'TR,

I notice all the links you provided either are anti or far too conservative views of the Islamic faith.
If you are interested in balanced view, here is a reasonable website:
www.readingislam.com'

Thanks fellow_human for your concern. However, I tend to disagree. All my links are true reflections of the Islamic religion and are therefore not biased one way or the other.

Islam IS by definition a totalitarian political ideology with a nasty monotheistic god at its centre. The reason it works so well is that all its adherents are taught to be submissive (Islam means submission) from day one of their indoctrination. Therefore, the ideal Muslim is a non-critical, non-thinking automaton who can be putty in the hands of any lunatic cleric with a political agenda. And indeed there are plenty of those clerics around.

What we have is the worlds greatest brainwashing exercise that is crying out for dissidents and infidels of any persusion to bring down the collective delusion and give it some sanity.

I write what I write for the benefit of Muslims who are the first VICTIMS of the Islamic faith. Indeed, I am wholly concerned for their welfare which is my number one priority.

TR,

“Therefore, the ideal Muslim is a non-critical, non-thinking automaton who can be putty in the hands of any lunatic cleric with a political agenda”

I am sure many lunatic clerics are grateful to you since you are assisting them promoting their version of Islam.

Dear F.H. I read that site you linked us to,

1/The main source of Shari`ah is the Qur'an, the LITERAL WORDS OF ALLAH said out of His infinite wisdom and knowledge. -there is the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The Sunnah includes what the Prophet (peace be upon him)
-said,
-did, and
-approved of.

2/ Shari`ah refers to a set of rules, regulations, teachings, and values governing the lives of Muslims. Shari`ah embraces worship, morals, individual attitude and conduct, and other spheres like political, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, CRIMINAL and CIVIL.

3/ There is only ONE TRUE RELIGION coming from the One and the Same God,... This religion is Islam.

Now.. one would be forgiven for looking closely at what Mohammad 'approved' of and 'did', and considering if these things are more likely to have come from a Holy God or, to put it in the politest and least offensive way "Another place".

Lets summarize so the picture is absolutely clear.

ISLAM/SHARIA
Based on "Literal Words of Allah" (Quran) so.. I offer you 23:5-6
"slave girls are sex toys".
9:29 29. Fight against those who
(1) believe not in Allâh,
(2) nor in the Last Day,
(3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger
(4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:30 'Christians and Jews are cursed, deluded and to be destroyed'

What the prophet DID. "Mutilate prisoners, poke out their eyes, cut off their hands and feet, torture Jews to get their treasure".
Had sex with a child, claiming Allah told him he could. (If Allah told him 'then', why not now?)
KILL political enemies, KILL those who turn away from Islam.

What the prophet APPROVED of. 'Temporary/pleasure marriage' (Sunni sources claim he forbade it only at Khaiber, Shia sources claim it still applies.

CONCLUSION: Islam, darkness....or light?

"No man comes to the Father, but by me" Jesus..The Christ, the Son of God.

I'm sick and tired of Muslims whinging and trying to shut down those who disagree with the inherent facts of their faith, like Ali.

Why don't we hear the Muslim community leaders condemn violence against women? Why, because the books of the Muslim faith can be used to justify such acts. See this site for an interesting analysis of the verses of the Koran which justify beating the wife: http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Silas/wife-beating.htm

Quite an interesting read. For my part, I think Ali's got it right - Islam has got it very, very wrong.

stevenlmeyer, i really don't know how to make my answer much clearer. If the government is prepared to ban speakers using its residual discretion, it should be consistent.

If we ban Gerry Adams because we think he will be divisive, we should ban Hirsi Ali also. If we ban Irving because we don't want to offend 200,000 Jews, why should we allow someone who offends 360,000 Muslims? Unless, of course, if we regard Muslims as 2nd class citizens.

Personally, I think people like Hirsi Ali should be allowed into the country, just as should Bilal Philips and other speakers usually banned. The government should be consistent. Ministers who don't exercise their discretion consistently are undermining the legitimacy of the discretion.

Now, which part of this simple English explanation is beyond anyone's understanding?

B_D, you claim that sharia is derived from the literal meaning of the words of the Qur'an. In the case of some wahhabist Muslims, that might be the case. But had you even the most elementary knowledge of sharia, you'd know that this view represents a form of heterodoxy.

If you are going to comment on the religious traditions of others, at least try and be accurate about it. Don't just rely on something you read from JihadWatch.

Also, try and sound coherent. And learn to spell.