The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Whatever happened to 'no compulsion in religion'? > Comments

Whatever happened to 'no compulsion in religion'? : Comments

By Irfan Yusuf, published 28/3/2006

The Afghan government of Hamid Karzai caught out trying to revive the old Taliban legacy - charging Abdul Rahman with converting to Christianity.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Good article Irfy

This'll shake OLO's "Allah Botherers" out of the woodwork again.

Their objections to this case of eventual moderation in a violent country (Afghanistan) will be strident.

Spooky Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 10:05:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan, thanks once again for putting the POV of moderate Islam so well. As you might have seen elsewhere I had been bothered by the lack of visible objection to this from the moderate muslim community. You have spelt your objections out clearly and in a way that only the conspiracy theorists can ignore.

You won't convince those who see a fanatic with big sword (or explosive vest) behind every camel or beard but this stuff does help those who are willing to understand.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 10:42:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spooky pete seems to be pre-occupied by the "galantant" ignorance and prejudice one can never imagine. You're in a fallacious melody my friend. Let those who are learned lead the way or else you'll lead us a stray.

Galty
Posted by galty, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 11:01:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fact that conversion to Christianity from Islam is a “dobable” matter, taken seriously by the authorities, is enough proof that apostacy is a crime under Islamic law.

Irfan has failed to convince us that it is otherwise.

Maybe he is more interested in his own political propaganda or to reach that illusive double century postings on OLO.

So Muslims are NOT doing exactly the opposite of what their faith and values intended there was NO clear abuse of Sharia law there.

And BTW it did not take 16 years to work out one of their own had changed religions - the guy was by your admitance living abroad in a FREE country for 15 years.

David Hicks is a trator - not to have converted to islam but to have joined an Australian enemy militia that happens to be islamic.
Posted by coach, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 11:20:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ifran,

"The reality is our society pays enormous respect to minorities — President Bush holds a monthlong Ramadan-a-ding-dong at the White House every year; the immediate reaction to the slaughter of 9/11 by the president, the prince, the prime ministers of Britain, Canada and everywhere else was to visit a mosque to demonstrate their great respect for Islam. One party to this dispute is respectful to a fault: after all, to describe the violence perpetrated by Muslims over the Danish cartoons as the “recent ghastly strife” barely passes muster as effete Brit toff understatement.

Unfortunately, what’s “precious and sacred” to Islam is its institutional contempt for others. In his book Islam And The West, Bernard Lewis writes, “The primary duty of the Muslim as set forth not once but many times in the Koran is ‘to command good and forbid evil.’ It is not enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid.”

Or as the shrewd Canadian columnist David Warren put it: “WE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED THAT IT IS WRONG TO KILL SOMEONE FOR HIS RELIGIOUS BELEIFS. WHEREAS ISLAM HOLDS IT IS WRONG NOT TO KILL HIM." In that sense, those blood-curdling imams are right, and Karzai’s attempts to finesse the issueare, sharia-wise, wrong.

I can understand why the president and the secretary of state would rather deal with this through back-channels, private assurances from their Afghan counterparts, etc. But the public rhetoric is critical, too. At some point we have to face down a culture in which not only the mob in the street but the highest judges and academics talk like crazies.

Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet. What can we do?"

The page linked to below says it all - it is no longer proper or helpful to hold a Liberalist 'cultural tolerance' for a racist and intolerant Islam.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Posted by baraka, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 12:10:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Islamic extremism is the problem here, it has nothing to do with Bush or Howard or depleted uranium. The war-on-terror coalition naturally had to place Afghans in charge of Afghanistan, if not they are accused of placing their own puppet regimes in foreign countries to futher their own goals, hell they are anyway. Now those Afghans are simply pursuing their old ways, ways which are a product of their interpretation of Islam.

Of course there will be a period of turmoil in Afghanistan, they have just come out from a decade plus of Taliban rule and have recently had the bejeezus bombed out of them, still I would have to imagine that even now the lot of the Afghanistan's has improved immensely.

The only egg I see is on the face of Islam, but Irfan has tried to twist the situation to suit his end. He should be thanking the West for cleaning up yet another of Islam's cess pools not trying to dishonestly connect them to it's existence.
Posted by HarryC, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 12:51:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“And as always, they (some Muslims) are doing exactly the opposite of what their faith and values intended.” Are they? Who are we supposed to believe? I have in front of me an article written by an Andrew G. Bostom. I know him as well as I know Irfun - not at all. Bostom writes: “Death for apostasy is part and parcel of Islamic scripture and tradition.”

The only reality in the Abdul Rhaman affair appears to be that he would have been topped by now had it not been for the West’s intervention with Karzai. There is really no point in non-Muslims trying to understand Muslims or getting involved in their many and varied interpretations of their faith. They seem confused about it; how can we expect to understand it or them.

Muslims have a medieval mindset that no one living today will see change
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 3:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They grow drugs, they are terrible to women, it is not the religion it is the individual culture behind it.

It aint religion, it is the attitudes of these people, who are conditioned to think and act in a certain way, with Muslim values as a core.

Being Muslim is not the problem. An old dog cannot be taught new tricks. Especially one who has had the crazy history Afganistan has. How is he supposed to know the right way?
Posted by Realist, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 4:08:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One thing is highlighted by this case, if Islam stops calling for the killing of those who abandon that faith, there will be an exodus of Muslims either to other faiths or to secularism. They don't want their numbers to dwindle, do they? This is their preventative measure.
Posted by Samdin, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 5:15:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Baraka I see you and your buddies have set up camp on this thread. I can expect the usual filthy racist comments, you seem to be attracted to any thread, that feeds your appetite , one of your buddies has a problem with cockatoos and galahs, is he going to blame the Muslims for sending the birds to attack his property, he is talking about blowing them to kingdom come,
Posted by mangotreeone1, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 6:11:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This mango person still doesn't get it- it's religion, not a race. But then, I don't expect too much from islamofacists and their apologists when it comes to making a point.
Posted by Gitmo Guy, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 6:45:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ifran's article seems a mish-mash of his political ideas as he attempts to draw conclusions from unrelated events especially his concept of injustice of links with the evil West.

He is like Queensland Joe who said it is a matter of feeding the turkeys grain so in the end we can cut off their heads. I do not believe Ifran has established a secure case for the UN or for us to believe Islam rejects the State killing for apostacy. He as a lawyer ought to be lobbying Islamic nations especially Afganistan and Parkistan who impose the death penalty for apostacy if he is for real. He can oppose it here where we abhor such punishments, but his name would be fatwa'd as an apostate if he spoke up in Muslim nations.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 8:39:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought we'd got rid of the taliban,oh apart from that guy studying at yale.
Posted by marklatham, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 8:59:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ifran I ask that you read your koran teachings about Christians and The Trinity ?

James M. Arlandson

What is the doctrine of the Trinity all about, anyway? Why do Christians hold to it? Where does it come from? What does it teach? Why does not Islam teach it? This article addresses these questions and more.

As for Islam, Muhammad promises a painful punishment (i.e. hell) for Christians who believe in the Trinity:

5:73 Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those who defy [the truth] (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004

I got this from Yahoo Search last week as I searched for The Trinity for a Jehovah's Witness who don't want you killed because you see and believe The Bible teaches it ,and it does.

Also muslims all over are not allowed to dare say what they personally believe in case they are snuffed out as we have to pray for a pastor who is in hospital . Read pasted copy below from a prayer site today





Convert from Islam Run over by vehicle . Normally BCN does not run many prayer requests as we the articles we post. However, this circumstance appears to be very urgent, as Pastor Paul is not able to be with his family to protect them since he is still recuperating in the hospital. Pastor Paul Ciniraj and his wife Mercy, converts to Christianity from Islam, faithfully bring the Gospel to many in India, and have also been a "very present help" for the earthquake victims in Pakistan. Thank you for your prayers for their protection and healing during this time. - Aimee Herd, BCN.
Posted by dobbadan, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 9:23:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello boys and girls.

Could my critics out there please advise on why they didn't scream and shout loudly for Kashmiri convert Peter Qasim? Was he the wrong type of Christian? Or did your love for the government exceed your love for your brother-in-Christ?

The real message of my article was this ...

"One hopes other Muslim leaders take a similar position to what is clearly a travesty of Sharia and of justice. If Muslim minorities do not stand up for the rights of non-Muslims in Muslim-majority states, their occasional claims to being oppressed minorities themselves will not be taken seriously."

If Muslim religious minorities in Australia do not create a fuss about the human rights of Christian and other minorities in Muslim-majority states, how can they expect to be taken seriously when they complain of alleged ill-treatment in Australia.

As for those intent on demonising Muslims, all I can say is that your antics are doing a great service to al-Qaida. You are providing free propaganda services to Usama bin Ladin/Reagan. Usama wants Muslims to believe their fellow Aussies hate them and their faith. Your attempts to generate hatred on these forums are furthering Usama's cause.
Posted by Irfan, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 1:39:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Morning Mister Yusuf,

The case of Abdul Rahman is a historical landmark for Afghanistan. The old Taliban regime against the new pseudo-democratic. Both sides have to win this or it is back to square one again.

As for your solidarity concept about oppressed minority groups in majority states…let me spell it for you: I-S-L-A-M is the cause of oppression both here in Australia and wherever.

Unless you get this through your fat head there will be no inroads to freedom and peace anywhere on earth. Comprende?

You don’t need to use threats like we further infuriate Mr. Usama and his cause…all we are doing here is help you and all literate muslims to take off the scales from your eyes and the wax off your ears so you can get out of your oppression and break loose of the clamps of Satan and into the hands of the real God.

Islam is swimming in confusion. It has nothing positive or attractive to offer except lies and deceptions
Posted by coach, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 7:09:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gitmo Guy..........Well done... you say it is religion not race that fuels your hatred of "THEM" I am very sorry for calling you a racist, in future I will have to use the term "religious bigot' thanks for letting me know I got it wrong,, mango tree
Posted by mangotreeone1, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 7:56:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan it is fairly obvious that extremist muslims are not the only ones spoiling for a fight.

Our resident christains and some others want the conflict - they think stuff that idiot who said something about "blessed are the peacemakers" (or was that cheesemakers?) they want a fight. For them Osama was the best thing to happen to Islam in a long time.

Who is Peter Qasim? I don't remember hearing about him.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 7:58:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Irf

"If Muslim minorities do not stand up for the rights of non-Muslims in Muslim-majority states, their occasional claims to being oppressed minorities themselves will not be taken seriously."

Yes, you make that point well, and its a point well taken.

In fact, if there is to be ANY hope for a more positive image of Muslims in Australia, it is to be found in that little sentence.

What I struggle with though, is that 'your' understanding of Sharia seems at odds with those who use it in Muslim countries.

You say this death penatly/apostacy thing is a 'travesty' of Sharia.
Ok.. would you be willing to subject your understanding of this issue to a vote by leading Imams ? I found a Canadian article on a mainstream Canadian Muslim web site which argued very persuasively for 'understanding' on the issue of apostasy and how sensitive the issue is for Muslims, and how the death penalty for it should be 'understood' rather than opposed.

I gain the distinct impression that your understanding of Islam is more conditioned by the freedom we have here in Australia, than the cultural/religious millieu of Arab and Islamic countries.

So, the major issue for us is this "If Islam gained more of a foothold in Australia, would it be more of the 'Irfan/fair go' type or the 'other' type"?

You seem like a bit of a John the Baptist "A voice..crying in the wilderness" type rather than a spokesperson for Islamic values as most understand them. Its like most muslims are on the homeward bound lanes of an expressway during rush hour, and you are the lone car going 'into' the city....

I mean.. even Trendy Trad has a mistress/Sharia 2nd wife right ? do you ? I somehow doubt u do, u sound more like us, who would dissapprove of such things.

Your 'fair go mate' and F.H.'s 'niceness' will not convince us that there won't be significant 'Death to those who mock the Prophet' crowd among Aussie Muslims.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 8:08:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is probably the worst pap I have seen you write Irfan.

Your moral equivalance of comparing gautanamo prisoners with Abdul Rahman is pathetic.

Your attempt to cast the Islam religion as moderate and sharia not calling for the death of converts from Islam is contradicted by a vast and consistent history of such practices.

The only way you could be less connected to the reality of this is if you started claiming that you were part of the 'reality-based' community.
Posted by Alan Grey, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 8:39:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mangotreeone1,

I believe it was BOAZ_David who posted about ‘cockatoos and galahs’ - It says a lot about you when this is the one point you cling on to…

mangotreeone1, if you cannot engage the content of other's posts in a proper and respectable fashion, then I suggest you go play in the sandpit.

mangotreeone1, as I posted, when Muslims state to a young Australian girl, as stated in court documents, "you deserve to be raped because you are Australian" it is clear who the racist ones are - I am NOT racist for posting it - and mangotreeone1, you SHOULD be more interested in the racist Muslims who stated this in a rape of a young girl, and less interested in myself for having posted it...

It is clear, mangotreeone1, that YOU are racist… you do not speak out against racist Muslims who state, “you deserve to be raped because you are Australian”, but, you speak out against me for merely posting what racist Muslims have stated…

You clearly have some self-interest in protecting racist Muslims, and some self-interest in coming at me with charges that I have a “hatred for all Muslims” – which is clearly not true – just because I merely posted what racist Muslims have stated…

I will say it once more, mangotreeone, if you cannot engage the content of other's posts in a proper and respectable fashion, then I suggest you go play in the sandpit.

Mangotreeone1 = Islamofascist?

“WE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED THAT IT IS WRONG TO KILL SOMEONE FOR HIS RELIGIOUS BELEIFS. WHEREAS ISLAM HOLDS IT IS WRONG NOT TO KILL HIM."

It is NOT racist post, mangotreeone1, it is merely a fact - if it were not fact there would not be a thread on the discussion of a convert from Islam about to be killed, would there – think about it mangotreeone1!!

Else, go play in the sandpit and stop wasting other’s intellect on your stupid little posts.
Posted by baraka, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 9:01:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz and fellow Anti-Muslim Johadists,

As an average Muslim I truly believe that religious freedom is a must and in fact Islamic history proves it.

Its a part of Shariah law that I believe we Muslims should seriously reconsider.

However, there is little point ridiculing or blaming it only on Islam since many aspects of it is Arabic and African culture.

Christians who change their faith in many parts of Africa are either 'forced back' into their faith or executed by the masses.
Boazy, you know which countries I am talking about, its tribalism that should be dealt with in any religion that promotes it.

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 9:31:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since OLO authers and sundry bloggers,including me, and sundry Godaphylics of all persuasions are so fascinated by Islam and Muslims, these 8 questions raised by Investor's Daily seem to be a fair measure of what the debates tend to revolve around.

I wonder if it would be possible to have a set piece/answers by OLO, written by Irfan et al, or even the so called Grand Mufti of Australia Hilali, that would concentrate on getting well argued answers to these 8 questions.

Perhaps then us infidels/pagans would have a better view of the whole thing.

Here's hoping.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=3&issue=20060327

Or, would a survey of all the leaders of the Islamic community, and other commenatators of note, be a better way to go. It would certainly be most revealing.
Posted by bigmal, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:02:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan never ceases to amaze me. The subtle nature of his positions on these important issues comes through forcefully, yet much of what he says has absolutely no substance.

Right from the first sentence he is on the defensive, but to be fair, if my identity and values were being questioned non-stop perhaps I would be defensive, although only initially - once I saw that they were faulty I'd adopt new values, that's the western way.

He makes the quite feeble comment that only "a minority of hysterical Muslims" protested over the Danish cartoons. Come on Irfan, much of the Muslim world recalled ambassodors for Christ's sake!

The second paragraph is ambiguous. He says about the Afghani government "they seem to be doing something to stop the clear abuse of Sharia Law". Does he mean that in the sense that it's good that they want to kill the Christian convert?

Because he can't mean that there has been an abuse of Sharia in the sense that they've misinterpreted it. If that's what you were trying you fool nobody.

We know that killing apostates is Islam. By the way, your defence of it on your website (thanks to the OLO post that pointed it out) was pathetic. Some nonsense about there being tribal interpretations. Come on Irfan, why hide from it?

If you believe in the Sharia, which you've stated before, your sub-human. But to try to deny this teaching is real, or pass it off as a misinterpretation, is even worse.

Your comments about David Hicks are meaningless, we are at war with radical Islam. We can't have courts with western standards in these instances as they are too technical.
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:44:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Somebody who joined the Taliban should appreciate that, surely he's happy that he's still alive, considering the value system he embraced.

Irfan's attempts at trying to "taqqiya" us by claiming nonsense about the caliphate being the condition for it to happen, that there are alternative verses is laughable.

I've read the Hadiths Irfan, those that are widely accepted by Muslim scholars. They reveal Mohammed to be nothing short of a paedophile, maniac, dictator, who indulged in child rape and massacred people.

Now, that's in the past I know, although I still don't see how he stands up as a role model, and frankly, that he does explains the state of the Arab world (Oh, that's right, Muslim cultures are intensely racist, tribal, cruel, misogynist because the west colonised them!) but Irfan you can't dismiss his teachings. What are you, a heretic? Off with his head!

Irfan seems to be the type of Muslim that picks & chooses what he wants from Islam, which I believe is good & Islam needs more of those who denounce the barbaric aspects of Islam, but Irfan doesn't denounce anything.

His last article was one of support for Sharia, which made him a NAZI to anybody who values western developed human rights. How can one deny the logic of universal human rights, where there are no caste systems, no disgusting racist tribalism, misogyny?

His rant about different interpretations of Sharia is pointless too. All that matters Irfan is how Muslims are living right now, and it's nothing short of utter barbarism.

Honour killings, female genital mutilation, burqa's, misogyny, arranged marriages (what a joke that some Muslims point out the divorce rates are extremely low from arranged marriages. Yes, they are, and domestic violence and paedophilia is non-existant too! Um.....they just don't report it for fear of death. When Islam confronts paedophilia, as one documentary maker in Afghanistan tried to do - it's rampant but a forbidden topic as it would shame family honour, what honour?) as well as disgustingly xenophobic marriage practises where it's uncommon for an Iraqi to marry an Afghani, and so on.
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:56:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benji says: "We can't have courts with western standards in these instances as they are too technical."

Which I guess is another way of saying: "The best way to protect our freedom anbd liberty is to get rid of our freedom and liberty."

And that's exactly what Ossama wants you to do.

Methinks it isn't just extreme interpretations of Islam that's the problem ...
Posted by Irfan, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 11:58:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZY

Though you are of the "godbotherer" persuasion the points in your post above are, as usual, thought provoking.

- particularly how the viewpionts of Muslims relate to the particular country they live in.

If young Irfy has a relatively liberal view of Islam because he is a highly educated Australian does that give cause for hope that Islam is not the monolithic set of customs and beliefs that so many in OLO assume.

Are the young Lebanese-Australian gangsters in Sydney unlike many Muslims in Sydney (including aforesaid Irfy) because their parents came from a wartorn, near tribal, country were levels of education were low? Are their religious belefs governed by this background.

The Afghani case implies the same thing. The shade of a person's Islam depends on their upbringing, education and former (or current) country.

The generalisation ("Islam bad") of so many posters does not reduce conflict or assist security bodies in nailing the right people.

GALTY

Thank for your relevant comments. "Galantant" is a new word which I take to mean one who is "nobly or selflessly resolute." If I made passing comments about you petal I'd have to be an Entomologist.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 3:50:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Guess what,Muslims in the news again."

I think Muslims like being noticed since then they can surrepticiously push their agendas through the thrust and parry of debate and we will eventually placate them through sheer weakness and exhaustion.

Irfan cleverly plays both sides of the fence,without making real commitments to either and then often slips his Muslim agenda under the covers in a seemingly more palitable form.The "beaker frog"is at work,slowly simmering at our freedoms in the name of a dictorial religion.

You labelled us the "armchair nazis" Irfan,the free thinkers,who have a philosophy of people being able think for themselves.Do you see some irony here?
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 6:49:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Erfan, as an expert in Sharia Criminal law who advocates a paradigm shift in understanding of Sharia, I have been impressed by this new interpretation on the classical theory of Al Maqased Al Sharia (Theory of Sharia Ultimate Goals) by professor Fallakh. But this kind of interpretation though is encouraging is not compatible with the classical understanding of the theory from Ghazaly to Al Shatebi totally. Al Shateby who professionally developed this theory has never given such a freedom based articulation of it. He just says that protection of religion, for instance, is the ultimate goal of Sharia and in his main book, Al Movafeghat, describes that Apostasy in its classical terms has been provided by Allah because he or she wanted to protect the religion. Al Shateby gives no space for freedom of religion or religion change. So methodologically seen, we are not allowed to cut off the historical roots of a theory and still say this is what earlier has been argued. This is a fallacy.

Therefore, I think that more than wishful interpretation of Sharia rulings we need a sophisticated new theory of Ijtihad, i.e. a methodology of Islamic law that highlights, both in theory and practice, how political power-based reading of Sharia and criminal law in some Islamic countries has led to violence. Without a profound understanding of legal and political tradition in Islam, moreover, we cannot hope to quell the region’s intolerable level of violence.
I believe that the original place of the question is not in jurisprudence, rather in the ontology of Islamic legal thought. From this point, the discussion draws on the scope of ontology of understanding and interpretation of Islamic criminal justice jurisprudents. The ontology of understanding and interpretation, in its turn, draws our focus to the study of prejudices, questions and expectations of Fuqaha and Mutkkallemin (Theologians). According to this perspective, which could be regarded as a new paradigm in Islamic legal theory, the right response to the present crisis of Islamic criminal justice can only be expected when changes in those prejudices, questions and expectations have occurred
Posted by H.Rezaei, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 7:44:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sanity in this world is but an island battered in an ocean of frothing delusion where one increasingly sees an older and deeper enmity ....... i.e. a world full of insane people reduced from being citizens to being infected hosts imprisoned by their fairytales and magic. This is teddy (god) wars driven by rival concepts of absolutism. We are seeing another age of orchestrated global absolutism.

Absolutism grows from the two baser instincts of humans ........ fear of death and desire for power. History always tells us that people in times of stress will first turn to these spooky beliefs of silly religious magic for answers which as we always find, simply leads to self fullfilling prophesies of destruction. There are no solutions in pure selfishness and ignorance.

Truth, like everything else, can only be relative because truth is only truth in relation to things that are untrue. For truth to exist, something must be proven false. For all these unfortunates infected with some variant of the teddy (god) mind virus, like Irfan Yusuf, one needs to say that absolute truth has no place in the real world ....... moderately infected or not.

e.g.
When people discuss any issue, they are likely to do so through different ..... even mutually exclusive ..... a priori sets of assumptions or beliefs about the nature of reality and the human place in it. For all perceptual, emotional, and behavioral purposes, people in fact can live in quite different realities. With such species dissociation, it is not unusual for different groups to be psychologically unable to draw compatible conclusions from the same fact.

How do people then cope with this situation? Certainly not with an inflexible set of belief stamped absolutes supposedly coming from some fantasy teddy (god). Democratic processes alone offer sanity because we cannot ignore the imperfections produced by INFINITY.
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 8:45:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Planta.. thanx for the support....

I was reading the article posted by MikeM about the 'reformed' approach to Sharia, and the womens movement in Morocco as reported in the Malaysian Star. It's informative on a number of levels.

It shows the rise of a 'feminist' movement kind of thing, and also the reaction from conservative Muslims.

One thing is quite clear. The goals of the womens movement re inheritance distribution and divorce rights are not only in contradiction with Sharia they are in DIRECT contradiction of the Quran. The sura on 'Women' makes abundantly clear the limits of female rights and freedoms and inheritance rules.

This then raises the question of just 'what' is the womens reform movement based on ? Well, I conclude that they are looking at the freedom of Western Values and the higher status of women before the courts, and said 'Yes.. we would like some of that please'.

Its one thing to bring Sharia (which is specifically 'religious' law) back into line with its foundation documents, removing any 'human' accretions or false traditions, its another to take it in the opposite direction and repudiate the very foundation on which is is supposed to be based.

In such a case, one cannot call it 'reformed Sharia law' it is in fact a new approach to Law altogether. It boils down to 'selection and preference' to fit a contemporary mood in society.

I see no great problem with this, except that one can no longer call it Sharia. ( a point not lost on the growing swell of conservative male Islamic voices in Morocco etc)

Our existing legal system has a long and rich history, Sharia is really quite irrelevant to us and it. All this discussion does is show us how we should value and defend our system from the intrusion of a different one which, when true to its foundations, contains some very 'ugly' features.

Blessings from your Christian/Taliban/Jihadist/ 'Muslim hater' -or so I'm supposed to be :)
Can't please all the people all the time..*sigh* Cannot be 'revered' without being 'reviled' by others.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 30 March 2006 5:38:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AlanGrey,

Are you the same AlenGrey who was once in the NSW Division of the Liberal Party?
Posted by Irfan, Thursday, 30 March 2006 9:23:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dobbadan,
I respect you faith, however your theology needs correction. If you're Roman Catholic it's a statement of theology.

I'm an evangelical Christian; not JW or Christadelphian, and I hold the emphasis of Biblical revelation. It nowhere teaches God is three persons or a Trinity [tri-unity]. The Biblical emphasis is God is ONE. The 3rd century Roman Catholics perceived God in spatial terms because they included the humanity of Jesus so it meant they had to formulate a triune concept of God to accommodate three spirits. However the Bible only sees one - the spirit of the eternal God.

God holds no spatial dimensions, as God is Spirit - not a spirit as the Catholics believed. God is revealed in character, actions and wisdom and our spirit bears the capacity to mirror His image.

We in a spiritual sense are identified as our character, attitudes, actions and words. It's these qualities that determine who we are.

The body of Jesus humanity did not identify Christ as God, because in all aspects of his body he was very human. What identified him as of God was his spirit. That's identified by qualities of his character, actions, and wisdom [words]. These are the very nature and mind of God.

It's this that identifies him as Son of God; similarly we are identified as sons of God by the nature of His spirit operating in our lives. This is one and the same Spirit, not three independently operating spirits. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one". To Philip Jesus said, he that has seen me has seen God John 14. Paul identifies there is but one Spirit that identifies the Church, and operates in the believers. Not a spirit for every person in the Church. The conflicting diversity operating identifies misrepresentation of the unity in God.

Though I'm monotheistic, I abhor the attitude of the Koran towards persons of different theology. It's this attitude supposed by Muslims as divine edict that infidels, apostates, trinitiarians must be eradicated as Christians we reject. Christ wept for his religious opponents the zealot Jews.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 30 March 2006 10:46:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran

I have been a mental health nurse since 1978. I would much prefer to be isolated on an island with people who have mental health problems -than with an island of blinded, boring, evasive and/or dogmatic Christians or Muslims.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 30 March 2006 8:59:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy and Irfy

I'm torn by me genuine (yet oddly warped?) respect for you both.

Put your differing religious world views aside. You can still be buddies.

What I'm concerned about (as a confirmed atheist) is that religious passion lays the groundwork for violent outcomes.

Now. True. Islamic extremism is a clear and present danger.

But if you practice moderation (even regarding the right of OLO posters to a sort of anonymity) then we can, almost, live in a happier condition.

If I lived in NSW I'd contantly remind myself that Mr Maurice Iemma is the Member for Lakemba. Policians are a little coy about offending their electorates for good reason.

I can't say that I know much about Islam, but, more about justifications for conflict and violence.

Goodnight guys

Planta
aka Spooky Pete
at http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.co
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 30 March 2006 9:28:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David wrote:

"I was reading the article posted by MikeM about the 'reformed' approach to Sharia, and the womens movement in Morocco as reported in the Malaysian Star. It's informative on a number of levels...

"One thing is quite clear. The goals of the womens movement re inheritance distribution and divorce rights are not only in contradiction with Sharia they are in DIRECT contradiction of the Quran."

Another article I quoted subsequently, to which BOAZ didn't refer is at http://www.newstatesman.com/200409130016 and, unless he is a more authoritative Imam than any in Morocco - which he isn't - what he writes is absolute rot.

Quoting from the latter article:

'Every change in the [new Moroccan family] law [giving women substantially equal status] is justified - chapter and verse - from the Koran, and from the examples and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. And every change acquired the consent of the religious scholars. Even the Islamist political organisations have welcomed the change. The Party of Justice and Development described the law as "a pioneering reform" which is "in line with the prescriptions of Islam and with the aims of our religion".'

If I am generous, I might assume that BOAZ is dyslexic and had trouble reading as far as that paragraph. If I am not I might think that he simply tells lies. If that is the case, he isn't a very smart liar. Anyone referring back to the article can easily see that what he wrote simply isn't true.

BOAZ: if you are going to tell lies, it is better to pick ones that are at least superficially convincing. "Jesus is the son of God" might be a better start than, "Moroccan religious law is in DIRECT contradiction of the Quran". There is no way the former can be disproved, anymore than I can disprove that "some unicorns practice gay sex".
Posted by MikeM, Thursday, 30 March 2006 9:34:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saudi Fatwa re non-Muslims

Construction of Churches in Muslim Countries Forbidden

MEMRI, March 24, 2006

The website www.kalemat.org posted a fatwa issued on July 3, 2000 by The Permanent Council for Scholarly Research and Religious Legal Judgment, an organ of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Endowments, forbidding the construction of non-Muslim houses of worship in Muslim countries. The fatwa stated that it is forbidden to allow non-Muslims to establish a foothold in the Arabian Peninsula, to receive Saudi citizenship, or to buy property there. In addition the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa reported that Kuwaiti MP Walid Al-Tabatabai announced in statements earlier this winter that he was opposed to the establishment of houses of worship for non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

The following are excerpts from both sources:

All Religions Other Than Islam are Heresy

The Saudi fatwa reads as follows: "The Permanent Council for Scholarly Research and Religious Legal Judgment has studied the queries some individuals brought before the Chief Mufti… concerning the topic of the construction of houses of worship for unbelievers in the Arabian Peninsula, such as the construction of churches for Christians and houses of worship for Jews and for other unbelievers and [the question of] the owners of companies or organizations allotting a fixed place for their unbelieving workers to perform the rites of unbelief.

"After considering the queries the Council answered as follows:

"All religions other than Islam are heresy and error. Any place designated for worship other than [that of] Islam is a place of heresy and error, for it is forbidden to worship Allah in any way other than the way that Allah has prescribed in Islam. The law of Islam (shari'a) is the final and definitive religious law. It applies to all men and jinns and abrogates all that came before it. This is a matter about which there is consensus...."

At: http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD112306
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 30 March 2006 10:39:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Philo.

Now I guess what you have to prove is that 100% of Muslims regard Saudi Arabia's officially-sanctioned wahhabi interpretation of Islam as authoritative and binding on them. Including the Shia Muslims who tend to regard wahhabism as outside the pale of Islam.

Once you have done this, I'll then start posting excerpts from the Book of Mormon and attribute them to all Christians. Won't that be fun ...
Posted by Irfan, Friday, 31 March 2006 1:15:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
H.Rezaei: Interesting post, and I agree with much of it. Regarding al-Shatibi - how can you expect a medieval scholar to understand the concept "freedom of religion" as we do today when every single medieval society (including Christiendom etc.) were based on shared religion and ethnic culture? I don't know of anywhere in his time period where the concept was defined as we have today - the process behind it is a product of the last few centuries thought and European/Western experience.

But his Maqasid al-Shariah is a very important concept for use in Islamic law. We take its theories and can use them for new situations, such as the ones we are currently facing. Many of those who seek literalist interpretations deny the applicability of the Maqasid, but I am convinced that al-Muwafaqat is one of the most important works of Islamic law, especially for today.

This is how Taqlid traditionally works in the Islamic legal field - building on the strong foundations of juristic precedent established before by these great scholars.

I enjoyed reading your post!
Posted by dawood, Friday, 31 March 2006 4:00:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan,the lunatic Mormans number in the thousands world wide and are not violent,yet the facist Muslims number in the millions and have a great propensity to be violent.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 31 March 2006 11:17:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, can you provide me with at least 3 demographic studies that show that at least 15% of the 1.2 billion Muslims across the plant have a propensity for violence? That shouldn't be all that difficult, should it?
Posted by Irfan, Saturday, 1 April 2006 1:12:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan

Among other religious and ethnic groups visiting the parks. We'd often have groups of Mormons coming down for picnics.

Never saw a Mormon with a pension card.

Lost count on my first day

They always paid for their tickets without being asked to do so.

Mossies didn't

They never lit fires on fire ban days.

Mossies were often the only ones lighting them on such days.

They never blocked emergency access gates or parked in 'No Stopping' areas.

Mossies do, often.

Were clean and picked up their rubbish.

Have picked up many soiled disposable nappies of Allah's newest chosen ones after their family gatherings, lovely!

Mormons were never abusive.

Seems to be default attitude of your average aussie mossie, young and old.

Yes other groups did behave as they do. However, I often looked at the infringement records, full of Mohammads, Abduls, Fatimas etc. Despite being a small part of the population, their footprint was huge.

I don't know why you bother with sharia, no one seems to know what's going on with it and the whole system seems open to abuse (look at Pakistan) more so even than ours.

Scap it and start again.
Posted by CARNIFEX, Saturday, 1 April 2006 6:52:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan asks Arjay:

"Arjay, can you provide me with at least 3 demographic studies that show that at least 15% of the 1.2 billion Muslims across the plant have a propensity for violence? That shouldn't be all that difficult, should it? "

What would be the point Irfan? Even if muslims were all pacifists, docile citizens anywhere they go, Islam will still be a threat to humanity and the free world as we know it.

It doesn't matter if islamic laws are the fairest of all earthly and heavenly laws - the core ideology behind Islam IS the threat to free civilisation.

Why? Because theologically speaking it is based on the wrong God-like figure (Allah) and a false prophet; that contradict all established canon of the One (true) God.

So how can anyone trust such an imposition from a moraly starved religion? And to what purpose? Are muslims so different that universally accepted civil laws cannot suit them? Will your laws improve our civil laws?

I am not saying the "west" is perfect - far from it - but Islam is one evil we can do without. Thanks but No thanks.

On subject: one lucky man escapes beheading (for now) - what about the hundreds and thousands who are killed every year for the same crime? The difference is they never make the news.
Posted by coach, Saturday, 1 April 2006 2:08:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
coach passes the following fatwa ...

"Why? Because theologically speaking it is based on the wrong God-like figure (Allah) and a false prophet; that contradict all established canon of the One (true) God."

so i guess on that basis, you will say the same thing about hare krishnas, hindus, sikhs, jains, animists from southern sudan, mormons, shintos, buddhists, confucians, etc etc.

what you are effectively saying is that anyone who isn't jewish or christian is inherently violent.

well done, coach. in one single posting, you have managed to pit yourself against over half of humanity. and i'm sure plenty of christians will find what you say offensive as well.

may God/Allah/G-d strengthen your hand. coach. with critics like you, i may as well stop writing.
Posted by Irfan, Sunday, 2 April 2006 2:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan,

If you re-read my post carefully, I did not allude to muslim violence or non-violence.

My questions were in relation to the worth of religious law extracting their values from the morality of a false religion: Islam – and the imposition of such laws on a free secular society, i.e. Australia.

My reference was not at violence per se - which is an inherent trait in all humans – but on Islam and its threat to humanity from imposing laws that condone such violence; deeming (such laws) as an acceptable course of jurisprudence.

So my questions again:

1. So how can anyone trust such an imposition from a moraly starved religion?
2. And to what purpose?
3. Are muslims so different that universally accepted civil laws cannot suit them?
4. Will your laws improve our civil laws?

And please don’t stop writing on my account after all it's critics like me that are supposed to keep you honest.

If anything you should rejoice - I'm adding to your tally for this thread.
Posted by coach, Sunday, 2 April 2006 4:03:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Comment deleted for abuse and poster suspended.]
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 3 April 2006 2:56:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, and don't bring up Nth Ireland. That was over land. No priests quoted bible justifying killings. IRA didn't want to smash British culture, where men must have beard!

This doesn't even take into account the trouble Muslims cause in EVERY western diaspora (except the US, as they don't have the dole, so no ghetto's, although they still have terrorism concerns) with shocking violent crimes, racial gang rapes (never seen in western culture apart from war time) rorting of our benefits (recent study by Centrelink said that ethnics & indigeneous are the main rorters)also Medicare, insurance, compensation, Smith Family (I know a lady who works there, she says Muslims come in on the day they can get vouchers for rent every 60 days - in new cars, nice clothes, only Anglo's you see there are drug addicts), & organised crime, which the AFP say is about 30% of national total.

ALL THIS FROM JUST 2% OF OUR POPULATION.

Then there is the political crap you cause, get rid of nativity scenes, muslim women swimming lessons, Sharia to stone homosexuals (there was a meeting where Lakemba based Sheik Shadi called for Sharia courts so Muslims could kill gays. Why didn't you protest this? Is he not a real Muslim too?) and MUCH MORE. The disgusting Keysar Trad, who likened Australians to convict scum & supports terrorists in Iraq (evident from comments when captive Doug Wood was released, where he said Wood should be grateful, they fed him) and much more.

Not to mention the unemployment rate.

If there was a cost benefit analysis of having an Islamic community, do you doubt the outcome? Yet you mention handful of Muslims (those who assimilated) in high positions.

Why can't we swim next to Muslim women? I know it's because we will contaminate them, because, somehow, SOMEHOW, Muslims believe they are superior.

How is that even possible? What evidence is there for it?

Can you answer my concerns instead of just playing the race card? I think I've established that it is your community that is xenophobic.

Can't even swim next to your women?
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 3 April 2006 3:05:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What have Muslim people imports done to improve Australia and our communities
Can they ever assimilate without throwing in the laws of Islam and the false prophet mohammed,"Look what we do five times a day as our compass points east",
In one big nation recently (I won't name it as the muslims heavies will be sent ther to cause chaos).

The local immam was watching Christians feed hundreds of people on a daily basis right opposite the mosque he is boss man of.
One day he just had to go and ask these Christians why they do this,he said that if it was muslims doing this that they would only be feeding muslims,but they were feeding everyone, no matter who or what colour or religion they were.
The Christians told him that God loved everyone,he immediately as asked to become a Christian and was born again, according to Jesus Christ's words that to enter the Kingdom of God "You must be born again", NT John ch 3 vs 3-7.
He then went to his mosque of 500 people and shared with the congregation about Jesus Christ The Son of God and 200 accepted Christ as their personal Saviour.

Not only that but they wanted to be baptised immediately in the crocodile infested river which they did. Good story eh!
Check this out on too dangerous to give website .
Posted by dobbadan, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 10:12:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dobbadan,

This sounds like an urban myth at best, or something that you have simply made up.

If it's not complete rubbish, please provide link to web site.

How can that possibly be "too dangerous"? If it's available on the WWW it's in the public domain already.

If you made it up or are passing on a conspiracy theory, you might think about getting a life.
Posted by MikeM, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 6:30:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mikeM,
I do not know this event, but can share some equally amazing stories of Muslim conversions to follow Christ. But in the interest of those defecting from Mahomet to follow Jesus as saviour and example of life, places their life in danger in Islamic countries of the death penalty. So I suggest you broaden your horizons.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 7:11:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

If you have some "equally amazing stories", why not share a few with us, with attribution to original sources (names, places, dates). I assume though that you do not go out of your way to find "amazing" stories of Christians who convert to Islam, a less than rare experience.

It could be argued that American blacks who convert to Islam also place their life in danger, or risk life incarceration, although the dynamics of the risk are rather different.

I find unattributed stories like dobbodan's, that are likely as not made up or recountings of urban myths, completely unconvincing in any reasoned discussion.

As for a pastor who entertained the idea of baptising his new flock in a "crocodile infested river" - what's happened to the doctrine of duty of care?

Or are there Christian sects that believe that to be eaten by a crocodile the moment you are baptised is a certain way to go to Heaven?

Puh-lease!
Posted by MikeM, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 7:27:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The distinction that apostacy was really trechery, and involved the attacking of the clan(s) that adopted the prophet's religion, only strengthens my argument that Islam was and is not a religion, but a political system calling itself a religion. Whilst all religions seek political influence (initially for their own benefit, but usually throwing the net a bit wider after a while), Islam seeks political control. It is clear from the case in Afghanistan that Islam takes to itself the claim to the monopoly on violence, the touchstone of political control. This is not only found in the Koran and Hadith: it is modern too. The International Muslim Declaration on Human Rights leaves out the right to change one's religion. What the writers will object to is not that one might become a Muslim, but that one might decide to no longer be one. And isn't it the case, Irfan, that all the schools of Islam prescribe the death penalty for apostacy?
In the council pound of world religions, Islam is the dog whose rabies has not yet responded to treatment.
Posted by camo, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 8:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MikeM, muslim posters et al,

Why do you find a story of apostacy so amazing and incredible?

Do you really believe that Islam is so superior from any other religion that people would automatically gravitate towards it?

The reason why apostacy is not celebrated and made public in most instances is because of your inability to accept that some of you can reason and think for themselves.

There are many many many stories of conversion from Islam. Watch that space. Soon it will be safe to do so in some parts of the free world. I won't say more for now.

God works in misterious ways. Amen.
Posted by coach, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 7:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Camo

succinct, to the point, and revealing ! (Your post)...that one little pearl of crucial information deserves to be put in headlines mate

"THE ISLAMIC DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, HAS NO PROVISION FOR CHANGING YOUR RELIGION" (except 'from' non Islamic faiths 'to' Islam)

Once your 'in'...they slam the door behind you, bolt it, deadlock it.. bar it.. nail it.. (perhaps like we would nail the lid of a coffin)

Sharia law provides for a 'period of reflection' to see if the apostate has changed his mind, then, 'assessment of his sanity' (how could ANYone wish to leave Islam and be sane ?) then, if sane, he is to be executed. This is how "Islamic Law" would work if it were not for the protests of the West. (Afghanistan recently)

The rest of what you said, 'said it' in a nutshell...a theme we have all been laboring here, 'political' rather than religious, etc...

Having lived in a moderate Muslim controlled country I saw 'the look' not a few times, which would have happily carried this out. One guy was the head man of a nearby village, during a revolt in which he was implicated, his job was to murder all of the missionaries. Fortunately, due to intervention, not carried out.

MikeM, I have personally been to a village which experienced Islamic persecution, spoke with those who were present, saw the outcome. I assure you, there are amazing events, but to the cynic, they mean little. Look to Jesus Mike, He is the author and finisher of true faith. Perhaps then you will not only hear about such things, but experience them yourself.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 7:47:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual, BigotCorp agents are out in force - and, as usual, on autopilot.

For the benefit of other readers who might be interested in rational discussion, let's see what new eccentricities (apart from their spelling) they inject into the debate:

Camo: "Islam was and is not a religion, but a political system calling itself a religion... Islam seeks political control."

In some countries, yes. Rather like Judaism in Israel before Kadima and Christianity in the George "missed you at bible study" Bush White House?

Coach hits a nail, but misses the head: "Do you really believe that Islam is so superior from any other religion that people would automatically gravitate towards it?"

Superior? No. Some do gravitate toward Islam. I have no statistics on whether more people convert from Islam to Christianity or vice versa, but it is clear that quite a few people do each. I have never heard of it being "automatic" - whatever that means.

BOAZ_David brings out the worst in Christianity: "Having lived in a moderate Muslim controlled country I saw 'the look' not a few times, which would have happily carried this out. One guy was the head man of a nearby village, during a revolt in which he was implicated, his job was to murder all of the missionaries..."

Of course it was. If a bunch of Muslim imams showed up in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina trying to convert everyone to Islam, they'd get a pretty hostile reception too.

But that is what these prosletysing Christian sects have been doing for decades - marching into trouble spots and trying to destabilise Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or other established social structures.

It's a wonder that we ever put up with them.

Since we put up a sign on our front door, MISSIONARIES EATEN HERE, they have stopped bothering us.
Posted by MikeM, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 9:36:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onya MikeM :) I can only say you bit..'hook line and sinker'

You need to understand some history before making such ininformed statements.

I'm referring to Borneo, where it was progressivly less under the rule of the Sultan of Brunie, and more under the rule of Rajah James Brook, by virtue of the Sultan granting him said rule on the basis of services rendered (in local diplomacy regarding taxation of tribes).

Missionaries came with permission from the authorities. One missionary in particular came actually to the Kalimantan (Dutch/Indonesia) side, and spent his life and strength bringing the gospel to those who INVITED him to do so. (Lun Bawang)

Missionaries entered Sarawak with permission of the government, but after working from 1928 to the early 1930s with little advance among the Dayaks who were unresponsive, the tribe on the Sarawak side of the border which was related to those on Dutch side, INVITED the missionaries to come and teach them about the Gospel.

The Brooke government in the mean time, had decided this tribe was not worth saving, was destined to die out, and undocumented but true, was seen as 'headhunting sport' for the blood thirsty Dayaks. And permission to work among the Lun Bawang was revoked. The war came in 39, and after the war, everyone expected them to have faded in their faith, but found it had grown strong, resilient, and many of the previous debilitating practices had gone.(Like leaving ready to harvest rice fields to become monkey food due to 'bad omens' and then starving till next harvest) Permission to work among them was given again due to this transformation.

The Muslims were the 'invaders' and had communities only along the coast, much like the foreign Philistines of biblical times.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 6 April 2006 8:30:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for that interesting explanation, BOAZ_David. It tends to confirm my view that when it comes to inclination to cause trouble, the one faith can be as bad as the other.

And there have been occasions when the British Raj was worse than both of them put together. The Chinese Opium Wars come to mind. From http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

"[The treaties of 1860] humiliated and weakened the [Chinese] imperial government. The most ignominious of the provisions in these treaties was the complete legalization of opium and the humiliating provision that allowed for the free and unrestricted propagation of Christianity in all regions of China."

I don't dispute either that there are some circumstances in which missionaries manage to do more good than harm. This is illustrated by the history of the Christian Church in 20th century Korea, and by the forthcoming despatch of Malaysian missionaries from Borneo to England, to convert the heathen British, http://www.lichfield.anglican.org/pressr/articles/2005/050912a.htm

However if we go back to the original topic of this discussion, it seems there are some people here who are just as hostile to Islam as some Afghans are to Christianity.

They also overlook the fact that if, to use prime minister JHo's phrase, the Allies had not "cut and run" and left the job in Afghanistan only half finished, this situation would never have arisen.

Was this a Christian thing to do?
Posted by MikeM, Thursday, 6 April 2006 9:49:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that any belief system that depends on the monopoly of thought is inheritantly weak.

Whether is an Islamist culture that demands submission and / or conversion to the faith, by force if necessary, or a Secularist society that can't stand the mention of God in school classrooms, they show their insecurities about their own beliefs.

A belief system has to stand up to and compete with a whole range of ideas if it is to survive and grow.

By the way... this thread began with the story of Abdul Rahman. Does anyone know what ever happened to him?

He disappeared immediately after his release in Afghanistan. I don't know if he went into hiding or if someone killed him.
Posted by Hank, Thursday, 31 August 2006 11:27:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion- what a curse it has become in a so called civilized world. where once a so called prophet declared in his farewell sermon that Women where like domesticated animals if they don't please you can beat them to death, he also declared he went to hell and most inhabitants there where women.(Thank god he didn't say Christians) Maybe that would of made it easier to declare war on non Muslims.
Posted by snakes, Thursday, 31 May 2007 7:46:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy