Guardian: religious reform and iconoclasm

It's all very well saying what a reform of Islam shouldn't be. But what, if anything should it be?

Flanstein for a moment there I thought you were referring to the Catholic Church... or the Republican Party.

Alas I agree on Kafir on this point. Why compare reform of Islam to the Christian Reformation? Love the way people equate reform, secularism, democracy, rational debate, etc to Western expressions of the same. I think, for eg, of Bush's call for 'Western-style' democracy.

Is there such a poverty of vision and creativity that we cannot conceive of anything other than what has already been? I refuse to believe that. Even amongst those thoughts that have already been there have been great insights into another, more progressive Islam. I think, for eg, of Ibn Khaldun and his vision for a more rational, pluralist community. Here's some good resources on the man: http://www.eroseffect.com/articles/Khaldun.PDF and http://209.196.144.55/pdf/IbnKhaldun20-45.pdf.

Iqbal - it's OK to agree with me, you know. Contrary to what you said on a different thread, I don't hate Muslims, but I get profoundly irritated by their readiness to criticise Western society, but almost total absence of self-criticism or consideration of the need for reform.

Where did I say that you hate Muslims? Anyway, whether you do or not isn't really the point. I don't know how anyone who places faith in Islamic theology would react positively to someone called Kafir. Still, people should judge you on what you say. I think there's merit to some of the things you've said. And I agree entirely with your two posts on this particular thread.

I still think the body of your comments are unconstructive though. Really all you're saying is that Islam is beyond reproach, and Muslims need to accept that ultimately their religion is to blame, not the West or other issues. That's certainly the message I take back from your comments. Shame you don't link to an e-mail address or web site. It would be nice to 'know' you more than just by the name 'Kafir'.

Out of interest, were you ever a Muslim?

I'm sorry to hear that mate, and, sadly, know all too well what you speak about. Thankfully not from personal experience (thanks to being male, a member of a progressive community, and a privileged sector of the general community) but I have close friends who haven't been so lucky.

I agree entirely re the monolithic criticism. Still, you've got to be careful not to paint all Muslims with the same brush.

I remember when I first started questioning Islamic theology, I felt justified in making carte blanche swipes against the religion as a whole. You feel like when you discover some egregious failing, it somehow justifies abject disdain for the whole religion (Islam has bad bits, therefore Islam bad, and any criticism is justified). I soon discovered things are a lot more complicated than that, and what we're dealing with is, ultimately, a human phenomenon. So even when we are criticial of something like a religious faith, we need to do it in a respectful, constructive manner. It's a real tight rope act. Not an easy task to do. Especially since it's easy to just provide a blanket for some very stupid ideas.

Kafir is an ugly word. I chose it because it is what Muslims call me. It's to make a point. Muslims complain about 'Islamophobia', yet often have pretty damning stuff to say about non-Muslims.

On a site like this, where the consensus is almost monolithic - Islam is perfect, any failings are the fault of the West, I see my voice as trying to redress the balance, that's all.

No, I was never a Muslim. Two close friends of mine had their lives ruined by this religion though.

As a female I see Islam as a threat. It is difficult to see Islam in its current unreformed state as being anything other than detrimental to women's rights, assuming those rights are there in the first place, which they are in the West.

I'm deeply suspicious of the argument that men and women are 'equal but different'. Sounds a bit too much like what people used to say about blacks being more suited to manual labour. Yes, men and women are different, but conservative forces, and Islam is not the only one, represent vested interests. Many Muslim men rather like telling women what to do, in my experience. (And no, before you say anything, this is not unique to Islam.)

So I'd like to see more voices of dissent on this blog. Then perhaps I would not feel the need to be so argumentative and polemical.

Kafir,

"I’m deeply suspicious of the argument that men and women are ‘equal but different’. Sounds a bit too much like what people used to say about blacks being more suited to manual labour."

It isnt the same at all kafir. YOu cant point to differences between males for other regions and say that there are biological differences but you can point to male and female and say there are a whole host of differences. The Quran speak of the former. Yes, men were created differently and have different obligations to the society and to Allah Azawajal. (I will provide ayats and hadith later.) There is no eqaulity between men and women in Islam there is only equity, in accordance with our nature.

Men and women ARE different. How can you deny that? Aside from the obvious facts - that women get pregnant, have babies, and breastfeed - women learn differently, experience pain differently, react to medication differently, show different symptoms for the same diseases, live longer... and the list goes on and on.

As a female I used to see Islam as a threat when I didn't know anything about it. When I moved to a Muslim country, I was surprised to find that the status of women was nothing like I had imagined.

Kafir,

"On a site like this, where the consensus is almost monolithic - Islam is perfect, any failings are the fault of the West, I see my voice as trying to redress the balance, that’s all."

I've never said anything like that, nor do most people on this forum. IF there are Muslims who do believe and follow the Quran they wouldnt say that either. The West isnt a thret to Islam at all, Muslims are Islam and Muslims biggest threat and always have been and always willl be.

Lets be accurate here, kafir.

Bikhair - well I don't buy that and will fight Islam or any other ideology that treats me as a second class citizen tooth and nail.

If Islam does not treat men and women the same it should get the hell out of Britain, and all advanced, civilised countries where equality between the sexes is a fundamental principle.

Flanstein, much as my head agrees with what you say, my heart goes out to Muslims trapped in this religion. Iqbal shows himself to be interested in dialogue, more so that Mohammed.

This site is a testing ground for me. I'm constantly being told that only extremists want a caliphate, women in sacks and so forth, so I've come here, to what I thought was a moderate site, to see if it's true.

Now, OK, maybe I haven't always been all that diplomatic or whatever in my way of arguing. But I'm genuinely keen to see real argument from Muslims rather than the 'piss off Kafir/Kitty Litter', or in your case 'Zionist' neanderthal stuff that Dr M comes out with.

I'm waiting with baited breath....

There's a tendency amongst Muslims, like many minorities, to bury their heads in the sand. I think for instance of the lack of criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in the Jewish diaspora (although I note the minority of Jewish commentators who do are probably the most outspoken activists you can find). At the same time, I've met a fair few people who aren't Muslim yet readily criticise this vague concept of Islam without any useful, practical proscriptions for reform. It's easy to sit on a high moral horse when you have nothing to lose.

Having said that, I think as Muslims we only hurt ourselves by deflecting all criticism, even criticism that hurts. I remember when Rushdie's Satanic Verses came out there was outrage throughout the community, and I could understand it. Yet very few bothered to read the book, let alone condemn the Ayotallah of Iran for his fatwa on Rushdie. It spoke volumes for the lack of real discourse in the community.

As to the West as some model for reform. There's definitely plenty to consider, even emulate. But foremost, Muslims (and here I speak more of Muslim countries) need to find their own solutions, based on the shared human principles of scientific, rational inquiry and democratic, pluralist social development.

Crucial to any attempt at seeking the truth is challenging the most cherished beliefs. If they are worth cherishing, they will stand up to the challenge. Otherwise, they need to be seriously considered. To give one broad example, I think we need to challenge the myth that there is some real 'asul' Islam that, if only it were practiced, would soothe all our ills. Another is the myth of Islam as this binding, sociopolitical force which it is not, as I have mentioned in a previous post.

Beyond Islam we need to consider shared interests and responsibilities with other humans, not just amongst Muslims. I would argue that the most pressing concerns don't concern Islam or even religion per se. They relate to socioeconomic inequities, the gaps between rich and poor, the global North and South, the exploitation of whole populations for the benefit of a few.

One of the principles of racism is to condemn an entire collection of people on the basis of a stereotype, often derived from a very real life episode (eg September 11 hijackers did bad things, and were Muslim, hence Muslims bad). Why is it always that Muslims and Islam have this collective responsibility to wear the blame of these exceptional extremists? And why is there no comment on the none too trivial fact that Al Qaeda and Osama (and his ilk) were created, financed and trained by the United States and its client states during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? What about the role played by powerful States in fomenting politically motivated violence (aka terrorism) for the better part of two centuries?

As I've said before, I think Muslims have a responsibility to weed out the extremists in our midst. But that is a responsibility to ourselves, if we care about ourselves, and our children, etc. It is not a licence for outsiders to start pinning the demon's tale on our behind.

By the way the statement "almost all terrorists are Muslims" is plain wrong. So the contras who tortured and executed peasant farmers in Nicaragua were talibs?

One of the usual ways that I know muslims are incapable of self-criticism is when they censor opposing viewpoints - as is happenning to me on this blog. Sad that you should have so little convictions in your own belief system that you would feel compelled to delete comments from another infidel...

Yes, I noticed your last comment had been deleted, but I don't know why that one was and not others, or others of mine.

To be fair, though, censoring opposing viewpoints on blogs isn't just a Muslim thing - lefties do it too.

Flanstein - what's your blog - I'd like to visit it?

"To be fair, though, censoring opposing viewpoints on blogs isn’t just a Muslim thing - lefties do it too. "

So do those on the right if we're being completely fair about it. I just don't understand why people feel compelled to censor. On my own blog I only delete comments when they veer into obvious hate-speech ("kill all the Jews" or "kill all the muslims")

Iqbal Khaldun,

I've heard your "tiny minority of muslims" speech before. The assumption that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by a tiny minority of extremists who have hijacked a peaceful religion is still held uncritically by many muslims. In fact, OBL is widely admired in islamic countries, Jews are universally hated and Christians and hindus are despised.

Throughout the islamic world, hatred for infidels is on the rise and support for killing us strong as evidenced by the proliferation of hostage throat-slitting videos that are so popular wherever muslims live.

Going by a report prepared by the Washington-based PEW Research Centre last fall, most people in Muslim-dominated nations are divided over violence against civilian targets, 41 percent of those interviewed in Pakistan said it was justifiable in the defence of Islam. (harldy a "tiny" minority...)

Not surprisingly however, Osama Bin Laden is viewed with almost universal disdain throughout Europe and Turkey, but regarded favourably by 65 percent of the Pakistanis polled.

Tiny minority?

http://flanstein.blogspot.com

Iqbal,

"Having said that, I think as Muslims we only hurt ourselves by deflecting all criticism, even criticism that hurts."

It is quite obvious you dont know anything about Islam or the Prophet's sunnah. How often have you read about the Prophet Muhammed criticizing Muslims for thier lack of adherence to his sunnah, in his day and the last day. The Quran is quite clear about making our ( the ummah) problems in this dunyah our own problems. I blame the influence and the hegemony of the West in Muslims countries on the weakness of Muslims themselves.

Now Iqbal, if you can stop speaking with your own kalam, which has no bearing on Muslims or Islamic law, and start offering some evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah about Islam and the problems or solutions, than I think you should please shut up.

Everyone here wants to speak about there own opinions when opinions dont matter in matters of Islam. So bring your daleel/evidence please or our your own thoughts and opinions going to become the foundations for what Muslims ought to believe or what Islam ought to be?

Flanstien,

"Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11"

How is that for shutting down any opposing views. What a hypocrite.

Kafir,

Iqbal will not, nor can he have a good answer for me. You eve notice that he doesnt at all talk about Islam but talks about politics? He has never metnioned a hadith, never mentiond in ayat, nothing. He wants to talk about Islam, it has two principle sources, he wants to talk about Isreal and Palestine, Muslims in Europe, the 3004 World Cup, he can talk till he is blue in the face. None of it has anything to do with the religion which has its own foundation.

Flanstein,

"Thank you for making my point about the arrogance of islam…"

This isnt the arrogance of Islam. Islam cant be anything other than what has been revelaed. Anything that doesnt have support from the Quran and the Sunnah cant be Islam. YOu can call it what you want, Shia, Sufi, Bahai, etc. etc. it isnt Islam. Similarly I cant make something up and decide that this is Judaism or Christianity.

Imam Al Bukhari said, "THe isnad is part of the religion: had it not been for the isnad whoever wished to would have said whatever he liked."

Do I need to tell you what the isnad of a hadith is or will kafir, the resident scholar tell you? Haa Haa, I kid.

"Everyone here wants to speak about there own opinions when opinions dont matter in matters of Islam."

Thank you for making my point about the arrogance of islam...

Iqbal Khaldun,

Here are some things you can ponder about from our noble scholars of the past, some Quran, and hadith, lest you keep running your trap about things you are obviously quite ignorant of.

From Ibn 'Abbaas (radiyallaahu 'anhumaa) who said that Allaah's Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wa'sallam) said: There is no believing servant except that he has a sin which he commits from time to time, or a sin in which he persists in and does not abandon until he leaves this world. Indeed the Believer was created as one who is frequently tried and tested, who often repents (then) forgets. When he is admonished he accepts the admonition.

From Jaabir (radiyallaahu 'anhu) who said that Allaah's Messenger (salallaahu 'aliahi wa'sallam) said: Do not acquire knowledge in order to compete with the scholars, nor to argue with the ignorant, nor to gain mastery over the gatherings. Since whoever does that, then: The Fire! The Fire!

Al- Khateeb relates from Ishaq ibn Eesaa whi said, "I heard Maalik bin Anas censuring argumentation in the Religion and saying, 'Is to be the case that every time someone comes who can argue better than another that we are to abandon what Jibreel brought to Muhammed because of his argument?"

Abdul-Fadl Al Hamdani said:" THe innovators of Islam and the fabricators of HAdeeth are more harmful than the Non Muslims because the non Muslims desire to corrupt the religion from outside and these they desire to corrupt it from within..."

Surah An' am 6:68
"And when you see people engaged in vain discoure about our Signs (aayat) then turn away from the, unless they trun to a different theme."

Al- Harawee relates from Abdullah Ib Ahmad ibn Hanbal who said, 'My father wrote to Ubaydullah Ibn Yahyaa ibn Khaaqan, 'I am not a person of kalam, nor do I hold the view of kalam in anything from this except what is found in the Book of Allah and the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alayhi wa salam). SO as for other than that, then speaking about it is not praiseworthy."

Surah Al Baqarah 2:204
And of mankind there is he whose speech may please you (O Muhammad ), in this worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to that which is in his heart, yet he is the most quarrelsome of the opponents.

Surah An'am 6:112
And so We have appointed for every Prophet enemies - Shayatin (devils) among mankind and jinns, inspiring one another with adorned speech as a delusion (or by way of deception). If your Lord had so willed, they would not have done it, so leave them alone with their fabrications. (Tafseer Qurtubi, Vol.7, Page 67)

Abdul-Fadl Al Hamdani said:” THe innovators of Islam and the fabricators of HAdeeth are more harmful than the Non Muslims because the non Muslims desire to corrupt the religion from outside and these they desire to corrupt it from within…”

So Islam can't be reformed - it's stuck in the 7th century.

I hope Iqbal has a good answer for you, Bikhair.

Bikhair - you seem very arrogant in deciding who is and who isn't a Muslim. Now I know I'm not a Muslim and say so, but by what right do you say a Shiite or a Sufi is not a Muslim? They might say you are not one.

Isnad of a hadith, as I understand it, means something like context or background that establishes whether the hadith is authentic or not. But I'm not sure, and I've never claimed to be a scholar of Islam, just someone who's read up on the basics.

Can you answer Flanstein's point - do you believe that it is right for Muslims to make war on non-Muslims till they convert or pay the tax? If so, can you understand why non-Muslims might not welcome your religion with open arms?

Tolerance is a two-way street, you know.

Bikhair,

Then I guess you believe in the Qur'anic imperative enshrined in Sura 9:29 for Jews and Christians: conversion to Islam, subjugation as an inferior class, or death. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

And this, of course, is not a single verse "taken out of context," but the linchpin of an entire system that plays out in the Hadith, Islamic law, and Islamic history. Your Prophet Muhammad amplifies these choices here:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

"Wrong silly girl."

Irshad Manji referred to muslims like yourselves as deluded fools with a superiority complex. I think she's right, although what muslims can feel superior about is a mystery to me (head chopping? Women stoning? Jew-hatred 101?)

Flanstien & Kafir,

You people are jokes. First and formemost, the Imam, or the leaders of the Muslims reserves the right to take the Muslims to war when their interest are at stake. Whether he is a good leader or corrupt one he has the right to take his people to war. If war is made upon those non Muslims than it is at the discretion of the leader of the Muslims to do what he will with them. He can make them pay a jizyah, he can put to death the POWs, he can also ransom them for our own POWs, he can even enslaved them. THe point is Islam is a centralized religion with power in the center not at the parapherial with the lay Muslims.

Now the real context of the above ayat is that Prophet Muhammed as the leader of the Muslim has a right to take Muslim into war, so did Abu Bakr, so did Umar, Uthman and Ali and the terms of peace and cooperation are that of the victor, and at the discretion of the leaders of the Muslim and our enemies.

"Then I guess you believe in the Qur’anic imperative enshrined in Sura 9:29..."

Now before you attempt to give me your tafsir/ explaination of the Quran, you should probably know that the first source to explaining the Quran is the Quran itself, than the hadith. So if we allow the Quran itself to explain the "Quranic imperative enshrined in Surah Taubah 9.29, we must also consider these "Quranic imperatives" enshrined in

Surah Taubah 9:1
Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger () to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty

Surah Taubah 9:2
So travel freely (O Mushrikun - see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

Surah Taubah 9:4
Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

Surah Taubah 9:5
Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Surah 9:6
And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.

Surah 9: 7
How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

Surah 9: 10
With regard to a believer, they respect not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who are the transgressors.

Surah 9: 12
But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).

Surah 9: 13
Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.

...and so on and so forth. So before you talk about my Quranic imperative, rember that I dont practice Islam a la carte, wa Allahu Alim. Now you may be ignorant of the Quran, but the scholars are not, so please refer to what they say in regards to this ayat, this Surah, and what Quranic imperatives Muslims have. Sorry Flanstein, but I cant take my religion from someone who doesnt have knowledge of my religion. You may have glanced over an ayat or two but I need someone in my life with more substance.

Kafir,

Perhaps you should remember the things you say on other forums lest it come back and bite you in the behind.

"Bikhair - you seem very arrogant in deciding who is and who isn’t a Muslim."

"Kafir said,
August 15, 2005 @ 11:37 pm

But Islam is what Muslims practice. Saying it should be reformed and saying it should be re-interpreted are just different ways of saying the same thing."

I dont even pretend to know what happens in every village in Pakistan, or every city in Egypt. " But Islam is what Muslims practice." Really, so when a woman is sentenced to gang raping in Pakistan for the sins of the brother or Uncle, this is a practice that Prophet Muhammed, Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, and Utham practiced, right? This is "... Islam is what Muslims practice."

If this is the case that, "But Islam is what Muslims practice." take the advice of the Quran, and bring your proof if you are truthful. Its all I ask.

Kafir,

"Isnad of a hadith, as I understand it, means something like context or background that establishes whether the hadith is authentic or not."

Wrong silly girl. The isnad is the chain or narrators of a hadith. Judging by who is or who isnt in this chain, the hadith can either be authentic, weak, and fabiracted. There are others classes between them and categories.

Kafir,

What is taqiyah or kitman. WHen explaining please bring me proof from the Quran and the Sunnah. Appreciate it thanks.

The pagan Arabs converted to Islam, didn't they?

So really, Bikhair, Islam isn't a religion of peace and tolerance at all, is it? Those who say it is, those Muslims who say it is, are just practising taqiya or kitman?

I'd like to know.

"First and formemost, the Imam, or the leaders of the Muslims reserves the right to take the Muslims to war when their interest are at stake. Whether he is a good leader or corrupt one he has the right to take his people to war. If war is made upon those non Muslims than it is at the discretion of the leader of the Muslims to do what he will with them. He can make them pay a jizyah, he can put to death the POWs, he can also ransom them for our own POWs, he can even enslaved them."

When islam is utterly destroyed in the next fifty years (or less) because civilization got tired of being attacked by islamic barbarians bent on killing us because they believed their religion allowed it, I want you (if you are still alive) to remember this twaddle you wrote...

BTW Flanstein,

I have a question. I here mentioned so often from people like you about the trails and tribulations of the Christians and Jews under the rein of Prophet Muhammed, why isnt that I never hear about what happen to the Pagan Arabs? I've always wondered why thier lives are given such little attention from your peace and tolerance lovers. I guess it isnt reserved for the lizard eating desert Arabs and thier religion.

Flanstein,

"Irshad Manji referred to muslims like yourselves as deluded fools with a superiority complex."

I corrected her, if she isnt a deluded fool with a superiority complex she will thank me.

"I think she’s right, although what muslims can feel superior about is a mystery to me (head chopping? Women stoning? Jew-hatred 101?)"

Is that all Islam is to you, who is the deluded fool now. I have a question, during the time of Prophet Muhammed, how many people were stoned to death and what were the circumstances of thier punishment.

In reference to the head chopping, if someone is found to be guilty of some crime you can chop off his or her head, stick a needle in his arm, what difference does it make the end result should be the same.

Jew hating? Why do I need to hate Jews? How does that increase my chances of paradise? Flanstein, does it really have to be about the Jews all the time, listen if you are a Jew and want to be worship go to your nearest church but as for me, I have Allah azawajal to love, to obey, to worship with no partners. Tauheed is the foundation of Islam and shirk is never forgiven.

Would you like to learn about Tauheed Flanstein? It will change the way you understand the creator and sustainer of the heavens and the earth. You will then understand Muslims devotion to Allah azawajal after you have learned about who He is and that there is nothing, I mean absolutely nothing that can compare to Him. Its surreal!

Well I wasn't too far out. Establishing the authenticity of a hadith was about right, and I didn't claim to be an expert.

You are very, very arrogant, even by the standards of Muslims. The Judeo Christian God teaches humility. Jesus himself was humble. Your God, according to you, allows you to be arrogant and boastful. I hope you learn something, if not from me or Flanstein at least from your fellow Muslims.

Flanstien,

Your naivity is adorable. I have one question, in the last 50 years who took your country to war and why? In the last 50 years who took any country that went to war and why? Are only Western Judeo-christian countries allowed to pursue thier interest in the world whether it be militarily or otherwise. Wake up dear, this is the history of man. Just like there was war before Islam, there will always be war.

And another thing, how do you destroy Islam? Killing every Muslim isnt destroying Islam. DOnt get it twisted. Taking away our books, our scholars, Prophet Muhammed already prophisized that, youre a little too late. Taking away our emaan-faith in Allah Azawajal, thats gonna be hard.

You can try Flanstien. I'm shaking in my sack, as kafir likes to call it.

"The Judeo Christian God teaches humility."

How can a make believe deity created by 20th century americans teach anything?

Wouldn't it really be them who was teaching?

Kafir,

"Well I wasn’t too far out. Establishing the authenticity of a hadith was about right, and I didn’t claim to be an expert."

No kafir you werent right at all. What is wrong with you? I give you some understanding and yet you still reject it? I am the arrogant one? Oh Please!

"You are very, very arrogant, even by the standards of Muslims. The Judeo Christian God teaches humility. Jesus himself was humble. Your God, according to you, allows you to be arrogant and boastful."

My arrogance is my own sin. Where did I say that Allah says I can be boastful and arrogant?

Surah Al Furqan 25:63
And the slaves of the Most Beneficent (Allah) are those who walk on the earth in humility and sedateness, and when the foolish address them (with bad words) they reply back with mild words of gentleness.

Surah An Nisa 4:36
Worship Allah and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor), the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Verily, Allah does not like such as are proud and boastful;

Surah Al Anfal 8:45-47
O you who believe! When you meet (an enemy) force, take a firm stand against them and remember the Name of Allah much (both with tongue and mind), so that you may be successful.

And obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not dispute (with one another) lest you lose courage and your strength depart, and be patient. Surely, Allah is with those who are As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.).

And be not like those who come out of their homes boastfully and to be seen of men, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah. and Allah is Muhitun (encircling and thoroughly comprehending) all that they do.

The so called Judeo-Christio civilization laregely respnsible for the worst atrocities in human history. Murderers, rapists, thugs and gangsters like these often try to sanitize their blood stained record by projecting their actions on others. Kitty litter and her talmudic boytoy are merely regurjitating the same sort of childish propaganda these criminals are indoctrinated with. Their religion is terrorism, pure and simple. Their "god" being themselves and their carnal desires. A death cult based on empire and bloody conquest.
A perfect example being the war in Iraq. It was no different when they sank their fangs into Africa wanting to bring "liberation" and "progress" to the "monkeys," and other peoples of the world. The Chinese have an interesting saying : "the more things change, the more they remain the same."

Dr. M & Shamil,

Please when the kafiroon make statements about Allah and his slaves, please refute them with daleel and the haqq. Who cares about how they behave themselves in the world, because on the day of reserection thier deeds will be futile and our limbs will be a witness against us. So please lets speak about the Quran and the Sunnah. It is in every way our only defense.

Dr. M,

Chill...

Nutty.

Why islam is a threat to civilization?

Equal rights before the law do not exist under Islamic law. One citizen, one vote does not exist under Islamic law. Freedom of worship does not exist under Islamic law. Minorities -- that is, non-Muslims -- enjoy rights and protections at the pleasure of the Muslim community that are ever-subject to the capriciousness of a rights-canceling fatwa. Indeed, Islamic law is not the basis of a religion, as the Judeo-Christian world understands religion, but is rather a controlling ideology that is nothing short of totalitarian.

Islam's Goals Clarified. Commenting on the first self-immolation by a female Hamas suicide bomber, one of the organization's leaders, Mahmoud Zahar, had this to say: "the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe."

Not on my watch buddy...

"Indeed, Islamic law is not the basis of a religion, as the Judeo-Christian world understands religion, but is rather a controlling ideology that is nothing short of totalitarian."

So now its the "Judeo-christian world". Is that in this solar system or in some other one. Or is it some planet from Star Trek.

In terms of totalitarianism Judaism has been identified as having quite a few totalitarian traits.

"Shahak repeatedly says that Judaism has a totalitarian streak"

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/shahak1.html

Shamil - there is no movement to convert the whole world to Judaism, as there has been right from the off to spread Islam to the whole world, whether it wants it or not.

Judaism and Christianity can exist happily in a secular state alongside other religions. The evidence, from the comments on this site alone, suggests that Islam can't.

Like so many Muslims, you are mindlessly anti-Semitic.

"Like so many Muslims, you are mindlessly anti-Semitic."

Mindlessly anti-semitic?

As opposed to what?

Rationally anti-semitic?

I wasn't aware such a thing was accepted to exist in civilized society.

What exactly what was it I said that was anti-semitic?

Flanstien,

Sorry dear, but my religion doesnt come from a female Hamas member who is so jahil she would set herself on fire.

"Mahmoud Zahar, had this to say: “the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe.”

Did the Prophet Muhammed say this? Did Abu Bark say this, did Umar say this, did Ali say this sid Uthman say this? Thats where my religion comes from.

Bikhair - while whingeing and moaning about perceived Islamophobia, and demanding, in liberal democracies, nothing less than free speech and equal rights, Muslims are now 'conceding' that equal rights and democracy do not exist under Islam, and that freedom of worship is restricted.

The hypocrisy!

Can you or any of your fellow Muslims understand why, as a non-Muslim I'd fight this tooth and nail? What right have you to impose your 7th century crap on other countries? Stay in your Muslim hellholes if that's what you want to do.

Flanstien,

"Equal rights before the law do not exist under Islamic law. One citizen, one vote does not exist under Islamic law."

I'll concede. We dont have much to vote on under the sharia but I am not at liberty to say this with confidence. You'd have to ask a scholar.

"Freedom of worship does not exist under Islamic law."

Yeah it does but it is limited, especially for non Muslims and deviant Muslims.

"Minorities — that is, non-Muslims — enjoy rights and protections at the pleasure of the Muslim community that are ever-subject to the capriciousness of a rights-canceling fatwa."

Very Very strange. So Muslims dont have an obligaiton to fulfil thier oaths and treaties with people. They can just be cancelled by any Qadi who wishes to do so? Please I need evidence from the Sunnah for that.

"Indeed, Islamic law is not the basis of a religion, as the Judeo-Christian world understands religion, but is rather a controlling ideology that is nothing short of totalitarian."

You'll have to explain this one for me.