| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Daniel Pipes opines that this could be the very worst article on Islam, and with good reason: "It has every platitude, inaccuracy, and banality in the book, from mistranslating the word Islam to getting the number of Muslims in the United States wrong to that hoary business about "A Muslim can't be a terrorist, and a terrorist can't be a Muslim."
To those I would add that this article also purveys nonsense about the position of women in Islam and Islam's view of Christianity.
"Islam: a religion based on peace," from USC's Daily Trojan:
What is the second-largest religion in the United States?Islam. And what is the nation's fastest-growing religion? You guessed it. The Islamic movement is on the rise, and its presence is alive and flourishing at USC."Prophet Muhammad prophesized that Islam would become the largest faith," said Karim Vidhani, president of the Muslim Students Association, and a junior majoring in computer science. "But it is also prophesized that there will be an increasing lack of knowledge about Islam, too."
Yes, the level of ignorance of Islam is astounding. Why, just look at this article itself -- here is this peaceful, nonviolent religion of women's rights, and what do we see in the world? Huge groups of people who are violent and oppress women -- and who dare to call themselves Muslims! The audacity! If only these huge numbers of Muslims realized that they had fallen victim to an "increasing lack of knowledge about Islam"! Muhammad foresaw it all!
The Muslim Students AssociationVidhani and the MSA, which describes itself as an association that "strives to educate Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam," are intent on moving forward. "We have many goals," Vidhani said. One of those goals is called dawah, which means informing non-Muslims about Islam.
"We hold lectures, hand out flyers, pamphlets and basically just tell people about our faith on campus," Vidhani said. "We welcome questions about our faith; Islam is not a faith that is without answers."
A religion of peace?
Yet some might have the question: Is Islam a religion of peace? "The word Islam means peace in Arabic," said Murat Surucu, a doctoral candidate in biomedical engineering and president of Muslim Students for Dialogue, an organization that helps promote Islamic understanding and interfaith dialogue. "A Muslim can't be a terrorist, and a terrorist can't be a Muslim. So people who want to terrorize people ... either don't know Islam or think they are doing something in benefit of Islam, but, in fact, they are not. They are only damaging Islam."
Aliha Khan, a Muslim and graduate student in electrical engineering, said it's also wrong to say that Islam was spread by violence or force. For example, Indonesia, the most populace Muslim nation in the world, was not converted to Islam through force but, rather, through choice. "And it's the same way in South Asia," she said. "You can't be forced to accept Islam; the desire has to come from you."...
Women and Islam
Yolanda Solis, an adviser to MSA and administrative assistant for the computer science program, said one of the biggest misconceptions about Islam is that the status of women is lower than men.
"There is a high level of importance given to women in Islam," Solis said.
"In a lot of religions in their early foundations, women were either unwanted at birth or a great burden. In Islam women are not a great burden."
Women are actually considered an asset in Islam, Solis said. "There is even a part in the Quran where a follower asked the Prophet, 'Who should I respect after God?' And the Prophet said, 'Your mother, and after that, your mother, and after that your mother.' So basically he's telling you that your mom - a woman - is that most important (person)."
Khan said that some women even had a formative role in Islam. "For example, one of Mohammad's wives, Aisha, narrated thousands of sayings of the Prophet," said Khan. "Through her narrations, she contributed one-fourth of the hadiths (a compilation of Mohammad's sayings)."
Erin Moore, an anthropology professor who has studied Islamic cultures in other countries, said that the Christian creation story portrays the woman as the allurer who tempted the man while the Islam has a different account. "The Islamic (Adam and Eve) story is that they both fell together and realized their nakedness," she said. "And there is not something on blaming woman, and there isn't this thing about women as the temptress - that sexuality is OK, and men and women can enjoy each other in the right context."
Women of power: women who wear the hijab
Hijab means 'covering' in Arabic. Hijab can also go by other names, including headscarf or veil, said Fethiye Ozis, a doctoral candidate in environmental engineering.
Ozis, who has been wearing the hijab for six years, said it is nothing more than a sign of modesty to empower women.
"Hijab is a chance for a woman to express herself totally - to express her ideas - to express her identity and personality without being identified as a desirable sex object," she said. "The hijab lets women focus on what's important, what's inside."
Sporting a colorful hijab and pink shirt, Kamile Yuksek, a doctoral candidate in microbiology, said the main reason why she wears the hijab is because it is mentioned in the Quran: "O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested" (Quran 33:59).
You can't be forced to wear the hijab, Yuksek said. "Wearing the hijab is very personal, and wearing it has to come from you," she said. "You are allowed to take off your head scarf off if you are among women and your family: your husband, your father, your uncles, your brothers and your grandparents."
Solis said that she does not wear the hijab because she's a new convert, and it wouldn't feel right for her yet. "You should wear it only when it feels natural to you," Solis said. "I'm probably in a transitional phrase."
Moore said that when we see the headscarf or hijab, we shouldn't have just one interpretation of what that means. "Different individuals that veil have different reasons for veiling," Moore said.
Some people veil out of a sense of ethnic identity, said Moore. "(Veiling for them can be a way to say) 'I am Muslim. I want you to know it,'" Moore said. "Other people veil to tell men that, 'I'm a respectable person and to stay away from me if you're not respectable, too.' Others veil as a declaration against the domination of the West."
All in the family
Moore said that Christians often forget, though, just how similar they are to Muslims. For example, Christians and Muslims follow the same line of prophets and many of the same Old Testament stories. "We're really all related," Moore said. "We have this continuum, and maybe that's why we fight like siblings from the same nest," Moore said. "So I would just like Christians to realize that we are all brothers."
Never mind that little bit about Christians being under Allah's curse (Qur'an 9:30).
But then Jihad Watch reader JS sent in another article that gives that one stiff competition for the worst-ever article on Islam prize: "Jihad defined," from the Pioneer Times:
So what does the word jihad really mean? The Koran, (Muslims' holy book) defines jihad as, "the effort made to remove obstacles that stand between humanity and God."
I'd like to see a chapter and verse reference on that.
In the faith of Islam, jihad is not associated with terror, or hatred. It is not a declaration of a "Holy War."One cannot go any further without understanding the faith of Islam, the Muslim religion. The religion itself is misunderstood, as well as associated with terror and hatred.
The Muslim religion is a peaceful religion. The word Islam means submission to God, peace, security, and well-being; nothing to do with being a terrorist. In the words of the fame Turkish Imam/scholar, Fethullah Gulen, "In true Islam, terror does not exist."
Alas, we live in a world awash with false Islam! What are we to do?
And he is right terror does not exist in Islam, even in times of war. Islam is a faith that believes in killing an ant to be a major sin.
Hmmm. I have read the Qur'an innumerable times but I don't remember anything in it about killing ants. But those bits about killing unbelievers (2:191, 9:5, etc.) tend to stick in my mind.
Since the one who gives life and death is God, it is forbidden to kill. No one can take away the life that God has given. One cannot harm people who worship in God's house (i.e. churches, synagogues). The killing of innocent people is an unforgivable crime against humanity.Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), messenger of God, has demanded that non-Muslims be treated well.
"Those who ill-treat Christians and Jews will answer to me on judgment day. And those who do injustice to Christians and Jews will not be able to enter Paradise."
With the understanding of the Muslim religion, we now can understand the word jihad....
Jihad is not a scary word. The word is misunderstood and misused. A "Holy War" does not exist.
How about you? Got any candidates for The Worst Article on Islam of 2005? Send entries to director@jihadwatch.org.
Posted by Robert at April 23, 2005 7:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Yes, the article is nauseating. However, one must never forget that Muslims or so-called pseudo-Muslims, all read and get inspiration from the Koran, ahadiths, and Sira. They can't point fingers at one another from now until eternity, and that fact will never change. At any given moment a "moderate or peaceful Muslims" could have a moment on inspiration, a change of heart, and become one of the other, using the Koran and the rest as justification...
Posted by: epg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 23, 2005 9:01 AM
This article is indeed very bad, Robert, but it is real good compared with some articles I have read last year on the homepage of a Dutch politician, who is really one of the biggest fans of Islam in the world. Lucky for you it is in Dutch, so you can’t read the nonsense that's standing on the following page: www.anjameulenbelt.nl There is a small English section though, but that one is mostly about Palestine and not really about Islam, though it's still enough as a glimpse on the rhetoric of this Meulenbelt person.
Posted by: Nordthiad at April 23, 2005 9:05 AM
Can you imagine a glowing piece like this about Christianity in a university paper? No, me either. What gives with the enthrallment (is that a word?) of islam? Dumb,dumb, dumb.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 23, 2005 10:11 AM
^of course it's a word, my brain is still asleep^
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 23, 2005 10:13 AM
"A Muslim can't be a terrorist, and a terrorist can't be a Muslim. So people who want to terrorize people ... either don't know Islam or think they are doing something in benefit of Islam, but, in fact, they are not. They are only damaging Islam."
And so one must ask: Would What Sharia Do?
WWSD to those who "damage Islam" by terrorizing in its name? What is sharia doing about them now? We are all waiting....waiting....waiting...
"You can't be forced to accept Islam; the desire has to come from you."
And if a Muslim no longer desires to be a Muslim, can s/he choose to bail out freely? Or are they forced to stay in Islam? Check your nearest sharia penal code to see what it has to say about that.
Posted by: yadayada at April 23, 2005 10:16 AM
It so, so depressing to see educated women spouting such nonesense. Proof still that one can become ever so 'educated' and yet learn no critical thinking skills or skepticism. These Muslims in my university experience assiduously avoid disciplines in which they encounter contradictory thoughts or information. Engineering and computer science are very popular because they are free of things which might lead to self-critique and yet are richly paid professions. You create then a wealthy, but intellectually bankrupt class.
On the otherside you Americans worry so much about these articles because you tacitly admit how your countrymen are uninformed and easily led. The polls which show that a huge percentage of Americans believed a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 11 September attacks speaks for itself. I like Americans friendliness and ambition very much but an intellectual apathy (which I also see in Europe) makes many of you to readily accept the things you are told. You celebrate the 'common man' but fail to address his short-comings which are often ignorance and complacency. These articles you site play to this mindset, which sadly is the sign of a society in or on the verge of decline. In most of non-Muslim Asia an educated person views the media with skepticism. I suggest Americans relearn to disbelieve as a rule and only believe when evidence is forthcoming.
Posted by: kali at April 23, 2005 10:20 AM
If there was a death penalty for dishonest Muslim advocacy masquerading as reporting, this scumbag would be facing a flame thrower firing squad! Does anyone really believe this crap?
Posted by: Jakester at April 23, 2005 10:48 AM
Kali,
you have a good point. The average American is really ignorant, when even half the shows on the History channel concern themselves in cars or Hitler. It's pathetic that most of the people in the US couldn't even find Afghanistan on the map after 9/11. That's why we get upset at the silly biases of the media, which reflects ignorance more than some leftist plot!
at April 23, 2005 10:53 AM
Is there a possible connection with the author's assessment of "a growing ignorance" and the corresponding rise in Muslim membership?
Just a thought.
Otherwise, its all tripe.
Posted by: BigSleep at April 23, 2005 11:11 AM
Jakester, when I was in school geography was a required subject in elementary and middle school. Now, the kids spend so much time on "self esteem" and feel good history, there is no time to teach geography or much of anything of value. I ask the question, why have our schools become places of dumbing down? Read about education in the late 19th and early 20th century. It will amaze you what those children had to know. There has to be an agenda, but for the life of me ...I can not figure out who would benefit from an uneducated population. (Unless Pol Pot is making a curtain call.)
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 23, 2005 11:23 AM
Prizes should be given.
The "War Is Deception" Prize -- for a Muslim, especially one who is offering to presto-magico "reform" Islam.
The Roger Garaudy Prize -- for the Communist or quasi-Communist turned Muslim.
The Alois Brunner Prize -- for the Nazi turned Muslim.
The Noam Chomsky Prize -- for the crazed Western academic whose anti-American prism prevents him from seeing that Islam is akin to fascism, and distinguishing that real threat from the exaggerated ones he claims worry him.
The Pollyanna Prize -- for those who pooh-pooh the evidence of permanent changes to the earth's atmosphere as a result of fossil fuel use, a position that gladdens every Saudi and Arab heart, and that manages at the same time to postpone attempts to get off those fuels, which would have the twin benefits of rescuing the natura world from all sorts of perhaps irreversible natural catastrophes, and rescue the man-made world from the intellectual and moral catastrophe of Islam.
The Tom Friedman Prize -- for the most pretentious, ill-informed, and egomaniacal ("I have a theory") articles on Islam.
The Karen Armstrong Prize -- for the dumb Spiritual Searcher who has abandoned Christianity and, along they way, decided that Islam is an attractive alternative in every way, though so unfairly maligned, and that while it might not be just the ticket for her, she really must stand up and defend poor Muslims from the Judeo-Christian need of the European Crusaders to create "the Other."
The Scott Appleby Prize -- for the "Christian" who spends all of his time in "reachiing out" and "understading" Muslims, and deplores any and all Christians who just can't get the hang of what he regards as the beauty of Interfaith Dialogue.
The Weiss-Schwartz Prize -- for the Jewish or quasi-Jewish survivor of his own Long March or Spiritual Search, who ended up converting to Islam, and remains convinced, and has convince dothers,that his own private Islam is the real thing, and that he is he who must be obeyed. The prize should be awarded to those who exhibit at least some of the signs -- the form fruste of the illness will do -- of the Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome, described in a previous posting at Jihadwatch.
There are more prizes to be awarded on Prize Day, but that's enough for now. It would not do, at this point, to offend those who remain so certain that this "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations" Project in Iraq
1) makes sense because there is some kind of provable connection between "democracy" in the most primitive form and a diminishment of Islamic fervor
2) can have permanent, as opposed to temporary effects, on those going through the "democratic" motions 3) does not in fact postpone the day when Muslims themselves will have to see that it is Islam itself that explains their political, economic, social, and intellectual disarray and that they will have to constrain its power in political and social matters
3) does not cause Infidels to misallocate resources (men, money, materiel, attention, military and civilian morale) in a misugided effort to "solve" a "problem" that is not susceptible of solution, but is rather a condition, a state, that must be endured, and its effects minimized, even as one works to diminish the appeal of Islam to both Infidels (subject to aggressive campaigns of Da'wa) and to Muslims themselves.
4) fails to use the particular fissures in Iraq itself -- between Sunni and Shi'a, between Arab and non-Arab -- that are precisely those fissures that the Infidel powers ought to be exploiting rather than attempting to diminish.
Send in your nominations for these prizes. The best set of nominations will receive public recognition here at Jihadwatch.
Families and employees of Jihadwatch are not eligible to enter.
Posted by: Hugh at April 23, 2005 11:29 AM
That paper should be called the Trojan horse.
What the hell happened to investigative reporting ?
These things are published all the time they are advocacy propaganda smear campaigns .
Islam reputation for exploding on conflict has made America a fear society
Afraid to even look for the truth let alone speak it
at April 23, 2005 11:35 AM
'Alas, we live in a world awash with false Islam! What are we to do?'
Robert, you're getting funnier and funnier.
Adding to Hugh's list of prizes, how about:
The Tariq Ramadan prize for plausible wolf in sheep's clothing
The Yvonne Ridley prize for brain dead Stockholm syndrome
The George Galloway prize for leftist useful idiot
(Poetic justice that GG got duffed up and fatwa'd by a bunch of Islamofascists. Lie down with dogs and you get fleas.)
Posted by: Interested at April 23, 2005 11:43 AM
The Purdue University campus newspaper runs these types of articles every once in a while. For instance there is this gem describing "the true meaning of jihad." There are other articles that appeared shortly after 9/11 that are no longer electronically available which could have easily given these two articles a run for their money.
Posted by: Dilophos at April 23, 2005 12:06 PM
Add USC to your list of colleges which will not be getting your kids' tuition $$.
Posted by: 3812Michelle at April 23, 2005 12:07 PM
From Hugh's list, The Pollyanna Prize appears to be priority.
The initial containment of Islam would work best by limiting their petro dollar wealth.
Also, the realization that the only thing they offer the world is now NOT needed would certainly diminish the arrogance of those in the region.
The Saudi oil embargo in the early '70s was the best thing that happened to the USA.
Alas, how long and difficult for us to learn our lessons well.
Posted by: Skeet Street at April 23, 2005 12:17 PM
You know, people pick and choose what they want to believe in every religion. Just look at Christianity. There are thousands of different views within that one religion. For example, some use Christianity to support there hateful racist beliefs, while some believe that we are all brothers and sisters, regardless of skin color. There have been horrible bloody wars in the name of Christ, when anyone with a Bible could see that that would go against everything that Jesus Christ stood for.
My point is this: if there is a group of Muslims somewhere trying to teach peace to their fellow Muslims, why on earth would we want to belittle that?
I personally believe that religion is not necessary and maybe a hindrance to the evolution of mankind, but any way you slice it, the preaching of peace to those who may listen is a good thing.
at April 23, 2005 12:30 PM
Maybe islam should become known as the "religion of bullsh*t"..
Posted by: Just_Linda at April 23, 2005 2:41 PM
Could it be the stunning level of ignorance displayed by this article was influenced not so much by stupidity as by the level of THCs inhaled by the author???
My guess is that this article's author was 'stoned' out of his mind when he wrote it, and by this I do not mean shari'a-mandated 'stoning'...
Or maybe the guy wandered into this universe from a parallel universe where there could be, unlike our universe, some resemblance to reality in his article (and maybe where dishes and spoons sprout legs and run away together).
Posted by: pythagoras at April 23, 2005 2:43 PM
Must have been a slow day at the Trojan. This is just a silly little puff piece. This from USC, home of the undefeated 2004 football champions?
How can Muslims be allowed to prosthelatize? You would not see a puff piece like this about Christianity so why is there one about Islam?
Look at that picture of the two rughead students. They don’t look like football fans to me. Don’t picture them at the corner bar on game day throwing back some beers. They simply do not fit into American culture, let’s just make them go away, they are a real buzzkill.
at April 23, 2005 3:06 PM
For the record,Islam is a retro-active religion created by a misogynistic pedophile
that hijacked some parts of previous faiths
and pawned it of as the "True" religion of God.
I will never accept the claim that Christians are really Muslims,if you go back about 700 years before Muhammed you'll find another Prophet that warned of a "False Prophet" to come
that would promise peace but only bring wars and suffering.
Too bad for the Muslims,not only are they ignorant about the Quranic verses calling for slaying the infidels for Allah,they're clueless
about the life of Jesus and actually believe the tripe about a look alike "Fake" Jesus put on the cross to please the Jews.
Posted by: ala-sux
at April 23, 2005 3:08 PM
Oh hey Pythagoras, if I had known you where there I would have simply said beers instead of some beers or maybe changed it to a few beers or perhaps several beers or maybe it’s really just best to not be so formal and just say some, what do you think?
Posted by: Cross at April 23, 2005 3:17 PM
I wonder if they have heard this story?
One story recorded by a Spanish monk, Haedo, of the sixteenth century concerns a young Arab. He had been captured by the Spanish, had embaraced Christianty and been baptized as Geronimo. He was recaptured in 1569 by the Barbary pirates and taken to Algiers. When threats and pleadings failed to make him apostate back to Islam, Geronimo was condemned to death. Bound hand and foot, he was thrown into a mould in which a block of concrete was about to be made and the liquid concrete poured in upon him. The block containing his body was built into the FORT OF THE TWENTY FOUR HOURS in Algiers.
Bricking up human beings is a common punishment as prescribed by the Quran. In India, the children of the Sikh Gurus were bricked up because they did not accept Islam. Akbar, the Moughal emperor jealous of his son's affair with Anarkali had her bricked up as well.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 23, 2005 3:35 PM
A lot more stories of islamic barbarism,
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/loot.html
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 23, 2005 3:39 PM
This has to be posted:
Sahih Muslim, 217: "Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus if you kill, KILL WELL, & if you slaughter, SLAUGHTER WELL. Let each one of you sharpen his blade."
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 23, 2005 3:42 PM
There will be no poop in heaven:
Sahih Muslim Book 39, Number 6798, Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
I heard Allah's Apostle (pbuh) as saying that the inmates of Paradise would eat and drink but would neither spit, nor pass water, nor void excrement, nor suffer catarrh. It was said: Then, what would happen with food? Thereupon he said: They would belch and sweat (and it would be over with their food), and their sweat would be that of musk and they would glorify and praise Allah as easily as you breathe."
at April 23, 2005 3:50 PM
Carolyn2:
Re "Sahih Muslim, 217: 'Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus if you kill, KILL WELL, & if you slaughter, SLAUGHTER WELL. Let each one of you sharpen his blade.'"
Where did you get this? The online version of Sahih Muslim has this for #217:
"It is narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud that some people said to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him): Messenger of Allah, would we be held responsible for our deeds committed in the state of ignorance (before embracing Islam)? Upon his he (the Holy Prophet) remarked: He who amongst you performed good deeds in Islam, He would not be held responsible for them (misdeeds which he committed in ignorance) and he who committed evil (even after embracing Islam) would be held responsible or his misdeeds that he committed in the state of ignorance as well as in that of Islam."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0217
There are variants, so I am not saying yours is necessarily inauthentic. Where did you get it?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 23, 2005 4:22 PM
Carolyn 2:
'the inmates of Paradise would eat and drink but would neither spit, nor pass water, nor void excrement, nor suffer catarrh. It was said: Then, what would happen with food? Thereupon he said: They would belch and sweat (and it would be over with their food), and their sweat would be that of musk'
Ha ha ha!! 'They would belch and sweat'. Brilliant!!
Presumably the unbelievers in hell will be voiding and pissing and suffering catarrh for eternity, but wouldn't have the privilege of belching and sweating.
Not sure I'd want to go to heaven if it's full of belching, sweaty Muslims - get enough of that in Bethnal Green.
Posted by: Interested at April 23, 2005 5:25 PM
Robert,
Could this be the verse in question?
Book 021, Number 4810:
Shaddid b. Aus said: Two are the things which I remember Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Verily Allah has enjoined goodness to everything; so when you kill, kill in a good way and when you slaughter, slaughter in a good way. So every one of you should sharpen his knife, and let the slaughtered animal die comfortably.
at April 23, 2005 5:25 PM
Robert, I got the quote from an Indian site:
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/loot.html
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 23, 2005 5:25 PM
Carolyn and Skeet:
I think Skeet has found it.
Note that it is about slaughtering animals. This is a basis for halal slaughter regulations.
Of course, there are plenty of others that talk about slaughtering humans. I will have a few in my upcoming book.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 23, 2005 5:28 PM
And indeed Allaah has commanded that mercy be applied to every thing and in every action. So even when you slaughter you sacrificial animal, you show mercy to it by saying Bismillaah and by sharpening your sword (so that it will be a quick and painless death). The Prophet (sala Allahu `alihi was-Salaam) said:
"Verily Allaah has prescribed Ihsaan (goodness) for everything. So when you slaughter, then slaughter in a good manner, and when you kill (in war), then kill in a good manner. And let each of you sharpen his blade and let him spare the animal he slaughters from suffering."
http://www.islaam.net/main/display_article_printview.php?id=1380
Abu Ya'la Shaddad ibn Aws reported that the prophet said: "God has prescribed good practice in everything. Whenever you kill, do the killing properly; and whenever you slaughter, do the slaughtering properly. Let each of you sharpen his blade and make his victim comfortable."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2057464/
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 23, 2005 5:32 PM
It wasn't Sahih Muslim, 217 was it? The site is interesting, but I will compare with http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/ from now on.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 23, 2005 5:40 PM
The quote above was used in a misleading way on the site. Here is the entire quote:
"The quote above clearly states that Allah has ordered the Prophet to torture the Kafirs until they submit to Islam. And by ordering Muhammad he is ordering each and every muslim to do so as Mohammed is the true model which every muslim must strive for.
Sahih Muslim, 217: "Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus if you kill, KILL WELL, & if you slaughter, SLAUGHTER WELL. Let each one of you sharpen his blade."
Need I explain the above quote?? "
Yes, actually it should have been explained that it didn't mean slaughter of humans.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 23, 2005 5:59 PM
Here's one for the Karen Armstrong award. This passage is from near the bottem page of an article from a New Age website called the "Lucis Trust":
"There could be no World Religion, and no cease to the fighting as long as the Islam is not acknowledged as a religion worthy of the respect of the world population. Today, following the recent terrorism acts, most of the world regards the Islamic religion as a synonym for terrorism and aggression. The medias flood us with pictures of suicide bombings and fanatic worshippers of Islam, hence the link in most human minds. To end this false concept, we have to try to defend this religion as valuable, and show the Islam as a culture which prospered and upheld many a standard and most of the ancient knowledge when Europe sank into the barbarism of the Middle Ages. This would have 2 effects: it would disarm Islamic extremists, who couldn’t any more proclaim the one against all war, were their religion accepted, and would also help integrate Islam in the New World Religion. Here it is important that the Islamic worshippers are afraid that their religion will end up the same way as Christianity ended, seen by many as too worldly, and driven by greed, and this is the reason they are so fanatic, not to let their religion and belief fall prey to the western consumer society."
http://www.lucistrust.org/cycle/thoughts.shtml
BTW: The founder of the organization, Alice Bailey was a notorious antisemite. You can find out more about this side of Alice Bailey and other weirdos in this fascinating article:
"THE RAIN BOW SWAS TIKA: A REPORT TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE ABOUT NEW AGE ANTISEMITISM"
by Hannah Newman
http://philologos.org/__eb-trs/naE.htm
It exposes an aspect of the leftist-Islamist alliance many of us never imagined.
Posted by: Andrei Rublev at April 23, 2005 5:59 PM
The Rainbow Swastika article is really long, so let me just give you some key details. It appears that Hitler's racial theories have roots in the "theosophy" movement, a bizarre synthesis of Gnosticism, Hindism, Buddhism, and what not that stated about 100 years ago. Let me quote from the article:
"A few Atlanteans (the 2nd rootrace) survived the calamity which wiped out their civilization, in the process losing many of their spiritually advanced powers. For some unexplained reason, descendants from an "older, inferior root-race" also survived: the Jews."
A lot of New Agers really believe this crap (that is why racist creeps like David Icke have such a following from the left, as well as neonazis).
BTW: I'm not particularly religious, but I should like to point out that "Lucis" (from Lucis Trust) is short for Lucifer. How much more Satanic can you get!?
As Joe Bob would say "check it out."
at April 23, 2005 6:07 PM
Re: Andrei Rublev and theosophy
"...a bizarre synthesis of Gnosticism, Hindism, Buddhism, and what not..."
It is very, very late and I should get to bed, but this is really outrageous...I mean I usually just walk away from slanders of South Asian spirituality...but now someone wants to lay the blame for Nazism and Holocaust on Hindus, Buddhists and a tiny branch of Christianity. I am maybe naïve but this just shocks me that someone would write this; never before in my time in the UK or America have I come over such an article. And I thought Muslims were shameless in blaming others for their own crimes.
I am no Christian as you know, but even though Germans, Poles, etc. were almost all Christians I do know that Nazism and the long-standing anti-Semitism was not in the true spirit of Christianity. This Jewish fundamentalist woman's charges to blame 'New Age' philosophies and 'Eastern' faiths is just shameless. When have Buddhists or Gnostics ever done such attrocities? When have Hindus other than in our struggle aginst Islam (and I am NOT excusing Hindu violence which is deplorable and evil) used violence against other religions? There is nothing, nothing like the holocaust in our history and if there is shame to be borne for facism then it is not by us.
I hope no one here at JW takes this Rainbow Swastika business seriously. The author of Rainbow Swastika is the sort of lunatic who Karen Armstrong et al. can point to as the hateful European/American who must tear down 'the other'.
I don't want to get into the 'name game' as people have once done with my choosing of Kali (as opposed to the Hindu goddess I am actually named after) for my username. But I have seen the film Andrei Rublev and know it may be suspicious that a person claiming to be "not particularly religious" uses a conservative Russian Orthodox church figure. Just suggesting, I may be wrong.
p.s. The Hindu swastika (the sum extent of her evidence gainst us) was in the reverse direction of the Nazi one. The American Indians were also using the swastika. Are they responsible for the holocaust too?
at April 23, 2005 6:53 PM
Here's a link to something AS amusing as the wonderful information beginning this contest:
http://www.shianews.com/hi/talking_corner/topic_id/0000004.php
The standard party line, almost as if produced by a robot named KoranMan1138.
Posted by: BigSleep at April 23, 2005 7:15 PM
Chill out Kali. I'll admit I have not read the whole article by Ms. Newman, but I have used it as a reference for verifying information about the Helen Blavatsky and Alice Bailey, who developed and elaborated on the aforementioned theory of Atlantis, Aryans, and Jews (I don't think this has anything to do with the Eastern religions). I really doubt Ms. Newman is blaming Buddhism, Hinduism, and Gnostisism for the evil that is inherent to the theosophical movement (I should have put quotes around the word "synthesis")
I don't think you have to be religious to feel suspicious of an organization that names itself after a fallen angel. It suggests a cavalier disregard towards the concept of evil (very symptomatic of postmodernists like Karen Armstrong).
"Andrei Rublev" is my favorite movie because it is about the power of the human spirit during the worse of times.
BTW: I have also been to Tibet and taken many pictures of beautiful monasteries decorated with swastikas, and I don't think the Tibetans hate Jews
Posted by: Andrei Rublev at April 23, 2005 7:24 PM
Many years ago I went on a guided tour of the public parts of the Houses of Parliament. One of the halls, I forget which one has a series of paintings by a victorian artist. His idea of great themes in British history. And in one of the battles, it may have been Roman or Saxon, it was certainly meant to be very ancient, one of the warriors carried a flag with a swastika. This was remarked on, and the answer from the guide was that it was an ancient symbol common to various cultures. I have been told that the Three Legs of Man device is related, and shares the source of the sun wheel and it's rays.
The only thing I know about theosophy is from Galsworthy's The Forsyte Sagas when the character Fleur starts chanting something about "every day in every way I am becoming blah blah". Oh and that the founder was a Madame Blavatsky.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 23, 2005 7:31 PM
Response to alliebunny:
The difference is founded on several things: i) Christians and Jews have long (long) since abandoned all that. Muslims have not, and, it seems, never will; when confronted about their expansionst hatreds, there is a general reference to "defense from attack". Even if their religion were about "defense", you don't find the same in Christianity. "Turn the other cheek", not "cut the necks of the unbelievers".
This follows into point ii) violence is, in fact, integral to islam. In islam, one doesn't make war and murder in spite the teachings of islam, but in SUPPORT of them. I refer you to the central, core texts of islam: the hadiths (al-Bukhari in particular, also al-Muslim) and, of course, the Quran - especially Sura 9 but also elsewhere.
Ask yourself: by what real knowledge do Westerners assert that "Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all the same". I know you've heard of them referred to equally before; so have I. But on what basis of knowledge do we say this? What historical or liturgical precedent says "all three are equal"? (By note: I don't have any complaints about Judaism.) Ask yourself this, read the Quran and the hadiths, and then ask yourself to what extent the violent are really "misinterpreting" islam, and to what extent they're following it. Peace is fine - if you preach it all the time. But if when as the minority you preach peace and when in the majority you impose sharia, then there's a problem.
Peace and good luck,
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 23, 2005 8:03 PM
"But if when as the minority you preach peace and when in the majority you impose sharia, then there's a problem."
Funny how this habit parallels the life of Muhammad himself. He seems to have been a decent and honorable man while he was living in Mecca. It was only after he gained power in Medina that he went from Holy Prophet to Wholly Profit.
The adage that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" has few stronger confirmations than in the life of Muhammad.
Posted by: Ray C. at April 23, 2005 8:23 PM
The worst-ever article on Islam?
That depends on how one defines "worst".
Articles by muslims on the wonder of islam, or islam does not condone terrorism, are really quite transparent, and can be lighly dismissed.
In my view, the "worst" articles on islam would be ones that have some semblance of truth on islam, while couched within it, a few subtle lies that rationalised and excused islam. For instance, articles that posit the existence of 'moderate muslims'. That pre-supposes the existence of a moderate islam, and thus subtly conditions the ordinary reader to accept the existence of a moderate islam, when no such islam actually exists.
kali - Good post.
Posted by: DP111 at April 23, 2005 8:57 PM
Gee, I don’t know what to make of this, but I am really stunned that someone like myself, who has been a regular on this site since it began can be so suddenly be accused of "ulterior motives."
Let me quote from the article:
"New Age Religion is based on a blend of practically every religious and occult philosophy found in the world, rejecting only Torah-based Judaism and early (pre-Constantine, pre-gnostic, Judaic) Christianity."
Do you really believe this is an "indictment" of Eastern religion? You might as well accuse Newman of blaming "post-gnostic Christianity," which is pretty much what all Christians practice today. True, Judaism is not part of this stew, but that’s because theosophy (the mother of New Age religion) is inherently antisemitic, not because Newman wants to "absolve" Judaism.
Here is another quote with regards to Alice Bailey’s view of Lucifer:
"(Bailey) acknowledges that he led a "war in Heaven" when "some of the sons of God fell from their high estate." However, she dismisses the event as "a trifling incident" in cosmic terms, and urges us to "readjust your sense of values". Belderis concurs that people have overreacted to (Lucifer’s) fall: "And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness."
You don’t have to be a Christian to be upset about Bailey’s view of Lucifer. It reflects a mindset that scorns the concept of evil (the kind of people who are constantly ridiculing George Bush’s use of the "e" word).
Since I often defend Christianity, people often "accuse" me of being Christian. Maybe someday I will make that leap of faith, but among allies, I do not lie. I defend Christianity because I dread the postmodernist disaster that is killing Europe and threatening America.
Based on the Lucis Trust website, these people claim that all religions lead to God. Whether or not you believe in God, you know damn well that this mindset is both absurd and dangerous.
Whether or not Buddhism and Hinduism are more or less true than Christianity than Methodism or Orthodox Christianity are not my concern. All I know is that it was MUSLIMS that changed my outlook on the world after 9/11, AND I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH ANY RELIGION OR IDEOLOGY THAT STANDS IN THE WAY OF EXPOSING ISLAM.
Furthermore, antisemitism is a HUGE component of many Islam-friendly religion/ideologies. For this reason, I commend Hannah Newman for writing such a lucid and timely article.
at April 23, 2005 10:55 PM
"You don’t have to be a Christian to be upset about Bailey’s view of Lucifer. It reflects a mindset that scorns the concept of evil (the kind of people who are constantly ridiculing George Bush’s use of the "e" word)."
While I have some peoples attention I would like to show a relevent quote from my most recent article:
"Diana Eck is director of Harvard’s Pluralism Project. In a speech at the U.S. embassy in Malaysia in 2002, Eck claimed the U.S. was “part of the Muslim world”. She also equates a list of Islamic Society of North America guidelines for public schools that include separate classes for boys and girls and only male/female instructors for the respective group to demands that are commonly associated with Evangelical Christians. Consistent with her abysmal lack of perspective is her postmodernist criticism of the president for his use of the term “evil” to describe those responsible for 9/11; “The more we describe persons as ‘evildoers,’ and think we know what we mean, the more we alienate all the things that are abhorrent to us from our own understanding”. Strident multiculturalists like Diana Eck probably regard Islamist organizations like the ISNA as a welcome “counterweight” to the dreaded Christian Right."
http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/
at April 23, 2005 11:06 PM
No! moslems and Christians are not at all similar.Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel)and the Father of Jesus Christ, mankind's Saviour.moslems worship a blood thirsty P-A-G-A-N, that's pagan god. numbat
Posted by: numbat at April 24, 2005 1:07 AM
Nauseatingly bad article. Especially the section on Women. They spout this stuff at us, as if we were retarded or something, like we can't see the reality. Oh la di dah, things are so wonderful for women, yet we hear of FGM, honor-killings, spousal abuse, stoning of women who are raped but can't come up with the requisite reliable witnesses, etc. It's as if they expect us to ignore all that, or pretend like it doesn't exist. These people are insane. Islam brings on mental insanity, I'm sure of it.
at April 24, 2005 7:41 AM
" So people who want to terrorize people ... either don't know Islam or think they are doing something in benefit of Islam, but, in fact, they are not. They are only damaging Islam."
Translation- They are exposing the true islam and we have to lie to make people believe that islam is peaceful. Sleep, sleep while we break into your house and rob you blind and rape your daughters, then we will kill you before you wake.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 24, 2005 12:11 PM
To Andrei Rublev: Please don't take my 2nd post to be a personal attack, I meant and still intend my anger for the fanatic who wrote the article you sited. At 0400 in Chennai a mention of Hinduism and Buddhism in connection with the Holocaust (which I still assert is ridiculous) was just too much for me.
Still I cannot say this woman's article is mature or scholarly. It is a blatant sort of Jewish fundamentalist propaganda. Were a Muslim to write this from an Islamic perspective it would be roundly condemned here as the nonsense it is.
Re: the USC article
Jainism is the religion that is so opposed to killing that they sweep away the walk before them to avoid killing bugs. This is another non-violent faith from India.
at April 24, 2005 4:18 PM
To Kali,
I will have to read the whole article to confirm whether or not Ms. Hannah has something against Eastern religions. Nonetheless, some of the information she provided gave me some fascinating leads.
Like it or not, the ideas of Alice Bailey with regards to Jews is widespread among some New Age groups. I know this firsthand. I first encountered some of her ideas when an artist friend of mine in Ecuador 14 years ago told me about the crazy Jew theory about the Aryans and Atlantis. He considered himself a "gnostic." I told frankly told him that was a bunch of crap, but forgave his ignorance on account that he never saw a Jew in his life (they don't tend to settle in Ecuador).
Another firsthand experience is someone very close to me (not my wife) who is a big fan of David Icke. It was from Ms. Newman that I first learned what David Icke was really all about (and later confirmed it myself). BTW: This fan of David Icke was for a very long time involved in the occult and other New Age crap.
I intend to read some of Alice Bailey's books to confirm what I learned from Ms. Newman, and what I read in this other, much more succint link, also from a Jew, but no evidence that he reproaches Buddhism:
http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/bailey.html
I have a feeling this is all true. I think this is a part of the leftist-Islamofascist alliance that is all too often overlooked.
Posted by: Andrei Rublev at April 24, 2005 9:14 PM
Holy Crapola, no wonder people get called 'racist' for criticizing Islam. Did any of those authors actually trouble themselves to pick up the Quran?
Posted by: Melek Taus at April 25, 2005 3:04 AM
response to Geoff:
Like i said, people pick and choose what they want to believe in every religion. Are you not familiar with all the violence in the old testament? An eye for an eye, and all that? Horrible things went on in the Old Testament. GOD did horrible things in the OT. And it has not been that long since christians have done horrible things in the name of God and Christ. I believe that Hitler was a professed christian. If there was a nazi going around preaching peace to other nazis, would you make fun of him and belittle him?
i am reading over these posts and i am shocked by the amount of hate. i am not implying that you were hateful at all, but there were many hateful remarks and it was saddening.
to me, the article was innocent and naive, but only in the best way. i saw the authors intentions as pure, and i am shocked that he would be so attacked for preaching something as pure as peace.
my friend, i am not saying there is not a problem with violence within some muslim communities. but last time i checked, the United States was the most violent country in the world. who do we blame that on? this is a "Christian nation".
p.s...i really am not concerned with whether or not jews, christians , and muslims are historically connected within their religions. we are all human beings and we are all the same.
Posted by: alliebunny at April 25, 2005 11:49 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)