March for Free Expression

The next phase

Monday, March 27, 2006

Contribution #2: Aeneas

This was posted as three separate comments.

Part One:
The very next thing that we should campaign on is immediate and it is urgent, namely, the dropping of all charges against Reza Moradi. Are the cartoons illegal? If not, then why has this man been summoned to court? Are there other reasons that we have not been told about? If it’s just because someone was offended then I’d go further than Polish Solidarity with Denmark went – the entire population of the world should appear in court. Everyone has caused some degree of offence at some point in his or her life.

The fact that the vast majority of people didn’t show up in cartoon t-shirts, yet I imagine most people felt that people should have been allowed to if they wanted to, showed a great deal of restraint on our part and a good degree of respect towards the sensitivities of the Muslim Community. Arresting someone for making a statement, following our collective restraint is, at least in my mind, a provocation that does nothing to dispel the atmosphere of fear and suspicion that exists in many minds.

Part Two:
After the events of 9/11 I think that many Muslims feared that there would be a backlash, and the continued activities of fanatics around the world is not improving the situation. These events have also increased fears in the West that Islam wants to rule the world. Displaying the cartoons became a symbol of resistance to this perceived threat on one side and on the other of a perceived backlash.

If for no other reason that to get them into the open and reduce the fear that surrounds them, I believe that the cartoons should be published in Britain, but not in a way that provokes fear as to the motives for showing them. We have enough to fear on both sides of this debate from our own Government that seems intent on taking more and more liberty from everybody. The Iraq war provoked fear on one side, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill had a similar effect on the other. ID cards probably will be feared by many in both “groups”. Is the fear that is being created a deliberate act in order to rob us of more and more of all our rights and freedoms, which has been suggested elsewhere?

Part Three:
The reaction to the cartoons and the apparent lack of response from the Government and the Police to do anything about it, is what forced me to become active in this cause. I felt fear that my culture was under threat, just like the Muslims did. I felt myself been drawn further and further to the right, and some of the anger might have come across in some of my posts. Provocative posts from the other side and the almost ubiquitous misuse of the word racist intensified this fear and with it my anger. The decision on the cartoons and the treatment of those who took them to the rally didn’t make me less fearful either. If I felt myself been dragged to the right because of these fears, then I would imagine a similar reaction from Muslims. This drift to both of these extremes must stop, and the damage that has already been done reversed. I don’t want to give up liberal principles and only have the choice between two different forms of totalitarianism.

I have given the issues a great deal of thought, and have worried about them. I think Peter’s decision has ultimately, over time, made me pause and think, and move away from the precipice. For this Peter, I thank you. We must succeed to protect freedom of expression for the benefit of all, and to enable both “groups” or “sides” to become one and to live without fear. I believe that starting with the concept of Ijtihad as mentioned in my previous post (before the three-part one) is a good starting point because it seems to represent a liberal Islam that can be distinguished from the extreme variety and such a discussion in my opinion will encourage liberal Muslims to become involved in our campaign. It’s worth a try.

120 Comments:

Blogger Anonymous said...

I think you have got it spot on. Well done. This is exactly the same thing as has been concerning me - some of the comments here have sent shivers up my spine - we are talking about human beings, and will do ourselves no favours vilifying anyone.

7:40 pm  
Blogger MJ said...

If for no other reason that to get them into the open and reduce the fear that surrounds them, I believe that the cartoons should be published in Britain

Published yes, but don't you dare bring them to a Free Expression March. We don't want to upset the bigots at MAC do we?

7:40 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

OK - so someone insults your mum, and you're supposed to watch without being ruffled and this is supposed to begin a sensible dialogue. Even MAC are happy to discuss the cartoons but have no reason to be exposed to them - its not "toonophobia" for some its a huge insult. It's like wanting to start a dialogue with the catholic church with a bible burning session...

Are we going to now divide "good" liberal muslims from "bad" orthodox ones so we deport all the bad ones?

8:20 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

... imagine inviting Christian clerics to an event and saying - don't worry the bible burning takes place next door. Instead it's like - we have to have you burn the bible while we dispassionately discuss our differences of opinion in a rational way. For goodness sake level the playing field!

8:31 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:23 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

Are we going to now divide "good" liberal muslims from "bad" orthodox ones so we deport all the bad ones?

What you just want to deport them all or something?

9:25 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Ok, some thoughts i nicked from my blog. Its all about why the BNP is important in this country now. Ok, its a bit of a laugh, but i think we can all take something from it.

What you need to do, is stop freaking out about BNP involvment. You may not like what we say, but tough, thats life, and no other party has been 1/2 as consistent in stating over and over again that our freedoms are under attack, and not shying away from the conclusions.

So here, see what you think.

"We're dicks!!.. We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks! And the well meaning heart bleeding liberals... are pussies!! And the marxist traitors of the world.. are assholes!! Now i know, Pussies don't like dicks!.. because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes who just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole... is a dick!!... with some balls. The problem with dicks is that sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't apporoporate...

...and it takes a pussy to show 'em that. But because pussies are only an inch and a half away from assholes, sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves. I don't know much in this... crazy, crazy world, but I do know that if you don't let us fuck this asshole, we are gonna have our dicks and our pussies all drowned in shit.

With thanks to "team america; world police"

9:26 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Good explanation why reputable organisations don't provide a platform for the BNP

9:36 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"If for no other reason that to get them into the open and reduce the fear that surrounds them, I believe that the cartoons should be published in Britain"

Published yes, but don't you dare bring them to a Free Expression March.

"We don't want to upset the bigots at MAC do we?"

So the MAC are bigots with no right to be offended? As it happens there were cartoons but no violence, no threats of violence either - indeed you can easily see that MAC doesn't advocate violence at all, and you might get a different impression looking at this site, and the vehemence and depth of passion in holding views against muslims and islam clearly out of proportion to any actual threat. Unbelievable.

9:59 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

squirrelsbadhairday said...
"How ironic that Reza Moradi escaped theocratic, totalitarian Iran only to be arrested in increasingly totalitarian, thought-crime Britain."
Spot on! There is such a thin line between protecting and oppressing. Between preventing a breach of the public order and pacification at October Square in Minsk.
Aeneas, a good point you have made, Sir! We are all Rezas Moradis!

10:56 pm  
Blogger Jew 90 said...

They have every right to be offended. That is freedom of expression and its consequences. What makes them bigots is the fact that they were the ones who 'forced' Peter into a position where he asked for people not excercise freedom of speech. After all these are ONLY CARTOONS (whether you think they're racist or not is besides the point, legally they are not). It's not as if they were banners advocating murder of cartoonists and the destruction of entire continents. The MAC played a good game, they made sure that the Police were very well informed, they had a hand in one of the speakers role that day and they played out their role as the exact opposite of the BNP. In other words, freedom of expression unless we tell you otherwise. They had their banners out as well. However I doubt anybody who was offended by them was planning anything sinister. I can't quite imagine a group of middle aged secularists burning down an embassy or threatening to behead anyone.

Bigots don't have to advocate violence anon. In this case they (MAC) attempted and some would say succeeded in turning a Free Expression March into a Self Censure March. And then bragged about it and mocked the attendance. Why Peter is attempting to build bridges with the very people who scuppered the march and were very vocal in labelling all of its participants bigots and racists I have no clue?

Following MAC's successes recently in preventing extremists rallying in large numbers at the March for Free Expression

Extremists or concerned citizens? I guess you'll never know. I know I'm not a card carrying BNP member. I didn't attend because I was wary of the kind of shennanigans an Islamist group was pulling to scupper this march.

MAC's success in pressuring the organisers of the March for Free Expression to tell people not to bring placards and t-shirts of the cartoons (see below) has resulted a poor turnout of no more than 300. For a nationwide demonstration which had been campaigning for over a month to raise supporters, this is truely pathetic. The reality is despite gaining support from a wide range of speakers and organisations, support for the demonstration had been growing amongst only one section of the community- those who hate Islam and say this demonstration as an opportunity to attack Islam and Muslims publically by parading the Danish Cartoons. When the organisers of the March for Free Expression finally caved in to mounting pressure from the GLA and the Police orchestrated by MAC through the IHRC and from sister Sayyida Rend Shakir al-Hadithi's threatning to pull out from speaking at the last minute after talking to leaders of MAC the organisers finally capitulated and said the cartoons would not be welcomed.

And they admit it as well.

11:06 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

"When they came for the cartoonist,
I remained silent;
I was not a cartoonist.

When they came for the film makers,
I did not speak out;
I was not a film maker.

When they came for Reza Moradi,
I did not speak out;
I was not an Iranian dissident.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

(after Rev.Martin Niemöller)

11:19 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Jew90 wrote

"The MAC played a good game, they made sure that the Police were very well informed, they had a hand in one of the speakers role that day and they played out their role as the exact opposite of the BNP. "

They are *not* the exact opposite, please see this post on my blog;

http://bnpandme.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-top-link.html

11:30 pm  
Blogger mostazaf said...

anonymous dribbled: "OK - so someone insults your mum, and you're supposed to watch without being ruffled and this is supposed to begin a sensible dialogue."

Hey idiot - "your mum" is a person, and an attack on "your mum" is a personal attack on her and on you, because you have had no choice in her being your mum.

But pedophile Prophet Muhammad is NOT your father. He is a HISTORIC FIGURE. Historic figures, public persons, and household names are NOT PROTECTED by laws against libel and slander. There is absolutely nothing wrong with insulting Muhammad the pedophile - in fact it is necessary.

You have VOLUNTARILY accepted Muhammad. When you accept Muhammad, you accept all the criticism and insults that come with him.

You are making a mistake conflating personal attacks, which are prohibited, with insulting historic figures, which is protected.

Now go and sharpen your idiotic Islamic "logic".

4:41 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

anonymous: "Are we going to now divide "good" liberal muslims from "bad" orthodox ones so we deport all the bad ones? "

There is no such dichotomy "good" and "bad" Muslims. They are all the same. Until the day that Islam accepts criticism, and Islam accepts separation of Mosque and State, and Islam stops brainwashing children and teens, they are all "bad" Muslims.

4:49 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

anonymous dribbles further: "So the MAC are bigots with no right to be offended?"

"Right to be offended"? What an idiotic remark. Hey idiot - you certainly can be offended to your hearts content. THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. Just don't take it on society.

If you brainlessly accept Prophet Muhammad the pedophile, then you have also accepted 14 centuries of criticism and insult that COMES WITH HIM.

To be offended by a parody of Muhammad becomes your problem - as you have accepted him voluntarily. If you don't like what people say about Muhammad, and you don't like the FACTS about Muhammad, then drop him, and accept something else or accept nothing.

The right that you DO NOT have is to impose your self-chosen loaded beliefs on me and others. Get it now?

4:57 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Voltaire says: "yet I imagine most people felt that people should have been allowed to if they wanted to, showed a great deal of restraint on our part and a good degree of respect towards the sensitivities of the Muslim Community."

Please don't flatter yourself - especially your dhimmy use of the weasel word "respect". You wan't to respect something - go respect your mother - when was the last time you showed your respect to her? Leave us alone with your demands for "respect".

Its simply idiotic to assume that showing Muhammad cartoons is disrepsectful. As I have said before, a Muslim by accepting Muhammad has also accepted 14 centuries of insult and criticism levelled at this assassin. Do you really believe that Muhammad was infalliable and is above criticism?

The way you treat Muslims is as if they are supposed to be your good arms-length neighbours and supposed not to integrate in British society. I suppose an apartheid system where they don't bother you, but can go and terrorize their own women and children and oppress one another through Shariah Law, just seems to be fine with you. You want to keep them as "other" as possible, as long as they remain "good neihbours" to you, and you can sit down at a table and negotiate free speech with them.

I am sure the real Voltaire is turning over in his 400 year old grave.

5:14 am  
Blogger Charles Martel said...

one way of tackling the cartoon thing is to turn it on its head - being "offended" by portrayals of Mohammed is actually a form of idolatry. They weren't portrayals of Allah.

Maybe one way to tackle the Islamofascists is to pin them down on this theological point?

5:34 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Charles, isn't it odd that all other Islamic saints can be portrayed but Muhammad can not be portrayed? What stops believers from idolizing the portrayable saints?

I think one big reason Muslims prohibit his depiction is to elevate him from a mere human being, which he was, to the status of a diety or angel. If Allah and angels cannot be portrayed (because nobody has seen them), and if Muhammad the pedophile who loved sex cannot be portrayed (because of the sword), then that somehow makes him look sort of divine and superhuman, at least subconsciously.

6:12 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Mostazaf, well at least u aren't still pretending to be a Muslim

7:19 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Martel, I was going to make exactly the same point! Besides, being an infidel how could I possibly desire to pray to Muhammad? How could this commandment apply to a non-Muslim?

8:15 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

1 Peter, you promised the cartoons would be displayed
2 I thought this was about free expression, not about what some Holders of the One and Only Truth calls free expression

Stick to it. Who sets the rules? Do you or do they? In the latter case you might as well call this "somewhat free expression".

The consensus of what free expression is, is defined in the law and adjusted by the courts, and if Ismaeel does not accept british law, than this is not your problem.

If you give in to restrictions by the Holders of the Truth, you will never attract those who want a free society, whatever their faith is.

8:30 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Ismaell: "Mostazaf, well at least u aren't still pretending to be a Muslim"

Is this some sort of threat, Ismaeel? You saw what happened to the Rahman case didn't you? The world turned against your Prophet Muhammad.

Could somebody please explain to this idiot that it is not his friggin business what my religion is. Could somebody tell this Islamist who is representing MAC to stop the personal accusations.

As I told you before, Ismaeel, I am a Muslim and I know your idiotic kind inside out. Now stick to the issues and face the audience.

Instead of attacking me, could you explain the charges that Prophet Muhammad slept with a 9 year old girl? This has been reported in multiple AhAdits.

Is Prophet Muhammad infalliable? Lets hear it from the guy who orders us to "respect" his prophet.

8:54 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

He who does not want the cartoons displayed shows a lack of respect for humour, and thus attacks the values and offends the sensibilities of 5.2 Billion people.

I am deeply offended and demand an instantaneous and full excuse by those 1.3 Billion people, plus a swiss chocolate bar.

8:58 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Oh, and the traditions, he also shows a lack of respect for our traaditions.
That means another chocolate bar, please.

9:03 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

And not all is well for Abdul Rahman- he is far from being saved:

"This resolution to the problem is not necessarily the good news which itappears at first to be. For one thing, an anonymous official has said that
the prosecutors will be doing further investigation of the case. Secondly, senior Muslim clerics in Afghanistan had already warned that if Rahman were released he would be murdered. Indeed a member of the country’s main Islamic organisation, the Afghan Ulama Council, said, “We will call on the people to pull him to pieces so there’s nothing left.” It seems likelythat the people would willingly respond to such incitement for, according
to the BBC, “an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believethat Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed”.
Even if Rahman is able to flee to a safe country which will agreenot to deport him, the question remains of Islam’s apostasy law, under which he was convicted. All four schools of Sunni Islamic law, as well as Shi‘a Islamic law, agree that the penalty for a sane adult male who leaves Islam
is death. The sanctioning of murder in this way makes Islam unique among world faiths."

From www.baranabasfund.org

9:46 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Sorry - should have been:
www.barnabasfund.org
http://www.righttojustice.org

9:49 am  
Blogger aeneas said...

What is the situation regarding Reza Moradi? Has Voltaire issued a press release on this issue. I do not feel that I can focus on any other issues until this matter is cleared up. We need leadership and co-ordination on this issue and we need it as a matter of urgency. I would be grateful if everyone posting here could at least post some gesture of support for this man, and hopefully offer some views as well. It would appear that Polish Solidarity With Denmark has already done so. What about the rest of you?

9:55 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

From BBC:
"Mr Rahman was arrested about two weeks ago. Under Afghanistan's Sharia legal system he could have faced execution if he had refused to renounce Christianity.
The Afghan constitution enshrines personal freedom and recognises the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But it also says the country's laws are based on Islamic Sharia law and there is an explicit article which says no one has the right to contravene Islam."
Scary stuff, heh?

9:59 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Aeneas, You are right, but all I have done is voicing concern. We need to be pro-active. If he is summoned to court who volunteers to turn up as a defence witness. I will. Let's discuss it with Voltaire firts though and see what sort of pressure we can exert on this issue.

10:02 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

The impression I get from you Mostazef is that you don't like Muslims very much?

10:16 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Go for Reza Moradi's case.

You are lucky he showed up - his case is paradigmatic

-He held up the banner of free expression
-His case is the test case. If he is convicted you can appeal, up to thee European level (this is not just a british issue!). If he is not convicted, you have your answer for the Holder of the Truth (who really is a second rate player here)
-He probably was picked for his skin - not by BNP, by those who Hold the Truth - because they thought you would not defend a non-white. Na.
-It is clearly not a racist case you are fighting for him
-he is a communist and you are not - it is clearly not an ideological battle you are fighting
-he is an immigrant - this is clearly not a xenophobic fight
-The man has a story, he knows why he did it.

-You support free speech
-You support people who had to flee theocracies

Go for this and only for this, don't lose time with MAC.

This is also your very own test of credibility.

10:17 am  
Blogger aeneas said...

QUOTE - anonymous 8.20 PM. "Are we going to now divide "good" liberal muslims from "bad" orthodox ones so we deport all the bad ones?"

The above appears in my opinion to be an example of the hatemongering that is been stirred up and proves the point that I was making in my post. Is this person trying to prevent ordinary Muslims from freeing themsleves from the extremists? I see the concept of Ijtihad as a begining of the dialogue that might help begin this process. It is bad that extremists can hide behind ordinary decent people. That was the point that I was truing to make.

Regarding Reza Moradi - we need the facts urgently - did he do anyting that I am not aware of?

10:20 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Runnymede Trust:
The Runnymede Trust has identified eight components that they say define Islamophobia.
This definition, from the 1997 document 'Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All' is widely accepted, including by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
The eight components are:

1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2) Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

10:26 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"Runnymede Trust"

This is utterly naive. To say it with Wafa Sultan: It is Islam that divided the world into Muslims and non-Muslims.
This action is about free speech and not about muslims.

10:35 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

to polish and aenes

she should know:
Maryam Namazie
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/

She also should have some knowhow/contacts, having signed the Manifesto
http://spaces.msn.com/4symbols/blog/cns!C97D2C379282BFB3!342.entry

10:40 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Nadeem Kazmi is a member of the Al-Khoei Foundation, an Islamic charitable organisation based in London

The cartoons do seem to be insulting to me and, although I don't know the motives behind them, they could have been avoided.

I understand satire and I don't think satire has any limits but these are verging on the racist.

They have a very 19th Century depiction - the attire conjures up the demon Muslim - but they are given a very 21st Century twist - that Islam is a big threat.

The illustrator may have been testing the waters but I think that was dangerous and irresponsible in the current climate.

I embrace freedom of expression but with freedom comes responsibility. We embrace debate and there are many questions that can be asked about Islam that are very legitimate, such as the question about whether it is violent or not. But there are legitimate ways to conduct a debate - and this was not one of them.

We have to be very aware in a multicultural, multi-faith and multi-ethnic society. It is a time of great crisis between communities.

Muslims are feeling under siege since 9/11 and the London bombings last year.

It is interesting that these cartoons were first published in Denmark, where there is an official Nazi party.

10:45 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Anonymous "The impression I get from you Mostazef is that you don't like Muslims very much?"

Well, when you and Ismaeel engage in bloody ad hominem (if you would even know what that means) that does not set a good example for all Muslims.

I am a Muslim, and I can see how Islamists like you are destroying Islam.

Now tell me, is Prophet Muhammad infalliable? Can we talk about him? Or should we be rightfully killed?

Speak up and come out of the closet you idiots.

10:49 am  
Blogger MJ said...

It is interesting that these cartoons were first published in Denmark, where there is an official Nazi party.

So just because there is an official Nazi party in Denmark, this makes the cartoons racist? This has to be the most tenuous accusation yet.

These were satirical cartoons, no matter how offensive people found them it doesn't justify the riots, embassy burnings or deaths that followed. Neither does it justify their censorship.

10:50 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

anonymous: You have just exposed yourself for what you are.

And what is that? Do you have a f***ing name for it you COWARD mortajeh (reactionary)? Say it.

Is this a personal threat?

Anonymous - please answer and don't avoid the subject - did Prophet Muhammad sleep with 9 year old Ayesha?
Peter, Voltaire, could you please check into these MAC Islamists. They appear to be threatening me. I feel threatened. Maybe I should lodge a complaint with the police?

Does anybody know who these MAC people who issue personal threats are?

10:57 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

Islam is monolithic. Show me one Muslim that will criticize Prophet Muhammad for pedophilia. And if he or she does so, would not get killed.

3) 3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.

Islam is indeed sexist. Women can only inherit 1/2 a man. This is from the Qur'an. 2 women witnesses are equal to one man witness - again from the "exalted" Qur'an. Islam is barbaric in many ways - to wit QesAs - a finger for a finger, an arm for an arm. Stoning. Execution for converting to another religion. etc.

Many of the other points also are correct about Islam.

So according to your idiotic measure, if anyone talks about the FACTS of Islam, then he must hate Islam?

In other words, free speech to be damned, and nobody can even talk about the facts of Islam, much less criticize it.

11:03 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

To anonymous:

Please specify what it is that is racist in the cartoons. One by one. I repeat, one by one.

11:14 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

to Mostasaf
your answer is here
http://piagratia.blogspot.com/2006/03/blogger-can-islam-be-reformed.html

Cheers ;-)

11:15 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Luke, these two Islamists Ismaeel and anonymous - did Peter not turn off anonymous commenting? how does he get through? Or is it that Peter has another "agreement" with MAC? :-))

Luke, these two Islamists are starting to issue threats at me. Please be witness to their attempts to personally attack me and question my religion. Thanks.

11:25 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

A good analysis that I have found:

"For most Muslims in America, Islam is simply a religion. Muslims believe in the six articles of Islam and practice the required "Acts of Worship" which include prayer five times a day, fasting through the month of Ramadan, and, if possible, a
pilgrimage to Mecca, where Muhammad founded the
religion in A.D. 622.
There is, however, another aspect of Islam that many
seem reluctant to acknowledge. Islam is more than a
religion: It is an ideology with a clear sociopolitical agenda.
As Dr. Samuel Schlorff, an expert on Islam with Arab World Ministries puts it, "The truth is that there is another side to Islam, a side that embraces violence 'in the way of Allah.' . . . It holds that all men
are created to live in submission to Allah, as prescribed by Islamic law. Muslims believe that Islam's destiny is to extend its control until the whole Dar al-Harb [which means "House of War" -- that
is, the whole non-Muslim world] is subject to Islamic law in an Islamic state, and this includes the use of force."
Islam, we've been told, is related to the Arabic word meaning "peace." This is correct, except that the word means a particular kind of peace. A better
translation is "surrender" or "submission." It
describes the peace when a vanquished soldier lays

down his arms in submission. And so the very name,Islam, has militaristic connotations, and in this lies the root of radical Islam. That root then grows in the soil of the Islamic worldview.
Muslims view God, Allah, as absolutely transcendent.
While Christians understand that the Lord God reveals himself through the Scriptures and preeminently in the Incarnation, Muslims insist that Allah never
reveals himself in that way. He primarily reveals his will.
Muslims also believe in the inherent goodness of
people as over against the Christian doctrine of
original sin. Christians understand that we are
incapable of following God's law and are thus in need
of salvation, a fundamental difference. Muslims
believe that we don't need salvation. What we need is
guidance and that guidance is the Islamic law, an all
encompassing system that controls every aspect of everyday life. (It is administered, by the way, by religious leaders.)
As Dr. Schlorff puts it, "The model requires a Muslim
government to provide the legal and social framework
necessary to facilitate submission to the law. There is no separation between the sacred and the secular,
between church and state. This community is one, universal, and cohesive, representing for Muslims the kingdom of God on earth." And all people of earth are
called to submit, for based on this worldview, any
who do not submit are living sub-human lives and are impeding Islam's utopian vision for the world."

11:32 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

to mostazaf

Are you serious? It takes more than what has been written here to be legally a threat. Maybe I missed something?

anonymous just registered under the name anonymous

1:00 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> OK - so someone insults your mum,
> and you're supposed to watch
> without being ruffled and this is
> supposed to begin a sensible
> dialogue.

Go ahead, she can look after herself.

1:23 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Do you really believe that
> Muhammad was infalliable and is
> above criticism?

He thought so and had al-Ashraf murdered for critising him. Of course he told people to murder those that turned their back on his teachings.

You ought read a bit more and make less assumptions based on your liberal mind set handed down from liberal Western societies.

1:36 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Luke, these two Islamists Ismaeel
> and anonymous - did Peter not
> turn off anonymous commenting?

Anonymous’s login is called "anonymous" amusing, wish I'd thought to sign up with that name.

Great stuff regarding the death threats, they are showing their true colours.

Any chance of reproducing them on your blog?

1:42 pm  
Blogger publicansdecoy said...

This "would you accept someone insulting your mum?!" question is trotted out by free expression critics a lot. The answer is, I wouldn't be delighted about it, but let them say what they want. I thought about holding up a placard saying "MY MUM'S A SLAG" on Saturday, but doubtless the point would have utterly gone over their heads.

1:47 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

No-one is threatening you, you are clearly not a Muslim by anyone's streatch of imagination because of your quite clear hatred for the Prophet of Islam (SAWS).
Yes the Prophet (SAWS) is infalliable, if you were a Muslim you would know that.
Modern understandings of childhood and adulthood are based on very different conceptions from those in the medieval world. Check church sources, the Virgin Mary (May Allah be pleased with her) was 12 when she gave birth, Juliet of Romeo and Juliet fame was also 12. There are stories even today of girls of 9 having sex and getting pregnant in this country. In many cultures women are intellectually, emotionally and physically mature by this age to be married and have sex. Please stop trying to impose your liberal values and laws on everyone.

1:59 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Oh and Polish solidarity you clearly have no grasp of the basic concepts of Islam. No Muslim ever prays to the Prophet (pbuh) because they would constitiute disbelief and idolotry. Only Allah (SWT) is to be prayed to.

2:00 pm  
Blogger publicansdecoy said...

Ismaeel,

Please direct me to stories of nine year old girls getting pregnant in this country.

2:11 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel, you obviously do not understand my irony. The point was how could infidels be guilty of idolising your prophet (and therefore punished for depicting Muhammad if they have their own gods to report to?

2:15 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Our main anger at the Danish cartoons is their attack on the Prophet (SAWS) character, the ones that depict him that is.
We would still object to say what you would consider flattering images of him, however i don't think we would be quite so upset and hurt by them.

2:51 pm  
Blogger publicansdecoy said...

Ismaeel,

Are you seriously claiming that you see absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with an old man having sex with a nine year old girl?

And I ask you again, please provide justification for your claim that there girls as young as nine getting pregnant in the UK today.

2:55 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Ismaeel,

Please direct me to stories of nine year old girls getting pregnant in this country.

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?objectid=12398123&method=full&siteid=50002

3:12 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

If you go to some arab countries even now amongst the bedouin and also in sub-sahara africa, girls of nine are physically, mentally and emotionally ready for marriage.

The Prophet (PBUH) first got married to a woman who was twice divorced, Lady Khadija, may Allah be pleased with her, he was 25 and she was 40, he didn't remarry again until after she had died some 25 years later. Lady Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her was the only virgin girl he married after that. All the other wives he married were widows and divorcees who were all much older than Lady Aisha (RA). I have added this here to give some perspective to this discussion.

3:17 pm  
Blogger publicansdecoy said...

Thank you. I must admit to being very surprised by that. I hope it is very much the exception, rather than the rule. The penultimate paragraph of the article is quite interesting though:

"Sgt Kay Wallis, of West Midlands Police Family Protection Unit, said sex with a girl under 13 was rape"

How do you feel about that? Do you think that a girl of 9 years old is mature enough physically, mentally and emotionally to be having a sexual relationship? Or do you feel that the stupid liberal law is interfering where it shouldn't?

3:19 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

I think you may have seen from my previous comments, i said in some cultures girls are physically, emotionally and intellectually ready. In some cultures they are not and often it depends on the individuals involved.
The law is one that is held in this country and we must follow it as we must follow any other law in this country. If laws make it impossible to practice our religion (and no, not being able to marry a 9 year old girl doesn't make it impossible) then we should attempt to change them peacefully or emigrate.

3:49 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:49 pm  
Blogger publicansdecoy said...

Ismaeel, Thanks for the clarifications. I have no objections to you working peacefully to change this law, although, as you might guess, I sincerely hope you are not successful in your endeavours. Inevitably a line has to be drawn somewhere when it comes to age for sexual consent and consent to marriage. People will inevitably disagree about where exactly that line should be, but the overwhelming majority would argue that 9 years old is far too young for a child to have developed sufficiently to be making such decisions.

3:56 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Ismaeel

I suppose you used the word "peacefully" with the islamic flavour.

And once this is done, it will take a woman four men to prove in court that she was raped, as you explained to me in your blog. (I suppose you are going to clean that discussion of now)

I do not think you will succeed.

4:00 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel, why should I as a woman and a believer in Western Judeo-Christian values find a man who was a power-thirsty warlord, who ordered mass murders of those whom he had conquered without showing any mercy, who notoriously broke treaties, who sentenced to death a poet (and a nursing mother) because she had composed a satirical poem about him, who sanctified rape of women taken as a war trophy (after they witnessed the slaughter of their husbands), who at the age of 54 "married" a 6-year old girl and consumated their marriage when she was 9, who ordained capital punishment for apostasy from Islam, the list is much longer than this, even worthy of flattering depiction? Please can you explain to me why should I?

7:30 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

I don't think i ever talked about trying to change that law.
Polish solidarity you are talking utter nonsense, i don't know who you are talking about, but it is not my Prophet(PBUH). He never ordered women to be raped or conquered peoples to be massacred, nor did he break treaties.
It is a well known fact that when the Prophet(PBUH) conquered Mecca he gave a general amnesty to all the people of Mecca despite the fact they had fought against him, persecuted him, tortured and killing his family members and companions. It was in fact the people of Mecca who broke a treaty with him which precipitated the conquest.
He was not a warlord, he spent 13 years in Mecca preaching peacefully while the Meccans persecuted him and his followers, killing and torturing several. In Medina he fought battles against arab tribes determined to wipe Medina off the map and Muslims out of history. He always showed mercy to those he defeated.
You say he was power-thirsty, then tell me why when he took power, he didn't build a palace for himself and take all the prettiest virgin women for himself, why he didn't amass a huge fortune for himself?
He lived a life of constant ascetism, not keeping any coins in his house over night instead always distributing them to the poor. His wives say that sometimes weeks would pass with no fire being lit in their homes and there being no meat to eat because the family always gave their money and food away to those more in need.
I have given my explanation for his marriage to Lady Aisha (RAA), if you cannot accept cultural differences like this, then i'm afraid you're showing great narrow mindedness. As for killing the poetess, poetry was the media of the day and used for propaganda purposes, it was thus a political execution. It is interesting you highlight certain things but you do not place them in their proper contexts historically or politically. You also forget to mention that the Prophet (PBUH) gave far more rights to women than any other religion or even secular authorities did until the early part of the last century. You also forget to mention the tolerance he showed towards other faiths which again has no parallel in history and allowed other faith groups to administer their own communities. I can go on and on, but you're not exactly putting foward a balance account. Sounds more like a typical christian evangelical viewpoint.

7:53 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Anonymous wrote;

"Muslims are feeling under siege since 9/11 and the London bombings last year."

Thousands of us are feeling dead.

9:33 pm  
Blogger mostazaf said...

You ought read a bit more and make less assumptions based on your liberal mind set handed down from liberal Western societies.

Well said. The typical postmodern western oh so enlightened liberal-left assumes the same rules of discourse applies in Tehran, Baghdad, Cairo, and Yemen, as they apply here in Britain.

They are oblivious to the fact that the Qur'an is interpretted absolutely and literally, and that any discussion of Muhammad the pedophile and criticism of Islam is followed by a death threat or a visit by intelligence agents, and a blacklisting of your name.

Any such discussions in private runs a huge risk of someone turning you in.

10:54 pm  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Ismaeel said...
No-one is threatening you, you are clearly not a Muslim by anyone's streatch of imagination because of your quite clear hatred for the Prophet of Islam (SAWS).

Listen jAkesh Ismaeel, it is not your friggin business whether I am a Muslim or not. Get over it you lowly Islamist. My arguments stand irrespective of my religion.

By incessant questioning my religion, and trying to show I am not a Muslim but an apostate, YOU are threatening me. What is next, issuing a fatwa, you coward idiot Muhammedan?

Say it Ismaeel - say the fatwa, and recite me what the pedopile prophet Muhammad said about those who criticize Islam. You are a "good" Muslim Muhammedan, aint you?

11:00 pm  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Ismaeel says: Yes the Prophet (SAWS) is infalliable, if you were a Muslim you would know that.

You mean all 1.2 billion Muslims know Muhammad is infalliable because of the threat of the sword on their heads in their countries? Is that why only "Muslims know" this, and non-Muslims are not expected to know this? Have you ever allowed freedom of expression in a Muslim country and then asked whether Muhammad the pedophile was infalliable?

Your painting of all Muslims by the same brush is so brutish and bigotted. Get lost racist idiot.

Muhammad slept with a 9 year old Ayesha and now today in the year 2006 they want us to submit to Muhammad and accept he has never done a crime by today's standards.

Muhammad assassinated those who disagreed with him. Under any culture and any era, this is still a crime.

Muhammad advocated the beating of disobedient wives.

Muhammad claimed that the earth is flat.

Muhammad claimed that mountains are there to prevent earthquakes.

Some infalliable turkey. What an idiot.

11:12 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel,

"Polish solidarity you are talking utter nonsense, i don't know who you are talking about, but it is not my Prophet(PBUH)."

Are you already an apostate? If you are talking about a completely different prophet then you must be as I mean the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
And since you have asked for the evidence:

"He never ordered women to be raped"

Muhammad allowed the Muslim men to marry up to four wives (although he himself had a score of them) and gave them license to enjoy their "right-hand possessions" (women captured in wars), as many as they can capture or afford to buy (4:3), even if the woman is married before being captured (4:24):
“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Q. 4:24 ).
The man who called himself the holy Prophet and a "mercy of God for all beings" did just that. Jawairiyah, Rayhanah and Safiyah were beautiful young girls who were captured when he raided the tribes of Banu al-Mustaliq, Qurayza and Nadir. The prophet slew their husbands, fathers and their male relatives and let his men rape them while he kept the prettiest for himself and raped her in the same day while they were still in the shock of the loss of their loved ones. If you do not call this rape then surely there is some sort of civilisation misunderstanding between us.

"or conquered peoples to be massacred"

"It is a well known fact that when the Prophet(PBUH) conquered Mecca he gave a general amnesty to all the people of Mecca despite the fact they had fought against him, persecuted him, tortured and killing his family members and companions. It was in fact the people of Mecca who broke a treaty with him which precipitated the conquest.He was not a warlord, he spent 13 years in Mecca preaching peacefully while the Meccans persecuted him and his followers, killing and torturing several. In Medina he fought battles against arab tribes determined to wipe Medina off the map and Muslims out of history. He always showed mercy to those he defeated."

You have a perverted sense of humour, Ismaeel:

1,
Ibn Ishaq describes what happens as follows:

"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off."

2.
The most horrendous act of cruel barbarity against the Jews came in April 627, when the Muslim army seized the Jewish clan of Banu Quraiza and extirpated the entire male population of 800-900 [1] . After surrender by Quraiza tribesmen, they offered to go to exile like the Banu Nadhir tribe people but the Prophet Muhammad refused. He instead ordered them to accept Islam to save their lives. Only one Jew agreed. The responsibility of deciding on fate of the Quraiza people was handed to one Saad ibn Muad, a fanatical follower of Muhammad, who was known to be hostile to the Jews and himself was wounded in the same seize. He decided that the men of Quraiza tribe be slain, the women and children be taken as slaves and their homes and properties, as usual, be captured and distributed amongst the Muslims. As protests were raised from a number of Arabs against such barbaric and cruel punishment, the Prophet quickly found a revelation to justify this barbaric verdict as inspired by Allah [Q 33:26-27]

("33:26 And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.
33:27 And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things.")

Following this, a trench was dug at the market-place and in Prophet Muhammad's presence, more than 8 hundreds captives, in groups of five, were brought to the brink of the trench with their hands tied behind and were beheaded with swords before pushing the dismembered bodies into the trench. It went on all through the day and continued by torchlight into the night.
Following this, Jewish strongholds of Khaybar, Fadak, Kamus, Watih, Solalim, Wadi al-Kora and other were also forced to submit and exiled and no important Jewish settlements were left around Medina. After defeating the Khaybar settlement of the Jews, the Prophet took the captured beautiful young woman named Safiya to bed at nightfall as her slain husband's dead body awaited burial the next day.

3.

Muslims must not only fight, kill and slay the infidels, after they have attacked and defeated an infidel tribe, village or country; they must capture the remaining women and children as slaves/captives and take possession of their homes, land and wealth [Koran 33:26-27 ]. After that Muslims have the right to rape those captured women (right hand possession) through a divine revelation [Koran 70.29-30 ; 4:3]. These edicts, orders and responsibilities as allegedly revealed from Allah are meant for eternal application, until no other faith or unbelief is left.

The Prophet Muhammad did not only propagate a derogatory and demeaning doctrine against the infidels, including the Westerners of today, he also incited violence and ordered his followers to wage wars against them. Muslims must fight the infidels, who are the minions of the devil [Koran 4:76 ]. Muslims must not take the infidels as friends and unless the latter offer peace, they must be killed wherever the Muslims find them [Koran 4:49, 4:91]. Muslims must fight the infidels with determination, they must not retreat in the fight and those who retreat will be condemned by Allah to the fire of hell [Koran 8:15-16 ]. Muslims must fight the infidels, they must not let the latter escape [Koran 8:59-60] and they must seek out, lay in wait to ambush, seize and slay the latter wherever found [ Koran 9:5 ]. Muslims must fight the infidels whoever live near to them and show harshness to them [Koran 9:123]. They must fight the infidels in Allah's cause and in the process they will slay the infidels and be slain themselves [Koran 9:111] and if they refuse to fight the infidels, they will be afflicted with painful doom by Allah [Koran 9:39 ]. When Muslims meet the infidels, they must strike off the latter's heads, until they have made a great slaughter amongst the infidels [Koran 47:4]. In a nutshell, Muslims must fight, kill and slew infidels until the latter have submitted to Islam or subdued to the status of dhimmitude and humiliation and agree to pay Jizya taxes for not accepting Islam [ [Koran 09:05, Koran-9:29].


"I have given my explanation for his marriage to Lady Aisha (RAA), if you cannot accept cultural differences like this, then i'm afraid you're showing great narrow mindedness."

What you call a cultural difference I call plain barbarity and paedophilia. If you define objecting to immoral and degrading exploitation of a child by a lustful, sex-crazed old man narrow-mindedness then I ... hmmm I rest my case.

"As for killing the poetess, poetry was the media of the day and used for propaganda purposes, it was thus a political execution. It is interesting you highlight certain things but you do not place them in their proper contexts historically or politically."

OK, I will place what is described below in the proper historical and political contexts of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany:


Ishaq: 676 “‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”

"The prophet asked his followers to assassinate poets who had insulted him -- Abu 'Afak and 'Asma bint Marwan -- and rejoiced at their deaths. When the killer of 'Asma reported his deed to Muhammad, Muhammad replied: "You have helped Allah and His Apostle, O Umayr!" (The Sira of Ibn Ishaq, 995-996).
What was Abu 'Afak's offense? He composed a poem praising some of Muhammad's opponents, and lamenting their defeat by the Muslims: "A rider who came to them split them in two, saying 'Permitted,' 'Forbidden,' all sorts of things" -- which was a small jab at the legalism of Islam. Muhammad accordingly asked for his death. When 'Asma bint Marwan heard he was dead, she was angry, and her poem calls in turn for the death of Muhammad after Abu 'Afak was murdered: "Is there no man of pride who would attack [Muhammad] by surprise and cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?" But as a woman in 7th century Arabia, she was in little position to make good on this call or influence anyone else to do so. Muhammad had no reason to treat her as a serious threat. Nonetheless he called for -- and received -- her death also."

"You also forget to mention that the Prophet (PBUH) gave far more rights to women than any other religion"

Yeap, my prophet over 600 years earlier than yours raised women to an equal intellectual and moral (in fact women in NT are given more moral credit than men themselves) level as the men. While yours prescribed stoning women "guilty" of being raped, mine ordered men who were without sin to cast the first stone.
Here is some more enlightened wisdom from yours:

2: The Cow

Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222

Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223

Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228

A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282

4: The Women

Marry of the women two, or three, or four. 4:3

Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11

Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15


Instructions for exchanging wives 4:20

You can't have married women, unless they are captives. 4:24

Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34

Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98

They invoke in his (Allah's) stead only females. 4:117

A man cannot treat his wives fairly. 4:129

"Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females." 4:176
5: The Table Spread

When it's time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can't find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6
11: Hud

Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 11:78
15: Al-Hijr

Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 15:71
22: The Pilgrimage

When the doom of Allah comes, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, nursing mothers with forget their babies. 22:1-2
23: The Believers

You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand possess." 23:6
24: Light

If you accuse an honorable women of adultery, be sure to bring four witness. Otherwise you will receive 80 lashes. 24:4

A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6

Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31
33: The Clans

If Muhammad's wives are good, Allah will give them "an immense reward." 33:28-29

The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.) 33:30

The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33

When Allah or Muhammad decide that a man and a woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36

Allah gave Zeyd to Muhammad in marriage. This was so that all Muslims would know that it's OK to marry your adopted son's ex-wife. 33:37

Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51

If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives. 33:53

But it's OK for Muhammad's wives to talk with certain people. 33:55

Women must cover themselves when in public. 33:59
37: Those Who Set the Ranks

Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they behaved). 37:22-23

But the single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
38: Sad

Female companions await those who enter the Gardens of Eden on the Day of Reckoning. 38:52
44: Smoke

Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with "fair ones with wide, lovely eyes." 44:54
52: The Mount

Allah will reward those in the Garden with beautiful wives with wide, lovely eyes. 52:20
53: The Star

Those who disbelieve in the afterlife give female names to angels. 53:27
55: The Beneficent

Allah will give those in the Garden women of modest gaze whom neither man nor jinn have touched before them. 55:56

Allah will reward believing men with "fair ones" (beautiful women) in heaven. 55:71-72
56: The Event

Those in the Garden will be attended by immortal youths with wide, lovely eyes. 56:17-23

Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. 56:36-37
64: Mutual Disillusion

Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15
65: Divorce

Instructions for divorcing your wives. 65:1-6
66: Banning

Muhammad's wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5

The wives of 66:Noah and 66:Lot (who were both righteous) betrayed their husbands and are now in the Fire. 66:10
70: The Ascending Stairways

Doom is about to fall on all disbelievers. Only worshippers (Muslims) and those who preserve their chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from "the fires of hell" that are "eagar to roast." 70:1-30

You don't have to be chaste around your wives or your slave girls. 70:29-30


Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

"or even secular authorities did until the early part of the last century."

Saudi Arabia being the best example, heh?


"You also forget to mention the tolerance he showed towards other faiths which again has no parallel in history and allowed other faith groups to administer their own communities. I can go on and on, but you're not exactly putting foward a balance account. Sounds more like a typical christian evangelical viewpoint."

Again we have a disagreement here on the definition of the term "tolerance", I dare to say, I represent a typical Christian evangelical bias:


Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), slay them (9:5), fight with them (8:65 ), strive against them with great endeavor (25:52), be stern with them because they belong to hell (66:9) and strike off their heads; then after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” for ransom ;47:4).

This is how the pagans are to be treated. As for the Christians and the Jews, the order is to subdue them and impose on them a penalty tax, after humiliating them (9:29) and if they resist, kill them.

The Quran is alien to freedom of belief and recognizes no other religion but Islam (3:85). It condemns those who do not believe to hellfire (5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), orders the Muslims to fight them until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193), slay or crucify or cut the hands and the feet of the unbelievers and to expel them from the land with disgrace.


The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims): are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); (idolaters are) unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); liars/they lie (2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (7:179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), the lowest of the low (95:4-6)


Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”

Tabari VIII:130 “The Messenger said, ‘Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.’ Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: ‘Allah has given permission for you to be expelled.”


Qur’an 2:64 “But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you.”

11:43 pm  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Ismaeel says: Yes the Prophet (SAWS) is infalliable, if you were a Muslim you would know that.

What Ismaeel means by "know" is not knowledge through observation and reasoning. It is "knowledge" gained through blind faith and exclusion of alternative theories and narrations, generally imposed on Muslim children and teenagers in Islamicized countries.

For him, that is "knowledge".

No wonder the Muhammedans are in such a sorry state epistemologically and they have not produced any important piece of scientific or philosophical knowledge for ages now. And the few things that were produced during the "golden age" 900 - 1200 were either translations and borrowings, or were produced to a large part by scholars who were persecuted by Islam.

Prophet Muhammad (SWORD) claimed that the sun sets "in a pool of black mud". So that makes him "infalliable" I guess.

I think that these MAC Muhammedans (Ismaeel and ananymous) before they can go around and claim the superiority and chosenness of Islamic doctrine and ideology, and claim victimhood status, they should answer to these simple points about the infalliability of Muhammad (SWORD).

12:08 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Ismaeel: Lady Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her was the only virgin girl he married after that.

You f***ing idiot - why does it matter that Aisha was a virgin?

Say it you anti-human Muhammedan bigot, SAY IT. It is because a non-virgin is a "used commodity"?

And her age? 6 years when he married her and 9 lunar years when he slept with her, according to many reliable ahAdiths, including from Muslim Bukhari.

And now today, Muhammad's word is the rule of the land and all of humanity has to submit to him - when he did not even have the decency to behave in a humane manner, and not abuse a 6 year old baby girl?

And this turkey is "infalliable"?

I guess your definition of infalliabilty must come from Jupiter or somewhere even further out.

12:22 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Wow.

12:34 am  
Blogger Babyboots said...

Polish solidarity with Denmark wrote;

"(8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60);

deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39);"

alleluia polish solidarity with denmark!

I had a suspicion that Muhammed was the 'anti-christ' now this helps to confirm it.

This is from the BNPandme blog.

http://bnpandme.blogspot.com/2006/01/bnp-website-chistianity-and-devil-go.html

"Secondly, did you know the koran has 6'666 verses (or 6616 according to some scholars), and that the bible states the number of the beast is 666? Ever heard of the "Satanic verses"?"

12:45 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

The reaction to the cartoons and the apparent lack of response from the Government and the Police to do anything about it, is what forced me to become active in this cause. I felt fear that my culture was under threat, just like the Muslims did. I felt myself been drawn further and further to the right, and some of the anger might have come across in some of my posts. Provocative posts from the other side and the almost ubiquitous misuse of the word racist intensified this fear and with it my anger. The decision on the cartoons and the treatment of those who took them to the rally didn’t make me less fearful either. If I felt myself been dragged to the right because of these fears, then I would imagine a similar reaction from Muslims. This drift to both of these extremes must stop, and the damage that has already been done reversed. I don’t want to give up liberal principles and only have the choice between two different forms of totalitarianism.

- how about we discuss this in the actual post?

1:24 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Actually I don't think it matters which religion is wrong and which is right, or whether religion itself is wrong or right - there are good and bad secular governments, likewise religiously-inspired ones.

- let's just agree that we share the planet with each other...

- let's stop feeling threatened or intimidated by the other...

- let's just live and let live...

- in a free society there are churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, scull caps, hijab, atheists, lesbians, blacks etc. etc., everyone makes their choice, and the more variety of choices you see, the freer the society is...

- let's try and get on and if we can't at least tolerate each other. Someone told me once that you should never talk about religion or politics with someone you don't know!

- I can see why looking at some of the posts...

- I'm sorry is my posts have wound anyone up. I'll stop. Everyone here is OK really and perfectly entitled to hold whatever views they like...

- noone should expect violence or aggression from each other for holding those views...

- the gov is trying to build a climate of fear in the country so they can remove more rights from us all...

- I think many muslims are nervous because similar types of cartoons vilifying jews led to their mass culling and it is said by some that muslims will be the first to enter gas chambers if they happened again in Europe. I'm glad MFE distanced itself from the Danish org that was promoting the deportation of all muslims from europe. I'm afraid and I don't call that tolerance

- what times we live in, eh?

By the way, I'm sorry if some of my posts were quite inflamed. I think it's time we all start to calm down and realise that the very very vast majority of us have nothing to fear from each other...

Love and peace all round I say!

1:27 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

"Secondly, did you know the koran has 6'666 verses (or 6616 according to some scholars), and that the bible states the number of the beast is 666? Ever heard of the "Satanic verses"?"

This is obviously nonsense, even if true. There are millions of literal combinations you can construct, and some will have numerological significance by pure chance. Says nothing. In fact the number 19 or factors thereof appears repeatedly in the Qur'an - and at least one in an astonishing manner. Does not make the Qur'an true or false. Sample of one, without knowing the standard deviation means nothing.

Such superstition just plays to the hand of the Islamists.

1:41 am  
Blogger mymind said...

This is utterly naive. To say it with Wafa Sultan: It is Islam that divided the world into Muslims and non-Muslims.
This action is about free speech and not about muslims.

people go on some moderate pro muslim sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213236
and see the fundamental question is the infalebilety of the koran and hadiths + the aspiration of all muslim males is to emulate the life of mo as he was the perfect person
now eaven the questioning of any aspect of islam can not be tolerated
the moslem community in non muslim countrys is bound to help fellow muslims in the endtime aworld wide caliphate under islamic law
islam as a religion is fundamentaly not compatibel with democracy and as there can be no seperation in an islame state of government and religion

http://mymind-nazimuft.blogspot.com/

World religious conquest

Muslim polemicists like Sayyid Qutb assert that Islam’s mission is to correct the injustices of the world. What he has in mind is that if Islam does not control a society, then injustice dominates it, ipso facto. But if Islam dominates it, then justice rules it (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 7, pp. 8-15). Islam is expansionist and must conquer the whole world to express Allah’s perfect will on this planet, so Qutb and other Muslims believe.

. Religion, economy, and political control

Fred M. Donner, the dean of historians specializing in the early Islamic conquests, cites three large factors for the Islamic Crusades. First, the ideological message of Islam itself triggered the Muslim ruling elite simply to follow Muhammad and his conquests; Islam had a divinely ordained mission to conquer in the name of Allah. (The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton UP, 1981, p. 270). The second factor is economic. The ruling elite “wanted to expand the political boundaries of the new state in order to secure even more fully than before the trans-Arab commerce they had plied for a century or more” (p. 270). The final factor is political control. The rulers wanted to maintain their top place in the new political hierarchy by having aggressive Arab tribes migrate into newly conquered territories (p. 271).

Thus, these reasons they have nothing to do with just wars of self-defense. Early Islam was merely being aggressive without sufficient provocation from the surrounding Byzantine and Persian Empires.

2:01 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

anonymous says: I felt fear that my culture was under threat, just like the Muslims did.

So? What is so sacrosanct about your culture or any other culture? Cultures come and go, are born and die. Some are more rational, some are irrational. The rational ones have better survival rates. Why do you assume in the first place that a culture should not die? 11 million years of human history is undoubtedly replete with a milion cultures dying. Why should a rational human being become dogmatically wedded to any culture?

Obviously this statement of yours is rooted in the prejudice that your culture is superior to the rest somehow. Let me guess - does it have anything to do with that self-proclaimed turkey of a prophet who said "I am the chosen messenger of god, and if you don't enter into belief in me, here is my sword"?

You are obviously playing the postmodern card that claims all cultures are equally good, very well. As we say in my country, "koor khundi hammaal hemaar".

2:03 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

anonymous drivels as usual:

- let's just agree that we share the planet with each other...

You mean like in Islamic countries you want to share the planet with atheists and dissenters and apostates and blasphemers and religious minorities? With the dhimmis and the "people of the book"? Like you are not going to brainwash your own children and teenagers to your Prophet Muhammad (SWORD)? Or are you going to impose yourself on these innocents?

- let's stop feeling threatened or intimidated by the other...

Like Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasreen, Ali Dashti, Irshad Manji, Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdi - should not feel threatened and intimidated by your Prophet Muhammad the assassin?

Stop this poetic nonsense and get a real life. Go and sing these songs of poetry and lovey dovey to some of the apostates rotting in your jails in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iran.

- let's just live and let live...

Hey you idiot. "Live and let live" implies that I can draw a cartoon of a pedophile assassin, and there is nothing you can do about it, like issue death threats and agitate millions resulting in 50 people getting killed.

"Live and let live" implies I can think and express what I wish without your threats and intimidations. That you just cannot adopt a belief and then silence others. It means we have to leave children alone and not brainwash them. It means we have to keep our hands of apostates. Do you even know the implications of these happy phrases that you so callously use?

2:16 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

said Ismaeel "As for killing the poetess, poetry was the media of the day and used for propaganda purposes, it was thus a political execution. "

Every now and then Ismaeel forgets to watch his tongue and gives away his totalitarian views.

@mymind
Thanks for the bbc discussion link.

5:19 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

and, by the way, Ismaeel also gives away the reason he does not want the cartoons published: They are today's form of that satirical poetry.

It's clear to me what he would do if he could get away with it.

5:48 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Ismaeel the Muhammedan worshipper says:

As for killing the poetess, poetry was the media of the day and used for propaganda purposes, it was thus a political execution.

And that is what we are saying. She is making a political statement and critcizing Muhammad the pedophile. You admit it was a "political execution". So what is so dandy about that? Why is Muhammad a good and infalliable character then - when you yourself admit to this atrocity? You are truely an idiot. I mean I thought I was being bad in name calling. But now I see this is a correct description of you!

UNBELIEVABLE - Ismaeel claims that prophet Muhammad (SWORD) who did a political execution is "infalliable". Like Blair killing David Cameron and saying, no problem, that was just a political execution.

You also forget to mention that the Prophet (PBUH) gave far more rights to women than any other religion or even secular authorities did until the early part of the last century.

Hey idiot - we are not talking about women's right before Muhammad, or comparative women's right in the 15th century world. We are talking about women's right AT THE TIME of Muhammad, as a test of his character and also today, as a test of Islam. Your pedophile prophet and his thugs want to impose Shariah law TODAY on the Middle East (and Europe) where women become (and are) 2nd class citizens and live in apartheid. What idiocy do you have to say about TODAY and Islamic misogyny?

How about a verse in the Qur'an that says women inherit half men?

6:27 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel,
Apologies - I have forgotten to address your last point:

"Muhammad ....nor did he break treaties."

Remember the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyaa?
By the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyaa, made in 628 A.D. with the Meccans, Muhammad bought time to strengthen his side. When, 18 months later, he felt sufficiently strong, he breached the agreement on a flimsy pretext (that it was flimsy, that his breach was deliberate, can be seen in the Muslim commentaries themselves, which laud the deceptive brilliance of Muhammmad, who is reported to have said that "war is deception"). According to every authority on Muslim rules for dealing with Infidels, it is impossible to make a permanent peace treaty with Infidels. If such were possible, then the required goal of subjugating all lands to Islam could not be achieved. Arafat mentioned the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, to Muslim audiences, on at least five separate occasions (he was caught on tape doing so, to an audience of Muslims in Johanneseburg).
Hamas does not even try to conceal the meaning of hudna in their official statements.
According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

8:23 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel,
Oooops, here is the biography (as you can see I refer to unbiased Muslim original sources):

The Noble Qur'an
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Bukhari (Hadith):
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/

Sirat Rasoul Allah
The earliest biography of Muhammad, by ibn Ishaq

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/index.htm

Now give me a proof that I "talk utter nonsense".

8:38 am  
Blogger publicansdecoy said...

PS with D, Smashing :)

9:17 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

The truce of Hudaybiya was broken because allied tribes of the Prophet (SAWS) were attacked by allied tribes of Quraysh, the Quraysh broke the treaty.

Classical biographies and this is a very important point have a major weakness, they include anything the compiler found and were intended for scholarly use. In other words a hadith scholar would be able to authenticate whether the stories individually were correct or not according to hadith sciences.
They were not intended for the masses but for scholars who could sift the wheat from the chaff. More recent biographies have undergone that process of only including authentic narrations.

9:20 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

It makes me laugh how everyone quotes Sayyid Qutb when they attack Islam. Sayyid Qutb was not a religious scholar, he was an english teacher. His works have no scholarly weight or significance.

9:24 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Rape means forced sexual intercourse in any culture and civilisation. Please give me any evidence that anyone was forced to have sex. Please even one hadith.

9:26 am  
Blogger publicansdecoy said...

Ismaeel,

So the only evidence you will admit as vaild is the Koran or the Hadith, sources which by their very nature will inevitbaly be reverential? What, then, is the point of this debate?

9:28 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

1,
Ibn Ishaq describes what happens as follows:

"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off."

This shows your utter insincerity. This incident was about Bani Quraydah a Jewish tribe of Madinah, not of Mecca where Jews were few.
The tribe of Quraydah were part of the Madinan polity and had a long standing agreement with the Muslims to fight alongside them in any defence of the city. During the battle of Khandiq not only did they refuse to defend the city but were also proved to have assisted the enemy. When the enemy was put to flight they locked themselves in their castle and sought to fight the Muslims from there. They were traitors and deserters, their young men who were the fighters were slain for their treachery.
It was not a conquest.
It was also an example of the Prophet (SAWS) judging them according to their own laws, what was executed upon them was the talmudic law for traitors

9:31 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Polish solidarity i'm glad you have admitted your christian evangelical bias. You have a very good trick of quoting verses of the Qur'aan out of context, both in terms of where these verses are mentioned but also in terms of their historical context of revelation.
You have added in plenty of your own and other evangelical's commentary.
You claim Prophet Jesus (PBUH) stopped stoning of the women in John's gospel, it is well known amongst scholars that, that passage was added in hundreds of years later to the original text.
Anyway i will find some sites which clearly explain some of these verses you are quoting out of context, as i don't have the time or scholarly rank to attempt such a long task on my own

9:40 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Well if you have some alternative historical sources, i'm sure we would all be interested. If you don't then i suggest you find a new topic.

9:45 am  
Blogger publicansdecoy said...

Ismaeel,

How can a debate be fair if you will only permit arguments from one side?

On a slight sidetrack, how do you feel about the numerous depictions of Prophet Jesus (pbuh)? Are these not an unacceptable form of idolatry too? Or is there a heirarchy of prophets, with Muhammed being the only one unacceptable to draw? And doesn't this elevation of his status rather contradict the prohibition on idolatry in the first place?

10:01 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

To Mostazef:-

"You mean like in Islamic countries..

- No I think all Islamic countries have nasty evil governments that subvert human rights, that's why I'm not living in any of them. That's why I live in the UK. Incidentally the same applies to communist govs that ban religions. I don't want my religion to rule, I only want to have the right to practice it - and that only within the remits of British Law. If anything in my religion isn't legal in British Law, I would either change it or bugger off somewhere where it is.

"you want to share the planet with atheists and dissenters and apostates and blasphemers and religious minorities? With the dhimmis and the "people of the book"?"

- Emphatically Yes

"Like you are not going to brainwash your own children and teenagers to your Prophet Muhammad (SWORD)? Or are you going to impose yourself on these innocents?"

- Emphatically No. They can decide what they want to do and believe for themselves, and everything they're learning about Islam they are learning from a British School.

- let's stop feeling threatened or intimidated by the other...

Like Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasreen, Ali Dashti, Irshad Manji, Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdi - should not feel threatened and intimidated by your Prophet Muhammad the assassin?

- I'm sorry I wasn't aware that it was the Prophet who issued death threats to Salman Rushdie and others? The prophet was dead by then. I condemn any such threats in the name of religion or anything. I don't think it's really fair to say to blame anyone who happens to be muslim for the threats issued by others in the name of Islam. I don't agree that any of these people should be threatened with death - that's completely uncivilised in my view, and every muslim I know feels the same about that.

"Stop this poetic nonsense and get a real life. Go and sing these songs of poetry and lovey dovey to some of the apostates rotting in your jails in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iran."

Again, please forgive me for not taking the blame personally for all crimes committed in the name of Islam. Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iran are not "my" jails since I am British, and my family has been living here for generations. "My" jails are the British ones therefore. It's as unreasonable for you to blame me for these acts, as it is for me to blame you for the attrocities in the Abu Ghraib prison, and the WMD saga.

- let's just live and let live...

"Hey you idiot. "Live and let live" implies that I can draw a cartoon of a pedophile assassin, and there is nothing you can do about it, like issue death threats and agitate millions resulting in 50 people getting killed."

Well you can I agree - did I say there was anything I could do about it? Only that I find them upsetting, which is fair enough isn't it? and I feel scared and got at. I would never issue a death threat or agitate millions, and neither would most people muslims or not.

""Live and let live" implies I can think and express what I wish without your threats and intimidations."

- Again true, which is why I'm not trying to threaten or intimidate you, in fact the opposite, I'm trying to reassure you that I'm no threat to you!

"That you just cannot adopt a belief and then silence others."

- again agreed

"It means we have to leave children alone and not brainwash them. It means we have to keep our hands off apostates."

- again agreed

"Do you even know the implications of these happy phrases that you so callously use?"

- sorry which phrases are you referring to specifically?

10:15 am  
Blogger Voltaire said...

ismaeel, thanks for getting so involved in the debate. These are contentious issues, of course. You'' probably be aware that under many legal systems, sex with very young girls, such as 9 year olds, is automatically considered rape. This isn't a Western value, nor a liberal one. It is very widespread.

Child sex is, of course, one of the subjects people feel most strongly about and you will have given very profound offence indeed with your words. Does this mean you should have observed rules of civility and refrained from saying these things?

I'd also be interested in your take on another contentious subject, slavery. Many people say this is condoned in Islamic scriptures. Is that your understanding?

10:39 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Voltaire, as i have explained to you repeatedly, we are not against people giving offence, what we are against is deliberate insult and abuse. I know this may seem to be a subtle difference, but it's an important one, it's the difference between me saying that all atheists are deranged bigots and saying that i disagree with atheists because of x, y and z reasons. x,y and z may be offensive to the atheist but they are certainly not insulting or abusive. As i said at the outset the concepts of childhood, adulthood etc have differed from age to age and culture to culture. Islam has always been against slavery there are numerous inducements to free slave throughout the Qur'aan. We must remember that at the time of the revelation all cultures kept slaves, especially those people captured in war. Islam had a long term system to humanise the treatment of slaves who are given far more rights in Islam than in any other system of slavery and the gradual dissolution of the slave system by numerous incentives to free slaves.

I would like to say here, i don't find these debates useful, i will come onto this computer perhaps every few hours and find huge tracts of things a number of people want me to answer to and if i am unable to answer everything at once i am accused of picking and choosing. I however welcome any public or even private debate and discussion with individuals where some balance can be achieved in terms of questions and responses. I will therefore no longer involve myself on this blog, not because of my inability to defend Islam but because the lack of time i can devote to trying to answer so many different questions coming from so many different directions at once.

11:36 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

One last point, Christians create images of Christ as part of their religion. That is their religious belief and we as Muslims are obliged to respect that.
However derogatory images and depictions of Prophet Jesus (PBUH) have been protested by Muslims. My Shuyookh tell me that Muslims protested against the film: The Last Temptation of Christ and the stage play Jesus Christ Superstar.

11:39 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Publicans Decoy You are free to express your views, but a true debate requires evidence to back up your views.

And now i really must stop. This is my last comment here

11:40 am  
Blogger publicansdecoy said...

But the only evidence you will permit is your own! I could refer you again to the quotations that PS with D provides, but you will simply claim these have been taken out of context etc etc.

12:07 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel,
You are such a jester! Can you really practise takiyya with a straight face? Well I can't see it so perhaps I am wrong.
Well so you are saying that classical biographies of Muhammad and his sayings (Sira and Hadiths) are not together with The Holy Qu'ran the source and base of your religion? They are not intended for masses (so what is?) but for scholars (who therefore like Ayatollah Khomeini lower girls' marriageable age to ...9 years). What is for the masses then? The same fairy-tales you are trying to sell me?
So Sayyid Qutb not being a religious scholar (and what this term imply? A holy insight into the contents of your scriptures? That nobody else than immans could not possibly understand what is written in them?).
You said: "Rape means forced sexual intercourse in any culture and civilisation. Please give me any evidence that anyone was forced to have sex. Please even one hadith."
Are you implying that a woman captured as a booty, a woman traumatised by the sight of her own husband and sons butchered, a woma who therefore must be scared to death, will offer a physical resistance to her violators? Are you implying that her owner who "possed her with his right hand" would ask her for consent consent? Do not be ridiculous?
You said: "Polish solidarity i'm glad you have admitted your christian evangelical bias."
Please do me a favour and look up the word "sarcasm" in your dictionary.
Whether he and his warriors slaughtered Jews or non -Jews is totally irrelevant and I was referring to both Mecca and Medina in quoting from Ibn Ishaq. Bear also in mind that you are talking about Apostle of Allah, your holy prophet, a spiritual leader in your religion, someone who is supposed to set an example to 1.2 billion of people, who sets moral standards for 1/3 of humanity, who should be worthy of veneration?
You said: Anyway i will find some sites which clearly explain some of these verses you are quoting out of context, as i don't have the time or scholarly rank to attempt such a long task on my own".
I have been waiting for this accusation and you have not disappointed me, Ismaeel.
You are such a classic, handbook example of a Muslim apologist! I can provide you so many such quotes "taken out of context" that there won't be any contex left ANY MORE. While you are searching the readers can educate themselves (as they can also read) on your holy books by visiting the sorces I have given links to or are they not for "the masses"?
Last but not least: you said:
"You claim Prophet Jesus (PBUH) stopped stoning of the women in John's gospel, it is well known amongst scholars that, that passage was added in hundreds of years later to the original text."
Could you kindly provide the source of this new (to me) revelation??? The New Testament was written withing 100 years after Christ's death.
And finally correction - Jesus was not a prophet (I used it in the sense of a religious authority when I referred to him as a prophet before). He was the Messiah according to Christianity (and this is waht he pronouced himself to be) and therefore Muslim claim that he was a prophet(who did not even die on the cross - a historical fact backed up by historians) implies that he lied. A truly offensive statement to any Christian and Jesus himself.
By your logic then Jesus was a liar, but you still consider him a prophet??? Just think about it.

12:48 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Why are we having detailed discussions about this or that in our religions? I'm not a muslim scholar, but my identity as a muslim means something to me and i have no conflict at all between what that means to me and what being British means to me. I am a muslim, I keep my head down, my nose clean, and follow British law without effort or fuss. So why are you having a go at me? How would you feel if the tables were turned?

I'm sorry about 911, OK? I didn't do it, and I don't identify with any kind of "Islam" that does that kind of act or heinous others.

Of course the Prophet was a man and it is perfectly reasonable to criticise X Y and Z that he did, but it does not bear much significance to my identification as muslim - that has more to do with family etc., at the end of the day the same is true for a lot of Christians who aren't bible scholars and actually haven't read every passage in it.

That doesn't mean a Christian wouldn't feel hurt if them and Christ were to be ridiculed and humiliated, and they're probably not going to be that well versed as to exactly why - look at how many people complained about Jerry Springer the Opera for example...

And when we start talking about censorship, don't get me started about that white christian character - Mary Whitehouse - the woman was a raving nutcase!

But I'm not trying to demonise all white europeans because I don't want a Britain populated by the likes of Mary Whitehouse and Gary Glitter and I'm not trying to blame all white europeans for their crimes, either by insulting everyone of them I meet, or distributing propoganda that pictures all white europeans as pathetic hook nosed creatures who are paedophiles and censorers.

I also don't moan when I've been told that walking into an area in which there are a lot of British catholics, with a placard showing a cartoon of the pope buggering Mary might not be the best way to get catholics involved in a campaign whatever their levels of strictness or knowledge of their religion is.

Interestingly enough the guys arrested for the clearly intimidating placards issuing threats were not threatening anything, just very clumsily trying to make the point - that if freedom of expression is an absolute value with no consideration to issues like threat or intimidation, they can surely put anything on placards at a demonstration. I think it was a crap PR move personally and they didn't end up making the point at all, just increasing people's sense of fear and feeling under threat.

I can't blame fellow muslims for feeling intimidated. At the end of the day, the last time that groups of people belonging to a religion deemed dangerous to society (jews) had stereotypical cartoons about them distributed throughout Europe, a mass culling resulted following a huge deportation exercise. Can you not understand in this context, with the BNP using the cartoons as a rallying point, that many muslims will feel threatened???

We all feel threatened. That's very clear reading this blog, but let's appeal to humanity and core values and not try to vilinise or demonise anyone here.

2:17 pm  
Blogger Voltaire said...

anonymous, there should be no question of villainising you because you're a Muslim. Thank you very much for coming here and giving your viewpoint. We need people like you to help with our campaign.

2:23 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel said:

"Islam has always been against slavery there are numerous inducements to free slave throughout the Qur'aan."

I beg your pardon?

from:

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=33&tid=41924

"The Women who are Lawful for the Prophet
Allah says, addressing His Prophet that He has made lawful for him of women his wives to whom he has given the dowery, which is what is meant by "their due'', which is used here, as was stated by Mujahid and others. The dowery which he gave to his wives was twelve and half `Uqiyah (measures of gold) so they all received five hundred Dirhams except for Umm Habibah bint Abi Sufyan, to whom An-Najashi, may Allah have mercy on him, gave four hundred Dinars (on behalf of the Prophet ) Safiyyah bint Huyay, whom he chose from among the prisoners of Khaybar, then he set her free, making her release her dowery. A similar case was that of Juwayriyah bint Al-Harith Al-Mustalaqiyyah -- he paid off the contract to buy her freedom from Thabit bin Qays bin Shammas and married her. May Allah be pleased with them all.

(those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,) means, `the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you.' He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim, upon him be peace; they were both among the prisoners, may Allah be pleased with them. "


http://answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm

from:

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam (contemporary fatwa):

You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn't believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation.
Thus what is meant by the passage in Tafsir Uthmani, is that if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
ANSWER: Firstly, it should be borne in mind that slavery was not something that was introduced by Islam; on the contrary, it was something that had its roots planted long before the advent of Islam. It would not be an exaggeration to state that slavery is probably as old as war itself, because it is one of the consequences of war. Thus, slavery apparently first reared its head with the first wars that took place on the face of earth. War is a factor that makes soft men stern, kind men harsh and delicate men rugged. A man who cannot bear to see the sight of blood under normal circumstances becomes capable of shedding the blood of hundreds under the pressure of war. Those who were not killed in warfare, used to be taken as prisoners of war. The pages of history will show that many alternative, expedient methods were used through the ages to deal with prisoners of war. Some used to be executed while others would be set free, with or without a ransom. Then, there were others who were neither executed nor set free. These were enslaved.
When Islam came and prospered, its power was challenged by the enemies of Islam and the need to go to war arose. By that time, slavery had virtually become an international custom. It was also rife among the Arabs from the days of darkness and ignorance. Thus, abolishing it instantaneously would have caused chaos and pandemonium among the Arab people. Hence, a process of gradual extirpation had to be implemented. Moreover, if the Muslims would set all their enemy-prisoners free and tolerate their fellow Muslims being captured and enslaved by the enemies, it would have lead to a sharp decrease in the Muslim military force and given a great advantage to the enemy forces which was something that the Muslims could not afford. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that warfare tactics used by one side are often countered by the opposing side in order to maintain a balance of power. Hence, wartime diplomacy necessitated the enslaving of prisoners.
In the "Jihads" (Islamic wars) that took place, women were also, at times, taken as prisoners of war by the Muslim warriors. These women captives used to be distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers, after their return to Islamic territory. Each soldier was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over whom he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, it became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.
It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariah, but it is not necessary for him to delve into each law in order to find the underlying wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta'ala has said in the Holy
Quraan: "Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan" which means, more or less, that, "You have been given a very small portion of knowledge". Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariah, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariah (Allah forbid), on the contrary, it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariah is contradictory to wisdom.
Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariah to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, "Bismillahi Allahu Akbar" are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become "Halaal" and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes "Halaal" merely through 'possession' which substitutes for the slaughtering.
In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.
In short, permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised; on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony. In fact, possession of a slave woman resembles a marriage ceremony in many ways and both have a lot in common with each other. One similarity is this that just as a free woman cannot have two husbands simultaneously; a slave woman cannot be used for intercourse by two owners. Another similarity is that a free woman whose marriage is on the rocks, cannot marry another man until her previous marriage is nullified through divorce, etc. Due to the discrepancies between husband and wife, the marriage sometimes reaches a stage where it becomes virtually impossible for the couple to live as man and wife with the result that divorce is brought into force to nullify marriage ties. Similarly, if a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife. That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her. Another resemblance between the two is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called "Iddat" before another man is allowed to marry her; similarly, a slave woman has to spend a period called "Istibraa" before her owner can have coition with her.
Another similarity between marriage and possession of a slave woman is that just as the wife becomes a dependant of the husband and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her, a slave woman also becomes a dependant of her owner and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her. Yet another similarity is this that just as marriage makes the close relatives of the wife Haraam upon the husband; i.e. he cannot get married to his wife's mother, grandmother, sister, etc., similarly if a man has copulated with a slave woman the slave woman's close relatives also become Haraam upon the owner. With all these similarities it does not make sense to regard copulation with a slave woman distasteful whilst copulation with one's wife is not regarded as distasteful.
A question that may still arise is that why does the owner of a slave woman not marry her before having relations with her? Well, this is impracticable because of a few intricate technicalities. Firstly, we know that a man has to give "Mahr" (dower-money) to his bride. The Holy Quran says:-
[ A r a b i c ]
Trans: "And allowed unto you is whatsoever is beyond that, so that ye may seek them with your substance (i.e. with your dower-money)(4:24).
Thus, "Mahr" is a conditional prerequisite of Nikaah. If a man has to marry his slave woman, it would not be possible for him to abide by this condition of 'Mahr' because by Islamic law, a slave does not have rights over any property, i.e. she cannot own anything. In fact, whatever she has with her too, i.e. her clothing, etc., is all regarded as the property of her owner. Therefore, If he gets married to his slave girl and gives her the 'Mahr' she cannot become the owner of it because she has no right of ownership. The 'Mahr' would bounce back to the owner of the slave girl and it would tantamount to giving the 'Mahr' to himself. Hence, the owner would become the payer as well as the PAYEE of the 'Mahr' which would only result in the mockery of the whole system of 'Mahr'. It would be absolutely superfluous to have such a marriage ceremony performed that makes a mockery of the 'Mahr' system. Hence, the owner cannot get married to her while she remains a slave girl. However, if he sets her free, then he can get married to her on the basis of her having become a liberated woman.
Although the owner himself cannot get married to his slave woman, without giving her freedom, he can get her married to someone else. If he gets her married to someone else, then only her husband can now have intercourse with her and the owner's right of having intercourse with her comes to an end. All these facts prove that the slave girl does not become an instrument of sex; on the contrary, her honour is upheld, in that only one man is allowed to have intercourse with her JUST AS only one man (the husband) is allowed to have intercourse with his lawfully wedded wife.
Islam ensured that the slave girl's duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society.
Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) enjoined his followers to treat the slaves kindly, gently, and, above all, to regard them as members of the family. In this way, they were made to feel wanted; which was far better than treating them as outcasts and leaving them to wander the streets of a strange society in a penniless, destitute condition. Such treatment would have ultimately forced them to take up evil occupations such as prostitution in the case of slave woman in order to fill their hungry stomachs. The First World War in 1914 was a clear reflection of the evils involved in setting captive women free to roars about in a strange society with strange surroundings. During that war, German and English women prisoners on either side were set free to roam the streets with no-one to feed them. The result was obvious that they resorted to other unrefined and uncivilised methods of income on the streets. Thus, it is evident that the Islamic treatment of women prisoners of war was conducive towards better social relations and led to the refinement of their overall social lives.
Over and above all this, History will show that Islam did not encourage slavery but rather encouraged moves towards the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has said something to this effect in a Hadith, that: "Whosoever freed a Muslim slave, the Lord would redeem all his limbs - in compensation for each limb of the slave, so much so that the private parts for the private parts - from the Fire of Hell.
"If a slave woman becomes pregnant from her owner, and delivers his child, she automatically gets her freedom after the death of her master whose child she gave birth to.
Moreover, there are many wrongs and sins for which the liberation of a slave serves as a compensation and atonement. This was a further incentive for the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also taught that whosoever teaches good manners to his slave girl, adorns her with politeness and good education, then frees her and gets married to her, for him there is double recompense and reward. These encouraging teachings served as incentives towards the emancipation of slaves and slaves were liberated by the thousands. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam himself freed 63 slaves, Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiallahu Anhu freed 63, Hazrat Abdur-Rahman bin Auf Radhiallahu Anhu 30,000; Hazrat Hakim bin Huzam Radhiallahu Anhu 100; Hazrat Abbas Radhiallahu Anhu 70; Hazrat Ayesha Radhiallahu Anha 69; Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar Radhiallahu Anhu 100; Hazrat Uthman Radhiallahu Anhu used to free one slave every Friday and he would say that he would tree any slave who performed his prayers with humility. Hazrat Zul-Kilah Radhiallahu Anhu freed 8,000 slaves in a single day.
Hazrat Umar Radhiallahu Anhu passed certain laws during his Khilaafat which led to the emancipation of thousands of slaves, and to the prevention of certain specific forms of slavery. Some of the edicts that he issued:
1. All the apostate tribes that were enslaved during the Khilaafat
of Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiallahu Anhu were to be freed.
2. A Zimmi (protected non-Muslim subject of an Islamic state)
should not be enslaved.
3. Arabs will not be enslaved.
4. Those who had been enslaved during the days of ignorance (prior
to the advent of Islam) and had lived to witness the Islamic era, should redeem themselves from slavery by paying their costs (their value) to their owners whether they were willing or not.
As a result of all these laws, there came a time when slavery was totally extirpated. But of course, this extirpation came about after a gradual process because that was the only safe and expedient way of tackling the problem.
Because of the prevalence of slavery in the initial stages of Islam the necessity of educating the people about the treatment of slaves also arose. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam taught his followers how the slaves should be treated with kindness, etc. In fact, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam himself possessed slave girls. In this way, he was able to demonstrate practically how kindly and politely the slave should be treated. Because it is relevant to the topic, it would be appropriate to mention here that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also had four slave girls. One was Hazrat Maria Qibtiyya Radhiallahu Anha who was the mother of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam's son, Ibrahim Alayhis Salaam who passed away in infanthood. The others were, Hazrat Rayhaan binte Samoon; Hazrat Nafisa and a fourth, whose name has not been recorded in History.
One question that still remains is whether slavery still legally prevails anywhere in the Islamic world and whether it can be successfully implemented in this age. Well, there is no prevalence of lawful slavery in the Islamic world today and it would be difficult to implement it because of the stringent conditions attached to it. Firstly, the prisoners have to be captured in 'Jihaad' in the true sense of the word. Then again, If true 'Jihaad' did break out somewhere, there are still a number of other laws and conditions to abide by which are far too stringent for any Islamic country in the world to abide by in this time and age when people's personal gains and whims and desire are being given preference to over Islamic Law. According to Islamic Law, captive female prisoners are also part and parcel of the booty. One fifth of the booty has to be first distributed to the needy, orphans, etc. The remaining four-fifths should then be distributed among the soldiers who participated in the war. The distribution can only take effect after the booty is brought into Islamic territory. The Ameerul-Mu'mineen (Head of the Islamic State) remains the guardian of the female prisoners until he allocates them to the soldiers. Only after a soldier has been allotted a slave girl, and made the owner of her, will she become his lawful possession. After she spends a period called 'Istibraa', which is the elapse of one menstrual period, It becomes permissible for her owner to have relations with her. After possession of the slave too there are a number of other laws that affect the master and slave. There is hardly any Islamic country today that can abide to all these conditions, with the result that it is quite difficult to implement slavery in this time and age.
The subject of slavery in Islam is quite comprehensive and there are many laws that pertain to slaves which the Jurisprudents of Islam have outlined. It is, however, hoped that the above mentioned facts will be adequate enough to answer your questions.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.

It is not permissible to take Stroids to train for Jihaad.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai

3:03 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

To Polish solidarity with Denmark

How are the discussions about the DETAILS of the religions at all helpful or relevant to the debate at hand on free expression?

Are you trying to claim one has superiority to the other? I certainly don't make that claim. I don't really care that much. I think I'd probably be Christian if born into a Christian family and I probably wouldn't even bother reading the entire bible to claim that status either.

The one thing that history has proven is that people don't agree about religion. And the most progressive societies have shown an ability to tolerate multiple religions. The most oppressive ones are the ones that don't like the "get the jews out of Germany" Nazi culture, or which supremely favour one religion.

Now I as a Muslim can cope with that in the UK without feeling any need to pick to threads or try to tear into shreds anyone else's point of view. As long as we can agree to disagree and live together peacefully under British law, what's the problem exactly?

3:28 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

To Anonymous:
I will try to answer to the best of my ability.

First I exercise exactly what we are fighting for - a freedom of expression and the right to criticise and ridicule ideas which in my opinion "ask" for it. Ideas can be dangerous as history shows us (Nazism, Stalinism come to my mind as the best examples), this does not exclude religious ideologies either (i.e. Aztecs practised a religion requiring human sacrifice).
In my opinion no religion should have any superior rights over secular ideologies by claiming its sanctity and therefore demanding ...respect and denying others the right to critical scrutiny.
Christianity has undergone this type of vivisection and has not perished because of it. In fact it has emerged even stronger by going back to the source of its teachings.
Any ideology, be it lay or religious must earn respect from those who do not share it or learn to live (peacefully) with ridicule and distruts from its "non-believers".
You say "I think I'd probably be Christian if born into a Christian family and I probably wouldn't even bother reading the entire bible to claim that status either."
Too bad! You should not undersign under something you do not know. What if your "bible" promoted human sacrifice or cannibalistic practices?
I personally think that this is an irresponsible attitude, one that makes you suseptible to manipulations and brain-washing.
One should know what one belives in and supports.

Secondly, I have been challenged into providing evidence to my claims about Mohammad by Ismaeel:

"Ismaeel said...
Our main anger at the Danish cartoons is their attack on the Prophet (SAWS) character, the ones that depict him that is.
We would still object to say what you would consider flattering images of him, however i don't think we would be quite so upset and hurt by them.

Polish solidarity you are talking utter nonsense, i don't know who you are talking about, but it is not my Prophet(PBUH). He never ordered women to be raped or conquered peoples to be massacred, nor did he break treaties."

So I accepted his challenge.

4:43 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

About islamic slavery above, this is what churchill himself wrote;

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities...but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled,the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Sir Winston Churchill, our great wartime Prime Minister, On islam ("from The River War", first edition, Vol. II, pages 248,50 London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

6:08 pm  
Blogger Babyboots said...

"Secondly, did you know the koran has 6'666 verses (or 6616 according to some scholars), and that the bible states the number of the beast is 666? Ever heard of the "Satanic verses"?"

Hello Mostazaf

It is obviously NOT nonsense and it is NOT superstition!

I wasn't told or shown this information. I worked it all out in my own little head and all by myself and then found books had already been written about it.

I can't help being a spiritual christian. Years ago I would have been burnt at the stake as a witch but if people just opened their eyes and see! It's all in the book of revelations.

6:28 pm  
Blogger Babyboots said...

Voltaire wrote;

"anonymous, there should be no question of villainising you because you're a Muslim. Thank you very much for coming here and giving your viewpoint. We need people like you to help with our campaign."

You need people like Polish solidarity with Denmark and people like me and saying this through gritted teeth even the BNP! to really help with your campaign, which I have to say is a bit poor for allowing muslims free speech and not the BNP!

You may not like to listen to what the BNP say but I'm afraid even I have to admit they're only speaking the truth and sometimes 'truth hurts' 'cruel to be kind' and 'all that jazz'

7:00 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Alright i said i wouldn't comment anymore but this pack of lies and slander has to be reuted:

Ismaeel,

"Polish solidarity you are talking utter nonsense, i don't know who you are talking about, but it is not my Prophet(PBUH)."

Are you already an apostate? If you are talking about a completely different prophet then you must be as I mean the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
And since you have asked for the evidence:

"He never ordered women to be raped"

Muhammad allowed the Muslim men to marry up to four wives
*So having four wives implies they were raped: what kind of perverse logic is this?
(although he himself had a score of them) and gave them license to enjoy their "right-hand possessions" (women captured in wars), as many as they can capture or afford to buy (4:3), even if the woman is married before being captured (4:24):
“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Q. 4:24 ).

* The marriages were annulled by their capture and their captors were only allowed to have intercourse with them with their consent.

The man who called himself the holy Prophet and a "mercy of God for all beings" did just that. Jawairiyah, Rayhanah and Safiyah were beautiful young girls who were captured when he raided the tribes of Banu al-Mustaliq, Qurayza and Nadir. The prophet slew their husbands, fathers and their male relatives and let his men rape them while he kept the prettiest for himself and raped her in the same day while they were still in the shock of the loss of their loved ones. If you do not call this rape then surely there is some sort of civilisation misunderstanding between us.

*They were not raped, European slavery consisted of torturing, brutalising and raping slaves. The slavery in Islam was more akin to having POWs today. They were to be humanley treated and intercourse with slave girls was only with their express consent. In fact there are explicit narrations from Lady Saffiyah's own mouth that she had dreams that she would marry the Prophet (PBUH) and that her Jewish family had abused her. The Prophet (PBUH) set her free and offered her marriage. She accepted.

"or conquered peoples to be massacred"

"It is a well known fact that when the Prophet(PBUH) conquered Mecca he gave a general amnesty to all the people of Mecca despite the fact they had fought against him, persecuted him, tortured and killing his family members and companions. It was in fact the people of Mecca who broke a treaty with him which precipitated the conquest.He was not a warlord, he spent 13 years in Mecca preaching peacefully while the Meccans persecuted him and his followers, killing and torturing several. In Medina he fought battles against arab tribes determined to wipe Medina off the map and Muslims out of history. He always showed mercy to those he defeated."

You have a perverted sense of humour, Ismaeel:

1,
Ibn Ishaq describes what happens as follows:

"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off."

*This was the execution of the men of Bani Qurayzah which is the same event as described below in Medina, which is even mentioned in the text. Your insincerity shines through. They were executed for their treachery to the city they were meant to defend according to their own laws written in the Torah, which incidentally is your old testement.
2.
The most horrendous act of cruel barbarity against the Jews came in April 627, when the Muslim army seized the Jewish clan of Banu Quraiza and extirpated the entire male population of 800-900 [1] . After surrender by Quraiza tribesmen, they offered to go to exile like the Banu Nadhir tribe people but the Prophet Muhammad refused. He instead ordered them to accept Islam to save their lives. Only one Jew agreed. The responsibility of deciding on fate of the Quraiza people was handed to one Saad ibn Muad, a fanatical follower of Muhammad, who was known to be hostile to the Jews and himself was wounded in the same seize. He decided that the men of Quraiza tribe be slain, the women and children be taken as slaves and their homes and properties, as usual, be captured and distributed amongst the Muslims. As protests were raised from a number of Arabs against such barbaric and cruel punishment, the Prophet quickly found a revelation to justify this barbaric verdict as inspired by Allah [Q 33:26-27]

("33:26 And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.
33:27 And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things.")

Following this, a trench was dug at the market-place and in Prophet Muhammad's presence, more than 8 hundreds captives, in groups of five, were brought to the brink of the trench with their hands tied behind and were beheaded with swords before pushing the dismembered bodies into the trench. It went on all through the day and continued by torchlight into the night.
Following this, Jewish strongholds of Khaybar, Fadak, Kamus, Watih, Solalim, Wadi al-Kora and other were also forced to submit and exiled and no important Jewish settlements were left around Medina. After defeating the Khaybar settlement of the Jews, the Prophet took the captured beautiful young woman named Safiya to bed at nightfall as her slain husband's dead body awaited burial the next day.

3.

Muslims must not only fight, kill and slay the infidels, after they have attacked and defeated an infidel tribe, village or country; they must capture the remaining women and children as slaves/captives and take possession of their homes, land and wealth [Koran 33:26-27 ]. After that Muslims have the right to rape those captured women (right hand possession) through a divine revelation [Koran 70.29-30 ; 4:3].

* This revelation does not give permission to rape, where is your proof, this is just lies after lies.

These edicts, orders and responsibilities as allegedly revealed from Allah are meant for eternal application, until no other faith or unbelief is left.

* Nonsense, why then are there still Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu communities living in majority Muslim countries as they have done for centuries.

The Prophet Muhammad did not only propagate a derogatory and demeaning doctrine against the infidels, including the Westerners of today

*He spoke about the westerners of today did he, must have been a Prophet (PBUH) then.

, he also incited violence and ordered his followers to wage wars against them. Muslims must fight the infidels, who are the minions of the devil [Koran 4:76 ]. Muslims must not take the infidels as friends

*Must not take them as intimate best friends, shows your ignorance of arabic.

and unless the latter offer peace, they must be killed wherever the Muslims find them [Koran 4:49, 4:91].

*Verses revealed in particular historical circumstance with reference to war against the Quraish.

Muslims must fight the infidels with determination, they must not retreat in the fight and those who retreat will be condemned by Allah to the fire of hell [Koran 8:15-16 ]. Muslims must fight the infidels, they must not let the latter escape [Koran 8:59-60] and they must seek out, lay in wait to ambush, seize and slay the latter wherever found [ Koran 9:5 ].

*It is a war, that is what happens in war, at least our religion lays down a humanitarian code not to kill women, children, priests, rabbis, monks, civilians etc. I don't remember the crusaders or the US army being so discriminating.

Muslims must fight the infidels whoever live near to them and show harshness to them [Koran 9:123].

*123. O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

This is an order to fight the Quraish and other pagan tribes who had been attacking and oppressing the Muslims for years. Again insincerity.

They must fight the infidels in Allah's cause and in the process they will slay the infidels and be slain themselves [Koran 9:111]
111. Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah. then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

Yes the Muslims who fight and die in the way of Allah (SWT) to prevent the people being opperessed and the religion being destroyed will go to paradise.

and if they refuse to fight the infidels, they will be afflicted with painful doom by Allah [Koran 9:39 ].

* Fight against those non-Muslims who are oppressing the people and attempting to destroy the religion. Yes it is a duty but not indiscriminatly against non-Muslims. By the way we don't call non-Muslims, that's hollywood, in fact it was the crusaders who called Muslims infidels for not being in their eyes faithful to Sara the mother of Issac.

When Muslims meet the infidels, they must strike off the latter's heads, until they have made a great slaughter amongst the infidels [Koran 47:4].

*4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Again in the context of war as is clear from the verse.


In a nutshell, Muslims must fight, kill and slew infidels until the latter have submitted to Islam or subdued to the status of dhimmitude and humiliation and agree to pay Jizya taxes for not accepting Islam [ [Koran 09:05, Koran-9:29].

*Dhimmitude is a concept made up by Islamophobes around the world. A dhimmi was a person belonging to a non-Muslim community under the protection of the Caliph and his army. They were exempted from military service and payed the jizya as a tax instead. This is the basis of any social contract. They were also allowed to be administer themselves according to their own laws. Many Christians of Syria and Egypt welcomed the rule of the Muslims as freeing them from the oppression of the Byzantines.


"I have given my explanation for his marriage to Lady Aisha (RAA), if you cannot accept cultural differences like this, then i'm afraid you're showing great narrow mindedness."

What you call a cultural difference I call plain barbarity and paedophilia. If you define objecting to immoral and degrading exploitation of a child by a lustful, sex-crazed old man narrow-mindedness then I ... hmmm I rest my case.

* You clearly have no grasp of history or your own scripture and culture. According to tradition Lady Mary was 12 when she gave birth to Jesus. Juliet according to Shakesphere was also 12. You call the Prophet (PBUH) sex crazed, if that is so why did he have only one wife for 25 years who was 15 years his senior. Why were all his wives apart from Lady Aisha divorcees and widows? Why didn't he take all the beautiful young girls of Madinah and have hundreds of wives?


"As for killing the poetess, poetry was the media of the day and used for propaganda purposes, it was thus a political execution. It is interesting you highlight certain things but you do not place them in their proper contexts historically or politically."

OK, I will place what is described below in the proper historical and political contexts of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany:


Ishaq: 676 “‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”

"The prophet asked his followers to assassinate poets who had insulted him -- Abu 'Afak and 'Asma bint Marwan -- and rejoiced at their deaths. When the killer of 'Asma reported his deed to Muhammad, Muhammad replied: "You have helped Allah and His Apostle, O Umayr!" (The Sira of Ibn Ishaq, 995-996).
What was Abu 'Afak's offense? He composed a poem praising some of Muhammad's opponents, and lamenting their defeat by the Muslims: "A rider who came to them split them in two, saying 'Permitted,' 'Forbidden,' all sorts of things" -- which was a small jab at the legalism of Islam. Muhammad accordingly asked for his death. When 'Asma bint Marwan heard he was dead, she was angry, and her poem calls in turn for the death of Muhammad after Abu 'Afak was murdered: "Is there no man of pride who would attack [Muhammad] by surprise and cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?" But as a woman in 7th century Arabia, she was in little position to make good on this call or influence anyone else to do so. Muhammad had no reason to treat her as a serious threat. Nonetheless he called for -- and received -- her death also."

* Poets men and women were extremley influential in 7th century arabia as means of propaganda. In all modern wars, all sides have attempted to silence the propaganda machines of the other side.

"You also forget to mention that the Prophet (PBUH) gave far more rights to women than any other religion"

Yeap, my prophet over 600 years earlier than yours raised women to an equal intellectual and moral (in fact women in NT are given more moral credit than men themselves) level as the men. While yours prescribed stoning women "guilty" of being raped, mine ordered men who were without sin to cast the first stone.
Here is some more enlightened wisdom from yours:

* The Revised Standard Version 1952 of the Bible removes the verses you mention and puts them in a footnote because the scholars who prepared it like many others recognise the much later addition of these verses. They also contradicted Prophet Jesus (AS)'s statements about not a tittle or a jot will be removed from the law (Prophet Moses' law as in the OT) until the Day of Judgement. Both men and women can be stoned under Islamic law for adultery, there is no sexual bias.

2: The Cow

Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222

*They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.

No mention of sickness, but rather it is something which is unclean and painful for the women. Therefore sex is forbidden for the woman's benefit.

Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223

*And your problem with this is...? Sorry does it not fit in with the sexually repressive culture of the church?

Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228

*http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/qawamuna.htm

a long and detailed discussion of that subject can be found on the link above.

A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282

*Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.

This verse does not state woman are worth half of a man, it says that when witnessing a contract, two women should witness instead of one man, why so they can remind one another, this is because a woman can have memory loss due to her menstrual cycle as has been affirmed by modern science.

4: The Women

Marry of the women two, or three, or four. 4:3

* And your point is....?
Polygamy of far greater numbers is rampant in the old testement and Prophet Jesus (PBUH) never discusses the subject in the gospels. Does marrying more than one wife reduce her rights?

Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11

*True but why? Because men have to provide the food, clothing and shealter for their wives and families, women even if much richer have no such obligations towards their families.


Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15

* This is reffering to adultery and has been abrogated by the punishment of stoning.

Instructions for exchanging wives 4:20

*20. But if ye decide to take one wife in place of another, even if ye had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, Take not the least bit of it back: Would ye take it by slander and manifest wrong?

If a man decides to divorce his wife and marry someone else (A common occurance in this society) he shouldn't try and take back the money he gave as a dowry to the first wife, he has no right to it.
What is your problem with this, Christianity didn't protect women's property rights like this, in fact they had no property rights until about 150 years ago.

You can't have married women, unless they are captives. 4:24

*discussed this above.

Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34

*34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Protectors and maintainers because they are stronger not exactly the same as in charge of because they are better is it. The verse is a list of procedures to go through if a wife is going around disrespecting her husband, very mild beating (some ulema say a tap with a tooth stick) is a last resort, after which comes divorce. Heavy beating including causing to bleed, bruise, break bones is not allowed.

Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98

*Again out of context, let's look at the verse surrounding it:
97. When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: "In what (plight) Were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed Were we in the earth." They say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?" Such men will find their abode in Hell,- What an evil refuge! -

98. Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed - men, women, and children - who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.

99. For these, there is hope that Allah will forgive: For Allah doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again.



They invoke in his (Allah's) stead only females. 4:117

*This is a criticism of the Quraish who were so ashamed of female children they would bury them in the sand but perverley they would invoke godessess instead of Allah (SWT).

A man cannot treat his wives fairly. 4:129

*129. Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self- restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

This verse is saying that men will be unable to treat women fairly as hard as they try, not they shouldn't try as is clear from the rest of the verse.


"Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females." 4:176

* Again about inheritance explained above

5: The Table Spread

When it's time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can't find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6

* Touching a woman hear means having had sexual intercourse with her. I think even you would accept that that would be a good thing to do.
11: Hud

Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 11:78

* He suggests that the men who practice homosexuality should marry his daughters honorably instead of practising their homosexuality. This story is also in the Bible.

15: Al-Hijr

Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 15:71
22: The Pilgrimage

When the doom of Allah comes, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, nursing mothers with forget their babies. 22:1-2

* Referring to the day of Judgement, when calamity will befall all as is mentioned in many other verses.

23: The Believers

You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand possess." 23:6

*Bit difficult to have marital relations with too much modesty don't you think?


24: Light

If you accuse an honorable women of adultery, be sure to bring four witness. Otherwise you will receive 80 lashes. 24:4

*Yeah so if a man accuses a woman falsley disparaging her honor he will be punished for it. The only way he can prove it is to bring four eye witnesses who see the man enter the women.


A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6

* Ah again deliberate distortion, let's all read the relevant passages together:

6. And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;

7. And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.

8. But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;

9. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.

And the wife has the equivilent right in Islamic law.

Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31

* Yes exactly how the Virgin Mary is portrayed in the majority of iconography. It protects women from being viewed primarily as sex objects, but prompts men to value them for their intelligence, character and piety.

33: The Clans

If Muhammad's wives are good, Allah will give them "an immense reward." 33:28-29

*And your problem with this is..?

The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.) 33:30

*They have a higher status and responsibility than other women, therefore their crimes would have been subject to greater punishement.

The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33

*Yep, again a particular status for them.

When Allah or Muhammad decide that a man and a woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36

* Yep, would you refuse to marry a man Prophet Jesus(PBUH) or God told you to marry?

Allah gave Zeyd to Muhammad in marriage. This was so that all Muslims would know that it's OK to marry your adopted son's ex-wife. 33:37

*It was to show by example that the ties of adoption are not the same as those of blood.

Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51

*Again distortion:
50. O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

51. Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All- Knowing, Most Forbearing.

52. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.




If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives. 33:53

*Yes again a sign of their special status.

But it's OK for Muhammad's wives to talk with certain people. 33:55

*Yes there male relatives.

Women must cover themselves when in public. 33:59

*Yes for reasons given above.

37: Those Who Set the Ranks

Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they behaved). 37:22-23

*This is referring to pagans whose wives are also pagans and are thus going to hell for their idolatry.

I will finish this later, i have to go to class now.

10:08 am  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Ishmael wrote;

"*They were not raped, European slavery consisted of torturing, brutalising and raping slaves. The slavery in Islam was more akin to having POWs today. "

Uuhh. except your sultans cut the balls of the men slaves so they couldnt have sex with "their" slave girls.

Of course, if you cut the balls off a grown man he can still get a hard-on, so i gues your sultans were cruel and stupid.

Now do you want to tell the good people of this forum when the islamic slave trade "stopped", or shall i?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

"Faith Freedom International is a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat."

Please seek help.

10:51 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

polish solitdarity, check this before you continue.
http://www.fatwa-online.com/

On the right side (scroll!) you will find an explanation why the earth is a frisbee.

http://www.fatwa-online.com/fataawa/miscellaneous/miscellaneous/0040819.htm

I filed the URL under satire, but some people might think it is serious.

12:59 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Luke, I am bracing myself for the intellectual challenge ;-)

1:15 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

But the single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
38: Sad

Female companions await those who enter the Gardens of Eden on the Day of Reckoning. 38:52
44: Smoke

Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with "fair ones with wide, lovely eyes." 44:54
52: The Mount

Allah will reward those in the Garden with beautiful wives with wide, lovely eyes. 52:20
53: The Star

*And your problem with this is what? Are people not allowed to enjoy themselves in paradise.

Those who disbelieve in the afterlife give female names to angels. 53:27

*Again a reference to the double standards of Quraish towards women.
55: The Beneficent

Allah will give those in the Garden women of modest gaze whom neither man nor jinn have touched before them. 55:56

Allah will reward believing men with "fair ones" (beautiful women) in heaven. 55:71-72
56: The Event

Those in the Garden will be attended by immortal youths with wide, lovely eyes. 56:17-23

Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. 56:36-37
64: Mutual Disillusion

Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15

*Again a distortion, the verses are below and mean that among your families will be people who will be tests for you in this life.

14. O ye who believe! Truly, among your wives and your children are (some that are) enemies to yourselves: so beware of them! But if ye forgive and overlook, and cover up (their faults), verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

15. Your riches and your children may be but a trial: but in the Presence of Allah, is the highest, Reward.


65: Divorce

Instructions for divorcing your wives. 65:1-6
66: Banning

Muhammad's wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5

The wives of 66:Noah and 66:Lot (who were both righteous) betrayed their husbands and are now in the Fire. 66:10

*So these are meant to be condemnations of women in general. Despite the fact that Allah t'ala praises many individual women and the believing women in general throughout the Qur'aan. Lady Mary has a whole surah named afer her: Surah Marayam

70: The Ascending Stairways

Doom is about to fall on all disbelievers. Only worshippers (Muslims) and those who preserve their chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from "the fires of hell" that are "eagar to roast." 70:1-30

* Yeah and the Christians say the same thing about non-Christians.

You don't have to be chaste around your wives or your slave girls. 70:29-30

*answered above

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

*This is the Prophet (PBUH) talking as a law giver talking about impediments to the law regarding women. The two witneeses thing has been discussed above. Women cannot pray or fast while menstruating, exactly the same as Judaism and the law of Prophet Moses(PBUH) because of the impurity of the menstrual blood.

"or even secular authorities did until the early part of the last century."

Saudi Arabia being the best example, heh?

*Saudi Arabia was set up with the connivance of the British to break up the Ottoman Empire, if you visit even their official websites you will find this to be the case. They practice a form of Islam which is a complete break from traditional Islam called Wahabbism.

"You also forget to mention the tolerance he showed towards other faiths which again has no parallel in history and allowed other faith groups to administer their own communities. I can go on and on, but you're not exactly putting foward a balance account. Sounds more like a typical christian evangelical viewpoint."

Again we have a disagreement here on the definition of the term "tolerance", I dare to say, I represent a typical Christian evangelical bias:


Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), slay them (9:5), fight with them (8:65 ), strive against them with great endeavor (25:52), be stern with them because they belong to hell (66:9) and strike off their heads; then after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” for ransom ;47:4).

*All dealt with on previous comment tearing apart this nonsense.

This is how the pagans are to be treated. As for the Christians and the Jews, the order is to subdue them and impose on them a penalty tax, after humiliating them (9:29) and if they resist, kill them.

*Again lies and distortion debunked above.

The Quran is alien to freedom of belief and recognizes no other religion but Islam (3:85).

*Again distortion, no acceptability of religion other than Islam in the hereafter:

85. If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah., never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

Christianity has similar exclusive claims: "None comes to the father but by me"

It condemns those who do not believe to hellfire (5:10)

, calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28),

*verse is referring to their belief and thus their prohibition of coming to the Kaaba, nothing else.

28. O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.



orders the Muslims to fight them until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193)

*193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

funny interpretations you have, seems the verse refers to fighting against oppressors and war to end when oppression ends and justice and faith prevail. Nothing about exterminating all other religions.

, slay or crucify or cut the hands and the feet of the unbelievers and to expel them from the land with disgrace.

*No reference, just accusations here.

The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims): are “worst of created beings” (98:6),

*6. Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.

Again a reference to the hereafter, nothing related to this world.

are “miscreants” (2:99,

99. We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse.

24:55)
*55. Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.

Referring to apostates from Islam and Allah's view of them.

, are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55);

*In Allah (SWT)'s eyes yes, this doesn't however affect how Muslims are meant to treat non-Muslims

(Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166);

*Particular groups of Jews and Christians for particular misdemenours.
(idolaters are) unclean (9:28);

*Already discussed.

“evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); liars/they lie (2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (7:179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), the lowest of the low (95:4-6)

*You are very touchy about this for someone who doesn't believe in it. All monotheistic faiths including your own make such exclusive claims.

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

*This was the aid of the angels to the Muslims fighting the Quraish at Badr.

Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”

*Again a bit of context is needed here:
59. Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them).

60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

61. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

62. Should they intend to deceive thee,- verily Allah sufficeth thee: He it is That hath strengthened thee with His aid and with (the company of) the Believers;

63. And (moreover) He hath put affection between their hearts: not if thou hadst spent all that is in the earth, couldst thou have produced that affection, but Allah hath done it: for He is Exalted in might, Wise.


Tabari VIII:130 “The Messenger said, ‘Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.’ Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: ‘Allah has given permission for you to be expelled.”

*The Arabian peninsula is the place of Islam's holy places and is for Muslims only. However Jews, Christians, other faiths and none are welcome in any other parts of the Muslim lands. When the Christians drove the Muslims out of Spain, they expelled the Jews who flocked to Istanbul where they were welcomed by the Caliph of the time.


Qur’an 2:64 “But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you.”

* Again refers to a particular incident and a certain group of the Jewish community.

Now i think it should be clear to anyone the deliberate distortion that Polish Solidarity is attempting to propagate. I understand many people will still not accept these views, but they will see they are not what Polish Solidarity has tried to decieve people into believing them to be.

Polish solidarity might want to ask herself why the New Testement contains so much vitriolic against Jews and their religion and why the Old Testement portrays the Prophets(PBUT) as drunkards, devious, sex-crazed, incestous etc (May Allah exalt them above such lies)
Muslims recognise that Prophet Jesus (PBUH) is the messiah, it says so in the Qur'aan (which shows you haven't read it, just pulled a bunch of quotes from a website) and of course what does Messiah and Christ mean: "The anointed one"- anointed by whom- God/Allah (SWT) himself. Prophet Jesus(PBUH) never asked to be worshipped or claimed divine sonship, you have 4 gospels and another 300 which were burnt. In the early years of Christianity there were two churches: One that followed Paul (A man who never met Jesus (Pbuh) while he was on the earth) and developed into the Catholic church with it's trinitarian and atoning redemption which are both pagan ideas adopted from pagan cults like that of Dionysus and Baal. The other church led by luminaries such as Arius and Donatus who followed Jesus (PBUH) step brother James and his earthly disciples believed Jesus (PBUH) was a Prophet (PBUH) and another was coming with the kingdom of heaven.
This has all been documented by countless Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, humanist and other scholars.
A good starting point which compiles many references to these works is Jesus Prophet of Islam by Ahmed Thompson or the Mysteries of Jesus by Ruqayyiah Waris Maqsood (a Christian scholar who converted to Islam)Anyway i think that will do for now.

3:52 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

oh and BNP member, though i don't know why i waste my time.
The Ottomon Sultans some of them did have black slaves castrated to guard their harems. But they clearly knew this was not acceptable in Islamic law as they got Coptic Priests to do it. I'm not condoning their actions, it was wrong, but the actions of individual Muslims even Sultans cannot be equated with Islam. Just as the actions of the Klu Klux Klan, the Serbian and Lebanese Christian militias and the Rwandan Nuns who aided in genocide cannot be equated with Christianity.
Oh and i think it's ironic that the BNP who used to chant "Jesus was a wog" now talk about Christian values and culture.

3:56 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:01 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

No, naturally, your sultans dont represent islam. Course not. Even though the ottoman sultans were the overlords of all the other sultans, thats just part of the jewish plot to discredit you.

The fact that the sultans role was defined in the koran, that has nothing to do with it of course. All mere hearsay. Course it doesnt reflect on muslims, nonono, course not. Muslims play in chocolate streams with gum-drop smiles and flowers in their hair.

Theres a good lad.

Now, that Jesus is a wog comment has nothing do do with the BNP im in. It used to be a basket case, with less than a hundered members and nazi ideals. Now its winning elections with sensible policies, thousands of members and jewish councillors.

Perhaps you are reffering to the bnp led by whatshis name... john tyndal, the one who was kicked out of the party by Nick Griffin.

Of course, if i claimed that johns manifesto was the word of God, and he slept with 9 year olds and he cut of the heads of those who opposed him, you may have a point.

6:03 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel,
* The marriages were annulled by their capture and their captors were only allowed to have
intercourse with them with their consent.

And you call it a woman's right to divorce her husband? Interesting! And if they did not give their consent then they were paid damages and safely escorted to mum and dad? They surely did not consider such an option - who in their sound mind would reject advances of such honourable gentlemen? Sarcasm off/

*They were not raped, European slavery consisted of torturing, brutalising and raping
slaves. The slavery in Islam was more akin to having POWs today. They were to be humanley
treated and intercourse with slave girls was only with their express consent. In fact there
are explicit narrations from Lady Saffiyah's own mouth that she had dreams that she would marry the Prophet (PBUH) and that her Jewish family had abused her. The Prophet (PBUH) set her free and offered her marriage. She accepted.

That was your story, and here is the authentic one:

Safiyah was seventeen and very beautiful when Muslims killed her father, husband and many of
her relatives. In the same day the Prophet of Allah wanted to sleep with her. Here is the exact text of the story:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm

Let the readers draw their own conclusions.

Rape of captive on day he murdered her family:

Tabari VIII:38 “The Prophet selected for himself from among the Jewish women of the Qurayza,

Rayhanah bt. Amr. She became his concubine. When he predeceased her, she was still in his
possession. When the Messenger of Allah took her as a captive, she showed herself averse to Islam and insisted on Judaism.”

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there early in
the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was
riding behind Abu Talha. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and
said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and
take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O
Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him
along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya,
'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

As for slavery:

"The Arab slave-trade in black African slaves began centuries
earlier than the Western slave-trade, and lasted centuries
later. Indeed, it lasts up to now, in Mauritania, Mali, and
Sudan, and even in Arabia. The Arab slave-trade was suppressed
by the British in the late 19th century, through force of arms
and the threat of arms. The complete story about this can be
found in J. B. Kelly's "Britain and the Persian Gulf, 1795-1880." When Saudi Arabia formally abolished -- to look good in the eyes of the West and of ARAMCO -- slavery in 1962, one old princess of the royal family violently objected. She needn't have. Since then the Saudis have practiced a kind of slavery without the formal recognition of that slavery. Advertisements have been spotted in Saudi papers, offering to swap (yes, just like those folksy swaps in Yankee Magazine, out of Dublin, New Hampshire) girls, Indian or Thai or Cambodian, for a used car
-- but please, one in good condition.
It was not Muslims, but the British who suppressed the Arab
slave trade in East Africa. That trade had supplied black
slaves for many uses, but particularly sought were male
children who were castrated on sight where they were seized.
Those who survived the primitive operation (with of course no
anesthetic) were then taken by slave coffle from the interior
and marched either all the way up to the Muslim slave-markets
of Egypt and North Africa from Tripolitania to Mauritania, or
taken by dhow to the coast, often to Muscat, and from there to
the slave-markets of Arabia, Riyadh and Damascus, Baghdad,
Cairo, even as far as Constantinople and Smyrna. In “The
Hideous Trade” Jan Hogedoorn has calculated that the mortality
rate due to the castration and subsequent forced marches, ended
with barely 10% of those initially taken actually managing to
reach those slave markets alive.

Why should one be surprised at the existence of slavery under
Islam? Slavery is part of Islam. The Qur'an and the hadith and
Muhammad's life refer to slaves and slavery. If it was part of
7th century Arabia, it is part of the Sunna, and is sanctioned
by Allah and by Muhammad.
There is no Muslim Anti-Slavery Society. Slavery is compatible
with both Qur'an and Sunna. And the arguments based on how
Muhammad himself treated his slaves well,does nothing to answer
the essential point:
Islam condones, accepts, regulates slavery. The canonical texts
nowhere suggest that slavery is not an accepted part of life."
(H.Fitzgerald)

*This was the execution of the men of Bani Qurayzah which is the same event as described below in Medina, which is even mentioned in the text. Your insincerity shines through. They were executed for their treachery to the city they were meant to defend according to their own laws written in the Torah, which incidentally is your old testement.

No doubt Medinans brought such a horrible fate upon themselves by resisting the Apostle of
Allah and his troops. Sarcasm off/
By the way Torah is not the Old Testament - it is only the first 5 books of it.

* Nonsense, why then are there still Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu communities living in majority Muslim countries as they have done for centuries.

These mentioned communities have been dwindling with time, i.e. 50% of Istanbul was Christian/Jewish in only 1915, now infidels constitute 2% of the population there. Non-Muslims live under the status of dhimmis:

"A dhimmi (also zimmi,usually translated as "protected", plural: ahl al-dhimma) is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia — Islamic law. The word dhimmi is an adjective derived from the noun "dhimma", which means "tutelage" and denotes
the legal relationship between a dhimmi and the Islamic state. It applied mostly to non-polytheists who were conquered by a Muslim state and allowed to retain their religion.Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying
a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal
disabilities. These provisions of sharia limited the ability of dhimmis to visibly practice
their rituals, expand and repair places of worship. Dhimmis were not allowed to testify in
cases involving a Muslim; dhimmi men were prohibited from marrying Muslim women. Some restrictions imposed on dhimmis from time to time were largely symbolic in nature and were designed to highlight the inferiority of dhimmis compared to Muslims. These regulations included, among others, requirements to wear distinctive clothing and prohibitions on riding horses and camels.The conditions of dhimma resulted in a gradual acceptance of Islam by most Middle Eastern
Christians and Zoroastrians living under the Muslim rule." (wiki)

and the protection and equality they "enjoy" is best illustrated by, to just give the most
recent cases of: beheaded Christian girls in Indonesia, an Italian priest murdered in
Turkey, Abul Rahman's near death experience in Afghanistan, rape and slaughter of Christians
(2 millions) in Sudan, beatings of Catholic priests and nurses in Pakistan, pogroms of Copts
in Egypt, not to mention Saudi Arabia, where even practising Christianity in the confines of
someone's own home is extremely dangerous, where smuggling in a copy of the Bible is punished by death. Well I can go on like this for hours proving what a tolerant and liberal attitude Islam has towards "non-believers. Sarcasm off/

*Must not take them as intimate best friends, shows your ignorance of arabic.

How come Arabic is the only language in the whole world that cannot be translated? Can you
please explain this to me?

*It is a war, that is what happens in war, at least our religion lays down a humanitarian code not to kill women, children, priests, rabbis, monks, civilians etc. I don't remember the crusaders or the US army being so discriminating.

Could you kindly provide some evidence of this rule based on your holy scriptures? I have
some serious reservations concerning the authenticity of those claims. My doubts are based
not only on the most recent examples of waging the holy war i.e 9/11 or 7/7.
As for crusades they were the answer to Islamic imperialism.

* You clearly have no grasp of history or your own scripture and culture. According to tradition Lady Mary was 12 when she gave birth to Jesus. Juliet according to Shakesphere was also 12. You call the Prophet (PBUH) sex crazed, if that is so why did he have only one wife for 25 years who was 15 years his senior. Why were all his wives apart from Lady Aisha divorcees and widows? Why didn't he take all the beautiful young girls of Madinah and have
hundreds of wives?

Ismaeel, you are so funny! Where in the Bible have you read that Mary had sex at all???
Juliette is a fictional character just like dragons and unicorns. Plus she romantically fell
in love with Romeo. Poor Aisha ... took her dolls with her to bed with the Apostle of Allah.
I wonder if he let her carry on playing with them while the deflowering took place.
Khadija turned out to be very useful to Muhammad due to her money and position. We know many
such cases in history. And Muhammad had his unfair share of women as he allowed the others
ONLY 4.

Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223

*And your problem with this is...? Sorry does it not fit in with the sexually repressive culture of the church?

Am I misisng the point here or does it not mention the woman's feelins and desires in this
respect? Sarcasm off/

4: The Women

Marry of the women two, or three, or four. 4:3

* And your point is....?
Polygamy of far greater numbers is rampant in the old testement and Prophet Jesus (PBUH)
never discusses the subject in the gospels. Does marrying more than one wife reduce her rights?

Yes! Jesus does not condone polygamy anywhere in the Bible.

Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15

* This is reffering to adultery and has been abrogated by the punishment of stoning.

A nice one! Sarcasm off/

Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98

*Again out of context, let's look at the verse surrounding it:
97. When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: "In what (plight) Were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed Were we in the earth." They say:
"Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?"
Such men will find their abode in Hell,- What an evil refuge! -

98. Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed - men, women, and children - who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.

99. For these, there is hope that Allah will forgive: For Allah doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again.

Come on! This is the commandment to wage jihad, to expand the Umma Islamiyya! Only weak and oppressed (read = in minority) can be excused from spreading the rule of Islam all over the world.


23: The Believers

You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand
possess." 23:6

*Bit difficult to have marital relations with too much modesty don't you think?

And the slaves girls you consider a norm, not worth even noticing?


If you accuse an honorable women of adultery, be sure to bring four witness. Otherwise you will receive 80 lashes. 24:4

8. But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an
oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;

9. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if
(her accuser) is telling the truth.

* And the wife has the equivilent right in Islamic law.

A weird notion of equality, where it is the wife who has to defend herself, but never able to accuse her spouse of the same sin. According to sharia law a raped woman must provide 4 male (sic!)
witnesses to bring a charge and as it hardly ever plausible that she would have 4 (passive) onlookers of her violation, she ends up being accused of adultery.

* Yes exactly how the Virgin Mary is portrayed in the majority of iconography. It protects
women from being viewed primarily as sex objects, but prompts men to value them for their intelligence, character and piety.

This is really a comment about Muslim men - they cannot see a woman as a full human being,
body and soul (but as a sex object) - the right they enjoy themsleves without having to wear
a potato sack. What an indictment of Muslim men's inability to control their sexual urges
unless a woman is almost invisible. Nothing to be proud of.
And by the way, I know quite a few very attractive portraits of Virgin Mary in the history of art.

33: The Clans

If Muhammad's wives are good, Allah will give them "an immense reward." 33:28-29

*And your problem with this is..?

But Muhammad can be naughty and still deserves immense rewards. Sarcasm off/


The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.)

33:30

*They have a higher status and responsibility than other women, therefore their crimes would
have been subject to greater punishement.

The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33

*Yep, again a particular status for them.

Wow! What a privilege! The most enslaved of the unfree!

When Allah or Muhammad decide that a man and a woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36

* Yep, would you refuse to marry a man Prophet Jesus(PBUH) or God told you to marry?

My God has more important things on his mind that arranging marriages! Jesus was busy with healing people, raising them from the dead and not securing a harem of wiwes and slave-girls to satisfy his carnal, earthly desires.

Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51

*Again distortion:

50. O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers;
and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned
to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal
uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates
her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for
the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the
captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for
thee. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Allah was truly accommodating to his Apostle. Sarcasm off/

If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must
ever marry one of his wives. 33:53

*Yes again a sign of their special status.

Sure, they were his toys and he would not let any other men use or take what's his. Hands off!

37: Those Who Set the Ranks

Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter
how they behaved). 37:22-23

*This is referring to pagans whose wives are also pagans and are thus going to hell for
their idolatry.

Poor wives do not even have the right to answer for themselves in front of Allah. They are
their husbands' commodities so when he goes to hell, all his things follow suit. If she
chose the wrong guy - tough sh*t!


Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with "fair ones with wide, lovely eyes."

44:54
52: The Mount

Allah will reward those in the Garden with beautiful wives with wide, lovely eyes. 52:20
53: The Star

*And your problem with this is what? Are people not allowed to enjoy themselves in paradise.

Hmmm...sounds like a heavenly bordello, and again not much there in terms of women's liberation either. I would rather go to hell, personally.

Those in the Garden will be attended by immortal youths with wide, lovely eyes. 56:17-23

And it is a brothel for everyone (males of course) regardless of their sexual orientation!

*Saudi Arabia was set up with the connivance of the British to break up the Ottoman Empire,
if you visit even their official websites you will find this to be the case. They practice a
form of Islam which is a complete break from traditional Islam called Wahabbism.

Well, so it is the fault of the British? How could I have missed this obvious connection?
So Wahabbism is not Islam any more? I wonder...

193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

* funny interpretations you have, seems the verse refers to fighting against oppressors and
war to end when oppression ends and justice and faith prevail. Nothing about exterminating
all other religions.

Oppression in Islam's interpretation takes place whenever Muslims (not yet in majority) cannot get their way because as your Apostle said Islam is to dominate and not to be
dominated. Try harder Ismaeel. This one has bells on.

Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, allows that it "is the nature of Islam
to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."

From A letter from Muslim scholars to Mullah Muhammad Umar:

"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in
victory) if you are indeed (true) believers. [Quran 3:139]
This verse descended upon the Messenger of Allaah (SAWS) and his Companions, may Allah be
pleased with them, on the day they were defeated at Uhud. So the real supremacy is the supremacy of moral values and religion. Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said,
“Islaam is dominant and is not dominated over.” Bukhari narrated this in his Sahih as a
dangling narration (Mu’aliq), and At-Tahawi narrated it with an authentic chain. So Islam
and the people of Islam are dominant, even if they are defeated in battle. And Allah, the
Most High, said:

…But honour, power and glory belong to Allâh, His Messenger and to the believers. [Quran
63:8]

So the supremacy is directly connected to Allah and His Messenger and to every believer who truly adheres to his religion. So he is supreme with the supremacy (bestowed) by Allaah and
with his faith (Iman). So whoever adheres to the morals of truth, then he is supreme according to the Quran and the Sunnah."

slay or crucify or cut the hands and the feet of the unbelievers and to expel them from the land with disgrace.

*No reference, just accusations here.

You are not a very careful reader:

5:33
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might
and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of
hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this
world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"

*The Arabian peninsula is the place of Islam's holy places and is for Muslims only. However
Jews, Christians, other faiths and none are welcome in any other parts of the Muslim lands.
When the Christians drove the Muslims out of Spain, they expelled the Jews who flocked to
Istanbul where they were welcomed by the Caliph of the time.


For the sake of historical accuracy it was Muslims who invaded Spain, some Jews ended up in the Ottoman Empire as they were needed for their medical and literacy skills (acted i.e as
translators of Greek books), but majority of the settled in Italy and most of all in The Netherlands.

*Polish solidarity might want to ask herself why the New Testement contains so much vitriolic against Jews and their religion and why the Old Testement portrays the
Prophets(PBUT) as drunkards, devious, sex-crazed, incestous etc (May Allah exalt them above
such lies)

Heh? NT is full of anti-Semitism? Are you mad? Miriam, Jesus, all apostles were Jews.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
And OT prophets have never been presented as examples for humankind to follow (as opposed to
your prophet). Finally which OT prophets were drunkards, devious, sex-crazed, incestous?
Please I beg you to give me names.

*Muslims recognise that Prophet Jesus (PBUH) is the messiah, it says so in the Qur'aan
(which shows you haven't read it, just pulled a bunch of quotes from a website) and of course what does Messiah and Christ mean: "The anointed one"- anointed by whom- God/Allah
(SWT) himself. Prophet Jesus(PBUH) never asked to be worshipped or claimed divine sonship..

Oh really! Funny you say it is in the Koran, but fail to give me the reference. Maybe it is the Jesus you invented 600 years after his death that did not claim divine sonship. We must be talking about a completely different chap.

The rest of your "revelations" do not even merit my time. Piles of rubbish, with all respect. Sarcasm off/

I have other things to do.

10:28 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Polish solidarity your counter refutation was a load of rubbish. You have clearly not read the old testement, new testement or the Qur'aan, you don't know what you are talking about and are just spiteful and bored.

10:54 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel, I gather you are not very good at chess?
For once I agree with you - I am bored with the debate.

11:28 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home