The "negative" images of Islam portray the rotten organisation just as it is: cruel and ignorant, not belonging any where near civilization and enlightenment; locked for all time in the 7th Century.

'however man was created with many weaknesses, forgetfulness, greed for material comforts and power, is capable of oppressiveness and ignorance, is rash and impatient, stringy and miserably, ungrateful, quarrelsome, ruthless, and full of self-interest, which can easily lead him astray.'

no Murray man is born with an Adamic nature. God created no failures. He was not created the way you describe it. Also the more committed to Islam the more violent, hateful and vengeful one becomes as he/she becomes like the god they worship. The fruit of Islam is rotten to the core just like secularism/feminism. Try looking to the God of love, mercy forgiveness and kindness. He is only found in Jesus Christ.

ttbn, correct, this article written by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain is 100% wrong.

runner, correct again, 1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel: 2 for attaining wisdom and discipline; for understanding words of insight; 3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right and just and fair; 4 for giving prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the young-- 5 let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance-- 6 for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise. 7 The love & honour of your heavenly father is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

EMBRACE WISDOM & REJECT EVIL TEMPTATIONS
Listen, my son, to your father's instruction and do not forsake your mother's teaching. 9 They will be a garland to grace your head and a chain to adorn your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them. 11 If they say, "Come along with us; let's lie in wait for someone's blood, let's waylay some harmless soul; 12 let's swallow them alive, like the grave, and whole, like those who go down to the pit; 13 we will get all sorts of valuable things and fill our houses with plunder; 14 throw in your lot with us, and we will share a common purse"-- 15 my son, do not go along with them, do not set foot on their paths; 16 for their feet rush into sin, they are swift to shed blood. 17 How useless to spread a net in full view of all the birds! 18 These men lie in wait for their own blood; they waylay only themselves! 19 Such is the end of all who go after ill-gotten gain; it takes away the lives of those who get it.

does it get any better than that?

Bringing Muslims back to Islam. Muslims exhibit a more united front than do Christians IMO.
I see Christianity as devouring itself by a lowering of moral code of life, a theme which this article followed, in relation to Muslims themselves. Maybe this author could offer some sobering advice to Christians, especially in relation to economic plunder of that which does not belong, EG Middle Eastern oil fields....

Diver Dan,

I agree. Many Christians have lost the plot, but they are still not wanting to slaughter everyone who doesn't agree with them, as per Islam. Weak as it is, Christianity is too weak to combat Islam. But, how could a religion that prizes a 'god of love' who touts ' turning the other cheek', ever deal with Islam, which is not a mere religion, but also a murderous social doctrine which deals in death to meet its ends. The Sword, that Islam is so fond of, is the only way to go; no 'puny' religion preaching peace and love can deal with such a monster.

All majority Muslim societies have far more crime, poverty, degeneracy, corruption and dysfunction than any other type of social organisation.
Anyone who undertakes advocacy on behalf of this retarded system of living should be laughed at and bullied into silence.

I believe in freedom and liberty for all peoples, and respecting other peoples beliefs and religions, so long as they afford me the same right.

And I'll be the first to point out that not all Muslims are extremists
That not all Jews are Zionists
and that not all Christians support Israel.

I know there's some Islamic leaders who genuinely frown upon the bogus caliphate and denounce as fools the mindset and actions taken by some Muslims who take up arms as extremists.

But even I myself are starting to fall victim to what you have labelled "Media stereotyping Islam as an extreme religion".

Even though I know all these extremists are just paid mercenaries.

You see, for me, I'd argue the media isn't necessarily stereotyping anything.
I don't watch or listen to the corporate media.
I've seen videos of and heard the stories of Syrian and Iraqi people.

Watching videos of religious extremist groups as they push people off 10 story buildings, running over restrained people with tanks, killing pregnant women then cutting out the fetus to play football with, running over captured enemies heads with cars, cutting off peoples arms and legs first before slitting their throats and murdering kids and the elderly, all the while screaming "Allahu Akbar".

And they are just a few of the stories Ive seen and heard and I'm sure there would be thousands more stories of similar and worse.

- and you're trying to suggest the media is unfairly "stereotyping" Islam.

Seems kind of valid on at least some level, even if they are ultimately just paid mercenaries doing the bidding of other M/E governments.

Extremist Sunni Islam ideology is a threat to peace in the world and I don't see any real reason to play it down.

I do however like Islam's insistence on upholding a free and fair market. That is actually one aspect where they may have a better idea than we in the west have.

diver dan & ttbn, 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

Jay Of Melbourne, spot on.

Armchair Critic, moderate muslims use womb jihad to destroy the enlightened, conservative, protesting christians, just like the Catholics did before them.

"I do however like Islam's insistence on upholding a free and fair market." That is actually one aspect where they may have a better idea than we in the west have. Actually islam only claimed to have that system, whereas we actually did have that system before 1972. When there were more Australian christians there were more businessmen with morals, ethics & principles. the communists got rid of that as well as importing terrorists.

The reality is that ISIS and Al Qaeda are the modernising forces in contemporary Islam, their vision of the Caliphate and Muslim community is the most progressive and the most democratic.
Apologist pundits talk about the need for an Islamic reformation, well Islamic State is exactly that, it's a literal interpretation of the Koran and Islamic life for the 21st century and it's the only alternative vision to the despotism, corruption and degeneracy of the present rulers of the majority Muslim states.

I LOL at the shrill anti Muslim comments here...get a grip!
So all the problems in the world as a result of Muslims?
And the good o'l USofA takes no responsibility for kinking the ants nest?

JoM, you observe that:

"Apologist pundits talk about the need for an Islamic reformation, well Islamic State is exactly that, it's a literal interpretation of the Koran and Islamic life for the 21st century and it's the only alternative vision to the despotism, corruption and degeneracy of the present rulers of the majority Muslim states."

Apart from the problem of equating ' literal interpretation of the Koran' with 'Islamic reformation', what you suggest is true as far as it goes.

But perhaps this is the predicament for many religious observers - how to reform, to try to catch up with 1400 years of history (while the world has been swirling past at an ever-greater rate) and join the twenty-first century, while remaining more-or-less true to the fundamental values of one's religion.

The question must surely arise: are 'our fundamental values' actually out of touch with modern reality ? Is it possible that the 'values' applicable to a violent religion of desert tribes may have little place in a world in which equal rights for all, and development and progress through peaceful means, are possible ?

The modern world is not particularly religious, much more an outcome - and an engine - of ideologies, good and bad. So perhaps what we are experiencing in this century is a struggle between uncritical, narrow-minded religion and a range of more free-thinking ideologies, usually orbiting around liberalism and social democracy ?

The dilemma for adherents of books which they regard as holy - whether they are Christians, Muslims, Jews or Hindus - is how does one critically evaluate the efficacy of those teachings in a modern world - how does one break some of the mental shackles of religion and open one's eyes to the needs of a booming, buzzing modern world ? How does one 'constructively criticise' one's own very foundations ?

If any group - Jewish, Buddhist, etc. - turns instead to an even more reactionary and uncritical observance of their ancient books, then they will fall further behind the times - and we all will suffer for it.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Diver Dan.
The biggest crime against the Muslim world perpetrated by the Western democracies has been the brain drain of their intellectuals and educated people.
The median IQ score in Muslim lands is very low, what that means is that in comparison to Europe and Asia there are only a very few people capable of taking up leadership roles and taking on the task of nation building.
When you take out most of the smartest, most capable people from a society like Iraq or Syria and leave the dumb, incompetent people under the leadership of Imams and tribal Sheikhs you're literally putting the lunatics in control of the asylum.
Everyone in the West knows their "good Muslim" but it's no coincidence that most "good Muslims" are well educated, highly intelligent and capable individuals.
What would Australia be like if 95% of the population looked like the stars of "Struggle Street", if 50% of the university graduates every year emigrated, if every cop and public official was on the take and the community was under the leadership of people Daniel Nalliah and Ralph Cerminara?

Hi JoM,

You suggest that "The biggest crime against the Muslim world perpetrated by the Western democracies has been the brain drain of their intellectuals and educated people."

Sorry, where's the crime ? Isn't that migration the choice of those emigrants alone ? Well, plus a bit of prompting from the barrel-bombing from Assad, and burnings-alive and multiple-rapings from the IS psychopaths [all brainlessly aided and abetted by their Goat-Cheese-Circle useful idiots in affluent countries, i.e. in the more affluent professions and suburbs of countries like Australia ?] ?

Those educated people choose to move; nobody forces them, or even particularly entices them. So sorry - no crime.

Your references to low IQ are intriguing: apart from the long-term effects of close-cousin marriage (and its family-oriented, anti-society implications), I've been wondering if it is possible for a 'culture', particularly one bound up with a backward religion and which discourages (no, not just 'discourages' but bans outright) any critical thinking whatsoever (except against one's neighbours), that thinking never gets past what Piaget called the 'concrete-operational' stage - i.e. it can't rise above the 'concrete' to the 'general', to learn to explore for overall rules from isolated but similar examples of behaviour or experience.

In other words, is it possible that 'culture' inhibits thinking so much that people trapped in it can't - or rarely can - think beyond the level of a ten- or twelve-year-old ? Yes, they may have a vast store of events, concrete examples and rumours and outright tales of something, but can make only the barest, crudest - and usually highly personalised - inferences from all of that experience.

And since, outside of that limited world, so much goes on that the people inside it cannot remotely understand, yet must
'interpret' somehow, the tendency is bound to be towards paranoia about that unknowable outside world, and the common development of a perception of being persecuted - and in extreme forms of that paranoia, outright psychosis ? Ergo, ISIS.

Still working on it :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

//In other words, is it possible that 'culture' inhibits thinking so much that people trapped in it can't - or rarely can - think beyond the level of a ten- or twelve-year-old ?//

Of course. How bright do you think the average middle-ages peasant was? Free, quality, universal education is the key to developing an intelligent society. We're damn lucky to have it in this country because a lot of people don't, and naturally that diminishes the average intelligence of their population.

Of course, it's hard to go to school when your classroom has just been turned into a crater by Seppos who mistook it for a weapon of mass destruction. Iraq was a cock-up of the most monumental proportions, and some blame must fairly be apportioned to the West for destabilising a stable and functional dictatorship. Maybe if less Iraqi children had had their lives turned upside down and more of them had gone to school, there wouldn't be so many idiots running around the Middle East.

What BS! In case Mr. Hunter is ignorant, Islam’s economic model, under Mohammad, was based upon attacking and plundering others. For 10 years he attacked his neighbors, committing all kinds of atrocities.

He says "An Islamic model of economy has never been implemented in any world economy. Well duh.... Perhaps because that model is a confused mess. Note that ISIS is o implementing an 'Islamic economy' by plundering, ransoming captives, selling slaves, etc...

Note that the author says "80% of the World's Muslims live in poverty, with high incidences of unemployment and low productivity. Countries with Muslin populations are declining in knowledge, innovation and education, have a lower life expectancy, higher illiteracy rates, lower GDP per capita rates and more dependents. Islamic GDP is estimated to be only 45% of the rest of the world.

Gosh, gee I wonder why? Maybe Islam is the primary cause of all these problems.

The Author says "Islam urges individuals to strive their utmost to earn large monetary rewards and spiritual profits'. No, it says to strive in the way of Allah (jihad) to spread Islam, and killing and plunder are basic instruments of this required effort. What does he think the surah "the spoils of war" is about? Does this man know anything about the real Islam, its texts and history? He seems to be aware of the current situation of Muslims (see above!) yet is blind to the obvious link between Islam and the status/actions of Muslims today.

As to the "amoral society we live in" Muslims should be the last to lecture anybody. Islam has no moral principles. It has routines, rituals, wear this, do that, go there, dont eat that, throw some change to the poor, etc... A person can kill and torture all day and still be a good Muslim for evening prayers. There is no 'thou shall not kill" in Islam, much to the contrary. Killing is what Allah says Muslims are put on earth for (Quran 9:111).

This is just another one of those stupid “Islam is wonderful” articles without basis in historical fact or reality.

Hi Kactuz,

Spot-on. I'm working through a book on Colonial Land Law, written seventy years ago, and the writer (C.K. Meek) has an entire chapter on 'Muhammadan Land Law': for Muslims, Allah owns all land, indeed al countries such that there really are no separate countries, Allah is sovereign over all of them, presumably including Australia. But that hasn't stopped Muslims from 'owning' land, of course.

And as an example of how the instructions can be observed while their (presumed) intent can be corrupted, the example of usury, charging interest on money-lending, is illuminating:

* since farmers need to borrow money, to tide them over until harvest, or to buy equipment, fencing, etc., they used to go to Muslim money-lenders, Arabs and Indians in East Africa, Syrians in West Africa - but since good Muslims can't charge interest, how do they get around this ?

By a 'conditional sale', by which the farmer 'sells' his farm to the money-lender, but stays on it and works it until he can redeem his debt, and pays rent in the meantime, which is usually much more than any interest he might have had to pay. So Muslim money-lenders not only can observe their instructions to the letter, but make big money as well. The original intention (one presumes) of not making money out of somebody else's needs is thus somewhat compromised.

Similarly, it appears that one-night stands can be justified by 'marrying' a woman for a night. So the letter of the book can be observed, and a man can have his way. Sweet ! But thus again, surely, the underlying intention is compromised ? Maybe not, she's only a woman, after all.

[TBC]

[continued]

Here's another notion: am I totally wrong that people embedded in religion don't ever seem to have much sense of Guilt, but do have a strong sense of Shame, of being shamed, of being humiliated ? Well, except perhaps Christians who may have lots of both.

On the other hand, amongst those of us who take our guidance from one ideology or another, which usually indicate what is to be regarded as right and wrong, good and bad, it imposes on us a moral framework and therefore their boundaries; if we act outside of them, we may feel a strong sense of guilt - after all, we choose our ideologies and therefore their moral parameters, so we know if we have strayed outside of them, we can't blame bad spirits, or devils, or djinns, only ourselves.

Or am I drawing too long a bow ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Not totally wrong... I would extend the observation to a trifecta: people embedded in text-interpreted religion do have a strong sense of guilt (however much it is sublimated), a strong sense of shame plus a strong sense of persecution.

Each of these can be reflected inwards or onto 'others' and to make matters worse this can occur in every permutation, combination and strength of the three traits.

For some people such cognitive dissonance barely registers whilst in the most dangerous all three are dialled up to 11.

At that extreme [to adopt a soccer analogy] all eyes have been taken off the ball and are focussed on the teams' players and fans rioting on the pitch in the stands.This may be why we can talk about pitched battles and longstanding conflicts within religions.

In this analogy secular humanists are doomed to be the referees trying to restore peace.

Some of us acknowlege and accept personal responsibility. All too many have diverted theirs to '...because allah/god/yahweh/etc'.

...and in the stands.

Murray Hunter is so hopelessly wrong on so many facts it is hard to know where to start deconstructing them.

To begin with Murray, the reason why western democracies allowed Muslim immigration was because of the general ignorance of Islamic scripture which proscribed assimilating with anybody, and which legitimised violence towards non Muslims in the host populations. We know better now.

Your next ludicrous point, is that somehow Islam is an example of financial success. Gee, I thought that anybody who had a TV set could quite plainly see the error of that statement. The Islamic world is hardly a success story, and what is more, the indisputable fact is that the more Islamic a nation is, the more of an economically and socially dysfunctional cesspit it is.

Islam, my dear Murray, has never been an exponent of free trade. What was the name of the skyscrapers which got knocked down on 9/11? Most of the Islamic world does not belong to the World Trade Organisation. They live in self imposed economic isolation and they are suffering terribly because of it. They resent the growing prosperity of the free trade nations while hating the very institution that enabled it. Islam was once prosperous because of it's geographical position. It blockaded and monopolised the trade routes between Europe with Africa, China and India. The first Portuguese caravel which rounded Cape Horn put an end to that cartel.

If I had to guess where you got this idea that Islam is being misrepresented, and that it somehow conforms to your socialist, humanitarian, internationalist worldview, I would say you got hold of some sort of Muslim propaganda about "Islam and commerce" and blended in your own ideology.

No matter, you have indeed done your opponents a great service. Your article is so self evidently over the top wrong, that there must be some educated young people reading your tripe who are beginning to question your ideologies fundamentals. You can't keep writing absolute nonsense and think that even ideologically conditioned intelligent young people can be True Believers forever

Very good post, Joe. Really excellent.

I hope you don't mind if I pinch some of your points?

Thanks LEGO, you do me proud. Sure.

Maybe what I'm trying to get at in my clumsy way is the distinction between:

* getting one's guidance externally, out of a book, or as one is told what to think by some charlatan, and stopping thinking ever afterwards, never doubting or criticising what one has been told,

and

* having to grapple with ideas of how best to live, and how to relate to other people, from within oneself, and with the critical guidance of discourse with one's friends - in other words, trying to work it all out for ourselves, a constant work-in-progress of doubts and conjectures throughout one's life.

Two contrasting epistemologies, I suppose. Perhaps what we are witnessing, and will witness throughout this century, is the clash between those two approaches to engaging with the world: one religious (even Utopian? Is this why the pseudo-Left sucks up to barbarism?), smug and righteous, but utterly out of touch and stunted; the other ever-doubting, ever-grappling, ever-questioning.

And since may be talking about many billions of people pursuing one course or the other, and more and more rubbing up against each other, we could be in for a bumpy ride. Buckle up !

Joe
www.firstsources.info

To the bigots; those on this forum who are seeking to dehumanise, stigmatise and incite violence against Muslims, this is what happens when your turgid doctrine is exposed to the light of factual evidence and reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2DZ8bbxd8U

Living a sheltered life and being a bit naïve, I have assumed, when there are reports of the mass-slave-trading of Yazidi girls and women, that it was a matter of the Waffen-IS just trading the women and girls amongst themselves. But it is far wider than this: it seems that wealthy Muslims fly in (or send their servants) to Waffen-IS-held territory and buy women according to a ranking system: Saudis (being more devout) are entitled to buy more women than others, and high-ranking sheikhs and emirs more than others, and of course, they get first pick.

So there are probably Yazidi women and young girls (younger girls fetch higher prices) all over the Middle East now. And Christians too. After all, there is nothing in the Koran which forbids slavery, nor the trade in non-Muslims as slaves, since non-Muslims are not fully human. Of course, that has been the case since Muhammad's time, and trade in slaves by Muslims formed the backbone of the Atlantic Slave Trade. The slaves in Mauretania at least now have the vote, in fact they have had it ever since 2007. So the Waffen-IS are simply carrying on a long Muslim tradition.

But it's all part of their culture, so it must be all right. Therefore any attack on Muslim slavery must be racist, ay, Grateful ?

Joe

Joe,

Your an intense character. Perhaps there is an element of racism on your part, but I'm focusing on the bigotry in these posts.

Let's examine the psychology of bigotry and see what sort of parallels we find in these posts. From Nicholas Kristof "America's History of Fear"

"A radio interviewer asked me the other day if I thought bigotry was the only reason why someone might oppose the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan. No, I don’t. Most of the opponents aren’t bigots but well-meaning worriers — and during earlier waves of intolerance in

From

"A radio interviewer asked me the other day if I thought bigotry was the only reason why someone might oppose the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan. No, I don’t. Most of the opponents aren’t bigots but well-meaning worriers — and during earlier waves of intolerance in American history, it was just the same.
Screeds against Catholics from the 19th century sounded just like the invective today against the Not-at-Ground-Zero Mosque. The starting point isn’t hatred but fear: an alarm among patriots that newcomers don’t share their values, don’t believe in democracy, and may harm innocent Americans."

"Historically, unreal suspicions were sometimes rooted in genuine and significant differences. Many new Catholic immigrants lacked experience in democracy. Mormons were engaged in polygamy. And today some extremist Muslims do plot to blow up planes, and Islam has real problems to work out about the rights of women. The pattern has been for demagogues to take real abuses and exaggerate them, portraying, for example, the most venal wing of the Catholic Church as representative of all Catholicism — just as fundamentalist Wahabis today are caricatured as more representative of Islam than the incomparably more numerous moderate Muslims of Indonesia (who have elected a woman as president before Americans have)."

Anyone reading these posts, and your remarks regarding slavery( "But it's all part of their culture, so it must be all right.") will see the parallels.

To Grateful.

Your premise appears to be, that there are stupid people who are intolerant, and smart people (like yourself) who are intolerant.

I disagree. While intolerance against harmless people can be stupid, tolerance towards people who openly declare their intention of doing you harm is also stupid.

Now, you are implying that Muslims are not a danger to your people. To me, that is stupid. Muslims belong to a religion which is not just a religion, it is a complete legal, political and religious system. Islam was started by a warlord who wanted to make his warriors invincible in battle, and justify his aggression against other people. It is the only religion in extant today who's sacred scriptures justify aggressive wars to spread itself. It is the only religion to have holy scriptures which call for the murder, torture, beheading, dismembering, humiliation, and crucifixion of non Muslims.

Many Jews in Europe in the 1930's were tolerant of Nazis. Do you think that their tolerance was smart? When a group of people have an ideology which openly calls for your extermination, you would not be smart if you ignored what they say.

Islam's value systems are diametrically opposed to the tolerance that you cherish, yet you defend them? Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo. The last thing you would want to be is a minority in a majority Muslim country. Which, I might add, Sweden is to said to become in 2032, and all of Europe by the turn of this century. That is when the fun will start.

The Islamic system has failed it's people in creating peaceful, prosperous and stable countries. Even where Muslims exist in prosperous societies, they form a poverty stricken underclass noted for their violence, criminal behaviour, and endemic welfare dependency.

Christianity once went through a Reformation to conform to the teachings of it's founder. Islam today is also going through a Reformation. It is going back to the original teachings of Mohammad, who said kill anybody who is not a Muslim, take their property, and improve the progeny of their women.

Defending Islam is not smart.

Lego
Its simply a matter of discriminating between those who seek truth and those (the bigots) who have this yearning to belong to a superior group. The irony of your Nazi example wouldn't be lost those with knowledge of the genocide being committed against Muslims in Burnma. And i do not use the word loosely, but according to the Yale University Law School who have concluded that "intent to commit [genocide] is present."
https://www.burmamuslims.org/content/al-jazeera-documentary-uncovers-strong-evidence-coordinated-genocide-against-rohingya

For the last 3 decades they have been subject to Government orchestrated campaign which began with the dehumanisation and stigmatisation ....in other words the sort ratbag garbage that you and your friends propagate. It is now in its final phase of total extermination: murder, starvation, denial of citizenship, a job, schooling, pushing them sea in boats.

Lego, what you say about Muslims is false and its simple to show. All i have to do is issue a challenge.

You say "Islam was started by a warlord who wanted to make his warriors invincible in battle, and justify his aggression against other people." Now i don't want to spend to much time in the gutter with the likes of you, but the challenge is this: provide a scholar who supports this view. By a scholar i mean someone whose publications are accepted in peer reviewed mainstream journals. A recognised scholar in Islam. For example, Bernard Lewis or John L. Esposito.

And Joe, i challenge you to do the same for your 'slavery is a part of Muslim culture' remark

And runner, ditto for your remark that the Prophet Muhammad was evil

Enough..lets see what these haters can deliver.

Me thinks they are cowards....and would rather go hide than admit they can not meet the challenge.

But lets see...over to the Bozos (who are deserving of nothing but contempt)

Hi Grateful,

There are none so blind ......

Try these from the Koran, for a start:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/slavery.html

and these references, from Hugh Thomas' definitive 'The Slave Trade: The History of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade 1440-1870'.

"Muslim slave traders, 559; African 'razzias', 23; Bereira trade, 340; Hausa slaves, 400; trade with Portuguese, 58-9; trans-Saharan trade, 13, 23, 43-47, 149, 401, 792; treatment of slaves, 379."

Perhaps someone should write something similar on 'The Trans-Indian-Ocean Slave Trade', but it would have to cover a much longer period, and up to the present. And of course, the trans-Mediterranean slave trade, of earlier years: an estimated ten million European slaves were traded by Muslims, from as far afield as Iceland and the Baltic, up until the nineteenth century. But that was okay, they weren't Muslim ?

I hate slavery of all kinds: it massively diminishes the lives of so many fellow-humans. Perhaps that doesn't worry you ?

'Any century but this, and any country but his own .... '

As an atheist, I do believe that we each have one and only one life, here on Earth, and nowhere else.

And of course, I fully support the struggles of the Rohingya against their blatantly-fascist oppressors in Burma, and their freedom from their enslavement. You don't have a monopoly on that.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi again Grateful,

If you're really keen to find out about Muslim slavery, look up 'Google Scholar' and type in "Muslim slavery".

You may like this article:

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/archaeology/Publications/Islamic%20Archaeology/Islam,%20archaeology%20and%20slavery%20in%20Africa.pdf

Here's an excerpt from it, in the second paragraph:

'Quranic teaching from the first distinguished between the Dar el Islam (the land where its inhabitants have made their submission
(Islam) to the Muslim faith) and the Dar el Harb (where they have not). Slavery, including chattel slavery, was permitted by the Holy Quran and further defined in the Hadith (traditions of the Prophet Mohammed’s lifetime). It became codied in the Shari’a (sacred) law codes administered by members of the Ulama (those learned in its interpretation). In general, its concept of slavery followed the practice of the Roman Empire and its predecessors in Western Asia (Snowden 1970), the main difference being that, in the Dar el Islam, Christianity and Judaism were accepted as permissible if incomplete religions. Believers in them, if they made their (non-religious) submission to Islamic rulers, paid the required taxes and accepted Shari’a law, were citizens (Dhimi) and not subject to chattel slavery unless condemned to it for crimes carrying that punishment under Shari’a law in the same way as Muslims were.'

I'm fascinated by that last sentence: so that's the fate that awaits us under Hizb-ut-Tahrir ?

Joe

Hi Grateful,

If you can't wait to find that article, it goes on:

"The distinction between the Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam had profound effects in Africa. Inhabitants of the Dar el Harb (Figs 1–3), which Muslims were under obligation to conquer and incorporate into the Dar el Islam, could be enslaved, although, if individuals voluntarily accepted the Muslim faith, they could mitigate their status, although, unless manumitted, they remained slaves (Fisher and Fisher 1970).

"During the first Muslim penetration [now, isn't that an apt word, Grateful ?] of Africa in the seventh century AD these concepts were put into practice (Lovejoy 1983).

"The sedentary populations of North and Northeast Africa had long professed Christianity within the provinces of the Late Roman Empire, which stretched from Egypt to Morocco and outside it in the Middle Nile Valley and in modern Eritrea/Ethiopia.

"Nomadic transhumant Berber and Beja communities south of the northern coastal plains or away from the Nile Valley had been a little affected by Christianity and Judaism but remained largely animists (Brett and Fentress 1996; Paul 1954).

"The submission (Islam) of the various Roman provinces to the Muslim Arab invaders meant that their Christian inhabitants were accepted into the Dar el Islam and not subjected to chattel slavery.

"Desert-dwelling animists were part of the Dar el Harb, and could be enslaved so that the boundary between the Dar el Harb and Islam in North West Africa roughly followed the old Roman (Christian) frontier. A slave trade bringing Saharans and sub-Saharans through the desert to North Africa, which existed in Roman times, continued and documentary evidence in the Nile Valley shows it to have been regulated there by treaty.

"In succeeding centuries the desert routes were increasingly used as camel nomadism became commoner and the frontier of the Dar el Harb was pushed further and further southwards until in the twelfth to thirteenth centuries it had reached the West African forest zone and the sub-Saharan savannahs became known as the Bilad es Sudan (the land of the blacks) and the source of slaves...."

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Well, so much to read and comment on, so I won't.

All I can say is what the author wrote is very nice and I wonder why
they do not apply it in the moslem countries, who are universally
amongst the most backward countries on earth.

I guess the low IQ of the population has something to do with it.
Having just seen a video of ISIS decapitating four Kurds in cold blood
while using it to threaten infidels I find that the picture of Islam
given by the author to be quite simply a lie

This timely and hearr-felt message should be spread around:

From The Heart of an Honest Muslim!

By Dr. Tawfik Hamid

"I am a Muslim by faith, a Christian by spirit, a Jew by heart, and above all I am a human being."

Dr. Hamid is an Egyptian scholar and author of the following article.

I was born a Muslim and lived all my life as a follower of Islam.

After the barbaric terrorist attacks done by the hands of my fellow Muslims everywhere on this globe, and after the too many violent acts by Islamists in many parts of the world, I feel responsible as a Muslim and as a human being to speak out and tell the truth to protect the world and Muslims as well from a coming catastrophe and war of civilizations.

I have to admit that our current Islamic teaching creates violence and hatred toward non-Muslims.

We Muslims are the ones who need to change.

Until now we have accepted polygamy, the beating of women by men, and killing those who convert from Islam to other religions.

We have never had a clear and strong stand against the concept of slavery or wars, to spread our religion and to subjugate others to Islam and force them to pay a humiliating tax called jizia.

We ask others to respect our religion while all the time we curse non-Muslims loudly (in Arabic) in our Friday prayers in the mosques.

What message do we convey to our children when we call the Jews "descendants of the pigs and monkeys"? [Yet, both Arabs and Jews are descendants of Ibrahim (Abraham)!]

Is this a message of love and peace, or a message of hate?

[TBC]

[continued]

I have been into [Christian] churches and [Jewish] synagogues where they were praying for Muslims.

While all the time, we curse them, and teach our generations to call them "infidels", and to hate them.

We immediately jump in a 'knee jerk reflex' to defend Prophet Mohammad when someone accuses him of being a paedophile while, at the same time, ..we are proud with the story in our Islamic books that he married a young girl seven years old [Aisha] when he was above 50 years old.

I am sad to say that many, if not most of us, rejoiced in happiness after September 11th and after many other terror attacks.

Muslims denounce these attacks to look good in front of the media, but we condone the Islamic terrorists and sympathise with their cause.

Until now our 'reputable' top religious authorities have never issued a fatwa or religious statement to proclaim Bin Laden as an apostate, while an author, like Rushdie, was declared an apostate who should be killed according to Islamic Shari'a law just for writing a book criticizing Islam.

Muslims demonstrated to get more religious rights as we did in France to stop the ban on the hijab (head scarf), while we did not demonstrate with such passion and in such numbers against the terrorist murders. It is our absolute silence against the terrorists that gives the energy to these terrorists to continue doing their evil acts.

[TBC]

[continued]

We Muslims need to stop blaming our problems on others or on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

As a matter of honesty, Israel is the only light of democracy, civilization, and human rights in the whole Middle East .

We kicked out the Jews with no compensation or mercy from most of the Arab countries to make them "Jews-free countries" while Israel accepted more than a million Arabs to live there, have their own nationality, and enjoy their rights as human beings. In Israel, women cannot be beaten legally by men, and any person can change his/her belief system with no fear of being killed by the Islamic law of 'apostasy,' while in our Islamic world people do not enjoy any of these rights.

I agree that the 'Palestinians' suffer, but they suffer because of their corrupt leaders and not because of Israel .

It is not common to see Arabs who live in Israel leaving to live in the Arab world.

On the other hand, we used to see thousands of Palestinians going to work with happiness in Israel , its 'enemy.' If Israel treats Arabs badly as some people claim, surely we would have seen the opposite happening.

We Muslims need to admit our problems and face them. Only then we can treat them and start a new era to live in harmony with human mankind.

Our religious leaders have to show a clear, and very strong stand against polygamy, paedophilia, slavery, killing those who convert from Islam to other religion, beating of women by men, and declaring wars on non-Muslims to spread Islam.

Then, and only then, do we have the right to ask others to respect our religion.

Please pass this on as far as possible and help spread this paradigm shift in Muslim thinking.

Maybe it will germinate & grow.

....

Joe - I certainly hope so, so that we can live in peace, but only with integrity, genuine community, and honesty.

In the light of the atrocities in the Sinai, Beirut and now Paris, we must support our fellow-Australian Muslims to root out the scum within their midst who may be supporting these sorts of low-life mongrels, or planning to copy-cat their activities.

Not all Muslims wholeheartedly support terrorism: we all have to believe that. So in their efforts to expose and cast out anybody within their midst who supports such vile acts, the Muslim population of Australia needs the support of the non-Muslim community wherever possible.

IF, IF these vile, gutless actions have indeed been carried out by Islamists, and IF, IF there are Muslims in Australia who support these murders of innocent people, then the Muslim population has an extra obligation to identify and expel such criminals, and for that reason, they need our support. IF, IF the Koran can be used to justify such criminal acts, then the Muslim population may need our sympathy as they disavow such interpretations.

Joe

Joe be realistic. It would mean betraying their family member or a
member of their tribe. That would bring down the tribe on their head
and maybe cost them their life.
It is just the way it is, it has been what they grew up with.
They just will not do it. Facilities have been made to enable them to
dob in a terrorist and it has reported a few, but very few judging by
the very few comments that have been made about the hotline by government.

Loudmouth has failed to support his assertions with scholarship. He would if he could, but obviously he cannot. Hate and bigotry seem his main motive....and not a squeak from the other loudmouths.

Just read the aforementioned scholars (Bernard Lewis or John L. Esposito) and you will have your views on Islam, the Prophet, slavery etc debunked.

Hi Grateful,

I appreciate that you have an enormous task in front of you, should you choose to take it on. Perhaps you won't. Either way, you have my sympathy.

Forgive me, what assertions in particular ? Terrorist attacks ? Murders ? Beheadings ? Rape and enslavement ? The desire to conquer the entire world ? Which atrocity do you have in mind ?

Grateful, terrible things are happening. They are ACTUALLY HAPPENING. I don't have to make them up. And who is responsible for those atrocities ? With respect, I would suggest that members of your 'religion of peace' may have something to do with them.

Perhaps they are perverters of Islam, betrayers, corrupters of its basic principles ? Or are they faithfully applying those basic principles in their vile acts against innocent people ? What do you reckon ?

Your choice: condemn these terrorist attacks, or come out in support of them. Any mealy-mouthed yadayada about the US in Iraq, etc., would be seen as nothing more than excuses for the utter brutality of ISIS.

Your choice, Grateful.

Joe

"
Perhaps they are perverters of Islam, betrayers, corrupters of its basic principles ? Or are they faithfully applying those basic principles in their vile acts against innocent people ? What do you reckon ?"

I reckon the former. "Refuting ISIS" by Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi
http://masud.co.uk/refuting-isis-shaykh-muhammad-al-yaqoubi/

Loudmouth,

Did you watch Q&A on Monday? I was very impressed by Prof. Andrew McLeod, who made excellent points throughout the show, such as this one:

"What I do need to say though is, and Christophe has said this is a couple of times, we are in war. They attacked us. But what we need from our national leadership now is to determine who is the 'them' and who is the 'us' and there are two broad choices. It is us westerners against them, all of Islam, or is it us moderates of all religions, against them, radicals of all religions? And we have organisations in this country, like Reclaim Australia, who are really falling into the trap of Islamic State, who are trying to create the us Westerners against them, all of Islam.

If we fall into that trap, we’re saying we want to fight with 1.6 billion people, whereas if we define the us as all moderates of all religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, against radicals of all religions, it’s a much smaller number to fight and a much more effective number to fight. So what we’ve got to do at the beginning, Terry, to come to your question, we need to make sure, as a country, the 'us', is moderates of all religions, against 'them', the radicals of all religions."

I chanced upon this interview and found it an interesting, backgrounding set of historical and political issues encompassing 'ways-foreward' observations in an ISIS infected world...

"Rise of ISIS & Collapse of a Culture with Philippe Assouline"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ6NiM-F6jI

[FYI 40 mins.]

Thanks Toni,

I suspect that defeating ISIS militarily will be just Round One in a very long-running struggle: military, political, social, personal, ideological, military, economic, military, political, ideological and military again and again, etc., etc.

This struggle will still be going long after I'm gone, because, in my view, it is a struggle between the values of the Enlightenment, of the West if you like, and those of the Koran, in all their various and conflicting manifestations, including those espoused by ISIS - and by those prattling about Islam being 'a religion of peace'. Yeah, right.

Am I suggesting some sort of 'Clash of Civilizations' ? Yes. A 'civilization', in this sense, encompasses one's culture and all of its underlying values which one grows up with, the lessons from stories and parables, the social relationships within the family sanctioned by one's cultural practices, and the resultant outlook on the world, and one's place in it.

The values of the West, imperfect and certainly incomplete as they may be, include observance of the rule of law, equality before the law, equality of men and women, openness in opportunity structure, and the right to question, analyse and re-assess one's outlook and values. That includes, even necessitates, the right to question the values of the Enlightenment, i.e. to question the very values which sustain the society that we are in - and hopefully come up with even stronger support for those precious values.

So let's be honest: what does 'true' Islam stand for ? That Allah owns all the world, that his will must sooner or later be extended over all the world, by one means or another, that men and women are most certainly not equal, that extermination is an option for non-believers and the only way to 'live in peace', to 'share all the world', is if all humanity either surrenders (submits, conforms, whatever nicer word you like to use) to Islam or is exterminated. Except, of course, young women, who must serve the angels of Islam while they still have their looks.

[TBC]

Toni,

[continued]

In the meantime, a 'true' Muslim would contend, Shari'a law must be imposed on countries, one by one, by stealth, by deceit (Tuqqiya) or by force, whichever.

So if we are to begin a dialogue, basically a Civilizational Dialogue, which may have to continue for generations, we must stand firm from the outset and clarify that there will NEVER, NEVER be Shari'a law in Australia, not a skerrick of it.

Australia is, no matter how imperfectly, a society based on Enlightenment values, the rule of law, equality of men and women, and opportunity structures as open as possible. It is a society and polity in which we can question, criticise, assess, analyse EVERYTHING that affects us. That's called democracy, the imperfect rule of the people and their elected servants. We can slag our politicians, we can criticise out 'intellectual leaders' such as there are any. We can 'offend' each other to our heart's content and not be beheaded for it, or burnt alive. Although there are some people on OLO ........ No, not even them.

It's funny, when you take the values of a society for granted, you don't articulate, let alone formulate, arguments for their support, or improvement. So you leave yourself open to counter-arguments, arguments for the fascist values of ISIS, for example (speaking to the pseudo-left here). When you take something for granted, you shrug your shoulders and say, 'well, it just is'.

But the times for those easy luxuries are now over. It is time now for Australians to consciously re-assess and specify what their values are and to clarify what they believe in. Perhaps this struggle has been coming for a very long time, but it's now here, whether we like it or not.

Let the Dialogue begin.

Round Two.

On s'engage, et puis on voit.

Joe

Here Here Loudmouth !

Dear Joe,

The fight at hand is a fight of all those who wish to be saved from having to live under Shariah law against those who want to impose Shariah law on us.

Your opportunistic use of this struggle in order to push for the values of this Western mock-enlightenment, does not help the struggle against Shariah, violence and terror.

It is true that in comparison, democracy is not nearly as bad as Shariah, yet the view as if it's OK for some people to rule over others and dictate to them their way of life, is fundamentally the same.

"Allah" is simply another name for God. I still prefer to be directly ruled by God than to be ruled by men, whether or not these men [wrongly] claim to know what God wants.

Thank you Yuyutsu,

In a democracy, we vote for our local members, and State representatives. They are, strictly speaking, our servants - they do not rule over us. Whichever party can form government, i.e. gain a majority in parliament, has the right to choose a prime minister. So our servants choose their 'first among equals'. That's democracy here, in its current form.

If you have a better system, one which benefits the majority of the population, you are welcome to present it, so that we all can assess it, criticise it, modify it, etc. I look forward to the day when Muslims - and Hindus, for that matter - can thoroughly assess, criticise and modify their own models of how a society should be governed, and not be told what to think as if they are small chilxdfren.

As for your particular god, you are welcome to worship whatever you like, but insofar as governance and representation affect all of us down here in the real world, that really is irrelevant to the rest of us: if you put that to one side, the question remains: how can we improve on democracy ? And any of the other 'Western' values that we try to live by ?

And if you are not interested in living in this thing called 'society', I hear that Andamooka is quite balmy at this time of year. 42 or so. Maybe Booligal and Wiluna as well. There's a lot of empty country out there.

Thanks again, Yuyutsu

Dear Joe,

Thank you for suggesting Andamooka, Booligal and Wiluna.

However, my personal life is not the issue. As for my personal convenience, my private grievances are minor and I could be quite happy to live in society, but my problem is of a moral nature:

WHAT RIGHT HAVE I TO BENEFIT FROM BEING A MEMBER OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO FORCE THEMSELVES OVER OTHERS?

(suffice if there is only one such other and it's not me)

So to answer your challenge on how to improve on democracy, what is essentially called for is to allow people to opt out of society (without being forced to leave their homes as a result).

As I'm aware of your probable next question, let me note in advance that this does not prevent society from defending itself against those who leave it, should the leavers threaten them physically - but not if they don't.

Next if I may, I can contribute another improvement:

Let voting not be that easy. Let's introduce some moderate hurdle that people must pass in order to vote, such a hurdle that anyone could pass (without an enduring pain or loss) if they really cared about election results, but which one who is more or less apathetic would not bother to get through.

This will prevent donkey and random votes; or uninformed votes; or blind votes based on others' exhortations; or votes based on petty personal profits.

It is wrong that votes by a majority which doesn't care much either way, outweigh the plight of minorities for whom certain laws or policies could be the equivalent of a death-sentence.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I think I can see where you're coming from. The problem would be how to extricate yourself from socially-provided roads, water and sewerage systems, electricity provision, health and education services, retail businesses, banking and insurance, and so on. Libraries too, and the internet: honestly, could you and I live without OLO ?

Most of us, I'm sure, wonder sometimes what it would be like to live totally on one's own (or maybe it's just me), not bothered by anybody, a few chooks, a vegetable garden, a couple of cows ...... Then I get a craving for a Flat White and poof ! the bubbler bursts.

Yes, voting procedures should be re-assessed: the voting age should be put up, rather than down, maybe to twenty five when people gain some measure of maturity. Maybe enrolment should be voluntary, at least for those younger than twenty five. But once enrolled to vote, it should be compulsory.

Society is a complicated beast: we need to call on its services not just when we are in trouble but just for company; but those expectations impose obligations on us to come to others' aid in return, and provide social support when it is needed.

Democracy is modern society's unruly child, and yet its creator as well. Imperfect, as it always will be (for a perfect society, see: Utopia; unchangeable blueprint; fascism), democracy is still immeasurably better than any other form of government, if only because it gives us all chance to choose our representatives.

Yes, the process of choosing those reps is deeply flawed, a party-elite system; politics is like horse-trading, with someone to clean up afterwards. But constant surveillance by the people, vigilance in holding the system to its principles - in which the protection of minorities should be central: that's our job, and always will be.

Best wishes,

Joe

Loudmouth
"So let's be honest: what does 'true' Islam stand for ? That Allah owns all the world, that his will must sooner or later be extended over all the world, by one means or another, that men and women are most certainly not equal, that extermination is an option for non-believers and the only way to 'live in peace', to 'share all the world', is if all humanity either surrenders (submits, conforms, whatever nicer word you like to use) to Islam or is exterminated. Except, of course, young women, who must serve the angels of Islam while they still have their looks."

Loudmouth wants to be a part of the problem, rather than the solution.

Let's be honest, as you say, and explain that his description relates to ISIS. ISIS could not be exterminating and enslaving people like the Yazidi and other minorities if they had not been living there in the first place. The reason they are living there is because they were protected by various Muslim rulers and Islam which respects other religions and allows them to practice freely. ISIS are killing Muslims who do not ascribe to their ideology. I, as a Muslim, would be killed if i was there. Boko Haram has been on a killing spree in including 40 people in a mosque in Nigeria! These are Muslims standing for the same values that Loadmouth ascribes to the Western enlightenment (values that in fact were derived from Islamic influences) . Loudmouth in fact is not being honest.

Thank you, Grateful.

When you write, "These are Muslims standing for the same values that Loudmouth ascribes to the Western enlightenment....", I applaud them for doing so. But, with respect, I query your proviso that "(values that in fact were derived from Islamic influences)."

Can you indicate where there might be any evidence of Enlightenment values in Islam before the current period: and in particular, Islamic influences from which enlightenment values in the West may have been derived ?

But when you suggest that "... ISIS could not be exterminating and enslaving people like the Yazidi and other minorities if they had not been living there in the first place. The reason they are living there is because they were protected by various Muslim rulers... ", do you realise how fascist that sounds ? I don't mean former Muslim rulers but about ISIS ?

Are you then suggesting that ISIS are a bunch of Islamic fascists ? If so, I fully agree. And yet, they claim to be following the Koran to the letter, isn't that so ?

That the Yazidis would not be getting exterminated if they weren't there in the first place. Wow. I'm still not sure how to take that. Are you suggesting that it is somehow the Yazidis' fault that their women are being shot and enslaved ? And their men and boys being shot as well ? They shouldn't have been there anyway ? Surely you are not suggesting this ?

Joe

"Are you then suggesting that ISIS are a bunch of Islamic fascists ? If so, I fully agree. And yet, they claim to be following the Koran to the letter, isn't that so ?

That the Yazidis would not be getting exterminated if they weren't there in the first place. Wow. I'm still not sure how to take that. Are you suggesting that it is somehow the Yazidis' fault that their women are being shot and enslaved ? And their men and boys being shot as well ? They shouldn't have been there anyway ? Surely you are not suggesting this ?"

Why the cheap shots? Do you need a hug? We should be on the same page, supporting the same values, despite differences of opinion about God, except for the fact that your trying to foster hatred to my family and my Muslim community.

As for role of Islam in the Enlightenment, I presume you would agree there would never have been the Enlightenment without something called the "scientific method".

There are a number of references available, some of which are conveniently listed here: http://www.twf.org/Library/Renaissance.html

For an idea of just how profound the influence has been, I offer the following from: The ISLAMIC FOUNDATION OF THE RENAISSANCE by Hugh Bibbs (source: http://www.medievalhistory.net/scientia.htm).

He writes:
"The Muslim expansion into Spain in A.D.1085 brought with it a new world view and new learning previously unknown in Europe, such as the technology of papermaking. The scholars of Islam in Spain also brought with them a vast body of empirical studies in natural science developed by generations of men from traditions ancient and contemporary who all spoke from outside of the narrow world view of the Catholic Church articulated by St. Augustine of Hippo.

Included in the Arabic libraries were a fully developed mathematics of physics and astronomy, and the ancient Greek medical texts of Hippocrates and Galen, as well as the entire body of Aristotle's writings. The Arabs massive written record of non-Christian discussion included new ideas supported by incontrovertible proofs of evidence or logic, and some of these valid new ideas contradicted outright their corollary forms as taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

The recovery of this ancient learning, supplemented by what the Arabs had gained from the Orient and from their own observations, constituted the intellectual rebirth of Europe. The Theocentric world view of Europe was further shaken throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as the Europeans who went east to fight in the crusades discovered for themselves that their infidels had a higher civilisation. The Muslims had hospitals, sewers, irrigation, and for battle, heavy artillery in the form of great iron cross bows. In debate, the Muslims were more sensible, with their background in Aristotle. For Europeans, it was the worst form of culture shock: the discovery of their own backwardness."

Alternatively, if you prefer docos, then there is this BBC Documentary: ISLAM's contribution to Europe and Influence to European Renaissance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nznATCvo5Y

Grateful, just a few points, sewers were in use in Rome & other Roman
cities much earlier than perhaps you realised. Also running water for
the citizens use by means of the aquaducts and piping was in use long
before Islam existed.

I have been puzzled by the scientific advance that occurred in Spain
during the occupation.
As we see it now, the damage to moslem DNA because of the inbreeding
since Allah permitted (or before ?)the marriage of cousins has
resulted in a 13% incidence of genetic problems greater than the rest of the population.

Is it possible that the North African moslems that invaded Spain did
not practise cousin marriage ?

Hi Grateful,

I don't think that Democritus or Hippocrates or Galen were Muslim ? In short, the scientific method was known and practised by Greek scientists, Archimedes for example, a thousand years before any Muslim existed. For logic, perhaps Heraclitus, around 1100 years before Islam, and certainly Aristotle some 200 years later.

What someone picks up from a scroll or book in a library is not necessarily what they have devised themselves, they're merely passing it on. As Bibbs points out in your quote, it was 'recovery' rather than origination.

I think paper-making may have been invented in China or South-East Asia: the Polynesians used to beat out mulberry bark into 'tapa' cloth and decorate it with beautiful designs, thousands of years ago.

From faulty memory, I recall that Mohenjo-Daro, in the Indus Valley, was a city with sewers (and flush toilets), some four thousand years ago. Maybe Angkor as well. Perhaps those cities with sewers had them already before they were invaded by the Muslims.

And certainly, many, many societies had irrigation systems long, long before Islam - the Sumerians in lower Mesopotamia perhaps as early as 3000 BC - indeed, perhaps all of the 'pagan' societies of the Fertile Crescent; the ancient Indians in the five rivers maybe four or five thousand years ago.

Angkor, again: its whole raison d'etre was its irrigation systems.

Certainly the Romans did, perhaps the Mayans.

And of course, the Nabataeans around Petra, a thousand years before Islam.

Perhaps even some New Guinean groups in the Highlands.

And of course, the Chinese, maybe five or even six thousand years ago.

Perhaps even many of the oasis economies across Arabia and north Africa, and long before Islam ever got going.

Hi Bazz,

My understanding is that the Muslims who invaded Spain under Gibr-ul-Tariq were mostly Berber, 'Moors', which has tended to mean that north-western corner of Africa ever since the region was a Roman province.

You learn so much on OLO !

Joe

grateful, don't confuse mathematical proof with support for a hypothesis and Aristotle did not arrive to his views with the scientific method but by train of thought. Where is Islamic introspection now, or in history? It has never opened itself to interrogation.

What we need, grateful, is muslims like you to loudly denounce ISIS' actions and to expose any part of the community that is influenced towards action here on its behalf or is preaching to incite violence here. In return, you will receive the respect and protection you need from the community. Start by speaking out against the comments of the Grand Mufti.

Troops and bombs against ISIS over there will not provide us security here at home. Only our muslim community can do that. Please help by your actions rather than your argument.

Good grief, I forgot the Egyptians ! They've been irrigating - does anybody remember the shaduf, from school, a means of lifting water up to higher and higher levels, before Archimedes' screw ? Brilliant ! - for at least six thousand years, Africans irrigating their crops every year from the Nile, nearly five thousand years before any Muslims saw their first irrigation channel and marvelled.

I'm waiting for the Grand Mufti to say, unambiguously, that ISIS are the murderers, the assassins, the thugs, doing the killing in Paris and Beirut and northern Nigeria. And in Egypt. And in Turkey. Not just to express grief and sorrow, but to express it for the victims, i.e. the victims of ISIS. Otherwise it's all just tuqqiya. Similarly Waleed Aly.

By gee, there ain't half been some clever bastards. Always just a tiny baby-step ahead of the pack.

My questions about the relationship between Muslims, ISIS and the Yazidis were just that: questions. They shouldn't have been where they were ? So is it their fault they're getting exterminated as we speak/write/read ? But they have been in what is now northern Iraq and N-E Syria since long before Christ was in nappies, bothering no-one.

Joe

Dear Joe,

A few chooks, a vegetable garden and a couple of cows is just one option. It should also be possible to form alternate societies of various sizes.

Now I am not saying that it is in fact necessary to split society: rather, the fact that it is possible to do so is the best safeguard against tyranny, including the tyranny of a democratic majority.

Also, once it is possible to opt out, I would no longer have a moral issue with society as it stands, so most likely I will stay in it happily. Still I would continue to work from within and suggest different tweaks of improvement like I just did, regarding voting.

You seem to suggest that people over 25 are necessarily responsible voters: clearly they are on average more responsible than those under 25, but many still have no particularly strong preferences. Why should those who don't care much either way be, on account of a technicality, imposing a certain way of life on others for which the same issues that they care little about make a world of differences?

---

Dear Grateful,

Thank you - I really enjoyed and was impressed by the lecture of Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi.

It's a clear and authoritative Fatwa against Daesh in particular and terror in general. I wish more people - both Muslims and non-Muslims will have a chance to see it.

//Are you then suggesting that ISIS are a bunch of Islamic fascists ? If so, I fully agree. And yet, they claim to be following the Koran to the letter, isn't that so ?//

Yeah, and runner claims to be following the Bible to the letter. Claiming to follow something and actually following aren't the same thing, are they?

"What we need, grateful, is muslims like you to loudly denounce ISIS' actions and to expose any part of the community that is influenced towards action here on its behalf or is preaching to incite violence here. In return, you will receive the respect and protection you need from the community. Start by speaking out against the comments of the Grand Mufti."

No Mr. Luciferase, what we need is for people like you to overcome your prejudices. You have no reason to believe that ISIS represents Islam or that I am a supporter of Islam, and yet you make these assertions based on what? Based on the claims of the criminals you think i have a special obligation to condemn. Go jump!

Islam is not responsible or accountable for these peoples actions nor am i.

Yuyutsu watched the lecture by Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, a real scholar in Islam and his response was "It's a clear and authoritative Fatwa against Daesh in particular and terror in general. I wish more people - both Muslims and non-Muslims will have a chance to see it."

In case you missed it, this is the lecture:
"Refuting ISIS" by Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi
http://masud.co.uk/refuting-isis-shaykh-muhammad-al-yaqoubi/

Correction: You have no reason to believe that ISIS represents Islam or that I am a supporter of ISIS

Hi Grateful,

I can appreciate the dilemma that you face, that a vile group like ISIS is acting in the name of Islam, and that it can 'justify' its vile actions by reference to the Koran. Yes, as you suggest, it most certainly is not acting on behalf of all Muslims, who can also cite the Koran to support THEIR points of view. You have my sympathy.

All books of belief are compilations made at different times and in different circumstances, so there are bound to be inconsistencies and even contradictions within them. I suppose a believer has to carefully select what he or she wants to use as a guide, and what he or she wants to either ignore or reject. Such personal struggles must be painful and full of regrets, and the tension between an outward, public appearance and an inner, personal conviction must be enormous.

Best wishes,

Joe

Joe,

You and Bazz provide a very unusual response to my previous post. Originally i had stated: "These are Muslims standing for the same values that Loadmouth ascribes to the Western enlightenment (values that in fact were derived from Islamic influences)"
You responded with a question:

"Can you indicate where there might be any evidence of Enlightenment values in Islam before the current period: and in particular, Islamic influences from which enlightenment values in the West may have been derived ?"

I responded with a ranges of references and one quote to indicate the fundamental influence of Islamic scholarship, but then you and Bazz start arguing, in your words, that "the scientific method was known and practiced by Greek scientists, Archimedes for example, a thousand years before any Muslim existed."

so what...You totally missed the point of your own question! Without a leg to stand on or willingness to acknowledge well established fact, you and Bazz instead decided to set up your own strawman.

Joe
The problem is not whether I interpret the Koran differently from another. The problem stems from those who interpret the Koran and issue fatwas without the scholarly authority to do so, just as you would not want medical treatment from anyone other than those with the proper training.

To have authority to speak means to have ijaza in a particular field of study: they are authorised by their teacher who is in turn authorised by his teacher and so on down to the companions of the Prophet. They can show you the chain of teachers (sisila) leading back to the Prophet. As al-Yaquobi states, Islam is not something you get from books, it is oral from someone who has both the authority and the spiritual state to pass on the knowledge. Yet as Muhamoud al-Yaquobi points out these ISIS guys are making up their own fatwas without regard to mainstream Islam and scholars.

You need to watched the lecture by Muhamoud al-Yaquobi, as well as study the teachings of Islam from real scholars, to have any idea of the issues involved. You'll be able to gain a better understanding from the articles and talks at the same website(http://masud.co.uk/). You might also visit Sheikh Nuh’s website, where you’ll find excerpts from his recorded lessons covering a wide range of issues (http://untotheone.com/) include an A-Z index on the homepage. Courses that will give you direct exposure to the teaching of Islam can be found here https://www.qibla.com/

As for your remarks about inconsistency: A cheap shot but I'll treat this as a positive sign. Although you are not yet willing to undergo the fundamental paradigm shift required to accept certain facts about Islam (based solely on the research of non-Muslim scholars), you're at least becoming aware that a problem exists with your view of the world. Otherwise why would you feel so compelled create a non-issue about who invented what first in a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging well-established facts.... or rely on cheap shots?

You need to do a lot more research.

Greatfull,
Straw men, hmm.
My question about why there was an intellectual surge amongst moslems
in Spain during the occupation ?
Considering the custom of marrying cousins for several thousand years
why was it possible to have such a surge considering the high level of
genetic defects among moslems ?
I asked was it because the moslems that came from Nth West Africa did
not practise cousin marriage ?

Our health & education services are facing a problem with moslem
families here in Australia now. No one seems to be pushing for a ban
but it will take many generations to weed out the problem if it was banned now.

Hi Grateful,

I'm sorry but I don't understand your response. You claimed, "As for role of Islam in the Enlightenment, I presume you would agree there would never have been the Enlightenment without something called the "scientific method". "

And Bazz and I gave you examples of the conscious application by Greeks, well over a thousand years before Islam, of the 'scientific method'.

[I should add, by the way, that I am glad to acknowledge the contributions that Islamic (both Sunni and Shi'ite) and Jewish scholars made to retrieving, preserving, duplicating and disseminating many of the works of those early Greek scientists, across the Muslim and Indian worlds, and into Europe.]

So, what point did we miss ? You asserted something, we responded with information, now you assert again. Do you understand that time doesn't work backwards - that if (a) Greeks worked on the development of the scientific method a thousand or 1500 years BEFORE (b) Islamic and Jewish scholars passed it on (presumably in Spain?), then since (a) came BEFORE (b), it follows that Greek scientists were consciously using the scientific method, which is but one aspect of the forerunners of the Enlightenment, [I repeat: 'forerunners'], long BEFORE any Islamic scholars, and perhaps even before any Jewish or Indian scholars either.

Other Enlightenment values, hard fought for and painfully and slowly developed (and still in process), include freedoms of expression and of belief, the universal brotherhood of all human beings regardless of belief, the universal equality of men and women, and of all people regardless of class, belief or ethnicity: what you might call, for short: liberty, fraternity and equality. Can you give us any examples of early Islamic scholarship in these fields ?

Thank you,

Joe

"You have no reason to believe that ISIS represents Islam or that I am a supporter of ISIS"...."and yet you make these assertions based on what?"

Speaking of straw-men, I didn't make that assertion. I assert that only Muslims can deliver us true security against jihadism. I've no doubt some are quietly working at it, but we need more loudly proclaiming their opposition to jihad and exhorting their co-religionists to expose it and to follow a peaceful path, particularly the young. We don't need any more assertions about peaceful Islam, we need action.

I watched your linked video and it made me happy thank you, but this was posted elsewhere: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8860.htm

What are you doing about this other than spruiking Islam? The Muslim community is virtually impenetrable to outsiders, so we rely on it to solve our problem. Please do your bit and exhort other Muslims to do the same. If you feel unsafe you will get police protection.

Please, somebody help. All we're getting is stupid Grand Mufti statements that are clarified, then re-clarified, but never outright condemnation or a call to Oz muslims to attack the problem root and branch, as does the editor of the Iraqi Daily. That man is a courageous, and you should follow his lead, grateful instead of jerking your knee.

Loudmouth summed up your dilemma well, but it could have been said in two words, cognitive dissonance.

Hi Luciferase.

It's interesting how some Muslims argue, isn't it ? They take your words, twist or misquote them, and then blame you for creating a straw-man. A bit childish, the sort of 'arguing' that a smart-arse teenager would use, but sometimes quite entertaining.

I agree with you, except on one point, when you suggest that 'The Muslim community is virtually impenetrable to outsiders, so we rely on it to solve our problem.'

No, I don't think it is, in the first instance, OUR problem - it certainly may become our problem if it's not resolved, but its resolution is primarily the obligation of Muslims. As you also point out, there is not much non-Muslims can do except offer our love, compassion and understanding to those courageous Muslims who want to root out Islamo-fascism, and in the longer term reform Islam, and live peacefully with their fellow-Australians.

I'm trying to read some Koranic verses every day at random, and these came up today, from a surah called 'The Bee'
[on http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html ]:

'[16.25] That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear.

[16.26] Those before them did indeed devise plans, but Allah demolished their building from the foundations, so the roof fell down on them from above them, and the punishment came to them from whence they did not perceive.

[16.27] Then on the resurrection day He will bring them to disgrace and say: Where are the associates you gave Me, for whose sake you became hostile? Those who are given the knowledge will say: Surely the disgrace and the evil are this day upon the unbelievers:'

I'm trying to interpret them: is it foretelling the French demolition of buildings in Raqqa, I wonder ?

Another verse tomorrow :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe wrote
"[I should add, by the way, that I am glad to acknowledge the contributions that Islamic (both Sunni and Shi'ite) and Jewish scholars made to retrieving, preserving, duplicating and disseminating many of the works of those early Greek scientists, across the Muslim and Indian worlds, and into Europe.] "

From W. Montgommery Watt The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe

“In speaking of Arab achievements in science and philosophy, the important question to ask is: ‘how far were the Arabs transmitters of what the Greeks had discovered and how far did they make original contributions?’ Many Europeans seem to approach the subject with some prejudice against the Arabs. Even some of those who praise them do so grudgingly. … It is clearly difficult to give a balanced assessment of the scientific achievements of the Arabs when one becomes aware of the prejudice against them - which is doubtlessly linked to the distorted image of Islam.”pp16-17

“Certainly, it was in the twelfth century that European scholars interested in science and philosophy came to appreciate how much they had to learn from the Arabs and set about studying Arabic works in these disciplines and translating the chief of them into Latin.” p. 58

“Arabic thought provided European thought with new materials and brought within its purview a whole new world of metaphysics. All strands of European thought had to take cognizance of the translations from Arabic.” p.69

cont..

cont...

“When one keeps hold of all the facets of the medieval confrontation of Christianity and Islam, it is clear that the influence of Islam on western Christendom is greater than is usually realized. Not merely did Islam share with Western Europe many material products and technological discoveries; not merely did it stimulate Europe intellectually in the fields of science and philosophy; but it provoked Europe into forming a new image of itself. Because Europe was reacting against Islam, it belittled the influence of the Saracens and exaggerated its dependence on its Greek and Roman heritage. So, today an important task for us western Europeans, as we move into the era of the one world, is to correct this false emphasis and to acknowledge fully our debt to the Arab and Islamic world.” p. 83

Joe wrote:
"Other Enlightenment values, hard fought for and painfully and slowly developed (and still in process), include freedoms of expression and of belief, the universal brotherhood of all human beings regardless of belief, the universal equality of men and women, and of all people regardless of class, belief or ethnicity: what you might call, for short: liberty, fraternity and equality. Can you give us any examples of early Islamic scholarship in these fields ?"

A very important question. I will need time ... perhaps the the next week or so to provide the examples you are requesting.

For the moment, let me offer you the following statement from Marcel A. Boisard, "Humanism in Islam", pp77-78, for reflection.

"The principle of equality is the cornerstone of the Islamic social edifice; it has fashioned the construction thereof. History clearly shows that Islam managed to develop a homogeneous and integrated society without classes, in which the claim of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" (the main motivations of the revolts of the West) could not have stirred up true feelings since it did not fulfill a real need. The basic principle of absolute equality of all men brings into focus the other two terms of the slogan -- fraternity and liberty --by encompassing, or more exactly, transcending them."

Joe wrote:
"
I'm trying to interpret them: is it foretelling the French demolition of buildings in Raqqa, I wonder ?

Another verse tomorrow :)
"

I'll look forward to it and encourage others to do the same. For a scholar, the next step would be to provide evidence in support of your interpretation.

Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubihad holds some notion that non-Muslims should have been over the moon, during the Ottoman empire, at being allowed to maintain their religion provided they submitted to being second-class citizens, taxation, and having their sons removed and turned into Muslim soldiers (the millet system). One doesn't need an imagination to know what the alternative was.

What equality, fraternity and liberty wass this? Oh well, it was a change to the conquest and plunder economy of the preceding caliphates, but being Armenian wasn't too good for one's health.

Now, let's all put back on our rose-coloured glasses and have grateful continue to lead us on his scholarly reverie.

How about doing something useful, grateful, like leading/joining your community in root and branch change towards peace. Spruiking Islam can wait.

Hi Grteful,

Today's random verses, from 'The Cleaving':

82.13] Most surely the righteous are in bliss,
[82.14] And most surely the wicked are in burning fire,
[82.15] They shall enter it on the day of judgment.

Sorry, not very illuminating, except to point out the extreme binarism, either-or, of so many early or primitive religious texts, and not just Islamic either. Manichaeism was an early Christian heresy, for example. In the modern world, (and possibly always), there is often a multitude of nuanced alternatives, not just (a) or (b), and that dilemma (polylemma?) forces us to try to understand a situation as fully as possible, rather than just accept somebody's word for it - i.e. to think for ourselves. That's a lifelong quest, of course :)

I wasn't really serious about those other verses predicting the bombing of Raqqa, by the way. I don't believe in prediction. But I suppose it would be consoling to know that Allah would call down such punishment for ISIS, and join the international coalition against it, wouldn't it ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Random verses from the Koran for today (from 'The Clans'):

[33.26] And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took captive another part.

[33.27] And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.

[33.28] O Prophet! say to your wives: If you desire this world's life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing

[33.29] And if you desire Allah and His Apostle and the latter abode, then surely Allah has prepared for the doers of good among you a mighty reward.

[33.30] O wives of the prophet! whoever of you commits an open indecency, the punishment shall be increased to her doubly; and this IS easy to Allah.

Perhaps the context is necessary.

These passages seem to lurch from an account of attacks on Jews to remonstrances to women, particularly Muhammad's wives. A cut-and-paste job ?

By the way, here is a list of abrogations, verses which replace earlier verses:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrogations_in_the_Qur%27an

For example, this one:

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

is replaced by this one:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); ...

More tomorrow, if anyone's interested.

Joe

Loudmouth,
That last bit you quoted seems to prohibit moslems to marrying
their cousins. Banned that is except for the Prophet.
So do a very large number of moslems live in sin ?
Very strange. Sauce for the goose ---

Hi Bazz,

Do you mean by

"this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); ..."

that the prophet was to have access to women for whom he had paid their dowers, and women seized in war, as well as his female cousins (on both sides) but that nobody else was to have these privileges ?

Nobody else ? That passage does seem to confirm what you suggest. After all, it says it in a book. But perhaps learned scholars could interpret 'this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); ...' to mean for the Believers as well ? Otherwise, ......

Cheers,

Joe

Well Joe why do the words "only" & "not" appear ?
I guess someone would have to look at the original Arabic.

Bazz

I don't know, Bazz, maybe if a person is a wise and deep scholar, they can easily explain that 'not' means its opposite, and 'only for thee' means for anybody who reaches some level of goodness or achievement, or has no 12-year-old slave girls of his own.

Ours not to reason why: questioning, analysing - or 'deconstructing' - can be too dangerous.

Joe

Hmmm, if "not" can be construed to mean "not not" they have to be a politician.

Hi Bazz,

Today's random verses, from 'The Rock':

[15.87] And certainly We have given you seven of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.

[15.88] Do not strain your eyes after what We have given certain classes of them to enjoy, and do not grieve for them, and make yourself gentle to the believers.

[15.89] And say: Surely I am the plain warner.

Fascinating: a book that refers to itself. A bit like Henry V exhorting his troops,

O my brave men of England, never need you to fear,
While you can peruse at leisure, the works of Shakespeare.
Set aside the doggerel of Webster, Jonson or even Milton:
Will's star bright shines while all those others are wiltin'.

Too anachronistic ?

Verses 88 and 89 have been abrogated by the 'Verse of the sword":

'But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.'

I don't know how that abrogation works: the original Koran is supposed to be the unchangeable word from the mouth of Allah, yet can be abrogated. By 'learned scholars', I presume. But if these verses can, then why not others ?

The threat of more tomorrow, with the slightest encouragement.

Joe

Hi Joe,
You requested "early Islamic scholarship" in relation to "freedoms of expression and of belief, the universal brotherhood of all human beings regardless of belief, the universal equality of men and women, and of all people regardless of class, belief or ethnicity: what you might call, for short: liberty, fraternity and equality.

I apologies for my delayed response. The first thing that came to mind in this regard was the Prophet's Last Sermon and the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai.

The Last Sermon touched upon trust and accountability; financial obligations; riba (interest); treatment of wives; brotherhood; opposition to racial discrimination.

I've selected two of these:

Treatment of wives:

"O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you.  Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under a trust from God and with His permission.  If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness.  Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers.  And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste."

From <http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/523/prophet-muhammad-s-last-sermon/>

Note: the right to be "fed and clothed" by the husband is irrespective of the wealth of the wife. She has no financial obligation toward the support of the household.

Superiority of one human over another is not base on race or skin but their closeness to Allah:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve.  An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white; [none have superiority over another] except by piety and good action."

From <http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/523/prophet-muhammad-s-last-sermon/

More to come...

The Prophet personally granted a Covenant to the Monks of Mount Sinai affirming rights and privileges to the monastery, including freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property.

The covenant has been reaffirmed by Muslim rulers throughout history and recently confirmed by scholars (recent evidence: http://www.lastprophet.info/covenant-of-the-prophet-muhammad-with-the-monks-of-mt-sinai>)

Here is an English translation of the charter.

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them.

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

ISIS has violated every item of the the covenant! They are therefore not followers of the Prophet or Islam.

Joe wrote:

"The threat of more tomorrow, with the slightest encouragement. "

Please, i encourage you.

However, at least two issues that arise from your approach. Firstly, you are quoting the English which is itself an interpretation. Secondly, you are not offering evidence for interpretations or sources for any commentary you offer.

With more time I'll provide examples.

Thank you Grateful,

I have to admit that I was thinking about the Yazidi women of Sinjar, reading your quote about the treatment of women.

So I'm very relieved to read that you consider ISIS not to be following any of the teachings of the Koran. Of course, they may disagree with you, but that's a disagreement within Islam, and for Muslims to resolve. But I do like this verse, to the extent that I can understand it fully:

[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men;

I'm still a little worried:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white; [none have superiority over another] except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood."

Again, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement, not really, that all people, Muslim AND non-Muslim, deserve equal concern: what happens if one is 'outside' the brotherhood ?

I try to take the Good Samaritan as a true guide.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, you ask "Again, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement, not really, that all people, Muslim AND non-Muslim, deserve equal concern: what happens if one is 'outside' the brotherhood ? "

Your question is addressed directly in the following statement from one of the most eminent Muslim scholars alive today: Shaykh Abdallah bib Bayyah (bio: http://binbayyah.net/english/bio/)

"Love in Human Rights

By activating the values of noble character – and not just human rights, which represent the bare minimum essential for human coexistence – like clemency, compassion and altruism, solidarity, helping the poor and disabled without regard to race, religion or national origin – we would advance a new concept or understanding of humanity beyond the neutral principle of human rights represented by equality and an ‘indifference to difference’. Such an advancement would create positive interactions and cooperation with the other thereby creating a feeling of warmth, love and fellowship. This runs according to the wisdom of Arab proverb: Treat others as you want to be treated. The Prophetic hadith alludes to an even deeper meaning: ‘None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.’

The hadith adds that the value of ‘love’ and the value of ‘human brotherhood’ is that one feels the bonds of kinship. This interpretation is not by me for the occasion. Scholars centuries ago such as Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali in his explanation of Shabrakhiti’s ‘Forty Hadith’ said that the hadith on ‘brotherhood’ is in fact an expression of the fellowship of humanity.

Love is a beautiful value because everyone likes to be loved; rarely could you find a man who would like to find that others hate him. It is ironic that some fight others on the grounds that they do not like them, thereby missing the point. If love is realised from both sides aggression is excluded. Love is an emotion and a behaviour, it is also an announcement and declaration; as is related in the hadith: ‘If one of you loves his brother, tell him so.’

cont....

cont...

Why is it a value? Because all people admire it, even those who do not exhibit its way; and thus is the criterion of value: that it does not please anyone except s/he who is characterise by it, for no one is pleased except that one is fair, forgiving. Yet these values may wither if not undertaken and developed by education. As the poet says :
‘Ethics sprout forth like the plants – if watered by the water of honour’

If this important value is to be a key to solving the world’s problems, we must respect differences and even love differences such that they are perceived as enrichment, beauty and foundations for the formation of the human complex.

It is in our best interests with respect to difference and the promotion of virtue – the law of virtue – as well as human rights law that we create a basis for the activation of shared values in order that difference becomes harmonious and antagonism becomes love, in accordance with the Quran: ‘Repel evil with what is better. Then see: the one between whom and you there was enmity has become a bosom friend’ (Quran: al-Fussilat, verse 34). It is a moral law evidenced by the Quran: beneficence brings about beneficence, love begets love.

Can we hope to develop aspects of goodness and of the human values of shared benevolence? Only our virtuous behaviour, tolerance, generosity, sincerity, loyalty, and trust will convince others to treat us with the same noble conduct. Such a person will be one who bears the same admiration of those values because good calls for good, nobility calls for nobility. Our persuasion of the other by good behaviour is the most important human issue. To quote from Plato: ‘The creation of the world is the victory of persuasion over force.’

cont...

cont...

The value of humans consists in their ability to persuade, to convince and be convinced by the manifestations of various methods that can be replaced one over another; some are better and some are worse, and civilisation maintains social order by an innate persuasion, which is embodied in choosing the best."

http://binbayyah.net/english/2013/09/14/love-in-human-rights/

Thank you Grateful,

So are you suggesting that all those verses in the Koran about the killing of unbelievers, etc. are to be set aside ? That one can interpret prescriptions of the Koran to suit one's personal beliefs ?

As a kafir, I'm happy to hear it :)

On the other hand, I have read that some Muslim 'authorities' consider atheists, such as myself, to be terrorists. Are you suggesting that they are mistaken ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,
I'm suggesting that we both not follow the path of ISIS followers and interpret the Koran according to our own understanding or take the literalist approach of the Salafis, because we do not have the qualifications.

Certainly read the Koran, interpret it and pose questions. But seek confirmation of your interpretations from those who are in a position to support their interpretation with evidence.

Your "random selections" (and be honest were they truly randomly selected from the Koran?) and the interpretations you offered were meaningless due to the absence of evidence to support your interpretations, being quoted out of context and the fact that we are reading the original Arabic text.

You "threatened" more verses. I'm waiting.

Corrections (Sorry, the original was written in haste)

Hi Joe,
I'm suggesting that we both not follow the path of ISIS followers and interpret the Koran according to our own understanding or take the literalist approach of the Salafis. We do not have the qualifications to interpret the Koran on own.

Certainly read the Koran, interpret it and pose questions. But seek confirmation of your interpretations from those who are in a position to support their interpretation with evidence.

Your "random selections" (and be honest were they truly randomly selected from the Koran?) and the interpretations you offered were meaningless due to the absence of evidence to support your interpretations, being quoted out of context and the fact that we are NOT reading the original Arabic text.

You "threatened" more verses. I'm waiting.

Hi Grateful,

Yes those verses were chosen at random, actually with my eyes closed.

No, I won't bother being told by some hot-shot what it all means, because frankly I don't really care: as far as I am concerned, the Koran is a book written by men. The hadiths are of course written by men. And it has all been written to keep people in line, with being told not to think for themselves, but to do what they're told.

I will try to make up my own mind what is happening in the world - I will get my basic input from the ABC, SBS, the Australian, the Guardian, whatever is around - and I'll make up my own mind accordingly. And no, the Koran probably won't be on my reading list, except for a bit of light relief. Such as this, from Luqman:

[31.26] What is in the heavens and the earth is Allah's; surely Allah is the Self-sufficient, the Praised.
[31.27] And were every tree that is in the earth (made into) pens and the sea (to supply it with ink), with seven more seas to increase it, the words of Allah would not come to an end; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[31.28] Neither your creation nor your raising is anything but as a single soul; surely Allah is Hearing, Seeing.

Does this mean that there are more Korans to come ? Maybe many more ? But only one every 1400 years ?

No, I don't understand any of the rest of it. And I don't really give a toss. Life is too short to waste on such stuff.

[TBC]

[continued]

One thing that's bugged me, more about Christian church services really: if people believe that god is so brilliant, that he can create this and that with a click of his fingers, then what's the point of praising him ? He has unlimited power. He uses it. End of. It didn't cost him anything. And frankly, he's done some dumb things, so why all the sucking-up and endless, endless bloody praise for something which was effectively just a click of the fingers, no great effort. Monty Python probably got it right.

And of course, if he's lived forever, how come it took him so long to create the world, etc. ? Out of billions of years, he waits around and aits around until the last six thousand. Or 1400, according to the Koran, presumably. He must have got terribly bored in all that time. perhaps with as million species of beetles, he needed time tov think out how that would work. And all those mosquitoes. And blow-flies: why did he invent blow-flies ? He certainly loved insects.

You really are wasting your one and only life, Grateful, on this rubbish. Nothing comes after, so do what you have to do here on earth as best you can, for your fellow human beings. If you do that right, you'll live on, in people's memories. That's as good as it gets.

Joe

Joe, i love you mate (for the sake of Allah :-) ).

First,

"No, I don't understand any of the rest of it. And I don't really give a toss. Life is too short to waste on such stuff."

..but you spend an inordinate amount of time talking about God! Why?

"And of course, if he's lived forever, how come it took him so long to create the world, etc. ? Out of billions of years, he waits around and aits around until the last six thousand. Or 1400, according to the Koran, presumably. He must have got terribly bored in all that time. perhaps with as million species of beetles, he needed time tov think out how that would work. And all those mosquitoes. And blow-flies: why did he invent blow-flies ? He certainly loved insects. "

The Qur'an was first revealed over 1400 years ago, in 610 AD. The Qur'an is silent on when the Earth was formed. As for Allah "waiting around" and getting "terribly bored" He created time.

"One thing that's bugged me, more about Christian church services really: if people believe that god is so brilliant, that he can create this and that with a click of his fingers, then what's the point of praising him ? He has unlimited power. He uses it. End of. It didn't cost him anything. And frankly, he's done some dumb things, so why all the sucking-up and endless, endless bloody praise for something which was effectively just a click of the fingers, no great effort. Monty Python probably got it right."

Short answer: He is the only one worthy of praise!

" Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the Merciful Compassionate, Possessor of the Judgment Day! Thee do we Worship and of Thee do we ask aid!" (Koran, 1:2-5)

A believer will naturally be grateful that he is a believer for whom he has no-one to thank but Allah. However, this raises the question of predestination and choice. To understand the Muslim perspective in this regard I've give you a quote from "Reliance of the Traveller", classical manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary and Appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Min Keller, pp813-814

"To believe in "destiny, its good and evil" means to be convinced that Allah Most High has ordained both good and evil before creating creation, and all that has been and all that will be only exists through Allah's decree, foreordinance, and will. Early Muslims used to answer whoever asked about destiny by saying, "It is knowing that what hits you was not going to miss, and what misses you was not going to hit.

TBC..

continued..

"As for Allah creating acts, we believe that the real doer of everything is Allah. He is the one who burns, not the fire or the person who lighted the fire; He is the one who cuts, not the knife or the person holding the knife; He is the one who drowns a man, not the water or the person who threw him in, and so forth. Here, people always raise the question that if Allah Most High is the real doer, why are people held responsible? The answer is that Allah Most High does not hold people responsible for creating the act, but rather for choosing the act. One proof of this is that a person who cannot choose, is not held responsible, such as someone asleep, insane, a child, forced, unremembering, or someone who makes an honest mistake. The legal responsibility of such people is lifted because they lack full voluntary choice. Another proof is that Nimrod sinned for choosing to burn Ibrahim (upon whom be peace) even though Ibrahim did not burn (Koran, 21:69); and that Ibrahim (upon whom be peace) became the Friend of the All merciful for choosing to sacrifice his son out of obedience to Allah, even though the knife did not cut and his son was not sacrificed (Koran 37:105), all of this showing that the servant is held responsible for his choice,....

As for Allah's eternal pre-existent knowledge, we believe that Allah knows everything before, during, and after it is, and knows how it is when it occurs. But does the servant have access to this knowledge? Not at all. So the servant chooses to do acts on the basis of a desire within himself, not because he knows Allah's knowledge, and he is held responsible for this choice even though it corresponds with Allah's eternally preexistent knowledge."

TBC...

Hi Grateful,

One of the problems with an 'appeal to authority' is that it means nothing to anybody for whom that 'authority' is an idiot.

So what do YOU think, Grateful ? What have YOU made out of what you have read, experienced, seen, discussed - what makes sense to YOU ?

What we need is discussion, of ideas, not this silly quoting of some assumed 'authority'. And from hundreds of years ago, into the bargain: what on earth would her know about the modern world ? A bit like Nostradamus that some simple-minded Christians still believe in.

The logic of a supernatural being, with all sorts of powers, is that hypothetically effort must mean nothing to him or her. Snap the fingers and - hey presto ! the universe is created. So why should anybody think that the finger-snapper is entitled to any sort of praise for what comes so easily ? A believer needs only to accept and move on, no praising, praying, falling on one's knees, etc. If it came so easy, then thanks, mate, but so what ?

And another problem with the notion of a god or goddess having been around forever, a problem that believers throw at evolutionists and Big Bang theorists all the time, but which can be equally applied to their assumptions too - if everything needs a creator, who created her ? And in turn, who created HER ? And so on, gods and goddesses, all the way back for infinity. An infinite number of gods and goddesses, in fact. Does that mean that all those eternal beings, all the way back to infinity, are still there ? Is there a hierarchy of gods and goddesses, ranked by seniority ?

[TBC]

[continued]

Here's a simple question: would you believe in a god (or goddess) if there was no Paradise ? Nothing after a fair stretch of life on earth ? We live our lives, contribute as best we can, then that's it. No, I don't like the idea of dying, and forever, but that's how, in my view, it is. For all of us. The world doesn't dance to our wishes.

Would you be all that prayful if there was no paradise ? Wouldn't you still thank your god or goddess every single day, just for the chance to be alive on this beautiful earth ? I would, if I was a believer, but since I'm not, and never will be - instead I thank the people around me and the 'magic' of the earth itself, Mother Nature if you like, for beautiful days, like today, for wonderful friends, for decent health, for the abilities to read and think for myself. You should try it, Grateful, it can be amazing :)

No, my friend, there is no Heaven and there is no Hell. What you see around you is all there is, and what we make of it. Like me, you will live a certain number of years and then - pfft ! I've got twenty years if I'm very lucky. I want to do what I can in that time to make the world a better place. Then the worms can get me.

Does it take courage to face up to the fact that life is finite ? I don't know, that's how it is. When my darling wife was dying, she showed absolutely no fear. A Christian friend asked if he could say a prayer for her, and she just shrugged and said 'If you want to', so she humoured him and let him do it, because it meant so much to him. But then, without fear, she faded away, knowing that in a few hours there would be nothing, forever. I hope that I have as much real courage when I go, because I know it's forever.

[TBC]

Here is a simple question;
When Mohammad was asked if cousins could marry, the question was
referred back to Allah via Gabriel, and the answer came back, yes they can marry.

If Allah is so all knowing why did he burden millions of moslems over
the last 1400 years with millions of mentally & physically handicapped children ?

The real mystery is why did tribes of camel & horse breeders go along
with this nonsense ?
They must have surely known it was stupid and nonsense.

[continued]

I think that is courage. Not some scumbags machine-gunning a theatre crowd or students in classrooms, or blowing up a market-place. Frankly, I don't think that anyone like those dog-turds who believes in some afterlife – what ? as a 'reward' for murdering innocent people ? - has any courage.

So what do YOU think, Grateful ? YOU are important, your views matter, at least they should matter to YOU, and if they are solid, they will stand up to scrutiny in discussion with others. Your quoting of some other 'authority' counts for nothing. Sorry :)

Random verses for today, from 'The Cattle':

[6.100] And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him).

[6.101] Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.

[6.102] That is Allah, your Lord, there is no god but He; the Creator of all things, therefore serve Him, and He has charge of all things.

[6.103] Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware.

Etc. Strange: if the Koran was the unchangeable word of Allah passed down to the illiterate trader Muhammad, why is so much of it endless praise for Allah ? i.e. so in his own words, he praises himself ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Bazz,

In many early pastoral and agricultural societies, land was held by the entire clan, differentiated into parts that were held by the extended family, and then parcelled out again - never to be sold, by the way (well, who to? since everybody held their land in this way) - amongst nuclear families within the extended family, THEN to male individuals within the family. So intermarriage between clan members, i.e. cousins, was a way of keeping the land within the group.

[There is some fascinating detail about this sort of land tenure in a work by C. K. Meek (1948) on 'Land Law and Custom in the Colonies', bits of which are on my web-site: www.firstsources.info on the last 'Page'.]

It would have meant that the clan was very much intra-married, closed, tight, a little world unto itself, utterly at war with every other clan. Oh well, that was us thousands of years ago too.

Of course, they knew nothing of genetics and the dangers of such marriage practices. Any poor half-wits or deformed kids would have been blamed on bad luck or the commission of some offence (probably by a woman) against some god or other. Most would have been left on the side of a hill for the jackals.

If there WAS a god, I'd thank her every day for being alive AFTER the Enlightenment got going. In comparison, what ghastly times before that, really.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, did you see SBS tonight ? It was about cousin marriages !
They had a number of cousin maried there. One couple were doctors
and he wanted his son to marry his cousin.
A genetist pointed out the increased danger when the practise is wide
spread in a population as the incidents increase significantly.

It is no wonder that Arabs have won so few Nobel prizes.
I knew why they did it, ie to keep the land in the family/tribe but
what a burden to put on the children and the mothers that have to look
after the handicapped children.

Something no one brought up was who pays for the increased social
and medical services that the extra handicapped children need ?

Speaking of half-wits....

Yes Grateful ?
I take it that it would not be a problem for you.

Typical comment from someone but for the grace of God goes He.
To increase the risk deliberately should be a criminal offense.
It is the cruelest thing anyone could do to child.

Joe said
"One of the problems with an 'appeal to authority' is that it means nothing to anybody for whom that 'authority' is an idiot."

Its interesting. You are an atheist whose mantra should be "show me the proof, the evidence.....". I'm prepare to offer you evidence, but you prejudge and describe 'authority' as idiotic.

I was raised in a family of atheists. The only believer was Pa, who said he believed in God, but also believed that the Bible had been corrupted. So in a sense i see myself walking along the same path as my grandfather.

You ask me to put my views to the test "and if they are solid, they will stand up to scrutiny in discussion with others"

Given my background, an appropriate starting point would be my view that the Quran has not been corrupted. This is something that is refutable. Its been done with the Bible. You just need to come up with evidence that the version today has been altered in some way from what existed in the past. This of course would need to be supported by serious scholars in Islam.

And I'll put my cards on the table. Refuting this view would undermine my faith, particularly as the Qur'an itself makes a prediction that it will not be corrupted:

"We, Ourselves, have sent down the Dhikr (the Qur’an), and We are there to protect it." 15:9

In reference to this verse, Mufti Taqi Usmani (whose interpretation of the Quran is, I'm told, authoritative) has said: "Here Allah Almighty has taken upon Himself that the Holy Qur'an will remain intact for all times to come, and no one will be able to change it, as it happened with earlier Scriptures" . http://www.maarifulquran.net/

So in refuting my view you would also be proving that the Quran cannot be the word of God (since God does not make false predictions).

Over to you.....

Oh Bazz, you've argued me into a corner...I give up. Please show mercy!

Joe said . "so in his own words, he praises himself ?"

I could not have said it better myself.

Now reflect on who YOU are in reality. Are you the skin and bone and muscle and nerves that make up your physical existance? the product of an evolving species and civilisation? Or are you the one who seeks to express himself through art, words, beliefs, rituals in a manner that is no different from our forefathers who we know through their cave paintings and artifacts as well as their remains

Hi Grateful,

Sorry, your 'authorities' mean nothing to me, no more than the 'authority' of the pope or chief rabbi or Dalai Llama.

What do YOU think and believe, what have YOU learnt from your experience ? That's what counts.

And since the Koran seems to be riddled with contradictions - verses of a 'religion of peace' alongside some of the most brutal and bloodthirsty verses - I'm not inclined to take any more notice of anything that it proclaims than I would be of biblical verses from three or four thousand years ago.

But I had to laugh at your suggestion that some god 'created time'. Oh. Right. Okay. Well, why not, when in people's minds you can do absolutely anything ? What, everything was on freeze-frame - all those dinosaurs and trilobites ? birds and insects suspended in air ? Okay, with a click of the godly fingers, it all came to life ?

And you know that, how ? Since, after all, as you point out, the Koran itself says nothing about how it all began. It's a pity, then, that whoever put the Koran together didn't 'borrow' bits from the early verses of Genesis in the Old Testament, like it did other bits and pieces. At least, then, it could present an origin myth.

I thought this thread might wither, but no. Okay, today's verses, from 'The Clot':

[96.9] Have you seen him who forbids
[96.10] A servant when he prays?
[96.11] Have you considered if he were on the right way,
[96.12] Or enjoined guarding (against evil)?
[96.13] Have you considered if he gives the lie to the truth and turns (his) back?
[96.14] Does he not know that Allah does see?

I still prefer Monty Python :)

Joe

Hi Grateful,

It is probably futile to argue rationally against faith, since its logic is simply not rational: one simply believes. In fact, the less evidence the better, since a believer can then show his greater devoutness. Rational argument is pretty pointless in those circumstances.

As well, so much of the premises bolstering faith are sort of circular: If, say, you put forward Premise 1, Premise 2, and Premise 3, then a 'Conclusion', the first Preimse is considered valid because it is based on the second; the second is considered valid because it is based on the third; and the third is considered valid because it is based on the first. Of course, the Conclusion follows IF one agrees with the Premises: that's precisely how it is defined, IF Faith is all you need.

But, from a rational point of view, if any of your Premises actually demand some sort of proof of validity, and it can't be provided, then the lot collapses.

So we can 'argue' past each other, each questioning the other's Premises, and get nowhere. You have your faith, I have (I hope) some measure of rationality, and a sense of uncertainty or tentativeness, and expectation of the incompleteness of all hypotheses, that there is always more to be learnt, BUT that what I take to be more-or-less 'true' has to have some solid supporting evidence. And it can always be improved on. I'll try to keep learning: never just accepting anything without evidence, but trying to understand. Fine with me: I'll never know everything of course, and I'll probably have mistaken beliefs which later I'll see as mistaken - uncertainty, correction, incompleteness - that's how the world is, and it will never stop.

That must terrify someone who craves certainty, perfection, completion of the circle, not to have to think. I feel desperately sorry for them, wasting their one and only life like that. We're all better than that.

Joe

Joe, are you running away?

You asked that i be prepare to offer my views and "and if they are solid, they will stand up to scrutiny in discussion with others"

I've offered my view that the Qur'an has not been corrupted and shown that, since the Quran itself states that Allah will protect it from corruption, all we need is one instance that can conclusively demonstrate the corruption of the Quran. With this, its claim to being the word of god is sunk. Just one!

And yet you have the audacity to write:

"It is probably futile to argue rationally against faith, since its logic is simply not rational: one simply believes. In fact, the less evidence the better, since a believer can then show his greater devoutness. Rational argument is pretty pointless in those circumstances. "

Joe, you are the one avoiding rational discourse, by resorting to belittlement:

"That must terrify someone who craves certainty, perfection, completion of the circle, not to have to think. I feel desperately sorry for them, wasting their one and only life like that. We're all better than that."

Surely, if the Quran was man-made there would be numerous examples of how the Quran. I'm only asking for one...just one.

How about a bit of courage. Do you have the evidence or not?

Sorry, Grateful, I don't understand what you are asking me to do. Are you asking me to find any instances of inconsistency, or contradictions - where the Koran says one thing, then somewhere else it says the opposite ?

No problems: it is claimed that the Koran, is the book of the 'religion of peace'. So all one has to do is find verses about brutal punishment, mutilation, rape, invasion, slavery. Is that what you are asking for ?

Joe

Hi Joe

You asked that I present my views for scrutiny "and if they are solid, they will stand up to scrutiny in discussion with others"

Let's see if you are willing to provide that scrutiny in an objective manner.

Given my background, an appropriate starting point would be my view that the Quran has not been corrupted. By corrupt I mean that there have been changes to the original text over time.

This is a statement which is refutable. Its been done with the Bible. You only need evidence that the version today is not the orinal; it has been altered over time.

And I'll put my cards on the table. Refuting this view would undermine my faith, particularly as the Qur'an itself makes a prediction that it will not be corrupted:

"We, Ourselves, have sent down the Dhikr (the Qur’an), and We are there to protect it." 15:9

In reference to this verse, Mufti Taqi Usmani (whose interpretation of the Quran is, I'm told, authoritative) has said: "Here Allah Almighty has taken upon Himself that the Holy Qur'an will remain intact for all times to come, and no one will be able to change it, as it happened with earlier Scriptures" . http://www.maarifulquran.net/

So in refuting my view you would also be proving that the Quran cannot be the word of God (since God does not make false predictions).

Now since you maintain the Quran was the word of illiterate, ignorant, inbred, nomads of the desert it should be a relatively straight exercise. You should be feeling relaxed and comfortable with such easy task.

Over to you.....

Joe you asked
"Are you asking me to find any instances of inconsistency, or contradictions - where the Koran says one thing, then somewhere else it says the opposite ?"

I'd welcome any evidence supporting the view that the Qur'an is inconsistent, as i would evidence that the Qur'an has been corrupted over time.

Hi Grateful,

We really are talking past each other. As a kafir, I don't really care much about your 'authorities' or your book, which is a mass of contradictions, a jumble of 'sweetness and light' and utter brutality, frankly.

I'm interested in what YOU think, and how you may provide evidence to back up a particular point of view. What have YOU learnt from your own reflections and experiences, not what you can parrot out of some book ?

Of course, since I don't believe in any gods, yours or Hindu or Christian or otherwise, I obviously don't put any value on some notion that a book is handed down by a god: of course, I take it for granted that the book was cobbled together by men, over time, from bits of the old Jewish books and from the newer Christian books as well, with a lot of it quite garbled, and mixed in with the folk knowledge of Arabian desert tribes.

But maybe there is common ground, in terms of shared values. So, as examples, do you support:

* the separation of State and religion,

* the equality of men and women,

* the rule of law, equality before the law of everybody,

* democracy,

* freedom of expression, provided it does not incite violence ?

Over to you .....

Joe

Hi Grateful,

While we're waiting, I thought I'd put up the 'Verse of Peace' along with neighbouring verses:

"[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle 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,
[5.34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[5.35] O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and seek means of nearness to Him and strive hard in His way that you may be successful.
[5.36] Surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment.
[5.37] They would desire to go forth from the fire, and they shall not go forth from it, and they shall have a lasting punishment.

Fascinatingly brutal.

[TBC]

[continued]

[5.38] And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[5.39] But whoever repents after his iniquity and reforms (himself), then surely Allah will turn to him (mercifully); surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[5.40] Do you not know that Allah-- His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He chastises whom He pleases; and forgives whom He pleases and Allah has power over all things."

From an atheist point of view, it's strange how all 'gods' are tyrants, none of them seem to have the slightest tendency towards equality, democracy, etc. They all dictate, punish, tip people limb from limb - and yet we are all supposed to be crated in his (or her) image. That's a bit like making a clay image of oneself then stomping on it. Weird.

Religions seem to be devised at a stage in people's history when they have barely any knowledge of the outside world, feel threatened by it (especially its 'new' ideas), fear and hate what they do perceive, and take brutal autocracy within their groups for granted. So they imagine that, if there is a supernatural, a heaven, with gods, then it reproduces human society as they know it. So then, they put their picture of it into a book which nobody can question, and thenceforth people are stuck with it.

Give me atheism any day :)

Joe

Hi Grateful,

Today's verses, an entire surah actually, it's quite short:

The Dawn

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
[113.1] Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the dawn,
[113.2] From the evil of what He has created,
[113.3] And from the evil of the utterly dark night when it comes,
[113.4] And from the evil of those who blow on knots,
[113.5] And from the evil of the envious when he envies

Is Allah supposed to be the Lord of the Dawn here ? Dark nights are evil ? And from 113.2 above, did Allah create evil ?

Elsewhere, the Koran talks of witches blowing on knots, I forget where - so is witchcraft part of what Muslims believe in ? Did Allah create witches ? And it's evil to be envious ? So if Muslims are a bit envious of the West, they are evil ?

So confusing !

It's interesting that there seems to be some equivalence of the evil of dark nights, witches and envious people, all equally evil. Actually there's a lot of obscure talk about evil in the Koran, Mohamed seemed to be obsessed with it, and given the abysmal level of general knowledge in those days, who can blame him. But it's a bit like equating nuclear war, car thieves and taking selfies as equally 'evil'.

I wonder what a psychologist would make of all this obsession with evil: transference, projection, or just suspicion and paranoia ?

And why, in the Koran, are the longest surahs first, and the shortest last ? As a way of learning to read, someone told me - which is a bit like suggesting that children should learn to read by progressing from 'War and Peace', or the 1900-page 'Elements of Land Law' to 'Nip and Fluff'. And from there to picture books.

[TBC]

[continued]

Not to mention that the surahs are completely un-chronological. So are parts of the Bible of course - Revelations, the first book written, coming last in the New Testament, for example. So I suppose both sets of books are similarly hopeless jumbles.

After all, they weren't meant to be read at all, except by priests, hence the incomprehensible (to most) languages they were/are written in - Latin in the case of the Bible, Old Arabic in the case of Muhamed's Koran. Once the printing press was invented in the 15th century, the Bible was the most printed book - something like a billion copies by 1500. But then, came demands for it to be printed in local languages - hence, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Anabaptists, etc., and the disestablishment of the Catholic church as the one and only church.

The first printing press in the Muslim world was set up in Constantinople in 1824. Make what you like of that.

Belief and unquestioning acceptance go together. Truth and criticism go together. Unquestioning acceptance and criticism can't ever go together. So a decision lies there for all of us: which path do we choose ?

Joe

Hi Grateful,

In the book rumoured to have been handed down to Muhamed from Allah, this intriguing passage occurs:

[53.49] And that He is the Lord of the Sirius;
[53.50] And that He did destroy the Ad of old
[53.51] And Samood, so He spared not
[53.52] And the people of Nuh before; surely they were most unjust and inordinate;
[53.53] And the overthrown cities did He overthrow,
[53.54] So there covered them that which covered.
[53.55] Which of your Lord's benefits will you then dispute about?
[53.56] This is a warner of the warners of old.
[53.57] The near event draws nigh.
[53.58] There shall be none besides Allah to remove it.

and

[71.21] Nuh said: My Lord! surely they have disobeyed me and followed him whose wealth and children have added to him nothing but loss.
[71.22] And they have planned a very great plan.
[71.23] And they say: By no means leave your gods, nor leave Wadd, nor Suwa; nor Yaghus, and Yauq and Nasr.
[71.24] And indeed they have led astray many, and do not increase the unjust in aught but error.
[71.25] Because of their wrongs they were drowned, then made to enter fire, so they did not find any helpers besides Allah.
[71.26] And Nuh said: My Lord! leave not upon the land any dweller from among the unbelievers:
[71.27] For surely if Thou leave them they will lead astray Thy servants, and will not beget any but immoral, ungrateful (children).

Are Wadd, Suwa, Yaghus, etc. rival gods ? And who was Nuh ? Another god, a sort of minor god ?

Presumably, all this pre-dates Muhammad actually being given the book ? So other gods existed before, or alongside of, Allah ?

That 7.27 has overtones of the Pharaoh in Moses' time, or Herod in Jesus' time, slaughtering all male children [or in this case, the parents as well]. A bit like ISIS in our time.

Although one can be tempted by that thought of 'immoral, ungrateful children.'

Cheers,

Joe