For the wives of the Prophet, it was obligatory to cover the face.

-------------

Is reason possible in religion? I don't think we can expect that all the time, but know that religion persists because it gives satisfactory answers to the meaning of human life and the value that it can put on human life and individuals and society. Religious rituals and routines bring a sense of purpose in one's lives.

If religion's answers n prescriptions doesn't do it for you, by all means, move on. Don't begrudge others their mode of ritual and routine in the limits of their universe.

Here's a little something from the 18th century to compare and wonder:



Words and their meanings get twisted. They can save lives and also kill.

Can we humans in all its diversity ever truly live in peace in an era of unbridled freedom of speech and association?

---------------

Actually during the Prayer it is haraam to cover the face.

Also in Hajj it is haraam to cover the face by putting something on it.

And if the person dies while in that state (of Hajj) the parts which they must not cover are not covered when they bury him or her.

----------------------

Due to lack of time and means:

I did not read all your words.

Good night.

Then please tell us your source for saying that the marriage contract was at nine and consumated at 14? Does it has anything to do with the battle of Khaibar? I am prepared to refute it. As for the notion that Aisha was pubescent at nine, there is no credible evidences from the hadiths to say so. It is only an assumption. Tabari 9:131...Dolls are allowed only to children for they are not yet of sound mind to grasp the concept of idolatry. Aisha was allowed to possess dolls even up to the point of moving in with Muhammad...There are no credible medical evidences that children enters puberty sooner in the 7th century than today. Do not bother to bring up the 'hot climate' argument either. That is another piece of scientific nonsense.

====
How can they when they do not know that Aisha was not pubescent at the time of consumation? I do not deny the truth that ancient practices such as child brides exists. But I question that why does a man of God who already has many other wives would marry a nine year old child.

====
Really? Here is what al-Jazeera found:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...Flanguage_tools

====
Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight for his criticisms of Islam.

====
Like I said, whatever they made obligatory, the source is the Quran and the hadiths. It is not the burden of non-believers to distinguish the differences.

I followed this discussion for several days, hoping to see someone willing to take a critical stand and so it was in vain. Not one person had bothered to open the up Quran, as they undoubtedly would have for the Bible, to see for themselves if what was presented is consistent with modern day sensibilities. Not one. So if you feel that a$$hole is as accurate a description as gullible and fawning, I can safely assume that critical thinking is not an often used utensil in your intellectual toolchest.

====
And where have I done so? Or are hyperboles your best in her defense?

====
And that is precisely my criticisms at the gullible and fawning people in this discussion. More likely than not, they are willing to sharpen their pencils, tongues and buy new keyboards to rail against 'retail Christianity' but is willing to let Islamic apologists free passes to their minds. Further, given the state of Christianity as it is, I would rather put up with 'retail Christianity' than its previous 'wholesale' incarnation where religious persecutions are as normal as that of today in Islamic countries.

====
Misguided notions? Then why are Christians in Islamic countries are persecuted? Would you like me to show you where in the Quran and the hadiths that said Jews are filthy, that they will be turned into apes and pigs, that even rocks and trees will betray their presence and that the muslims are commanded to persecute them? I doubt samsparky will have the intellectual honesty and courage to show you where.

Inquistion-style? What a chuckle and convenient strawmen arguments.

====
What are you talking about? Did I not show you how samsparky effectively called you an evil person? Here it is again......And here is what the Quran says...Do not bother yourself to bring up what the Bible say about non-believers. I am a lapsed Catholic, I am well aware of what pious Christians believe about non-believers as how God sees them. The issue for now is what Islam says about non-believers and it seems samsparky has been trying to sanitize it for your sake.

====
First -- I did not focused solely on polygamy, only that I used it to illustrate that it is the most effective means of oppressing women under Islam.

Second -- samsparky has avoided the larger issue of why are the lot of women under Islam is considerably less than that of women in the secular West if Islam is supposedly so good for women, now it appears you have avoided the issue as well with strawmen arguments about historical sexual inequalities.

Third -- Why did you avoid my question? Would you be willing to share your husband with another wife?

But what about priests? They are imprisoned when caught. Again, you seemed to have make the gross mistake of assuming that just because I am critical of Islam I am somehow 'pro-Christianity'. Wrong. This discussion is about Islam, not Christianity. Start one about Christianity if you wish. The Mormons of Utah? The Church of Latter Days Saints, aka the Mormons, renounced polygamy over one hundred years ago, the details of that renunciation are irrelevant at this time. Only the few who considered themselves the true followers of the teachings of Joseph Smith, The Fundamentalist Church of Latter Days Saints, engages in polygamy. The most prominent of them is Warren Jeffs and he is currently under prosecution after being on the FBI's Most Wanted List. The men of this sect of the Mormons have only one legal marriage filed but their 'spiritual' marriages -- polygamy -- are nothing more than their ways of skirting the law. They, the FLDS, are denounced as frauds as the 'wives' called themselves 'single' mothers and filed for state financial assistance. The point here is that organized Christianity evolved while organized Islam has largely remained stagnant in the 7th century. More strawmen arguments from you.

====
Denounce? No need to go that far. A Christian style Reformation will do. And it not just one fanatic called Osama bin Laden. It is the muslims who beat up the 'Christian dog' Nashir Ashraf for simply taking a drink from a water fountain supposedly designated for the poor.

====
Some evolved and some do not. Those that do not clashes with those that did.

====
Amazing. You failed to see how you pointed out the incompatibility of Islam to modern day sensibilities.

====
So you are accepting of other people placing a limit on YOUR rights but do not allow you to do the same for theirs? The muslims would kill you for criticizing Islam but demand you accept their criticisms of whatever local religions nearby. That is called hypocrisy and for you to acquiesce earned you the muslims' contemptous label 'dhimmi', which is a person easily cowed and submissive through threats of physical violence. So if you are accepting of the muslims' demands for placing a greater value on their sensitivities over your own, do you approve of the brazen broad daylight murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for his criticisms of Islam? Do you approve of the death fatwa on writer Salman Rushdie for his satirical portrayal of Muhammad in the novel The Satanic Verses?

No. I do not advocate mass conversion through force, that is the mean of the muslims and it is more of a strawman argument from you. Islam already demarcated the world into two distinct camps: Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb. The Abode of Submission and The Abode of War. There is no need for me to mark any 'us' or 'them'. The Abode of War is sanitized by Islamic apologists as to mean wherever Islam is not dominant that part of humanity will be riddled with strife and discontent. The truth is that The Abode of War is a theological justification to wage a military campaign to establish Islam as the dominant political ideology, not just merely a religious one. In this Abode of War, the US has many disputes with Canada over fishing rights and assorted trade issues. Did the US sent its aircraft carriers into Canadian waters? Yes we did but it was to serve as a tourism event while the attorneys representing our respective countries went to court and bled from paper cuts. Sometimes we win, sometimes the Canadians win, and the borders remain friendly. Does this sound like 'war' to you?

====
Western military forces? More strawmen arguments. It is indeed the desire and the commandment of every religions to convert the world. Islam just happens to believe in military means. It is only through the gross technological disparities between the muslim countries and the West that YOU are free enough to be able to criticize the West as being militaristic.

====
To burn the gods and to feast on their prophets.

Now would someone PLEASE reconcile this ONE inconsistency in Islam......And......And......Sura 9:73 has Muhammad commanded by Allah to persecute apostates and a Bukhari hadith has a muslim leader ordering the murder of an apostate just like Shi'ite muslim Ayatollah Khomenei issuing a death fatwa on apostate writer Salman Rushdie. If there is to be 'no compulsion in religion' per Quran 2:256, then why should there be compulsion to remain in religion?

I have many more philosophical inconsistencies in mind but I am going to have a field day with the scientific ones such as how mountains are pegs or that the moon was splitted or that sperm come from the spine.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=8000

My apologies if I offended your sensibilities with the term '@$$hole' which was crossed out in my post.

When I had typed that, the thought had crossed my mind that you were not interested in learning about Islam on this thread but rather you were setting out to destroy the theology of this monotheistic religion and mock its founder and believers. And true enough, as you admitted freely this is your agenda ('To burn the gods and to feast on their prophets.")

I would suggest you pick on religion as a whole and not narrow it down to Islam alone. And open a new thread as this one was not started by Tengkuafif for the purpose of denigrating the Qu'ran. With this modicum of respect, I would think you will give space to forummers to reply to your criticisms of faith-based assumptions.

You did not offend me in the slightest and do not concern yourself with apologies. From now on, insult all you want, my skin is quite thick and am further shielded by this electronic wall.

====
Incorrect. If you had actually read all of my posts for the last few pages, you would know that I do know quite a bit about Islam. I have posed questions about the Quran, the hadiths and applied Islam that samsparky have not been able to resolved. ATL.com is another muslim I have debated about the meaning of jihad in another sub-forum long ago. He is a Quran-only muslim and also have not been able to resolve the inconsistencies of his religion. Do not make the mistake of confusing learning with approval. To be critical is a vital component of learning.

====
Christianity have been politically defanged. I do not see Buddhists or Yogis committing murders or issuing threats of violence, do you? This is an Islam-centric discussion, not religion in general. It would be redundant for me to start a new line of discussion. So now it is revealed to all that Islam is not as much a 'religion of peace' as muslims would like to portray it to be, you resort to casting aspersions on my character for rising to an intellectual challenge. If anything, it is too late. The lot of you should have made an effective appeal to the moderators in the line of: Who else is in here with me? No one. Have I presented any facts that you cannot independently verify? Are you that afraid of a lone challenger?

The mentality expressed in this crowd is what you are...

Move this to another thread on the Debate subforum and we'll take it from there.. I share similar sentiments about islam's stagnation, but I happen to have the view that religious sensibilities ought not to be trifled with, be they christian, muslim, buddhist, hindu or whatever.

Otherwise, I don't see why other forummers would see fit to indulge your agenda to discredit islam by having a dialogue with u.

The real victims of this movement for islamic fundamentalism is not you nor me ultimately. It's folks like Samsparky whose islamic faith has nothing to do with the fundamentalists' ideology but who are being wedged in between secular western ideas and these jihadists' ideology to choose sides. If a reformation of Islam were to happen, it won't take place overnight with an invasion here or there. It will take decades, hopefully not centuries like the christian reformation in our day of modern technology and communication. But a personal reformation of individual muslims is already happening. You juz have to look and you will see that same human commonality between us and the muslims.

I would encourage you not to attack the faiths of ordinary muslims but to make a clear-cut distinction on what is jihadist ideology that has been politicised and what is otherwise another abrahamaic monotheism known as Islam.

Frankly nomad, I have given up on you.

It doesn't matter how many times I tell you that Knowledgeable (key word) Muslims do not support bin laaden - you do not want to understand and you insist on repeating the same words which I already reply to.

It doesn't matter how many times I talk to you about Muslim women doctors and scientists and workers of other jobs - you do not want to hear it.

It doesn't matter how many times I explain the actual meaning of a Verse in the Qur'aan or a Hadeeth of the Prophet - you only want to understand it in the way which suits your purposes.

I did not give you things which I made up. I gave you what true Muslims learn and teach.

Obviously they would have learnt the interpretation of Qur'aan and Hadeeth through the chain of knowledge which runs back to the Prophet.

But where is your chain of knowledge?

You have none - your opinion is worthless in determining the meanings of the Qur'aan and the Hadeeth.

I doubt it. If none of you non-muslims who have not bothered to study the Quran on your own and the muslims here have not been able to reconcile just the one philosophical contradiction I presented, what make you think this discussion will continue outside this sub-forum?

====
Doublespeak for 'I am willing to discard any and every rights and freedoms others have fought and died so that I can be a greater and freer human being than they were in order to appease Islam.' And that is my 'sentiments' of you -- a dhimmi.

====
Indulge and dialogue? How can they when judging from the previous pages they (understandably) know nothing about Islam but seemingly willing to cast aside all methods of critical thought processes?

====
I have looked and found some muslims willing entertain thoughts of a Christian-style Reformation of Islam. I once did a favorable book review, The Great Theft, by Khaled al-Fadl. There is a middle way but so far what few 'moderate' muslims there are they have been unable to cement their moral stance on their views of their religion and coalesce into a credible socio/political force. Their failure further puzzled non-muslims like myself when these 'moderate' muslims are living in the West, enjoying civil rights and liberties not available to their fellow muslims living under militant Islamists in the Middle East. These 'moderate' muslims are more interested in attacking 'the media' and supposedly 'bigotry' of any who dared to question Islam.

These 'moderate' muslims are absolutely terrified of being labelled traitors to the Islamic ummah and of even the slightest taint of being unsupportive of the Palestinians. el-Fadl himself is not immune to the Israeli-Palestinians conflict in terms of it being an 'Islamic' issue, which for an intellectual of el-Fadl's stature, is quite telling of the emotional grip this issue has on the psyches of 'moderate' muslims, a grip that has eventually morphed into an intellectual, moral, emotional and psychological bondage mask, leash and collar kit akin to that so popular among certain sexual predilections. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially a political issue, not religious but there are verses in the Quran and the hadiths that demands the Islamic ummah to see anything and everything involving the individual muslims to examine a controversy under a religious microscope. I am not going to bother presenting those verses, samsparky as a muslim should be able to find them easily (?) enough.

Khaled Abou el-Fadl...The ignorance el-Fadl speaks of is EXACTLY the one I presented here as ONE example of contradictions within the religion and one that samsparky has conveniently ignored.

=================================

No. I repeated only what al-Jazeera polled muslims in the Middle East has to say about bin Laden and his ilk. You have no credible arguments that say organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir, a Sunni organization, is any less 'knowledgable' than you. If my challenges to you are any indications, I would say that militant Islamists are much more knowledgable than you.

====
But I do acknowledge them. I am asking you that if Islam is so beneficial for women, then why do situations like this occurred...

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1018
You criticized me for calling a 14 year old girl a 'child', saying that as a menstruating female, this 14 girl is technically a 'woman'. Why would a 'moderate' muslim adhere to such primitive and medically dangerous belief? Let me guess, females in 'hot climates' matured sooner than their sisters in 'cold climates' and in the 21st century?

====
My chain of knowledge? You have a flawed understanding of this idea in Quranic exegesis. I do not have my own 'chain of knowledge'. I have no need for any since I employed Bukhari, ibn Hajar or Tabari in the most accepted interpretations. So far you have utterly failed to discredit me.

You took books written by wannabees who think they have the knowledge to give the meanings of Arabic statements in english.

Tell me, who is the person who translated those books you are reading?

That is the source of the problem and the reason why you are not getting the correct meanings of the Ayahs & Hadeeths.

If you want the correct meaning in english, take it from someone who is qualified to give you it and that the people of knowledge will testify to the fact that he or she is qualified to do that task.

Not some person who wrote a book without taking any approval of the top scholars.

Show me where Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir are inadequate. Who are YOU to tell me YOU are more qualified than Yusufali and the others? Do YOU speak Arabic? If you do not speak Arabic but take your translations from the local imam, then what make that local imam more credible than Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir?

I'll like to get a copy of that book you reviewed the next time I am near a decent bookshop. There wasn't a single decent bookshop in Southbeach unfortunately.

Well, the first time I read the Quran was the penguin classic translation when i was in school. I read it to get a sense of the liturgical poetry and I didn't look at it critically to examine its inconsistency. I have no intention to examine the Quran to reconcile its philosophical contradictions. Juz as I don't have the same incliination for bible controversies.

It is quite sad for me to see you trying to trace the origins of 9-11 all the way back to Quranic passages. I am raising Christianity not because I think you are a ex-christian turned athiest, but because both of these abrahamaic monotheisms suffer from inconsistencies. Altho you pointed out that Christianity has been politically defanged, it is not entirely true with evidence of the far right christian and jewish lobbies in the US. I do not deny that militants and selected leaders of the muslim world are trying to rear a brand of Islam as a political ideology. But the history of Islam, like the history of Christianity is a history of people who in certain era and place focussed on morally primitive scriptures to rally their cause, and in other eras and places focussed on loftier scriptures.

Have you been to Toledo, Spain? Islam attained its economic and technological dominance during the Middle Ages by focusing on the loftier scriptures. When it came into contact with India, it developed Sufism which has in turned influenced the Ishmailies who carry on the prohibited tradition of meditation. East Africa has a large community of Ishmailies who regard the Aga Khan as their leader.

It's a simplistic view to say that Islam is the problem and that the acts of a few muslims on the lunatic fringe can be traced back to primitive and conflictive passages of moral scriptures. Religious ideas aren't passed down through the generations inexorably, from one passive brain to another. In each generation, they can be rejected, embraced, amended, depending on how they mesh with the people's socially conditioned needs.

If we truly want to know why peoples interpretations of their own religious doctrines vary so much from century to century, we have to look at what is going on in the world around them. In the case of modern radical Islam, we find no shortage of explanations ranging from economic stagnation to political repression to an American foreign policy that over the past few decades has paid roughly zero attention to muslim opinion, unless you count the opinion of muslims who happen to in charge of armies or oil wells. The blame however does not lie on america alone, but a large part of the regression or stagnation in the Middle east can be attributed to its foreign policies.

You point out the dilemma of the author of the book The Great Theft. Where is he from originally?

Why does he have to leave his country to America in the first place? Has his country failed to provide him the economic and political channel to voice out his reformation of Islam? And despite america being a channel for his political and personal transformation, and you find him yet a host to radical thoughts on Islam, does this mean America is failing him as well? Why can't he assimilate to america? Why do you automatically assume reformists like him in america are taking advantage of their civil rights and liberties? Juz coz they don't toe the line and they do speak out about America's policies on supporting repressive regimes in their native countries which do not provide channels for political empowerment?

You say that 'moderate' muslims are more interested in attacking 'the media' and supposedly 'bigotry' of any who dared to question Islam. I think that you are missing the plot entirely.

The evolutionary scientists have observed that a basic law of nature is that young males will seek status and recognition through locally available channels. Muslim reformists have got to be given a channel to exercise their religious and political transformation not only out in the west, but also in their native lands. That reformation does not mean they got to put up with the denigration of Quranic passages, but a political change in their native lands through peaceful rational framework of trade and economic co-operation, not a policy of economic isolation like in the Sudan and Iran or aid like in the Palestine or Egypt, and definitely not through bloody wars which lead to societal collapse.

The Islamic reformation needs to largely take place in these muslim nations. It's no use attending dinner parties in Washington DC and making a book review on international bestseller when none of these activities affect the young men and women of Pakistan, Palestine, Afhganistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia etc. Their young people need to be empowered politically... but coupled with that, their economies need to be plugged into our economic framework too. There needs to be an outlet for their energies to be channelled to fulfilling social and political activities that bring about a vibrant country where contentment. I think we should look positively at the muslim states as far away as Turkey, India (sizeable chunk of population are muslims), Algeria, Tunisia, Msia and Indonesia. The people in these nations are possibly the real reformists in Islam. America is not going to bring a reformation to Islam with their promise of freedom and democracy amidst cluster bombings...dream on, buster.

You are the only person I hv ever known to call me a dhimmi. All my life growing up and surrounded by muslims, I have never been treated like a dhimmi. I would be fearful if someone like you came into power, for maybe you are not a muslim crusader but you sure are one hell of a crusader anyway. To many muslims and to me, what's happening in Iraq is tantamount to ramming somebody else's constitution down their throats with a gun pointed at their heads or the blast of a suicide bomber. Whose reformation is this?

I consider myself a secularist too, but first up, a humanist. I find it hard to see a secularist such as yourself to take such a hardline against religion and scoff at tame humanists. The tame may be weak, but they have lasted through the ages.

Your problem. Unfortunately, it will be up to other people to tend to what you neglected.

====
People do not operate in a moral vacuum.

====
Neither lobbies are trying to establish a state religion, and there are equally powerful and adroit secular organizations to counter their influence. Jews again? Why am I not surprised.



====
That is interesting academically. But largely irrelevant today.

====
And did you really think you have described Islam? Did you read what I posted about Sadat? The 20th century was not that long ago.

====
That is garbage and all you have done is regurgitated the standard anti-Americanism that has become so stale I could use them for salad croutons. The economic stagnation are of the muslims themselves in their own countries. Every one of them adopted the Marxist model of a command economy that inevitably turned corrupt and inefficient. The ruling authorities then yank the appropriate leash to turn the ummah onto Israel, the Palestinians and the Great Satan and the ummah starts foaming at the mouth in a Pavlovian reflex.

====
Such desperation to be as anti-America as possible. What a chuckle. Apparently you did not read what I wrote very well. My criticisms of him has nothing to do with him enjoying his civil liberties. Read what I said again. Slower this time.

====
I do not know where you copied/pasted these empty rhetorics and frankly, I do not care. Violence is not an acceptable outlet for your anger when you are living in a generous society like Europe where the social welfare system provides you with basic needs and your civil liberties are ensured. Part of that social and political make up is the right and the freedom to criticize any sacred cows. A muslim unable to withstand such freedoms in others, he can leave.

====
More empty rhetorics.

====
Iraq is a red herring. Not worth my time.

I really haven't had much time to read through most of this. But damn! noma . Give my girl young Sam a break. She's only 19, and she's pretty devote to her faith and living a decent life that is far less dangerous to her good than what a good number of U.S. girls her age live.

^ For someone who thinks muslims are pavlov dogs, you are wasting your time, bro. He's not prepared to recognise his own failings, why would he start with others?



He's probably calling you a dhimmi too, btw.

You should. I am willing to say that probably no one has dared to challenge any muslims here with their own scriptures. And I do not give 'breaks' to religious dogmas.

Now that is absurd. I may imply or even say that young samsparky is naive FOR and WITHIN her Islamic beliefs, but nowhere have I even implied anything negative about her character as a person. I am critical of ideologies and religious beliefs. If that make you uncomfortable, you do not belong here, a supposedly 'free speech' environment.

I already did show you.

Review the posts.

Yes I speak Arabic.

That doesn't mean I go and write my own meaning of the Qur'aan.

That is what Yusuf ali and others did and there are publications against them warning people against their mistakes.

I do not take translations from my local Imaam, I take the meaning of the Qur'aan & Hadeeth from the Chairman of the Islamic High Council of Australia who takes his knowledge and interacts with the top scholars of Egypt, Indonesia, Lebanon and many other places in the world.

That means I take it from the original chain of knowledge - which is the one that yusuf ali and others strayed from when they made mistakes in their publications.

Sorry. You did not show me where Yusufali erred, if you did, it was not very clear and I must have missed it. I quoted everything from you that I replied. You did not do the same for mine. If you speak Arabic and you are a muslim, then how is it that you erred with the age of Aisha? You may tell us all here that you take interpretations of the Quran from some high muckety-muck imam of Australia, but the moment you begins to introduce Islam to non-muslims HERE, like it or not, YOU have set yourself up as an authority on Islam in this sub-forum of a larger forum called AsiaFinest on this vast Internet. Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir engaged in interpretations and translations of the Quran into English. Under translations there can also be transliterations. So far these three scholars of Islam have been accepted as the best English translators of the Quran. The argument that somehow the Quran can only understood in Arabic and that only Arabic speakers are authorized to speak of its meaning is a cheap intellectual cop-out.

So here it is again.....The Yusufali English translation or interpretation, is......I find nothing errant in Yusufali's translation of Q2:256. Strange that I am arguing this while using two English translations. But nevermind that for now...Here we see in a sura......and in a Bukhari hadith......So we see in Q2:256 that is supposedly 'no compusion in religion', but in Sura 9:73 we see Allah ordering Muhammad to persecute apostates and in the Bukhari hadith a muslim leader ordering the murder of an apostate. If there is to be 'no compulsion in religion' then why should there be any compulsion to remain in religion? Do YOU believe in punishing apostates? Never mind the argument that there has to be a caliph to order the punishments of apostates. I am asking why should there be punishments of apostates at all? This is not about translations but about philosophical contradictions. You are HERE telling me that Islam is great. I am also HERE asking you to reconcile this philosophical contradiction. I neither making any charaterizations about you nor am I implying anything about your mental faculties.

Sura 9:73 and the Bukhari hadith has been used to justify the fatwa against apostate and writer Salman Rushdie. That fatwa was issued by Iran's Khomenei, who is not a Wahabbist. Muhammad Shalabi, former sheik of al-azHar, stated...So explain to us all here how are Khomenei and Shalabi in error?

If you didn't come across as attacking Sams & everyone else who's a member of this clan, why would extrahour make a plea with you to give Sams a break?

If you are interested to discuss the spiritual teachings of the Quran, then let's take it in an amicable manner, and refrain from your usual 'inquisitorial torquemada' style. I am sure more members would participate. As it is, you are telling me I don't belong here in this clan. Who are you to decide who can or cannot be here on this clan?

Please re-read Afif's original purpose for setting up the clan:




The thing I have always known about the Quran is that it is not a scripture for critical analysis. The Quran is full of contradictions and paradoxes precisely because it is the Word of Allah and meant to be recited out loud and viscerally experienced as a connection with Allah.

Not as a philosophic treatise to be dissected and argued like Christian theology over the nature of Christ.

True believers would remain quiet rather than engage with an open argument about the nature of the Quran's writings and what it's meant to be say or not say. That is why it's hard to expect a christian-like reformation in Islam. They don't have a hierarchy nor a theological means like the Christian fathers to debate the nature of God and his Word. There were attempts to do that but time andagain, those philosophers who have harked back to the exact words of the Quran as the ultimate experience of connection with Allah has prevailed. This is where Islam has always differed from Christianity in that it is as authentic a religion as you can get. Arguing about the Hadiths versus the Suras are just a wild goose's chase as ultimately they are words of men only which were used mainly for political motives, not spiritual. If ordinary muslims can recognise that themselves, you should let it rest. Only those with political agendas would carry on with such rhetoric.

If any reformation of Islam can be undertaken whereby they choose to live within a secular governance system, I believe fervently it's at the personal and individual level. But that governance system must be seen to be fair and just. Not a system that is manipulative and corrupt. The way I see it, muslims seem to be undergoing a similar crisis they had when they were critical of the extent of corruption in their caliphs after the reign of the 'first four rightful leaders', as evinced by criticisms against the Saudi royals who are currently the guardians of Mecca.

If you want to take a secular analysis of the origins of the Quran, perhaps instead of looking into a scripture which you will never comprehend, and its' not meant for comprehension, why don't you dwell on the socio-politico factors surrounding the founder of Islam and his fight against tribalism, and the schism with the Shias and the various sects that arose? Look at the religion's development in context, instead of asking muslims on teh forum to explain the deeds and words of people (like Khomeini or the paedophile) who are not here to explain to you?

So asking tough questions is equivalent to 'attack'.

====
What if I were to tell you that there are verses in the Quran that says the opposite? Or better yet, get samsparky to direct you to the appropriate verse(s).

====
So many wrongs here it is useless to begin. Khaled al-Fadl, the reformer whose book I reviewed, would have a field day with you. So now you are saying that Islam is an 'authentic' religion while Christianity is not. Amazing. You might as well recite the shehadah and convert.

====
No. I am asking muslims to explain the words of the Quran and the actions of the early leaders of Islam. I thought I made that clear for several pages now. Khomenei and Shalabi is merely following precedents as exampled in the Quran and the hadiths. I am beginning to doubt if you had really done any genuine study of the Quran and the religion at all.

====
Who are you referring to ?

The paedophile in your mind.

Calling somebody's religious leader 'muckety-muck imam of Australia' and other members 'fawning admirers' are an 'attack'.

Can you quit ridiculing and one-upmanship? Or are you so addicted to your ego? Religion unfortunately is a sensitive subject and will always be an uneasy part of our lives to articulate. If you care to show some sensitivity in 'enlightening' the readers here with your infinite knowledge of the Quran and hadiths, by all means, we are all ears. If you continue with your berating tone, the silence here will continue to be deafening.



How does a study of the Quran make you anymore enlightened about the religion if you have not lived as a muslim?

Btw, you make 'dhimmi' sound derogatory when it is not, how does being a 'protected minority' make you any different from being a protected minority now in the States when you fled Vietnam to the USA?

Why don't u give us some socio-political background of the customs of the arabian tribes which influenced the Prophet? As well as his directive on the Qibla. Can you enlighten us on the political strife the Prophet's clan had with the other elite clans and the Jewish communities in Medina?

Can you also put Khomeini's directive on Salman Rushdie's apostasy and see it in the context of Iran's revolutionary political climate as well? Btw, the fatwa was revived by Khamenei but no one not even the Scotland Yard is taking it seriously. And I hear Rushdie is married to a pretty young actress these days and living the high life in New York with no longer any British police protection whatsover.. why don't u join him instead of fussing your pretty brain such a storm in a teacup?

I said "This is where Islam has always differed from Christianity in that it is as authentic* a religion as you can get."

Let me clarify, the Quran is as authentic a book as you can get, when compared to the Bible which has been transcribed in various languages and lost some authenticity along the way. You have heard of the Septuagint*?

* authentic : (adj) not false or copied; genuine

Septuagint : (noun) the oldest Greek version of the Old Testament, traditionally said to have been translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars at the request of Ptolemy II: most scholars believe that only the Pentateuch was completed in the early part of the 3rd century b.c. and that the remaining books were translated in the next two centuries.

Who would that be?

====
Sure. And a$$hole is a compliment.

====
I do not claim to have infinite knowledge, but can claim to have some more than most, as evident by the inability of samsparky to answer my questions, and she is a muslim to boot. This is not about ego. I have told no one of my educational level and I see no need to do so. I have told no one of my wealth other than the fact that I drive a 13 year old 4 wheel drive Jeep. I have said nothing about my home other than that I live in an apartment. So for all you know I could even be a bum off the street. I prefer to let my ideas and arguments speaks for itself. If they make people uncomfortable, too bad, unlike you who are so free with profanities and yet hypocritically call me insensitive, I have called no one such names. There are no sacred cows in a society where free speech is valued. Wonder what would happen if I were to adopt your extreme attitude and take offense at anything remotely negative about the US or George Bush.

====
Yes the silence is indeed 'deafening'. Sometimes it requires periods of uninvolvement to reflect on new things learned.

====
Logical fallacy. By your argument, from now on you have no right to criticize US if you have not lived as an American citizen.

====
You have a flawed understanding of dhimmitude. And my background is a red herring not worth my time.

Face the facts. I read this discussion for days and have seen practically nothing resembling critical thinkings from anyone. You got caught with your intellectual pants down. It turned out that despite your claim to have live among muslims, you are even less knowledgeable about Islam than a hated a$$hole American and you are embarassed. You take liberties at calling my country and my president on the carpet and now you are outraged that I exercise the same liberties you took? Hypocrite and dhimmi describe you to a T.

Really? If only you know the history....

I had apologised to u for the '@$$hole' label, even though I had deleted it from my post. Have you apologised for your labels for others?




Then let your ideas speak for themselves without being insensitive in your remarks.

If I have used profanity anywhere where it's not appropriate, I have apologised. If u can't accept it, that's something I can't help you with.

Even in America where you claim free speech is valued, there are sacred cows! Take your blinkers off and see whats happening in the christian far right groups and their power lobby over your government.



If you want any real learning on this thread, just tone down that 'robot attacking' mode of yours, that's all I am asking. We should be all ears to hear what you got to say about these contradictions between deed and word of these leaders. GWB et al.



I do not try to come across like you that I have a more accomplished knowledge of America than all the americans that's for sure.. I ask americans like you to help me understand your government's foreign policies which do affect me as a non-american.



Well, explain yourself what's 'dhimmitude'.



There, you juz can't help yourself to that one-upmanship.

Are you saying that the initial pages of this discussion were not fawning and uncritical?

====
Tough questions are themselves ideas. Calling me 'insensitive' for your failure to answer them is a sign of intellectual cowardice.

====
Considering the ease in which these insults were spewed and their frequency, your apologies does not mean much to me. So by all means, show the world your venom whenever you are in an intellectual bind.

====
More red herrings. Artists and secularists insults the Christian right on a regular basis. The Bush administration is not throwing anyone in prison.

====
Give me a break -- robot attacking mode -- what a joke.



====
Irrelevant to the discussion.

====
Let us hear what samsparky has to say about this.

====
Hey...For you in this discussion? You betcha...

Come on, nomad. You taunt and bully, it's all over you, military man.

Fawning and uncritical? There were several forummers, namely a pun187 (he is quite prone to sufist philosophy) who had several exchanges with samsparky. Were these hogwash as far as your intellectual standards go?

You've raised 'dhimmitude', why won't you give us your version instead of passing the buck to Sam? I am curious to know this as a non-muslim who grew up amongst muslims. Are there dhimmis in any muslim states at the moment?

According to Sura 2:256......And yet we see in Sura 7:93......Seemingly Allah is commanding Muhammad to persecute apostates. Further in a hadith by Bukhari......We see a muslim leader ordering the murder of an apostate.

If there is to be 'no compulsion in religion' as Sura 2:256 stated, then why should there be compulsion to remain in religion? If 'truth stands clear from error' as Yusufali translated and interpreted into English for the non-Arabic speakers, then should it be left to Allah to judge the apostate in the afterlife and not a political leadership in this life? Salman Rushdie is an apostate and he wrote a satirical novel about Islam and Muhammad, The Satanic Verses. That earned him a death fatwa from Iran's Khomenei. Is this fatwa in compliance with Sura 7:93 and the Bukhari hadith? If not, then why not?

According to Ibn Sa'd: Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir...Here we see a person who is critical of Islam at the time of Muhammad. Her name was Asma Bint Marwan and she was also a nursing mother. A devout and blind muslim separated the sleeping woman from the child with her and murdered her in her sleep. Then he went on to his morning prayers. Muhammad apparently did not care for the woman for she had 'revile' Islam and neither did he seemed to care for the now motherless orphans. Muhammad even praised the blind muslim by giving the man a nickname implying he can 'see' greater than what the average person see with their own eyes.

Is there any validity to this hadith? Jihadists have pointed out the exegesis from this hadith that it is permissable and perhaps even commanded that a muslim should take matter into his own hands in 'defending' Islam as the blind muslim in this hadith had done, after all, he did killed an innocent woman without asking Muhammad for permission and Muhammad praised him for it. Can it be interpreted that it is acceptable for a muslilm to see ANY criticisms of Islam to mean an 'attack' on Islam hence an 'attack' on the ummah, therefore earning the critic a death sentence upon which every muslim is obligated to execute at the best possible opportunity?

============================

Page 10

Interesting...Here is the typical reaction from a muslim upon the moment Islam is 'challenged' even in an oblique manner. Buddhism was explained and in doing so, the simple act of explaining somehow is interpreted as 'degrading' Muhammad. samsparky just simply cannot bear the thought that other people may not see Muhammad in the same light as she does. The appropriate supplicatory gesture by the dhimmified non-muslim immediately followed.

Why is your question ignored by the muslims? Is it because it is too difficult? This is an important question as you testified that it was your part of the world that muslims have committed violence in the name of religion. Why did you not pressed the issue, it is a fair and very important question as the implication is not regional but global? Because you are a dhimmi, that is why.

Unlike you, I am willing to take a stand.

Maybe u and i are gonna be the two goats that are gonna butt our heads about her (Asma bin Marwan)?

The jihadists would certainly take this section of Ibn Ishaq's biography as a basis to rally their cause for killing, but isn't the authenticity of this book been subject to question and doubt by the muslims?

Don't we all agree that religious leaders are leaders who always wear two hats? One spiritual and another -- socio-political? Their memes carry a spiritual content which when put in a socio-politico context, will be up to the character of the host to interpret. Whether in a passive or active manner, or put simply in a non-violent or violent way.

Many muslims I am sure will not interpret the meme contained Sura 7:93 as a means to violence. But yes, jihadists will certainly take advantage of this sura and the dubious story about Asma bin Marwin to substantiate their suicide bombings or wanton killing.

The fact that such a meme like Sura 7:93 exists in the Quran has to be taken in the socio-politico context.

We know the world surrounding the Prophet was violent and fluid. Tribal warfares were rife and his clan was in danger of extinction. He was a leader of a movement that was fighting not only for their lives and struggling to keep their clan from extinction, but also to create a unifying vision for order amongst all the other tribes.

Any form of thought can be viewed as a meme, which the host uses to advance his chances for survival and reproduction.

Within Islam's development, there has been a movement to take a very legalist approach to the Suras, (i.e. taking the letter of the Suras rather than the spirit) since the Gate for interpretation was closed sometime back in the start of the Ottoman empire(?) -- I can't give exact dates but if you want, I can look up for u.

This legalistic approach to Islamic memes had been upheld by muslim authorities since the Ottoman empire because its hosts needed that as a strategic tool to keep its power and hold over myraid different tribes of muslims intact. By that time, muslims were not just arabs of course. They were africans, mongols, indians, southeast asians, persians, pashtuns, turkics, balkans, magrebs... and muslims are still as diverse in tribes as we speak today.

The question I would always seek to ask my muslim friends is this :

When would you take a 'legalist' approach to the Suras and when will you take a 'purposive' approach?

In my talks with my muslim friends, they tend to take the 'legalist' approach when it's an issue that touches on the survival of the religion and the umma as an intact whole, i.e. Sunnis are very leery of Shias and their sufist offshoots. Therefore, in unision, they take a legalist approach against blasphemy and apostasy.

But when I speak to them about personal daily habits or rituals like wearing the veil or prayers or fasting and such like, they take a 'purposive' approach whereby some take the sunna literally as obligatory while others take in the spirit and follow the sunnah whenever they deem it so. As regards polygamy, all my muslim girlfrens will not accept polygamy in their lives, and would use secular legal means to settle divorces in a fair and square manner if the Shariah court rulings are not perceived to be just. Is that not personal reformation going on with these women?

Funnily, one girlfren told me that it's not the fact that you are sharing your husband with another that is the trouble.... It is the thought that he will divert all his income and resources to that other woman that is really the problem. Now you tell me, isn't this same condition facing any woman in the world, from NYC to Tokyo? If the rules on islamic polygamy were strictly followed by muslim men, i.e. equal wealth distribution amongst the differing households etc. I would probably join a harem myself and live a life in the lap of luxury and idleness amongst the womenfolk gossiping abt fashion and the latest jewelry and henna color!!!

But the fact is, men make the bloody rules and break them themselves!!!




* meme : a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.

* legalist : strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.

Samsparky is trying her level best to articulate what islam means to her --- and she's a teenager. I would cut her some slack for her over protectiveness of her Prophet. Why does an alarm bell ring for you everytime someone defends their religious ideals, and you start labelling people (dhimmi)?




Really? What are you gonna do about it? Start breeding your own dhimmi instead of theirs??

Jokes aside, in my part of the world, a secularist governance prevails over muslim laws in all essential matters of life and death, property and such like.

The forgery allegation is dubious at best. But I chose this story for a reason, which is only in a series of killings authorized by Muhammad in his lifetime. Bukhari 4:271 narrates the murder of Ka'b in Ashraf (a Joo) is another......Bukhari 3:687...In what manner has this Joo 'harmed' Islam?

====
Memes? Doublespeak in this discussion for the FACT and REALITY that religious ideas are servants of political caprices. All the more reasons why religious ideas should be at the top of anyone's list of concerns. But you do receive partial credit for admitting this, albeit in a deceptive manner.

====
How can they not? It is a COMMANDMENT from Allah, as testified by Muhammad. And it is 9:73, not 7:93. It can be easy to typo-ed.

====
Yes, and the musims today view ANY criticisms of Islam as 'threats' to the existence of Islam and of the ummah. Couching the mentality in a fancy psycho-babble word like 'meme' may distract the more gullible non-muslims but it will not work with me. I am in applied science, aka engineering, it is part of my work and my attitude adapt what is an ideal to real world situations and people, to strip away as much as possible ambiguities and to define what is possible here and now.

====
Doing fine so far...But this form of 'legalism' is neither ideological nor political as we normally understand 'legalism'. It is not a 'legal technicality' like the US has in the Miranda rights, for example, if a suspect has to be released by the authorities for botching a case. This form of 'legalism' has a theological foundation therefore it is transportable from region to region and from era to era.

====
That means you have no cause for saying that militant Islamists, aka jihadists, are taking the Quran 'out of context'. How many times have I said that what they do they did not derived from the Bible or the Kama Sutra but from the Quran. Heck, the world would be a much better place if only half of what we do is derived from the Kama Sutra. Khomenei's issuance of the death fatwa upon apostate writer Salman Rushdie is indeed 'Quranic' in its source. A religion cannot survive without believers to spread its ideas and theology. Apostates threatens existence in that apostates undermines the theological strength that binds the religious community together. Apostates, by simple virtue of their existence, is a direct repudiation of the core beliefs of a religion. Apostates tells the world that said religion is inadequate for ME and if it is inadequate for me, it can be inadequate for YOU as well. Sura 9:73...http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp
...cannot be taken lightly nor can it be interpreted any other way except that it is a THEOLOGICAL commandment to persecute apostates to the fullest -- kill them if necessary. That link gives the Arabic script as well lest I be accused of misleading readers.


====
So is the issue about reformation or is it the propaganda that Islam, as an applied social 'science', is 'beneficial' for women? The point here is that the Quran is supposedly a 'divine' scripture, therefore according to the muslims, infallible. If an allowance is theologically imputed, it does not mean you have to live UP to the allowance but only that it is possible to do <something>. The muslimahs you know have NO theological grounds for objecting to their husbands' desires to take on other wives. Resorting to secular measures to block such theological allowances tantamount to apostasy, in spirit if not in fact.

====
Yes...And in the West, we call those men 'players' or 'dogs' or 'pigs' or if we are kind, 'playboys'. If the man is married, he would be a 'husband' in the nominal sense of the word. He would no longer be considered a 'soulmate', or a 'friend' or any other terms of endearment. If this is the best defense you have for polygyny under Islam, you might as well recite the shahadah and be done with this facade of you being a non-muslim.

This is not about 'slack' but about the mentality that Islam must remain supreme, even in a debate on an anonymous Internet forum. You can 'cut' her as much 'slack' was you wish. To me, her behavior is very similar to that of the jihadists.

====
The same way a communist would trigger a response from me.

====
You are avoiding the question just like the muslims avoided yours. You asked an excellent question, a tough question that they cannot answer. All the Christian sects have highest levels of moral and theological authorities in which they can appeal to clarify confusions or to setlle disagreements. Catholics in America defers to the Vatican. In my own community, there is a small congregation of the Eastern Rites and they defer to the Patriarch. Mormons throughout the world defers to the Presidency of the LDS Church in the US, and so on and so on. The lack of some form of centralized moral authority and leadership in Islam does not produce as you have put it -- doctrinal errors -- for how can errors exists if there are no accepted standards and definitions? That mean an ordinary muslim cannot claim Osama bin Laden is taking the Quran 'out of context' because for all we know, bin Laden may have consulted with the nearest Islamic authorities he can find, of which, the issue now includes validation. For every verse there will be a 'counter' verse and absent a Vatican-like moral authority, any muslim can be convinced of his own moral absoluteness.

Which leads up to my next poing which is that you considered my tough questions as 'attacks' and yet you delivered at least one of your own. So why the hypocrisy? Take a look at what you criticized of me......You are WRONG and one of the muslims you fawned over said so......In effect, the Quran is supposed to be critically analyzed. I am doing exactly just that. The reflex is that if a question is too difficult, a muslim can respond in two main manners: take offense or evade (ignore). samsparky took offense at a perception that you 'degrade' Muhammad just from the simple act of explaining Buddhism. Because in explaining Buddhism, to her, you are setting the -ism of the Buddha on the same moral plane of the -ism of Muhammad and Muhammad is to be supreme, not even 'first-among-equals' applies to Muhammad. The reflex is dogmatic and teenagers are the most vulnerable to dogmatism. Tough questions, one that you disapproved of me and yet hypocritically yourself posed and conveniently ignored by the muslims, are supposed to be checks on dogmatism. Your readiness to spew profanities to me and to criticize me for doing what seemingly muslims supposed to do put you squarely in this crowd...

nomad:

1) The meaning of the Verse which you keep bringing up and interpretting as "No compulsion is Religion":

The true meaning of it is that in the presence of a caliph, the dhimmiyy who pays the jizya to the caliph is not forced to embrace Islam.

The meaning of the Verse is mentioned by Imaam al-Maatureediyy in his book "Ta'weelaat ahlussunnah walJamaa^ah".

Hence it does not contradict the fact that if a person apostatizes in a time when there is a caliph , then he would be given a time to return to islam, if he does not he would be executed.

2) The reason why I made a mistake with the age of A'isha is that I used the internet as a resource and did not take that knowledge from the correct way. When I did take it from the correct way, I found out it was wrong and corrected it.

3) No I am not here making my own meanings like yusuf ali does. I am here passing on what I take from the chain of Knowledge. If yusuf ali did that then there would be no book called "mistakes of yusuf ali".

4) The meaning of the Qur'aan is taken from the explanation given by the Prophet to the Companions to the students of the companions and so on until it got to our time through the chain of people that take their knowledge in this way.

5) transliteration means to sound out the Arabic text using english characters.

6) You said: "So far these three scholars of Islam have been accepted as the best English translators of the Quran."

I say: Had that been true there would be no book called "mistakes of yusuf ali"

7) As for Khomenei and Shalabi - I already told you what is the judgement in the Religion regarding an apostate - it differs if there is no caliph.

Is there a caliph now? no.

8) If you want to write me 7 pages, I'm not going to read it because I don't have time. Stop being so obsessed with your own replies and forgetting that I actually already answered your question. If you have any other questions ask one at a time so that you do not get carried away and dig yourself into a hole - confusing yourself & others like you.

I understand the idea of a dhimmi and the jizya. But I do not see the relationship between dhimmitude and jizya with 2:256...

Perhaps you are referring to surah 9:29 al-Baqara...



Looks like you are confused between the two verses. I am not talking about 9:29 but about 2:256. Still, even if there is a caliph, why should apostates be punished anyway? Do you believe in forced conversions? And if you do not believe in forced conversions, why would you believe in forcing someone to remain a muslim if he does not want to? Why is that question so difficult for you to understand? Is freedom of choice, even in religion, so alien to your thought processes?

====
I used the Internet as well. But I would imagine that a muslim like yourself would use the Quran and the hadiths.

====
Then show me a source that says Yusufali is wrong in his interpretations of sura 2:256. Here is what Yusufali translated 2:256...

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html
...Where and how is Yusufali in error?

====
In other words, a series of hearsay.

====
Yusufali cannot be 100% false.

====
I do not care if there is a caliph or not. I am asking that why should apostates be punished in the first place? If you do not believe in forced conversion, then why should you believe in forcing someone to remain in Islam? Why is freedom of choice so difficult for the muslim mind to comprehend?

====
You have not answered my questions. If anything, it seems that even though you may speak Arabic, I seems to know the Quran and Islam better than you do. Even the simple philosophical question -- why should apostates be punished -- is beyond your understanding. Freedom of choice is beyond your understanding. Yes indeed I have dig a hole, but it is for you, not for me.

Now this is for ANY muslims who care to explain this lunacy (pun intended)...Neil Armstrong is an intensely private man. Despite his fame, he returned to private life granting few interviews and lived as though he had done nothing extraordinary. So for Armstrong and the US government to issue this communique on the international stage, specifically directed at the Islamic ummah, the deluge of petitioners must have been a tremendous burden for him and his family. It is not enough to call upon Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam and Muhammad Ali, the ummah is rife with rumors of conversions even by Britney Spears. The obsession to have Western celebrities converts speaks of a deeper collective psychological problem within the ummah.

Yet again he accuses me of not answering the questions when I already did.

1) It doesn't matter what relationship YOU see, it matters what context the Verse was revealed in which would give the meaning.

As I said before, the meaning of 2:256 is mentioned by Imaam al-Maatureediyy in his book "Ta'weelaat ahlussunnah walJamaa^ah" and it refers to not forcing thimmiyys to embrace islam.

The Prophet was ordered with Jihaad and that was to spread Islam.

It is something valid and known in Islam.

However in this current situation there is no jihad.

What bin laaden is doing is not jihad, he is doing things against Islam and is harming the Muslims.

Q:"Still, even if there is a caliph, why should apostates be punished anyway?"

A:Because that is what is narrated in the rules of the Religion in the presence of a caliph.

Q:"Do you believe in forced conversions?"

A: I believe that the Prophet and Companions did Jihaad to spread Islam. They told the people to become Muslims and if not we will have war.

Those who said the Testifications of Faith and truly believed in them would become Muslims and would be in Paradise in the Hereafter if they died that way.

Those who were hypocrites and only pretended to become Muslim - some were exposed and some will be exposed on Judgement Day.

Q: "why would you believe in forcing someone to remain a muslim if he does not want to? "

A: Whether I force a person or not, a person who does not believe in Islam is not Muslim.

I can do my best advising him or her because I can not ever be happy that that person will go to Hellfire but I can't do anything beyond that. If there was a caliph and that person apostatized in front of witnesses or handed themself over then they would be gien a time to re-embrace Islam and if they do not they will be executed.

Q: "Why is that question so difficult for you to understand?"

A: I don't think I had any trouble understanding it any of the times I answered it previously let alone now.

Q: "Is freedom of choice, even in religion, so alien to your thought processes?"

A: God gave the people a will but ordered them to obey. Some obey, some disobey and that is all by His Eternal Will. In the Hereafter there is Hell for the disbelievers & Paradise for the believers.

This is me but I can't be happy or clap for someone who chooses a path that will lead them to Hell.

I try my best to help them and then if they don't want to listen that's their problem.

That is what is done in this context because there is no caliph.

If there is a caliph and a person apostatizes he would be given a chance to return to Islam and if he does not he is executed.

----------------

Is everyone noticing the thickheadedness & repetition or what?

He says: "Then show me a source that says Yusufali is wrong in his interpretations of sura 2:256. "

I DID! THIS IS LIKE MY 3rd TIME.

As I said before, the meaning of 2:256 is mentioned by Imaam al-Maatureediyy in his book "Ta'weelaat ahlussunnah walJamaa^ah" and it refers to not forcing thimmiyys to embrace islam.

yusuf ali is false in at least that verse - as it should be in your eyes now - unless you are blind.

You know who Imaam al-Maatureediyy is right?

-------------------------------

So if there is a caliph, then it is appropriate to persecute apostates and wage war against the non-muslims. I think we can safely conclude that the idea of freedom or religion is truly alien to your thought processes judging from your responses above.

So for the interested readers I present to you ONE of the many philosophical contradictions in Islam that no muslims in this discussion have managed to reconcile. I would have to give tangawizi, a non-muslim in letter if not in spirit, a C+ for an attempt with her creative uses of psycho-babbles about 'memes'.

Sura 2:256......Here we see an order from Allah to Muhammad to persecute apostates......And here we see a muslim leader ordering the murder of an apostate......The philosophical contradiction is apparently too subtle for samsparky:

IF THERE IS TO BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION, THEN WHY SHOULD THERE BE COMPULSION TO REMAIN IN RELIGION ?

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomenei issued a death fatwa on apostate and writer Salman Rushdie; Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh murdered in broad daylight by a muslim for his criticisms of Islam; and the only thing samsparky can say is that there has been no jihad declared by a legitimate caliph to legalize these acts. By this line of Islamic 'logic', if all the leaders of the Christian sects elect the Islamic equivalent of a 'caliph', and if this said religious leader declared an Islamic equivalent of a 'jihad' against the muslims throughout the world, no doubt people would howl bloody murder about a new religious Crusade by the evil Christians and their hidden masters, the Jooz. And yet here in this sub-forum of AsiaFinest, we see non-muslims giving the kind of mentality exhibited by Islamists like samsparky free passes to their minds.

This kind of mentality...



...Make possible this act...the murder of Theo van Gogh in front of other non-muslims as a lesson in what could happen to an individual non-muslim should he/she dare to criticize Islam in anyway....van Gogh was shot, his throat sliced open, and a knife/note stabbed into his chest...



Moderate muslims, like Khaled el-Fadl, who would have their religion reformed cannot exercise their freedom of speech under an Islam dominated society. It is only the secular governments of the West that protected muslims like el-Fadl. The five paged letter that was pinned to van Gogh's chest was not addressed to van Gogh personally but to the secular West generally, threatening in particular the Netherlands, a 'non-believer' of Islam, that the Dutch are 'going to meet with disaster'. Apostate and Dutch Member of Parliament, Ayaan Hirshi Ali went to ground upon learning of van Gogh's brazen murder.

For a muslim like samsparky, the sentiment of regret is expressed as: "it was wrong because there is no legitimate caliph to declare jihad."

Q: "Is freedom of choice, even in religion, so alien to your thought processes?"

A: God gave the people a will but ordered them to obey. Some obey, some disobey and that is all by His Eternal Will. In the Hereafter there is Hell for the disbelievers & Paradise for the believers.

This is me but I can't be happy or clap for someone who chooses a path that will lead them to Hell.

I try my best to help them and then if they don't want to listen that's their problem.

That is what is done in this context because there is no caliph.

If there is a caliph and a person apostatizes he would be given a chance to return to Islam and if he does not he is executed.

------------------------

The meaning of the Verse which you keep bringing up and interpretting as "No compulsion is Religion":

The true meaning of it is that in the presence of a caliph, the dhimmiyy who pays the jizya to the caliph is not forced to embrace Islam.

The meaning of the Verse is mentioned by Imaam al-Maatureediyy in his book "Ta'weelaat ahlussunnah walJamaa^ah".

Hence it does not contradict the fact that if a person apostatizes in a time when there is a caliph , then he would be given a time to return to islam, if he does not he would be executed.

the meaning of 2:256 is mentioned by Imaam al-Maatureediyy in his book "Ta'weelaat ahlussunnah walJamaa^ah" and it refers to not forcing thimmiyys to embrace islam.

-------------------------------

The Prophet did not always use jihad and killing. It was used at times and at other times other ways were used.

It just depends on the context and which way is more likely to save the blasphemers from choosing the pathway to hellfire.

In this context, now, jihaad is not the wisest way, so those who claim to do it now are harming Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

That last point was the only new point I added. The rest was already answered previously and I just answered it again.

------------------------

Summary:

No I don't be happy if my friends choose the path to hell.

No there is no contradiction in Islam.

No those who claim to do jihaad now are not doing it to spread Islam.

There are plenty of contradictions in Islam. The philosophical contradictions between sura 2:256 'no compulsion in religion' and sura 9:73 combined with the Bukhari hadith showing the persecution of apostates is too subtle for you. Thinking people can see that. People willing to exercise their common sense can see that religion is a matter between a person and whatever god or gods he/she choses to worship or even worship none at all. And if we are willing to allow people to be atheists, then we must be willing to allow people to become apostates, from ANY religion, whether there is a caliph or not.

===================================

So for the interested readers, samsparky, a muslim, basically believes that it is acceptable to persecute apostates from Islam, the only thing that matter is that there should be a caliph to give the order. Iran's Ayatollah Ruholla Musavi Khomenei issued a death fatwa for apostate and writer Salman Rushdie for his satirical portrayal of Islam and Muhammad. Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight for his criticisms of Islam. These are two of the more famous incidences of killing in the name of Islam. There are many more that simply do not make mainstream Western news. For a muslim like samsparky, it is not 'wrong' per se that critics of Islam should be killed, only that there is no legitimate caliph to do give a 'legal' order.

The question still stands for any muslims to try to reconcile, for sura 2:256, 9:73 and Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271: IF THERE IS TO BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION, THEN WHY SHOULD THERE BE COMPULSION TO REMAIN IN RELIGION ?

Nomad, i believe the Pope has provided an answer to your question with the latest speech he made in a university in Germany. Why don't you stop paying lipservice to inter-faith dialogue and read the transcript of his speech in its entirety?


If u can't find his speech anywhere, please refer to this thread :

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...=0#entry2305495

Why don't you take a look at samsparky's answer and see for yourself. Nevermind what the pope said or quoting whom. Khomenei issued a religious communique to kill a free speech loving writer and samsparky basically said that the fatwa is wrong because there is no caliph to issue such a fatwa. In other words, if there is a caliph, there would be a religious war. You are fawning over a latent jihadist. She, a woman, believes that a 9 year old girl, if menstruating, is a 'woman'. Would you approve of me asking a nine year old 'woman' out on a date? You are obviously more intelligent and smarter than she is but why are you so naive?

And you are obviously intelligent and smarter than me, so whatever you say about Islam holds true???

Why don't you speak to an Islamic expert if you consider Sam to be less intelligent n smart? And me to be a naive dhimmi.

Frankly, perhaps the road to a central authority for Islam is only when one school (be it Sunni or Shia) dominates politically and proclaims a Caliph as the central authority. At one time, wasn't the Pope the leader of the christian armies??

Whether that will come at the expense of secular governance and sectarian interest groups, well, it remains to be seen. The politico-economic stability of many muslim societies are already driven to chaos by terrorists and economic-military interventions (we still disagree whether the US has a role in this but the fact is many in the muslim countries view that the US in its Cold War policy is a big cause of this). The way to salvage the situation is to encourage these shattered societies to remain cohesive and flourish in trade and communication. And ensure that there are channels for the muslim youths to be plugged into their respective economic and political landscapes. You have offered no solution thus far, except a snigg.ering attempt to deride the muslim states.

As such, I wouldn't want to dwell at length on what kinds of muslims are we dealing with today like you do. In the end, everyone is the same with the same blindspots, loves and hatreds. You included.

I know you will accuse me of being blind to the photos of muslim protesters and misdeeds committed by fanatics. None of us are blind to that. But don't place blinkers on the double standards of secular leaders too.

I still come back to my call that clear thinking and a long term strategy is needed by leaders of all sides to overcome this stress in our present civilization. Even though we are horrified by someone like Bin laden, Saddam Hussein and Syrian-Palestinian-Iran-Saudi cohorts, we are just as horrified by George W Bush and his Israeli ally. Even Democracy has begun to sound like a hypocritical mantra on par with religion to some of us. So, don't beat the drum of freedom and democracy as if you are the next Savior to come save the world-at-large.

Folks like Samsparky are not the terrorists. They are the victims of Islamic militancy and I would urge the powers-that-be to give her homeland, Lebanon, urgent peace and stability so that a climate of security and prosperity can return as soon as possible. And she is able to participate in her country's rebuilding, instead of being in refuge in Australia, without a socio-political medium for voicing her frustrations nor means to channel her energy into making a difference for herself in the globalized community as a young muslim.

Goodness! How long have been at this wizi?

Anyways, to everyone who's fasting, have a blessed Ramadhan.

I am going to ask you again...Have I given you any information about Islam or the Quran that you cannot independently verify?

====
This discussion is not solely about samsparky or you. It is about Islam in general and in the main. samsparky and the other muslims are here to present their religion in as favorable a presentation as possible. That in itself is nothing unusual or wrong. But the moment they invite questions, all bets are off. Absent someone with some degrees of certified 'expertise' in Islamic scholarship, any muslim in this discussion is by default an 'expert' in his/her religion. I will direct pointed questions about their religion, its applications, its compatibility with modern sensiblities and the future. The fact that many muslims considers any difficult questions about their religion as 'attacks' speaks volumns about their worldview, which is one seeking dominance at the expense of non-believers. Take a review at your exchange about Buddhism. Were you insulting in anyway? Did you criticize Muhammad? Did you even question the Quran? No to all questions, am I correct? And yet, in merely explaining Buddhism, you somehow offended the muslim samsparky and she accused you of 'degrading' her beloved prophet. That would be like a Frenchman speaking about Chirac and I take offense at him for 'degrading' Bush. What did you do? Instead of standing your ground, you beat a hasty retreat and practically apologized for the Buddha for being who and what he was. For the muslims at large, any philosophical figures, religious or secular, is to be considered kufar and cannot be placed on the same moral plane as Muhammad. Their companion moral value system are to be considered inferior to the Islamic one. You may not like me for calling you a dhimmi, but that label from me is less pejorative than kufar for you from the muslims.

====
What does what happened to Christianity a few hundreds years ago has to do with today? Should we not have learned from history? A caliph is not the same as the Pope for the Catholics or the Patriarch for the Eastern Rites. A caliph is as much a political figure as he is religious. The Catholic Pope, even at the height of the Papacy, still had to rely upon secular political leaderships to execute his decisions. The Papal States does not refer to 'states' in the sense of a political federation but in the sense that the political leaderships of those states placed their services at the behest of the Pope. Witness the political separation of England from the Vatican that resulted in The Anglican Church when one of these political leaderships decided the interests collides.

So should there be a caliph for the Islamic world? According to samsparky, the death fatwa on Salman Rushdie, a British citizen, by Iran's Khomenei was 'wrong', not in the legal sense but in the religious sense, in that it was not issued by a caliph. But for speculation's sake, let us assume that Khomenei is one such caliph, would muslims in Britain be morally obligated to Islam or to the secular laws of Britain? For an Islamist like samsparky, the answer is clear, her obligations and loyalty would be to the caliph. The secular laws of the kufars be damned. Already in Europe and pockets of Canada, muslims are demanding that sharia laws be recognized. That means if Salman Rushdie dies at the hands of a muslim acting on the fatwa issued by caliph Khomenei, there would be a religiously based conflict between the muslims and the secular citizens of Britain. And YOU would be happy with that? It would not surprise me if you do.

====
Nonsense. You have falsely projected what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon onto the much greater Islam society. Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and all those other minor muslim countries are relatively stable. They rule themselves and they can ruin themselves with no external influences based upon their flawed economic models and corruption. What you just said is nothing more than the typical empty rhetorics of those who have no credible arguments but feel they must say something hoping that it will be sufficiently distractive.

====
That is why you have been easily cowed and that is why you are, for all practical purposes, a dhimmi to the muslims.

====
No, but you are blind to the motivations that produced those attitudes and fanaticisms. And no, it has nothing to do with the trite 'root causes' that inevitably focused on the nebulous 'Western Imperialism' or 'Zionism'.

====
Please, you are fooling only yourself if you honestly believe that Bush, who will be out of office in a couple years and whose policies can be reversed, is more of threat to you than the fanaticisms of bin Laden and his ilk. The American tourist in Singapore was caned and there was nothing a US president can do about it, but a word from a caliph and someone like Theo van Gogh or Hirshi Ali can be killed at will. I have no need to beat any drum and I challenge you to find anywhere I have been doing so. Democracy sound like a hypocritical mantra? Fine, emigrate to Libya and we will see how soon you would beat your feet back to 'hypocritical' democracy. Truth hurts but the reality is that Americans do not really care if people like YOU like us or not. I have no need to portray the US as anyone's Savior, your preference for our values as outlined in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution is sufficient for me to say 'We won' the way we gloated over the corpse of the Soviets.

====
Wrong. The secular West is the best hope for moderate muslims like Khaled el-Fadl but not for samsparky, who is not interested in reforming Islam but for preserving its 7th century value system. Lebanon has nothing to do with this discussion. It is a political problems caused, not by the Jooz, but by Hezbollah terrorists. This argument is a red herring. samsparky is in Australia because she enjoys the civil liberties and rights Australia gives her while contradictorily considered the country and the people contemptously as kufars according to the dictates of Islam. She is an Islamist to the core. Do YOU believe that the death fatwa on Salman Rushdie is wrong? Do YOU believe that a menstruating nine year old female is an 'adult' as defined by Islam? samsparky has avoided these. Perhaps you have the courage to address them? I say that the death fatwa on Rushdie is wrong and I say that a menstruating nine year old girl is NOT an 'adult'. I dare say that you would rather be intellectually dishonest and disagree with this hated 'a$$hole' American than to offend samsparky.

I dunno really I will stop now. Ramadhan is here soon. My neighbors are busy spring cleaning the entire household and cooking!

Ramadhan Mubarak!