NationStates Jolt Archive

Some random thoughts and a rambling post. And apologies for yet another thread on Islam.

Background for this thread is the recent sentencing to life of a jihadi preacher Ali Al-Timimi. Some were objecting to the "severity" of his punishment. Another guy was shot dead in London - allegedly a suicide bomber. Many were objecting to the manner in which he was shot and there are fears that this will lead to alienation and mistrust and ultimately towards a war on Islam. Some are of the view that unchecked radicalism will lead to a war and this needs to be nipped in the bud.

But aren't we already on a war on Islam? (Rhetoric question, not my opinion)

I mean, consider this...

Let's say that I decide that you are against me and I decide that I must fight you, then there is no way you can avoid war with me unless you submit to me (my demands), do you ?

So does it really matter what you think? The islamists (who claim to represent true Islam) have ALREADY declared war on you.

Recently, in the past coupla weeks we have seen Islamists attack on Ayodhya, London twice and likely more to come, a bomb in Trinidad and today an attack in Egypt. Some may attribute this to political reactions from certain muslim groups.

But what can we make of Dar-ul-harb and Dar-ul-islam ? Islam by design is under threat by the mere presence of any other faith. Hence the duty of core Islamists is not over until the entire world submits to Islam, that is, the whole world becomes dar-ul-islam.

This stuff along with the "kill the kafir wherever you find them...don't take jews and christians as your friends.." type of verses are codified in the Koran, which as per muslim belief is the perfect and last word of God, and hence is immutable. Creative interpretation (Ijtehad) was practiced by islamic scholars until the fall of Baghdad to Hulagu Khan after which the society kinda closed on itself and Islam became rigid....in fact so rigid that any creative interpretation of Koran is now looked upon as blasphemy especially in the Sunni/wahabi circles , who form the majority in the muslim world. Those with dissenting opinon are actively discouraged and labelled as munafiqs and are silenced by accusing of spreading fitnah.

And any suggestion from a non-muslim to tone down on some of the verses from Koran will be viewed as an attack on Islam (after pointing out such similar lingo in other holy scriptures, of course). Islam is kinda a fragile and sensitive faith and does not tolerate criticism. It gets upset by idols, pictures and the faithful can be turned by temptation of even the ankles of women and heck..writing a book can get you even killed (the hukm/fatwa by Khomeini). Somebody who is brought up on a staple diet of this is already indoctrinated and loses individual critical thinking and a thick hide.

Thus Islam has no mechanism to change/adapt/evolve. The core Islamists in the ME and extended ME who have been running their own little world until the dawn of modern globalisation and who want to have nothing to do with the outside world are now being threatened by the outside world reaching out to them within their fiefdoms or cloistered nests. And where do they look for answers? they look at the Quran and Hadiths which tell them that the answer is to fight and kill those who threaten them (jihad). And they are told that death is to be welcomed while doing this. They cry that Islam is under threat and are mobilizing anyone with any degree of dissatisfaction to be violent, to be prepared to kill and if that is not possible, to be prepared to blow himself.

If other muslims disagree - they too are part of the problem. They too are enemies to be eliminated. Hence the situation in Iraq where the jihadis have no qualms in bombing other Iraqi muslim civilians since they are seen as collaborators and targetting them is halal.

In other non-muslim societies, any target in any place where a volunteer can be found is OK. Volunteers are aplenty due to the mosque centered communities in every land. All it takes is one fiery sermon and some talking by a recruiter and voila a jihadi is ready to carry out attack on the now hated kafir land. Every Kafir land allows mosques by virtue of a "weakness" called "secularism" or "Pluralism". This is a defect that Islam does not have. None of the muslim majority countries allow free practice of religions other than islam. The exceptions are Turkey where islamists are subdued by brute force of the govt and in Malaysia and Indonesia which are not part of the core islamist areas anyway.

So what do we do against this clear danger of jihadic preaching and recruiting going on in mosques. Any action directed against mosque centered communities in dar ul harb has its own problems

It goes against the non-muslim's own secular principle of allowing all religions to exist and it serves as proof to the faithful that there IS a war against Islam.

So, if I decide that you are against me and I decide that I must fight you, then there is no way you can avoid war with me unless you submit to me (my demands), do you ?

But obviously, not all muslims are terrorists. So then how do you specifically target Islamic fundamentalists without hitting innocent muslims along the way?

Is it a software problem or a hardware problem ?

IOW, Is it a problem with Islam or is it just a problem with muslims ?

To elaborate further, just for a minute remove your loathing for Osama and taliban and imagine that 911 did not happen and they have committed nothing that YOU can call a crime against you or your people or country or whatever. Think of their clothes, their attitudes and their behaviour.

What would they represent?

They would represent good muslims. In fact it is likely that many of Bin Laden's ilk and Taliban types were really as close to being "perfect" Sunni Muslims as anyone can be. They did follow the sunni shariat to the letter. You can have large number of good muslims of this type who are going about their daily lives without affecting you. They will be loved and respected within their circle.

If some of these people were to commit a violent act it is easy to say that they should be brought to justice like anyone else. But the problem is if the violent act is justified in the name of Islam, and can be shown to have sanction in the Quran or Sharia can you still bring them to book and prosecute them?

This is where the split occurs betwen dar ul Islam and dar ul harb. From the Islamic viewpoint the person, who has been a "good muslim" remains good. He is not guilty.

But you are calling him guilty on the basis of your laws and rules that he does not accept. And if he has a lot of supporters who equally do not accept your laws and rules that make you call him a criminal / terrorist, they are not going to accept that he is a criminal / terrorist.

Any action that you take against this person can be and is being construed as an unjustified action against an innocent and good muslim.

How can you ever fight such a man who commits a crime by your laws without being accused of waging war against Islam?

Who is the good muslim and who decides who is the good muslim ?

and more importantly how do you specifically target Islamic fundamentalists like him without hitting innocent muslims along the way and without becoming a radical and fundamentalist like him especially when our actions and inactions and reactions and pretty much ANYTHING we do will be somehow construed as an attack on islam which fuels the "osama is right" thougts and recruits more to his jihad ?

sorry for the ramble.

example

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16021697%255E1702,00.html

A new poll says about a quarter of British Muslims sympathise with the motives of the London bombers, if not their methods.

But asked whether they had sympathy with the feelings and motives of the four British Muslim bombers, 13 per cent said they had a lot of sympathy and another 11 per cent had a little.

but

A similar poll for The Sun newspaper showed 91 per cent of the Muslim respondents didn't feel the suicide bombings were justified by the Islamic holy book, the Koran.

no, this is not a war on islam. if it was it would have started at home

or would would have confronted them with some ridiculous religous debacle like blowing up the rock of mecca - what are you gonna do when you no longer have something to bow down to 5 times a day?

no, this is not a war on islam. if it was it would have started at home

or would would have confronted them with some ridiculous religous debacle like blowing up the rock of mecca - what are you gonna do when you no longer have something to bow down to 5 times a day?
Honestly. I love America. I'd love to join our armed forces. I so want to get into the government and work the country out.

But if that ONE.PARTICULAR.AREA.EVER. gets attacked by us, I'm picking up the nearest gun and heading on over to the Los Angeles base.

What does anyone gain by destroying "The House of God" (as we believe it, I think)? Nothing. Just about a billion pissed off Muslims all around the globe. Well fucking done smartasses.

what are you gonna do when you no longer have something to bow down to 5 times a day?

We bow toward the Kabbah (the "rock" as you call it, but it's actually a large, ornate cube) 5 times a day, but we bow *to* Allah. If the Kabbah were gone, we would still be here. We would still bow to Allah.

Whether you like it or not.

http://worldfriendshiptour.noi.org/images/kabbah.gif

It's not just a "rock".

I hear Hamas, the syrian lackies, have moved on to bombing Muslims in Lebonon because how dare they throw off the reigns of their Syrian oppressors and try to achive that evil thing called democracy that they once were before the syrians arrived to destory their country.

I hear Hamas, the syrian lackies...
Hamas or Hezbollah?

Islam is my favorite monotheistic religion, so I can't see anything wrong with it.
I can, however, see plenty of things wrong with some of the "practitioners" of Islam.
Remember, people are stupid and can be corrupted easily, so blame them, not their ideology.

Or, should we have a war on Christianity because of all the stupidity it's leaders, and people working in it's name, have done over the past two thousand years?

-- This has been an Official Reponse from your Freindly, Neighborhood Authortarian, Militaristic, Polytheist --

sorry for the ramble.Don't apologise. This was an excellent, reasoned and articulate post.

I don't think anyone could claim to have all the answers, or know the perfect way to deal with this situation. I certainly can't. All anyone can really do is submit ideas, and, equally importantly, warnings.

My own favoured approach to any form of ideological terrorism would, as I've said in other threads (and I'm probably becoming quite boring on this now), would be to treat the acts as criminal offences rather than any sort of 'act of war'.

You make the point that these extremists who carry out these attacks believe that they are at war. And so they might. However, I would disagree that this automatically makes this a war. I don't think it does. Britain never recognised the IRA, the Irish Republican Army, as an army, despite its operatives giving themselves ranks and titles, and referring to themselves as soldiers. They might have claimed to be fighting a war, but they were not. Their attacks were sporadic, usually directed at easy 'soft' targets - civilians - and of course they were accountable to no government or other national authority. They did as they pleased - just as our modern so-called 'Muslim' terrorists do as they please without submitting to any earthly control.

The fact that these people are supposedly answerable only to their god is what makes them so dangerous. There can be no diplomatic solution if their simplistic worldview divides the world's population into either "obedient follower of my religious teachings" or "target who does not deserve to live".

But I believe that acknowledging such a viewpoint by attempting to respond militarily to this threat is to validate that viewpoint. The world's "War on Terror" has played directly into the hands of these so-called 'soldiers', because it MAKES them soldiers. If 'terrorist' becomes inextricably linked in the world's mind with 'Muslim' - and the media and western governments are doing all they can to ensure the two become synonymous - then, like it or not, the War on Terror BECOMES a War on Islam and the extremists get what they want. But terrorism is a crime, and should be treated as such. Whether its perpetrators recognise our laws is irrelevant. If you break a law in someone else's country then you are subject to that country's justice, and so these people should be.

We cannot lash out against terrorism and expect to defeat it overnight. Terrorism represents ideological barbarity, ignorance, and a lack of respect for human life. It is the eradication of THESE characteristics that will ultimately defeat it - and that is not something that's going to happen quickly. In the meantime, all we can do is continue to resist terrorism. And we do that by the simple expedient of not submitting to our terror.

One of my colleagues had brought a newspaper yesterday - the Daily Mirror - whose front page was black, and covered with pictures of police officers carrying guns. "Is This How We Must Now Live?" the headline screamed. And the answer, of course, is no. It isn't. It's just how the media would like to SEE us live - because fear sells newspapers. Inside, a picture of a London street was accompanied by the label "City Of Terror" - but the picture showed normal Londoners going about their everyday business. Despite the article's constant references to 'panic', there was no evidence of any such thing in the picture they chose to show. So why didn't they show a picture of Londoners panicking? Maybe because they couldn't find one?

The media want us afraid, because they believe we will look to them to find out what our opinions should be. They are playing this for all it is worth. The government want us afraid because a fearful population is often willing to grant its leaders extraordinary powers in exchange for a feeling of security - however false.

And of course the terrorists want us afraid because they want to see their enemy cowering before them.

Education, communication, understanding. These are the only true ways to victory. But the only way for us to effectively fight this 'war' that isn't a war is to refuse to give in to fear. We live the way we as a society choose to live, and we refuse to allow the terrorist, our fear, or even our own government and media, to persuade us to give up our freedom to make that choice.

Some random thoughts and a rambling post. And apologies for yet another thread on Islam.

<snipped for brevity>

sorry for the ramble.

That was actually a very good post that adequately covered some of the most problematic aspects of making policy that will be effective in reducing terrorism by Islamic extremists rather than inflaming it.

Islam is my favorite monotheistic religion, so I can't see anything wrong with it.

i think if i HAD to follow a religeon, islam would be my choice.

Islam is my favorite monotheistic religion, so I can't see anything wrong with it.

No comment. It's just.... my mind imploded.

"When I hold you..in my arms..and I feel my finger on your trigger...I know..nobody can do me no harm..becuase..happiness is a warm gun."

Good arguement.

Though I wouldn't say it's a war against Islam per se.

It's a war against muslim Fanaticism.

We bow toward the Kabbah (the "rock" as you call it, but it's actually a large, ornate cube) 5 times a day, but we bow *to* Allah. If the Kabbah were gone, we would still be here. We would still bow to Allah.

Whether you like it or not.

http://worldfriendshiptour.noi.org/images/kabbah.gif

It's not just a "rock".

Well said, my friend.

IOW, Is it a problem with Islam or is it just a problem with muslims ?


I gotta say, I'm really glad someone finally asked that question in that way.

Who is the good muslim and who decides who is the good muslim ?

I think I can answer this. The good Muslim is the one who submits him or herself totally to the will of Allah. (I will guarantee you, double your money back, that Allah's will does not include blowing up the innocent)

As to who decides, Allah. Allah is the only authority on who is and is not a good Muslim.

I think I can answer this. The good Muslim is the one who submits him or herself totally to the will of Allah. (I will guarantee you, double your money back, that Allah's will does not include blowing up the innocent)

As to who decides, Allah. Allah is the only authority on who is and is not a good Muslim.

Yea but you have 2 groups of people claiming to know the true meaning of a book written by a god who really cant be verified by a scientific process. So the question then becomes how is your definition have any more validity then say the other sides?

Yea but you have 2 groups of people claiming to know the true meaning of a book written by a god who really cant be verified by a scientific process. So the question then becomes how is your definition have any more validity then say the other sides?

Describing god by the 'scientific process' is like asking for auditory proof of the colour red. It's impossible because the much lauded 'science' fails to understand the greater truth of God.

First of all, I want to congratulate you for such an excellent post. I do not feel this is a war against Islam, but it is a war against radical Islam. This is why I think it is important for Moslems the world over to speak with one voice and loudly condemn these terrorists. They need to cooperate with the authorities and point out those among them who are supporting terrorism. If they do not I think there will be a terrible backlash, and I don't want to see that.

Describing god by the 'scientific process' is like asking for auditory proof of the colour red. It's impossible because the much lauded 'science' fails to understand the greater truth of God.

:headbang: You miss the point of my post. I'm not saying look science disproves god. I'm that science is generally held not to be able to dable in the affairs of a metaphysical being. With that said it requires a leap of faith to believe in god. Now if you cant physically prove that your view of gods words are true and you have to rely on faith as a way to do so what makes your view of those words any more valid then the other side. Its like saying okay lets get a catholic and protestant together and have them definitavely prove which version of their god is true. Its not going to happen. Which is why I am taking issue with Keruvalia post. I just want to know how Keruvalia's view is more valid.

Yea but you have 2 groups of people claiming to know the true meaning of a book written by a god who really cant be verified by a scientific process.

Why does there need to be a scientific process involved in language?

In Qur'an, Allah says don't murder unless it's a properly proscribed death penalty. The only properly proscribed death penalty is unrepented murder decided after due process (court, trial, etc).

Hence, if someone straps on a bomb and goes and blows up a bunch of children, that is murder. Therefore, the person who did the act is a "bad Muslim".

It's really not that difficult to figure out. No science needed.

Why does there need to be a scientific process involved in language?
I'm talking about the proofs for god and how generally people dont like to bring science into it. How are you going to prove that the language you are refering to is actually god's words? I'm not trying to disprove god here I just want to know who's version of the word is more valid and why.

In Qur'an, Allah says don't murder unless it's a properly proscribed death penalty. The only properly proscribed death penalty is unrepented murder decided after due process (court, trial, etc).
According to you. Whats to say these terrorists believe that the passage in question relates to what they are doing. That they are carrying out a death penalty against the enemies of god.

Hence, if someone straps on a bomb and goes and blows up a bunch of children, that is murder. Therefore, the person who did the act is a "bad Muslim".

It's really not that difficult to figure out. No science needed.
Once again this is according to you. My question is why is interpretation more valid then the other sides? Can you prove to me that what you are saying is god's true intention of the words?

Why does there need to be a scientific process involved in language?

In Qur'an, Allah says don't murder unless it's a properly proscribed death penalty. The only properly proscribed death penalty is unrepented murder decided after due process (court, trial, etc).

Hence, if someone straps on a bomb and goes and blows up a bunch of children, that is murder. Therefore, the person who did the act is a "bad Muslim".

It's really not that difficult to figure out. No science needed.

Ker, I must agree with you. I don't think Economic Associates has any idea of what s/he is talking about. Religion is based on faith not science.

Ker, I must agree with you. I don't think Economic Associates has any idea of what s/he is talking about. Religion is based on faith not science.

:headbang: Wow just wow thats what two people taking my posts out of context. All I want to know is why is Ker's interpretation of the words of god more valid then the other side. I am not trying to prove or disprove religion. I'm not trying to say science should be put into religion. I understand religion is based on faith. Which is why I want to know if religion is based on faith instead of facts what makes ker's view right.

My question is why is interpretation more valid then the other sides? Can you prove to me that what you are saying is god's true intention of the words?

Now I think I know what your are saying and my reply is; There can never be any scientific proof that one persons, religion, sect, etc. is any more valid than another’s. There is no scientific proof possible for one religions beliefs to be more valid in the eyes of God than another because religion is based on faith not science. Who is more right in God's eye, the Roman Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc? There is no way to tell except through faith.

That is a problem for all religions. That is a problem now in the Muslim community. However, most Muslims are not terrorists so that is a pretty good clue that the radical Muslims are probably not the "true" Muslims, just as Keru said.

:headbang: Wow just wow thats what two people taking my posts out of context. All I want to know is why is Ker's interpretation of the words of god more valid then the other side. I am not trying to prove or disprove religion. I'm not trying to say science should be put into religion. I understand religion is based on faith. Which is why I want to know if religion is based on faith instead of facts what makes ker's view right.


How do you know that your interpretation of your religion is any more valid than someone else's interpretation of your religion? Now, if you are an atheist, how do you know that is the correct position to take?

All I want to know is why is Ker's interpretation of the words of god more valid then the other side.

I'm not Ker, but I think his answer would be faith.

Now I think I know what your are saying and my reply is; There can never be any scientific proof that one persons, religion, sect, etc. is any more valid than another’s. There is no scientific proof possible for one religions beliefs to be more valid in the eyes of God than another because religion is based on faith not science. Who is more right in God's eye, the Roman Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc? There is no way to tell except through faith.
Which is why I take issue with Ker's post before. The claim to know what allah's words mean etc is taken without any way to significantly prove the otherside wrong. The only thing remotely offered as proof is the claim that they have faith in it being the truth.

That is a problem for all religions. That is a problem now in the Muslim community. However, most Muslims are not terrorists so that is a pretty good clue that the radical Muslims are probably not the "true" Muslims, just as Keru said.
What does the amount of followers have to do with anything? Just because more people have faith in a particular belief does not make it any more vaild than another. Otherwise all the minor religions would be screwed. Ker offered a definition and I'm waiting to see what they have to say to answer my question of why its more valid then the other side.

I'm not Ker, but I think his answer would be faith.

But how does that prove that ker's side is more valid?

But how does that prove that ker's side is more valid?

What is your religious persuasion?

Thanks for all the responses.

In Qur'an, Allah says don't murder unless it's a properly proscribed death penalty. The only properly proscribed death penalty is unrepented murder decided after due process (court, trial, etc).

Hence, if someone straps on a bomb and goes and blows up a bunch of children, that is murder. Therefore, the person who did the act is a "bad Muslim".


Let's take the hukm/fatwa on Salman Rushdie. Let's suppose some muslim zealot managed to kill him.

Would you consider the muslim who killed Rushdi , a bad muslim ?

Would you consider Imam Khomeini a "bad muslim" for issuing the fatwa in the first place ?

AFAIK, apostacy IS punishable by death in Islam, doesn't it?

This is a serious issue. This is where the divide is between the muslim world and non-muslim world.

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.2004.NGO.252.En?Opendocument
10. Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa / hukm of 14 February 1989 states, in the English translation:

"I inform all zealous Muslims of the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses – which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur'an – and all those involved in its publication, who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they may be found, so that no one else will dare to insult the Muslim sanctities…whoever is killed on this path is a martyr."

11. On 17 February 1989, President, Seyyed Ali Hoseyni Khamanei declared that if Rushdie were to repent, "it is possible that the people may pardon him". But two days later, following Rushdie's inadequate apology, Ayatollah Khomeini confirmed his "execution order": "Even if Salman Rushdie repents and becomes the most pious man of [our] time, it is incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he has, his life and his wealth, to send him to hell. If a non-Muslim becomes aware of his whereabouts and has the ability to execute him quicker than Muslims, it is incumbent on Muslims to pay a reward or a fee in return for this action." (4)

Khomeini had no business doing that, but since nobody dared oppose him and nobody has dared to repeal the fatwa even after decades after his death, it can only mean that either everybody agrees with it or that everybody is scared to bell the cat.

The cat being the need for reforms and re-interpretation of verses and reforming the shariat law.

There is NO WAY a non-muslim can do this. He has no standing in islamic world. The change has to come within. From the muslims themselves, if they have to save their religion that has been successfully hijacked by islamists.

The way I see it, muslims are divided into two types

1. Type A -islamists - violence and terrorism justified ( osama, taliban , paki jihadis, seperatists and others )

2. Type B - rest of muslims - "violence not justified" , "islam is religion of peace", "we are also normal peace loving citizens" types

Non-muslims or kafirs are divided into

1. Type C - peaceful coexistence is still possible, address specific issues and solve them...we should not become radical ourselves..our own precious civil rights which has evolved after centuries cannot be given up...all muslims are not terrorists....specific problems need specific solutions..etc

2. Type D - terrorism cannot be defeated until you kill all muslims who are terrorists and too bad if some innocents are caught between...let us kill em all and let Allah sort them ...Loss of our own civil rights ...it has to be endured to defeat terrorism ...danger of becoming radicals ourselves ? - anything is OK as long as terrorism is destroyed.


Type A has already declared war against every other types. Like I said in my opening post, it does not matter what you think. For them it is already a war and the sooner you realise it and make plans the better.

Every attack by Type A - strengthens their resolve. Reaction by Type C (let's talk to them, let's address root causes) will be seen as meekness. Believe me, all the liberalistic talks are seen as a sign of weakness. This will only increase their vigor and fervor, not tame it.

Reacion by Type D - (war on AFG and Iraq etc) will also strenghten Type A's argument that there is a war on Islam. This will serve as a powerful recruiting tool and kinda defeats the purpose of the reaction.

Kinda like, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The way it is playing out , more and more type B's are becoming islamists. And more and more Type Cs are becoming Type Ds.

This is inevitable. If there is not a war already on Islam, there will be one pretty soon.

I am pretty sure that if there is another bombing, a good portion of type Cs will become type D. And if there is a backlash, a good portion of type Bs will become islamists. This is as inevitable as day follows night and night follows day. This will a vicious cycle which will lead to an overt widespread war on islam...to a point where it don't matter if you are a law abiding muslim of type B or not..you will be forced to take collective punishment.

UNLESS.

Type A is taken out by Type B itself. That is the only way. Sure we can aid, but the thing has to be done by muslims of type B themselves. And this has to be done fast since the fence-sitters on both sides are taking extremist positions with every attack.

I am sure that there can be many actions that can be taken to prevent this.

One of my pet theory is to remove the restriction that Koran has to be read only in Arabic. By making available authentic translations in other languages, this will make Islam a personal faith. A believer can find out for himself what is in the book instead of having to rely on second hand info from an arab-speaking preacher, who is most likely to have an agenda. This will greatly diminish the hold that the mullahs have over their flock. Of course, it can be made sure that the "kill the kafir wherever you find them" verses to be toned down with proper cautions that it was meant only during the time and circumstances of the prophet and not now.

Well if they don't understand still, there is always the option of sending them soon their awaited 72. ;)

What is your religious persuasion?

Does it matter? How does a personal belief in something to be true prove that someone elses point of view is wrong?

But how does that prove that ker's side is more valid?

Perhaps it is because he has actually studied the Qur'an, and has an idea of what it says. It is true, God does not condone the murder of innocents. In fact, it is strictly forbidden by the Qur'an.
Now, as for the matter of interpretation, many extremists tend to view any non-Muslim as a combatant, so they justify it that way. Is it right? I really, really doubt it. Surah 6: 151 says "'Say come, I will rehearse what Allah has (really) prohibited you from' : join not anything as equal as Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- do not come near to shameful deeds, wether open or secret; take not life, which Allah has made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that you may learn wisdon." (italics mine)

There are more like that, for anyone who wishes to read and learn. Unfortunately, it is much easier to deal with life as a series of sound bytes from the media. They are good at thinking for us.

Does it matter? How does a personal belief in something to be true prove that someone elses point of view is wrong?

Yes, it does matter because I want you to tell me how you know your religion is more valid than mine is. If you are of a Christian denomination tell me how your denomination is more valid than Roman Catholic. If you are not Christian, then tell me how your religion is more valid than Roman Catholic. If you are an Atheist then you have no argument in which denomination or religion is more valid than another. I believe my religion to be the most valid thru faith, just like Kreu believes his interpretation of his religion is the most valid thru faith. If you are an atheist then you cannot understand that because you have no faith in any religion or a higher power.

Yes, it does matter because I want you to tell me how you know your religion is more valid than mine is. If you are of a Christian denomination tell me how your denomination is more valid than Roman Catholic. If you are not Christian, then tell me how your religion is more valid than Roman Catholic. If you are an Atheist then you have no argument in which denomination or religion is more valid than another. I believe my religion to be the most valid thru faith, just like Kreu believes his interpretation of his religion is the most valid thru faith. If you are an atheist then you cannot understand that because you have no faith in any religion or a higher power.

Actually I'm an agnostic theist formerly of the Catholic persuasion so I understand how faith works. And I understand how people can use it as a legitimate way to justify their belief in a god. But what I want to know is how a personal belief in ones own religion can hold weight against another person's.? Its tanamount to saying my view is right because I believe it is. Is that an acceptable answer when someone asks you for proof that your viewpoint is more acceptable then theirs?

Posted by Aryavarth: "One of my pet theory is to remove the restriction that Koran has to be read only in Arabic. By making available authentic translations in other languages, this will make Islam a personal faith. A believer can find out for himself what is in the book instead of having to rely on second hand info from an arab-speaking preacher, who is most likely to have an agenda. This will greatly diminish the hold that the mullahs have over their flock. Of course, it can be made sure that the "kill the kafir wherever you find them" verses to be toned down with proper cautions that it was meant only during the time and circumstances of the prophet and not now.

Well if they don't understand still, there is always the option of sending them soon their awaited 72. ;)"

The bigger issue is making many people literate in the first place, be it in Arabic or other languages. An even bigger one than that is to get non-Muslims to bother to read the Qur'an as a way to better understand Islam, to whatever ends they may make because of it. As I am certain you know, Islam is non-dependent on a priestly class telling people what to think or how to believe. I am not saying that it does not happen, because it does. But the Qur'an stresses literacy, education, and critical thinking as one develops his own personal relationship with God. Middlemen are not needed, but because so many are illiterate, they have filled or exploited this for various reasons.

According to you. Whats to say these terrorists believe that the passage in question relates to what they are doing. That they are carrying out a death penalty against the enemies of god.


No. Wrong. Not "enemies of god". Allah has no enemies. Nobody can be an enemy to the Almighty. It simply is not possible.

I said that in only one instance is the death penalty handed out in Qur'an. Qur'an is the *only* authority on the will of Allah. Allah never once said anything about "enemies of god".

You're putting words not only in my mouth, but in Qur'an. That's exactly what the terrorists are doing. Putting things in where it is clearly not.

No. Wrong. Not "enemies of god". Allah has no enemies. Nobody can be an enemy to the Almighty. It simply is not possible.
Interesting belief. But the terrorists believe that America is an enemy of god and use their beliefs and faith to justify that view. What makes their view any less valid then yours?

I said that in only one instance is the death penalty handed out in Qur'an. Qur'an is the *only* authority on the will of Allah. Allah never once said anything about "enemies of god".
I understand what you are saying. But you have multiple groups within Islam which have different ideas on the meaning of the Qur'an. What I am asking is what proof can you offer that makes your position of the interpretation of the Qur'an more valid then the other groups.

You're putting words not only in my mouth, but in Qur'an. That's exactly what the terrorists are doing. Putting things in where it is clearly not.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. What I am trying to do is present a different point of view on the interpretation of the Qur'an which is in line with the terrorists. I merely want to know why your interpretation is more valid then the other views of it.

But what I want to know is how a personal belief in ones own religion can hold weight against another person's.?

Faith.


Its tanamount to saying my view is right because I believe it is.

Correct.


Is that an acceptable answer when someone asks you for proof that your viewpoint is more acceptable then theirs?

If you beleive your religion, denomination, etc. to be more acceptable than someone else's then you do so through faith. There is no scientific proof when it comes to religion.

All I want to know is why is Ker's interpretation of the words of god more valid then the other side.

Because mine are not interpretations.

No part of me says "maybe".

Here's what I mean.

Allah: Don't kill anyone except unrepented murderers after a proper trial.
Me: Okie dokie, chief.
Terrorist: Allah must have meant it's ok to blow up children.

Now ... just how am I interpreting? Seems to me the terrorists are the ones doing the interpretation. The language needs no interpretation. It's pretty damn clear.

Because mine are not interpretations.

No part of me says "maybe".
And no part of the terrorists say maybe either. So why am I to take your word over theirs?

Here's what I mean.

Allah: Don't kill anyone except unrepented murderers after a proper trial.
Me: Okie dokie, chief.
Terrorist: Allah must have meant it's ok to blow up children.

Now ... just how am I interpreting? Seems to me the terrorists are the ones doing the interpretation. The language needs no interpretation. It's pretty damn clear.
Fair enough. However I am going to post some quotes. Most likely from biased sites but just to play devils advocate to see if these quotes really dont need any interpretation.



Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura viii, 39-42

When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura xlvii.4

ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3)

And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors. Is it then the judgment of the times of ignorance that they desire: and who is better than Allah to judge for a people who are sure? O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (5:49-51)

The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power (5:33-34)

Because mine are not interpretations.

No part of me says "maybe".

Here's what I mean.

Allah: Don't kill anyone except unrepented murderers after a proper trial.
Me: Okie dokie, chief.
Terrorist: Allah must have meant it's ok to blow up children.

Now ... just how am I interpreting? Seems to me the terrorists are the ones doing the interpretation. The language needs no interpretation. It's pretty damn clear.

Keru, I don't think the person we are addressing has any concept of the idea of faith. You believe in your religion because you have faith in both Allah and the Koran. I believe in my religion because I have faith in God and the Bible. Neither of us is wrong and both of us know the terrorists are wrong because of our faith. Unfortunately, Economic Associates can understand that. Perhaps with more maturity, s/he will. Peace.

And no part of the terrorists say maybe either. So why am I to take your word over theirs?

Quit trolling.

Keru, I don't think the person we are addressing has any concept of the idea of faith. You believe in your religion because you have faith in both Allah and the Koran. I believe in my religion because I have faith in God and the Bible. Neither of us is wrong and both of us know the terrorists are wrong because of our faith. Unfortunately, Economic Associates can understand that. Perhaps with more maturity, s/he will. Peace.

I understand you have faith that you believe your religion is right. What I have been asking is that how does that lessen the validity of someone else's claim that they are right? This isnt about what makes you believe this is about why the other sides beliefs are right and yours are. So far you have given me a reason why you think yours are right but I want to know what do you have that points out theirs is wrong.

And no part of the terrorists say maybe either. So why am I to take your word over theirs?

If it makes you more comfortable to, go ahead. However, until you've read it for yourself, you can only ever take another person's word for what is in Qur'an.


Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura viii, 39-42

Not only improperly quoted, but taken out of context. Qur'an doesn't use the word "infidel" once. Ever. So if you see a translation of Qur'an that uses "infidel", then it's incorrect. Throw it out.

In context, this is a message concerning those who wage war against you because you're Muslim. A war against all of Islam. In such a case, all bets are off. However, there are specific rules and such for determining these things. It's all in Qur'an. The reason these kids blow themselves up is because their "Imams" leave out the bits about the rules.


When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura xlvii.4

Again, same as above. Taken out of context. Read the same surat, but read 1-12, not just 4.

ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3)

Not much different than telling someone they might be doomed to Hell for not accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior. It's really just a warning from Allah. People have a choice. Let there be no compulsion in religion. Allah guides whom He wills and leads astray those whom He wills. Not man.

O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (5:49-51)

This is the most commonly misused quote from Qur'an. All it is is a warning to be cautious. The Jews have a similar saying, "Scratch a goy and you'll find an anti-semite". In other words, be very careful in your dealings with non-Jews. That saying has proven itself true to me time and time again.

People often come as wolves in sheep's clothing, do they not?

The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power (5:33-34)

This is *exactly* the passage I was hoping you'd quote.

Pay attention: "those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land"

Guess who that's talking about? THE TERROISTS!!

Are they not the ones making mischief in the land? Are they not the ones bombing Mosques? Are they not the ones who seek to encapsulate Allah into their own will and of their own mind? Are they not the ones who spit upon the Prophet by their words and their actions?

Now stop bugging the 1.4 billion peaceful Muslims and go crucify a terrorist. Allah has commanded it.

Keru, I don't think the person we are addressing has any concept of the idea of faith. You believe in your religion because you have faith in both Allah and the Koran. I believe in my religion because I have faith in God and the Bible. Neither of us is wrong and both of us know the terrorists are wrong because of our faith. Unfortunately, Economic Associates can understand that. Perhaps with more maturity, s/he will. Peace.

Yes, well, I'm sort of commanded to continuously and vehemently defend Islam to my dieing breath ... even if it's the same stuff I've answered time and time again.

I think ya'll have something similar. Didn't Jesus appoint you all to be ambassadors for your faith? As you are an ambassador for Christ, so too am I an ambassador for Islam.

<snip>

Fair enough. I was really just playing devils advocate the whole time and you've been courteous and answered my questions. Mistranslation is definatly a good reason to cite that the terrorists are wrong. I guess my whole arguement would be more conducive to a topic more about which part of Islam/Christianity is right rather then terrrorist v. Mainstream Islam. Its been informative thanks.

I think ya'll have something similar. Didn't Jesus appoint you all to be ambassadors for your faith? As you are an ambassador for Christ, so too am I an ambassador for Islam.
Staying at the Ritz-Carlton? A few southern ambassadors are staying there, most of the western ones are at the Hilton next door.

You, or that site you quoted from, left parts out. That's not cool. If the case cannot be made honestly and must be done through deception, then what does that say about the ones making and referencing that source? It is basically subverting what is said (good or bad) for one's own means.
Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura viii, 39-42
This isn't even close to the entirety of the referenced text. The whole goes "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah sees all that they do. (39).
If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your Protector- the best to protects and the best to help. (40)
And know that out of all the booty that you may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- f you do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our Servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah has power over all things. (41)
Remember you were on the hither side of the valley, and they on the father side, and the caravan on lower ground than you. Even if you had made a mutual appointment to meet, you would certainly have failed in the appointment; but (thus you met), that Allah might accomplish a matter already enacted; that those who died might die after a Clear Sign (had been given). And verily Allah is He who knows all things. (42)


When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura xlvii.4

Okay, again, the entirety was not quoted here. "Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at thier necks; at lengths, when you have thoroughly subdues 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 you commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He would 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 thier deeds be lost." -Surah 47: 4.
So the verse is almost opposite of what you quoted. You fight until the battle is over, then you must either ransom or be generous to those you captured, for if God had wanted them dead, hw would have made them so.

ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3) Surah 9:3 is quite a bit longer, saying "And announcement from Allah and His messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If, then, you repent, it were best for you; but if you turn away, you should know that you cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grevious penalty to those who reject faith." Quite a bit different when you quote the whole verse, isn't it? This verse, refers of course, to the return to Makkah from Medina al-Naib.

And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors. Is it then the judgment of the times of ignorance that they desire: and who is better than Allah to judge for a people who are sure? O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (5:49-51)

"And this (He commands); you judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not thier vain desires, but which Allah has sent down to you. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of thier crimes it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. (49)
Do they then seek after a judgement of (the Days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgement than Allah? (50)
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust. (51)
Those in whose hearts is a disease- you see how eagerly the run about amongst them, saying : 'We do fear lest a change of fortune bring us to disaster.' Ah! perhpas Allah will give (you) victory, or a decision according to His Will. Then they will repent of the thoughts which they secretly harboured in thier hearts. (52)

Again, a different meaning when the whole of the verses is quoted.


The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power (5:33-34) Surah 5:34 ends with the line '...in that case, remember that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, and Most Merciful.' Aside from that, have not all (or close to) peoples of the earth waged wars in defense of thier religion? So this one is pretty close, but leaves off the all-important end.

And why does everyone always forget the part about lying to people about what God says in the Qur'an? 'Then woe to those who write the Book with thier own hands, and say 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it a miserable price!- woe to them for what thier hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby" Surah 2: 79. So those who preach lies to illiterate peasants are in for it. As are those who have the power to read and learn themselves and choose not to.
And, my favorite, "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, and who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have thier reward with the Lord; on them there shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Surah 2:62.
That's why it is important to read and learn for yourself, and not listen to what some website pastes up for people, or even to take what Keruvalia (cause he lies ALL THE TIME :) ) or I (I never lie) say as fact. Get a Qur'an and read it. An excellent English version is translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and is available from Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., 80-08 51st Avenue, Elmhurst, NY 11373. I got mine from amazon.com, and quoted here directly from it.
So, there is hope for us all.

Islam means different things to different people. We do a disservice to ourselves by treating Islam as a monolithic one. Well, yeah the Koran is one, but the interpretations are many. There is a marked difference between the way it is interpreted by the different sects of Islam.

And muslims are an even more divided lot.

For those who have been directly affected by terrorists, it is only that Islam that they have experienced and it is no wonder that they take Islam to be a non-violent religion which induces muslims to be terrorists. This is unfair to muslims of type B but life is unfair and if Islam is what type B muslims claim to be then it is upto them to take back their religion from those who have hijacked it. As a non-muslim I don't care who is the good muslim or bad muslim. If a certain preacher calls for Jihad against my country and he is not unequivocally opposed by his own countrymen and co-religionists, it is an indication for me that, his view is shared by many and that is how I will act. Asking non-muslims to get informed about the koran et al, makes for fine academic discussions.

The hate-inducing verses are there. It IS being interpreted in such a way as to induce hatred. Why should I care about the context and the finer points, when muslims themselves do not care about how it is being taken out of context?

This is a point I touched upon earlier with Keruvalia, regarding a certain jihadi preacher called Moulana Masood Azhar who is the chief of a virulent terrorist org called Jaish-e-Mohammed (Army of Mohammed) in Pakistan. He has openly advocated jihad against me and have killed possibly a thousand of my countrymen. He is an acknowledged and respected member of the Pakistan Ulema (scholars) and he is untouched by the Paki establishment.

Why should I take Keruvalia's word against the Moulana's word? The moulana is unopposed, so obviosly he should be correct, right? ;)

Kaledan,
The bigger issue is making many people literate in the first place, be it in Arabic or other languages. An even bigger one than that is to get non-Muslims to bother to read the Qur'an as a way to better understand Islam, to whatever ends they may make because of it.

I am not sure if an educated and well off jihadi is better than a non-educated and poor jihadi. ;)

Poverty and illiteracy are a factor, but it is not the be-all and end-all in international terrorism. Infact the poor illeterate jihadi is just a cannon fodder who is dealt with easily. It is the educated and indoctrinated that are lethal.

And as I said earlier, the issue is not if non-muslims have to understand koran or not. The issue is what muslims are making out of the Koran. If I see a muslim claiming that it is said in the Koran that he has to kill me, the kafir, I will send him to his 72 pure virgins in Jannat, instead of arguing with him what Koran actually says.


As I am certain you know, Islam is non-dependent on a priestly class telling people what to think or how to believe. I am not saying that it does not happen, because it does. But the Qur'an stresses literacy, education, and critical thinking as one develops his own personal relationship with God. Middlemen are not needed, but because so many are illiterate, they have filled or exploited this for various reasons.

Well, yes Islam does say a lot of things. Why should I care what Islam says. I don't have to. I am not a muslim. Yeah, there are supposed to be no middlemen in Islam, but they are there and they are a part of the mess. Muslims need to deal with them or else non-muslims will be forced to and it will be beginning of the vicious cycle I outlined in my previous post.

Oy veh. The problem I was trying to explain is that you have an emerging clergy telling people how to think, instead of those people learning and thinking for themselves. The more educated they are about the contents of the Qur'an , the more likely they will be to follow thier own educated interpretations instead of being subverted by other people who claim to have the market cornered. And they will then say things like "Hey, God says that it is wrong to kill non-combatants, animals, or unneccesarily damage property, so these terrorists are not following the word of God."
You should care what the Qur'an says so that you can know when people twist context for thier own means, as did the site from which you quoted, as do many extremists today. You became a pawn for their beliefs and furthered their cause by not bothering to verify the accuracy of your source. One of the big problems that we Westerners have with Islam is that we don't care to try and understand it, we just accept what others tell us. This shows ignorance and a sense of arrogant superiority that has led us to clash with those whom we label as 'primitives' time and time again. Maybe the problem isn't with the Native American, the Moro, the Latin American, the Vietnamese or the Extremists, but with our world view and how that leads us to interact with others. We have a long history of exploiting others for our own good with no though to what it does to other people, and we are feeling the backlash of those actions now, as we have before.
You mention the word 'jihadi,' but I doubt if you even know what the word means. I would bet that you believe it means 'holy warrior,' as everyone who knows no better tells us on the nightly news.
Poverty and illiteracy are not the be all and end all. But they contribute to the problem. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

You said "And as I said earlier, the issue is not if non-muslims have to understand koran or not. The issue is what muslims are making out of the Koran. If I see a muslim claiming that it is said in the Koran that he has to kill me, the kafir, I will send him to his 72 pure virgins in Jannat, instead of arguing with him what Koran actually says." I will have to disagree with you on that one. Islam can live in peace with the West, but it is important for us to understand the root of thier anger with us, and vice versa. Only by doing so can we change the behaviors that have led to the current problems between the two society. I am a Muslim, and I do not say that the Qur'an advocates me to unjustly kill any non-believer solely on the grounds that he does not believe in God. We must understand why others think that is okay before we can begin to fix the problem here.

Oy veh. The problem I was trying to explain is that you have an emerging clergy telling people how to think, instead of those people learning and thinking for themselves. The more educated they are about the contents of the Qur'an , the more likely they will be to follow thier own educated interpretations instead of being subverted by other people who claim to have the market cornered.


Oy Vey yourselves ! :D

But the Koran has to be read in arabic. Majority of muslims are not Arabic. How the heck can a rural Punjabi or a Bangladeshi read the Koran in Arabic and find out for themselves the contents of the Koran? They cannot even read anything in their own spoken languages, how the heck are they gonna get Arabic literacy enough to read Koran, which is in classical Arab ?

This is where the Mullah steps in. He is the interpreter of the Koran. That is why I suggested to make the Koran available in other languages ...but NOOOO Arab imperialism has to be maintained in the garb of Islam..


And they will then say things like "Hey, God says that it is wrong to kill non-combatants, animals, or unneccesarily damage property, so these terrorists are not following the word of God."

They cannot. It is impossible for them to understand anything from the Koran directly. They HAVE to rely on interpretation from the local mullah who himself will have only a half baked knowledge from where he learnt his interpretations from.


You should care what the Qur'an says so that you can know when people twist context for thier own means, as did the site from which you quoted, as do many extremists today.

Me ? what did I quote from :confused:

I repeat that I don't have to care what the Quran says. I have enough things to learn and I have truckloads of my own religious books that I have to read through and understand.


One of the big problems that we Westerners have with Islam is that we don't care to try and understand it, we just accept what others tell us.

Me not westerner. Me, a lone Indian on this forum.


This shows ignorance and a sense of arrogant superiority that has led us to clash with those whom we label as 'primitives' time and time again.

Hey tell me about being looked upon with arrogant superiority !

You mention the word 'jihadi,' but I doubt if you even know what the word means. I would bet that you believe it means 'holy warrior,'

You lost the bet. I know who a jihadi is. One who is trying to bomb me since he thinks that is what jihad is. Who am I to argue with a guy who is trying to bomb me, if what actual jihad is and if it is about inner struggle or some mumbo jumbo. All I am interested is to save my behind and kill him before he kills me !

Here is what my favorite moulana has to say.

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/03dec08/national.htm#8
In Islam only meaning of Jihad is killing: Jaish chief

NEW DELHI, Dec 7: Chief of banned :rolleyes: militant outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed Maulana Masood Azhar has said that in Islam the only meaning of Jihad was killing, even as another militant group supporter asked Pakistan to declare that suicide bombing against west was Jihad.

"In Islam the only meaning of Jihad was killing, and those who projected the concepts of Jihad Akbar and Jihad Asghar were against Islam," Azhar was quoted by an Urdu daily Nawa-e-Waqt as saying.

Azhar was speaking at a gathering at Pattoki in Pakistan organised by another banned militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Jihad Akbar is supposed to be non-violent while Jihad Asghar is supposed to be the war by the sword.

He said it was a conspiracy against Islam to say that Jihad was not killing.

Another supporter of militant groups in Pakistan, Justice (retd) Javid Iqbal said at a seminar in Lahore that Pakistan and the Islamic world should declare that suicide bombing against the west was actually Jihad.

Should I consider this guy - a respected moulana who is out to bomb me in his jihad - seriously or some anonymous dude in an internet fora called Kaledan seriously. For me, it could be that HE is the real muslim and YOU are a bad muslim for not following Islam as perfectly as he is....you get what I am saying ? Who am I to say who is the true muslim ?

This is what I am saying again and again.

I simply don't care what real Islam is or what Koran says. Why should I , a non-muslim, care about who is the real muslim or not. It is your religion that is being hijacked. It is your moulanas who are calling for jihad. Sort that mess out with your moulanas.


Poverty and illiteracy are not the be all and end all. But they contribute to the problem. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Agreed. These are only part of the solutions...I do not want to have educated and well-off jihadis plotting to bomb me. I would rather have the illiterate poor cannon fodder. Sorry if I sound callous, but from where I come from, close to a thousand die every year due to Islamic jihad.

I will have to disagree with you on that one. Islam can live in peace with the West, but it is important for us to understand the root of thier anger with us, and vice versa.

One man's terrorist is NOT another man's freedom fighter.

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Oh, btw, I have lots of "root causes" too. Muslim invaders pillaged and looted and demolished my country. If I extend "collective responsibility" and "root causes" the list will be endless !

There are legitimate grievances of *some* muslim societies which needs to be addressed, mainly the Palestinian one. But nothing justifies terrorism against non-combatants.

Sure, let the palestinians blow themselves up killing Israeli army. Let the Pakis blow themselves up killing Indian army. That is guerilla war, which I accept as a legitimate means of war.

But I don't accept the BS of a few Saudis flying planes into towers and pakis slitting throats of civilians in Kashmir as part of legitimate struggle. I mean, WTF has a brit-paki got to do with Iraq? There is no "root cause" for a Brit-paki to blow up the tubes in London.

For them it is jihad. And it does not matter what I think. I better take them seriously and plan accordingly instead of trying to argue with them what is and what is not jihad.

If you care about your religion, you take it back from the jihadis (real jihadis or not).


I am a Muslim, and I do not say that the Qur'an advocates me to unjustly kill any non-believer solely on the grounds that he does not believe in God.

Quick questions. Correct me if I am wrong.

Is not Zina (fornication of a muslim woman with a non-muslim man, even if they are married) punishable by death ?

Is not apostacy punishable by death ?

Why is it that no muslim in the west or elsewhere protest when KSA, the custodian of Mecca, has banned practice of religions other than Islam ?

So muslim countries can be bigotted, but non-muslim countries have to be secular ;)

This is the case with pretty much all muslim absolute majority countries. The notable exceptions being Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia (debatable) - which are , not surprisingly- progressive and have not contributed anything to the Jihad International Inc.

That is why I suggested to make the Koran available in other languages

I don't think there's a language on earth that Qur'an is not available in. It's one of the widest circulated texts in the world.


Why should I , a non-muslim, care about who is the real muslim or not.

Because the real Muslim will not only not even think about blowing you up, but he may also protect you from being blown up. It's good to know who your friends are and, even more so, to know your enemy.


Is not Zina (fornication of a muslim woman with a non-muslim man, even if they are married) punishable by death ?

Is not apostacy punishable by death ?

Not in Qur'an. Only one thing is punishable by death in Qur'an.

Why is it that no muslim in the west or elsewhere protest when KSA, the custodian of Mecca, has banned practice of religions other than Islam ?

It's his country. Nothing much I can do about it, you know. The Sauds have an army. I do not. However, I am all for Mecca being open to Muslims only. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I don't think there's a language on earth that Qur'an is not available in. It's one of the widest circulated texts in the world.


You missed the point. None of them are considered authentic in Islamic circles. Hypothetically, let's say that your local mullah preaches tomorrow that Sura 4 Verse 22 says that blah blah blah which means blah blah blah and so you should do blah blah blah.

Can you counter his claims by saying that "Mullah Mullah lookee here, I have an English translation which says that this is the meaning for that verse, why are you spreading wrong information ?"

You can't. Forget about that..you are not even allowed to pray in your mother tongue. You GOTTA pray in Arabic for you prayers to be even valid !

Because the real Muslim will not only not even think about blowing you up, but he may also protect you from being blown up. It's good to know who your friends are and, even more so, to know your enemy.

NONE of these so called "real muslims" were of any real help when my country was being blown up. For every muslim like you who says "Islam is peace and I am the real muslim" there is another muslim who wants to kill me. You are telling me that you are the real muslim and that he is not. Well, what is the use of you telling me that. I am tired of hearing "Islam is religion of peace" only to hear the sound of the next bomb amidst the cries of Allahu akbar. You are somewhere in the US. Your convincing me is of no real help to me. Is it gonna save me in any possible way ? Like, can I tell the jihadis that Keruvalia tells me that you are not a real muslim. I don't think it will help me much if I quote Koran to him.

You can ask me the same and tell me you also cannot tell the jihadi that. Well, the thing is, he is not misrepresenting my religion and he is not part of my community. He is part of your "Ummah" and it is in the name of your religion that he is fighting the jihad. The honorable and respected moulana I mentioned above is still doing his jihad. Some recent links..

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=51020
Bloody attack on family, six dead

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1181071.cms
LET commander killed in Poonch

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=51266
3 Hizbul militants killed in J&K

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1434179,000900010002.htm
Bodies of 11 terrorists found in Gurez


It's his country. Nothing much I can do about it, you know. The Sauds have an army. I do not. However, I am all for Mecca being open to Muslims only. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Let me rephrase.

Are the Saudis and many such Islamic countries, bigots for not allowing freedom of religion in their countries ?

You missed the point. None of them are considered authentic in Islamic circles. Hypothetically, let's say that your local mullah preaches tomorrow that Sura 4 Verse 22 says that blah blah blah which means blah blah blah and so you should do blah blah blah.

I don't listen to my Imam ... my relationship with Allah is my own.

You can't. Forget about that..you are not even allowed to pray in your mother tongue. You GOTTA pray in Arabic for you prayers to be even valid !

That's not true. As a matter of fact, it speaks in Qur'an of human diversity. Qur'an says: "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)."

The language in which you pray is inconsequential to Allah.

Like, can I tell the jihadis that Keruvalia tells me that you are not a real muslim.

Someday, maybe ... and I hope so. My Muslim name is Humam Abdul-Sala'am. It means "courageous servant of the peace".

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=51020
Bloody attack on family, six dead

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1181071.cms
LET commander killed in Poonch

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=51266
3 Hizbul militants killed in J&K

I am sorry for these things. I cannot change them, though. They are done.

Are the Saudis and many such Islamic countries, bigots for not allowing freedom of religion in their countries ?

Yes.

Let me say that again.

Yes.

Qu'ran teaches us that there is to be no compulsion in religion. I agree with Mecca being "Muslim Only", but the rest of Saudi Arabia should be free.

I don't listen to my Imam ... my relationship with Allah is my own.


Do you know Arabic and can you understand the Qur'an without approaching your Imam ?

That's not true. The language in which you pray is inconsequential to Allah.

Can you do your namaz in English (or whatever is your native tongue) ?

I am sorry for these things. I cannot change them, though. They are done.

I understand your sincerety and I appreciate it.

But this madness has claimed more than 40,000 lives. More than a hundred thousand Hindu pandit community have been driven out of their ancestral homeland and are now living in refugee camps in squalor...refugees in their own country ! If I seem callous and unsympathetic to muslims, I have my reasons. I did not get any.



Qu'ran teaches us that there is to be no compulsion in religion. I agree with Mecca being "Muslim Only", but the rest of Saudi Arabia should be free.

Then why the vitriol against apostates ?

I am sure that more than 90% of muslims would not agree with that, regardless of what Koran says.

LOL...you are not a true muslim ;)

Forgive me for not answering your posts, I am getting ready for work and do not have time this morning. No, I do have a job, and it is not in a terrorist training camp.
I am wondering why you started a thread with a question if you already have an answer that you accepted? What was the point?
I am sorry for those things that have happened to you and your people in the past. India always seems to get the short end of the stick, and that really blows. I do hope that you would be willing to work towards peace with your neighbors, for the sake of a better future. When I get home this evening, I will get back to the questions you prompted of me.

Do you know Arabic and can you understand the Qur'an without approaching your Imam ?

Arabic? Not really, no. But I can understand Qur'an thanks to the wonderful works of Abdullah Yusuf Ali, who not only translated Qur'an into English, but there's enough commentary within it so that it is perfectly clear.

My Imam - who is Pakistani - gave it to me.

Can you do your namaz in English (or whatever is your native tongue) ?

Yes, of course.


Then why the vitriol against apostates ?

I have none. Qur'an says that apostacy is a great sin, but it is not me, nor any man, who is allowed to punish sin. It is for Allah and Allah only.

I am sure that more than 90% of muslims would not agree with that, regardless of what Koran says.

I don't think you can speak for 1.3 billion people.

LOL...you are not a true muslim ;)

I don't think that's up to you. :p

But I can understand Qur'an thanks to the wonderful works of Abdullah Yusuf Ali, who not only translated Qur'an into English, but there's enough commentary within it so that it is perfectly clear.


What is the commentary that Ysusf Ali gives for this verse

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them

Is the translation available in other languages?


Yes, of course.

Really? I have been told otherwise. I grew up in a muslim neighborhood for many years and most of the kids who go to mosques blindly repeat whatever the preacher says without any understanding, because it is in arabic.

Islam in practice is a form of Arab cultural imperialism. You start praying in arabic and you bend your back 5 times a day towards arabia and you start wearing arab dresses ( if you are a hijabi ) etc..


I have none. Qur'an says that apostacy is a great sin, but it is not me, nor any man, who is allowed to punish sin. It is for Allah and Allah only.

But but but but but .... Ayotullah Khomeini's hukm is still not repealed even after his death many decades ago.


I don't think you can speak for 1.3 billion people.

Let's see how many muslims have protested or done anything against the horrendous treatment that non-muslims have suffered in muslim countries. It should be easy because I can count them off with my fingers and maybe my toes.

Let me give you specific examples.

non-muslim population in Pakistan after partition - around 20 % . Now - 3 %.
Forget about hindus and sikhs, the sunni nutcases there have discriminated against other muslim sects like the Ahmadiyas, Qadiyanis and Shias.

Similar things are being done in Bangladesh with the minority population steadily decreasing with the increasing clout of the Jamaati party. Same with the parsis (zoroastrians) in Iran, the Copts in Egypt.

but but but but but Islam is religion of peace !

There is a severe dichotomy between what you say and what I see.

I know I said earlier that I would answer your posts, but when I returned home thie evening and read what has been written between you and Keruvalia, I can see that it would not do any good to do so. You clearly do not care to try to learn anything, you take the word of random Islamic preachers at face value and then say that you would prefer to blindly believe that what they say is true. You have an opinion based on a life experience that I do not, and I respect that difference, but you had no intention of gaining anything in this conversation. As you have such disdain for those Muslims around you who are daily out to get you, I suppose you should lead India and start slaughtering Muslims around you. Then people can argue whether Hinduism is a religion of peace, while the caste system keeps a billion people in abject poverty and widows are burned because they have no hope of a future without their husbands. And, if I make an incorrect generalization about your religion in saying that, why should I care? I am not a Hindu, so Hinduism doesn't apply to me, to paraphrase from what you said about Islam earlier. If a guru starts preaching that Shiva the Destroyer works through the abject slaughter of neighbors, why would I seek to find an answer for myself? His word is good enough for me.

The sad truth of course, is that most non Muslim westerners do do now see this whole bloody mess as a 'war' on Islam and Muslims. The US and UK government, and others, constantly tell their citizens that the majority of Muslims are peace loving people who want nothing to do with terror while keeping Muslims locked away with no representation, and waging war on Muslim countries. It would be surprising if the bulk of westerners didn't fall into the trap of suspicion of all Muslims. And how could we expect the majority of Muslims not to believe the west is waging a new crusade? We know the real problem, it's not religion, it's politics. Al Quaeda is a mad political organisation, as are all the so-called fundamentalist Islamic terror groups. I keep reading that the illegal attack and occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with terrorist bombings around the world. Of course the terror began before that but the 'Anglo Saxons' chose not to confront the causes, they took the easy way and went to war on an Islamic country in the name of the lie of WMD. Despite the 'Muslims are decent people' platitudes they spout, they perpetuate and inflame Islamic hatred. And yes, Muslim countries do nothing like enough to loudly condemn terror attacks, for again, political reasons. Imagine if the US, Europe and The Muslim countries instigated a forum for debate and condemnation of terrorist activities, along lines similar to the UN. What a powerful message that would send to the terrorists and their citizens. But it ain't gonna happen, politics again. For as long as some western nations believe that smashing Muslim nations is the way to subdue terror, and as long as leading Muslim countries 'allow' extremists to shout louder than themselves, things will deteriorate. Outlook? Things are going to get far worse.

What is the commentary that Ysusf Ali gives for this verse

Not a whole lot as it is pretty self explanatory. If someone tries to force you to abandon Islam, beat 'em down. I think that makes perfect sense. I'm not about to let someone try to force their way down my throat any more than I'm going to try to force mine down anyone else's. Also, we're talking about an act of war here, not just some mormons at the door. You think it possible to go to war and nobody gets hurt?


Is the translation available in other languages?

It's available in, as far as I've seen, every language on Earth.


Really? I have been told otherwise. I grew up in a muslim neighborhood for many years and most of the kids who go to mosques blindly repeat whatever the preacher says without any understanding, because it is in arabic.

Most kids who do anything are merely blindly following something. Kids are kids no matter where you go. A kid's job is to learn until they can think objectively on their own.

Islam in practice is a form of Arab cultural imperialism. You start praying in arabic and you bend your back 5 times a day towards arabia and you start wearing arab dresses ( if you are a hijabi ) etc..

Not really. Most of the Islamic dress and prayer ritual comes from the ancient Hebrew cultures and the old Jewish ways. So, you could just as easily say it's a form of Jewish cultural imperialism. Of course, much of the ancient Hebrew practices came from the Sumerians and Egyptians, so perhaps it's an ancient Egyptian cultural imperialism. Ra shall rise again! Come on, man. Surely you can do better than that.


But but but but but .... Ayotullah Khomeini's hukm is still not repealed even after his death many decades ago.

Well, such is the nature of the hukm. Fatwas expire upon the death of the issuer, but hukms don't. Most of the world's Muslims know that Ayatollah Khomeini was pretty much nuts anyway. The man declared himself Caliph! Completely bonkers.

Sure, it's upheld, but you'll notice nobody's really doing anything about it.


but but but but but Islam is religion of peace !

Aye, it is. That doesn't mean there won't be the occasional nutjob who will come around and exploit misinformation for their own political and/or financial gain. It happens. Humans can be evil. Hitler lead Germany, many Germans were members of the Nazi party (National Socialists), and many Germans participated in the slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, etc.

Since a chunk of German people did such things, can I then conclude *all* Germans to be that way? No, of course not. That would be stupid. Same applies to painting all Muslims with the same brush because of a few nutcases.

There is a severe dichotomy between what you say and what I see.

Perhaps you should actually go inside the Mosque and see what they're doing rather than stand outside of it and speculate. What you see is jaded by your world view. All I see in the Mosque is peace, brotherhood, and outrage at what is hijacking our faith.

I doubt I'll change your mind. It seems pretty set in concrete. Although I am curious as to why you keep asking questions that you've already preconceived an answer to and, thus, do not want my answers. Are you trying to convince me that because I am Muslim, I *must* strap on a bomb and go blow up Rushdie or cut off the heads of non-Muslims?

What a strange thing to try to convince someone of.