Great article.

I wonder if the Islamist brigade here - Irfan, the bizarrely titled Fellow_Human, among others, will attack this writer for Islamophobia?

To want Rushdie killed is barbarism and Muslim who doesn't denounce the Prophet for imparting such a disgustingly, criminal, teaching - should be boiled in acid.

Such people aren't redeemable.

They've gone through the race-hate factories and have a disgust of 'the other', i.e; the civilised westerner.

This war needs to be expanded to such dumps as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, among others, to smash the production line.

The idiots claiming our foreign policy has something to do with it are beyond the pale.

I'm sure the Nazi's had more anger towards us on 'D-Day' too, yet everything they stood for before that day was enough to know that their intent was world domination.

Somehow, Islamists feel superior. I don't know whether to laugh about that or not.

What can they possibly see in themselves as superior?

One can understand why an enlightened culture like Germany's could get carried away - after all they have art, science, philosophy, logic, and intellect.

There is nothing in Islam, no philosophy like Christ.

How do Muslims follow apostacy? Or killing homosexuals? Or subjugating infidels?

Sharia is the most backward of any value system on the planet!

India's caste system is pretty bad too, there is even a prostitute caste! What filthy values!

Muslims are a people of conspiracy theories, like the most uneducated in the western world. Yet they're educated class are the worst in this regard.

They're lower classes in Pakistan and the like probably eat people and walk around on all fours!

Our leaders are cowards. The mighty west has the means to level Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the rest of the Islamic hate states.

Why don't we? Oil? Just take it. It's ours anyway, those Arabs wouldn't even have electricity, let alone oil, if the civilised west didn't tell them.

I would be so embarressed to be Muslim, how can you follow such values as killing someone for writing!

For shame.

Bashir,

I was a fan of Dr Taha Hussein and Naguib Mahfouz and agree there should be room for debate and criticism without the 'heresy' weapon on every thinker's throat. Despite accusations of heresy, Dr Taha Hussein was and remains one of the best Arabic literature authors and philosophers.

Benjamin,

I responded to your comments many times and you ignored my comments.
I can understand you get emotional about topics you initiate. Your inability to address my comments simply means you are not rational and would rather engage in monlogues with yourself.

All the best 'mr superior'

The islamists in OLO could not answer why 7 rational doctors and 1 medical technician were radicalized in the UK. The common characteristic was that they were all muslims. In fact one can’t profile a terrorist based on education, character, temperament or race. One can only draw a valid conclusion after having examined all the data on terrorists these past years. ALL muslims are POTENTIAL terrorists.

Muslims are like viruses, most of them are harmless, but you can never tell when some are going to mutate to become virulent. When that happens it’s too late and you would regret not having taken precautions.

The following are recommendations by Swadhin, an ex-Muslim, in his article “How about abolishing Islam?”

http://www.islam-watch.org/Swadhin/Abolishing-Islam.htm

1. Ban the publication, distribution and sale of all pro-Islam media, books, literature and published materials
2. Outlaw pro-Islamic organizations and organized activities of religious, social and political nature and deport the Islamic "religious leaders," "clerics" and other charlatans. Outlaw Islamic practices such as the burkha and the religious cap and other medieval nonsense.
3. Shut down all madrassahs and Muslim-majority schools and integrate them within mainstream public schools, diverse student and faculty bodies and modern, scientific curriculum.
4. Shut down all mosques and convert the buildings into hospitals or schools - something good.
5. Encourage (not penalize) the criticism of Islam across all media and strata of society. Encourage public debates and encourage society to take this issue head-on.

ctd

6. Severely restrict immigration of Muslims - subject applicants to rigorous citizenship tests, socio-cultural integration and an official renunciation of Islam. Deport those who remain loyal to this hate-mongering cult.
7. Encourage government agencies, NGOs, police and human rights groups to scour the length and depth of Muslim society to uncover and remedy the countless incidences of abuses against women, arranged marriages, secretive polygamy and practice of Sharia principles.
8. Last but not least, strip Islam from legal recognition, from government surveys, official sources of information and census. Cease to identify a "Muslim" demographic; factor them out on ethnic and national origin. "Non-religious" or "Agnostic" is certainly better to being identified as a Muslim.
9. Encourage, provide opportunities for former Muslims to progress, obtain more education, become a normal part of a healthy society, instead of being disease-ridden, frothing, rabies-spreading stray dogs living on the mercy and fear of passers-by. Save them from being taken to the pound and the passers-by from being bitten and infected.
10. Point out the obvious - the evil suras of the Qur'an calling for hate and violence, the backward, senseless and abusive laws of the Shariat, the bloody history of Islam (continuing today).

Alternatively Philip, one could legislate so that the 'full picture' is presented on Islamic web sites.
Here is the view of the Islamic Council of Victoria:

QUOTE
There is no other community than the Muslims that has its image consistently misrepresented by almost all forms of Media. In Australia it is no different.

The Islamic Council is working to counteract the negative Image and stereotyping of Muslims and Islam as portrayed by the Media. We aim to clarify Misconceptions and present the true message of Islam.
UNQUOTE.

The major headings on the ICV web site include the following:

-Offensive Media Report.
-Hate incident Register.
-ICV (which leads to this heading)
SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS NOTES
FOR ISLAMIC ORGANISATIONS
-The heading "Notes for Schools and Media" leads to this:

"Some Points to consider
when writing about
Islam and Muslims"

So, out of 8 bullet points, 4 of them relate directly to the issue of 'defense/hate/misunderstanding/security issues' etc.

Compare that with say this site which is an Evangelical Christian alliance site. (equiv to the ICV in some ways)

http://www.ea.org.au/MissionsInterlink/BulletinBoard.aspx

Gee...not a single word about 'hate' or media guidelines, or offensive this or that :) How refreshing, liberating.

I cannot find anything on the ICV web site though about 'Islam' or the price you pay for 'Apostasy'. They have a bit about 'how to recognize a mail bomb'...but last time I checked....its US who are being bombed...not them.

Here is another to contrast:
http://www.aogvic.com.au/
Again...not a word about 'violence, hate or misrepresentation'.

Maybe it is because Jesus never raised an army or fought battles to spread the Gospel :)

See how leftists distort the truth? Although if Fellow_Human is a Muslim, he can't be of the left as it isn't compatible.

Muslims occupy their own level on left-right politics scale, as our most conservative lunatics don't even come close to things like arranged marriages, honour killings, interpreting their holy book literally - as ALL Muslims do.

I never said I was superior, just western values. I don't want to get into some stupid argument as I KNOW that nobody can show that western values aren't easily the best on the planet.

You're living here aren't you!?! Everyone wants to come live in the superior west! And why wouldn't you, it's values are good, one can criticise without being killed - although filthy Muslim values are limiting that already, and we don't all hate each other because some of us look different.

In short, this is superior western country, not bombed out Islamic crappiola.

This is why I think the west has an obligation to take over the backward non-west and run their countries. Corruption, decadence, and so on, is part and parcel of being a non-westerner.

Even the U.N asked Australia why it was shooting itself in the foot over the AWB scandal, as every western nation knows that bribery is part of Arab culture.

One can't even begin to do business there unless they pay bribes.

This is why Iraq is failing. The selfless US pours billions into reconstruction yet shoddy, corrupt filthy Iraqi's - who don't care about their own country, just their own tribe (xenophobic scum) are stealing the money yet not doing the work.

This was the best chance the racist, intolerant Iraqi's (they are killing each other after all, their level of racism is murderous) had and they, in typical Arab style, spurned it.

Just like the terrorist Arafat spurned the land deals Israel offered.

If you ask me, the whole region needs to be occupied.

Good day all.

P.S. Those f.... who keep calling me a bigot, criticise my points or it means you are weaklings who know I'm right!

Benjamin,

I am trying really hard to communicate with you so give me a break and help me out please.

First, your post above mix religion, politics, Palestine, Arafat, Arabic culture.
In your statement:
“ALL Muslims interpret their book literally” I am scratching my head. Even in my own family and friends there are a spectrum of opinions, discussion and interpretations. Last week with my soccer team, the issue of home loans and finance came up and the 8 of us had 4 different views. Most Muslims I know have little or nothing good to say about Arafat. I have little to say the man is with his creator now but the PLO history of corruption and manipulation is widely known in the Arab and Muslim world.

So where did you get the idea that ALL (I am using your upper case :) :)) Muslims are like a photocopier machine?

Phillip Tang & Boaz,

In an earlier thread (I think religious education) Mr Boaz admitted he spends a lot of his time on the internet chatting to Muslims youth. To lure them into his faith, Boaz confessed that he educate them on Radical Islam to ‘reel them in’!!

So I am asking: isn’t that part of the problem?

I mean, If I see a Muslim preaching radical Islam to other young Muslims I’ll pick up the phone and ring ‘you know who’ to lock him up. But Boaz is above the law. There are 35,000 full time missionaries in Africa (many of them are on the internet) trying to lure young Muslims by educating them on radical Islam. No further comments. I am not saying this is the only cause but its definitely contributing to it.

Peace,

Fellow_human,

I say ALL because there are no groups or organisations of Muslims that don't believe the Quran is the LITERAL word of God.

As far as I'm aware with Christianity, mabye BOAZ can help me out here, it's only the Mormans that interpret it literally?

Of course there are individual Muslims who interpret it differently, and you seem more moderate than many I converse with.

But it means nothing unless YOU are out there spreading the idea that many things Mohammed said were disgusting and need to be condemned.

Teachings on apostasy for one, where do you stand on that?

Obviously Muslims don't interpret everything literally as if they did every Muslim would be trying to kill every infidel, like Bin Laden says....and YOUR new Mufti won't condemn.

Are you organising a protest against that filthy old bigot from Melbourne?

You can tell me all you want about not interpreting it literally but you need to tell the immoral filth in your community, not me.

You mentioned bridges I think but this is laughable unless Muslims denounce 3/4 of their book - which preaches horrible things about non-Muslims.

And this is what occured for over a thousand years until we Europeans fought back with the Crusades.

Dhimmitude?

Where do you stand on women being 1/2 in a Sharia court? Where do you stand on Sharia? I think any Muslim who wants Sharia ought to be treated as a terrorist.

Islamic values are vile, and have no place on this earth.

You have much work to do to convince other Muslims that Islam is peaceful.

I'll go with what I hear from prominent Muslim clerics the world over - such as the Mufti of Mecca (no protests over his comments either, funny that) and see from Islamic bigots who justify their acts by invoking Mohammed.

How can you reform a religion when it's founder is the worst possible example to humanity one could imagine?

Rapist, killer, paedophile - his actions were outrageous, and that's according to your own sources!

You can't reform it, just like one can't reform Nazism.

Benjamin,

As a lawyer, you know there are two sides to every story. To know what Muslims believe you need to ask a Muslim and not a missionary. If I want to learn about Christianity or Judaism I am not going to ask a Bhuddist.

Muslims ‘truth about mohammed’ is different than Boaz. I quote non-muslim impeccable philosophers and historians:

1. Lamartine, History of Turkey, 1854, vol-2, page 276-277:

“if greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Mohammed?...His forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death: all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not…Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of idea, restorer of national dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire. That is Mohammed. As regards all standards by which human greatness maybe measured, we may well ask: is there any man greater than he?

2. Thomas Carlyle (1840), writes:
And then also Islam-that we must submit to God; that our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him, whatsoever he does to us, the thing he sends to us, even if death and worse than death, shall be good, shall be best; we resign ourselves to God." Carlyle answers the question of Goethe and says "Yes, all of us that have any moral life, we all live so. This is yet the highest wisdom that heaven has revealed to our earth."
http://www.thomascarlyle.com/us/1776/0803250304/On_Heroes_Hero-Worship_and_the_Heroic_in_History
As for Muslims, we know his teachings through the Quran. Its enough proof that the world’s most known peaceful religious practice is Sufi (Mystic) Islam.

Peace,

First, Benjamin and Boaz, we know who "crucified" Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him), it is your very same lot who still kill and criticise...definitely everyone knows it is your fore-fathers, so don't mislead everyone. When a word about the great religion of God is spoken about, you become very irrationale and irritated simply because you threw away the Torah even before the death of Moses(Peace Be Upon Him). For one thing, Muslims respect and acknowledge the work of Jesus, Moses, David, Abraham etc... what do the jews of today respect? Killed or attempted to kill all apostles of God and then sent Mosad everywhere - very recently robbed a disabled man in New Zealand?

Irrationale, bring it on...

Second, Bashiir failed to address his own problems. Being a scavenger in Arab land of all places, will keep you off my thoughts of responding to your unrealistic arguement.

I will not respond to Tong because we know what he is upto, the virus that crotch on the Tasmanian devils eyes.

Fellow Human

You continually avoid the argument that the evil committed in the name of Islam draws its inspiration from the literal words of its prophet. It doesn’t matter that you and the people you know don’t live like that because the terrorist do. The spokespeople for the Islamic faith in Australia will get very little headway in their attempts to portray Islam as a religion of peace etc until such times as they unite to publicly condemn those who commit acts of terrorism. Until then it’s all just words. I just don’t believe that these terrorists are hidden from the communities in which they operate. There is some level of toleration for these violent anti western sentiments in Islamic communities or else they would have been ostracized.

I find myself in agreement with Fellow Human, when it comes to Boaz and the Christian missionaries, especially in Islamic countries. I find the Christians criticizing the Isalmists highly distasteful. These fundamentalist Christians are in some ways worse than the Islamists apologists’, though at least they’re not violent (yet). At least the Islamists are going by the word of their book. The Christian groups pick and choose those bits of the bible they like, giving their own meaning to those they don’t.

While I don’t agree with Benjamin on many things, his questions regarding Sharia, Apostasy etc should be answered. Also if the mufti’s don’t speak for their communities why do they have any following? Responding with quotes of how great a man Mohammed was according to non Muslim philosophers just brings to my mind his marriage to and sex with a nine year old girl.

Finally Galty, defending your faith by criticizing the Jews just shows how empty your arguments are.

Benjamin,

Answering your questions:

1.Position on apostasy
I addressed it to Kaktuz on this comment:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=758#13338

2.Are you organizing a protest against that filthy old bigot from Melbourne?
No, for many reasons (don’t have the time), also, if every follower of a faith is requested to protest whenever a stupid comment is made by a scholar of their faith, we will all be unemployed and in the streets 24x7.

3. Dhimmitude?
A term used by conservative wahhabis to describe non-muslims. The term was invented initially to establsih rights and obligations of non-muslims in muslim states and communities. Having said that, they also believe that non-mulsims have rights.
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1153698300029&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout
I am against any differentiation based on religious beliefs.

4. Women rights: I found a reasonable article that explains women rights:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016410&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

Hi Paul,

“You continually avoid the argument that the evil committed in the name of Islam draws its inspiration from the literal words of its prophet”

That’s not correct; terrorists mislead themselves into wrongful understanding of some old scholars interpretation of hadith. Those interpretations were written in the context and time of the crusades. Few facts you need to know:

1. Hadith was collected 2 centuries after the death of the prophet.
2. Hadith follows a science of narration (authenticity). Muslims take and study 3-5% of the hadith. These hadiths are inline with the teachings of the Quran.
3. Most hadith quoted by missionaries is either of questionable authenticity or directly contradicts the Quran.

As for judging Islam, my comment to kaktuz on the other thread was simple:
In a faith of 1.5 Billion followers, how many militant islamists are there? 10, 20, 100 thousands? How many Mystic/ sufi Muslims are there? 150, 180, 200 Millions? Mystic Muslim is by far the most peaceful spiritual practice since our time on this earth.

So if an average person with no baggage or prejudice wants to make a call on Islam. Which one do you think is more reflective: the 0.1 % or the 18-20%?

Peace as always,

Hi Fellow Human,

You said “
That’s not correct; terrorists mislead themselves into wrongful understanding of some old scholars interpretation of hadith. Those interpretations were written in the context and time of the crusades. Few facts you need to know:
1. Hadith was collected 2 centuries after the death of the prophet.
2. Hadith follows a science of narration (authenticity). Muslims take and study 3-5% of the hadith. These hadiths are inline with the teachings of the Quran.
3. Most hadith quoted by missionaries is either of questionable authenticity or directly contradicts the Quran.”

How is it relevant that Hadith were collected/written, in the time of the crusades? So was the Quran. I understand that hadith follows the science of narration, but what is important is which hadith are followed. You suggest that the problem with terrorists is that they use old scholars interpretations of the hadith, yet there is no doubt that there is a significant revival underway which embraces these hadith.

More importantly do you deny that a large percentage of your communities across the world believe that Bin Laden and his ilk are hero’s fighting the just fight against a western world bent on destruction of Islam? Or that there is just as much support in England’s Muslim Communities for the attackers of 7/7? It is undeniable that large sections of the Muslim community overseas react with violence to ANY criticism of their prophet. Just look at the reaction to the Belgian cartoons. These people are stuck in the middle ages by a religion which allows no room for independent/rational thought let alone criticism. Those things a Muslim can do and those he/she can’t were decided in the Dark Ages, the Quran itself commands that these are absolutes and are not open to interpretation.

I'm not sure where you derive your 3-5% figure from Fellow-Human.

For example, the most revered Hadith (Sunni) were collected by Imam Bukhari. His collection has just over 7000 Hadith stories. However, during his compilation Imam Bukhari rejected over 600,000 Hadith stories as being fakes, fabricated or downright lies. This means that the Islamic 'history' examined by this famous scholar has a reliability factor of about 2%. Or to put it another way, about 98% of early Islamic 'history' is BS.

For those interested, a good Hadith search engine can be found here;

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

Note that the Hadith compiled by Bukhari and Muslim are both Sahih. That is, they are completely 'reliable'. I should also mention that some of the stories are completely hilarious

Hi Paul,

- “How is it relevant that Hadith were collected/written, in the time of the crusades? So was the Quran” “I understand that hadith follows the science of narration, but what is important is which hadith are followed”

The Quran was written in the time of the prophet, the hadith was collected 1-2 centuries later. As for which hadith have a look at www.fethullahgulen.org

-“there is no doubt that there is a significant revival underway which embraces these hadith”

Unfortunately yes, there are efforts by a number of Islamists (& missionary organizations) to revive this ideology each have his own purpose.

-“do you deny that a large percentage of your communities across the world believe that Bin Laden is..”

The more accurate comment is that a percentage of Muslims were in denial that Bin Laden could have been behind 9/11 because it was so barbaric to attribute to a Muslim. I think over the years many people starting seeing the truth.

-“It is undeniable that large sections of the Muslim community overseas react with violence to ANY criticism of their prophet. Just look at the reaction to the cartoons”

The ‘lynch mob’ reaction that appeared 4 months later was politically motivated by 2-3 thousands at best. It was also in a very ‘political’ locations (ie Lebanon, Syria, etc..). Most Muslims didn’t react and the majority of those who reacted did a peaceful protest (Europe, US, Canada, etc..).

-“the Quran itself commands that these are absolutes and are not open to interpretation”
That’s incorrect. History refutes this argument as Islamic enlightenment came 2-3 centuries from the beginning of Islam, while in other cases it took close to 12 centuries. If you read the Quran you will notice an invitation to think every few verses which is quiet unique.
www.free-minds.org is a good place to start. I agree since the enlightenment got squashed by the Mongols it never recovered.

TR,

There was a lot of work and criticism done to al Bukhari and other sources of hadith. Here is a sample report (sorry its 45 pages).

http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book1.pdf

Peace,

Thanks for the link Fellow-Human. I'll have a good read later.

In the meantime I couldn't help but notice in todays SMH (p11) that al-Zawahiri has recently stated that Britain will face fresh terrorist attacks because of Rushdie's knighthood.

I'm totally amazed that in the 21st century anyone still takes the crime of blasphemy seriously. Surely human society is over such fatuous and barbarous notions.

So, to al-Zawahiri and to anyone out there who remotely thinks like him - the fact of the matter is that the 'Prophet' Mohammed was nothing more than a small-minded tribal warlord from a Arabian backwater who enjoyed decapitating Jews, banging 9 year old girls, and was bonkers enough to believe that he was talking to a real live angel called Gabriel.

Of all the religious figures in history (both fictious and real) Mohammed would have to be the most beastial and grotesque of them all. And that is the truth of the matter.

TR,

Zawahiri and many others like him were subject to arts of torture, mental and physical abuse for decades in Egyptian jails. Most terrorists who turned into psychopathic murderers shared these horrible experiences. I don’t think he got anything to do with Islamic faith.

As for the rest of your comment on Islam and its prophet (pbuh), I will agree to disagree. Read my comments above to Benjamin re Lamartine and Carlyle. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was subject to the most organised character assassination campaigns known to man.

The example of ‘decapitating’ Jews is another mythology piece.
Every Muslim knows the incident you refer to was related to 'war time treason' and not religious persecution.
a) Only 1 of 3 Jewish tribes committed act of treason.
b) In addition, the prophet asked the accused to choose their own judge (the judge was a Jewish ally).

Why listen to me? read the truth from Jews who converted to Islam:
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/jewish-mythson-islam/muhammad_900_jews_notkilled.htm

I find you puzzling, you have good deep insights sometimes and others you overlook investigating an important topic like the above.

Peace,

Hi Fellow Human,

”The ‘lynch mob’ reaction .....was politically motivated by 2-3 thousands at best..in .. very ‘political’ locations….. “

2-3000, I don’t think so. Violence erupted across the Muslim world, particularly in Muslim countries. Danish and other western interests were attacked in Palestine, Yemen, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Malaysia and many others. Your so called ‘political locations’ are those places closest to having Islamic law.

Your emphasis on the hadith being collected hundreds of years after the death of Mohammed seems to suggest that therefore the hadith can be ignored by Muslims. This is not a mainstream view in Islam at all.
Are you suggesting that the Whabists/terrorists etc rely only on the Hadith that are not accepted.

"The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances] : the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community."

Is this hadith not mutawatir? Because it seems to give Muslims permission to kill Ali Hirsi Hasaan or Salman Rushdie.

In any case, what is more important is how Muslims apply their beliefs in the real world. In those unfortunate places where sharia exists do you suggest that they are mistaken in their application of Islamic law? It was the ayatollah who issued Salman Rushdie’s fatwa, not some minority dissidents. Support, or at least tolerance, of Al Qaeda is widespread in most Muslim countries, Even in the west, where a hand has been extended to Muslim immigrants, there is significant support. 55% of Muslim youth in Britain felt that 7/7 was justified. Why do these people who hate the west insist on staying here.

That’s a rhetorical question.. They stay because they can say what they want without fear of death/torture/imprisonment which they face in the Muslim countries they claim to love. There is free money, free housing and health care, education, and for the really brave among them, WORK. Yet they support groups who wish to return to the dark ages.

Hi Paul,

“Violence erupted across the Muslim world”
Excluding the criminal behaviour by some (ie destruction of property), few thousands per country have protested in the streets in a loud but peaceful manner. Millions couldn’t care or just protested silently. Media hype is always there and I use the example of Cronulla riots: if we are to believe the BBC, then we should believe half of Sydney were drunk on the streets assaulting dark people.

“ Your emphasis on the hadith being collected hundreds of years after the death of Mohammed seems to suggest that therefore the hadith can be ignored by Muslims”

A study of Islamic history shows that the hadith was ignored by the prophet and his caliphates (following leaders). Prophet Mohammed was clear on the teachings of the message (the Quran) and didn’t want followers to idolate him. A famous incident by Caliph Omar that he went and cut the tree where the prophet used to sit so people won’t take it as an idol.

Although one can be a Muslim without the hadith, its importance is in its of the prophet rituals and spirituality and also teach us things like how to pray. Hadith is taken carefully and widely known hadith doesn’t exceed 200-300 hundreds at best.

“Hadith seems to give Muslims permission to kill Ali Hirsi"

Please find below my previous answer to Steven regarding the same issue of apostate:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=758#13338
.

“55% of Muslim youth in Britain felt that 7/7 was justified”

I would hold the parents and the community accountable for failing to manage the youth. Community includes as they should find channels for you th to vent their anger constructively. Its OK for a youth to be angry given the circumstances and the age group. But by no means should they use that as a justification to murder civilians. If they are angry about Iraq or other UK policies they should know and be taught that two wrongs never made a right.

Peace,

Fellow-Human, the term 'treason' is used as an excuse by Muslims who don't want to face the truth. That is, Mohammad is directly responsible for the massacre of 800-900 Jews (according to Ibn Ishaq) from the Banu Qurayza tribe.

Really, the accusation of 'treason' is a moot point. While the Banu Quraysa didn't fight for Mohammad as promised, neither did they fight against him either. Apart from a few minor skirmishes during the Battle of the Trench they remained neutral.

The execution of POW who have surrended unconditionally is bad enough but Mohammad also chose to sell the women and children off into slavery once the men had been decapitatd. He then had the callous gall to take a Jewish concubine (called Rayhana) as sexual booty.

Fellow-Human, even if you do manage to hide behind the accusation of 'treason' do you really think that such wanton violence is becoming of an esteemed religious figure? I can't imagine Jesus or Buddha participating in such blood letting.

And I certainly won't be using the life-story of Mohammad to teach my three children morality and compassion!

TR,

If you want to dwell on it at least get the detailed facts straight:

• Ibn Ishaq quotes that the sources of the story was the descendants of Banu Quraysa themselves. Ibn Ishaq died in 151 (145 years after the event).
• One authority, Ibn Hajar, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales"
• A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik, the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories.

Anyway, will assume the story is ok for the discussion sake.
Anyway, let assume there is a country in a state of war and the king of the country made peace and alliances with the Jewish Tribes to ensure enemies won’t attack from their territories. So all Jewish tribes honour their agreement except for one, who opened the gates for the enemy to slaughter women and children. The king comes back from war to investigate (he honoured peace treaties with all the other tribes) the culprits. He sieged the tribe until they gave in the traitors.

He didn’t judge them and instead asked them to nominate a judge of their choice (they chose an ally: Saád). The sentence was executed. POW is an enemy combatant caught in the battle field. It does not apply to a local resident who became a spy or traitor and harm your civilians during war time. If Australia is at war with N. Korea and we catch a spy working with the enemy to harm Aussies, do you call that a spy and charge him or a POW? Your prejudice is clouding your sense of reason.

Mohammed pbuh was a prophet king (ie like Moses) so comparison with spiritual teachings only doesn't apply.

Peace,

A great article.

Benjamin, are you really piss-ignorant or just pretending to be? Please say it's not really true that you are in any way connected to the legal profession. How did you get through High School in the first place? The difference between an Obiter Dictum or Ratio Decidendi in a judgment will be totally beyond you.

By the way, don't get all the brown people with accents mixed up. The caste system of India is not Muslim.

As to the Western nations ruling the non-Western nations. You were born about 400 years too late. It's been tried before with the resulting messes in Africa, Middle East and Asia. Who do you think drew all those borders on the world map?

Fellow Human, you are patient as always.

How do some come to the conclusion that Bashir Goth is anti-Islam? In the past he wrote a beautiful piece directed to his son about his memories of celebrating some Muslim celebrations, like Ramadan. It brought me back to my youth. Though non-Muslim, still enjoyed some of the fun with my Muslim peers!

F_H

Your logic helps the readers here understand how warped one can become if you follow Muhammed's doctrines. By your logic, you suggest we (non-muslims) should round up all muslims for creating "tumult and persecution" in the world. Just like Muhammed did, he did'nt just round up the culprits. Instead, he rounded up all the men of the Banu Quraysh who had pubic hair and allowed them to be beheaded.

I guess you will keep bleating that this story in Alhadith was added by Christian Missionaries. But let's have a look at the incitement to divisiveness in Quran, the eternal immutable Holy word from Allah himself:

"Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Q.9:123)

I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. (Q.8:12)

Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him. (Q.3:85)

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Q.9:5)

Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. (Q.2:191)

Fight them on until there is no more dissention and religion becomes that of Allâh. (Q.9:193)

Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. (Q.9:14)

Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin. (Q.9:66)

You who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbelievers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the grand mosque at Mecca ) after this year. (Q.9:28)

Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior. (Q.9:29)"

I am concerned, that according to your religious writ, I am to be killed for rejecting Islam. That is why the followers of such doctrines commit violence. They strongly believe Allah is telling them to.

Your fluffy portrayal of Islam is incorrect.

Hi Yvonne,

I actually like Bashir and I understand the message of modernization he is trying to convey. Although I think many muslims I talk to are hyper sensitive to Rushdie’ s writings. I have to admit I was a bit annoyed with Rushdie’s writing when I was at high school, but later I found out that’s just who he is: the man have no respect for any religious faith or affiliation and slant black, Jews (indirectly of course, he is a smart fellow).

Bassam,

Have you actually studied anything about Islam or someone sent you a couple of Islam bashing links?

I will assume you have good intentions and have been mislead. I would like to correct you from your own quotes (Using the Pickhall translation available at Dymmocks for $9.95):

1. “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. (Q.2:191)”
The whole verses read:
“But if they desist, then Allah is most forgiving (2:192) And fight them until persecution is no more …but if they desist, let there be no hostility except for the wrong doers (2:193)”

2. “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them (Q9:5)”

That’s also incorrect, the whole verse reads: “but if they repent, establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (Q9:5) .And if any of the idolaters seek thy protection then protect him… and convey him to his place of safety..(Q9:6)

When you mention the whole section, any child can now understand that war is only allowed in land defense in a time of war. The whole 19 references in the Quran relating to war have boundaries of ‘fight those who fight you and shall not transgress’ (ie army versus army).

“I am concerned, that according to your religious writ, I am to be killed for rejecting Islam”

History proves this statement wrong and ill founded, Christian arabs and Jews lived between their Muslim ‘brethren’ for the last 14 centuries.

Peace,

You appear to be in a lose-lose scenario Fellow-Human.

If you go WITH traditional Islamic history then Mohammad is portrayed as a callous man with a large sexual appetite.

If you go AGAINST traditional Islamic history and question its reliability (as you suggest!) then the Sunnah begins to collapse.

What's amazing Fellow-Human is that you are willing to cast doubt on both Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq. And I shouldn't have to point out to you that these two gentleman provide the PREMIER FOUNDATION of early Islamic history. The Koran contains very little biographical data about Mohammad, it is mainly through men like Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq that we learn anything at all about the Prophet and the supposed supernatural origins of the Koran

I should also point out that Saad is not your 'get out of jail free card.' I don't think that we can put too much store or the decision made by an elderly gentleman who was dying from his battle wounds.

Besides, Mohammad's response to Saad's bloodthirsty decision implies a 'stitch-up';

'Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."

Fellow-Human, which ever way you cut it, Islam has a blood thirsty Prophet at its heart. This may make him a pragmatic and clever politician. But a religious inspiration? You've got to be kidding me!

TR,

Now I am puzzled, the way you quoted the story you have just confirmed that it was a war treason and that the Banu Quraysa got the judge they asked for! You just refuted your own 'pow massacre'claims?

“What's amazing Fellow-Human is that you are willing to cast doubt on both Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq”

I don’t take a dogmatic approach I question everything about my faith and its references. It seems you are cherry picking whatever confirms your pre-set opinion about Islam. As long as you are OK with prejudice I have no problem : -)

Peace,

Fellow-Human, you havn't noticed the important last sentence from the quotation. That is;

'The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."'

I don't notice any protestations from Mohammad nor the slightest bit of compassion.

Nor do I hear something like, "Would you like to think about it a bit longer Saad?"

No, instead we get something like, "Well thank God for that. Now we hack their heads off!"

Charming, and typical of the barbaric example set by the Prophets n' Kings of the Biblical Old Testament.

F_H

You said:
"I will assume you have good intentions and have been mislead. I would like to correct you from your own quotes (Using the Pickhall translation available at Dymmocks for $9.95):"

One of my intentions is to correct the misinformation spread by people like yourself. I guess from your side my intentions look bad, but from my side I simply feel the need to speak out.

The copy I am refering to now is the one printed in Saudi Arabia which was translated by professors of an Islamic University in Madinah, and endorsed by the King Fahd Complex. Pickhall was a Western convert, so I would put more trust in the one from Saudi Arabia. It was given to me by Muslims doing their dawa. You probably chose the Pickhall translation because it is softer, more palatable. You do seem to have a habit of ignoring the yukky stuff and fluffing things up a bit.

So that the readers here can see for themselves, I will quote some of the verses and include the footnotes from this King Fahd Complex version.

Q2:190. And fight them in the way of Allah(1) those who fight you, but transgress not limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihad, but it was supplemented by another (9:36)]

Q2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah(2) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Q2:192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Q2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and ( all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers).

Footnotes.
(1) (V. 2:190) Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah's Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established. Allah's Word is made superior, (His Word being La ilaha illallah wich means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.

(2) (V. 2:291) Al-Fitnah: polytheism, to disbelieve after one has believed in allah, or a trial or a calamity or an affliction.

One last piece of blasphemy.

I know that Mohammad's marriage to Aisha has been debated to death but Bukhari's hadith still defy imagination. For those who haven't been exposed to them before here they are in all their glory;

'Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Narrated Aisha:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.'

AND

'Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hisham's father:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.'

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234

I must admit that the unfortunate image of a 40 year man bouncing up and down on the fragile pelvis of a 9 year old doesn't endear me to the cult of Mohammad. Does anyone else feel any different?

TR,

“Nor do I hear something like, "Would you like to think about it a bit longer Saad?"

Wasn’t it merciful enough to let the accused choose the judge? Do you know of any other king of that period or later to have done the same?
You sound like a smart guy, there are plenty of non-Muslim historians and philosophers (LaMartine, History of Turkey 1854) and the great Thomas Carlyle.

For Muslim thinkers, Tarik Ramadan documented the biography of the prophet in the book below. One of the most famous incidents is him releasing thousands of prisoners in return of them teaching early Muslims how to read and write.
http://www.soundvisioncanada.com/shop/pview.asp?Item=406-160

Believe whatever makes sense to you,

Bassam,

I think its old news to tell us meaning interpretation according to the Wahabis of Saudi.

“One of my intentions is to correct the misinformation spread by people like yourself. I guess from your side my intentions look bad”

That’s intellectual dishonesty. To correct misinformation means you display a whole verse then raise whats good and bad about it. In your post above you intentionally quoted ‘half of a verse’ or half of a truth that suits you. There is only one Quran and the meaning translation is around choice of words. And actually, the ‘softest’ meaning translation is Yussuf Ali but Oxford and Pickthall are reasonable meaning translation.

Here is a little challenge based on facts and figures:

The world’s most religious practice is Sufi / Mystic muslims and there are estimated to be 18% of the Muslim population (estimated 25 millions in Turkey alone www.fethullahgulen.org). The conservative (ie wahhabis) are estimated to be 15-18 millions at best (ie 1 % of the total Muslim population or 1/10 of the Sufis). In a classroom of 10 students, 9 understood and interpreted the lesson in a way and only one student interpreted it differently, don’t we say the 9 students got it right?

For further reading: www.affinity.org.au

Peace,

You said:
"When you mention the whole section, any child can now understand that war is only allowed in land defense in a time of war. The whole 19 references in the Quran relating to war have boundaries of ‘fight those who fight you and shall not transgress’ (ie army versus army)."

And an older child would see that it is incitement to violence, not only over land but also over an imaginary truth. As the good professors suggest, let's go to 9:36. "Verily, the number of months with Allah is twelve months (in a year), so was it ordained by Allah on the Day when He created the heavens and the earth; of them four are Sacred (ie the 1st, the 7th, the 11th and the 12th months of the Islamic calendar). That is the right religion, so wrong not yourselves therein, and fight against the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) collectively as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious)."

How much clearer does one have to be? Those who disbelieve in the Oneness of Allah are to be fought against. This doctrine is called Jihad. It is of utmost importance, a shining pillar of Islam. Two professors who specialise in Islamic study say this.

You go on to say:
"That’s intellectual dishonesty. To correct misinformation means you display a whole verse then raise whats good and bad about it. In your post above you intentionally quoted ‘half of a verse’ or half of a truth that suits you."

That's just your way of fobbing me off. I have shown verses from a translation of Quran, backed up with footnotes to explain that your "half of a truth" is incorrect. The readers can decide for themselves.

The rest of your response is a load of sophistry and red-herrings. 99.99999% of the world's population used to think that the world was flat. According to your twisted logic they all got it right.

Bassam,

No need to get hot under the collar its just a discussion.

- When you want to understand a faith, you ask those who belong to it. Please read the attached article by the top 100 Muslim scholars and thinkers from 26 different nationalities to the Pope. http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue18/openletter18_lowres.pdf

- You failed to mention why Chapter 9 is the only chapter of 114 that does not start with “In the name of God Most gracious most merciful”.

Is this another dishonesty or your ‘professors on Islam’ don’t know? Let me tell you then: the time of this specific revelation Muslims were facing extermination wars (during their holy months of worship) and hence were allowed to defend themselves without transgressing. Muslims were forced into wars and the norm being outnumbered 9 or 11 to 1 and were permitted only self defence without transgression. Muslims never transgressed on people of other faith like Christians or Jewish. In fact, throughout history Christians and Jews lived in Muslim countries and early churches and synagogues are still there. I can’t say the same about other religions practices during the Spanish inquisition and what happened to Muslims and Jews.

-“War over imaginary truth” not sure what does that means but I can’t see the difference between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Here is a youtube link by the famous Deedat on a lecture to muslims that there is no difference between the 3 great Abrahamic faith. The man is an expert on the Quran, the Bible and the Torah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LRUeu83ZaI

-“Inciting violence, land wars, etc..” : That’s crusaders mythology. How did Islam get to Malaysia, Indonesia, India and the US?
The following is a news article on CNN and shows 25% of US Muslims are new converts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN-EfgU7PW4

Or is CNN a pro-Islam channel?

Peace,

You are a facinating person Fellow-Human. Indeed, your point that Sufis outnumber Wahabis is a good one.

However, you are committing a mistake by using the gentleness of Sufism to justify Islam in the face of Wahabist violence and bigotry.

This is not your mistake, but a general mistake made by numerous social commentators. Namely, justifying a set religious beliefs by whether they are peaceful or violent, tolerant or intolerant. And so we enter a debate that has NO conclusion and is bound to go round n' round in circles ad nauseum. Hence, Westerners continue to accuse Muslims of being inherently violent, and Muslims continue to accuse Westerners of being inherently egomanical.

So, instead of asking the question "Is Sufism peaceful?" we should be asking "Is Sufism correct?"

The answer to this question is an obvious NO. Sufism is similar to conventional Islamic sects in that it is founded on Sharia, which in turn is founded on the Sunnah. And as you know Fellow-Human the Sunnah is founded on the likes of Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq (via Ibn Hisham).

I already know how you feel about the reliability of Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq's biographies, so really from the viewpoint of finding plain accurate truth Sufism is NO BETTER than Wahabism!

It is the intrinsic problems of early Islamic history that is the pivotal problem and the main concern.

TR, basically, most Australians have very little or no personal experience of any people who practice the Islamic faith.

Some of the discussions that go on on OLO must be as frustrating to Muslims as it would be to a Christian of any sect in a Muslim country where the faith is viewed through one particular prism.

It is undeniable that there are people who profess to follow the faith of Islam and justify their behaviour and opinions with Islam. But this is not different as to what has happened in the Christian world in the past.

I'm sure the majority of Christians would be incensed if they and their faith were judged by the behaviour and opinions of say the Ku Klux Klan, a devout Christian group.

The concern for all, as well as Muslims, is the strident and public domination a small group of Islamists is getting. There seems to be a connection with Wahabism. I'd like to remind the conservatives that Saudi Arabia, a close ally of the Western World exports and bankrolls this variety of Islam.

The Royal Family of SA is only in power by the grace of the Wahabists. None of the Royal Family could actually afford to come out against this strand of faith without risking loss of power and destabilising SA. They are the Royal Family and in power because it suits the Wahabists.

I've grown up with people who practice the Islamic faith. I can assure you that what is going on has little to do with spiritual matters, and everything to do with power. Many, many more Muslims have died through terrorist attacks than Westerners.

TR,

“You are a fascinating person Fellow-Human. Indeed, your point that Sufis outnumber Wahabis is a good one”
I hope it’s a compliment : -) You are more fascinating since you are well read on Islam by choice, I had to because its my faith.

My point is this: Islam is a proven peaceful religion regardless of the criminals like Laden and Co, before you jump on me let me further qualify my statement:
- Islam is a fast growing religion.
- The fastest growing practice of Islam is Sufism/ Mystic Islam.
- The most peaceful spiritual religious sect is Sufi Muslims. They would carry an insect to safety across the fence since insects ‘are nations like us’ according to the Quran and there reading. That’s the only Islam they know.
- Many of the greatest spiritual leaders were Sufis (www.sharawy.com).
- Muslims in general consider Sufism to be an accepted spiritual practice with one or two caviets on one subsect (the human and creator unity stuff which I studied for years and couldn’t get it).
So, how can Islam be anything BUT peaceful, if almost 200-300 Millions are reading the same ONE book and end up in Mystic Islam?

Yvonne,

“Some of the discussions that go on on OLO must be as frustrating to Muslims”

On the other thread I posted a comment re wahabbi. Every Muslim and non muslim I know like to jump on the ‘spot the wahabi’ band wagon. But then neither (or very few) is willing to support moderate muslim organisations’ with a $1 worth. Few years ago I used to volunteer for charity work for Islamic and Christian charities. Some of these moderate organisations collect cents from each other to fix a whole in a mosque's roof on a rainy day. Wahabbis don’t like them and the average Aussie is scared of them. But then again some politician comes up with the infamous ‘moderate muslims should do more’. Frustrating? You have no idea.

Peace,

Fellow_human,

May I suggest you changed your pseudonym to Quick_Silver. You're one of a kind when it comes to using taqiya and kitman,... Wow – you should have been a lawyer instead of a professional defender of Islam.

This shows how Islam has immunised you and itself from external criticism. Mohammad was a genius indeed – too bad he was no longer around when the Qur’an was finally edited and made book. I can just see the man doing the book signing promotions at Dymocks and the compulsory TV morning-shows.

Who knows he may even have dethroned Rushdie - and received a literary accolade or two.

He was known to intensely like poetry; as the style of his Qur’an clearly shows. The jury is still out about him being a total illiterate though (a successful businessman-come-statesman...?) some say his illiteracy was confused with “ignorance” the dark ages he grew up in.

FH– you are at a lose-lose when trying to defend Islam – this is the 21st century, people have access to information now. So you can forget about: “ask a Muslim about Islam” when most of us have the Qur’an and Hadiths to judge you or your self-proclaimed prophet of Islam.

You can thank the editors of the Qur’an (Osman & Associates @ dar el fitna wal tazweer. nos-com) to have preserved for eternity some abrogated ayat for us to quote. Too bad they burnt all the original manuscripts – we could have had a fuller picture of the entire masquerade.

No matter how good you are at deluding yourself and others that Islam is the only true religion, you have nothing but the words of one misguided man/prophet to back you up.

Sorry this wont stand in any court today.

Jesus is The One who is coming back to judge the world. Not mere prophets like Moses, Abraham, or David… (and certainly not Mohammad)

By denying Jesus’ death and resurrection Mohammad committed the unforgivable sin against God and humanity.

Fellow-Human and Yvonne,

Both of you obviously didn't read my post.

Just to make it clear, I previously stated that Islam should NOT be judged by the conduct of its adherents but rather by the quality of its historical texts.

It doesn't matter that Sufism is the beautiful flower of Islam and Wahabism is the noxious weed. I am more interested in the soil (or rather the manure) that they have BOTH grown out of.

My objections to the religion of Islam are academic. The likes of Osama bin Laden do not feature in my decision as to whether Islam is true or not.

Rather my objections stem from the fact that early Islamic history is completely inadequate. Put simply, there is NOT enough evidence to support the hypothesis that the Koran has a supernatural origin.

Indeed, we could even say that the evidence is so bad that it requires a delusion on behalf of the Muslim to believe that a real angel from heaven actually recited the Koran to Mohammad.

Even you Fellow-Human have admitted that the best Islamic texts formulated by Imam Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq (via Ibn Hisham) are deficient and cannot be trusted.

Coach,

- “You're one of a kind when it comes to using taqiya and kitman"

Guess what’s the origin of Taqiya and Kitman? It turned up to be a fatwa given by a Muslim scholar (Ibn Taymyah) during the 10th century AD when the crusaders tortured Muslims to convert them by force. So the context was “If a Muslim is forced to convert and go to church(Taqiya), he/she can do that while keep their faith in secret (Kitman)”. Even some Orthodox and Nestorian Christians used to follow the fatwa fearing for their life. Disgraceful don’t you agree?

- “Jesus is The One who is coming back to judge the world. Not mere prophets like Moses, Abraham, or David… and certainly not Mohammad”

Not sure I understand the above, Muslims also believe in Jesus (pbuh) second coming and him judging the world. Your point is…?

-“By denying Jesus’ death and resurrection Mohammad committed the unforgivable sin against God and humanity. “

So does Jews, Atheists, etc…So everyone who disagrees with your faith committed an ‘Unforgivable Sin”?

Coach; please cool it you are taking religion too serious. We all read and we all believe because we want to believe. Truth is a matter of personal judgement and maybe we are just meant to be different and stay different. If you truly believe in your faith you should not feel threatened by another belief just because it doen’t agree with you.

TR,

“Rather my objections stem from the fact that early Islamic history is completely inadequate. Put simply, there is NOT enough evidence to support the hypothesis that the Koran has a supernatural origin”

Please read my post to Boaz on the very same topic.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=815#14258

“Even you Fellow-Human have admitted that the best Islamic texts formulated by Imam Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq (via Ibn Hisham) are deficient and cannot be trusted” . No, you said that : -) All I said that some of the hadith conflicts with the Quran and therefore is discarded or ‘nicely ignored’: -).

Peace,

I read your reply to 'Boazy' Fellow-Human. That is;

'Boazy,

I don’t believe Jay Smith is a liar just the approach of an 'excavation egineering' is flawed. The first question re scripture is its consistency with the natural laws of scripture: messenger selection and dictation. Throughout history and for unknown reasons to us God chose his prophets and dictated his scripture. Abraham, Moses, David, Mohammed. Similar to the Torah, The Quran was ‘forced’ or dictated to the prophet ( I won’t dwell on that since you studied the prophet’s biography, how can you explain Surah 80 “He frowned”?)...'

Why do Muslims arrogantly assume that their only real competition is Christianity. I don't believe in Jesus, nor the Bible. As far as I'm concerned both the Bible and Koran are primitive forms of mythology. That is, neither books can be trusted as real factual history.

To me the idea of Prophets and talking angels is childish nonsense and fit only for the intellectually backward.

Try again Fellow-Human, and please try and make some sense to this sceptical atheist. Give me one good reason why I should believe in the centre piece of Islamic theology - a talking angel thing called Gabriel.

TR,

“Why do Muslims arrogantly assume that their only real competition is Christianity? I don't believe in Jesus, nor the Bible. As far as I'm concerned both the Bible and Koran are primitive forms of mythology”

Arrogance and pride are sins in our beliefs. The comment I forwarded to you above is in a discussion with Boaz who is a professional retired missionary and bashing Islam is his favorite past-time.
Apologies if you saw the comment as arrogant that was not the intent.

I don’t believe theologies compete but it’s rather a market place with different flavors, each individual picks up whatever appeals to him or her.

“Try again Fellow-Human, and please try and make some sense to this sceptical atheist. Give me one good reason why I should believe in the centre piece of Islamic theology - a talking angel thing called Gabriel”

I was never an atheist but I was agnostic for few years. I can’t summarise 6 years of thought and soul search in 350 words. It was a mystic journey for me and was initiated one day out of watching nature on the farm (animals, ants). One thing didn’t sit well: the idea of extremely advanced civilizations like ants and bees kingdoms (far more advanced than humans) yet for some reason we are in charge of this planet, its creatures and ourselves. Even the caterpillar kingdom have a purpose in life and it prompted me with the question “whats the advanced monkeys purpose in life”. I started there, with endless list of why, who, how..
I don’t want to bore you or audience with it I think its going to be a very long TR/FH discussion. If you want to pursue it: my email is viewsexchange@gmail.com

Peace as always,

Thanks for sharing Fellow-Human.

I have a suspicion that your 'mystical journey' is not yet over. This is not a bad thing as journeys are gererally more interesting than the actual destination.

I must admit that I have some admiration for people who choose to believe in God. Especially if they use logical thought processes like the 'Five Ways' of Saint Thomas Aquinis as a foundation for their belief.

However, I have mild contempt for people who choose to believe in angels. To me they are no more logical than unicorns, fairies, or goblins. The existence of God and the existence of angels are too very different issues. What's more, modern neuroscience (eg schizophrenia/narcolepsy) easily accounts for the illusion of angelic experiences without the need for evoking the highly unlikely notion of the supernatural.

As for the complexity of nature being a 'proof' for God I recommend 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' by Daniel Dennett. In this book Dennett explains that;

'Darwin's dangerous idea is that Design can emerge from mere Order via an algorithmic process that makes no use of pre-existing Mind.' p83.

It is a brilliant tour de force and should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in philosophy or the science of Darwinism.

If you want to discover the 'meaning of life' Fellow-Human then I recommend 'The Meaning of Things' and 'The Heart of Things' by A.C. Grayling. These works are both beautiful and gentle.

Thanks for the invigorating discussion!

FH

You said:
"No need to get hot under the collar its just a discussion."

I'm not getting hot under the collar. I can see you are clutching at straws. I can see you have no valid defence when you start calling me dishonest.

You said:
"Is this another dishonesty or your ‘professors on Islam’ don’t know? Let me tell you then: the time of this specific revelation Muslims were facing extermination wars (during their holy months of worship) and hence were allowed to defend themselves without transgressing...blah blah blah."

Defence fiddlesticks!
Muhammed had started as one man. His followers grew in number as he raided and stole the belongings of others. Is it any wonder that the "government" at the time were responsible for outlawing brigandry?
Being so weighed down by the absurdities in Quran, you lose your ability to reason.

You said:
"- When you want to understand a faith, you ask those who belong to it."

When discussing Islam with muslims, I get all sorts of twisted replies, that's why I go to Quran and AlHadith for verification.

You go on to bleat:

"-“Inciting violence, land wars, etc..” : That’s crusaders mythology. How did Islam get to Malaysia, Indonesia, India and the US?
The following is a news article on CNN and shows 25% of US Muslims are new converts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN-EfgU7PW4"

Once again, you ignore the divisiveness and violence in the name of Islam by providing distractions. You would need to ask the Hindus on the Island of Bali as to why they fled Java. To try and end the violence, India was partitioned to form Pakistan. The Muslims in India still issue death fatwas to those who criticize your holier than thou prophet. As for Malaysia, I don't know much about Islam entering there. And as for the US, they allow freedom of religion. Can't say the same for that holy land of Saud you and your co-religionists bow to everyday.

Once converts find out about the violence and hatred expounded by Quran, they leave Islam.
Here is a testimonial of an ex-convert.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Testimonials/Abdulquddus.htm

TR,

Thanks for the info I heard of Grayling but never read any of his work. Will let you know when I read them. I am now entrenched in NLP, Dianetics and Animal telepathy. They are as exciting. Agree the journey is never over. I enjoy talking to you too!

Bassam,

Are you a Muslim? No. So why insist to explain what Islam is?

“The Muslims in India still issue death fatwas to those who criticize your holier than thou prophet”

-I commented before that most reformists and Muslim scholars don’t support these kinds of fatwas:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=758#13338
- A fatwa is an opinion not a creed. There are hundreds of fatwas banning Muslims from smoking and yet 3 out of 5 practising Muslims do smoke. Don’t be dogmatic.

“Muhammed had started as one man. His followers grew in number as he raided and stole the belongings of others. Is it any wonder that the "government" at the time were responsible for outlawing brigandry? Being so weighed down by the absurdities in Quran"

I can see you stopped quoting the ‘absurdities in the Quran’ all of a sudden: -) Clever man!
History by LaMartine and Thomas Carlyle proves the man was an honest, wise merchant who never told a lie until the age of 40. He preached his message for the following 13 years with no followers so he was 53 (last 10 years of his life). According to your story, he became ‘senior citizen Robin Hood’ at the age of 53! Even Boaz, the expert on Islam Misrepresentation was smarter to fall in this trap.

- “Once converts find out about the violence and hatred expounded by Quran, they leave Islam”

Thats one side to the story. On the other hand, there are those who found Islam to be the most peaceful and tolerant faith : Yusuf Estes (link below) was an evangelist minister and used to be scared of Muslims. Listen to him telling his story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6K0627FiCk

To you and radicals of all beliefs I say: be happy, live and let live!

Peace,

'I am now entrenched in NLP, Dianetics and Animal telepathy.'

I didn't realise that you have a sense of humour Fellow-Human. Very clever!

TR

Hi Fellow Human,

I have moderated my views on Islam a little, thanks in part to you. But I have to say that your reliance on LaMartine and Thomas Carlyle for character refernces for Allah is rather hollow. Two 17th century western philosphophers/historians are hardly an airtight case. I am sure if I looked hard enough I could find at least two equally venerable historians who would say the exact opposite. Thats the nature of philosophy and history.

In any case from what I read they seemed to be saying that Muhammed was a great leader in the mould of Alexander the Great, not in the sense of Jesus Christ or Moses. And no one uses Alexander the Great to teach morals to their children. I think you're better of just acknowledging that your prophet was a flawed man by todays standards, but that your God chose him as his messenger for reasons unknown.

Peace as always, TR,

Not sure if your last comment was serious :- )
I like reading about mind power (I know dianteics is naive but never the less its a theory). I don't believe everything I read.

Hi Paul,

Just to clarify my reference to Carlyle and LaMartine wasn’t to prove God or Mohammed but to refer to philosophers to two credible historians and philosophers who weren’t ashamed to admit that the ‘character assassination campaign’ by French missionaries post the crusades was a disgraceful.

“I think you're better of just acknowledging that your prophet was a flawed man by today’s standards”

Muslims don’t see it that way and the simple proof is his message: The Quran. Isn’t interesting that Islam is the only faith to mandate belief in other books and prophets as an article of faith?
Hadith is not an article of faith in Islam since it was collected 2 centuries after the prophet’s death (and if I dare say against his will and the caliphates as they wanted believers to focus on god’s word).
The hadith that some use against the prophet either contradict the Quran, the prophet behaviour or earlier hadith which discredits it. Having said that, unfortunately we don’t have a clergy like the church that filter and bans material (like GOB). The filtration process in the Islamic faith relies on reasoning and common sense at the believer level and not the clergy. Every Muslim will tell you Tabari was a collector of material nd many of his sources by Jewish tribes who converted to Islam to avoid the Jizyah tax. The very same sources that claimed Jesus was cruel to animals and pushed a child off the roof (infancy bible) were dismissed as untrue from ‘dishonest sources’. So when liars talk about Jesus they are liars but if they are talking about Mohammed (pbut) they must be telling the truth!

btw I agree with your comment to Farooq on the other thread 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Peace as always,

FH

You said:
"Are you a Muslim? No. So why insist to explain what Islam is?"

I thought I'd made this clear. One of my intentions is to correct the misinformation spread by you and your co-religionists.

You said:
"To you and radicals of all beliefs I say: be happy, live and let live!"

Don't worry I do live and let live. I reckon in about 20 to 30 years when all this childish Jihad and blasphemy nonsense stops, intelligent muslims will look back and feel embarrassment and shame for following the rantings of a caravan raiding, jew murdering bigot who was mentally insane. When this happens, you and I will be able to sit down with a tasty red and have a really good laugh about it all :-)

Peace

Fellow Human
I feel the need to call to attention the absolutely absurd/dangerous passages which exist in the Bible. I am sure there are many more.

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

And it came to pass on the when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males. And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out. The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

I think there is no sense in denying that there are passages in both texts which can be taken to absurd conclusions. So I accept your position that there ARE moderate muslims who we should be trying to reach.

Fellow Human please tell me how we can do this when the Muslim Community votes Sheik Hillali their man of the year of 2005? How can we do this when the Islamic council offered to renew his post this year? Its almost like us voting coach or one of the other evangelicals our representative to the muslim community. Totally inappropriate

Hi Paul,

Hilali’s prize 2005 maybe was related to his efforts in releasing the Australian hostage in Iraq. Hilali lost his popularity long before then although the media kept him in focus because he sells. As for the dialogue question, there are many forums and it need not to go through clergy and can start one to one. FH_Paul is already a dialogue. Once there is a dozen on each side that’s already a community of interest.

Bassam,

I will conclude you ran out of steam and you are just too proud to admit you were brain washed.

Peace,

FH,
Small point of interest. Are you saying that Hillali doesn't represent the values held by the lakemba muslims? As I said somewehere else, the Islamic council offered to retain him for another term in March this year. Clearly the community thinks he's the right person to be leading them in prayer or else they wouldn't go to his mosque. And it's the largest mosque in Australia. What am I missing.

I think you have helped convince me that it's not Islam at fault here. Its the interpretation. Unfortunately for us, the number of people choosing to interpret it the wrong way are growing. These people are already in our communities and we are having a very hard time telling them apart from the good guys. Hillali doesn't help.

Hi Paul,

“Small point of interest. Are you saying that Hillali doesn't represent the values held by the lakemba muslims? As I said somewhere else, the Islamic council offered to retain him for another term in March this year. Clearly the community thinks he's the right person to be leading them in prayer or else they wouldn't go to his mosque. And it's the largest mosque in Australia. What am I missing”.

You are not missing anything let me explain.
The challenge that Muslims had with Hilali’s role that it was self created, which probably why it took so long to vote him out. Most Muslims I know (Arab Muslims) have little opinion of him and believe he is a politician ‘wanna be’and not a scholar. He did few good things (like his efforts to release the Aussie hostage in Iraq) But think where he failed is he became a political spokesman of the Lebanese Muslim community. Many of the sympathy with Hilali were due to the constant media attacks on his character. I don’t like him but I don’t like the media ranting about a 70 y.o. man either.

Lakemba isn’t the largest mosque in Australia its smaller than Auburn mosque for example. You made an assumption based on the Christian faith and it doesn’t apply to Islam. Its not accurate to assume because a Muslim is going to a special mosque that he/she supports the Imam’s views. Muslims must pray in certain times and the mosque is mainly out of convenience (closest to you in the time of prayer or close to your house, or where your friends go etc..). I prayed many times in mosques in different places and I can tell you I would know more about my faith than the speaker. I even challenged a Brisbane Imam once after Friday prayer because I disagreed with his speech.

Honestly I have seen so many new Aussie coverts over the years and I think many of them can and should replace the imported Imams and Mufti role.

Peace,

FH

You said:
"I will conclude you ran out of steam and you are just too proud to admit you were brain washed."

Calling me brainwashed is just another way of yours to devalue and silence my concerns. Just like when you called me dishonest. It shows you have "run out of steam".
For you to continue defending the atrocities commited by Muhammed indicates you are brainwashed yourself.

Your Sufi sophistry would have us believe that "kill (JIhad) the disbelievers" means "defend against the disbelievers", or "beat them (women)" means "admonish lightly".
For you to keep defending these rantings like you do, shows you are deceitful.

I will conclude that you love Muhammed so much that your ability to reason has diminished to the point of turning a blind eye to the atrocities he committed.

Bassam

'Peace as always, TR,

Not sure if your last comment was serious :- )
I like reading about mind power (I know dianteics is naive but never the less its a theory). I don't believe everything I read.'

Yes my comment was serious.

I thought you were being ironic - as in, people poke fun at Islam but think that the really nutty stuff like dianetics is somehow better or OK.

Fellow-Human, real science is a thousand times more interesting and fulfilling than pseudo-science. Please be a little more sceptical and don't fall for the usual traps.

Remember that the default position for any proposition is disbelief. Only believe something when there is hard tangible evidence.

Hi TR,

Thanks for clarifying that, I do agree.
My purpose of reading was not to prove anything really but more enjoy the diversity of knowledge, views and different understandings of the same topic. I mix astrology/ astronomy with history and philosophy.

Peace,