace word improperly is just so typical, isn't it? AM doesn't know the meaning of the word." --champ

LOL.

Also, it's interesting how someone whose "religion" is nothing but War and Lies insists on using the abstractions PEACE and TRUTH. How disingenuous, and how Orwellian.

As Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with either peace or truth. Zero. Nada. Zip.

Jihad = Islamic Holy War.

Honor Killings are Islamic:

"However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.Why does this stipulation appear in a manual of Islamic law if this has nothing to do with Islam?"

Abdul is a certified al-Taqiyya liar. But, he's a Mohammedan, so that's not surprising.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 7:10 PM

Abdullah wrote: "There is no mandate to wage war against the whole world and seek a one world government dominated by Islam in the Quran."

First he doesn't know that WE know the Koran isn't the only thing Muslims follow, they follow the Sunnah (including Hadith) and they need tafsirs to interpret the Koran. Anyway, EVen the Koran is filled with commands to fight and/or kill non-Muslims.

And fight them on until there is no oppression and the religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. (Koran 2:190-193)

"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'" (Sahih Muslim & Bukhari)

'Verily aggression can only be started against the unjust.' (Ibn Kathir's tafsir on 2:193)

[how does Kathir define "unjust"? --]

"The unjust person is he who refuses to proclaim, `There is no God worthy of worship except Allah'.''

Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:

﴿حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ﴾

(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk.

Allah's statement:

﴿وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ للَّهِ﴾

(...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.'

Sounds like a mandate to wage war on the world to me.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 15, 2008 7:19 PM

Bandar? Beats me. Maybe he's referring to Rudyard Kipling's Bandar-Log, the wicked monkeys from "The Jungle Book."

In which case, Abdullah's rather slyly calling someone a monkey.

But, oh, dear me, he's just been telling us Islam is peaceful, and it doesn't hate others, and---and---and---

Peace yourself, Abdullah, you cheeky Taqqyinomist, you!

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 15, 2008 7:22 PM

Denver Rodeo - those were some highly pertinent verses, and yes, "Sounds like a mandate to wage war on the world to me."

Abdullah is practicing al-Taqiyya.

"Islam is not the religion of God -- Islam is the devil." --Walid Shoebat

Now THAT'S a Truth-Teller.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 7:38 PM

I found this definition on bander:

Bander
n. 1. One banded with others.

Yep, that's me, banded with others who understand Islam for what it is: EVIL, so I guess he's got me pegged, alright; and the "cheeky" part was his way of flirting with me, excuse me while I puke.

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 7:39 PM

"Islam is not the religion of God -- Islam is the devil." --Walid Shoebat

Now THAT'S a Truth-Teller.

Posted by: darcy

Right you are, darcy. AM is not interested in the Truth, nor is he a man of his word. Notice how he bowed out of the conversation like a worm before apologizing as promised.

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 7:43 PM

Abdullah,
What does it matter to any of us what "the defenition of "Israil" is in Arabic?

Israel is the word and it isn't Arabic. What you have been told doesn't change the meaning or the origin of the word: it's from the book of Genesis and has nothing to do with your moon god.

Posted by: PMK at September 15, 2008 7:45 PM

and the "cheeky" part was his way of flirting with me, excuse me while I puke.

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 7:39 PM

Laughed out loud at that one, champ. Love the ending, it's PERFECT! Thanks for the chuckles! HeHe

*

Notice how he bowed out of the conversation like a worm before apologizing as promised.

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 7:43 PM

Oh, Abdul's a total worm. Phylum Platyhelminthes. And specifically, a parasitic worm. As Mohammedans are parasites on the West's inventions and accomplishments.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 7:52 PM

it's from the book of Genesis and has nothing to do with your moon god.

Posted by: PMK at September 15, 2008 7:45 PM

Exxxxcellent!

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 7:54 PM

I am still searching for the "scientific" based research the Reagan Administration did regarding the Muslim population. Link possibly? I do know that there was a poll taken in 2002, & that was (carry the 2...) only 6 years ago!!! which placed the figures at approx 1.2 million.

Also it is to note his fellings of Hirsi Ali:

There is no need to “defend” our faith against false accusations by those like Hirsi Ali…we who understand and have knowledge, Insha Allah, understand that her issue is with human beings disobeying Allah Sobhannah W’TAllah. Her issue is not with the Mummin, the true believers, because we study, and we learn, and we gain knowledge, and then we act on the order of Allah Who has forbidden oppression to the extent that He has even forbidden opression by Himself on any of his creation.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

As well as his feelings regarding Sharia Law & the punishments here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2007/12/ayaan_hirsi_ali_and_muslim_dir/all_comments.html

Posted by: Ladywolfnl at September 15, 2008 8:06 PM

Out of curiosity, I just looked up Falls Church, Virginia (this is the right one?), pop. 10 000.

Interestingly, the locale and town seem to have been named after an actual church - built in 1734 to serve the Truro Parish - with George Washington, no less, as one of the original church wardens.

And everyone here will be interested to know that "a mosque, Dar al-Hijrah [note the reference to Hijrah/ Hegira, or Migration, most likely alluding to the legendary/ archetypal 'migration' and takeover of Medina by the Muslims...brrr] , was founded in a house in Falls Church in 1983; it is now one of the largest and most influential mosques in the United States with over 3,000 worshippers attending Friday prayers (although it is now located outside of the city, in Fairfax County, with a Falls Church mailing address)."

So there is a Mohammedan colony and barracks/indoctrination centre in the vicinity.

darcy - at the top of this thread, you wrote:

"To Mohammedans who left the Note:

"Go F yourselves. How I wish I could say that to the actual Mohammedans behind this Note.

"If I lived in Falls Church, I'd put that sentiment on a sign and hold a vigil (hopefully with others) beside this 9/11 Memorial.

"C'mon Falls Church people! Do something!

- Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 10:30 AM".

A vigil would be an EXCELLENT idea. A suitable date would be the Feast of All Souls (it falls two days after Hallowe'en).

Perhaps ACT for America and Falls Church and Washington jihadwatchers could get cracking now; organise an all-day event focused on the memorial.

Whether the threat came from Mohammedans or not, it has drawn attention to the existence of the memorial.

Since we know what Muslims have in fact done, throughout history, to non-Muslim monuments, including gravestones, it would be an excellent idea to reaffirm kafir principles, laws and customs, and declare 'ownership' of the memorial and all surrounding kafir territory.

Jews to recite the Kaddish or other appropriate text; Catholics (Falls Church has a large immigrant contingent from El Salvador who would probably be Latino Catholic) could hold a novena; Christians of other traditions to do what they deem appropriate; and everyone could recite the Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in explicit defiance of sharia which flatly opposes every clause of both documents.

The Feast of All Souls has this advantage - that it could be used to remember and mourn not only all those innocent civilians who were murdered on September 11 2001, but ALSO the 270 MILLION estimated kafir victims of the jihad, from the 7th century onward and counting.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 15, 2008 8:45 PM

There's no need to defend yourselves against Hirsi Ali because you can't. This country is in the sphere of free inquiry, and the Koran is annihilated under those conditions.

It doesn't speak well for your religion if it can only survive by hurling obscenities and death threats and cannot withstand any kind of scrutiny at all.

The letter attached to the statue is itself a hate crime and should raise serious questions such as:

If muslims deplore 9/11 why are they angry when we acknowledge its depravity?

If muslims deplore 9/11 why is criticism of Bin Laden and other terrorists "offensive"?

Could it be that a significant portion of muslims in this country, if not willing to kill others themselves, are sympathetic to their goals and willing to do everything they can within our soft laws to help them succeed?

Why is no one asking these questions? Does anybody care? Anyone?

Posted by: Jr. at September 15, 2008 9:17 PM

"Perhaps ACT for America and Falls Church and Washington jihadwatchers could get cracking now; organise an all-day event focused on the memorial."

We're on it.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at September 15, 2008 9:48 PM

darcy,

Walid Shoebat? This is your shining example of honesty?

What does the Jerusalem Post have to say about Walid, the Proven Fraud and Liar?

Sadly, Walid Shoebat is just a fraud, nothing else.

I apologize for cutting and pasting, but I trust you won't bother going to read it so here it is:

Courtesy Jerusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1206632362598&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When he was 16, says Walid Shoebat, he was recruited by a PLO operative by the name of Mahmoud al-Mughrabi to carry out an attack on a branch of Bank Leumi in Bethlehem.

At six in the evening he was supposed to detonate a bomb in the doorway of the bank. But when he saw a group of Arab children playing nearby, he says, his conscience was pricked and he threw the bomb onto the roof of the bank instead, where it exploded causing no fatalities.

This is the story that Shoebat, who converted from Islam to Christianity in 1993 and has lived in the United States since the late 1970s, has told on tours around the US and Europe since 9/11 opened the West's public consciousness to the dangers of Islamic extremism.

Shoebat's Web site says his is an assumed name, used to protect him from reprisal attacks by his former terror chiefs, whom he says have put a $10 million price on his head.

Shoebat is sometimes paid for his appearances, and he also solicits donations to a Walid Shoebat Foundation to help fund this work and to "fight for the Jewish people."

The BBC, Fox News and CNN have all presented Shoebat as a terrorist turned peacemaker, interviewing him as someone uniquely capable of providing insight into the terrorist mindset.

Now he and two other former extremists are set to appear along with US Senator Joe Lieberman, Ambassador to the US Sallai Meridor and other notables at an annual "Christians United For Israel" conference in Washington in July.

The three "ex-terrorists" have appeared previously at Harvard and Columbia universities and, most recently, at the US Air Force Academy in Colorado, in February, at a conference whose findings, the organizers said, would be circulated at the Pentagon and among members of Congress and other influential figures.

Last year, Shoebat spoke to the BattleCry Christian gathering in San Francisco, which drew a reported 22,000 evangelical teenagers to what the San Francisco Chronicle described as "a mix of pep rally, rock concert and church service."

The paper described Shoebat as a self-proclaimed "former Islamic terrorist" who said that Islam was a "satanic cult" and who told the crowd how he eventually accepted Jesus into his heart.

However, Shoebat's claim to have bombed Bank Leumi in Bethlehem is rejected by members of his family who still live in the area, and Bank Leumi says it has no record of such an attack ever taking place.

His relatives, members of the Shoebat family, are mystified by the notion of "Walid Shoebat" being an assumed name. And the Walid Shoebat Foundation's working process is less than transparent, with Shoebat's claim that it is registered as a charity in the state of Pennsylvania being denied by the Pennsylvania State Attorney's Office.

Shoebat's claim to have been a terrorist rests on his account of the purported bombing of Bank Leumi. But after checking its files, the bank said it had no record of an attack on its Bethlehem branch anywhere in the relevant 1977-79 period.

Shoebat told The Jerusalem Post that this could be because the bank building was robustly protected with steel and that the attack may have caused little damage.

Asked whether word of the bombing made the news at the time, he said, "I don't know. I didn't read the papers because I was in hiding for the next three days." (In 2004, he had told Britain's Sunday Telegraph: "I was terribly relieved when I heard on the news later that evening that no one had been hurt or killed by my bomb.")

Shoebat could not immediately recall the year, or even the time of year, of the purported bombing when talking to the Post by phone from the US. After wavering, he finally settled for the summer of 1977.

The Sunday Telegraph described Shoebat as a man who "for much of his life... was eager to commit acts of terrorism for the sake of his soul and the Palestinian cause."

In that interview he described how he and his peers were indoctrinated as children "to believe that the fires of hell were an ever-present reality. We were all terrified of burning in hell when we died... The teachers told us that the only way we could certainly avoid that fate was to die in a martyrdom operation - to die for Islam."

But an uncle and a cousin of Shoebat, who still live in Beit Sahur in the Bethlehem area, where Shoebat grew up, said that Shoebat's education was rather mild ideologically, and that religion did not play a dominant role.

The uncle, interviewed at his home, said he remembered little about his nephew, because Walid left for America at the age of 16, and because his American mother always kept a distance from the rest of the family. The uncle and his wife both said firmly that there was no attack on Bank Leumi.

When questioned on this discrepancy, Shoebat was adamant that he did carry out such a bombing, and that his relatives deny it to cover up for another cousin who was with him during the attack and still lives in Bethlehem.

Shoebat evinced no particular surprise that his family could be tracked down simply by asking Beit Sahur locals where they lived, even though his Internet site claims that his is an assumed name.

Shoebat describes his conversion to Christianity as a transformation "from hate to love." He told the Post that he believes "in a Greater Israel that includes Judea and Samaria, and by this I mean a Jewish state."

He argued that Israel should retake the Gaza Strip and rehouse Jews there, regarding Gaza as Jewish by right. "If a Jew has no right to Gaza, then he has no right to Jaffa or Haifa either," he said.

He advocates that the government of Greater Israel introduce a law providing for the exiling of anybody who denies its right to exist, "even if they were born there."

He has little sympathy for the PLO or Hamas. "The Palestinians have not met a single demand from Israel," he said, and added, "Both the PLO and Hamas have not given up the goal of destroying Israel."

"The Jews are not aware of the true threat," Shoebat said. "They are still fighting dead Nazis. It is easy to fight dead people. But they don't have the will to fight the living Nazis, the Islamic radicals."

He told the Post he had set up his Walid Shoebat Foundation to educate Americans as to why the US should support Israel. Shoebat said the foundation had reached out to over 450 million people. He said it held events where he and others like him - whom he called "ex-terrorists" who have become Zionists - spoke about their views to Jewish, Christian and secular audiences.

A New York Times report last month on the Air Force Academy event, headlined "Speakers at Academy Said to Make False Claims," noted that "Academic professors and others who have heard the three men speak in the United States and Canada said some of their stories border on the fantastic, like Mr. Saleem's account of how, as a child, he infiltrated Israel to plant bombs via a network of tunnels underneath the Golan Heights. No such incidents have been reported, the academic experts said. They also question how three middle-aged men who claim they were recruited as teenagers or younger could have been steeped in the violent religious ideology that only became prevalent in the late 1980s."

The Times quoted Prof. Douglas Howard, who teaches the history of the modern Middle East at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as saying after he heard Saleem speak last November at the college that he thought the three were connected to several major Christian evangelical organizations.

"It was just an old time gospel hour: 'Jesus can change your life, he changed mine,'" Howard said.

The professor told the Times that his doubts about the authenticity of the three grew after he heard stories like that of the Golan Heights tunnels, "as well as something on Mr. Saleem's Web site along the lines that he was descended from the grand wazir of Islam. The grand wazir of Islam is a nonsensical term."

The newspaper said Arab-American civil rights organizations have questioned "why, at a time when the United States government has vigorously moved to jail or at least deport anyone with a known terrorist connection, the three men, if they are telling the truth, are allowed to circulate freely."

A spokesman for the FBI, the paper reported, said there were no warrants for their arrest.

The Times said the three men were to be paid $13,000 for the Air Force Academy event.

Visitors to Shoebat's Internet site are encouraged to make a donation to his foundation to enable him to disseminate his message. However, a notice on the page states that for "security reasons," the money will not be debited to his foundation, but rather to a company called Top Executive Media. The name Top Executive Media is used by a greetings card firm from Pennsylvania called Top Executive Greetings, a company with an annual turnover of $500,000. When one makes a donation through the Shoebat Internet site, the Web address changes to topexecutivegreetings.com/shoebat.

This seems to be the only active page for the company; its homepage is blank.

Asked by the Post whether the Walid Shoebat Foundation is a registered charity, Shoebat replied that it is registered in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania State Attorney's office said it had no record of a charity registered under this name.

Questioned further, Shoebat said it was registered under a different name, but that he was not aware of the details, which are handled by his manager.

"I remain separate to the running of the charity so that I am not constrained by church rules," he explained, adding that the organization's connection to certain churches meant it would be difficult for him to speak to secular audiences if he became too involved in running it.

Dr. Joel Fishman, of the Allegany County Law Library in Pennsylvania, expressed doubts about this donation process. If the money were being given to a registered charity, the charity would have to make annual reports to the state and federal government on how it was being spent, he noted.

Shoebat insisted donations were not being misused, however. "I survive by being an author," he said. "I only get paid for being an author. All the money that is donated gets put back into events."

If the Bank Leumi bombing claim is unfounded, it is unclear why Shoebat would have wanted to manufacture a terrorist past. True or not, however, it has plainly brought him some prominence and provided him with a means to speak in favor of Israel and be paid for doing so.

END OF EXCERPT

The truth is Walid Shoebat is his real name, not assumed, and he is a proven liar and fraud.

But hey, he's getting a check from his publisher, right?

Truth

Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 10:00 PM

Ladywolfnl,

Glad to be of service in delivering the truth to you. Below, please find the study in question as well as other supporting evidence that I speak the truth.

The estimated population of Muslims in North America is on the order of 10,000,000...based on current market survey's by Bridges TV, and population projections from these and other studies:

Psychiatric News January 21, 2005
Volume 40 Number 2
2005 American Psychiatric Association
p. 13

Professional News

Mich. Has Largest U.S. Muslim Population

Michigan has the second-largest Arab community outside the Middle East, after Paris. About 300,000 people of Arab descent live in southeast Michigan, including significant numbers of Iraqi, Lebanese, Yemeni, and Palestinian Americans. Almost two-thirds of the population were born in the United States, and 40 percent of those born outside of the country have moved here since 1980, according to data from the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) Web site www.accesscommunity.org and the Detroit News.

Two-thirds of Arab Americans in the United States speak fluent English, and three-quarters use Arabic language media to keep informed. More than 90 percent of Arab Americans have close friends or family in the Middle East, and almost 65 percent have traveled there.

Demographers estimate that more than 8 million Muslims live in the United States, making them the second-largest religious community in the country. About half of Arab Americans are Muslim, while the other half identify themselves as Christian. In the past few decades, Islam has become the fastest-growing religion in the United States.

Methods-Based Estimates

Over the last twenty years, there have been only a few estimates of the Muslim population based on data and an explicit methodology.

Stone

Stone (1991) estimated the Muslim population in United States by taking the national origins of the U.S. population in 1980 according to the Census ancestry question and assuming that the same percentage of U.S. residents from these groups was Muslim as the proportion of Muslim residents in these nations, and then adding a large estimate for Muslims among African Americans. This gave an estimate of 3,300,000 in 1980. This number was then brought forward to 1986 by adding in an estimate of births plus immigrants during 1980-86 (assuming, as before, that immigrants matched the religious profile of their countries of origin). This gave a 1986 estimate of 4,000,000.

Mosque Study Project

A fourth approach estimates the Muslim population through studying Islamic organizations. There are considerable differences in estimates of the number of mosques and Islamic centers in the United States. Eck (2001) says there are nearly 1400 mosques; the Council on American-Islamic Relations reports that there are "almost 2,000 mosques, schools, and Islamic centers." Mujahid (2001) states that there are "3,000 small and large Islamic centers, mosques, and prayer locations."

The most rigorous estimate was from the Mosque Study Project 2000 (Bagby, Perl, and Froehle, 2001) which combined seven lists of mosques, eliminated duplicates, and attempted to verify the existence of each place. This generated a final list of 1209 mosques in 2000. The researchers then drew a sample of 631 and were successful in obtaining information about 416 of the mosques. They found that 340 adults and children regularly participated in the average mosque, and that 1629 were "associated in any way with the religious life of the mosque." This converts to a national estimate of 1,969,000 mosque-associated Muslims nationally.

On the one hand, these figures naturally exclude all Muslims not associated with a known mosque. On the other hand, there are several reasons to question the 1629 per mosque figure. First, denominations and congregations in general frequently overestimate their membership (Smith, 1991). This typically comes from both intentional overstatements and the failure to cull former members from the rolls. Second, the estimate of 1629 Muslims associated per mosque is very high. It is 2.4 times greater than a similar figure from 1994, 5.6 times greater than the average number attending weekly prayers, and 4.8 times the number of adults and children who regularly participate in the mosques. The mean figure is also 3.3 times the median mosque size of 500. In fact almost 15 percent of the mosque-affiliated Muslims in their sample come from two mosques, each reporting 50,000 affiliates. Third, individuals may be associated with more than one mosque and therefore be double counted. Duplication is particularly likely for the "associated in any way" figure, since the net is cast so broadly. Finally, the report acknowledges that small mosques were underrepresented in the achieved sample of 416 mosques, and this would bias upwards estimates of the size of the average mosque.

In addition to the estimate of 1,969,000 mosque-associated Muslims, Bagby, Perl, and Froehle (2001) also state that "estimates of a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America seem reasonable in light of the figure of 2 million Muslims who associate with a mosque." However, this assertion seems untenable. It increases the total number Muslims by three to three-and-a-half fold and assumes that for every Muslim associated in any way with a mosque, there are 2 to 2.5 other Muslims with no association whatsoever.

In closing I point out that the scientific methodology used in the 1986 estimate of 4,000,000 muslims is higher than I had previously assumed due to Reagan Administration estimates...but projecting modestly based upon factual growth rates in Texas alone, and being very conservative, we arrive at an estimated population in North America easily on the order of 10,000,000.

And I am just trying to liven the conversation when I ass a little pepper to go with salt.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 10:08 PM

Ladywolfnl,

Glad to be of service in delivering the truth to you. Below, please find the study in question as well as other supporting evidence that I speak the truth.

The estimated population of Muslims in North America is on the order of 10,000,000...based on current market survey's by Bridges TV, and population projections from these and other studies:

Psychiatric News January 21, 2005
Volume 40 Number 2
2005 American Psychiatric Association
p. 13

Professional News

Mich. Has Largest U.S. Muslim Population

Michigan has the second-largest Arab community outside the Middle East, after Paris. About 300,000 people of Arab descent live in southeast Michigan, including significant numbers of Iraqi, Lebanese, Yemeni, and Palestinian Americans. Almost two-thirds of the population were born in the United States, and 40 percent of those born outside of the country have moved here since 1980, according to data from the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) Web site www.accesscommunity.org and the Detroit News.

Two-thirds of Arab Americans in the United States speak fluent English, and three-quarters use Arabic language media to keep informed. More than 90 percent of Arab Americans have close friends or family in the Middle East, and almost 65 percent have traveled there.

Demographers estimate that more than 8 million Muslims live in the United States, making them the second-largest religious community in the country. About half of Arab Americans are Muslim, while the other half identify themselves as Christian. In the past few decades, Islam has become the fastest-growing religion in the United States.

Methods-Based Estimates

Over the last twenty years, there have been only a few estimates of the Muslim population based on data and an explicit methodology.

Stone

Stone (1991) estimated the Muslim population in United States by taking the national origins of the U.S. population in 1980 according to the Census ancestry question and assuming that the same percentage of U.S. residents from these groups was Muslim as the proportion of Muslim residents in these nations, and then adding a large estimate for Muslims among African Americans. This gave an estimate of 3,300,000 in 1980. This number was then brought forward to 1986 by adding in an estimate of births plus immigrants during 1980-86 (assuming, as before, that immigrants matched the religious profile of their countries of origin). This gave a 1986 estimate of 4,000,000.

Mosque Study Project

A fourth approach estimates the Muslim population through studying Islamic organizations. There are considerable differences in estimates of the number of mosques and Islamic centers in the United States. Eck (2001) says there are nearly 1400 mosques; the Council on American-Islamic Relations reports that there are "almost 2,000 mosques, schools, and Islamic centers." Mujahid (2001) states that there are "3,000 small and large Islamic centers, mosques, and prayer locations."

The most rigorous estimate was from the Mosque Study Project 2000 (Bagby, Perl, and Froehle, 2001) which combined seven lists of mosques, eliminated duplicates, and attempted to verify the existence of each place. This generated a final list of 1209 mosques in 2000. The researchers then drew a sample of 631 and were successful in obtaining information about 416 of the mosques. They found that 340 adults and children regularly participated in the average mosque, and that 1629 were "associated in any way with the religious life of the mosque." This converts to a national estimate of 1,969,000 mosque-associated Muslims nationally.

On the one hand, these figures naturally exclude all Muslims not associated with a known mosque. On the other hand, there are several reasons to question the 1629 per mosque figure. First, denominations and congregations in general frequently overestimate their membership (Smith, 1991). This typically comes from both intentional overstatements and the failure to cull former members from the rolls. Second, the estimate of 1629 Muslims associated per mosque is very high. It is 2.4 times greater than a similar figure from 1994, 5.6 times greater than the average number attending weekly prayers, and 4.8 times the number of adults and children who regularly participate in the mosques. The mean figure is also 3.3 times the median mosque size of 500. In fact almost 15 percent of the mosque-affiliated Muslims in their sample come from two mosques, each reporting 50,000 affiliates. Third, individuals may be associated with more than one mosque and therefore be double counted. Duplication is particularly likely for the "associated in any way" figure, since the net is cast so broadly. Finally, the report acknowledges that small mosques were underrepresented in the achieved sample of 416 mosques, and this would bias upwards estimates of the size of the average mosque.

In addition to the estimate of 1,969,000 mosque-associated Muslims, Bagby, Perl, and Froehle (2001) also state that "estimates of a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America seem reasonable in light of the figure of 2 million Muslims who associate with a mosque." However, this assertion seems untenable. It increases the total number Muslims by three to three-and-a-half fold and assumes that for every Muslim associated in any way with a mosque, there are 2 to 2.5 other Muslims with no association whatsoever.

In closing I point out that the scientific methodology used in the 1986 estimate of 4,000,000 muslims is higher than I had previously assumed due to Reagan Administration estimates...but projecting modestly based upon factual growth rates in Texas alone, and being very conservative, we arrive at an estimated population in North America easily on the order of 10,000,000.

And I am just trying to liven the conversation when I add a little pepper to go with salt.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 10:08 PM

Ahem... I meant "add". Boy is my face red!

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 10:10 PM

"Islam is not the religion of God -- Islam is the devil." --Walid Shoebat

Now THAT'S a Truth-Teller.

Posted by: darcy

Here's another truth-telling quote from Shoebat:

"What is it about "Kill the Infidels" you don't understand?"

I get it, Walid. And so does every other "Infidel" on this site.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 10:12 PM

Walid Shobat at least to his credit tells it like it is. God Bless him.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 15, 2008 10:20 PM

PS: And that is the TRUTH, the previous posting of mine.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 15, 2008 10:23 PM

I have read through this entire thread and I see the usual interruption of conversation by an islamist with interjections of boasting (population numbers), convulted logic and language, bragging, aggravated unrelated insulting, pointless dragging on of pointless shoved-in- basically-unrelated stories, and it's beginning to look like another kind of jihad, like jihad of communications, and it must be deliberate. Maybe we should start responding with a mantra of our own before they get past square one. A mantra like: STFU, peace out to you too.

Posted by: charlie at September 15, 2008 11:07 PM

Ahem... I meant "add". Boy is my face red!

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 10:10 PM

Abby,

I actually got a good laugh as well on this one.

That being said, the root question is, and will remain to be, is why are there so many misunderstanders of Islam amongst the Muslim community? In your opinion, what is the base cause?

The Islamic texts support these misunderstanders and Muslims often reiterate these misunderstandings, textually to make their point.

Why should anyone here believe you? This is not a mob mentality group. I assure you of that.

Make your case. To date, I am still not personally convinced, though I agree with your proclamation that, there are no pitchforks in my immediate future.

I said to you a while ago at FPM, we cannot be talked out of our collective position here, we need to be proven incorrect by the actions of those we critique, or in actuality, the center focus, Islam itself, and all its supporters, including you.

We are, so ever patiently, waiting...

Posted by: awake at September 15, 2008 11:09 PM

Abdullah Mikail gives a source about Muslim population figures. The best source he gives, by Dr. Tom Smith has this paragraph near the beginning:

"None of the 20 specific estimates during the last five years [1996-2001] is based on a scientifically-sound or explicit methodology. All can probably be characterized as guesses or assertions. Nine came from Muslim organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American Muslim Council, and the Harvard Islamic Society or unspecified “Muslim sources.” None of these sources gave any basis for their figures."

I'll keep reading and see what Tom Smith says overall and not rely on Abdullah cherry picking out of it.

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?b=1530705&c=ijITI2PHKoG&ct=1044159

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 15, 2008 11:18 PM

Maybe a correction:

The Tom Smith article I linked above (it looks really good btw) was not necessarily sourced by Abdullah, since Abdullah didn't give any links. So I just copied one entire bit out of Abdullah --

"Methods-Based Estimates

Over the last twenty years, there have been only a few estimates of the Muslim population based on data and an explicit methodology."

and googled it, and that's how I found the Tom Smith article.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 15, 2008 11:24 PM

Walid writes a rebuttal here:

http://wicatholicmusings.blogspot.com/2008/04/walid-shoebat-response-to-jerusalem.html

and here is the text of the rebuttal printed in the Jerusalem Post April, 10, 2008

I WAS A TERRORIST

Note: The same media that believed us during my terror- supporting days, when we were lying, now refuse to believe us when we are telling the truth. RIGHT OF REPLY

It's apparently better to be a terrorist than a law- abiding citizen. When you are a terrorist, you gain concessions, peace deals and lots of money. After all, the media fully assists terrorists, the government seeks peace deals, the world funds these peace deals and continually requests the release of terrorists.

The main culprit in aiding terrorists are the media. In my case here, sadly, it's The Jerusalem Post ("The case of the Palestinian 'terrorist' turned Zionist whose bombing history can't be found," March 30). As Mark Twain said, "If I do not view the news, I am not informed, but when I do read the news, I am usually ill-informed."

Despite all the evidence I provided the Post about my ties and that of my family to terror, the paper preferred to absolve me from my terrorist past and to believe my relatives, whose own links to terrorism seems irrelevant and who are glad to deny my terror links and my own confession.

The media were glad to label us during our terror days as freedom fighters. Now that I have repented, they label me a racist, hater of peace and suffering from Islamophobia - and now a liar. The same media that believed us during my terror-supporting days - when we were lying - now refuse to believe us when we are telling the truth. The same media that insisted "Israel should release PLO fighters as a gesture of peace" now insist that only repentant terrorists like myself be put back in prison while my terror- supporting family roam free.

There are only two choices when it comes to terrorism. The first is to make excuses for it. The second is to say there is absolutely no excuse for it. There is no third choice. I was accepted when I claimed the first, then totally rejected when I claimed the second.

The litany of accusations in the media came in sequence. First they said I was a Lebanese Phalangist. After this was proven false, came the claim that I never lived in Israel. After this was proven false, they said I was never in prison in Jerusalem. After this was proven false, it was alleged I never planted a bomb in Bank Leumi- Bethlehem Branch. When this too will be proven false, it will be said that I must be an Israeli paid agent doing this for the money.

TO THIS DAY Israel rejects my entry to visit the land of the Bible while entertaining requests to bring back the terrorists who vandalized The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. No one cares about vandalism by terrorists of the birth place of Jesus, one of the holiest sites for Christians. Neither do they care when Joseph's Tomb was desecrated by Palestinian mobs. Shame on everyone, including myself, for trusting the Post. Shame on every Jew who continues to fight dead Nazis and not living Islamo- Nazis.

My story is a litany of personal experience: imprisonment, an attempted lynching, the failed bombing operation of an Israeli bank, a mother not permitted to visit her native land (US), an anti-Semitic education, terror support in the US, and an extended family with heavy links to terrorism. These are all documented in my book Why We Want To Kill You. Nothing in my book can be refuted, as everything I wrote is true. The attempts to discredit my story came through relatives who involved in aiding and abetting terrorism, including financial terrorism and bombings in Israel.

IT IS A shame that the Post published the article when I told your reporter that your witnesses are linked to terror and are wanted by the United States for major fraud and contraband. Presumably that is why he didn't provide their names in his article.

My version is this: one of my relatives and his sons illegally funneled millions from the US by defrauding the Social Security system and credit card companies. They used illegally obtained Israeli passports to smuggle themselves in and out of Israel. Your reporter did not interview reputable witnesses offered to him who would confirm the bombing operation of Bank Leumi.

Here are the facts readers did not see in your report:

* The prominent Jordanian lawyer Jawad Younis, who was deported by Israel for involvement in a terror ring and openly supports Hizbullah, is my relative.

* Another source had been part of a suicide bombing operation in Rishon Lezion in which a terrorist blew himself up and killed innocent Jews.

* And yet another source had been sentenced to life in prison for making bombs and attempting to kill Jews, then released by Israel through an international deal. He is now free, willing and ready to testify against me that I was never a terrorist, while denying he ever was one himself.

Your reporter attempts to discredit me by using a New York Times article which itself relied on CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations) as experts. CAIR is a pro- Islamic agency. This article was fully refuted and exposed by terror expert Steve Emerson (http://grizzlygroundswell.com/archives/1401).

Your reporter did not include confirmation presented by Daniel Pipes of Middle East Forum, a well respected and reputable expert who examined many of my records - confiscated land deeds, birth certificates, newspaper reports on family connection to terror. As he wrote on his Web site, "Walid Shoebat took the time to visit me in my office today and to show me proofs that his life story is a true one. I accept that it is." (Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum, May 18, 2006)

FOR MY defense of Israel and my battle against Jew- hatred I have addressed audiences at numerous government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the United States Air Force and many police agencies. They always scrutinize my credentials and background, and they've cleared me each and every time. My advisory board is comprised of generals and other senior officers from the US military.

It is a shame that the Post was somehow duped into running an article against my character and credentials. The question everyone should ask is why is the media so bent in destroying my claims, especially the Israeli media which should in reality help me get my message out.

www.shoebat.com/evidence_of_my_credentials.php

From the final link above:

Instead of focusing on my family’s denied terror connection and financial fraud, the media wants you to focus more on our finances vy claiming that we are not a charitable organization. In fact F.F.M.U (Foundation [ed. Forum] For Middle East Understanding) was set up as a 501C3 to receive donations, yet the media opts to include only the business aspect of our firm (Top Executive Media) that deals with our book sales and speaking fees.

Leftists are, of course, spinning conspiracy theories based on their distaste for the founders and (gasp!) the absence of a website:

http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/shoebat-davies-and-silver/

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 11:26 PM

P.S. Abdullah, despite what everybody else says, I believe your figure of 10,000,000 Muslims in the United States. I just believe 7,000,000 are here illegally.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 11:37 PM

Yeah, I think it's a new kind of jihad.

Abdullah, STFU, peace out to you too.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 15, 2008 11:53 PM

AM, it is now PM, and there is still no apology from your sorry ass. Ho, hum, I guess hell will freeze over before you actually swallow your pride and make good on your promise to apologize if proven wrong - and you WERE proven wrong - so pony up cowboy.

On second thought, I'm the one who owes you an apology. Yes, that's right, I owe you the freakin' apology (as hard as it is), so here goes! I'm sorry that I ever believed you were a man of your word, so I apologize for putting an ounce of faith in what you claimed you would do.

Ha Ha, like I care if you ever apologize; and additionally, I find it rather ironic that you sourced the Jerusalem Post in an attempt to prove that Walid is a liar - which he is NOT - so nice try on that front; but you did succeed in proving that you are a liar, so it wasn't a total loss; at least you managed to hang yourself by your own failing to fulfil an oath - so good job there cheeky.

The show is over, folks, and please don't believe a word I said about needing an apology, because for the record, I really don't care if he ever produces a genuine apology. But he should.

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 12:31 AM

Peace
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 10:08 PM
Translation: Submission

Posted by: prole_feed at September 16, 2008 1:15 AM

We have lived all over this planet.
Do some research, red-haired mummies have been found in North America. That puts the dread white man in North America at least at the same time as the noble "Indian".
I am so sick of hearing about how nobody should live in the US but Indians. (And I have Indian relatives).
The white mans' accomplishments are being erased like disappearing ink.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 16, 2008 1:16 AM

Abdullah, can islam exist without Sharia?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 16, 2008 1:21 AM

Peace
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 15, 2008 10:08 PM
Translation: Submission

Posted by: prole_feed at September 16, 2008 1:15 AM

Actually, what I think Abdul means by "Peace" is "Kill the Infidels until the whole world's Islamic - then we'll have peace."

Isn't that right, Abdul?

Posted by: darcy at September 16, 2008 8:15 AM

Tayyiqa, as Abdullah Mikail presents it.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 16, 2008 8:48 AM

Awake,

You gotta laugh now and then…if you take life too seriously you just get old faster, and it is not fun growing old, that is, unless you can do it laughing now and then.

As far as the “… many misunderstanders of Islam amongst the Muslim community?”

For the greater part, perception is reality.

This is a media sound bite image, and yes it will become "perception" if you have sensory overload and you are flooded with these images and stories.

It is not that there are “so many of them” it is that there is such a rabid media fixation on the incidents that this becomes perception...despite the fact that you can walk up to and talk to 8,000,000 of us here in the US, people tend to believe what they see painted in the media.

Even if you consider the “10,000 incidents of “Islamic” terrorism attacks!” that JW often touts, if you accept it as “true”, which I will for this exercise, then extend that number against the whole and see what statistical figure you come up with something interesting arises to the statistician.

Conservative figure, 1.3 billion Muslims {I say 1.8 B, but we’ll settle for the 1.3…saves us another argument! : ) }

That is if we assume 5 “muslim” people average per “incident”, that leaves us with 50,000 criminals, and that is only 3.85E-05 % of the whole Muslim Population, or for graphic impact, 0.0000384615384615385 % of the whole. Is that 'statistically significant?" Or to put it another way, can we say scientifically that there is some effect that this religion is having on the whole because of anything in respect to these criminal acts? Even if every one of them says, "Duh, Duh, Derp, I did it because of my religion!!!", is that proof that the religion is actually a causal entity? No. Statistically, scientifically, there is absolutely no effect on this group based on that. Religion can not be pointed to as the motive.

Now figure what the criminal population is incarcerated in the United States, not just all of them, but just those caught and convicted of the crimes, and see what the percentage is against the entire US population.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/america/23prison.php

2.3 Million Criminals in US behind bars, that is .0077 %, or safe to say very close to 1% of the population.

So we could accurately state that the United States is easily at least 1% criminal.

That means the US population is 199.33% more criminal than world Muslim Population.

The comparison does lack some validity in that we are comparing only the 10,000 “terrorist” incidents against all crimes across the board in Muslim Countries, but consider, in the US we house 25% of the world’s population of criminals, that leaves only 75% or 6.9 million people to be spread out across the globe and divided among the nations…a larger probability matrix than I care to run at this time...but the comparrison would not pale by much at all in that respect. The world is only 1/5th Muslim. If you have time you can do the math.

Now imagine if we had news broadcasting in the World that focused solely on our US criminals and published non stop day and night about those issues.

What would the world think of the United State then?

And to be so bold, and perhaps piss off lots of self proclaimed “infidels” here on JW, since the US is 77% Protestant/Catholic Christian, that would not speak well of that religious tradition if the “fantasy media outlets” I spoke of focused on tying the criminality into the religious doctrine. And there is enough in the Bible that can be quoted out of context to make it seem as though these people were “abiding by their religious doctrine.” Even if they didn't directly attribute their behaviour to it.

Just a study in perspective.

As far as talking you out of your collective?

It can’t be done.

I don’t have a megaphone the size of the media moguls that see a benefit in skewing the news to their benefit by smearing Islam.

But I do have long term plans.

As I said before, we are raising American Muslim Scholars, and in this environment where there are no social ills and there is freedom of religion, we will see Islam rise to a position of honor again even in the eyes of those that hate us because we will live by the best of what we are commanded in being Muslim.

Here in America we have no violent or oppressive external forces that we must respond to…no oppressive despotic regimes that need addressing, no crushing social ills that effect our lives…in other words, if you wanted to run a test program in an ideal environment in order to see what result arises from Islam, I say America is the place to run that social program in and I say the result will be beautiful.

We’ll see what the future brings, and patience is, as well as cleanliness next to godliness...or as we Muslims say, “God Consciousness”.

Please forgive me my indulgences…it is sometimes fun to poke another blogger and see what comes out of their posts…like I said, humor is the best medicine, but sometimes medicine tastes a little bitter at first…but then you may get a laugh.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

P.S. Or maybe you need a second opinion? : )

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 9:08 AM

Hey abdullah Mikail, I'd like to see you comment on this and related articles (in the archives):

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022711.php

Chicken, muslim?

Posted by: CGW at September 16, 2008 9:41 AM

I wasn't putting down white people, interestin; I was pointing out that Abdullah's people could not have been here before the Vikings or the Europeans. There have been ancient Caucasoid remains found in America, but these people came long before any European nations, and certainly didn't call themselves "Europeans"---and they weren't Moslems. Then came the Indians. Then came the Vikings, Europeans, so and so forth, of whom Abdullah actually must be one, if he's Irish, as he says.

I don't think Abdullah was claiming to be descended from any of those early Caucasians. (If he were, he'd have to be awful dead, or awful old.) And I doubt he's a member of some Indian tribe. It's the same ol', same ol'---Moslems trying to claim America was once Islamic, so they can say it's part of the dar al harb.

I was disputing Abdullah's claim to have been here from time immemorial (which, as I said, would make him awful dead, or awful old); I wasn't putting down White people, or western culture.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 16, 2008 10:23 AM

Abdullah,

That exactly was what I meant by minimalization. Please comment on the following:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html

Why is the number of rapes by Muslims so disproportionately high?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 10:54 AM

Concerned Citizen,

Minimalization, explain what you mean.

This is a "sound bite medium" eveyrthing here is minimalized.

Refer to my post on the Bani Qurayza question you had...is that minimalization?

Rape is a crime, period. I don't care how Robert pretends to spin it...it is not condoned in Islam, slavery has been aboloshed, so there is no avenue to argue in that respect...the knowledgeable know this, those who don't obfuscate.

It is a sad statistic from the Swedish and I have nothing to add.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 11:56 AM

TalkinKamel,

The first people to live on this continent were descendants from migratory tribes that crossed the berring straight from the Mongolian regions of China following herds.

From these spread all the native American tribes to the south.

The first human beings to live here were Native Americans.

Yes, there are some very old remains of Caucasians and Vikings and Europeans found here in very tiny numbers...but none of them dates to 25,000 years ago, which is the oldest native American remains found to date.

I believe those were recovered from a Florida bog? Don't quote recall exactly, I'll look it up because you are bound to take issue with the lack of a reference.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 12:01 PM

TalkinKamel,

Sorry it was a Native American culture that predated the Clovis and they were discovered in South Carolina:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0923/p13s01-stgn.html

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 12:06 PM

TalkinKamel,

And when the tests came back in:

Al Goodyear:

“I was hoping that dating would bring back numbers around 25,000 years ago,” Goodyear says. “That was a date people could probably swallow."

“But no, I have to get back dates of 50,000 years ago, which according to the dating and amount of error means that no matter what it’s at least 40,000, if not much more. I was in an awkward position. Here are artifacts we know are tools, here are the dates we know are accurate and here I go again, getting up there in front of creation, on CNN announcing a 50,000 date, the oldest radiocarbon dated site in North America."

http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064227409&ShowArticle_ID=11011405084293699

So here is some of my "minimalistic" proof that Tsitsistas (Northern Cheyenne) have our peoples roots dug deep in this continent long before anyone else came here. We are descended from those who came across the Berring Straight and headed south, 30,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Thanks to Al Goodyear, good find! I had no idea we traced back past 25,000.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 12:12 PM

CGW

"Chicken Muslim?"

I prefer beef and lamb! : )

The question is really what is the societal norm for marriage? Right? That is what you are getting at, isn't it?

It is not "9 years old" in the calssical sense of the word, it is "maturity" and in tribal societies this has never changed. Shafii juris Prudence puts the age of Aisha at consumation of the marriage at 11...the number is inconsequential...she was mature ( entered menses) and her husband and she consumated a marriage that lasted the rest of his life.

In our culture the age has been legalized in the last fifty years or so to be 18 in some states 16 in some with parent's permission...not sure, haven't ever cared to resarch it.

As early as the turn of the century it was commonplace for men to marry very young brides, some as early as eleven to fourteen years old...biologically they were at the age for menses.

This was the norm in America a little over a hundred years ago.

Now there is a different norm based upon education about human biology and when the best time is to be married, i.e. start raising a family...and this is a cultural norm.

In tribal societies this cultural norm of marrying women when the mature (i.e. menses starts) has never changed.

So what is your point?

Do you now want to start arguing that native Americans and Aboriginies need to put their spears up and move to the city because it is now our "cultural norm" to live as such?

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 12:19 PM

Minimalization:

Taking a horrific problem, applying it to population statistics without normalization, to present an astronomically low, and therefore irrelevant number, and therefore presenting the original problem as irrelevant or "minimal".

For example, civilian terrorist attacks are lower than by Muslims, and divided by 4-5 billion (thereabouts) would be a much smaller number than you present. Dividing (normalizing) your number by this one will "correct" your math, showing that Muslims commit a disproportionately greater number of event, which is the original problem you tried to sidestep, just as you did the rape problem ("no further comment").

Please, don't ignore the elephant in the room. If you would discuss terrorism, or Muslim crime without tu quoque (e.g. Roman Catholic antrax), and "minimalization", perhaps you could assuage us that you recognize the evident problems, care about them, and are working towards resolution.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 12:47 PM

Correction:

For example, the incidence of civilian terrorist attacks are lower by non-Muslims,...

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 1:02 PM

...incidence is...

...anthrax...

sheesh!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 1:08 PM

Muslims are like bad parents - they will defend their child no matter what - even if it means defending a monster.

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 1:19 PM

CC - you will never get anything but one defense after another from AM - because he is determined to defend this monster. This monster known as Islam.

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 1:21 PM

By the looks of things, AM is simply another troll trying to post his tayyaqia on this thread.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 16, 2008 1:37 PM

Yep, bigcatgirl13106! He's a troll, alright, but we aren't taking the bait.

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 1:41 PM

Concerned Citizen

I understand what you mean, but I disagree. Let us not let this descend into pointless argument, but consider, Islam is not the reason these attacks are taking place, the statistic alone prove that.

That is my point.

The point you are basing everything on, and correct me if I am wrong, is “All of the Muslims are committing evil because their religion commands it.”

I pointed out the incidence of occurrence against all the people who are Muslim to show that this can not be a logical assumption, even if the number were 100 K or 200 k for that matter, it is still statistically insignificant regardless of the gravity of the event, and some are very grave, but one cannot conclude that "Islam" is the root cause.

For the point of argument, we could further “normalize” the statistics and see which incidence of violence happened in:

A. An occupied war zone
B. A country ruled by despots
C. A free nation.

The majority would occur in A. and B.

C. would come up with a smallest number of highly publicized events including at least four,

1. World trade center (attack by foreigners)
2. Spanish train bombing(attack by foreigners)
3. Great Britain train bombing
4. Bali Night Club bombing

I find #3 and #4 the most disturbing because native people made the attacks, and yet, we could add to that list on C., quite a few, but we would never approach 10,000.

My comment is to point out that Islam is not the root cause of any of the attacks...if htat were the case then there would be millions of attacks, not a 10,000 when compared to the whole.

I believe there are other roots to this problem…

tu quoque ? Again with this?

This is only an attempt to get you to frame your argument in more logical terms.

To roll over and admit that the basis of your argument is fact is wrong.

Your argument is not based in fact it is based a bias against Islam, as you start first by blanketing all the incidents with religion when Islam commands none of the criminal activity pointed to…as, again, if this were the case the incidents would number in the millions. They don’t.

Al Qaeda is a core group of around 300 people who practice and say "Islam" does command their violence.

1.3 Billion of us practice Islam and say that it does not.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 1:41 PM

Concerned Citizen,

Your turn.

Let us see how you answer when I take a page from your book and argue a logical fallacy:

Why do the Christians in South Africa lead the world in murders committed, rapes, robbery, drug trafficking, and human trafficking? Why are the Christians there so criminally violent, so savage?

Explain that why Johannesburg it is the murder capital of the world.

BEGIN EXCERPT, EVIDENCE:

CIA Fact Book, US Gov:

South Africa, Christian Nation, 79.7%

current situation: South Africa is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for forced labor and sexual exploitation; women and girls are trafficked internally - and occasionally to European and Asian countries - for sexual exploitation; women from other African countries are trafficked to South Africa and, less frequently, onward to Europe for sexual exploitation; men and boys are trafficked from neighboring countries for forced agricultural labor; Asian and Eastern European women are trafficked to South Africa for debt-bonded sexual exploitation

tier rating: Tier 2 Watch List - South Africa is on the Tier 2 Watch List for a fourth consecutive year for its failure to show increasing efforts to address trafficking; the government provided inadequate data in 2007 on trafficking crimes investigated or prosecuted, or on resulting convictions or sentences; it also did not provide information on its efforts to protect victims of trafficking; the country continues to deport and/or prosecute suspected foreign victims without providing appropriate protective services (2008)

END OF EXCERPT

I await you answer.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 1:43 PM

Concerned Citizen,

"Correction:

For example, the incidence of civilian terrorist attacks are lower by non-Muslims,..."

My Counter point?

For example, the incidence of civilian crime are lower by Muslims.

So does this mean Chrisitanity commands criminal behaviour?

Counter point #2:

For example, the incidence of STD's, AIDS, etc. are MUCH lower in Muslims"

So does this mean Chrsitianity commands lewdness?

These are true counter-minimalizations to your minimalization.

Don't pretend I have any grand answers to world problems...no one does, not you, not me, and certainly not Robert.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 1:50 PM

What I learned the most about Islam I learned on the morning of September 11th, 2001.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 16, 2008 2:00 PM

Hey People - Isn't it interesting how 'ol Abdul here has ignored my comment showing that Honor Killings of females in Islamic countries ARE Islamic?:

Honor Killings ARE Islamic.

Check this out (2nd paragraph):

"A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says
that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right."

However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.Why does this stipulation appear in a manual of Islamic law if this has nothing to do with Islam?"

Exactly.

Abdullah is a certified al-Taqiyya liar.

Posted by: darcy at September 15, 2008 7:01 PM

No riposte, Abdul?

Posted by: darcy at September 16, 2008 2:06 PM

For example, the incidence of STD's, AIDS, etc. are MUCH lower in Muslims"

So does this mean Chrsitianity commands lewdness?--Abdul

Uh, hello, there's PLENTY of Mohammedans in Africa, and as everyone knows, AIDS has been an epidemic in Africa for years and years and years (etc) now.

I guess that means Mohammedanism commands lewdness.

Posted by: darcy at September 16, 2008 2:11 PM

What I learned the most about Islam I learned on the morning of September 11th, 2001.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 16, 2008 2:00 PM

Yes, isn't it interesting how no Buddhists, Hindus, Jews or Christians are mass-murdering people worldwide in the 21st century?

Only primitive, savage, backward Mohammedans.

Warlord false prophet Mo and his vicious, repellent pagan moon deity that doesn't exist - both mass-murderers.

Posted by: darcy at September 16, 2008 2:16 PM

darcy,

Have you also noticed that AM is doing the same to my posts, ignoring them? Just a thought.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 16, 2008 2:17 PM

darcy,

Have you also noticed that AM is doing the same to my posts, ignoring them? Just a thought.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 16, 2008 2:17 PM

He ignores when he hasn't got a pro-Mohammedan reply, hehe.

For example, Honor Killings (daughter-slaughter) ARE Islamic. I proved it in my comment above.

FGM IS Islamic. Can anyone find that section in the ahadith when Mo urges a female circumciser to "not cut too much off as that's better for the man?" I know RS has posted that.

Posted by: darcy at September 16, 2008 2:23 PM

Islam is not the reason these attacks are taking place, the statistic[s] alone prove that. That is my point.

I deny this emphatically:

The statistics do not prove that Islam is not the reason. The terrorists said Islam was the reason. They quoted the Qur'an and ahadith. So did Theo van Gogh's murderer. There is something to this. To say otherwise is playing a numbers game. If I tell 100 people to do something, and only one does it, the 1% compliance does not absolve me.

Regarding South Africa, nicely laid trap. Most of the murders in Indonesia are done by Muslims. These are in fact, not necessarily Islamically related. The fact of the high numbers of self-designated "Christians" in South Africa and the Muslims in Indonesia is due to the dominance in the population. The vast majority in each case do not attribute their action to their religion.

But tnat's not the same topic, is it? The terrorists say they are religiously motivated, their statistically small numbers do not prove otherwise. Show me the Christian scriptures that support murders , rapes, robbery, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and violence. I submit is much easier to provide the same from Islamic texts. When the perpetrators refer to these same texts, it is Islamically related, whether you like it or not. Compare numbers to numbers of self-designated religiously motivated crimes of Muslims and Christians and normalized to the population (incidence per billion if you prefer, and see what you get.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 2:25 PM

Concerned Citizen,

"I submit is much easier to provide the same from Islamic texts."

I challenge you to produce which verses you think say this.

I will prove you are quoting them incorrectly and you are misrepresenting their meaning.

But this still would not solve the reason why some nutbag states, "My religion says its okay"...also keeping in mind the nearly 70% illiteracy rate of some of the source countries those people hail from.

But, all the same, I challenge you...prove to me what you think is an order such as you have implied.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 3:09 PM

darcy & bigcatgirl,

AM is ignoring my comments as well, which leads me to believe he will only address the male posters at this point. The one common denominator we all 3 share is that we are females; and we all know the male Muslim mindset regarding that, now don't we. Guess we are just below his standards, or we're too hot to handle for his weak ego. I for one do not care if this pompous ass responds to me or not, because I'm of the opinion that he loves the attention, and he thinks that he is "right" on every point others challenge him on. Notice how he never comes off of his positions? Charlie is on to something: STFU, is all this guy deserves.

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 3:21 PM

darcy,

Is there anything to be gained by arguing with a person does not know nothing what they were talking about?

But for you I will make an exception.

Once a person disobeys a command from God, they are no longer acting in "Islam" they are acting in defiance of God.

This “honor killing” thing goes on in many different cultures. In Islam it is forbidden to murder for any reason such as honor.

To preserve honor and position pagan Arabs once murdered new born daughters.

The Arabs hated having girl children as girls could not work or fight and thus uplift the family fortune or honor so the Pagan Arabs used to bury girl children.

The Quran legislated and exposed them in this, and called to attention that these pagan Arabs attributed to God what they hated for themselves (girls) as the pagans attributed female angels as the children of God...and thus they assigned what they loathed to God.

But what they loved ( sons ) they desired for themselves and even murdered new born girls to make it such. This evil practice of burying girls was exposed and forbidden:

Surrah An-Nahl 57 to 62

57 And they assign daughters for Allah. - Glory be to Him! - and for themselves (sons,- the issue) they desire!

58 When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!

59 With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) they decide on?

60 To those who believe not in the Hereafter, applies the similitude of evil: to Allah applies the highest similitude: for He is the Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.

61 If Allah were to punish men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: When their Term expires, they would not be able to delay (the punishment) for a single hour, just as they would not be able to anticipate it (for a single hour).

62 They attribute to Allah what they hate (for themselves), and their tongues assert the falsehood that all good things are for themselves: without doubt for them is the Fire, and they will be the first to be hastened on into it!

END OF EXCERPT

These few verses point out, the pagan Arabs lied about God having female daughters among the angels, that the pagan Arabs practiced murdering their girl children, and that God assigned to them because of this the lowest state of evil, and clarified that God's own status was far above what they attributed to him.

This is an example of Q’uranic prohibition of committing murder against women ( girl children) in order to preserve family status, honor, or wealth.

Thus Honor Killing is strictly Forbidden, and this is only one small legislation from Quran forbidding such.

In any manual of hadith the author always makes the qualification that if anything in their book is held to the Quran and is found contradictory then that hadith is to be “thrown out” or disregarded.

Honor Killing is not allowed in Islam.

I will research the “retaliation” you are speaking of and follow up some day.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 3:21 PM

Notice the dismissive way in which AM addresses darcy - thanks for proving my point AM. You are a right-fighter, AM, and an incredibly arrogant one at that.

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 3:26 PM

darcy,

Pummel away at my standard English usage.

: )

I will write 500 times, "I must preview before I post."

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 3:29 PM

champ,

It's a reflection...you get back what you give.

If you want roses give roses.

If you want salt give salt.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 3:31 PM

darcy -

Notice his condescending statement towards you here: "But for you I will make an exception."

Bet you want to thank him for coming down from his high horse JUST to respond to your comments. How very noble of him, huh?

AM, I don't want shit from you, pal; so go ahead, give me some shit back. I do not care. At this point, I only care to support those who wish to expose Islam for the lie that it is, not exchange dialog with a fool like you.

Islam is evil, and so are it's tenets.

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 3:44 PM

darcy, don't think we haven't noticed how Abdullah ignored your question repeatedly, then when he answered you, gave an unsatisfactory answer. (He also has ignored my points directed to him. He ignores points that he cannot refute, and only goes after points he thinks he can obfuscate with his fancy cook-the-books style)

You asked him:

"A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says
that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right."

However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.Why does this stipulation appear in a manual of Islamic law if this has nothing to do with Islam?"

Abullah ignored your question over and over again then finally he answered you with a long post, 95% of which was irrelevant fluff, then came the money shot when he wrote:

"In any manual of hadith the author always makes the qualification that if anything in their book is held to the Quran and is found contradictory then that hadith is to be “thrown out” or disregarded."

He hasn't proved this, he has only asserted this, and he would have to explain why Al Azhar uses the manual you quoted. Does Abdullah know more than Al Azhar university and all its learned theologians and experts on Islamic law? Apparently they have not found the manual you quoted "contradictory" to the Koran.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 16, 2008 3:51 PM

DenverRodeo,

You have proven it is fast, loose, and easy to succeed at being wrong.

Real proof takes research.

Retaliation (and it depends upon the Arabic, not the English translation of the meaning)may be in reference to blood money and or the right to life for a life or retaliation in that respect.

I have to research it. Only ignorant people spout off about things they are not properly educated in.

You dismissed off the cuff the very legislation in the Quran that proves beyond a doubt that there is no "familial murder of women" in order to preserve "honor" in Islam.

I don't need to produce anything else.

But you are not educated enough in the subject to understand that.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 4:04 PM

champ,

Frankly it does not matter if AM responds to either you or I or not. He knows that we are right, he is wrong despite his long postings. He ought to know better that women in Islam are from birth on are treated not too great. He forgets that Christianity gives greater respect and honor to women then Islam. Plus I wonder what he is going to feel if the next VP of the United States is a woman. Just simply reflecting.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 16, 2008 4:29 PM

Abdullah,

On the one hand, I have to give him credit, because he doesn't sink to name calling and complete irrelevance in answering questions (as several people did recently, getting themselves banned rather quickly).

But, he has said that extremists are "minutia" and that we in the US don't have to worry about them.

...Tell that to the 3,000 office workers going to work the morning of September 10, 2001.

I said before that do deny there are elements within Islam and it's scriptures that are being used to justify all sorts of horrendous things is to deny reality. He responded by saying that it's just my perception that Islam has elements that lead to terrorism.

....Tell that to Osama bin Laden, who becomes a Qu'ran-thumping evangelist when addressing Muslim audiences, and quotes the Qu'ran, and Hadith as if they have everything to do with what he believes, and why he's doing what he's doing.

...Tell that to every terrorist who has ever chanted "Allahu Akbar!" before committing murder. They seem to disagree with you.

Now he says that honor killing has nothing to do with Islam.

...Tell that to the many girls killed because their fathers or brothers thought they had besmirched the family's honor. These men also seem to disagree with you.

Finally, why don't you tell your fellow Muslims why they shouldn't be murdering, raping, honor killing, oppressing women, owning slaves and making war on all Infidels? Tell them why it's anti-Islamic to do these things, because they are the ones who think it does.

Or is that when people do those things, they cease to be Muslims in your eyes, and are therefore not in your jurisdiction anymore?

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 16, 2008 4:54 PM

Talkinkamel, I was speaking to our moslem commentor. Moslems like to tell us we don't belong in North America
I kow you are one of the "good guys".

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 16, 2008 4:55 PM

Well if AM ignores me, that is okay. He knows he cannot debate me, I will win the argument so he ignores me. Proves my posts right.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 16, 2008 4:57 PM

I kow and I KNOW you are one of the good guys.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 16, 2008 4:57 PM

Ab-dullard: STFU

PEACE

OUT

Posted by: charlie at September 16, 2008 5:10 PM

Abdullah,

you wrote about me that "You dismissed off the cuff the very legislation in the Quran that proves beyond a doubt that there is no "familial murder of women" in order to preserve "honor" in Islam."

Your post to darcy did no such thing. All you did was show verses from the Koran, only one of which mentioned how bad it is that Arabs are practicing infanticide against female babies. There is nothing in those verses to suggest the Arabs were killing those girl babies for sexually based "honor" -- they were killing them because like most patriarchal ancient cultures, they wanted to have more baby boys than girls. Whenever they sired a baby girl, they felt bad because it was so much better to sire a baby boy.

"When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!" Koran 16:58

Your interpretation of this--"This is an example of Q’uranic prohibition of committing murder against women ( girl children) in order to preserve family status, honor, or wealth."

--is an extrapolation that is not warranted by the verse. It has nothing to do with the nature of "honor killings" darcy was talking about, where older girls (not new-born babies) and young women are killed because they fornicate, or even merely are found kissing a boy, or refusing to marry some old Muslim fart 4 times her age with hairs in his nose, or going to nightclubs and wearing short skirts--murders like these are being committed by Muslims all over the world, even in "moderate" Muslim countries like Jordan and Turkey, and even in the West (Germany, England, US, Canada, etc.).

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 16, 2008 5:22 PM

Mo Foe,

Good to see you on the board today.

Do I have any unanswered questions from you hanging out there from the energizer thread? Just let me know.

On to current comments...

“I said before that do deny there are elements within Islam and it's scriptures that are being used to justify all sorts of horrendous things is to deny reality.”

And I once again reiterate, the problem is with People not Islam, and that is reality.

Yes, terrorists flew into the trade centers and based all their actions on their interpretation.

Rules of Islamic warfare right from the Prophet's mouth condemn every single action they took on that day:

Sumarrized paraphrased:"Ddon't burn a building, cut a tree, harm or even frighten a civilian, do not harm clergy, do not destroy cattle or crops, if you see a civilian he drinks your water first eats your food first you must protect them and take them to where they are safe..."

Now measure that order up to what these slope heads did. Doesn't pan out, does it?

Al Qaeda's core group is 300 people. They did this, not the other 1.3 Billion Muslims.

Yes, Al Qaeda quotes Quran and Hadiths to justify what they do. See above rules of engagement...who do you think they are following, the Prophet or their own sick desires?

I say these are 300 radical nut bags versus the 1.3 billion Muslims, largely regular Joes, well, regular "Moes", that don't follow what the "Al Qaeda" nutbags say...otherwise terror attacks would be on the order of the millions, not 10,000.

Big problem to solve, and I don't have the backing to take it all on...just the little part I can touch here and abroad...

And honor killing has nothing to do with Islam.

If you brought up ten thousand incidents of it, I’d be just as revolted and sad and angry as you, but it is still not condoned in Islam. Period.

It is refuted in the Quran itself as a disease of the culture of Ignorance. It doesn’t matter what you say or even the perpetrators say…you are wrong, they are wrong, ignorance is the fact between youboth, and I intend no insult thereby…it is just a fact.

It is an Arab problem, an ME cultural problem, not an Islamic Religious problem. There is no such thing as “Islamic honor killing.”

“Finally, why don't you tell your fellow Muslims why they shouldn't be murdering, raping, honor killing, oppressing women, owning slaves and making war on all Infidels? Tell them why it's anti-Islamic to do these things, because they are the ones who think it does.”

And here is the proof you are missing the biggest point, people who engage in terrorism, murder, rape, oppression of anyone, owning slaves today, they all universally cease to be Muslim when engaging in such and they are not “my fellows”.

They are cautioned to die not but on the path of Islam, and if they die in the state of comitting crimes they are raised in that state (kufr) disbeliever.

There is a standard that one must meet to be a Muslim, If you don’t understand what the rules are you can clearly be on the path to hell professing all the time that you are on the right path. It is clear to those who study and understand. It is not difficult.

The Quran states this and there are multiple hadiths that support it I don’t feel it would be useful to post for you.

You have your mind made up just as those 300 Al Qaeda operatives have their minds made up.

It doesn’t matter what I prove to you or them…I am not responsible for how you or they respond to the truth, I am only responsible for telling it.

But I enjoy blogging with you and a few others...and I sincerely hope you had a good day.

Keep the questions coming as I learn more about you and myself and Islam with each one I field, as to truly know something you need to teach it.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 5:42 PM

Abdullah,

Some of the verses requested follow. Obviously, there are many other topics we outlined. Jihad against unbelievers here (please let's not quibble about 'qital', etc.) is the issue. I would ask you not to select a verse to explain to ME how it is really a manifestation of peace. Show me how you would explain the verse to a "nutjob" claiming the verse as Islamically justified violence against current day non-combatant civilians.

Afterward, perhaps you could share the New Testament verses you feel advocate violence.

>>>

Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Sura (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Sura (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Sura (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Sura (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Sura (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Sura (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"

Sura (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."

Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Sura (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Sura (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Sura (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Sura (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Sura (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Sura (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Sura (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant."

Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Sura (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Sura (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

Sura (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."

Sura (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."

Sura (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Sura (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

Sura (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Sura (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Sura (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)."

Sura (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"

Sura (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"

Sura (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom."

Sura (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"

Sura (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"

Sura (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity."

Sura (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them."

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah

Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."

Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"

Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"

Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them."

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power."

Ibn 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.’”

Ibn Ishaq: 990 Beheading while crying Allahu Akhbar.

Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 6:18 PM

Abdullah,

Re: Unanswered questions--There is still the business of Muhammad raiding caravans, ie., robbing and murdering, which you were still researching last we left it.

What is that "rule of engagement" you quoted?

You wrote: "And here is the proof you are missing the biggest point, people who engage in terrorism, murder, rape, oppression of anyone, owning slaves today, they all universally cease to be Muslim when engaging in such and they are not 'my fellows'."

So, everyone in Saudi Arabia is not a Muslim to you? Because it seems to me that they oppress women systematically--not allowed to drive, or go outside without the company of a man, etc., etc., and many of the foreign workers live in conditions that are barely different from slavery.

They would beg to differ that they aren't Muslims. And in fact, some of them would kill you because you're not one in their eyes.

And, how about Muhammad himself? He owned slaves and sex slaves (raping), and committed terrorism ("I have been made victorious thru terror"). According to what you just said, he's doubly or triply not a Muslim.

How can the very first Muslim fail to be a Muslim?

And people who are "card-carrying" members of Al Qaeda may only number 300, but their influence is huge, as demonstrated by the fact that Osama is now the number 2 most common name for Muslim boys, the fact that no one will turn him in, even for $25 million, and by the number of self-styled terror cells that have arisen and followed their examples.

How could all of these things be if they are such huge misunderstanders of Islam? Shouldn't there be more people who are against such egregious ignorance?

Why aren't there? I submit to you that Al Qaeda's message is ringing true to more people than your peaceful version is.

Why we don't see more violence, is because:

A-Most people, the world over, don't commit violence; they're squeamish or scared or actually peaceful, despite what they might believe.

B-There are many ways to fight jihad; only one of which is violent. Many Muslims (or at least they think they're Muslims) support jihad with money, legal action, or simply inaction.

And, I declare to you that you haven't "proven" to me or anyone else on this forum that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with violence anywhere.

Conversely, thousands of attacks, accompanied by shouts of "Allahu Akbar" and quotations from your scripture tend to prove just the opposite.

At least they make many go "hmmmm"....

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 16, 2008 6:25 PM

Concerned Citizen,

Thanks for the homework, I appreciate it.

I'll follow up with you as this is a big list, the response will be much bigger. I can post it here, but still looking for that "super secret self destruct in five seconds" e-mail from you so I can send the Ingrid Mattson comments back to you?

challengingreddyneck@yahoo.com

This will make you puke, I know, but everything you just posted is out of context.

I know...I know...it sounds like a broken record, but it is just as true now as the first time a Muslim told you.

I'll do what I can to put these into context for you.

Try one yourself for something novel so you can see what I go through.

Choose any one of these, look up the tafseer associated, research the time period it fell in, and see if you yourself can understand a little more about the context of it.

I'll give you an easy one, this one is yours:

Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

I will take on all the others for you, fair deal?

Thanks for the dialogue.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 6:27 PM

Hey guys, I have a new game: every time Abdullah says something true & factual, take a shot of whiskey! I guarantee that Alcoholics Anonymous members will be able to stay completely sober.

Abdullah wrote:

"people who engage in terrorism, murder, rape, oppression of anyone, owning slaves today, they all universally cease to be Muslim when engaging in such"

Zarqawi, who sawed off the head of a non-combatant (Nick Berg) and said "Allah Akbar" after doing so, received a Muslim funeral in Jordan. Now why is that? I thought he would have "ceased to be Muslim"...

Second point, in order for a Muslim to "cease to be Muslim" in Islam you need clerics to pronounce that Muslim takfir. The Muslim does not simply "cease to be Muslim" automatically by doing "terrorism, murder, rape", as Abdullah is implying. Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi have never been pronounced takfir -- why is that?

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 16, 2008 6:33 PM

DenverRodeo,

There is requisite knowledge required in understanding many things.

One can not expect to pick up a sentence from a book and understand what it means and that it is the end all of everything surrounding that subject…you will not find it all spelled out explicitly in English terms that convey the whole meaning to you.

The whole purpose behind those Arabs murdering baby girls was to preserve family honor, period.

Boys were stonger, able to fight, able to work, able to plow…the reason those Arabs committed infanticide was to preserve their family honor, their tribal status, etc.

This was the issue being dealt with, being legislated against.

An ignorant person committing murder to “preserve honor” is psychotic, and forbidden in Islam.

That person is only a criminal, nothing more.
It is that you misunderstand the issue being dealt with by the verse, and many others surrounding this issue.

Do you understand anything about Women’s rights granted under Islam?

I suspect not, because we would not be having this kind of conversation if you did.

Muslim women were given rights 1,400 years ago far greater than any other women in history.

In the US up until about a hundred years ago women were second class citizens…practically property of their husbands…women’s suffrage movement, look it up. That’s what it took to get them to where they are today.

1,400 + years ago Islam established Women’s rights with dignity.

Now is where you bring up the multiple wives thing, if you want to be cliché… : ) as if to say, “Oh, yeah!? Well, what about this!”

We can discuss that if you like?

Thanks for the dialogue.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 6:38 PM

Abdullah,

What I think you are forgetting is that it's not US who are claiming Islam has to do with terrorism; it's the TERRORISTS themselves. We aren't making up the things they say, or the things they do, THEY are saying and doing these things. When someone says they're trying to kill me because of Islam, I tend to believe them.

Osama was born in Saudi Arabia, he speaks Arabic, so he's not reading some mis-translation of the Qu'ran.

The Wahabbists think they're are following the Qu'ran to the letter, and they are the source of much of the world's terrorism.

It would be easier to see your point, if there were only 1 or 2 verses that these guys keep quoting, but as seen here, there are hundreds!

Plus, how come OBL has not been declared takfir?

And how come so many "ordinary Joes" actually celebrated on 9/11 or have yet to say anything about how wrong these terrorists are?

If there were only a literal handful of terrorists quoting 1 or 2 verses out of context, and the majority of Muslims were completely and powerfully against such thinking, we wouldn't have this problem or even be having this conversation.

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 16, 2008 6:47 PM

Well if women are treated so good in Islam, why does it say in the Koran that husbands are ALLOWED as taught in 4:34 to BEAT their wives?

No respect for women there.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 16, 2008 6:51 PM

Oh, this is getting hilarious. Poor Abdul actually thinks we're going to slog through his logorrhea. Especially when he doesn't know anything, and only responds when he's got a pro-Mohammedan answer. As an example, he did NOT reply to this earlier comment of mine:

For example, the incidence of STD's, AIDS, etc. are MUCH lower in Muslims"

So does this mean Chrsitianity commands lewdness?--Abdullah

Uh, hello, there's PLENTY of Mohammedans in Africa, and as everyone knows, AIDS has been an epidemic in Africa for years and years and years (etc) now.

I guess that means Mohammedanism commands lewdness.

Posted by: darcy at September 16, 2008 2:11 PM

No reply to that because of course I'm right.

As far as Honor Killings go - Muslim males kill Muslim females in a specific type of murder called Honor Killings. It's been going on for centuries, it's well-documented, everyone knows about it, end of story. Save your al-Taqiyya breath, Abdul.

Jihad is Islamic Holy War. That is the primary definition. End of story. Save your breath, al-Taqiyya Abdul.

Females are generally treated like crap in Islam. It's always been that way, it's still that way, it's well-documented, everyone knows about it, end of story. So, save your al-Taqiyya breath, Abdul.

Hi to mes amies champ, bigcatgirl, and Denver Rodeo. Thanks for your defending my points to the pompous and deceptive Mohammedan. Isn't Abdul just so like his model, "War is deceit" Mo?

Posted by: darcy at September 16, 2008 7:18 PM

Abdullah, let's put a DING! after every statement of yours that's just a claim without evidence, and let's put a BONG! after every statement that is peripheral & irrelevant to the point we are discussing:

"The whole purpose behind those Arabs murdering baby girls was to preserve family honor, period." DING!

"Boys were stonger, able to fight, able to work, able to plow…the reason those Arabs committed infanticide was to preserve their family honor, their tribal status, etc." BONG!

lAn ignorant person committing murder to “preserve honor” is psychotic, and forbidden in Islam." DING!

"That person is only a criminal, nothing more." DING!

"Do you understand anything about Women’s rights granted under Islam?" BONG!

"Muslim women were given rights 1,400 years ago far greater than any other women in history."DING!

"In the US up until about a hundred years ago women were second class citizens…practically property of their husbands…women’s suffrage movement, look it up." BONG!

After all the DINGS and BONGS, there's nothing much left of substance in Abdullah's response.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 16, 2008 7:36 PM

Mo Foe,

Caravan raiding? Thought I covered that?

Attacking convoys in a time a war is a strategy of war and an allowable tactic…cutting supply lines, etc. But I must admit, I do owe you the research on that specific event for you in order to provide the support for my position, and I’ll get to it eventually.

How is that we jump to Saudis? Rather off topic…but there is a level of oppression that does remove you from the path of God, and God is the One who understands it better than most today.

I have discussed this with Saudis back in college…them not allowing women to drive thing, and yet they allow a total stranger to be a cabbie “alone with them” as it were, this is slowly changing. This is a Meccan Arab Chauvinistic thing, the early Muslims went through this even when they moved to Madina where women had greater freedoms. If you study the hadiths surrounding some women’s issues and legislation that was even sent down during the Madina period of revelation you could see this if you looked.

Travelling without the company of a male family member is indeed not allowed. But define what travelling is? If I drive more than 50 miles on one trip some say that constitutes travel enough to shorten and combine my prayers, or is it a trip over night somewhere? This is all to obey God and what God orders, not oppression.

Islamic Warfare:

The Prophet used to instruct his followers during battles and tell them not to be embittered or inclined to commit treachery. He asked them to spare non-combatants, particularly children and hermits. Caliph Abu Bakr gave the following instructions to the commander who led the campaign to Syria:

"Do not betray, be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children, the aged or women. Do not cut or burn palm trees or fruit trees. Do not slay a sheep, a cow, or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who stay in hermitages for worship; leave them alone to what they devote themselves to."

Justice is highly valued in Islam and no Muslim is allowed to violate it even in times of war against their bitterest enemies. From the early days of Islam, medical assistance was available to all irrespective of religion or creed and was even given to the enemies. The medical profession itself was specially honored in Islam, and it was the duty of the Muslims to offer help in this regard to all.

A well-known example is that of Salahuddin Ayyubi (Saladin), who gave medical help to his opponent Richard the Lion-Hearted of England, who was seriously ill during the Crusades. He sent his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well. Even during the course of the battle Richard was unhorsed and Sallahuddin stopped the battle in order to allow Richard to reseat his mount.

These are the “Rules of Islamic Warfare” I mentioned.

The point is not to destroy everything your enemy has and holds dear and to kill everything in the way…the points is to abide by the order of God and do your best to see that justice is done.

Ask yourself, does Al Qaeda prescribe to this?

The comment about the “terror” mentioned is true, God aided Mohammed by making his enemies terrified of him. Now balance that with the standard of warfare noted above…it was not the civilians that feared him it was the armed opponents, the soldiers, the cavalry, the fighting men.

Yes, women were a spoil of war in the culture of that time and well before it. Legislation ended all of that. There is no more “taking of spoils” because the Prophet is not among us and there is no war directed against enemies of the Islamic State because there is no Islamic State, and there is no Prophet guided by God to direct human beings to any just conflict. This is the example of Prophet and statesman and ruler and victor and the spoils were allowed for him as fo no other prophet before. In the days of old Prophets were commanded to pile the spoils and sacrifice them as a column of fire descended from heaven and consumed them. Not so with the last Prophet. God allowed the spoils of war for him and the Ummah at that time. We are far and away gone from that time.

All that is left today is self defense against aggression.

“Shouldn't there be more people who are against such egregious ignorance?”

There are a vast number…more than a billion…in fact well more than a billion…and eight million of us living right here in the US alone.

“At least they make many go "hmmmm"....”

As I said before, none of you will change your minds based upon the proofs I bring. I am not responsible for how you react to the truth...just required to tell it.

But you must admit to at least one of you saying, “Hmmmmm…maybe they were treated fairly.” Once in the past after reading a proof I provided.

Al Qaeda are radical in their beliefs and you believe them.

Me and 1.3 billion others will go on with our lives and try to make ends meet as we build something viable and lasting.

We will outlast them, as their path only ends in destruction.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 7:50 PM

Mo Foe,

Go read this, please:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub588.pdf

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 7:56 PM

MA -

Allah is Not the God of the Bible, and Mohammad was a false prophet:
http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html

Excerpt from above link:

"Muslims believe that there is no other God besides Allah and that he is the God of the universe. They claim that not only is he their God, but that he is the God of the Jews, the Christians and everyone else. When examining the profile of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and comparing it with Allah’s profile, there are a number of distinct differences between them that can only result in one conclusion: These profiles simply do not match! Allah is NOT the God of the Bible!"

"The Islamic faith, through the teachings of Muhammad, asserts that Allah is God and attempt to place him within the confines of the Holy Scriptures. When the Bible contradicts their teachings, they allege that it is flawed, has been tampered with, and has many errors. They further claim that the Koran, through the teachings of their prophet Muhammad, corrects them. However, it has already been established that Muhammad was both a false prophet and teacher. Therefore, Islam’s allegations are unsupported, baseless and without merit."

"There are a number of major differences between the God of the Bible and Allah. This chapter will focus upon five reasons why they are not the same. According to the Holy Scriptures, the God of the Bible is the one true God while Allah is a false god."

Read it all.

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 8:07 PM

Frankly, this is outside our scope, since from my perspective, I don't even care what I think of the verse. I only care about how it is acted upon by votaries.

But here goes for amusement sake:

Mohammad, having planned a victorious attack upon the Byzantines at Tabuk, was humiliated to find that Allah, previously quick to meet his every need with a sura, had pulled a trick on him. The Byzantines weren't even there, and Allah hadn't mentioned it. To save face, Mohammad declared victory by claiming the Byzantines had fled. Realizing how poorly this was going over, Mohammad dictated the most vicious sura to date, al-Tawbah. Skipping the Bismillah for the first time, Mohammad started on a bloodthirsty rant, abrogating the "no compulsion in religion" ayah, and declaring open season. Non-Muslim options: 1) give up their inalienable right to life; 2) give up their inalienable right to liberty; 3) give up their inalienable right to happiness (become Muslims). The previously noble People of the Book were also now fair game except for their very lives. From now on, no more Mr. Nice Guy. The Muslims were impressed.

Allah was also impressed. So much so that he let Mohammad include it in his book. He also backdated it into the Golden Copy in the Sky.

Centuries later, Muslims Qutb (the Unmarried) and Maududi concurred with the obvious, that this had become the ultimate pattern of Muslim conquest.

The end.

Okay, personally I found that to be a ridiculous exercise. I'm a kafir. Please explain how you would explain to a violent jihadist that it doesn't really mean esentially what I wrote.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 8:07 PM

MA - AM - whatever

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 8:08 PM

bigcatgirl13106,

Sorry, I am not ignoring you.

I am following posts of people I know have honest questions and appreciate dialogue. I am not in the mood to "debate you" it wouldn't be fair and balanced because you are using your emotions and a tiny snippet of information taken out of context.

The "beating" you noted is not a beating at all...it is the last notice in a series of events with a person bent on getting divorced by acting in any number of ways that lead to divorce...and it is a "tap" such that it does not even leave a red mark.

It is the "notice" that what follows is divorce.

Jamal Badawi, professor emeritus at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:

“b. As defined by hadith, it is NOT PERMISSIBLE TO STRIKE ANYONE'S FACE, CAUSE ANY BODILY HARM OR EVEN BE HARSH.

What the hadith qualified as dharban ghayra mubarrih, or light striking, was interpreted by early jurists as a (symbolic) use of miswak (a small natural toothbrush)!

They further qualified permissible "striking" as that which leaves no mark on the body.

It is interesting that this latter fourteen-centuries-old qualifier is the criterion used in contemporary American law to separate a light and harmless tap or strike from "abuse" in the legal sense.

This makes it clear that even this extreme, last resort, and "lesser of the two evils" measure that may save a marriage does not meet the definitions of "physical abuse," "family violence, " or "wife battering" in the 20th century law in liberal democracies, where such extremes are so commonplace that they are seen as national concerns.”

END of EXCERPT

So bigcatgirl, it is something lost in translation. It is a light tap with a "toothbrush" such that it doesn't even leave a mark.

That is what is allowed as a last notice prior to divorce.

Context, do you understand this one a little better now?

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 8:10 PM

Concerned Citizen,

Do you think 9:29 is a "blank check" given to Muslims to go on doing whatever they want for ever in attacking other people simply because they don’t believe?

That to which you refer must have context, or you destroy meaning.

This verse was revealed as a response to treachery from the Pagan Quraysh who violated a peace treaty with the Muslims by way of mass murdering a group of unarmed Muslims, who were unarmed due to the treaty.

After this gross violation of the treaty between the Muslims and the Pagan Quraysh, the order came down then, and with the mercy and consideration of God in that He gave the treacherous Pagan Quraysh a four month warning given in 9:2 in order to allow them to evacuate Mecca or make peace, and that after which those Pagan Quraysh remaining who were murderous traitors would be given no quarter.

This is not a license to attack anyone a Muslim wants at any time in history.

It was a just directive from God in response to a very specific issue of treachery at a specific time and place, i.e. the treachery of Pagan Quraysh.

Yusuf Ali Translation of meaning of Quran
Surat A Taubah Chapter 9

9:1 A (declaration) of immunity from God and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

9:2 Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate God (by your falsehood) but that God will cover with shame those who reject Him.

9:3 And an announcement from God and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that God and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate God. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

9:4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

9:7 How can there be a league, before God and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous.

9:8 How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.

9:9 The Signs of God have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.

9:10 In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.

9:11 But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.

9:12 But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

9:13 Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

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

9:15 And still the indignation of their hearts. For God will turn (in mercy) to whom He will; and God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

9:16 Or think ye that ye shall be abandoned, as though God did not know those among you who strive with might and main, and take none for friends and protectors except God, His Apostle, and the (community of) Believers? But God is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do.

9:17 It is not for such as join gods with God, to visit or maintain the mosques of God while they witness against their own souls to infidelity. The works of such bear no fruit: In Fire shall they dwell.

9:18 The mosques of God shall be visited and maintained by such as believe in God and the Last Day, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, and fear none (at all) except God. It is they who are expected to be on true guidance.

9:19 Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in God and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of God? They are not comparable in
the sight of God: and God guides not those who do wrong.

9:20 Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in God's cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of God: they are the people who will achieve (salvation).

9:21 Their Lord doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy from Himself, of His good pleasure, and of gardens for them, wherein are delights that endure:

9:22 They will dwell therein for ever. Verily in God's presence is a reward, the greatest (of all).

9:23 O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

9:24 Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than God, or His Apostle, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until God brings about His decision: and God guides not the rebellious.

9:25 Assuredly God did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat.

9:26 But God did pour His calm on the Apostle and on the Believers, and sent down forces which ye saw not: He punished the Unbelievers; thus doth He reward those without Faith.

9:27 Again will God, after this, turn (in mercy) to whom He will: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

9:28 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will God enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for God is All-knowing, All-wise.

9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

END OF EXCERPT

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 8:27 PM

Concerned Citizen,

Do you think 9:29 is a "blank check" given to Muslims to go on doing whatever they want for ever in attacking other people simply because they don’t believe?

That to which you refer must have context, or you destroy meaning.

This verse was revealed as a response to treachery from the Pagan Quraysh who violated a peace treaty with the Muslims by way of mass murdering a group of unarmed Muslims, who were unarmed due to the treaty.

After this gross violation of the treaty between the Muslims and the Pagan Quraysh, the order came down then, and with the mercy and consideration of God in that He gave the treacherous Pagan Quraysh a four month warning given in 9:2 in order to allow them to evacuate Mecca or make peace, and that after which those Pagan Quraysh remaining who were murderous traitors would be given no quarter.

This is not a license to attack anyone a Muslim wants at any time in history.

It was a just directive from God in response to a very specific issue of treachery at a specific time and place, i.e. the treachery of Pagan Quraysh.

Yusuf Ali Translation of meaning of Quran
Surat A Taubah Chapter 9

9:1 A (declaration) of immunity from God and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

9:2 Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate God (by your falsehood) but that God will cover with shame those who reject Him.

9:3 And an announcement from God and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that God and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate God. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

9:4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

9:7 How can there be a league, before God and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous.

9:8 How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.

9:9 The Signs of God have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.

9:10 In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.

9:11 But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.

9:12 But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

9:13 Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

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

9:15 And still the indignation of their hearts. For God will turn (in mercy) to whom He will; and God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

9:16 Or think ye that ye shall be abandoned, as though God did not know those among you who strive with might and main, and take none for friends and protectors except God, His Apostle, and the (community of) Believers? But God is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do.

9:17 It is not for such as join gods with God, to visit or maintain the mosques of God while they witness against their own souls to infidelity. The works of such bear no fruit: In Fire shall they dwell.

9:18 The mosques of God shall be visited and maintained by such as believe in God and the Last Day, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, and fear none (at all) except God. It is they who are expected to be on true guidance.

9:19 Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in God and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of God? They are not comparable in
the sight of God: and God guides not those who do wrong.

9:20 Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in God's cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of God: they are the people who will achieve (salvation).

9:21 Their Lord doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy from Himself, of His good pleasure, and of gardens for them, wherein are delights that endure:

9:22 They will dwell therein for ever. Verily in God's presence is a reward, the greatest (of all).

9:23 O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

9:24 Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than God, or His Apostle, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until God brings about His decision: and God guides not the rebellious.

9:25 Assuredly God did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat.

9:26 But God did pour His calm on the Apostle and on the Believers, and sent down forces which ye saw not: He punished the Unbelievers; thus doth He reward those without Faith.

9:27 Again will God, after this, turn (in mercy) to whom He will: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

9:28 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will God enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for God is All-knowing, All-wise.

9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

END OF EXCERPT

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 8:27 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Tawba
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/At-Tawba/id/1920921

These say the setting was related to Tabuk.

My apologies:

http://quran.islambase.co.uk/source1/009info.htm

Treachery.

Muslims are always so quick to claim such. How exactly were the Quraysh responsible for the skirmish between the Khuza'a and the Banu Bakr? How do we know with only Islamic sources extant who broke the treaty first? How was it that Mohammad was sure the treaty would bring much booty immediately after ratifying it?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 9:17 PM

Ladies and gentlemen

observe the incredible smoke-and-mirrors performance from our Muslim spin-doctor.

Every time he signs off 'Peace!' I hear nothing but a serpent's hiss - 'Shut up! Be quiet! Submit! Lie still! Let Islam plant its iron boot upon your face and its scimitar upon your neck!'.

I am not even going to bother to enter the bewildering labyrinth of his arguments, or attempt to pin the eel to the wall.

I advise all new readers here to keep their eyes steadily fixed on this historically demonstrable FACT. Everywhere that Muslims have ever had the majority - or where, even although a numerical minority, they have gained the upper hand - non-Muslims have in general been treated very badly by them (on a spectrum that covers everything from continual everyday oppression, bullying and harassment, at one end, to spectacular mass rapes, mass enslavement and genocidal mass murder, at the other).

This is true for every century 7th - 20th.

This is *also* true of all Muslim-majority and/or Muslim-ruled countries today - every single one of them.

In none of those countries is there complete freedom and safety for a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Buddhist, an animist, a Taoist, an atheist, and most especially, for anyone who has publicly left Islam to join another faith, or no faith, nor for any Muslim woman who has a sexual relationship with, or chooses to marry, a non-Muslim man who has NOT converted to Islam. In none of those countries is there full and genuine freedom of speech or freedom of conscience, and non-Muslims are NOT regarded as equal to Muslims before the law or anywhere else.

The second FACT is this: the apparently sweetly smiling and 'peaceful' Muslims in OUR countries, read exactly the same Qur'an, Sira and Hadith, and exactly the same traditional interpreters both ancient and modern, and recite exactly the same prayers, and perform the same rituals, as the Muslims in hellholes such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Mauritania (slavery still practised), Sudan (over a million Christians and animists butchered by jihadists; hundreds of thousands raped and/ or enslaved), Pakistan (Christian minor girls raped and 'converted' to Islam), Egypt (Coptic monks brutally attacked by howling Muslim mobs; apostates threatened with death), and Indonesia (thousands upon thousands of peaceful Christians mass-murdered by jihadis during the 1990s).

The Muslims in our countries go on the very same Hajj, and perform the very same rituals, as do the Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh and Sudan and northern Nigeria and everywhere else - all places where non-Muslims are humiliated, degraded, and liable to be kidnapped, robbed, raped, assaulted or even killed at some Muslim's whim, without any hope of legal redress.

Ockham's Razor therefore leads me to suspect that Muslims mostly behave well toward non-Muslims when they do not feel strong enough to behave badly and get away with it; that if once Muslims become numerous enough and/or powerful enough here, they will in general behave toward the non-Muslims here, EXACTLY as they have already done, and already do, everywhere else where they dominate, or have dominated.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 16, 2008 9:19 PM

Bravo, dumbledoresarmy!

Posted by: champ at September 16, 2008 9:43 PM

Ladies and gentlemen

observe the incredible smoke-and-mirrors performance from our Muslim spin-doctor.

Every time he signs off 'Peace!' I hear nothing but a serpent's hiss - 'Shut up! Be quiet! Submit! Lie still! Let Islam plant its iron boot upon your face and its scimitar upon your neck!'. --dumbledoresarmy

Exactly. He's a real "Arbeit Mach Frei" type of guy. And a liar after Mo's own heart. Wait - Mo didn't have a heart. So, a liar after Mo's own "War is deceit."

The big picture is that Muslims are ruining the world in the early 21st century. It's 632 and 1683 all over again - they must be stopped. Who will fill the shoes of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski?

Posted by: darcy at September 16, 2008 9:43 PM

DDA,

I'm quite aware you do not approve of these exchanges. I personally think it is irrelevant whether AM believes what he is writing relative to the educational value to this site. His replies exceed some of our more routine arguments, and are thus pedagogically useful to sharpen ours. Liberal minds and politicians want to buy what he is selling. If he is insincere, then we best learn to counter more sophisticated arguments. If he is sincere, then what is the harm in fostering a divisive Muslim opinion?

Otherwise, we are just preaching the same old sophomoric taunts to the choir.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 9:46 PM

"...that if once Muslims become numerous enough and/or powerful enough here, they will in general behave toward the non-Muslims here, EXACTLY as they have already done, and already do, everywhere else where they dominate, or have dominated.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 16, 2008 9:19 PM

Demographics is everything. Which is why ALL present and future Mohammedan immigration to the civilized world, America and Western Europe, MUST be stopped. And deport as many as possible back to their Islamic countries of origin.

Posted by: darcy at September 16, 2008 9:48 PM

And now, to get us right back on topic:

Isabella, I made this suggestion - "Perhaps ACT for America and Falls Church and Washington jihadwatchers could get cracking now; organise an all-day event focused on the memorial."

You replied at September 15, 2008 9:48 PM - "We're on it".

Terrific!! Whatever you decide to do, do please report in afterwards and let Mr Spencer and the rest of us here know how things went.

A further thought. This is for all of us. Again: whether the note in the posted article came from a Mohammedan source or not, we all know Islam's absolutely dreadful historical record vis a vis non-Muslim monuments, sacred places (churches, temples, synagogues, burial grounds), statues and artworks.

I recommend that we actively 'own', notice, use and take care of all such objects and places in our neighbourhood.

For example - I speak to my fellow Australians - do please keep an eye on your local ANZAC memorial, or on any other public artworks that would be regarded as haraam under sharia (anything representing living beings, people or animals) especially if there are mosques or Mohammedans in your suburb or town.

If you live near a cemetery, visit it when you take the dog for a walk, and keep a weather eye open for the sorts of vandalism that qualify as 'desecration' - e.g. breaking of crosses, smashing or dirtying of Jewish gravestones.

If you live near a church or synagogue, or a taoist or hindu or sikh temple, again, keep your eyes open for any suspicious activity.

If you witness something ugly or creepy, such as smashing of crosses in a graveyard, or human dung on a synagogue doorstep, that kind of thing - record it. Then find out how to fix it ASAP.

A friend of mine, visiting Paris not long ago, was struck by the fact that Muslim males, radiating aggression and contempt, were 'loitering with intent' in or next to many of the iconic sites, such as the Chapel of St.Denis, and doing it so obviously that - as a female tourist - she felt unsafe and intimidated. It was almost as if they had the city 'staked out', 'occupied'.

Well: I leave it to the Parisians and to French jihadwatchers to work out how they might start reclaiming their home turf. They will have a tough job, but I don't believe it's entirely impossible.

Meanwhile the rest of us, in other countries that mostly haven't reached that pass as yet, have to watch for any signs of Muslim territorial aggression toward and vandalism of our significant places and objects, and think about how we as a community might prevent, or punish, such behaviour.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 16, 2008 9:49 PM

Concerned Citizen

I don't disapprove of what you're doing, at all. In fact, I'm totally in awe of your patience and thoroughness!

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 16, 2008 9:57 PM

Sorry about the mix-up, Interestin'; yeah, I was simply trying to point out that Abdullah is sadly mistaken about "his people" having been here for centuries. The American Indians were not Moslems.

I see, skimming over some of his verbal tsunami, that he's trying to prove something about the Cheyenne, which is nice, but they weren't Moslems either.

He also trots the myth of noble Saladin. Not that this is going to convince Abdullah, but I would like to point to other posters that many historians are extremely dubious about the whole Saladin-sent-peaches-and-snow, and-his-physician-too, to Richard the Lionheart story, deeming it a myth.

An interesting historical anecdote; a few years before Richard came to the Holy Land, the extremely ill young Baldin IV, the Leper King, met Saladin's forces in battle (I believe Saladin's brother Al-Adil was leading them); at one point, Baldwin's horse bolted, and he fell off. Due to his disease, Baldwin was unable to remount unassisted.

Now, if this were a movie, or Abdullah's version of history, Saladin would have immediately sent out his physician (I think, at that time, he was Maimonides---a Jew, by the way) who would have carried the sickly, but brave, young king to Saladin's tent, where he would have received sherberts and sweetmeats from Saladin's own lily-white hands, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Instead, the archers did their level best to fill Baldwin with arrows. He was saved only by the fact that one of his men, Onfroy de Thoron, flung himself in front of him, holding up his shield, until Baldwin could be carried to safety. Onfroy's body, according to Christian historian Guillaume de Tyre, looked rather like a porcupine's, it was so filled with arrows.

At the battle of Hattin, Saladin looked on smiling, as hundreds of Knights Templars, and Hospitallers, were beheaded. There was also his treatment of the black mamalukes, when he conquered Egypt, and an unfortunate philospher he once had crucified. . . so I've never believed the Richard the Lionheart/Saladin stories; that kind of generosity doesn't seem to have been in Saladin's character, not for those who crossed him.

An excellent book about the Crusades, by the way, is Bernard Hamilton's "The Leper King and his Heirs." You can get it from Amazon.com.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at September 16, 2008 10:04 PM

"...the beating ...is not a beating at all... it is the last notice in a series of events ... a "tap" that does not leave a mark..." posted by Abdullah m -- above

Spoken like a true abuser. Look up excuses that abusers make - it's a classic. I couldn't sit silent for that one. He makes grandiose statements then buries little telltale remarks like that one, above, in all of the preaching and boasting.

Posted by: charlie at September 16, 2008 11:03 PM

darcy & bigcatgirl,

"AM is ignoring my comments as well, which leads me to believe he will only address the male posters at this point."

I apologize if you feel there is anything akin to chauvinism going on here. It's just that I have had some very fruitful exchanges with Concerned Ctizen,. Mo Foe, and one or two with DenverRodeo (although he wouldn't characterize it that way.)

It has nothing to do with you being female...in fact I thought "champ" was a man until you outed yourself.

Go figure?

Answers take quite some time to give in the right manner with the right supporting reaserch...I know you may not care to read them, but I take care in researching them and writing them.

Be glad to entertain any honest question you have, you may be suprised what we can both learn from one another.

When the Prophet was asked whom to respect most, by a companion

He said,"Your Mother"

"Then who?"

"Your Mother"

"Then who?"

"Your Mother"

"Then who?"

"Then your father."

Heaven is at the feet of our mothers, so why would I have anything against another woman who is someone's mother, sister, daughter?

Not me, champ...that is a projection bias.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 11:42 PM

dumbledoresarmy,

Poo poo! You are being a killjoy, and no to well informed are we?

Al Andalus, Golden Age of Judaism - the best period in history to be a Jew, they thrived under the best protection and highest standard of living that Jews existed in anywhere after the fall of Solomons kingdom.

They didn't even have to serve in the military, but guess what? Many of them did volunteer and fought side by side with Muslims defending Al Andalus. Historical fact.

There is the pin that burst your bubble. Go study it.

Peace

P.S. Hisss, pffft, pffft, hisss! Submit....sssssubmitt...you're eyes are getting heavier...

: )

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 11:48 PM

Bukhari

Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715:

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"

Razi, At-Tafsir al-Kabir

A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face, (which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: "Get even with him", but then added: "Wait until I think about it". Later on, Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: "We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best".

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 16, 2008 11:58 PM

Maimonedes:

Remember, my co-religionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us, as Scripture has forewarned us, ‘Our enemies themselves shall judge us’ (Deuteronomy 32:31). Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they …. Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put with their fabrications, yet we behaved like him who is depicted by the inspired writer, “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth.” (Psalms 38:14). Similarly our sages instructed us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence. They found a cryptic allusion for this attitude in the names of his sons “Mishma, Dumah, and Massa” (Genesis 25:14), which was interpreted to mean, “Listen, be silent, and endure.” (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, ad locum). We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation, as Isaiah instructed us “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair.” (50:6). All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continued maltreatment which well nigh crushes us. No matter how much we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them, they stir up strife and sedition, as David predicted, “I am all peace, but when I speak, they are for war.” (Psalms 120:7). If, therefore, we start trouble and claim power from them absurdly and preposterously we certainly give ourselves up to destruction.”

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 17, 2008 12:01 AM

Concerned Citizen,

"His replies exceed some of our more routine arguments, and are thus pedagogically useful to sharpen ours. "

You understand the true benefit to these exchanges then, don't you? I learn from you, you learn from me, we both leave with stronger understandings of what we believe.

Many of the obtuse things you raise I have never even considered since I understand the message very well, and have not fallen into the "English only out of context traps" most casual parusers of the texts will erroneously jump to.

Unfortunately, it is too easy for people to be out of context and wrong, yet it takes a lot of work to explain their error, and some people still get lost in the exercise. It takes a desire to discover the truth, and not go into a subject with a chip on your shoulder...all you will ever come out with is a bigger chip.

Anyway, I work more than just here...often I get the "Oh, well what are you doing about issues over there, huh!!!!? You come here to preach to us but...etc"

Well, I was with a panel of Muslims at Islamic Association of North Texas that the US State Department had arranged a visit from the leading Imam of all of France in order that he learn about how we American Muslims integrated so well in to the fabric of America and yet still maintain our Islamic faith.

Do you know what I told him?

I told him we did it by raising our children free from the baggage of the "back home" mentality. I told him to raise their children to love France and be proud of being French Muslims...and to let them know France is Home, because if they talk about "back home" they need to "go back home".

And I was was also on the panel that met with a delegation of Saudi Scholars under the same US State Department program...they were brought here by the US State department for the same thing, to learn from us, and our focus then was religious tolerance and diversity...they came here to learn from us how to be better Muslims.

Learning from one another what is useful that promotes peace and harmony here in America is the best thing you and I can leave any conversation with.

Thanks for the dialouge, it is mutually beneficial, at least I feel that way.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 12:13 AM

"...the beating ...is not a beating at all... it is the last notice in a series of events ... a "tap" that does not leave a mark..." posted by Abdullah m -- above

Spoken like a true abuser. Look up excuses that abusers make - it's a classic. I couldn't sit silent for that one. He makes grandiose statements then buries little telltale remarks like that one, above, in all of the preaching and boasting.

Posted by: charlie

Charlie, I'm glad you commented on that statement made by AM, because I caught it too, but refrained from commenting on it myself for fear of being banned, I was so mad. Suffice to say, that if any man, husband or no husband, ever tapped me with a toothbrush, that that would be the LAST time he ever did that. I don't put up with that kind of crap. And you're right, a quick study on an abusers mindset would show how grossly gifted they are at minimizing their abuse, and then blaming the victim by saying, "She deserved it."

Posted by: champ at September 17, 2008 12:36 AM

...in fact I thought "champ" was a man until you outed yourself.

Go figure?

posted by: the moron

I "outed" myself? Huh? It is no secret that I am a woman. In fact, I have been posting on JW for just over 5 years, and most everyone here knows my gender, and they have from the beginning; and you would be surprised how many posters are women, but you would never know it due to their moniker. So please explain why my moniker would have you believe that I am a guy, moron. I am dying to hear your silly reasons (this should be good).

Posted by: champ at September 17, 2008 12:48 AM

champ,

Another projection bias by both you and charlie.

We are discussing 1,400 year old legislations that limited spousal abuse.

The same way legislation on slavery limited and eliminated slavery.

The same way the limit of the number of wives regulated polygamy.

These verses did not suddenly arise and say, "Hey, its now okay to beat your spouse! You can hit him and you can hit her! Yuk Yuk!"

You need to be less emotional and a more about the seventh century in which these verses were first revealed. We would do well in this country if all men abdided by just that one.

Over 900,000 women suffer spousal violence in this country each year.

Think about it.

Was there any edict in the Bible that orders wife beating? No.

There isn't one in the Quran either, if you understand it. You clearly don't on this issue.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 12:51 AM

Concerned Citizen,

You offer two Hadiths with no point explaining yourself. What is your point?

These are not interrelated in the manner that I think you think they are.

The first is an issue surrounding the right of divorce and remarrying.

Narrated Ikrima

Islamic divorce is not like American divorce. It is in three distinct stages with time frames in between and rules. This is simply an example of the law of divorce being enforced, and the fact that after the third divorce she was not allowed to go back to her husband until she had consummated her marriage…i.e. it can not be a marriage of convenience to simply “set the clock back” on the Talaq (statement of divorce).

The second Hadith, the woman complained and Mohammad told her to hit him back, but immediately the revelation came legislating against that...it wasn't "let me think about that and then later" it was immediate.

Legislations bring about the ideal in solutions if followed.

The following of the legislation limited any persons actions against another and stemmed spousal violence.

What would happen if a woman were to strike a man who was prone to violence? The result would be more violence. Instead the order came for him to restrain himself in the first place and transition his conflict through gradual steps and limiting his ability to respond unkindly until if irresolvable then the “tap” that signified divorce was imminent was then allowed.

This was the revelation along the lines of Women’s rights…regulations relating to spousal conflicts.

This interrelates with other passages of Quran that give the well rounded picture of Woman’s rights and protections afforded her in preserving her rights.

Elsewhere Mohammad councils in the Hadiths that those who strike their wives are not the best among you.” Mohammad never struck any of his wives, ever.

I don't feel you understood these two hadiths or how they relate to other verses in the Quran and other Hadiths on these two subjects, Divorce, and Women's rights.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 12:57 AM

Didn't you write that comment, AM? Charlie and I aren't quoting the Qur'an, but YOU! HELLO!!! ANYBODY HOME!!!

Why are you quoting passages from your unholy book, when we were simply commenting on a statement made by you. AM states:

"...the beating ...is not a beating at all... it is the last notice in a series of events ... a "tap" that does not leave a mark..." posted by Abdullah m -- above

Posted by: champ at September 17, 2008 1:03 AM

Spin Meister -

You are full of shit!

Bye!

Posted by: champ at September 17, 2008 1:04 AM

champ,

"moron. I am dying to hear your silly reasons (this should be good)."

I have been posting here for less than a few months, so I could never have known from reading any of your posts you were a woman.

And it makes no difference to me whether you are male or female...that is just a projection bias people make against Muslim men for the most part that is wrong.

Chauvinism doesn't need a religious label to identify it and it doesn't signify it either.

I don't care what you think, not being rude, you just don't know me, that's all.

Questions here are polarized to what pisses most of you off...lack of understanding what it is you are reading is the biggest problem.

How's that for silly reasons?

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 1:35 AM

Concerned Citizen

For your Hadith References posted above on “Some of the verses requested follow.”

None of the original works of Ibn Ishaq are preserved, and Tabari is not reliable. These I need not respond to.

In the mid fifties Alfred Guillaume compiled of his own opinions and volition what he said was Ibn Ishaq’s work that was inside Ibn Hashims and those of Tabari that he attributed to Ibn Ishaq. Again, Tabari is not reliable.

All of your references to jihad in the Hadiths are all based upon the excellence of the struggle to do what is right in ones life according to the will of God, and that does include fighting to end oppression, injustice, and to protect the innocent, or to enforce the law upon Muslims who had become rebels.

There is nothing wrong with instilling the virtue of defending your nation in the people especially when the order comes from a Prophet of God. These orders are not different from what our military “preaches” today in the duty one must perform to defend the nation.

There is no “Muslim nation” today, no “Islamic State” to defend, no authority of central government to swear allegiance to…period, all of the structure of the past is gone.

The other Hadiths I need to research the tafsir on to understand better what is being spoken of and why.

Your verse references cited will take a little longer to put into context. Sorry about the short study, just didn't want to leave you hanging.

If I can't get it to you on this thread we'll catch up with it some later date...it will be a long boring post for most, but at that time I hope you'll read it.

Thanks

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 1:42 AM

Abdullah,

Here's the thing to me in a nutshell; I love freedom. I love freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, of religion, of thought, expression, movement, inquiry, of sexual choice, freedom to live as one sees fit, etc, etc, etc.

And I see many, many, many things in Islam that violate freedom.

That is how we got to Saudi Arabia. Muhammad was born there. It's the place that holds 2 out of 3 of the holiest places in Islam. It's the source of one of the most strict interpretations of the Qu'ran, so it should be (at least it seems to me) the best example of what Islam is and represents.

But, it is one of the most repressive, oppressive, backward, freedom-denying places on the planet. There is no freedom of speech, there is no freedom of religion (for non-Muslims), women are repressed systematically, and if it wasn't for their oil exports (extracted by virtual slave labor), they would export nothing but sand and hate. They haven't created anything, or contributed to the betterment of the world.

So, this seems to me to be a situation of looking at the results and, if Saudi Arabia is what Islam results in, then Lan Astaslem!

I'm glad you seem to have a modernist, moderate interpretation, but from the results in the real world, you seem to be in the "small minority."

When I say "real world", I mean all the Islamic countries records on education, freedom of thought--as reported in the Arab Nations UN report--the terrorism, the human rights violations, the supremacism, the rapes, murders, tortures, honor killings, kidnappings, threats, intimidations, beheadings, etc, etc, etc, all committed in the name of Islam.

It seems to me that a lot of people in a lot of places have the idea that Islam allows all these despicable, disgusting horrendous things, and I for one am sick of it.

More power to you and your moderate views--may they become the vocal majority that they don't seem to be right now.

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 17, 2008 1:43 AM

Concerned Citizen, arguing with Abullah is kind of like playing chess with a computer--he's essentially a computer which has been programmed with a complicated (and flawed) set of responses and tactics, and one of those tactics is to keep on plugging away even though he doesn't have a leg to stand on, but pretend like nothing's wrong. The sheer complexity of his tactics tries to cover up the flaws. It also makes it very tiresome for anybody to try to keep up to point them all out. That's another tactic of the Abdullah Robot 5000--wear down your opponent through sheer patience and a mountain of interlocking posts.

Almost every other sentence Abdullah writes has some new gigantic erroneous statement (like that Koran 4:34 means to "tap"! the woman) that would take hours to unpack and rebut, so he's counting on heaping up enough of them over time just to wear us down, all the while seeming to be nice, polite, reasonable and well-informed.

Frankly, his manner disgusts me that much more for the shiny shoes and nice suit he has on, and in his own way he's just as offensive as the other Muslims that have been banned here recently. In effect, Abdullah is using Western debate style like the 19 hijackers used Western planes, i.e., like a savage in a tuxedo.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 17, 2008 4:30 AM

My friends.

Since, in the thread above, A. M. has alluded to a part of the myth of Al-Andaluz, namely, the idea that it was a fabulous place for Jews - "Al Andalus, Golden Age of Judaism - the best period in history to be a Jew, they thrived under the best protection and highest standard of living that Jews existed in anywhere after the fall of Solomons kingdom" -

I think it necessary to provide - in addition to the witness of Maimonides, already cited by someone else - a full-scale Reality Check re Muslim-ruled Spain, for the benefit of anyone who has persevered to this point - especially anyone who is new to this site, now or in the future.

In the jihadwatch/ dhimmiwatch archives, from April 2004,

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001665.php#comments

you will find a sobering little essay entitled "Andalusian Myth, Eurabian Reality", by Andrew Bostom and Bat Yeor, citing many contemporary witnesses and documents, and citing also Richard Fletcher's historical study, "Moorish Spain". Here is one of the citations from Fletcher:

"The witness of those who lived through the horrors of the Berber conquest, of the Andalusian fitnah in the early eleventh century, of the Almoravid invasion- to mention only a few disruptive episodes {this means there were many other such disruptions - dda} - must give it [i.e., the roseate view of Muslim Spain] the lie.

"The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was of tranquility...

"Tolerance? Ask the Jews of Granada who were massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were deported by the Almoravids to Morocco in 1126 (like the Moriscos five centuries later)…

"In the second half of the twentieth century a new agent of obfuscation makes its appearance: the guilt of the liberal conscience, which sees the evils of colonialism- assumed rather than demonstrated-foreshadowed in the Christian conquest of al-Andalus and the persecution of the Moriscos (but not, oddly, in the Moorish conquest and colonization).

"Stir the mix well together and issue it free to credulous academics and media persons throughout the western world.

"Then pour it generously over the truth…in the cultural conditions that prevail in the west today the past has to be marketed, and to be successfully marketed it has to be attractively packaged.

"Medieval Spain in a state of nature lacks wide appeal.

"Self-indulgent fantasies of glamour...do wonders for sharpening up its image. But Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch."

From other parts of Bostom and Bat Yeor's article, further details on what Mohammedan-ruled Spain was REALLY like, for non-Muslims. Basically - violence, mass death, oppression and fear.

"Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by Arab tribes originating from northern, central and southern Arabia. Massive Berber and Arab immigration, and the colonization of the Iberian peninsula, followed the conquest.

"Most churches were converted into mosques.

"Although the conquest had been planned and conducted jointly with a strong faction of royal Iberian Christian dissidents, including a bishop, it proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavement, deportations and killings.

"Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut..".

More:
"Al-Andalus represented the land of jihad par excellence. Every year, sometimes twice a year, raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves.

"Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they went.

"Thousands of people were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women."

Sounds like a den of robbers, rapists and kidnappers.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 17, 2008 5:20 AM

Such a long thread. I'll overlook the fallacious argument methods and stick to the factual errors:

This verse was revealed as a response to treachery from the Pagan Quraysh who violated a peace treaty with the Muslims by way of mass murdering a group of unarmed Muslims, who were unarmed due to the treaty.

Spencer writes here:

"After the treaty was concluded, a woman of the Quraysh, Umm Kulthum, joined the Muslims in Medina; her two brothers came to Muhammad, asking that she be returned "in accordance with the agreement between him and the Quraysh at Hudaybiya." Muhammad refused because Allah forbade it: he gave Muhammad a new revelation: "O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and test them: Allah knows best as to their faith: if ye ascertain that they are believers, then send them not back to the unbelievers" (Qur’an 60:10).

In refusing to send Umm Kulthum back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the treaty. Although Muslim apologists have claimed throughout history that the Quraysh broke it first, this incident came before any treaty violations by the Quraysh."

Al Qaeda is a core group of around 300 people who practice and say "Islam" does command their violence.

1.3 Billion of us practice Islam and say that it does not.

Not only does this snippet falsely imply that al-Qaeda is the only group of its kind and conviniently ignore the al-Qaeda rank and file who are not members of this "core group" (incidentally, the figure of 300 is completely uncited), it makes the outrageous claim that anyone who does not directly participate in terrorist activity agrees that Islam does not command the al-Qaeda brand of violence.

Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric

"Osama bin Laden, however, is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable."

There are countless more examples of Muslims participating in or supporting violence which they claim is sanctioned by Allah, and many of them are not connected to or affiliated with al-Qaeda.

For the point of argument, we could further “normalize” the statistics and see which incidence of violence happened in:

A. An occupied war zone
B. A country ruled by despots
C. A free nation.

The majority would occur in A. and B.

C. would come up with a smallest number of highly publicized events including at least four,

1. World trade center (attack by foreigners)
2. Spanish train bombing(attack by foreigners)
3. Great Britain train bombing
4. Bali Night Club bombing

So I suppose one is to ignore the continued persecution of and violence towards Copts in Egypt and Ahmadiyyas, for instance? How about jihad violence in southern Thailand and the Phillipines, which can hardly be classified as "occupied" or war zones, or being ruled by despots? Also please explain what is going on in Darfur, and what does living in an occupied war zone have to do with attacks on Iraqi Christians, or secterian violence between Sunnis and Shias.

Jamal Badawi, professor emeritus at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:

Without a link or reference to where this was said, or the hadith(s) quoted by the professor if any, this "citation" is completely useless.

There is no more “taking of spoils” because the Prophet is not among us and there is no war directed against enemies of the Islamic State because there is no Islamic State, and there is no Prophet guided by God to direct human beings to any just conflict. This is the example of Prophet and statesman and ruler and victor and the spoils were allowed for him as fo no other prophet before. In the days of old Prophets were commanded to pile the spoils and sacrifice them as a column of fire descended from heaven and consumed them. Not so with the last Prophet. God allowed the spoils of war for him and the Ummah at that time. We are far and away gone from that time.

So show us the sura and ayat that abrogates all permission to take booty.

Moreover, as Spencer notes:

"[Muhammad] is “an excellent model of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21). He demonstrates “an exalted standard of character” (68:4), and indeed, “he who obeys the Messenger [Muhammad], obeys Allah” (4:80). The Qur’an frequently tells Muslims to obey Allah and Muhammad: while the Muslim holy book takes for granted that Muhammad is fallible (cf. 48:2; 80:1-12), it also instructs Muslims repeatedly to obey Muhammad (3:32; 3:132; 4:13; 4:59; 4:69; 5:92; 8:1; 8:20; 8:46; 9:71; 24:47; 24:51; 24:52; 24:54; 24:56; 33:33; 47:33; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12)."

Why, then isn't such a prophet setting an example by not taking spoils, and what is your basis for saying that it is not permitted for Muslims today to follow his example?

There is no “Muslim nation” today, no “Islamic State” to defend, no authority of central government to swear allegiance to…period, all of the structure of the past is gone.

Are you unaware of the fact that the caliphate has existed until 1924, and there are active attempts to reestablish it right now? Do you intend further to argue to, say Osama, that because there is no single unified Islamic state, Muslims are not obligated to or protected by the so-called defensive jihad, "obligatory for everyone" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.3)?

None of the original works of Ibn Ishaq are preserved, and Tabari is not reliable. These I need not respond to.

Is the unreliability of Tabari an opinion, or another of your uncited assertions passed off as fact? How about discussing the chains of transmission of specific narrations rather than blanket dismissals?

Here is the most important question: Why do you appear to act as if you are a greater authority on Islam than the al-Azhar university, the schools of Islamic jurispudence, and various individuals such as the Ayatollah Khomeini and numerous other clerics?

Posted by: Audacity at September 17, 2008 6:08 AM

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 16, 2008 9:08 AM

Thanks for the reply. When time permits, I will read in full and respond.

Posted by: awake at September 17, 2008 8:41 AM

Audacity,

Your last question is a very, very, good one!

I mean, I'm no expert on Islam, but it was my understanding that, indeed, all the schools of Sunni jurisprudence mandate jihad as a duty, and the idea that Islam should reign supreme.

On the one hand, I applaud Abdullah for having an alternate view of things; one which if adopted worldwide would make Islam indeed more peaceful, and improve relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have any support by mainstream schools of thought, so his road ahead seems very lonely and very unlikely that his views will become mainstream.

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 17, 2008 11:14 AM

DenverRodeo,

You blow alot of digital hot air. So you must be a scholar, right?

"(like that Koran 4:34 means to "tap"! the woman) that would take hours to unpack and rebut."

focus on this one, I challenge you to unpack it.

I will provide one simple fatawa from Jamal Badawi that describes it in context as well as the associated hadith that spells out the "miswak" and not so much as to leave a mark.

You can insist on remaining ignorant, but you are not right.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 11:42 AM

This targetted message bears repeating......

"Arguing with Abullah is kind of like playing chess with a computer--he's essentially a computer which has been programmed with a complicated (and flawed) set of responses and tactics, and one of those tactics is to keep on plugging away even though he doesn't have a leg to stand on, but pretend like nothing's wrong. The sheer complexity of his tactics tries to cover up the flaws. It also makes it very tiresome for anybody to try to keep up to point them all out. That's another tactic of the Abdullah Robot 5000--wear down your opponent through sheer patience and a mountain of interlocking posts."

"Almost every other sentence Abdullah writes has some new gigantic erroneous statement (like that Koran 4:34 means to "tap"! the woman) that would take hours to unpack and rebut, so he's counting on heaping up enough of them over time just to wear us down, all the while seeming to be nice, polite, reasonable and well-informed."

"Frankly, his manner disgusts me that much more for the shiny shoes and nice suit he has on, and in his own way he's just as offensive as the other Muslims that have been banned here recently. In effect, Abdullah is using Western debate style like the 19 hijackers used Western planes, i.e., like a savage in a tuxedo."

Posted by: DenverRodeo

Excellent post, DenverRodeo! Were it that I could shake your hand on a job well done! So excellent, in fact, that I've reposted it for the seemingly dense, AM/PM/ANYTIME, to reread, because the first shot of "hot air", as he put it, didn't get through to his foggy brain long enough to penetrate the brainwashing. I would show more compassion for the braindead troll, but like you, I don't want to play footsie with an Islamic conman.

Get over yourself, AM, as DenverRodeo has you pegged for who & what you are; and I don't care how "sweet" you seem to appear (at times), there's no amount of sugar coating your evil message that will ever fool me, or fool others either.

You may be a lost cause, AM, but to those who are on the fence regarding Islam, do not buy into his sweet, savory message; it is laden with poison, and it will rot your heart & soul. Besides, common sense tells you he's a snake oil salesman and not to be trusted. His brand of Truth is anything BUT the Truth.

Posted by: champ at September 17, 2008 12:16 PM

Abdullah, if you provide Jamal Badawi, that's not enough. You also have to provide evidence of how the vast majority of Muslims today, including Islamic clerics & scholars, agree with Jamal Badawi.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 17, 2008 12:25 PM

Thanks champ. I couldn't resist a response to Abdullah again, since he only offered up one little mistake which could be easily exposed instead of dumping a garbage truck of a whole bunch of mistakes, like he usually does. I.e., he pulls out of a hat some guy named "Jamal Badawi" and his opinion on Koran 4:34, as if this guy is what, the Pope of Islam?

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 17, 2008 12:43 PM

I found this at: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message513789/pg1 --

# ^ Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi comments that "Whenever the Prophet (peace be on him) permitted a man to administer corporal punishment to his wife, he did so with reluctance, and continued to express his distaste for it. And even in cases where it is necessary, the Prophet (peace be on him) directed men not to hit across the face, nor to beat severely nor to use anything that might leave marks on the body." "Towards Understanding the Qur'an" Translation by Zafar I. Ansari from "Tafheem Al-Qur'an" (specifically, commentary on 4:34) by Syed Abul-A'ala Mawdudi, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, England.
# ^ The medieval jurist ash-Shafi'i, founder of one of the main schools of fiqh, commented on this verse that "hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable."
# ^ "[S]ome of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi'i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem." Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur'an (his translation of the Qur'an).

Another poster wrote:

"Right now in places like Saudi Arabia it is clear
that a man can strike (daraba) his wife. Almost ALL Islamic
scholars have the same interpretation. And don't forget
The Prophet's "Farewell Sermon" where striking a wife is
permitted as long as you don't leave a mark on them. Why
mention leaving a mark on their bodies if there is some
other meaning?"

Now my 2 cents: It seems to me that we are playing word games with women's lives. I don't have proof, but I bet many Muslims the world over use this verse (not just the "beat" part, but the male is superior part at the beginning, as well as the "tilth" one, to justify all kinds of oppression and physical violence against women.

The problem is that it's there, and it has to be carefully pointed out that severe beatings aren't "what's really meant" by the verse, whereas most people don't go into the background, history, and tasfir of this verse. They see "beat" and they beat.

Plus, the main problem of the verse for me is that these punishments of women are justified even if you only SUSPECT disobedience. You don't have to have shred of evidence, only a hunch, and it validates the idea that wives must do what the husband says regardless of anything they might want to do or think is right.

You can't "out of context" or "mistranslation" your way out of that.

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 17, 2008 12:47 PM

DenverRodeo,

Will do, but first "I challenge you to unpack it."

I don't mind doing hours of research, I love to tell the truth and verifying it as well.

But, yes, sometimes I have to respond quickly based upon some lectures and what I remember...it is a sound bite medium, people expect quick answers or they get upset and start name calling, and you are a tough crowd to please. (sheesh! Understatement)

I understand I can explain the law, but the question always arises, "How do the majority of Muslims act?"

Yes, but this tactic can be used to marginalize any argument.

To that I would simply offer nearly 560,000 American women are attacked each year by their spouse, 78.5% of those are perpetrated by Christians (CIA Worldfactbook).

Why don't those 560,000 men, approximately 440,000 of those are Christian…are they abiding by the US law? Are they abiding by the orders in the Bible? No, they are simply criminal.

We don’t blame the law or the Book…we blame the criminal.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/71309/three_women_are_murdered_by_their_husbands,_boyfriends_every_day_in_america/?comments=view&cID=794111&pID=793886

For a crime that has always been vastly underreported, it is disturbing that the Justice Department reports more than 560,000 intimate partner victimizations in this country in 2005 - and even more disturbing that domestic homicides against women rose from 2004 to 2005. On average in 2005, more than three women a day were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the U.S.
END EXCERPT

Now most of you would chime in about here, “But that is what the Muslim who hit is wife says! He says the law allows him to!”

Wrong. It does not. Just because he is ignorant of the law doesn’t mean the law is “evil” it means he is ignorant.

So please, “unpack it.", 4:34 that is, so I can respond to you.

Thanks

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 1:05 PM

Mo Foe,

“You can't "out of context" or "mistranslation" your way out of that.”

I don’t have to, its copacetic…you sum up my entire point here:

*** “The problem is that it's there, and it has to be carefully pointed out that severe beatings aren't "what's really meant" by the verse, whereas most people don't go into the background, history, and tasfir of this verse. They see "beat" and they beat.”

As I said, it is ignorance of the law that leads Muslims to think they have the right to “beat” their wives…they don’t. They don’t have the right to beat anyone.

No verse in Quran is the “end all” silver bullet on an issue. You must look at the whole in order to determine what the meaning is and the proper way to act is.

Dhulm, oppression, is forbidden to the level that God informed us He has forbidden it upon himself. “Beating” anyone is oppression, unless it is in an act of self defense, then it becomes a duty to defend ones self.

Then how can it be allowed to commit oppression against another human being whom you are charged with caring for? Whom you are reminded that “heaven is at the feet” of (Mothers)? And whom the Prophet Mohammad said "Never hit the handmaids of Allah" (found in the hadith collections of Abu Daud, Nasa'l, Ibn Hibban, and Bayhaqi).

So it boils down to what you surmised above ***

Peace

P.S. For a more comprehensive statement about the treatment of women read:

http://www.crescentlife.com/psychissues/ending_domestic_violence_in_muslim_families.htm

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 1:23 PM

No kidding, DenverRodeo, AM is gifted at elevating not only himself, but virtual unknowns as well. "The Pope of Islam", not that's funny, and what an oxymoron, LOL! AM was must be fomenting over that one.

*

Mo Foe, as we all know, it isn't very hard NOT to leave a mark on someone during a fight. Great damage can be done without so much as leaving a bruise or a scratch on someone.

Mohammad left the field of abuse wide open to wife abusers with that unwise directive in his unholy book from hell. Mohammad is roasting marshmallows right now, so good riddance to this evil false prophet from hell.

Mohammad the LOSER-ABUSER! And anyone who subscribes to this teaching by Mohammad is a loser & abuser too.

Posted by: champ at September 17, 2008 1:26 PM

Abdullah,

you wrote:
As far as the “… many misunderstanders of Islam amongst the Muslim community?”

"For the greater part, perception is reality.
This is a media sound bite image, and yes it will become "perception" if you have sensory overload and you are flooded with these images and stories.
It is not that there are “so many of them” it is that there is such a rabid media fixation on the incidents that this becomes perception"...

The media is what it is. The rabid fixation, to which I disagree with, would imply that mainstream publications would read more like JW, when they clearly do not. If you had a claim about fabrication, then the point would be valid, but that was not your claim.

you also wrote:
"That is if we assume 5 “muslim” people average per “incident”, that leaves us with 50,000 criminals, and that is only 3.85E-05 % of the whole Muslim Population, or for graphic impact, 0.0000384615384615385 % of the whole. Is that 'statistically significant?""

Statistics is a funny thing. For example sake, if ten people were in a group and three decided to go around breaking windows then 30% are for it. This, percentage wise, is statistically noticable, but in reality, it is only three people.

Conversely, if you take percentages like Esposito and Mogahed did, and analyze their flaws in dissecting the number 4's and the number 5's see article below:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/066chpzg.asp?pg=1

you will see that in reality, at least 13.5% of the respondents are considered radical, a percentage that can only err in one direction (increase) due to the possible unwillingness to tell the truth by the respondents.

Now taken in that context, 13.5% percent seems like an insignificant number when compared to 30%, but when the 13.5% totals over 175 million people worldwide, with no reasonable way to discern one from the other, it becomes problematic and renders the comparison valuless.

you followed with:
"Or to put it another way, can we say scientifically that there is some effect that this religion is having on the whole because of anything in respect to these criminal acts? Even if every one of them says, "Duh, Duh, Derp, I did it because of my religion!!!", is that proof that the religion is actually a causal entity? No."

That statement is scientifically challenged in itself. If every respondent stated it was because of religion, the logical inference would not be that it certainly is not. This falls into the same useless category of the misunderstanders. If they believe their religion dictates their actions and the believe thay are acting accordingly, that is all that matters. Non-Muslims do not and should not take solace in any of those rationalizations.

you wrote:
"And to be so bold, and perhaps piss off lots of self proclaimed “infidels” here on JW, since the US is 77% Protestant/Catholic Christian, that would not speak well of that religious tradition if the “fantasy media outlets” I spoke of focused on tying the criminality into the religious doctrine. And there is enough in the Bible that can be quoted out of context to make it seem as though these people were “abiding by their religious doctrine.” Even if they didn't directly attribute their behaviour to it."

This moral equivalency argument falls short in general, but that has been hashed and re-hashed here and elsewhere, ad nauseum. What is worth noting is the number of criminals in the US who claim that their Christian faith or doctrine provided the impetus or mandated their actions. Like the previous comparison, there is no logical reason to tie criminality to religion by people who make no such claim, in contrast to Muslims who do.

you also wrote:
"As far as talking you out of your collective?"

"It can’t be done."

"I don’t have a megaphone the size of the media moguls that see a benefit in skewing the news to their benefit by smearing Islam."

Yet you try.

The biggest part I find fault with, a general tone you have maintained throughout this post is the rabid, anti-Islamic position of the mainstream media. I do not believe that to be remotely true. On the contrary, the media controlled primarily by the left, if they had their way, would silence venues like JW, promote the instillation of hate crimes, which are really nothing more than thought crimes, and continue to litter the world with nonsensical terms like Islamophobia.

To summarize, when the insignificantly small number of radical Muslims cease to misunderstand their own religion and cease to commit acts of violence and claim that their religion justifies or even mandates it, I am quite sure that Islamophobia will dissappear in short order, your admirable long-term plans, notwithstanding.

Regards.

Posted by: awake at September 17, 2008 2:16 PM

On the treatment of women in Islam:

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (3371-3388):
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

[Note: The men want to practice coitus interruptus to prevent pregnacy because pregnant women cannot be sold]

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.95:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, "I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, 'We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-Mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, 'Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?' We asked him about that and he said, 'You don't have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.' "

Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3432 (also 3433, 3434):
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 17, 2008 2:22 PM

Abdullah,

What I meant was that you can't "out of context" or "mistranslation" your way out of the idea that there is a male supremacy going on here, where wives simply must obey their husbands or be punished.

Further, all a husband has to do is SUSPECT his wife of disobedience in order to punish her. No proof or actual disobedience is required.

You didn't disprove either of these notions. As far as I can tell, the Qu'ran says women are the property of men, and must obey their husbands, and, I've never heard of a verse that says the reverse.

And how about this from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

"The most endemic form of violence faced by women is violence in the home.39 For 1997, HRCP reported that "[d]omestic violence remained a pervasive phenomenon. The supremacy of the male and subordination of the female assumed to be part of the culture and even to have sanction of the religion made violence by one against the other in a variety of its forms an accepted and pervasive feature of domestic life." A United Nations report on women echoes this point, explaining the nature of domestic violence generally in terms of the structure of the family:

Comprehensive studies on domestic violence indicate that domestic violence is a structural rather than causal problem. It is the structure of the family that leads to or legitimizes the acts, emotions or phenomenon that are identified as the "causes" of domestic violence under the causal analysis. This family structure is a "structure that is mirrored and confirmed in the structure of society, which condones the oppression of women and tolerates male violence as one of the instruments in the perpetuation of this power balance."41

Estimates of the percentage of women who experience domestic violence in Pakistan range from 70 to upwards of 90 percent."

Source: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/pakistan/Pakhtml-05.htm#P402_73923 (emphasis added)

90%!!!! That's disgusting, horrific and a crime against humanity!

Where are the moderate voices saying "Look, you've got this all wrong!" I must've missed them...

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 17, 2008 2:32 PM

Abdullah,

My unannotated posts above were intended as feeding other ongoing dialogues.

Forgive me if I've asked this (or if you've otherwise addressed it):

What is the penalty for apostasy in Islam? How is it meted out and by whose authority?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 17, 2008 2:37 PM

Abdullah,

The thing I would like to see addressed is the "sacred obligation of jihad" on all Muslims (words in quotes from a Saudi textbook).

I'm reading Brigitte Gabriel's "Because They Hate" and I found this relevant to our discussions so far:

"Moderate Muslims must directly confront the teachings in their religion which support jihad and the killing of infidels, instead of pretending that those teachings do not exist. Before they can be considered truly moderate, they must expressly repudiate the belief that Muslims have the divine right and duty to impose their religion and culture on the entire world. They must acknowledge and repudiate the doctrine of taqiyya, the divine right to lie to advance the cause of Islam. In the absence of a repudiation of the supposed right to lie, all promises remain worthless. On an individual and an institutional level, if Muslims are unwilling to relinquish the right to lie and kill in the name of Allah, how can they be considered moderate? It is Islam that declared perpetual war on the non-Muslim world. Unless Islam declares peace, Western civilization must defend itself, or disappear."

-Do you directly confront the teachings in their religion which support jihad and the killing of infidels, or do you think those teaching do not exist?

-Do you acknowledge and repudiate the doctrine of taqiyya?

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 17, 2008 3:15 PM

Concerned Citizen,

Nothing to forgive, I appreciate the exchange.

In personal apostasy there are a number of hadiths that can be pulled out of context by laymen such as you and I and pointed to that we could both jump to the wrong conclusion about.

And there are others that state just the opposite.

In my opinion, and those scholars I communicate with, this is an issue that must be referred back to the Quran and what it dictates in respect to personal apostasy and disbelief in general being similar issues, since most here believe and preach that Islam is is “Convert or Die! Muha Muha Muhahahhah!” let us see what the Quran says about the disbeliever, the rejector, and by default, an apostate, in many places.

In the Quran in many places God sums it up, paraphrased, “leave them to me”, “they are not your concern”, “you will become sick with worry about them (not believing)”, “Then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling.”, “We shall leave them in their trespasses, to wander in distraction”, “so leave them and their inventions alone.”, “So leave them to babble and play (with vanities) until they meet that Day of theirs, which they have been promised.”, “So leave them alone until they encounter that Day of theirs, wherein they shall (perforce) swoon (with terror),-"

No where do I see in the Quran the command “If they turn apostate, or refuse to believe, Kill them!”

I just don’t…maybe I am missing it?

I basically read it very clear that God says it is not up to us whether man believes or not, it is up to God…we only are required to convey the message plainly.

And on this subject, from a source I trust, Dr. Jamal Badawi, Member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and the Fiqh Council of North America, professor emeritus Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada states the following:

“There are scholars who distinguish between apostasy on a personal level, which is not punishable by death, and apostasy that is accompanied by what we call today high treason, in which case the punishment is for high treason, not for apostasy.”

So there is no death penalty for personal apostasy.

There are historical incidences that can be pulled out of context to say otherwise, but return them to the Quran and how do they hold up?

We believe, that by the order of the Prophet many things were authorized because he had information and communication with God that we didn’t.

But Mohammad is dead and therefore can not tell anyone about any specific individual and command them to do anything to them based upon their beliefs, because we don’t know the heart of a human being, only God does, and there is no longer direct communication in that venue.

And in respect to convicting and punishing a person only a state can do that, not a group of persons, not an individual. There must be a crime, an arrest, evidence, a trial, witnesses, etc. just like here in our jury system, only more stringent in some ways, in respect to certain penalties (deterrents).

My two cents.

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 4:41 PM

Mo Foe,

First, to be clear, what most Non-Muslims have in mind when they say “moderate Muslims” is not Islam at all, but mostly abandonment of it.

Those people who claim "Islam" is their religion, and yet who drink alcohol, wear revealing clothing, abandon prayer, eat whatever, you will find Non-Muslims pulling them close and hugging them as “moderates”.

I am not a “moderate” in that sense of the word.

If not having radical opinions pencils me in with you as a “moderate” then fine, call me as such.

Now having said that,

I will never abandon Jihad.

{I bet that one got some hackles up… : ) }

Jihad is the struggle to what is right in ones life by the order of God. It is a much wider subject than the focus group here can bring themselves to understand or admit to.

Now on to the “lesser Jihad”

If a burglar breaks into your home and threatens your family with harm what would you do to protect your family?

Jihad…you just engaged in a violent struggle to defend your home and family.

Or do you think we human beings should all just roll over and die, offer our families up to brigands and criminals, give our wealth away and be slaughtered like sheep?

No. I feel you will defend your family.

That is it in a nutshell...no grand order to take over anything. Remember my post on necessity of borders and states spelled out in Quran, one people set to check another lest chaos result? Different people, tribes, nations, are a mechanism of God to establish and maintain peace…they will always exist, they have always existed, and will until the very end.

Yes, Jihad is a sacred obligation. Understanding it and what it means is very similar to the issues we have in understanding the whole 4:34 question. Very similar.

Yes, it is taken out of context and abused to the advantage of nefarious groups.

Do you understand my position on this?

And Brigitte Gabriel's "Because They Hate"(the title kind of shows her cards doesn’t it?), “Before they can be considered truly moderate, they must expressly repudiate the belief that Muslims have the divine right and duty to impose their religion and culture on the entire world.”

This is a warped outlook that is erroneous in the extreme. There is no mandate to force faith on anyone, no standing order to “take over the world.” I say she is selling a book, and pushing a hot topic that helps it sell…yes, a minimalist comment, but I feel there is some truth to it.

And this insanity on the whole taqyia thing, ad nauseum. This is another myth making gold for folks…again, my opinion.

Do want an example of Taqyia,

“No, SS Officer, there are no Jews around here…haven’t seen any… I will call you as soon as I do what is your number?” All the while they would be hiding in my attick, barn, car, wherever…as soon as he leaves I forget him and save people.

And, yes, there is the whole “in an act of war, deception is allowed.” All armies do that, so Muslims don’t own it…it is a standard practice of war.

And there is no religious mandate for perpetual war, quite the opposite. Give peace to those who ask for it and do not be aggressive, God hates the aggressor.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 5:04 PM

Abdullah,

I'm going to ask for another two cents:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Who were the Zanadiqa, what was their high crime, and do you agree that their "crime" merited death? What was the circumstance of Mohammad's original proclamation (man baddala deenahu faqtuluhu)?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 17, 2008 5:04 PM

awake,

Excellent commentary and I appreciate it.

I have not studied any Espisitos work, so I couldn’t comment on his study. It is a survey, and that as well can be misleading…just because a person checks a box “yes” doesn’t mean much…it is an opinion and these change with the season….for some with their underwear.

And it is the media main stream and the JW type that coin the terms that blanket my religion, “Islamic (whateverism)” all day long.

We had to fight hard to get the MSM in our own area to stop doing this.

What would people think if we broadcast “Jewish Pornography.” or “Jewish Usury” when in fact that demographic is heavily vested in both publication and usury…but putting it that way characterizes it as if they were the sole source of it and puts a negative pall over the association that is undeserved and for the most part untrue.

Just food for thought.

Thanks for returning my comment.

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 5:16 PM

Concerned Citizen,

"I'm going to ask for another two cents:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: "

I would have to research them and see...I don't know about that incident...and I already have a pretty big stack of research on your behalf, andd to my benefit, so thanks...but this one will have to wait on that.

Fair?

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 17, 2008 5:22 PM

"Jihad is the struggle to what is right in ones life by the order of God. It is a much wider subject than the focus group here can bring themselves to understand or admit to."

Otherwise known as the sin nature, which Islam has no remedy for.

I am so thankful for Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross, something a Muslim will never find in the Qur'an or within Islam; and those who die without Jesus Christ covering their sins, will spend eternity in hell.

Posted by: champ at September 17, 2008 6:07 PM

....now there's some "Truth" you don't often here, right, AM?

Oh and "Peace", can only be found at the cross of Christ.

Posted by: champ at September 17, 2008 6:18 PM

Abdullah,

So, I guess you've answered my questions: You claim that there is no mandate on Muslims to wage war on Non-Muslims, even though apparently every school of jurisprudence disagrees with you.

I mean, Bukhari contains 199 references to jihad and every single one uses the term to mean warfare against infidels. NOT ONE speaks of this inner struggle you're so fond of.

Also, and I don't have the reference now, but I saw an analysis of the mentions of jihad in the Qu'ran. Something like 95% of the time it refers to warfare, and only 5% of the time is it the "inner struggle".

And you do not repudiate lying to advance Islam. That is what I asked you and you said no. I didn't ask you about hiding Jews in your attic, and I think it's pretty sickening of you to use such an example, when there's a hadith about even the rocks giving up Jews hiding behind them, so they can be killed

So, basically you've just told me that you could be lying all the time, even though you use TRUTH in your sign off. For all I know you think we are at war with Islam and you should not tell the truth because you think it might hurt Islam. I have no real reason to believe anything you say.

So, good luck to you in your not-really-so-moderate ways, but I won't be engaging you anymore, because I have no

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 17, 2008 7:27 PM

{EDIT}

"So, good luck to you in your not-really-so-moderate ways, but I won't be engaging you anymore, because I have no reason to believe anything you say."

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 17, 2008 7:28 PM

ON HATE

The title of Brigitte Gabriel's book "Because They Hate" is about Islamic terrorists, and they do what they do because of hate. They aren't flying planes into skyscrapers or blowing themselves up because they are filled with love and affection.

Plus, they say it themselves. Al Qaeda claims Islam has a doctrine of "Loyalty (to Muslims) & Enmity (to infidels)". Enmity ain't exactly goodwill.

Also in Saudi-funded texts comes these gems: Muslims are supposed to, in regard to all non-Muslims "hate them for their religion" to "hate...for Allah's sake," to "maintain a wall of resentment" against them.

Further, "They [Saudi books] assert that unbelievers, such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not share Wahhabi beliefs and practices, are hated 'enemies.' Global jihad as an 'effort to wage war against the unbelievers' is also promoted in the Ministry’s textbooks: 'In its general usage, ‘jihad’ is divided into the following categories: ...Wrestling with the infidels by calling them to the faith and battling against them.' No argument is made here that such references to jihad mean only spiritual and defensive struggles. (For the full report on such Saudi tidbits of love, see http://www.hudson.org/files/documents/Saudi%20Press%20release%20updated.pdf - they looked at over 200 books collected from U.S. mosques and Islamic institutions in 2007-2008 and found, in their words, "extreme intolerance" and "violent and
intolerant teachings against other religious believers.")

Ms. Gabriel uses the word hate, because they hate, and they told her and us over and over. It's not bias, it's simple reporting.

Mo Foe out!

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 17, 2008 8:06 PM

Mo Foe,

Your statistic is 97% and 3% in Bukhari, and the reference is the Center for the Study of Political Islam, Bill Warner being their spokesperson.

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-study-of-political-islam/

For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.

Another Bill Warner quote:

The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.

By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.

Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.

There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and easy to see.

The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be "nice”, but in no case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.

And this:

Non-political Islam is religious Islam. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars—prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.

But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.

In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 17, 2008 11:31 PM

Concerned Citizen,

Thanks for the clarification. I guess that means that my quote about not one reference to jihad meaning inner struggle in Bukhari is wrong--about 6 were out of 199.

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 17, 2008 11:38 PM

Mo Foe,

Yes, and when you divide that 199 by 1.99 billion Muslims you get 1x10-9 or 1 hadith for every 10 million Muslims. Clearly, there are not enough hadiths of this nature for every Muslim to have one. In fact, only an extremely very tiny number of Muslims would have such a hadith. Compare this to the number of apostate murders per year, and you can see that clearly, these crimes are not related to Islam.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 18, 2008 12:01 AM

CC,

Can I just say that Bill Warner is a hero of mine? He cuts thru the BS and tells it like it is. His analysis of duality in Islam, and the treatment of the kuffar is simply brilliant and (added for AM's sake, if he's still around), hard to wiggle out of.

Mr. Warner also the one who showed that the Qu'ran is more anti-Semitic than Mein Kampf, right?

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 18, 2008 12:45 AM

muslim:

Try as you may, you will never convince any of us here of your taqiyya. We know too much about your pagan blood cult and it's moon god, who is actually Satan, and his demon messenger muhammed. Why don't you go to one of the virulent islamist sites and try convincing your fellow religionists that they are wrong? We are only reporting how THEY are interpreting your cult. So if we are so wrong, CONVINCE THEM.
I DARE YOU.
They will eat you for breakfast, threaten your life and wind up banning and deleting you from their sites.
Da'wa here will not work. Don't see it as your mission from "allah" (Satan) because many have come before you and all have failed.
Go where you can actually do some good - you'll see soon enough how shrill and threatening they will be to your messages of Truth and Peace.
Or are you afraid? Jihadists can be dangerous, you can't argue your way out with them, they'll claim THE BOOK TELLS THEM SO and that YOU are the unbeliever!

Posted by: CGW at September 18, 2008 7:52 AM

Hello Christians and fellow Americans, I'm a man who was raised in the USA, born in another country,because of my sins and bad judgment of the "friends" I had I was deported after serving 3 yrs in a state prison. I payed for my crime as the law of the STATE saw fit.
Even after the fact that many child molesters,persons that rape our women and children,and many other unwanted persons are still running FREE in the USA and I'm not allowed to cross the border to see my son's play or be at his graduation. I STILL LOVE THE USA AND WHAT IT "USED" TO STAND FOR.. MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ARE USA CITIZENS AND THEIR SAFETY IS MY CONCERN.
I came across a Muslim camp on the south of Mexico in the state of Chiapas, I can not believe my eyes as to what they are doing there!!! they have a training ground for terrorist, they are trading,buying and stealing children and turning them into Islam warriors. HELLOOO, THEY ARE GOING TO BE THE NEXT TERRORIST THAT ENTER THE USA.
I'M WILLING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT,BUT CAN'T DO IT ALONE. THIS IS MY NUMBER IN MEXICO 011-521-656-297-8171 IF YOU WANT TO HELP OR LEARN MORE ABOUT IT GIVE ME A CALL. I'M NOT AFRAID OF THE TERRORIST BECAUSE MY COUNTRY "USA" MEANS THE FREEDOM FOR MY CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN
IF YOUR WILLING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ISLAM MOVEMENT AGAINST USA AND CHRISTIANITY GIVE ME A CALL.. I WILL BE ASKING YOUR PASTOR OR CHECKING TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE...
COME ON FELLOW AMERICANS AND CHRISTIANS..LETS GET OFF OUR ... AND SHOW THIS TERRORIST WHO WE STAND FOR.
IN HIS NAME AND BY HIS GRACE I LIVE...MY SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST..

Posted by: Sin City Man at September 18, 2008 8:58 AM

Mo Foe,

I like Warner & Co. a lot as well. I consider their publications the least common denominator of what a kafir should know about Islam. Everyone should own at least the "Trilogy". Abdullah should even own copies.

At times, I find Islam interesting from a theological comparison to Christianity, wondering how a human mind could endure such conflict and duality. At times, I find their peculiarities interesting (istinjaa, ablutions, halal, circumambulations and all), kind of like learning about a strange new species and its habitat at the zoo. But a lot of the time, I miss how much I used to find my own interests, work and hobbies interesting. During these times, I often resent Islam for taking up so much of my concern by insidiously infiltrating, seducing, sedating, altering and otherwise damaging the society I would have like to have seen passed on safe and relatively intact to our next generation.

Bill Warner reviewing Karen Armstrong's hagiography:

In the Sira, 5.3% of the text relates to the destruction of the Jews—assassinations, executions, rapes, torture and exile. This 5.3% only includes the physical harm, there are many other pages of Jew hatred that do not involve violence. In Armstrong’s biography, the destruction of the Jews is 2.7% of the text. She omits half of the Jew hatred material.

Basically, Armstrong censors half of the Jewish destruction and two-thirds of the jihad in her biography of Mohammed.

The Sira contains two kinds of negative material about the Jews. I have mentioned the 5.3% devoted to physical violence, but there is much material that is a verbal violence against the Jews. If you add the verbal violence to the physical violence, the Sira is 8.6% Jew hatred.

Hitler’s Mein Kamph devotes 6.8% of its material to Jew hatred, but no actual violence. If you remove that 6.8% of Jewish rants you are left with a political treatise that is no worse than any of the current political propaganda. With the right editing, Hitler was no more than a German politician. If you published a Mein Kamph without the 6.8%, you would be criticized. But Armstrong’s book was critically acclaimed. Why is censoring the kafir/Jew hatred from Mohammed cheered, whereas the removal of the Jew hatred from Hitler would be condemned? It is simple, we think that European Jew hatred is evil, but that Islamic Jew hatred needs to be understood and ignored. What is astounding is that this argument is put forward by most Jews.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 18, 2008 9:32 AM

Hmmm, where'd Abdullah go?

Could it be that he regrets "outing" himself as a jihadist?

Could it be that he really didn't know that Islam teaches warfare against infidels? And now he's gone off to study, finding out and now dealing with knowing, that jihad is indeed mainly about warfare on infidels?

Has he been stunned by the revelation that maybe Islam isn't the peace and love fest he thought it was?

Or could it be that his stunningly candid confession that he loves taquiyya was too much - because the few of us who listened will be even more wary than before, so why come back?

Posted by: Mo Foe at September 18, 2008 11:53 AM

Mo Foe,

“I mean, Bukhari contains 199 references to jihad and every single one uses the term to mean warfare against infidels…”

There are 7,397 hadiths that Imam al-Bukhari chose to include in his Al-Jami`, and you note among them 199 that you pointed out that focus on war, which is “Lesser Jihad.”

What you fail to understand is that the Quran, and the four thousand or so other Bukhari hadiths cover the “Greater Jihad”.

There is no equivalency here.

There is not a section entitled “Jihad related. Non Jihad related.” It is all Jihad, the lesser is the only one you are able to identify and point to because you don’t understand the terminology.

“NOT ONE speaks of this inner struggle you're so fond of." and “5% of the time is it the "inner struggle”

But, yeah, you are right there is not one that speaks of the Greater Jihad, there are in execess of seven thousand that define the "Greater Jihad."

“And you do not repudiate lying to advance Islam.”

You are wrong. There is no “lying to advance Islam”…there are permissible tactics in war, our military is doing it right now. That is what I said. We are not talking about the subject of “lying”, it is deception in time of war.

Lying is strictly forbidden even if it is to the benefit in court of a close relative, if you want to focus on lying, it is absolutely forbidden.

‘That is what I asked you and you said no. I didn't ask you about hiding Jews in your attic”

And the situation I described you was an example of permissible "lying", in order to save life and it was an example I thought you would understand. You obviously took it way out context and in an entirely different light.

Perhaps I should have generalized it more to get you to focus on the fact that deception in order to save life is allowed…even if someone holds a Muslim down with a gun to their head and says, “Convert or die!” One is allowed to say, “Okay, okay, I’m an idol worshipper now…can I get up?” as long as they don’t abandon faith in their heart.

Once they are safe they have succeeded in saving their life an they are responsible for adhering to their religion after that.

And the example of the people hiding in the attic stands the same, to save the life of another human being especially under a cirumstance like that.

Too bad you won’t be exchanging with me any more, I truly enjoyed it.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 18, 2008 1:16 PM

Mo Foe,

I just read the "Hmmm, where'd Abdullah go?" post.

Funny! Yeah I had go clean my AK and the Anti Aircraft missiles in the garage. : )

Rememeber what I said about this being a sound bite medium and having to crack things out or the crowd gets sour?

Had stuff to do...lots of stuff...

I do hope you'll keep the lines open though, I enjpy the exchange and I learn a lot about myself as well as others.

Thanks

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 18, 2008 1:22 PM

Abdullah talks about the "Greater Jihad" (harmless) and the "Lesser Jihad" (using physical combat), and how the Greater Jihad is more important.

Actually, this idea of Greater and Lesser Jihad comes from only one hadith, and that hadith is weak and is not even sahih.

Consider:

The hadith in which Muhammad is said to speak of "greater" vs. "lesser" jihad is of doubtful authenticity. It does not appear in any of the six collections of the sahih sittah. In fact, a number of scholars maintain that this hadith is a forgery (2). One scholar analyzes this hadith and considers a number of factors, such as chain of transmission and other more reliable, contradictory ahadith (3). He quotes one authority:

"There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet [peace be upon him] said after the battle of Tabuk: 'We have returned from Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] to Jihad Akbar [greater jihad].' This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind."

And so after a meticulous examination of sources the article comes to a decision:

On the basis of the above statements we can conclude by saying, that the evidence used as proof or the basis for establishing that Jihad against disbelievers on the battlefield is Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] and Jihad against the desires and Shaitaan [Satan, the devil] is Jihad Akbar [greater jihad], are weak if not false Hadith.

One of the counter-hadith with a better chain of transmission (and the author quotes others as well) goes like this:

A man asked [the Prophet]: "...and what is Jihad?" He [peace be upon him] replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He [peace be upon him] replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood."

This seems to leave little doubt as to how Muhammad understood jihad. But let us not make the case on just one example. There are many ahadith on jihad, and they make its meaning quite clear. First and foremost, jihad meant combat on the battlefield, and specifically against non-Muslims.

[for the author's sources and to read more, see http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad03.htm ]

Also:

"Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one's ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is quoted as proof: "We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on the greater jihad." They said: "What is the greater jihad?" He said: "The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one's ego." This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah's way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition: The prominent muhaddith Al Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in the Tasdid al-Qaws: ‘It is well known and often repeated, and was a saying of Ibrahim ibn 'Abla.’ Al Hafiz Al Iraqi said in the Takhrij Ahadith al-Ahya’: ‘Al Bayhaqi transmitted it with a weak chain of narrators on the authority of Jabir, and Al Khatib transmitted it in his history on the authority of Jabir.’ Nevertheless, even if it were a sound tradition, it would never warrant abandoning jihad or preparing for it in order to rescue the territories of the Muslims and repel the attacks of the disbelievers. Let it be known that this narration simply emphasises the importance of struggling against one's ego so that Allah will be the sole purpose of everyone of our actions. Other associated matters concerning jihad include commanding the good and forbidding the evil. It is said in the Hadeeth: "One of the greatest forms of jihad is to utter a word of truth in the presence of a tyrannical ruler." But nothing compares to the honour of shahadah kubra (the supreme martyrdom) or the reward that is waiting for the Mujahideen."

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 18, 2008 3:21 PM

audacity,

Lots to do...sorry for not replying sooner.

You must have a selective memory? Or is it Spencer that has not well equipped you to argue this point? Perhaps both....

"Such a long thread. I'll overlook the fallacious argument methods and stick to the factual errors:"

Spencer writes here:

"After the treaty was concluded, a woman of the Quraysh, Umm Kulthum, joined the Muslims in Medina; her two brothers came to Muhammad, asking that she be returned "in accordance with the agreement between him and the Quraysh at Hudaybiya." Muhammad refused because Allah forbade it: he gave Muhammad a new revelation: "O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and test them: Allah knows best as to their faith: if ye ascertain that they are believers, then send them not back to the unbelievers" (Qur’an 60:10).

In refusing to send Umm Kulthum back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the treaty. Although Muslim apologists have claimed throughout history that the Quraysh broke it first, this incident came before any treaty violations by the Quraysh."

END OF AUDACITY

The treaty clause was absolved at the request of the Meccan Pagan Quraysh before the massacre I noted that broke the treaty.

Shortly after the Treaty of Hudaybiya was signed, ‘Utba ibn Asid, known as Abu Basir, defected to Madina.

However, the Quraysh sent two men to demand his return. He was ordered by the Prophet to return under the conditions of the treaty. On their way back to Makka, Abu Basir escaped, killing one of the two men, and wounding the other. God’s Messenger did not admit him to Madina, in observing the terms of the Treaty. Abu Basir chose to settle at Iyss, a place on the road from Makka to Syria.

The Muslims held in Makka began to escape and join Abu Basir. The trade route of the Makkans was now under threat. This forced the Quraysh to apply to God’s Messenger to annul the relevant term of the treaty and requested him to admit the defecting Makkans to Madina.

I guess you had the audacity to exclude that little gem didn’t you?

What happened next?

That’s right…the Pagan Quraysh committed mass murder of an unarmed encampment of Muslims and violated the INTACT treaty as amended by both parties.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 18, 2008 3:21 PM

DenverRodeo

The "Greater Jihad" hadith comes to us

• marfu` (as a Prophetic saying),
• mawquf (as a Companion-saying), and
• maqtu` (as a Tabi`i-saying or later).

I. Marfu`

As a Prophetic saying this hadith has two similar wordings from Jabir:

1. "Some troops came back from an expedition and went to see the Messenger of Allah sallallahu `alayhi wa-Sallam. He said: "You have come for the best, from the smaller jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar)." Someone said, "What is the greater jihad?" He said: "The servant's struggle against his lust"(mujahadat al-`abdi hawah).

Al-Bayhaqi narrated it in al-Zuhd al-Kabir (Haydar ed. p. 165 §373 = p. 198 §374) and said: "This is a chain that contains weakness" (hadha isnadun fihi da`f). One might cautiously conclude from this that al-Bayhaqi himself does not consider it a forgery in view of his shart [ie. condition] that he does not narrate forgeries in any of his books except he indicates it.

"The Prophet upon him and his Family and Companions blessings and peace returned from one his expeditions and said: "You have come for the best. You have come from the smaller jihad to the greater jihad." They said, "What is the greater jihad, Messenger of Allah?" He said: "The servant's struggle against his lust."

Al-Khatib narrated it in Tarikh Baghdad (13:493=13:523).

One of the chain of narrators in this hadith was called into question as unreliable.

The hadith in its meaning is confirmed by the Qur'an and established reports, at least two of them explicit in the preference of the mujahada or jihad of the ego over any other type but without using the specific term "jihad akbar".
Abu Hatim al-Asamm (p. 286)

As for Ibn al-Qayyim then haddith wala haraj, he goes on and on about the jihad of the ego as the "prime" (al-muqaddam) and "most obligatory" (al-afraD) jihad in al-Fawa'id, Zad al-Ma`ad, al-Ruh, Ighathat al-Lahfan....But neither he nor his teacher uses the term "al-jihad al-akbar".

Imam Nawawi lectured on it as Spiritual Striving (Mujahada), and did not call it “Greater Jihad”, although the meaning is the same.

On Striving (Mujahada) = Jihad Al-Nafs, Jihad Al Akbar, Greater Jihad, same meaning

Allah Almighty says, "As for those do jihad in Our Way, We will guide them to Our paths. Truly Allah is with the good-doers," (29:69) and the Almighty says, "And worship your Lord until whay is Certain comes to you." (15:99) The Almighty says, "Remember the Name of your Lord, and devote yourself to Him completely," (73:7) and the Almighty says, "Whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it" (W99:8; H99:7) The Almighty says, "Whatever good you send ahead for your yourselves, you will find it with Allah as something better and as a greater reward." (W73;18; H73:20) The Almighty says, "Whatever good you give away, be Allah knows it." (W2:272; H2:273)

Yet, Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda mentioned in his marginalia on al-Lacknawi's al-Ajwibat al-Fadila (p. 156 bottom) that his teacher Shaykh Ahmad al-Ghumari authored a monograph titled Tahsin al-Khabar al-Warid fil-Jihad al-Akbar ("The Fair Grade of the Extant Report on the Greater Jihad") - presumably from an isnad standpoint.

II. Mawquf

As a Companion-saying Ibn Rajab attributes something similar to `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As in Sharh Hadith Labbayk (p. 128) but without chain nor reference.

III. Maqtu`

1. As a Tabi`i-saying this report is narrated as a statement of the brilliant Tabi`i Imam of Palestine Ibrahim ibn Abi `Abla by al-Nasa'i in his Kuna as mentioned by al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal (2:144); Ibn Hajar in Tasdid al-Qaws, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (1:142), and al-Kafi al-Shaf fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Kashshaf (p. 114); and al-Zayla`i, op. cit.

Al-Dhahabi in the Siyar (Fikr ed. 6:486) says Muhammad ibn Ziyad al-Maqdisi said it was the habit of Ibrahim to address whoever came back from ghazu with that phrase. (Also among his sayings: "Whoever carries strange and unusual knowledge carries much evil.")

2. As an Atba`-saying al-Bayhaqi also narrates it in al-Zuhd from Ibrahim ibn Ad-ham (p. 152)

3. and Abu Hatim al-Asamm (p. 286).

Ibn Taymiyya himself leaves no doubt as to the fact that jihad al-nafs comes first and is the precondition sine qua non of military jihad as he states it in and as related from him by Ibn al-Qayyim toward the very end of Rawdat al-Muhibbin: "I heard our Shaykh say, 'The jihad of nafs and hawa is the foundation of jihad of the disbelievers and hypocrites; one cannot do jihad of them before he first does jihad of his nafs and hawa, then he goes out and fights them.'"

As for Ibn al-Qayyim then haddith wala haraj, he goes on and on about the jihad of the ego as the "prime" (al-muqaddam) and "most obligatory" (al-afraD) jihad in al-Fawa'id, Zad al-Ma`ad, al-Ruh, Ighathat al-Lahfan.... But neither he nor his teacher uses the term al-jihad al-akbar.

So yes, there is a question on one of the narrators in the chain of this hadith that prevented some scholars grading it higher, but the fact remains the concept of the greater struggle is in every thing that Islam teaches and it is the first and greatest struggle one as a Muslim must engage in.

To abandon the greater jihad it is to abandon Islam.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 18, 2008 4:16 PM

Abdullah,

Thank you for your illumination on the "Greater Jihad", especially your candor regarding the isnads.

Regarding the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Bukhari has reportedly records the treaty as:

"In the name of God. These are the conditions of Peace between Muhammad, son of Abdullah and Suhail Ibn 'Amr the envoy of Mecca. There will be no fighting for ten years. Anyone who wishes to join Muhammad and to enter into any agreement with him is free to do so. Anyone who wishes to join the Quraish and to enter into any agreement with them is free to do so. A young man, or one whose father is alive, if he goes to Muhammad without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish, he will not be returned. This year Muhammad will go back without entering Mecca. But next year he and his followers can enter Mecca, spend three days, perform the circuit. During these three days the Quaraish will withdraw to the surrounding hills. When Muhammad and his followers enter into Mecca, they will be unarmed except for sheathed swords which wayfarers in Arabia always have with them."

Questions:

1) Do you deny that Mohammad refused to return Umm Kulthum, or if you contend it was acceptibly not covered under the agreement, what is the support for your opinion?
2) Where might I find reference for Mohammad's exclusion of Abu Basir, and the amendment of the treaty?
3) What is your source for the side agreement clause regarding allies?
4) What is your source for "…the Pagan Quraysh committed mass murder of an unarmed encampment of Muslims"? Specifically, three items:
a) that the Quraysh signatories were legitimately responsible for the actions of the Banu Bakr ibn Abd Manat.
b) that it was the Banu Bakr that attacked first (I've seen several Islamic sources that don't say who attacked first)
c) that the Khuza'a were "encamped Muslims" when sources state that they were a recent ally of the Muslims, and that the Quraysh were aware of this new relationship
c) that all recourse by the Religion of Peace® had been exhausted in trying to satisfy justice, but still maintain Peace, and that this was not just a pretext for fulfilling Mohammad's "prediction" that the treaty would bring much booty immediately after ratifying it?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 18, 2008 5:39 PM

Concerned Citizen,

I will definitely get back to you on that subject.

Your communication is appreciated as well as your cnador. Hopefully Mo Foe will return to the table and keep "talking".

I have a community iftar to attend so be patient...or you could finally (sigh) send me that "Agent 99 Maxwell Smart" e-mail to challengingreddyneck@yahoo.com.

I will post the response here on a blog page as well.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 18, 2008 5:57 PM

Abdullah, your seemingly complicated cut-and-post tries to obfuscate two important things:

I. the evidence

1. the hadith of greater jihad in terms of Prophetic saying, which is the most important type of saying, has only two instances, and one is weak and the other unreliable.

2. the hadith of greater jihad is not found in any of the six sahih hadith collections.

To erect this hadith into some overarching principle of Islam is ridiculous.

II. the logic

Even if it could be proved that the greater jihad idea is prominent in Islam, that doesn't take away the danger of the other type of jihad and its inspiration for Muslims to attack people all over the world, beheading, kidnapping people in the Philippines and driving out Christian families from their houses, beheading & shooting Thai Buddhists (some of them elderly and female) and burning down girls' schools there, the thousands of atrocities in Pakistan and Kashmir and Bangladesh over the years, attacking Christians in Indonesia, Muslim commando gangs slitting the throats of whole families in Algeria just because they are not praying 5 times a day etc., the jihad in the Sudan, the jihad in Somalia where men and women dancing in public or just possessing CDs and DVDs where physically punished, not to mention all the terror attacks we have seen over the past quarter century; and on and on in dozens of other countries.

The logic of the greater/lesser jihad is like this analogy:

Imagine a gang that went around sodomizing and murdering little girls. This gang also collects money and donates to orphan hospitals and the homeless. A defender of this gang points to evidence in the gang's texts and speeches to show that their value of charity to the poor is "greater", and that their other activity of sodomizing and murdering little girls is just a "lesser" activity. Would this make this gang any less dangerous and less criminal? Of course not.

(In fact, this analogy is not exactly perfect, because the idea of a "greater jihad" in Islam is a kind of psychological training to become more brainwashed and fanatical, and thus more readily able and eager to engage in jihad based in qital and seeing Unbelievers as enemies who spread Fitna and Fasad and Shirk on Allah's Earth, and who therefore have to be fought against militarily as well as in other ways.)

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 18, 2008 6:31 PM

DenverRodeo,

I know and live and breath like air the things you hardly look at in a drive by kind of way.

“I. the evidence”

I gave it to you from multiple scholars providing their reference on the material.

“1. the hadith of greater jihad in terms of Prophetic saying, which is the most important type of saying, has only two instances, and one is weak and the other unreliable.”

You miss the forest for the trees.

The whole of the religion is the forest = greater Jihad [ mujahada, al-jihad al-akbar, "prime" (al-muqaddam) and "most obligatory" (al-afraD) jihad in al-Fawa'id].

But you’re hung up on the one tree in front of you, al-jihad al-asghar = lesser jihad.

Quran + The Whole of Islam, and 7,300+ hadiths versus the 199 hadiths you are hung up on.

Mujahada contains everything, and the lesser jihad is a tiny part of it.

“II. the logic”

“Even if it could be proved that the greater jihad idea is prominent in Islam”

That was what I just did.

“In fact, this analogy is not exactly perfect”

Yeah, far from it.

Not much point proving things to a you…you seem to base all your decisions on emotion…kind of hysterical...not much on following referenced research are you?

But, hey, I bet you did great in shop class.

Ciao

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 18, 2008 10:32 PM

But you’re hung up on the one tree in front of you, al-jihad al-asghar = lesser jihad.

Quran + The Whole of Islam, and 7,300+ hadiths versus the 199 hadiths you are hung up on.

Mujahada contains everything, and the lesser jihad is a tiny part of it.

Abdullah,

This isn't an issue of quantity of text, though I am adamant in my disagreement with your second sentence. The Center for the Study of Political Islam has documented the same ad nauseum. The Qur'an and Sira are downright obsessed with the infidel, nearly always negative.

Again, Bill Warner of CSPI:

At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

I admire what you're trying to do (if, and only if, you are also trying to convince Muslims). But facts are facts: This "tiny" lesser jihad has left a huge pile of dead bodies, approximately 270 million over 14 centuries. This is something appropriate to be "hung up on". Please don't further minimalize this.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 18, 2008 10:45 PM

Concerned Citizen,

It's a bit long, but I think you'll agree its worth reading once you've finished.

"Questions:"

“1) Do you deny that Mohammad refused to return Umm Kulthum, or if you contend it was acceptibly not covered under the agreement, what is the support for your opinion?”

I don’t deny it, read the treaty:

“A young man, or one whose father is alive, if he goes to Muhammad without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish, he will not be returned..”

Every single man that tried to go from Mecca to join Mohammad as a Muslim was returned to the custody of the Quraish or fled upon hearing he had to return to them.

I don’t “have an opinion” about it, I produced the evidence that there was a mutual agreement by both parties on that issue and contend that both parties agreed to modify the treaty in respect to that section.

”2) Where might I find reference for Mohammad's exclusion of Abu Basir, and the amendment of the treaty?”

Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 3 Hadith 891

”3) What is your source for the side agreement clause regarding allies?”

There is no “side agreement” the Khuza’a accepted Islam and prayed, the Banu Bakr rejected Islam and chose Pagan Idolotry with the Quraysh:

Citation:(Ibn Hisham, Vol. II, p. 390)

The treaty of Hudaybiyyah gave an option to everyone to enter into alliance with the Prophet of God (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) and arrive at a similar agreement with the Quraysh.

Accordingly, Banu Bakr preferred to conclude a pact ( A.* ) with the Quraysh while Banu Khuza’a entered into an alliance with the Messenger of God (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam). (Ibn Hisham, Vol. II, p. 390)

Citation (Zad al-Ma'ad, Vol. p. 419 and Ibn Hisham, Vol. II, p. 390)

Banu Bakr and Banu Khuza’a had a long-standing feud since the pre-Islamic days. With one of these tribes aligning itself with the Muslims and the other with the pagans, their mutual hostility was further intensified. In fact, both tribes had made alliances with the two respective parties with no other consideration except to have their revenge upon the other.

After the establishment of the armistice, Banu Bakr tried to take advantage of it against Khuza’a and, in league with certain persons, made a night attack on their enemy when it had taken up quarters at a spring. There was a fight between the two in which Banu Khuza’a lost a number of their men.

( B.** ) The Quraysh helped Banu Bakr with weapons while their chiefs, taking advantage of the night, fought Banu Khuza’a along with Banu Bakr. Their combined charge drove Banu Khuza’a into the sacred territory where some of the Qurayshite said to one another: “We are now in the sacred area. Mind your Gods! Mind your Gods! But the others replied imprudently: “We have no God today. Take your revenge, O son of Bakr, for you may not get a chance again."(Zad al-Ma'ad, Vol. p. 419 and Ibn Hisham, Vol. II, p. 390)

Citation (Zad al-Ma'ad, Vol. p. 420 and Ibn Hisham, Vol. II, p. 395-6)

‘Amr b. Salim al-Khuza’a went to the Prophet in Madinah and informed him how the Quraysh had violated their pledge. He asked the Prophet to extend his help by virtue of the treaty of alliance between him and Banu Khuza’a. He swore that the Quraysh had annulled the treaty with the Prophet by attacking his allies when they were at their well and had not spared their lives ( C.*** ) even when they were performing prayers. After listening to his complaint, the Prophet replied, “You will be helped, O ‘Amr b. Salim.”

(D.****)The Prophet then sent a man to Makkah in order to get a confirmation of the affair and also to allow the Quraysh to redress the wrong committed by them. The Prophet offered three alternatives before the Quraysh. They should either pay the blood money for the victims of Banu Khuza’a or terminate their alliance with the aggressors belonging to Banu Nifasa or Banu Bakr, but failing these they shall get in return what they had done.

The terms were relayed to the Quraysh but in the fit of their pride they replied, “Yes, we would prefer measure for measure.” The Muslims were thus absolved of their undertaking with the Quraysh and it became incumbent upon them to exact justice for the wrong done to their allies. (Zad al-Ma'ad, Vol. p. 420 and Ibn Hisham, Vol. II, p. 395-6)

”4) What is your source for "…the Pagan Quraysh committed mass murder of an unarmed encampment of Muslims"? Specifically, three items:

a) that the Quraysh signatories were legitimately responsible for the actions of the Banu Bakr ibn Abd Manat.

b) that it was the Banu Bakr that attacked first (I've seen several Islamic sources that don't say who attacked first)

c) that the Khuza'a were "encamped Muslims" when sources state that they were a recent ally of the Muslims, and that the Quraysh were aware of this new relationship

c) (sic d.)that all recourse by the Religion of Peace® had been exhausted in trying to satisfy justice, but still maintain Peace, and that this was not just a pretext for fulfilling Mohammad's "prediction" that the treaty would bring much booty immediately after ratifying it? “

It is as easy as A, B, C., D….

a) is answered above ( A.* )
b) is answered above ( B.** )
c) is answered above ( C.*** )
d) is answered above (D.**** )

In summary:

The Khuza’a were at the well encamped at night and making prayers when attacked.

The Banu Bakr were aided by the Quraysh with men and arms.

The Khuza’s were unarmed and in the act of worship praying…they were overrun and slaughtered as a result.

Even after that the Prophet made all due dillignece to establish justice through peaceful negotiation and maintain the treaty…
the Quraysh rejected.

End of story…10,000 Muslims marched to a virtually bloodless victory...I think like twenty Pagans initiated a fight and were killed.

Good exchange, thanks.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 18, 2008 11:52 PM

Concerened Citizen,

You complain that I minimalize then you refer to the most grand minimalization of all, Bill Warner and his opinion about the Quran and the Sira.

You can not reduce the Quran and the Sira to a percentage quantification and have any meaning at all the way you just stated it.

And you write as though the only deaths through military and political expansion for the past 1,400 years were through Muslims. How many deaths among Muslims alone occurred during that 1,400 years period as a result of oppression and attacks of aggression from outside of the faith?

This is a human condition, Muslims don’t own it. Establishing security and borders will always be an issue with humanity. Every nation does it because that is the way it is.

Now consider how many deaths are attributed to secular interests alone in just part of the last century?

Caualty figures from WWI and WWII Korea, Vietnam, range from 95,202,000 to 115,482,000, that’s an error of huge proportion considering how accurate our records should be that close to the event.

And you propose that I accept, just off the cuff, some mythical number spanning 1,400 years?

I have little faith in the accuracy of that projection based upon discrepancies in casualty figures of current wars in the last century, which I note spanned only 55 years.

Well, let’s assume it’s correct, shall we, for the sake of oversimplifying this issue so you can see the absurdity in your supposition.

If we assume rates of death due to secular violent “jihad” it is 2,100,000 deaths per year over the period noted.

While the “jihad” related deaths you point to are only 193,000 per year…over a much longer period of time, yes secular war has proven to be the scourge of humanity far worse than any “jihad” related conflicts…period.

Now that we are finished throwing around spectacular numbers, some of them absurd to consider as accurate, let’s focus on productive discussion about things we can control, myself and yourself, and those we come into contact through our mutual behavior with them.

Agreed?

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 19, 2008 12:52 AM

Abdullah, your response to me didn't refute anything I said. Try better next time.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 19, 2008 2:05 AM

A. M. wants us to think that Islam is wonderful.

Then how come, in Islamic countries, THIS sort of thing happens? And it is done by Muslims, to non-Muslims; and they are allowed to get away with it, by the Muslim authorities, rather than being pursued and punished.

in Pakistan

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12750&geo=2&size=A

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=lead&lang=en&length=long&idelement=&backpage=&critere=&countryname=&rowcur=

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022045.php
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=122&id=15847&t=Christian+girls+forced+to+convert+to+Islam

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022635.php#comments

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13179&size=A

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022734.php
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75437

And in Egypt:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001302.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007855.php

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63831A66-EA3B-4110-A247-F0A7A77480DF

And in Bangladesh:

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&lang=en&length=long&idelement=5368&backpage=summaries&critere=&countryname=&rowcur=

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 19, 2008 2:34 AM

Abdullah,

Since you don't like Warner, you may refer to his references:

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/tears-of-jihad/

Africa
Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
120 million Africans

Christians
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
60 million Christians

Hindus
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
80 million Hindus

Buddhists
Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]
10 million Buddhists

Jews
Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.

This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

Despite what you say about "borders and boundaries that must be respected", I think it is an unconscionable carnage that appears by outside observers, and most inside observers, to be sacrally sanctioned.

Bring all the "Old Testament" verses you care, they were not, and are not assumed to be, perpetual mandates. No statistically minute fraction of activists and statistically large proportion of agreeable, though passive, followers exists in the JudaeoChristian tradition to effect such a carnage, whether you dispute its exact magnitude or not (though, please, feel free to interact with Warner's references). Unfortunately, Islamic sources also report large numbers of casualties.

And I think it is, at best, unbecoming of a religious figure to have been responsible for such, or to be so imperspicuous in his teachings to be so misunderstood, especially while claiming to cry for "Peace".

"Agreed?"

Actually, no. Unless we are agreed that there is a jihad related problem, and addressing it is a principle concern, it would be unclear from what we should "control ourselves".

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 19, 2008 8:04 AM

Concerned Citizen,

We got sidetracked by the DenverRodeo issue,

I am more interested in your response to this:

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah?

"It's a bit long, but I think you'll agree its worth reading once you've finished."

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 18, 2008 11:52 PM

Comments?

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 19, 2008 9:30 AM

Concerned Citizen,

One last word on the casualty figures:

"I have little faith in the accuracy of that projection based upon discrepancies in casualty figures of current wars in the last century, which I note spanned only 55 years."

I find it very hard to accept any figure as accurate about battle casualties from that time span.

Suffice to say war is a mechanism of state, some take their initiative from consensus majority rule, some take their authority from God to the right of self defense.

It is highly likely that, since the passage of the last Prophet, all leaders have abused that principle in one way or another over the course of human history since that time 1,400 years ago.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 19, 2008 9:45 AM

Ignore my post, muslim?

Chicken sh*t.

Posted by: CGW at September 19, 2008 12:59 PM

Abdullah,

Suffice to say war is a mechanism of state, some take their initiative from consensus majority rule, some take their authority from God to the right of self defense.

It is highly likely that, since the passage of the last Prophet, all leaders have abused that principle in one way or another over the course of human history since that time 1,400 years ago.

1) Conquering continents in not self defense. The conquests began under Mohammad, while he was still alive. Clinging to all of these conflicts being "defensive" is clearly disingenuous.

2) a) Abuse of Principle and b) by the Will, Mandate, and Authority of God, are incompatible constructs. Conquering of new territories is either sanctioned under Islam, or not, and if so, the Principle is not Abused, the principle is merely abusive, reflecting negatively upon the "sanction" and "sanctioning" authority.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 19, 2008 1:12 PM

Concerned Citizen,

Let's adress the global empires and expansionism on another day, agreed?

I am still very interested in your opinions on this:

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah?

"It's a bit long, but I think you'll agree its worth reading once you've finished."

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 18, 2008 11:52 PM

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 19, 2008 1:26 PM

Conquering conquests = violent, bloodletting, offensive, and politically motivated, conquering conquests

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 19, 2008 1:26 PM

What do I think?

Do you mean do I think that you have justified Mohammad's actions regarding the treaty of Hudaibiyyah, that he was righteous in all of his actions, and that the after effects have all been positive?

"This may be a bit long..."

I think that Mohammad stirred dissension in Mecca for several years, and that the Quraysh were quite tolerant for the most part, respecting his relationship with Abu Lahab, but rightfully intent on maintaining their established order. They even offered him leadership positions in attempt to forestall the developing conflict, yet he found this unsatisfactory, because it did not include either voluntary or involutary conversions of the Quraysh to Islam. As tensions increased, Mohammad left for Yathrib (by invitation) to take advantage of the anti-Jewish political climate and local desire for an anti-Semitic religious leader to oppose the more prosperous Jewish citizenry. Now with political and especially martial allies, the newly invigorated Mohammad became even more intolerant of opposition, and began assassinating critics, raiding caravans and small towns for financial gain. This increased his political reach, and generated a violent reputation that discouraged challenge. It is this emigration, the hijra, not the purported initiation of revelations from Gabriel, not the days of supposedly pre-Mohammadan Islamic witnesses, that marks the beginning of Islam per the Islamic calendar. The revered genesis was the blood bath that began in Yathrib (Medina).

Increasingly adept in politics, Mohammad had learned what modern politicians have only recently rediscovered. Victimhood sells. But Mohammad had also learned that at least in his contemporaneus Arabian culture, he could popularly justify doing anything by claiming it was retributive (put a bookmark here, I will come back to this), especially if there was material and even divine reward offered. For example, despite reeking havoc upon the multicultural, peaceable Quraysh, Mohammad portrayed that he had been forcibly displaced without cause, and that the Quraysh had "stolen" his posse's abandoned possessions, and were taunting the ummah by carrying off the items as booty for sale. The Muslims drew first blood, tactically ambushing their former friends, neighbors and even family. Of the first encounters, one of the Quraysh even stated, "I do not want to fight you, my brother." The Mohammadan response was, "But I do want to kill you." And he did. This from the purported Religion of Peace®.

With this prelude, Mohammad's request to return to Mecca for the pre-Islamic (jahiliyya) traditional pilgrimage to Mecca was particularly outrageous and provocative. Following Mohammad's treachery at the Battle of Badr and the butchery of the treatment of the Qurayzah, for the Quraysh to even consider it, had to be based on a sincere love of peace and enduring hope of reconciliation (sul-ha). Of course, the Quraysh would want to negotiate the terms for their own safety, and the preservation of their reponsibilities as an inclusive religious center. There is no indication that Mohammad was grateful. In fact, he saw it as an opportunity to ravage the Quraysh's resources, and gain in his mind the crown jewel of the region: Mecca itself. His duplicity and ingratitude here is beyond comprehension in contemplating someone supposedly a "prophet" or a "man of peace".

At this juncture, I have to refer to a prior discussion. It may be that the Hanifi's in the 9th century invented the terms "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb". But as previously noted, identical ideas and synonymous phrases (dar al-salam and dar al-kufr) are in the Qur'an and the concepts were concretely Mohammadan. You betray this in your response above, of which you hope I'll be impressed. By your admission, the Khuza'a, by mere virtue of the shahada, were entitled to the privileges of the treaty. But you excuse Abu Basir and his band of escaped Muslim rogues as exempt from the treaty, while demanding Banu Bakr ibn Abd Manat be associated with the Quraysh by mere virtue of rejecting Islam, as though included in dar-al-kufr or dar-al-Islam. So Mohammad has a rogue associate reeking havoc on the Quraysh (Abu Basir), breaking the treaty with impunity, but later, the Quraysh has the exact same problem, and the fractured treaty is the Quraysh's fault?

Let's be very clear here: Basir's Mohammadan bunch conducted ghazwahs against Mecca itself from outlying camps, and were obligated signatories by your definition. Mohammad declared himself innocent since they were not in or from his territory (Medina). The Banu Bakr had a weak association with the Meccan Quraysh, and attacked an outlying camp of supposed recent Muslim converts (the Khuza'a), but not Medina. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

The above is trivial, however, compared to the fact that Mohammad did not acknowledge the fracture on both sides and did not try to further repair the treaty, but demanded unilateral compliance with bloodmoney from the Quraysh. Not exactly the long-suffering social servitude we have come to expect from prophets. How is it that Mohammad felt he had the RIGHT to enter Mecca after all that he had caused to transpire before and after the treaty? Why was it that abrogating the treaty HAD to lead to WAR led by the "prophet"? This is the model of a secular leader, not a religious figure, and this is the enduring pattern set by Mohammad, propagated by all of his votaries, that they can NEVER accept offense without retribution.

And AGAIN, the biggest puzzle of all, why was Mohammad, before any alleged treaty violation, literally while the ink was still drying, claimed the treaty would bring the Muslims "much booty"? This does not smack of "prophecy", but of plotting and pretense. Cunning? Yes. Conscientious? No.

So, no, we cannot displace "address[ing] the global empires and expansionism" until another day. It is the crux of the current discussion. Empire expansion is not defense of "borders and boundaries". Mohammad displayed naked, despicable, premeditated ambition. The Western world is at least beginning to come to terms with its abuses, even excessively taking responsibility for things which were, for the most part, justified (e.g. the Crusades, a response to centuries of Muslim agression). When, oh when, is the Muslim world going to introspect and determine that much of what Mohammad did was and is inappropriate to emulate?

But Mohammad had also learned that at least in his contemporaneus Arabian culture, he could popularly justify doing anything by claiming it was retributive,

This isn't 7th century Arabian culture, and Mohammad, if to be revered as a "prophet" has to be accountable to timeless standards. He was not a merciful man of peace when he attacked the Meccan caravan from Syria, beheaded the Qurayzah, ordered the elimination of the Jews from the Arabian penisula, and set his designs upon the Byzantine and Persian empires. Your unwillingness to discuss the atrocities and casualties of Muslim imperialism (even positively trumpeting Al-Andalus!) outside of comparisons to secular regimes betrays the lack of foundation of these initiatives on sound theology. They can't be justified theologically, especially in terms of peace (sul-ha not salaam), benevolence, or mercy befitting those (including and especially Mohammad) supposedly led by diety. The universal Islamic apologetic of minimalizing the numbers or the significance betrays a lack of collective Muslim conscience. So, try as you might to persuade that Islam isn't these things, didn't really do these things, or somehow isn't responsible for these things, just adds to the impression that you not only shed no tear, but implicitly approve. Face it, Abdullah, you are an apologist. You're not debating these topics, you are adjudicating them as an advocate and propagandist. No matter what Islam has done over 14 centuries, you will defend it. When you can't, out comes the "infirmities of humanity" bogie man to blame, and abundant tu quoque.

We are to believe that all of the ulema are put to shame by you, and that you alone have found the true Islam that they have all missed. If you had claimed to be a reformer, it could be excused; but no, you call for renaissance and more fastidious shari'ah. You claim your pronouncements are not ijtihad, but the long lost taqlid. Unfortunately, Mohammad and his actions remain and you are stuck with him.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 21, 2008 4:12 PM