Intolerance shows ignorance of Islam

Religion is probably the biggest divider in world history, but for those that believe in God it is central to our existence. Share your views.
User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Intolerance shows ignorance of Islam

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » June 20th, 2006, 11:43 am

Intolerance shows ignorance of Islam
By Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti



Eighty years ago, Marmaduke Pickthall, the British scholar of Islam and translator of the Quran, wrote: "It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance."

Tolerance was regarded as irreligious in the Christian world, but was an essential part of Islam, but it is no longer credited to Muslims.

Nowadays, the more "religious" some Muslims regard themselves to be, the less tolerant they are. The cause is a troubling intellectual decline of the Islamic civilisation.

While Muslims complain about the Western lack of understanding of Islam, this misconstruction in the interpretation of religious texts is unfortunately prevalent in the Muslim mind today.

The conversion to Christianity by Abdulrahman, the Afghan recently pardoned from his death sentence after much pressure from the West, and its repercussions illustrate this confusion.

Pertaining to the Islamic texts and principles, whether the Afghani apostate was mentally ill or not, the whole trial was nonsense.

Killing a person because of his intellectual choice contradicts the essence of Islamic principles of freedom of faith and worship, repeatedly emphasised in the Quran and the practice of Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him.



No compulsion in religion



Changing one's Islamic faith is a grave sin. It is a gross violation of the individual covenant with his God, but it does not, in any way, violate Islamic law.

The Quran repeatedly condemns those who change their Islamic faith, and warns them of a severe punishment on the Last Day.

But the Quran never prescribed a worldly penalty for apostasy. Therefore, if a Muslim wants to change his faith, so be it. Belief by definition emanates from the individual's heart. Islam is for brave believers, not fearful hypocrites.

The Quran is unequivocal that faith is a matter of personal choice and conviction; therefore no compulsory power should be used to compel people to adopt a certain belief or prevent them from changing their faith.

The Quran says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from falsehood" (2:256); "Say (O Muhammad): This is the truth from the Lord of you all. Then whoever wishes, let him believe, and whoever wishes, let him disbelieve" (18:29).

Moreover, Muhammad was told in the Quran that his mission was to teach and preach, not to impose or compel: "remind them, for you are only a reminder. You are not a coercer over them" (88:21-22); "You are not one to overawe them by force. So admonish with the Quran those who fear My Warning!" (50:45).

Following this Quranic guidance, Muhammad never punished people for abandoning Islam, even though some of his contemporaries renounced their faith repeatedly, as recorded in the Quranic condemnation of "those who believed, then rejected faith, then believed again, then rejected faith again, and went on increasing in unbelief …" (4:137).

This is clear evidence that Muhammad did not want to punish people on account of their spiritual and intellectual choice.

Had there been a worldly punishment for apostasy in Islam, Muhammad would have been the first one to apply it. But he knew that he had no such authority from God.

Consequently, judgment of the matters of faith should be left to God on the Day of Judgment.



Morality vs legality



One of the most unfortunate phenomena in Islamic culture today is the lack of distinction between morality and legality.

Judging a specific human behaviour in terms of right and wrong is relatively straightforward and easy. But to be comprehensive and practical requires us to go a step further and determine whether that behavior should be categorised as illegal or immoral.

This distinction is very important once people or institutions decide to react to something that they believe to be wrong. An action can be legal but immoral, or vice-versa.

In Sharia (Islamic teachings) there is a clear distinction between morality and legality: nearlly all Islamic teachings fall under the category of morality.

It is the responsibility of the individual believer to adhere to this morality in his personal life - a responsibility before God, not before people. No coercive means are to be used to impose Islamic morality.

This is because any coercion of this kind will have negative consequences; it will corrupt the moral conscience of the individual by transforming him from a God-conscious believer to a state-fearing hypocrite.

Islam wants the individual to be a servant of God, not a slave of the state. In Islam, all matters of faith and most of those of personal behaviours and preferences are of moral – not legal - nature.

Only about one per cent of Islamic teachings fall under the category of legality. This category is a set of laws (family laws, civil laws, penal laws, etc) that the legitimate Islamic government must impose, by exercising the authority of the state.

Only actions that harm other people or represent potential harm are a part of this category.

This includes the punishment for murdering innocent people or stealing their property.

It is generally agreed, in divine and secular laws, that the primary responsibility of governments is to protect people's lives and possessions.

Unfortunately many Muslims today, including some self-appointed "scholars", do not clearly distinguish between morality and legality, a distinction that any keen student of law understands well.

This intellectual confusion allows some Muslim governments to intrude into personal convictions and preferences of their citizens, claiming that they are applying God's law.

By doing this, they simply cover up their illegitimacy and irresponsibility by infringing upon people's rights, and delving into issues that are not within their area of jurisdiction in Islam.



Treason vs apostasy



A question might arise: If the Quran explicitly affirms the freedom of faith, why is there all of this controversy about killing apostates? Good question.

The problem starts with the misinterpretation of a few hadiths (sayings of Prophet Muhammad) suggesting capital punishment as a penalty for apostasy.

However, what the Prophet meant by those hadiths had nothing to do with intellectual choices related to faith; rather it is the political treason and military sedition within the community, which Muhammad was concerned about as a part of his political responsibility.

The source of this confusion is that the term "apostasy" (riddah in Arabic) was used in Islamic scripture with two distinct meanings: The first was private apostasy, which is an intellectual choice and has no punishment in Islam. All that Muslims are asked to do with a person who decides to renounce his faith is to remind him of the sacred covenant with his creator (God), and to advise him to repent.

The other use of the term is related to politico-military apostasy, which includes violent rebellion against the social peace of the community and its legitimate leadership.

Any person judged guilty of this crime is punishable under Islamic law, unless he repents and surrenders himself before he is caught by the authorities. This kind of apostasy is the equivalent of what we call high treason today.

Betraying one's society, through acts of high treason and military rebellion against its peace and harmony, is punishable under all divine and secular laws. Islamic law is no exception in this regard.

There are plenty of treacherous politicians and tribal leaders in Afghanistan today who are deservedly eligible for the punishment of high treason in Islamic law.

Some of them are now among the "respected" leaders of the new Afghanistan. Abdulrahman is evidently not one of them.



Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti is a Muslim scholar from Mauritania, living in the US.


The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...BC405A8B9F.htm

MiChuhSuh

Re: Intolerance shows ignorance of Islam

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » June 20th, 2006, 12:18 pm

Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:\Eighty years ago, Marmaduke Pickthall, the British scholar of Islam and translator of the Quran, wrote: "It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance."

Tolerance was regarded as irreligious in the Christian world, but was an essential part of Islam, but it is no longer credited to Muslims.

Nowadays, the more "religious" some Muslims regard themselves to be, the less tolerant they are. The cause is a troubling intellectual decline of the Islamic civilisation.

While Muslims complain about the Western lack of understanding of Islam, this misconstruction in the interpretation of religious texts is unfortunately prevalent in the Muslim mind today.
I feel what Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti is saying, just want to add Jesus never tried to force anyone into believing his words, and he instructed his disciples to tell the truth and be ready to answer all questions and clarify, but he said that other than hearing the truth it's up to the listener to believe or not, and any "force" to belief was wrong. I can get some verses up later (TarHeel might have already memorized some) but true Christianity does not force conversion from other religions.

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Re: Intolerance shows ignorance of Islam

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » June 20th, 2006, 4:06 pm

MiChuhSuh wrote:
Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:\Eighty years ago, Marmaduke Pickthall, the British scholar of Islam and translator of the Quran, wrote: "It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance."

Tolerance was regarded as irreligious in the Christian world, but was an essential part of Islam, but it is no longer credited to Muslims.

Nowadays, the more "religious" some Muslims regard themselves to be, the less tolerant they are. The cause is a troubling intellectual decline of the Islamic civilisation.

While Muslims complain about the Western lack of understanding of Islam, this misconstruction in the interpretation of religious texts is unfortunately prevalent in the Muslim mind today.
I feel what Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti is saying, just want to add Jesus never tried to force anyone into believing his words, and he instructed his disciples to tell the truth and be ready to answer all questions and clarify, but he said that other than hearing the truth it's up to the listener to believe or not, and any "force" to belief was wrong. I can get some verses up later (TarHeel might have already memorized some) but true Christianity does not force conversion from other religions.
This is true. And the exact same applies to Islam.

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » June 22nd, 2006, 12:23 pm

Yup.

It's kind of crazy that that even happened in Afghanistan, and some people here were talking about "Well that's their religion" wtf? no that ain't Islam.

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » December 5th, 2006, 5:29 pm

bump it up................

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

Unread post by Brown Street » December 5th, 2006, 10:12 pm

"but true Christianity does not force conversion from other religions."

"This is true. And the exact same applies to Islam"

The comment regarding Islam would be very hard for the residents of the Middle East and North Africa during the first cenuries of the existence of Islam to agree with-Islam was spread by the sword-convert or die!

It is also difficult for me to understand why Arab Moslems, one of the premier groups of slave traders, who were among those who SOLD Africans to go to bondage in North America seem to recieve a "pass" for that action. Slavery exists today in the Sudan, propagated by Arab Moslems, enslaving Africans-and this subject is more or less forbidden!

Moslems say "Islam is a religion of peace." What is NOT UNDERSTOOD about this lovely and heart warming quote is that the "PEACE" spoken of will come only AFTER all have been converted to Islam! No Islam, NO PEACE!

The fate of Greeks under the Ottoman Empire after the fall of Byzantium also disproves the fable that Islam never engaged in forced conversions. Find a copy of the book, New Mertyrs of the Turkish Yoke, and recoil in horror at the tortures employed to force Greeks to become Moslems!

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » December 6th, 2006, 7:56 am

Brown Street wrote:The comment regarding Islam would be very hard for the residents of the Middle East and North Africa during the first cenuries of the existence of Islam to agree with-Islam was spread by the sword-convert or die!
Verse 256 of chapter 2 of the Qur'an says "There is no compulsion or coersion in religion". Meaning it's forbidden for any Muslim to say to anybody "convert or die". Any Muslim who does say this is not following the true teaching of the Prophet Muhammad or the Qur'an.

Brown Street wrote:It is also difficult for me to understand why Arab Moslems, one of the premier groups of slave traders, who were among those who SOLD Africans to go to bondage in North America seem to recieve a "pass" for that action. Slavery exists today in the Sudan, propagated by Arab Moslems, enslaving Africans-and this subject is more or less forbidden!
The so-called "Muslims" that did and still are participating in slavery are not real Muslims. They do not know Islam. You cannot judge Islam, or any religion, on what it's followers are doing. You must judge a religion by its' doctrine and principles. Islam is perfect, Muslims aren't, even if they ARE following Islam.

Brown Street wrote:Moslems say "Islam is a religion of peace." What is NOT UNDERSTOOD about this lovely and heart warming quote is that the "PEACE" spoken of will come only AFTER all have been converted to Islam! No Islam, NO PEACE!
100% untrue. The only justified reason to fight anybody is for defending yourself or your family. Any Muslim who attacks anybody else is committing an act of disbelief.

User avatar
WATTSUP
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 13
Joined: November 10th, 2006, 1:35 pm

Unread post by WATTSUP » December 6th, 2006, 2:58 pm

Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:
Brown Street wrote:The comment regarding Islam would be very hard for the residents of the Middle East and North Africa during the first cenuries of the existence of Islam to agree with-Islam was spread by the sword-convert or die!
>>

You would have to prove this. Just because you say it, does not make it so. Islam was not spread by the sword.

Verse 256 of chapter 2 of the Qur'an says "There is no compulsion or coersion in religion". Meaning it's forbidden for any Muslim to say to anybody "convert or die". Any Muslim who does say this is not following the true teaching of the Prophet Muhammad or the Qur'an.

Brown Street wrote:It is also difficult for me to understand why Arab Moslems, one of the premier groups of slave traders, who were among those who SOLD Africans to go to bondage in North America seem to recieve a "pass" for that action. Slavery exists today in the Sudan, propagated by Arab Moslems, enslaving Africans-and this subject is more or less forbidden!
The so-called "Muslims" that did and still are participating in slavery are not real Muslims. They do not know Islam. You cannot judge Islam, or any religion, on what it's followers are doing. You must judge a religion by its' doctrine and principles. Islam is perfect, Muslims aren't, even if they ARE following Islam.

Brown Street wrote:Moslems say "Islam is a religion of peace." What is NOT UNDERSTOOD about this lovely and heart warming quote is that the "PEACE" spoken of will come only AFTER all have been converted to Islam! No Islam, NO PEACE!
100% untrue. The only justified reason to fight anybody is for defending yourself or your family. Any Muslim who attacks anybody else is committing an act of disbelief.
<<<

Akhi, this is not 100% correct. There are certain offensive fighting while under a khalifah. One needs knowledge of Fiqh for this and even this is not kufr. Kaba'ir maybe

User avatar
'X'
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3127
Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:36 am
Country: Hong Kong, China
If in the United States: North Dakota
What city do you live in now?: ........

Unread post by 'X' » December 6th, 2006, 6:22 pm

Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote: Any Muslim who attacks anybody else is committing an act of disbelief.
Maybe you just didnt clearly break it down, but I go the belief to not be the aggressor...But definatly defend myself if attacked...

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

"PERFECT" ISLAM?

Unread post by Brown Street » December 7th, 2006, 12:22 am

how would i go about proving Islam was spread by the sword? look at history . . . butthen you will say "oh thats western christian history, biased against Islam." but just look at history-do you think all those people changed the religions that they were holding to at the drop of a hat because moslems showed up? or because moslems showed up with overhwelming military force?

moslem slave traders were not "real moslems"? you cant judge a religioon by its adherents? well, christianity is ALWAYS judged by its adherents-and sir, you will not get very far at all with this kind of "proof"-"Islam is perfect"-prove that! why? becuase the koran says so? dont mean NUTHIN to me!

i also see that you have NO ANSWER for the forced conversion in the ottoman empire of greek christians-as i mentioned, subjected to horrible tortures if refusing to submit ot Islam! also, many of these christians who DID convert under force later repented of there horrible mistake, and returned to christianity-these were subjected to the most horrible tortures and punishments. but, because as you say, "Islam is perfect," and the koran says there are no forced conversions to Islam, and so the Ottoman Turk must also not have been REAL moslems, eh? so we should in no way blame Islam for these things? well, sir, the world does not work that way! i could go on and on-the moslem kurds, for their persecutionand murder of thousands of assyrian christians; again, the ottoman turks for their merciless slaughter of armenians before WW1-this slaughter was the justification used by hitlet for his holocaust against the jews-"nobody knows about what the turks did to the armenians!" and, in all of this carnage, the perpetrators would resort to Islam for an excuse!
using your "logic', I could say that hitler's murder of 6 million jews was not to be blamed on naziism, because it was ok in itself, it did not call for such, but bad nazis did the deed! and the communists-in russia and china-that murdered, together, probably 3 to 4 times as many people as hitler, were the "bad ones," but that communism itself was not flawed. same with capitlaism, racism, anything you want to choose-dont blame the ideology, blame the people? but sir, the ideology starts them on the path!
if Islam were indeed PERFECT as you state, then there would be NO ROOM for "bad moslems" to twist the teachings and commit these atrocities!
i was conversing with a moslem in a chat room one day-i asked about gays in moslem countries, because i have heard , and again, this is historical fact-that in arab countries, homosexuality is fairly widespread; this was noted by early european traveleres to the near east; also, in the 20th century, such "luminaries" as william burroughs went to north africa because access to young boys for gay sex was very free, and accepted. this moslem told me that NONE of this was true, because the koran forbade homosexuality, and that there were NO HOMOSEXUALS in Islamic countries! while it would not matter WHAT forbade WHAT, this is simply impossible because of the numbers and percentages involved-there are so many gay people per thousand in various populations-NO GAYS in islamic countries is simply an IMPOSSIBILITY! a western journalist went to pakistan, and was doing an article on the religious schools-he said one of the first questions most of the (male) students asked him was "do you want to have sex?" of course, my moslem chatter said this was all lies!
so we are in this sort of zone that is impossible for logical and free discourse-if Islam is "perfect," then there can be no criticism of it; and apparently, depending upon which "defense" a moslem takes, NOTHING that the koran forbids happens in Islamic countries, or, if it does, it is because of bad moslems! One cannot argue against thatwhich is perfect; but you knowm, i know of NOTHING perfect in THIS WORLD! and i so not think many i know have experienced the PERFECT in this world! there is ALWAYS room for improvement!
apparently, then, all those who call for the death of the pope, when he quoted a byzantine emperor are BAD moslems; all those connected to terrorism and the slaughter of innocent scivilians and children are BAD moslems; and on and on it goes-yet, it seems the west does not have the luxury of those excuses, because islam calls fo rthe eradicatioon of western civilization-but, excuse me-am i mistaken? is that only the BAD moslems that want that?
and, what about FREE SPEECH? in this country, we have the right to that, although there are those who want to do away with that if someone is OFFENDED-but of course, it is those who are special that meet this criterion, because SOME that are offended-the attitude is simply "too bad for them" and, then there are those who want to be PAID because they are offended-but i digress. there is NO FREE SPEECH in any Islamic country; is this becuase of Islam or because of ther BAD moslems? In Saudi Arabia, they publicly behead criminals, and publicly cut off hands, etc., of criminals-is this because of Islam, or because of BAD MOSLEMS? If ISLAM calls for these types of capital punishment, then I would personally have to say it is certainly NOT PERFECT.
I tell you what- I will look up th ehistory of the overrunning of north africa by arab moslems, and then give the citations on here, and tell basically what was said. history-that will be the "proof" . NOW_ CAN YOU PROVE TO ME that islam was NEVER spread by the sword? Other thatn, of course, because you say so? do you have historic citations for the "peaceable" take over and conversion of the peoples of north africa by arabs? if so i would just LOVE to see them!
in closing, all i can say is that it must be very nice indeed to have a position to defend that requires absollutely no proof whatsoever other than "because the koran says so" and "Islam is perfect". doesnt leave much room for discussion!!! but, possibly, that is what is intended and needed by those who would strive to prove blamelessness for Islam!

User avatar
WATTSUP
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 13
Joined: November 10th, 2006, 1:35 pm

Re: "PERFECT" ISLAM?

Unread post by WATTSUP » December 7th, 2006, 7:46 am

Brown Street wrote:how would i go about proving Islam was spread by the sword? look at history . . .<<<<<<<<


If you believe something you should at least be able to provide certain facts or even your own theories based on known evidence to prove that which you believe.





butthen you will say "oh thats western christian history, biased against Islam." but just look at history-do you think all those people changed the religions that they were holding to at the drop of a hat because moslems showed up? or because moslems showed up with overhwelming military force? <<<

You got this from where? Which history book told you this? If I providered narrations that contradicts your statement, you'd say they were muslim references biased TOWARDS Islam. You'd say that which you accuse me of and there has yet to be any facts presented concerning your statement. You can look at recent history to show America has invaded land not of their own, killing huge amount of civilians all in the name of bringing "Democracy". Is that acceptable to you? This Judo-Christian society waging war on a nation for reasons other than possible threat.

moslem slave traders were not "real moslems"? you cant judge a religioon by its adherents? well, christianity is ALWAYS judged by its adherents-and sir, <<<


I don't judge any religion by its adherants. If that were so, I’d say all Catholics were homosexual pedophiles. This is certainly not the case. I’m sorry to say, I do not think you are capable of having a rational subject about something we will all be held accountable for, like it or not.

you will not get very far at all with this kind of "proof"-"Islam is perfect"-prove that! why? becuase the koran says so? dont mean NUTHIN to me! <<

Then why keep writing?


i also see that you have NO ANSWER for the forced conversion in the ottoman empire of greek christians-as i mentioned, subjected to horrible tortures if refusing to submit ot Islam!<<

Where can I read about this?


also, many of these christians who DID convert under force later repented of there horrible mistake, and returned to christianity-these were subjected to the most horrible tortures and punishments. but, because as you say, "Islam is perfect," and the koran says there are no forced conversions to Islam, and so the Ottoman Turk must also not have been REAL moslems, eh? <<<


You just ramble on without presenting any facts to back up your claim.




s there would be NO ROOM for "bad moslems" to twist the teachings and commit these atrocities! <<<



That is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.



i was conversing with a moslem in a chat room one day-i asked about gays in moslem countries, because i have heard , and again, this is historical fact-that in arab countries, homosexuality is fairly widespread; <<

Historical fact? According to whom? You. Homosexuality is rampant in western countries, termed "Christian Countries." America is fighting for gay marriage and you wish to look to "arab
countries? You are not a rational person.




this was noted by early european traveleres to the near east; also, in the 20th century, such "luminaries" as william burroughs went to north africa<<


So now North Africa is 100% muslim? Want to bring census charts that show how many non-muslims live in North Africa?



because access to young boys for gay sex was very free, and accepted. this moslem told me that NONE of this was true, because the koran forbade homosexuality, and that there were NO HOMOSEXUALS in Islamic countries! while it would not matter WHAT forbade WHAT, this is simply impossible because of the numbers and percentages involved-there are so many gay people per thousand in various populations-NO GAYS in islamic countries is simply an IMPOSSIBILITY! a western journalist went to pakistan, and was doing an article on the religious schools-he said one of the first questions most of the (male) students asked him was "do you want to have sex?" of course, my moslem chatter said this was all lies!
so we are in this sort of zone that is impossible for logical and free discourse-if Islam is "perfect," then there can be no criticism of it; and apparently, depending upon which "defense" a moslem takes, NOTHING that the koran forbids happens in Islamic countries, or, if it does, it is because of bad moslems! One cannot argue against thatwhich is perfect; but you knowm, i know of NOTHING perfect in THIS WORLD! and i so not think many i know have experienced the PERFECT in this world! there is ALWAYS room for improvement!
apparently, then, all those who call for the death of the pope, when he quoted a byzantine emperor are BAD moslems; all those connected to terrorism and the slaughter of innocent scivilians and children are BAD moslems; and on and on it goes-yet, it seems the west does not have the luxury of those excuses, because islam calls fo rthe eradicatioon of western civilization-but, excuse me-am i mistaken? is that only the BAD moslems that want that?
and, what about FREE SPEECH? in this country, we have the right to that, although there are those who want to do away with that if someone is OFFENDED-but of course, it is those who are special that meet this criterion, because SOME that are offended-the attitude is simply "too bad for them" and, then there are those who want to be PAID because they are offended-but i digress. there is NO FREE SPEECH in any Islamic country; is this becuase of Islam or because of ther BAD moslems? In Saudi Arabia, they publicly behead criminals, and publicly cut off hands, etc., of criminals-is this because of Islam, or because of BAD MOSLEMS? If ISLAM calls for these types of capital punishment, then I would personally have to say it is certainly NOT PERFECT.
I tell you what- I will look up th ehistory of the overrunning of north africa by arab moslems, and then give the citations on here, and tell basically what was said. history-that will be the "proof" . NOW_ CAN YOU PROVE TO ME that islam was NEVER spread by the sword? Other thatn, of course, because you say so? do you have historic citations for the "peaceable" take over and conversion of the peoples of north africa by arabs? if so i would just LOVE to see them!
in closing, all i can say is that it must be very nice indeed to have a position to defend that requires absollutely no proof whatsoever other than "because the koran says so" and "Islam is perfect". doesnt leave much room for discussion!!! but, possibly, that is what is intended and needed by those who would strive to prove blamelessness for Islam!
<<<<


I can discuss with you how Islam is true and perfect with saying "koran says so" but you are an irrational human who has complete tunnel vision. Your hatred of that which you know nothing of has blinded you. May God help you SIR! As-Salamu `ala man ittaba al-huda.

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » December 7th, 2006, 7:47 am

WATTSUP wrote:
Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:
Brown Street wrote:The comment regarding Islam would be very hard for the residents of the Middle East and North Africa during the first cenuries of the existence of Islam to agree with-Islam was spread by the sword-convert or die!
>>

You would have to prove this. Just because you say it, does not make it so. Islam was not spread by the sword.

Verse 256 of chapter 2 of the Qur'an says "There is no compulsion or coersion in religion". Meaning it's forbidden for any Muslim to say to anybody "convert or die". Any Muslim who does say this is not following the true teaching of the Prophet Muhammad or the Qur'an.

Brown Street wrote:It is also difficult for me to understand why Arab Moslems, one of the premier groups of slave traders, who were among those who SOLD Africans to go to bondage in North America seem to recieve a "pass" for that action. Slavery exists today in the Sudan, propagated by Arab Moslems, enslaving Africans-and this subject is more or less forbidden!
The so-called "Muslims" that did and still are participating in slavery are not real Muslims. They do not know Islam. You cannot judge Islam, or any religion, on what it's followers are doing. You must judge a religion by its' doctrine and principles. Islam is perfect, Muslims aren't, even if they ARE following Islam.

Brown Street wrote:Moslems say "Islam is a religion of peace." What is NOT UNDERSTOOD about this lovely and heart warming quote is that the "PEACE" spoken of will come only AFTER all have been converted to Islam! No Islam, NO PEACE!
100% untrue. The only justified reason to fight anybody is for defending yourself or your family. Any Muslim who attacks anybody else is committing an act of disbelief.
<<<

Akhi, this is not 100% correct. There are certain offensive fighting while under a khalifah. One needs knowledge of Fiqh for this and even this is not kufr. Kaba'ir maybe
When the Muslims attacked first, it was because they would have eventually been attacked by those people, so they got the upper hand. I know a little fiqh and a little seerah of Rasulullah wa as sahabah.

Maybe I should say it this way: no Muslim army ever attacked for any unjustified reason or with no reason at all.

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Re: "PERFECT" ISLAM?

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » December 7th, 2006, 7:52 am

Brown Street wrote:how would i go about proving Islam was spread by the sword? look at history . . . butthen you will say "oh thats western christian history, biased against Islam." but just look at history-do you think all those people changed the religions that they were holding to at the drop of a hat because moslems showed up? or because moslems showed up with overhwelming military force?

moslem slave traders were not "real moslems"? you cant judge a religioon by its adherents? well, christianity is ALWAYS judged by its adherents-and sir, you will not get very far at all with this kind of "proof"-"Islam is perfect"-prove that! why? becuase the koran says so? dont mean NUTHIN to me!

i also see that you have NO ANSWER for the forced conversion in the ottoman empire of greek christians-as i mentioned, subjected to horrible tortures if refusing to submit ot Islam! also, many of these christians who DID convert under force later repented of there horrible mistake, and returned to christianity-these were subjected to the most horrible tortures and punishments. but, because as you say, "Islam is perfect," and the koran says there are no forced conversions to Islam, and so the Ottoman Turk must also not have been REAL moslems, eh? so we should in no way blame Islam for these things? well, sir, the world does not work that way! i could go on and on-the moslem kurds, for their persecutionand murder of thousands of assyrian christians; again, the ottoman turks for their merciless slaughter of armenians before WW1-this slaughter was the justification used by hitlet for his holocaust against the jews-"nobody knows about what the turks did to the armenians!" and, in all of this carnage, the perpetrators would resort to Islam for an excuse!
using your "logic', I could say that hitler's murder of 6 million jews was not to be blamed on naziism, because it was ok in itself, it did not call for such, but bad nazis did the deed! and the communists-in russia and china-that murdered, together, probably 3 to 4 times as many people as hitler, were the "bad ones," but that communism itself was not flawed. same with capitlaism, racism, anything you want to choose-dont blame the ideology, blame the people? but sir, the ideology starts them on the path!
if Islam were indeed PERFECT as you state, then there would be NO ROOM for "bad moslems" to twist the teachings and commit these atrocities!
i was conversing with a moslem in a chat room one day-i asked about gays in moslem countries, because i have heard , and again, this is historical fact-that in arab countries, homosexuality is fairly widespread; this was noted by early european traveleres to the near east; also, in the 20th century, such "luminaries" as william burroughs went to north africa because access to young boys for gay sex was very free, and accepted. this moslem told me that NONE of this was true, because the koran forbade homosexuality, and that there were NO HOMOSEXUALS in Islamic countries! while it would not matter WHAT forbade WHAT, this is simply impossible because of the numbers and percentages involved-there are so many gay people per thousand in various populations-NO GAYS in islamic countries is simply an IMPOSSIBILITY! a western journalist went to pakistan, and was doing an article on the religious schools-he said one of the first questions most of the (male) students asked him was "do you want to have sex?" of course, my moslem chatter said this was all lies!
so we are in this sort of zone that is impossible for logical and free discourse-if Islam is "perfect," then there can be no criticism of it; and apparently, depending upon which "defense" a moslem takes, NOTHING that the koran forbids happens in Islamic countries, or, if it does, it is because of bad moslems! One cannot argue against thatwhich is perfect; but you knowm, i know of NOTHING perfect in THIS WORLD! and i so not think many i know have experienced the PERFECT in this world! there is ALWAYS room for improvement!
apparently, then, all those who call for the death of the pope, when he quoted a byzantine emperor are BAD moslems; all those connected to terrorism and the slaughter of innocent scivilians and children are BAD moslems; and on and on it goes-yet, it seems the west does not have the luxury of those excuses, because islam calls fo rthe eradicatioon of western civilization-but, excuse me-am i mistaken? is that only the BAD moslems that want that?
and, what about FREE SPEECH? in this country, we have the right to that, although there are those who want to do away with that if someone is OFFENDED-but of course, it is those who are special that meet this criterion, because SOME that are offended-the attitude is simply "too bad for them" and, then there are those who want to be PAID because they are offended-but i digress. there is NO FREE SPEECH in any Islamic country; is this becuase of Islam or because of ther BAD moslems? In Saudi Arabia, they publicly behead criminals, and publicly cut off hands, etc., of criminals-is this because of Islam, or because of BAD MOSLEMS? If ISLAM calls for these types of capital punishment, then I would personally have to say it is certainly NOT PERFECT.
I tell you what- I will look up th ehistory of the overrunning of north africa by arab moslems, and then give the citations on here, and tell basically what was said. history-that will be the "proof" . NOW_ CAN YOU PROVE TO ME that islam was NEVER spread by the sword? Other thatn, of course, because you say so? do you have historic citations for the "peaceable" take over and conversion of the peoples of north africa by arabs? if so i would just LOVE to see them!
in closing, all i can say is that it must be very nice indeed to have a position to defend that requires absollutely no proof whatsoever other than "because the koran says so" and "Islam is perfect". doesnt leave much room for discussion!!! but, possibly, that is what is intended and needed by those who would strive to prove blamelessness for Islam!
As Salam Alaikum,

Many of what you think are facts are wrong. You are also talking arrogantly and you are totally ignorant of what your saying.

I will not engage in any conversation with you until you truly come with an open mind and leave all this behind because I am not one to waste my time.

User avatar
WATTSUP
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 13
Joined: November 10th, 2006, 1:35 pm

Unread post by WATTSUP » December 7th, 2006, 8:08 am

When the Muslims attacked first, it was because they would have eventually been attacked by those people, so they got the upper hand. I know a little fiqh and a little seerah of Rasulullah wa as sahabah.

Maybe I should say it this way: no Muslim army ever attacked for any unjustified reason or with no reason at all.>>>>

As-salamu `alaikum akhi,

You are correct. I did not mean apply you did not know fiqh, I meant non-muslims who only see history with their own opinion already established. RasulAllaah sal Allaahu ta'Ala `alaihe wa salam never attacked anyone for worldy gain. La ilaha ila Allaah was his only desire. That is what he sal Allahu `alaihe wa salam only preached and people fought him `alaihe salatul wa salam. BTW, love your name.

Fi Aman Allaah,

Mahmoud :)

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » December 7th, 2006, 12:15 pm

WATTSUP wrote:When the Muslims attacked first, it was because they would have eventually been attacked by those people, so they got the upper hand. I know a little fiqh and a little seerah of Rasulullah wa as sahabah.

Maybe I should say it this way: no Muslim army ever attacked for any unjustified reason or with no reason at all.>>>>

As-salamu `alaikum akhi,

You are correct. I did not mean apply you did not know fiqh, I meant non-muslims who only see history with their own opinion already established. RasulAllaah sal Allaahu ta'Ala `alaihe wa salam never attacked anyone for worldy gain. La ilaha ila Allaah was his only desire. That is what he sal Allahu `alaihe wa salam only preached and people fought him `alaihe salatul wa salam. BTW, love your name.

Fi Aman Allaah,

Mahmoud :)
Wa Alaikum Salam,

Na'am, your correct.

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

Unread post by Brown Street » December 8th, 2006, 1:31 am

Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:

" Many of what you think are facts are wrong. You are also talking arrogantly and you are totally ignorant of what your saying.

I will not engage in any conversation with you until you truly come with an open mind and leave all this behind because I am not one to waste my time."

This is interesting-apparently what you REALLY MEAN is that until I stop diosagreeing with anything you say, you wont "engage in conversation." Which is 100% fine with me-And, believe me, I am not "totally ignorant" of what I am saying.

As someone who feels Islam is "perfect," and that therefore , you are always correct when speakingf in the subject, and there are no wrongs EVER on your side-you cannot really engage in ANY conversation with ANYBODY who does not want to sit at your feet and say, "Speak Master! I will listen and obey!"

I am also of the opinion that the arrogance is on your side- you tell me I know nothing, that you will not "waste your time," and that your position is the "perfect" one, yet I am arrogant? You, sir, are quite the comedian! Tell me, how is it-being superior and all?

I usually enjoy discussions, but, something tells me that your decision not to "waste your time" and "engage in conversation" with me is not my loss in any way!

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

Moslems & Nazis . . . Holocaust Deniers, Bold Faced Liar

Unread post by Brown Street » December 8th, 2006, 8:06 pm

Next week in Teheran, a conference begins that is dedicated to the Holocaust-to investigate whether it "really happened or not," and, if it did, whether it was "really that bad." (NPR, "All Things Considered," Friday, 08 Dec. 06)

This puts the Iranian and any other Moslems participating in this -uh- "conference" in with some pretty unsavoury company: all the ignorant and thug racist groups in the USA, from Tom Metzger's to Christian Identity, KKK, Skinheads, etc., etc., etc., and so on ad nauseaum, take up the "cause" of Holocaust Denier. Now, since history proves that the Holocause did, indeed, "exist" (only if it had not!), Holocaust Deniers are shown to be bold faced liars. As well as ignoramuses, of course.

The fact that the Moslems participating in this "conference" in teheran now share ideological space with a bunch of neo-Nazis should not prove to be either uncomfortable nor unfamiliar territory-there was no shortage of Moslem collaborators with Hitler's Legions during World War II.

The Grand Muft of Jerusalem, later self-stryled as the Grand Mufti of Palestine and "Leader of Global Islam," was in sympathy with the Nazis from early on. When his Nazi sympathies caused him trouble with the English, he escaped to Iraq, from where he attempted to organize a pro-Nazi revolt. When this failed, and with the English once again after him, he escaped to Berlin, where he became friends with the Nazi leaders, and helped to raise Moslem SS Divisions for the Germans. The Grand Mufti was also popular with Nazi bigwigs for declaring on Radio Berlin that moslems should "kill the Jeews wherever you find them-this is pleasing to Allah."

The Moslem SS Divisions were comprised of several Moslem ethnic groups. The Kama Division and the Handzar Division were made up of Bosnian Moslems. Bosnian Moslem nationalists referred to Hitler as "our dear leader," and the Bosnian Moslem SS Divisions were seen as the "armed forces" of the newly emerging Bosnian Moslem statelet. Bosnian Moslem politician Alija Izetbegovic was a member of a pro-Nazi pro-Fascist orgainzation called Wladi Moslemani, and during World War II, "wore a German uniform."

The Bosnian Moslem Kama DIvision marched to the cathcy tune of "March, March, Hitler;s Guards!," and clearly saw themselves as Hitler's guards, at the forefront of Nazism and Hitler's New Order. Current Bosnian moslem leaders refuse to admit their Nazi past.

The Skanderbeg SS Division was made up of Albanian Moslems. The commander of the Skanderbeg SS Division was extradited to Yugaslavia and tried for war crimes; he was found guilty and hanged in 1947.

The founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Baweq (sp.??) was an ardent admirer of hitler and cooperated with the Nazis during World War II, when his organization became an arm of Nazi intelligence.

The Turkestanische Legion was comprised of Moslems from Central Aisa: Turkomans, Uzbeks, Kazaks, Kirghiz, Karakalpaks, and Tadjiks; the Kaukasische-Mohammedan Legion was made up of those from the Caucasus: Azeris, Dagestanis, Chechens, Ingushes, and Lezghins. The Wolgatatarische Legion was made up of Tartars. In Dec. of 1942, Hilter said, "I consider only the Moslems to be reliable . . . I see no danger in the establishment of purely Moslem units." High praises from Der Fuehrer! These former units were regular army (Wehrmacht); the follolwing were SS units: Ostmuselmanische SS Regiment (Central Asia); Ostturkischen Waffen Verbande der SS (Turkomans); Waffen Gebirgs Brigade der SS (Tartarische Nr. 1-Tartars). So, the "Dear Leader" had no shortage of Moslem men-at-arms for his crusade for the Aryan 1,000 Year Reich, led by the Supermen, to rid the world of the Untermenschen (sub-humans).

Perhaps there will be some of those present at this upcoming conference in Teheran who were actually part of Der Fuehrer's Crusade! If so, maybe they will speak of the good ole days, when they were able to freely gun down the sub-human races, and then to figure a way to cheat history and deny the existence of the Holocaust. "I mean, it wasn't really THAT BAD anyway, was it?"

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

A MAJOR HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE . . .

Unread post by Brown Street » December 8th, 2006, 11:45 pm

The following is excerpted from a Frontpage Synposium discussion by Moslems, Christians, a Jew, who are academics, authors, and active in Human Rights organizations-sober, intelligent, educated, and unbiased people. The discussion can be found at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr ... p?ID=10242

(For the sake of brevity, I will not list all names, and breakdowns of questions and answers-simply quote from the text. It is worthwhile for anyone to look at the entire discussion!)

THE MOSLEM PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS

The widespread persecution of Christians is an increasing phenomenon in the Islamic world . . .

There are few moslem countries were persecution of Christians does not occur.

The persecution takes basically four different forms:
1st Form: Direct violent attacks on Christian communities (in Egypt, Algeria, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Nigeria, Indonesia-in most cases the governments involved are either unwillking or unable to sto the attacks)

2nd Form: Civil War and communal violence when the Christian community has resisted the spread of radical forms of Islam. Since the National Islamic Front (formerly the Moslem Brotherhood) took power in the Sudan in the late 1980's, TWO MILLION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED, mostly Christians and animists. In Nigeria 11,000 people have been killed in the last 3 years since the inrtroduction of Islamic Sharia law . . . similar death tolls in Eastern Indonesia where paramilitart militant organizations such a Laskar Jihad, allied to international terrorists, have SLAUGHTERED local populations.

3rd Form: Widespread discrimination against Christians in those countries . . . Christians frequently at a disadvantage in marriage,custody and inheritance cases, and forced to subsidize Islam through taxes, are severely restricted in building and repairing churches, often excluded from government positions.

4th Form: blasphemy and apostasy laws disproportionately target minorities.


In Saudi Arabia (whose Royal family was SAVED from the tender mercies of their fellow Islamic ruler, Saddam Hussein, by American soldiers, many of whom were Christian . . . ) Christianity is entirely forbidden by law. Religious persecution is institutionalized in Saudi Arabia, where you cannot be Christian to begiin with, nor can one convert to Christianity.

Is Moslem persecution of Christians something new?

There has nearly always been discrimination, and often violence . . . ever since the early Islamic conquests dating back to the 7th century A.D. when invading Moslem armies overran neighboring Christian communities, there has always been persecution of Christians . . . the real story is a sordid one of the systematic reduction of vanquished peoples and members of other religions to 2nd class status at best, and physical elimination at worst.

As of the 7th century, the Caliphate and various other Islamic states have discriminated against Christians and Jews . . . the problem, nowadays lies in the fact that most mainstream historians of Islamic politics still deny the past-and worse, the present existence of those discriminations.

The Koran and the hadtihs, the sacred Scrptures for the Moslems, make the jihad and the domination of Islam over all religions, mandatory.

This persecution is a major human rights issue, the widest pattern of religious persecution in the world. It affects over a hundred million people . . . I find such persecution to be revolting and utterly unacceptable.

This concludes the excerpt from the frontpage Symposium.

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

Islam Spread by the Sword?

Unread post by Brown Street » December 9th, 2006, 12:05 am

"At the time of the death of the false Prophet Mohammed in 632, Muslims ruled only in Arabia. But within ten years the Arab Muslims had achieved one of the most spectacular conquests in history. They conquered Palestine (635-636), Syria (638-640), and Egypt (639-642) from the Byzantines and first Iraq (635-637) and then Persia itself (637-642) from the Persians. Wherever they went, most of the people were forced to become Muslims and Arabic-speakers. The converted people forgot their language and identity and started considering themselves to be Arabs. This happened with Palestine (today’s Israel), Syria, Levant (today’s Jordan), Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and also partly with Sudan, and Somalia. This trend was reversed only in Persia, where the people, in spite of the brutal Arab conquest, re-asserted their pre-Islamic Persian language after three hundred years of Arab tyranny. But everywhere else the Arab conquest, Arabized the Middle East and North Africa permanently."


from: http://www.historyofjihad.org/africa.html

Tacomahilltop
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 63
Joined: February 14th, 2005, 5:49 am

.

Unread post by Tacomahilltop » December 9th, 2006, 9:24 am

just one thing saudi does allow christianity you just cant have churches and seeing as america is short on mosques that doesnt bother me,and being a muslim i think that some ppl have got it twisted most muslim and arab countries have openly embraced ppl coming from other countries in the UAE wre im currently staying again only 33% of he population is actually from the country and about a third are non muslims.

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » December 9th, 2006, 2:39 pm

Brown Street wrote:Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:

" Many of what you think are facts are wrong. You are also talking arrogantly and you are totally ignorant of what your saying.

I will not engage in any conversation with you until you truly come with an open mind and leave all this behind because I am not one to waste my time."

This is interesting-apparently what you REALLY MEAN is that until I stop diosagreeing with anything you say, you wont "engage in conversation." Which is 100% fine with me-And, believe me, I am not "totally ignorant" of what I am saying.

As someone who feels Islam is "perfect," and that therefore , you are always correct when speakingf in the subject, and there are no wrongs EVER on your side-you cannot really engage in ANY conversation with ANYBODY who does not want to sit at your feet and say, "Speak Master! I will listen and obey!"

I am also of the opinion that the arrogance is on your side- you tell me I know nothing, that you will not "waste your time," and that your position is the "perfect" one, yet I am arrogant? You, sir, are quite the comedian! Tell me, how is it-being superior and all?

I usually enjoy discussions, but, something tells me that your decision not to "waste your time" and "engage in conversation" with me is not my loss in any way!
I do not speak with hidden meanings so please do not make it sound as if I do. I say what I mean and mean what I say. Only ignorant people try to sound eloquent.

You are correct, I believe Islam's doctrine, the Qur'an, and the sunnah, are all perfect as is told in the Qur'an. Saying that, I want to make clear that Muslims are NOT perfect because we are simply humans trying to live the best way we can, just like anybody else.

As for all the rest of what you said, if you do not wish to talk to me, please remove all your posts from this topic so people don't have to read all your nonsense and waste their time.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » December 9th, 2006, 6:40 pm

Just for the record: I think both of you guys are really educated people. Why not try to learn off each other?

Peace.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 11th, 2006, 7:36 am

Have you all forgotten about the christian crusade? the so called holy crusade to cleanse the world of all those did not accept christianity!

On 1095-NOV-27, the Pope called on Europeans to go on a crusade to liberate Jerusalem from its Muslim rulers. "The first and second wave of Crusaders murdered, raped and plundered their way up the Rhine and down the Danube as they headed for Jerusalem."

on the way to the Middle East, they decided that only one of their goals was to wrest control of Jerusalem from the Muslims. A secondary task was to rid the world of as many non-Christians as possible - both Muslims and Jews.
The Crusaders gave the Jews two choices in their slogan: "Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!"
12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed as the first Crusade passed through. Some Jewish writers refer to these events as the "first holocaust."
Once the army reached Jerusalem and broke through the city walls, they slaughtered all the inhabitants that they could find (men, women, children, newborns). After locating about 6,000 Jews holed up in the synagogue, they set the building on fire; the Jews were burned alive. The Crusaders found that about 30,000 Muslims had fled to the al Aqsa Mosque. The Muslim were also slaughtered without mercy.

and it did not stop there, it was first of the 9 CRUSADES.
These mass killings were repeated during each of the 8 additional crusades until the final, 9th, crusade in 1272 CE. The number of people killed during the crusade, between 1095-1272 1,000,000

Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!

. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 11th, 2006, 8:09 am

Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book “Islam at the cross road” (Page 8):
“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.”
1. Islam means peace.
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests.
Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and antisocial elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace.
At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression.
The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

4. Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians.

i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there wouldnot have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6.More than 80% non-Muslims in India.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

7.Indonesia and Malaysia.
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, “Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?” ???

8.East Coast of Africa.
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, “Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?”

9.Thomas Carlyle.
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book “Heroes and Hero worship”, refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: “The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.”

10.No compulsion in religion.
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error”
[Al-Qur’an 2:256].

11.Sword of the Intellect.
It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:
“Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.”
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.
An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%.
May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam???

13.Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.
Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The past points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

peace out!

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

wrongly named . . .

Unread post by Brown Street » December 11th, 2006, 10:38 pm

apparently this hsould be named

INTOLERANCE OF ISLAM ...

and, no i did not "forget" about the crusades-but, i am replying to statements that Islam is "perfect," and that Mr Siddiqi does not want to listen to my "nonsense," that is, anything that tells a different story of Islam than he tells! He apparently is INTOLERANT to anything that does not match his fantasies!

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

"Christian" Crusade?

Unread post by Brown Street » December 11th, 2006, 10:42 pm

As of now, there are some 20,000 Protestant denominations-all refer to themselves as "Christians." Besides those, there are the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church, and, I am sure, some that I have missed.
The Crusade were orgainzed, paid for, and fought SOLELY by the Roman Catholic Church-no other Christians had anything to do with it-unless you want to include the eastern Orthodox, as they, too, were attacked by the Roman Catholuic Crusaders.
So, simply, to call the Crusades "Christian" is not accurate, and, somewhat misleading, as they were Roam Catholic Crusades.

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

NEWS - "HOLOCAUST CONFERENCE" IN IRAN & KKK DE

Unread post by Brown Street » December 12th, 2006, 7:39 pm

NEWS ITEM

Duke defends deniers' meeting
Dec. 12: Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke talks to MSNBC's Rita Cosby about attending a conference in Iran questioning whether the Holocaust happened.

MSNBC


NEWS ITEM

Robert Tait in Tehran
Monday January 16, 2006
The Guardian
Iran announced yesterday it would stage a conference to question the authenticity of the Holocaust, a move certain to stir international anger.
The statement follows a series of inflammatory remarks by Iran's hawkish president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has described the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis in the second world war as a myth and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He has also suggested an alternative Jewish state should be set up in Europe or Alaska.

NEWS ITEM
Adnkronos International:
Iran has decided to rewrite and revise the history of the Holocaust. Following the repeated declarations by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other senior government officials on the need to re-examine the history of the genocide of the Jews during the Second World War, the association of Islamic Journalists of Iran has been tasked with quickly putting together an international conference on the Holocaust

NEWS ITEM
locaust deniers ban dissenting voice
Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia


Arab lawyer kept from Iran hearings
He planned to challenge denials







An outspoken Palestinian lawyer was hoping to challenge Holocaust deniers during a provocative conference that opens in Iran today. The international gathering will question whether six million Jews were actually  slaughtered by the Nazis in the Second World War.

But yesterday Khaled Kasab Mahameed learnt from the Iranian Foreign Ministry — which had invited him to speak — that he would not receive a visa. No reason was given.




Mr Mahameed suspects that it was because he has an Israeli passport. It may also have been because he has made clear what he intended to say.

“I’m bitterly disappointed,” Mr Mahameed, who studied at a British university, told The Times. He was seeking a personal audience with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, to tell him that denials or questioning of “such huge, monstrous horror” harmed the Palestinian cause.

Mr Mahameed lives in Israel, where he has established the Arab Institute for Holocaust Research and Education, the Arab world’s first Holocaust museum, in Nazareth. He believes that the “study, analysis and acknowledgement” of the Holocaust by Arabs is important for a durable peace between the Palestinians and Israel. “It’s not enough to curse these Holocaust deniers as foolish. We have to convince them the Holocaust did happen,” Mr Mahameed said.

A QUESTION
So, is this also nonsense? News items, that tell of something going on in an Islamic country-which I place here to show that "Intolerance" is certainly NOT foreign to the Moslem mind, or the Islamic country. One would pretty much have to agree, eh?

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION?

Unread post by Brown Street » December 12th, 2006, 8:06 pm

Apparently the thought among Moslems consiering persecution of other religions, compulsion in religion, and intolerance in Islam is not the same! See the excerpts from an article by a Moslem below.


Islamic Intolerance
by Ibn Warraq
from Islam Review
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/isl ... ance.shtml
"The myth of the Golden Age of Inter-Faith Utopia is just that--a myth. Islam, that is, the Koran, Muhammad and his deeds and words, Islamic law and its interpretation, has always been totally intolerant in theory and in practice of non-Muslims...
Muslim theologians are unanimous in declaring that no religious toleration was extended to the idolators of Arabia at the time of Muhammad. The only choice given them was death or the acceptance of Islam. Similarly, no tolerance is shown to atheists and unbelievers. The Koran is full of lurid descriptions of the punishments awaiting them. Surah XXII.9 states: "As for the unbelievers for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods."
The Koran also enjoins all Muslims to fight and kill nonbelievers: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" (Surah XLVII.4).
The years after Muhammad's death in 632 saw the extraordinary expansion of Islam northward to Palestine, Mesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia, and further west to Egypt and North Africa. This rapid rise of Islam is a sad story of, to quote Professor Bosworth, "human intolerance and fanaticism." The subsequent treatment of the Jews and the Christians has been described in two extremely courageous books by Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (1985) and Les Chretientes D'Orient Entre Jihad Et Dhimmitude (1991). Bat Ye'or had the courage to tell the unvarnished truth. Reading these two books, can anyone ever again talk of Islamic tolerance? What follows relies heavily on them.
The totalitarian nature of Islam, to use Professor Bousquet's phrase, is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true religion, to the law of Allah. Islam has always claimed for itself universal and exclusive truth--the possibility of salvation outside it is inconceivable. Indeed it is the sacred duty--an incumbent religious duty established in the Koran and in the Traditions--of all Muslims to bring it to all humanity. Jihad is a divine institution and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam. It is the religious duty of all Muslims to fight and kill in the name of Allah:


Kill those who join other gods with God (i.e. idolators) wherever you may find them. (Surah IX.5-6)


Those who believe fight in the cause of God.... (Surah IV.76)


I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels. Strike off their heads, then, and strike off from them every fingertip. (Surah VIII.12)


It is a grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers; those who do, will roast in Hell:


Believers, when you meet the unbelievers preparing for battle do not turn your backs to them. Anyone who does - shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home: an evil dwelling indeed! (Surah VIII.15-16)


If you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your place. (Surah IX.39)


Those who die fighting for the only true religion, that is, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come.

It is abundantly clear from many of the above verses that the Koran is not talking of metaphorical battles or of moral crusades; it is talking of the battlefield. Mankind is divided into two groups--Muslims and non-Muslims. The Umma possess territories in the Dar Ul Islam, the Land of Islam, where the edicts of Islam are fully promulgated. The non-Muslims are the Harbi, people of the Dar Ul Harb, the Land of Warfare, any country belonging to the infidels that has not been subdued by Islam but which, nonetheless, is destined to pass into Islamic jurisdiction either by conversion or by war (Harb). All acts of war are permitted in the Dar Ul Harb.


Once the Dar Ul Harb has been subjugated, the Harbi become prisoners of war. The imam can do what he likes to them according to the circumstances: have them massacred, sold into slavery, exiled, or treated as dhimmis who are tolerated as second-class subjects as long as they pay regular tribute.


At the death of the Prophet, the caliph Abu Bakr organized the invasion of Syria. During the campaign of 634, the entire region between Gaza and Caesarea was devastated; four thousand peasants, Christians, Jews, and Samaritans who were defending their land, were massacred. During the campaigns in Mesopotamia, between 635 and 642, monasteries were sacked and the monks killed, Monophysite Arabs executed or forced to convert; in Elam the population was put to the sword; at Susa all the dignitaries suffered the same fate.


In Egypt at Nikiou the entire population was destroyed. In Armenia the entire population of Euchaita was wiped out. In 642, it was the turn of the town of Dvin to suffer. It was the same ghastly spectacle in North Africa: Tripoli was pillaged in 643; Carthage was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants killed. So many communities were destroyed that one runs out of expressions to render all the carnage--sacked, devastated, massacred, looted, pillaged, put to the sword, razed, ravaged, burnt, etc.


As Bat Ye'or says, apart from the killing and looting, the whole history of Islamic conquests is punctuated with forced conversions. For example, in August 1198, the Jews of Aden were ordered before the Caliph, and any Jew who failed to turn up was killed. Those who appeared as ordered were humiliated and forced to convert; anyone who defected from Islam later was beheaded. Tavernier, the seventeenth-century French traveler, describes how in Anatolia, "il y a quantite de Grecs qu'on force tous les jours de se faire Turcs" ("There are numerous Greeks who are forced every day to become Turks").


To maintain their safety and the right to worship, non-Muslims had to pay a poll tax and a land tax, which proved such a crushing burden that many villages were abandoned as the villagers fled to the hills or tried to lose themselves in the anonymity of large towns to escape the tax-collector. In Lower Egypt, for example, the Copts, utterly ruined by the taxes, revolted in 832. The Arab governor ruthlessly suppressed the insurrection, burning villages, vineyards, gardens, and churches. Those not massacred were deported."


The article continues-anyone interested can see it in its entirety at the above mentioned website.

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

Planned Attack on Innocents-NEWS ITEM

Unread post by Brown Street » December 12th, 2006, 8:25 pm

Moslem Convert Arrested in Rockford, Illinois Planning to Attack Sopping Mall during Christmas Rush

By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer Sat Dec 9, 10:33 AM ET
CHICAGO - "A Muslim convert is in custody accused of trying to trade two stereo speakers for a 9 mm pistol and the grenades authorities say he wanted to carry out an attack on holiday shoppers.
The FBI says it was tipped by an acquaintance of Derrick Shareef, then recorded the 22-year-old planning to use hand grenades to blow garbage cans into clouds of flying shrapnel in a crowded mall the Friday before Christmas.
"This is a warning to those who disbelieve," he said, according to an FBI affidavit."


It seems the "warnings to those who disbelieve" always take the form of surprise attacks in unsuspecting innocents-a particulalrly nasty form of "intolerance."

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

Hindus don't get a pass either . . .

Unread post by Brown Street » December 12th, 2006, 9:02 pm

MUSLIM PERSECUTION OF HINDUS

The man you see above begging for his life is a Hindu who had the misfortune of walking past a mosque in Bangladesh as its congregation was leaving after Friday prayers. Vimal Patak was beaten to death in the name of Islam as an imam watched. This could soon happen again in a neighborhood near you.
[The above refers to a very graphic photo of a man who had been beaten bloody]

It is hard to believe that the capital city of the Hellenistic Greek empire of Bactria was located in what is now Afghanistan. It is also difficult to believe that Afghans at one time were either Hindus or Buddhists -- peaceful people. But the dark and evil sea of Islam advanced from the west and with it came a wave of destruction even worse than that which had vanquished much of Christendom. While Islam allows "people of the book" to pay protection money to their Muslim masters that is not true for idolators and polytheists who must, according to the Koran, be slain one and all.


I will not recount the story of Muslim atrocities against Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists here. That has been done very thoroughly elsewhere. I will instead list some Web resources that do a good job of telling this dark story.


The Voice of Dharma offers a number of free online books, pamphlets and monographs on India affairs. Amongst them you will find The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India by Sita Ram Goel. It does a good job of providing a chronological history of the rape, murder, enslavement, pillage, plunder, desecration and despoliation Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists suffered at the hands of barbarous Muslim invaders. Satyameva Jayate, an Indian site, also does a superb job of documenting the Hindu Holocaust in a somewhat more digestable format.


Francois Gautier sums it up this way, "In other parts of Asia and Europe, the conquered nations quickly opted for conversion to Islam rather than death. But in India, because of the staunch resistance of the 4000 year old Hindu faith, the Muslim conquests were for the Hindus a pure struggle between life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and their populations massacred. Each successive campaign brought hundreds of thousands of victims and similar numbers were deported as slaves. Every new invader made often literally his hill of Hindu skulls. Thus the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000, was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush, 'Hindu slaughter'. The Bahmani sultans in central India, made it a rule to kill 100.000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100.000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions. Koenraad Elst quotes Professor K.S. Lal's "Growth of Muslim population in India", who writes that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 8O MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525. INDEED PROBABLY THE BIGGEST HOLOCAUST IN THE WHOLE WORLD HISTORY. (Negat.34)


But the "pagans" were far too numerous to kill them all; and Hinduism too well entrenched in her people's soul, never really gave up, but quietly retreated in the hearts of the pious and was preserved by the Brahmins' amazing oral powers. Thus, realising that they would never be able to annihilate the entire Indian population and that they could not convert all the people, the Muslims rulers, particularly under the Hanifite law, allowed the pagans to become "zimmis" (protected ones) under 20 humiliating conditions, with the heavy "jizya", the toleration tax, collected from them." You may read all of Gautier's article here.


Historian Will Durant wrote in his book The Story of Civilization:


"The Mohammadan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."


The bit about "multiplying within" makes my blood run cold.


Hindus living in Bangladesh are also under siege by Muslims. You can learn more about their plight here. A particularly sad account of Muslim atrocities in Bangladesh can be found here.




April 12, 2006 in Muslim Persecution of Hindus


See Website: http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_ev ... index.html

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

Unread post by Brown Street » December 12th, 2006, 9:13 pm

Be sure to check the quotes from the writings of the Ayatollah Khomeini-unbelievable!
From the Website: http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_ev ... index.html

see website for more


"Muslim Sexual Perversion

Pedophilia

Let me begin with a quote from a fatwa by the late and unlamented Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran.

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

You need not fear that your Muslim male baby-sitter will rape your 7-year-old daughter. If he is a good Muslim he will only sodomize her. If he does force his penis into her tiny vagina he is obligated to pay for any surgical repairs that may be required. If those repairs are deemed insufficient you may work out a financial settlement to compensate you for his trivial infraction. No big deal. Muslim boys will be Muslim boys. And, after all, she is only a girl.


Other forms of sexual abuse inflicted on children by Muslim male family members include fondling of genitals, coercing a child to fondle the abuser's genitals, masturbation with the child as either participant or observer, oral sex, anal or vaginal penetration by penis, finger or any other object. Another technique used by Muslim men is called "thighing". The child's legs are pressed together and the abuser inserts his penis between the thighs of the little boy or girl. As this was how Mohammed had sex with his wife, Aisha, from the time she was six years old the practice, of course, was approved of by Ayatollah Khomeini who in his Little Green Book asserted “It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.” Yes, indeed, you can be a good Muslim while copulating with the thighs of an infant. An Arab woman vigorously denounces this vile practice in the following video clip from Bahrain TV.  Her denunciation of the "thighing" of infants and young girls comes towards the end of the interview.


This practice flourishes in Muslim countries where women are ruthlessly oppressed and normal sexual development systematically suppressed. That would include the Arab world, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Deny men wholesome and natural sexual outlets and they will find unwholesome and unnatural alternatives.


The Grand Ayatollah's full ruling on marriage can be found here.  The institution of "temporary marriage" appears to be designed to facilitate prostitution.  A USA Today article tells the story.


Homosexuality


Islam has the effect of denying Muslim boys and girls the opportunity to develop their sexuality in a normal, wholesome fashion. The public mixing of sexes is prohibited by Islam although it may be tolerated by the secular governments of most Muslim nations. Denied the opportunity to have normal heterosexual experiences during adolescence and frequently the victims of sexual abuse by male relatives while they were growing up it is no wonder that Muslims are much more likely than infidels to find romance and sexual gratification in homosexual relationships. The following excerpt from a piece published in a gay and lesbian publication gives one a notion of Muslim sexuality in Saudi Arabia.

"Ibrahim bin Abdullah bin Ghaith, the head of the religious police (the Committee for the Prevention of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue) acknowledged, in unusually tempered language, that there are gay Saudis, while also speaking of the need "to educate the young" about this "vice". But he denied media reports that gay and lesbian relationships were the norm in the strictly segregated schools and colleges, that homosexuality "is spreading".

In an unprecedented two-page special investigation, the daily newspaper Okaz said lesbianism was "endemic" among schoolgirls. It justified the article with a saying of the Prophet's wife Ayeshathat "there should be no shyness in religion". The article told of lesbian sex in school lavatories, girls stigmatised after refusing the advances of their fellow students, and teachers complaining that none of the girls were willing to change their behaviour.

Mr Ghaith dismissed a suggestion that he should send his "enforcers" to investigate. Armed with sticks, they routinely hunt down men and women in public they suspect may not be directly related. "This perversion is found in all countries," he told Okaz. "The number [of homosexuals] here is small ..." That assessment is contradicted by teachers and students who say that, in the absence of other outlets, a "gay" subculture has inevitably flourished among youth.

"A particularly beautiful boy always gets top marks in the exams because he's some teacher's favourite," said Mohammed, an English teacher in a government high school in Riyadh. "On the other hand, I know many older boys who deliberately flunked their final exams so they can stay ... with their younger sweethearts."

Ahmed, 19, a student at a private college in Jeddah, said there was no shame in having a boyfriend in his private high school. Although he firmly rejected the label "gay", he admitted that he now has a "special friend" in college, too. "It's those who don't have a boy who are ashamed to admit it. We introduce our boy to our friends as 'al walid hagi' [the boy who belongs to me]. At the beginning of term, we always check out the new boys to see which are the most 'helu' [sweet] and think of ways to get to know them."

Gay marriage is not the contemporary invention of decadent Western civilization. The Egyptian city of Siwa has for centuries legitimized and celebrated marriages between Muslim men. No other community has done more to suppress heterosexual behavior thereby making homosexuality the norm. A gay cruising guide to Siwa provides both historical background and tips on finding gay sex partners in that city -- truly a no-brainer. Gay marriage is also practiced in Afghanistan. News reports documenting that fact and others about rampant Afghan homosexuality can be found here. Paradoxical though it may be, Islam calls for the severe punishment of homosexuality while at the same time working diligently to make that forbidden practice more attractive. An excellent analysis can be found here.

If you have a particular interest in the Islamic persecution of homosexuals al-bab.com is a good place to pursue it further. As this form of barbarity is inflicted on Muslims by Muslims and is relatively rare I will not dwell on the matter much further. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals who have been murdered by Muslims died because they were infidels. Count the millions murdered and multiply by whatever percentage incidence of homosexuality you fancy. You will get a very, very large number in return.

Bestiality


Is there a proper Muslim way to have sex with animals? Indeed, there is! Guidelines for sex with animals can be found in the writings of Ayatollah Khomeini. Two excerpts from his writings serve to clarify the matter.

"A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine." Don't the buyers deserve a discount of some kind?

Khomeini's "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990

"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned." What if it was really good and invites another lap or two? Must animals always be one-night stands?

The Little Green Book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political,

Philosophical, Social and Religious, ISBN number 0-553-14032-9, page 47 -- Look it up. This is for real!

Muslim village elders in Sudan were recently more lenient in the matter of bestiality. The BBC story -- politically correct in its omission of any reference to Islam -- can be found here."

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

MUSLIM HONOR KILLINGS

Unread post by Brown Street » December 12th, 2006, 9:18 pm

From the website:
http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_ev ... index.html
See website for more


"MUSLIM HONOR KILLINGS
There are feminists who equate Muslim honor killings of female family members with Hindus and Sikhs murdering daughter-in-laws in order to extort larger dowries and crimes of passion in which a woman is murdered by a husband or boy friend in Western countries. However, Muslim honor killings are always perpetrated by members of the victim's immediate family: husband, brother, father or mother. Their object is always to restore family “honor”. In that important regard they are different from all other murders of women.


Honor killing is currently virtually unknown in Muslim sub-Saharan Africa, Bangladesh and Indonesia. It is most commonly practiced by Muslim Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Afghans and Pakistanis and their immigrant populations abroad. It now occurs in every Western country burdened with a Muslim immigrant subculture.


Nowhere in the Koran or Hadith (biographies of Muhammed) will you find scripture or text that legitimizes honor killing. In fact, it is forbidden. Married women who commit adultry are to be stoned to death according to Islamic law. But they must be judged by a religious court that requires testimony from four male witnesses to insure a conviction. The sentence would then be carried out by religious authorities; not family members. That being the case, is it fair and just to attribute the practice of honor killing to Islam? Should this loathesome crime be attributed instead to tribalism or some other aspect of culture independent of Islam. I think not. Islamic misogyny facilitates the practice. Proof for this assertion can be found in the fact that the Hindu and Christian minorities who share in every way except religious faith the culture of the Muslim nations in which they reside do not engage in honor killings.


The following excerpt from an article by an anti-Islamist who uses the pseudonym of Ali Sina supports my analysis.


“Honor killing is neither in the Quran nor is it specified in any hadith. It is however the natural outcome of the Islamic ethos of misogyny.


Women in Islam are regarded as sources of shame. Muhammad said they are awrah which can be translated as object of shame.


"Ali reported the Prophet saying: 'Women have ten ('awrah). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten." [1]


What is awrah? The Encyclopedia of Islam defines 'awrah as pudendum, that is the external genitals, especially of the female. Pudendum derives from the Latin pudor which means sense of shame and modesty. So awrah signify an object of shame that needs to be covered. [2]


According to the following Hadith, women not only have ten 'awrah, but the woman herself is perceived as 'awrah:


"The woman is 'awrah. When she goes outside (the house), the devil welcomes her." [3]


If a woman loses her awrah by e.g. through rape, she becomes the object of shame for her family and the only way to remove that shame and restore the honor is to remove that defiled woman.


So you can say honor killing is cultural, but it is a culture that is deeply rooted in Islamic mindset and derives from it. It is practiced in all Islamic countries. The more religious is a country, the more is widespread the honor killing.


Women are asked to; “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display” Quran 33.33


A woman who transgresses these orders becomes the source of shame to her family. She will not be marriageable, she and her family become the object of gossip of everyone. The entire family can lose prestige. No one would give a daughter to the brothers of that girl in marriage and no one would marry her sisters. The family and even the extended family are maligned and become outcasts. This can only stop if the family cleanses that stain with blood. The woman thus defiled must be sacrificed even if she is a victim of rape.


But you don’t have to be raped to become an exposed awrah and bring shame to your family. If you disobey your father who has consented that you marry a certain person you dishonor him. If you escape from your home for any reason including abuse, you have brought shame to your family and you could be haunted by your own brothers or even your mother and killed. If you reject a suitor, his pride can be injured and he may feel the urge to throw acid at your face to avenge and restore his honor.


If you are a female you have to remember that you have brought shame and disgrace to your father and everyone else in your family the day you were born and you must cover this shame, You are awrah, a pudendum, something to be ashamed of, something to hide. When you go to your husband’s house, your parents can breathe a sigh of relief. But from there on you become the awrah of your husband. Only the grave will cover all the shame that you have brought to this world. But as long as you are alive, it is your religious duty to be modest and cover this shame and not disgrace your qayyuums (male guardians). Your male kin, (father, brothers, husband, sons and even uncles) are your qayyuums and you are their awrah. If you make a dazzling display of yourself, the honor of all these "honorable" male relatives is injured and all of them have a right to burry you to restore their honor.


Muslim men have very low self esteem but they compensate the smallness of their selfhood by inflating their ego. If you are a women related to them, they feel as if they own you. Whatever you do affects their gigantic ego. They are possessive and feel dishonored if you make a "dazzling display" of yourself. And of course if you are deflowered, this is an affront to their humongous pride. The damage is irreparable and the only way to restore that pride is to get rid of you.


Honor killing is theoretically against the law in all Islamic countries, but generally the sentences are light. Often they are a year of jail or only a few months. The judges are very "understanding" and sympathize with the killers who are also grieving for the loss of their loved one. Most likely the Judges would do the same in similar situations. Everyone agrees that this is a very unfortunate situation that has no other solution but taking the life of the poor girl. Often the brothers and the parents hug the lifeless cadaver of their victim and cry bitterly after stabbing her to death or strangulating (sic) her. They don't listen to her pleading and begging to spare her life, but sure they cry profusely for her after they kill her.”


Ali Sina in spite of his best efforts does not capture the obscene horror of it all. Newspaper reports make the story more personal. Click on the following links to flesh out this portrait of evil.

Germany
Britain
Jordan
Palestine
Sweden
Denmark
Yemen
Iran
Pakistan
Israel


Val McQueen's "Honor They Father - Or Else" published in TCS Daily offers more on the subject."

Post Reply

Return to “Religious Thought”