---

quote:

Do the religions have ‘exclusive space’ where only one religion is practiced?

---

---

quote:

Notice that the fact that the Revered Pope quoted 2:256 is ignored by the Main Stream Media. The Pope has given a very clear message: The claim of some that the ‘Religion of Peace’ could be spread at the tip of the sword is evil, not the religion itself.

This fact is presented here so that the dialogue does not end up as a criticism of the Revered Pope or the religion that he shepherds.

---

---

quote:

From the above search, I conclude that only one religion, Roman Catholic, is permitted inside the State ‘Holy See.’ Kindly tell me if I am wrong.

---

---

quote:

I believe all are welcome to come and pray at the Vatican as the Catholics pray. Or are they allowed to pray as the visitor used to pray? Say if I visit the Vatican could I offer the Muslim prayer there inside the Vatican?

---

---

quote:

Our dialogue is about the way the Muslim street could be weaned away from violence.

So I would appreciate a factual answer regarding the way the visitors behave inside the Holy See. - Mohideen

---

"About 75 people gathered in the community hall of the MCC to learn more about the Islamic faith, centering on the topic "Submission to God," which is the meaning of the word "Muslim". Mr. Shah of the MCC and Father Bayo of the ACLC alternated serving as emcees. Again their harmonious co-emcee ship reflected the topic of the day in substance as they led everyone through the program. Father Bayo especially pointed towards the vision and work of the Founders, Rev. and Mrs. Sun Myung Moon, to bring religious leaders of all faiths together for the sake of world peace."

---

quote:

Does it really matter if we could live in peace with each other that certain words carry different meanings among us?

---

"…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here.  His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest… The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples.  It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle.  Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter.  THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)….[pp. 267-268]
 
 “In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of  Hagar [i.e., Muhammad],  the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.  Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle.  Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion.  He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.  THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST:  TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged.  The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” [p. 269]

“As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.
 
They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople.  It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries.  The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.  The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective.  The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."

Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves.  When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them.  Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded.  The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper.  He avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.” [p. 274-275]

“Had it been possible for a sincere and honest peace to be maintained between the Osmanli and his christian neighbors, then would have been the time to establish it in good faith.  But the treaty was no sooner made than broken.  It never was carried into effect by the Turkish government.” [p. 276]
 
“From the time when the disaster of Navarino ref had been made known to him, the Reis Effendi [Ottoman diplomat assigned to Russia] had assumed the tone of the aggrieved party, and made formal demands of indemnity, and the punishment of the offending admirals.  He still manifested however, a solicitude to prevent the rupture of the negotiations by the departure of the ambassadors…” [p. 298]
 
“Upon the departure of the ambassadors, the Sultan, who must have been, however, unwillingly preparing his mind for that event, immediately determined upon two things; a war with Russia alone – and a dallying attempt to protract the negotiation, and gain time of preparation for the conflict.” [p. 298]
 
[From the Ottoman Reis Effendi, to his Russian counterparts] ‘The present friendly letter has been composed and sent, to acquaint your excel lency. with the circumstance; when you shall learn, on receipt of it, that the Sublime Porte has at all times; no other desire or wish than to preserve peace, and good understanding ; and that the event in question has been brought about, entirely by the act of the said minister, we hope that you will endeavor, do every occasion, to fulfil the duties of friendship.’ But precisely at the time when this mild, and candid, and gently expostulary epistle was despatched for St. Petersburg, another state paper was issued, addressed by the Sultan to his own subjects-this was the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th of December, sent to the Pashas of all the provinces, calling on all the faithful Mussulmen of the empire to come forth and 'fight for their religion, and their country, against the infidel despisers of the Prophet. The comparison of these two documents with each other, will afford the most perfect illustration of the Ottoman faith, as well as of their temper towards Russia."

THE ARABS WITHOUT THE JEWS: ROOTS OF A TRAGEDY
by MAGDI ALLAM
(translated from Italian by Lyn and Lawrence Julius)

Israel is the keeper of a mutilated Arab identity, the repository for the guilty consciences of the Arab peoples, the living witness to a true history of the Arab countries, continuously denied, falsified and ignored.

Seeing Pierre Rehov's documentary film 'The Silent Exodus' about the expulsion and flight of a million Sephardi Jews helped me gain a better understanding of the tragedy of a community that was integral and fundamental to Arab society. Above all it has revealed to me the very essence of the catastrophe that befell it, a catastrophe which the mythical Arab nation has never once called into question. In a flash of insight I could see that the tragedy of the Jews and the catastrophe of the Arabs are two facets of the same coin. By expelling the Jews who were settled on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean centuries before they were arabised and islamised, the Arabs have in fact begun the lethal process of mutilating their own identity and despoiling their own history. By losing their Jews the Arabs have lost their roots and have ended up by losing themselves.

As has often happened in history, the Jews were the first victims of hatred and intolerance. All the "others" had their turn soon enough, specifically the Christians and other religious minorities, heretical and secular Muslims and finally, those Muslims who do not fit exactly into the ideological framework of the extreme nationalists and Islamists. There has not been a single instance in this murky period of our history when the Arab states have been ready to condemn the steady exodus of Christians, ethnic-religious minorities, enlightened and ordinary Muslims, while Muslims plain and simple have become the primary victims of Islamic terror.

Underlying the Arab 'malaise' is an identity crisis that neither Nasserist nor Ba'athist pan-Arabism, nor the Islamism of the Saudi Wahabis, the Muslim Brotherhood, Khomeini and Bin Laden has been able to solve. It's a contagious identity crisis, spreading to and taking hold of the Arab and Muslim communities in the West.

I remember that around the mid-1970s the Arab exam in civic education taken in both state and public schools in Egypt defined Arab identity thus: "the Arabs are a nation united by race, blood, history, geography, religion and destiny." This was a falsification of an historical truth based on ethno-religious pluralism, an ideological deception aimed at erasing all differences and promoting the theory of one race overlapping with a phantom Arab nation in thrall to unchallengeable leaders. It was directly inspired by Nazi and fascist theories of racial purity and supremacy which appealed to the leadership and ideologues of pan-Arabism and Islamism. It is no wonder that in this context Manichean Israel is perceived as a foreign body to be rejected, a cancer produced by American imperialism to divide and subjugate the Arab world.

The historical truth is that the Middle Eastern peoples, in spite of their arabisation and islamisation from the 7th century onward, continued to maintain a specific identity reflecting their indigenous and millenarian ethnic roots - cultural, linguistic, religious and national. The Berbers, for example, who constitute half the population of Morocco and a third of that of Algeria, have nothing or very little in common with the Bedouin tribes at the heart of Saudi or Jordanian society. When in 1979 Egypt was sidelined from the Arab League for signing a peace treaty with Israel President Sadat restored its Pharaonic Egyptian identity which he proudly contrasted with its Arabness. Here was an isolated but significant attempt to recapture an indigenous identity - advertising historical honesty and political liberation while saying 'enough is enough' to rampant lies and demagogy. Before the screening of the 'Silent Exodus' in the Congress Hall in Milan, a gentleman in his Seventies came up to me and said, in perfect Egyptian dialect: "I am a Jew from Alexandria. I have recently been in Tunisia and Algeria. I have to say that people there are not like us, they don't have the sense of irony that distinguishes us Egyptians." I smiled and replied that indeed, the Egyptians have a reputation as jokers. They are capable of laughing at anything, including themselves.

What struck me was the "us" - "us Egyptians": even if we were both Italian citizens, he a Jew and I a Muslim. It reminded me that just after the 1967 defeat, I discovered by complete accident that the girl I was in love with - we both were 15 - was Jewish. For me she was a girl like any other. But for the police who submitted me to intensive interrogation she was a 'spy for Israel' and I was her accomplice.

In fact 'the Silent Exodus' testifies that anti-Semitism and the pogroms against the Jews of the Middle East preceded the birth of the state of Israel and the advent of ideological pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism. It infers that hatred and violence against the Jews could originate in an ideological interpretation of the Koran and the life of the prophet Muhammed taken out of context.

It would be a mistake to generalise and not to take into account that for long periods coexistence was possible between the Muslims, Christians and Jews of the Middle East, at a time when in Europe the Catholic Inquisition was repressing the Jews and when the Nazi Holocaust was trying to exterminate them. In the same way, one cannot ignore Israel's responsibility together with Arab leaders in the emergence of the drama of millions of Palestinian refugees and the unresolved question of a Palestinian state.

The fact remains that of the million Jews who at the end of 1945 were an integral part of the Arab population, only 5,000 remain. These Arab Jews, expelled or who fled at a moment's notice, have become an integral part of the Israeli population. They continue to represent a human injustice and an historical tragedy. Above all, they are indicative of an Arab civil and identity catastrophe. That is why to recognise the wrongs committed towards the Arab Jews - as the maverick Libyan leader colonel Gaddafi has recently done - by objectively rediscovering their past and millenarian roots, by finding again their tolerant and plural history and by totally and sincerely reconciling themselves with themselves, the Arabs could free themselves from the ideological obscurantism which has relegated them to the most basic level of human development and has changed the region into the most problematic and confict-ridden on earth.

View the original Corriere della Sera article in online in Italian

Could there possibly be positivity even in this horrendous war? Nick Berg, Jewish and American, was beheaded in a religious ritual in the name of God. And then there are the American torturers. We don’t want to line them up against the Al Qaeda terrorists to see who is worse, for such a game would offend the victims. It is certain that those coalition soldiers were hiding from Christ when they committed such actions; none of them invoked God as an ideological shield.
Given these facts, now we have the choice about Iraq. What should we do? Remain? Go? How should we behave with our own Islamic communities? We spoke about all these things with Magdi Allam, a well-known figure by now, whose thought, though, is often relayed only in fragments on television. Allam, a journalist with Corriere della Sera, hired by the Director, Stefano Folli, as his Vice-Editor ad personam, is an Italian citizen, born in Egypt, a non-observant Muslim Arab. He has recently published Kamikaze made in Europe. Riuscirà l’Occidente a sconfiggere i terroristi islamici? (Kamikazes Made in Europe. Will the West Succeed in Defeating Islamic Terrorists?). With this article, we announce that he will be one of the speakers at the 2004 Meeting for Friendship Between Peoples, in Rimini, Italy, this summer.

No total confrontation
Let’s say it right away: Allam is not desperate. He does not believe in the inevitability of a full-scale armed conflict, the famous total war of civilizations between Christianity and Islam. He asserts that a positive dialogue with moderate Islam is both possible and necessary. But he holds back no punches against lukewarm treatment of fundamentalists.
He asserts, “The execution of Nick Berg was made even more atrocious by the fact that it was done in the name of God and the Prophet, in the conviction of being the interpreters and repository of true Islam, which is seen as the religion and culture of death! They totally reject the value of the life of the person, yet everyone clearly knows that the life of the individual has to be the fulcrum of any religion and civilization that hopes to call itself human. There can be no dialogue with this Islam. But this is not Islam! Judging this way would do a favor to Al Qaeda. Rather, I believe that the execution of that poor American actuates an ideology that explicitly wants to impose itself as the true Islam, without being such at all.”
Magdi Allam asserts that the majority of Muslims hold very different positions, even in Iraq. It is wrong to consider the Shiites of Al Sadr, who announced the will to kill Westerners, as representative of most Iraqi Shiites. Al Sistani, a figure of much greater authority and with a much larger following, holds very different positions, and recognizes “the value of the person, the sacredness of life.” Leaving would mean abandoning those lands to a civil war, where Al Qaeda would intervene heavily to establish supremacy in Mesopotamia and, from there, everywhere. This situation would be irresponsible in terms of the Iraqis and moderate Arab nations, but also highly dangerous for the security of the West. ...

...Magdi laments that “the imam of the Great Mosque in Rome was sent back to Egypt because he was moderate.” So, the struggle against terrorism is a battle that concerns us. Allam says, “There needs to be a re-conquest, both on the part of the West, with its Christian culture, and on the part of moderate Muslims. Both are at war, and must realize they are on the same side, and that it is urgent to become active allies against fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.”

---

quote:

Remember a Muslim has to obey his religion and the law of the nation in which he lives. If the law of the nation in which he lives makes it impossible for him to practice his religion a Muslim is expected to move to some other place where he can practice his faith in peace.

---

"QUOTE: "How come that out of the 3 related faiths, 2 could part with violence and one can not?
Could it be that violence in Koran just the means for something else? Why is it so essential to Islam?" --pong

Something very serious takes place here between these three versions of Abrahamic religion based on One-god. If one were to believe in 'progressive revelation' as do Muslims, then we should expect an evolution towards a better understand of One-god; and commensurate evolution of human behavior to better reflect this understanding. However this is not what we witness, where Judaism and Christianity drop violence from their religious interpretations, while Islam accentuates violence in their interpretations, fundamentally. So it appears that rather than 'evolution' in religious matters of One-god, we are witnessing a 'devolution' coursing back down into barbarity of human behavior. For this, there is justification for apology from Islam for its regression into barbarity. However, there will never be a real universal apology from this third errant branch of Abrahamic faith because there exists within it a flaw, a very deeply ingrained crack of self negating logic that cannot be overcome by any rational mind, except through violence. This violence then begets more violence, and from it the growing threat of Islamic Jihad globally. Here is how I see that internal flaw which runs straight through the center of that third errant branch of faith, here is the essential logic:

The Koran in Arabic on earth is the same as held by One-god in heaven, Allah, so it is absolutely above criticism from anyone; no portion of the Koran may abrogate another, so the peaceful passages must coexist with the violent passages; the call to subdue through conquest or conversion, with an intermediary acceptance of subdued dhimmi status, is fundamental to the Koran, which is Jihad; because of non-abrogation principle, any Muslim who desires peace with non-Muslims and fails to do Jihad is in violation of this principle, as it is held in the heavenly Koran by Allah; this principle must be obeyed until the return of One-god's special messenger, the Mahdi, to bring Allah's Koran to earth universality for all mankind; any Muslim failing in his Jihad duty is thus in violation of Allah's demand to get 'submission' from all mankind to doing his will, or what they call 'god's will' in strict obedience to the un-abrogated heavenly Koran. This is essential logic of Islam as laid down by their prophet Mohammad.

So it is impossible to be a peaceful Muslim while at the same time working for Jihad to subdue all mankind in submission to Allah, which is anti-peaceful at its core. This means Islam is of necessity inherently in a perpetual state of war with all humanity, until that humanity is subdued and ruled by the Mahdi until the end of days. Exceptions are truce and takiyya, but otherwise this is an un-abrogatable duty for all Muslims to do Jihad. Therefore any apology, no matter how sincere from that individual Muslim, can never speak for total institutionalized Islam without violating the principle demanding Jihad. One can even say that to 'apologize' for Islamic crimes against mankind is a form of 'criticism of the faith', and a crime against Allah. The very best one can expect from Muslims, given these conditions within their errant branch of Abrahamic faith, is to forestall the inevitable in their minds, world conquest, but never to avert them from Jihad except under conditions of temporary truce. This is their essential need for violence, and why it is a regression in terms of progressive revelation. Apologies cannot exist, except as a crime against Allah.

In conclusion, Islam cannot ever be a 'religion of peace' by its own definition. Violence must beget more violence until the end of days, so the peaceful passages must lose to violence. Only way to change this is to do, for them, the unthinkable. They must strike at the principle of Jihad. But if this happens, it becomes instantly their 'end of days', which they find unthinkable. By their own logic as given by their prophet's Jihad, peace undermines any possibility of peace in their misnamed 'religion of peace.' Islam is a cult of endless war without apology.

Given all this, is it any wonder they will keep insisting on apologies from us, but never offer real apologies in return? They can't, because apology for them is a crime against Allah, so it is physically impossible for them to apologize. An apologizer for Isllam instantly becomes apostate. And you know what that means. Death."

---

quote:

Isn’t the written word taken down fourteen centuries ago in Makkah, (a place in earth, a part of the universe,) a part of the universe?

If the ‘reality of the universe’ means the existence of the physical system consisting of the earth, moon, sun, and the stars, then it is not god. God Almighty promises to remake this universe on the Day of Judgment and thus the existing universe is a temporary object. No temporary object or its properties can be God. Muslims do not worship the Holy Quran; they worship God Almighty Who bestowed the Holy Quran.

---

WHAT IF ISLAM REFORMED? What would it look like, philosophically?

(As cross-posted on the Examined Life Philosophy Discussion: "War on Terror-2, or Pacifying Islam".)

I can only offer my thoughts here, a purely hypothetical idea, of what may possibly issue from Islam's Reform. But this is only one man's idea, and it is not up to me to suggest that this is how it will be, since I do not know the future. And if such Reform was to take place, it would have to come entirely from within Islam, and not from outside, as myself. I only offer this as an idea, in all humility and respect.


If we were to identify God as Everything, that in His (and Her, axiomatic) infinity is both Good and Evil, and if Man (and Woman) were given a mind with which to choose one from the other, that we are endowed with reason and a free will, then doing God's will means that it is for us to separate the two. Of our own free will, we choose. This means that all teachings about God, and from God, are of necessity both sublime and pure, as well as evil and mean. So there is both a True teaching given to the highest achievements of humankind, as well as one mysterious and Kabbalistic given to the darker side of our being human. And if God created us in His image, then both sides reside is us.

What does this mean for a possible future Reformed Islam? This is the great opportunity, to consciously separate the two, the Good from the Evil, and in so doing, to catapult the religion far into the future, as perhaps the most desirable teaching available to Man. To do this, in my mind, would require that there be a separation of God's Word into its True form, as well as its Kabbalistic form, so that all the teachings that elevate humanity in its goodness, in its highest ideals, and in its ability to coexist with one another through tolerance, and love, would be set to one side; while all the teachings that coerce, that force human beings against their will, against their agreement, against the reality of Who they are as created by God in His image, these are the other darker side. Each human being is sublime as an entity of God, created in His image, and thus sacred. But not each human being is aware, nor will make choices in life that are conscious of this. So it is up to the teachings to split in two where God's Word is sublime and beautiful, and where God's word is dark and fallen. This will be the filter of human reason, and human love, that will separate the two halves of infinity into the duality of Truth and Evil.

How to do this? It will take the finest minds, the most elevated and conscious minds of humanity (within Islam) to find the distinction between the two. And that distinction can be cut like with a knife, in the way Alexander of legend solved the riddle of the Gordian knot, by slicing through it with his sword. But the sword here is conscious reason, conscious choice of Good over Evil, and a choice of finding agreement for all humanity as opposed to forcing it into coercion. In the holy book of the Qur'an exists side by side both. And what these minds must do is take a fine comb through the writings to create two parallel worlds, that of Good and that of Evil. It should be expected that the Good will be smaller in size than the Evil, but that is because we as humanity are still young. And in this cutting the knife will fall on Jihad: on the good side will be the 'greater' Jihad, where between each human being and God is the dialogue to bring him (and her) closer to the Truth of God's Will; on the Evil side the knife will fall on the 'lesser' Jihad, the war on human beings which negates their beauty in God. This comb will pass through all the writings, including the suras and the hadith. The first will be the True and Pure Islam, that propels humanity forward into a glorious, beautiful, and peaceful future; while the latter will be remembered as where humanity came from. These will be the two halves, and it will be for each human being to choose, as is their God given right, of their own free will.

What will this mean for Reformed Islam? It means that rather than drawing forth men and women to the dark side of God, they will be drawn in vast numbers to the light as never before, because the purity of God's Love will be identified, as the New Jihad. While on the other side, the old Jihad will be drawn only for those who cannot see the light of God, who are obscured by darkness, and fallen. It is the same Qur'an, not changed one word; but it is now in two parts. While humanity will gravitate to the Good, as clearly revealed, there will be those who are drawn into the Evil side, which will be fertile ground for the Jad. Do not think this will be easy, for there will be much argument, for the side of Evil will need its expression. But if humanity chooses peace, because we consciously believe in our planet as at One, then it will be World Peace. This is Who we are, as beautiful and shining human beings. Yet, this is also where human faith in God will be tested most, because there will always be those who need to coerce, to abuse and harm, to kill. But if God hears our calling for the chosen Good, then it will be delivered, and the Good in God's Love for humanity will win. Why? Because each one of us will act, consciously, to make it so. For this we must have faith. How each human being answers in his and her faith will be the future of God's vision for the planet. Will the planet evolve as a conscious world of agreement between humanity, or will it fall back into coercions instead? That is the great unknown, and that unknown rests with our prayers, and our faith in God. The New Islam can be this vehicle, this lens, through which the light will pass into the world, and from that light the world will choose freely. It will be a philosophical choice, open to all humanity. If we are truly conscious as human beings, we will choose rightly.

Nothing is discarded of the old Qur'an, but it is newly defined as the two halves of God. Though none of this may ever happen, in my mind's eye, I see this as a possibility of how Islam, as Peace and submission to God's Love, can become. I can see a golden opportunity for humankind to evolve into full consciousness. And if this path is taken, then Islam will act as a great magnet for humanity in ways never imagined. The New Islam becomes a shining beacon of light for all, and all religions, for the true path to Peace on Earth. Can it happen, will it happen? I leave that to God. My idea is not a vision of prophecy, nor the future, but merely one man's idea of how it can be done, and no more. And if it does happen, then the world will be a very different place a thousand years from now. Will the Jad win? No.

* * * * * * *

Let it be known that I am not a religious man, I believe in the prophets as human beings like us all, and am more of an 'agnostic' in today's religions, though I love them all. But I truly wholeheartedly believe in God. That is my faith. I love every human being I meet, even those who are confused, and sometimes clearly undeserving. And yet, I see my fellow man from a distance, as each one a separate and sacred being, a separate universe, though through our love for one another we are united. The Universe is a very big place, a very great and spectacular place. Here on Earth, within God's Love for the whole world, and all its living beings, I am glad to be alive. Of my own free will, I am who I am. This is my sacred trust. I believe with certitude in the One true God for each human being, in each one of us: "I am Who I am."

Ivan

---

quote:

The very act of dividing the Holy Quran changes it.
...
So the Holy Quran should remain as it is and we should understand it correctly. We need to retain the Holy Quran as it is so that a person that might live after us could infer lot more sublime results. By dividing the Holy Quran we deny the chance of discovery to that future individual.

---

---

quote:

Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 07:22 am:   
Though this is not an inter-religious debate, but rather an intra-religious one
Posted on Saturday, October 21, 2006 - 10:58 am: Ivan

Ali Sina has abandoned his previous faith and he is not a Muslim. Thus his debate with brother Javed Ahmad Ghamdi is indeed an inter-religious debate.

---

---

quote:

I am amazed that just among three posters – Ivan, Ed, and I – God Almighty has created an example of ‘apparent evil.’ http://deentech.com/MI_IC_Apparent_Evil_by_Two_Humans_and_its_implications.aspx -- Mohideen

---

Aikman: "It is only in the Islamic world that there is broad sympathy for a point of view that the individual conscience is not a sacred thing at all and does not even belong to the individual, but to the Muslim-controlled community in which the individual is located.   This is at odds with the entire direction in which, by overwhelming broad consensus, human civilization as a whole is moving.  In effect, Islamic coercion of personal religious conscience is not an example of the "clash of civilizations," but of a war waged by desperate fanatics upon civilization itself."

Bostom: "Thus, there has been utter silence on the Centanni-Wiig forced conversions from Muslim clerical and religio-political elites—Sunni and Shi’ite—across the Muslim world. No denunciations, and no formal fatwas have been issued invalidating the forced conversions, or making clear in advance that any Muslim who attacks Centanni and Wiig for not behaving as Muslims “post-conversion”, i.e., for “apostasy”, will be condemned and prosecuted, with full religious sanction. Contrast this silence from those clerical elites who were so quick to denounce factitious Koran flushings, banal Danish cartoons of Muhammad, and just this past week, Pope Benedict’s honest, reasoned critique of the living, genocidal institution of jihad war."

Spencer: "Muhammad instructed his followers to call people to Islam before waging war against them – the warfare would follow from their refusal to accept Islam or to enter the Islamic social order as inferiors, required to pay a special tax:

"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)"

There is therefore an inescapable threat in this “invitation” to accept Islam. Would one who converted to Islam under the threat of war be considered to have converted under duress? By non-Muslim standards, yes, but not according to the view of this Islamic tradition. From the standpoint of the traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence such a conversion would have resulted from “no compulsion.”

Akyol: "We Muslims should get rid of those politically needed but religiously irrelevant rules that still persist in the religious texts of Islam. We should also see that the Koran took the conditions of the 7th century Arabia as a given and established just norms according to those conditions. The dhimma was one of them. Based on the Koran (Sura 9:29), and the needs of the Islamic state, Muslim jurist developed the whole idea of what Bat Yeor calls "dhimmitude." She and others criticize this pretty harshly but they should see that the dhimma was just and humane according to the political realities of the seventh century. In Christian Europe, religious minorities were not tolerated at all. In Islamic lands, they were tolerated as second-class citizens."

Aikman: " I, too, applaud Mr. Akyol's humane interpretation of how Islam should be lived out and how it should co-exist with other faiths. Would that his assertion of this right of religious freedom of conscience, his denunciation of dhimma conditions of non-Muslim faiths, his repudiation of slavery, became the norm throughout the Islamic world. Would that there were 100,000 Mustafa Akyols busily active in reforming Islam, from Bradford, England to Bali, Indonesia.
...
"The first is that, all of us know fine, upstanding, and honorable Muslim individuals who would no more think of blowing up a bus full of children than we ourselves would.   The overwhelming reality, however, is that moderate Muslims like Mr. Akyol seem perpetually drowned out by Islamic mobs all over the world who fasten upon every criticism of their faith in every format – cartoons, to novels, to academic speeches -- from every prominent person as license to go on a violent rampage. 
...
"If Catholic Protesters in Washington similarly harassed Muslims about to enter the Islamic Center with slogans and placards, would there not be a howl of protest throughout the Islamic world?   (And not just howls of protest:  probably massive property destruction and bodily injury as well).  Where are the millions of moderate Muslims anywhere in the world rising up against these new Brownshirts, demanding an apology for the forced conversion of Centanni and Wiig, joining the chorus for an end to the killings in Darfur, Sudan?  Where, in short, is the authentic humane center of the Islamic world?
 
It doesn't appear to exist, or if it does, its voice has not been audible and its protests not visible. Of course there are wonderful Turks, Pakistanis, Malaysians – who knows? – perhaps even Muslim Britons who genuinely desire a global discourse among religions where reason and mutual tolerance prevail. But they seem to be either too busy or too disorganized to make their presence heard. Of course, it may also simply be that they are all simply scared. Muslims who criticize in public fellow-religionists of extremist viewpoint face the ever-present danger of becoming the targets of death-threats.
 
The second dismaying aspect of the whole issue of Islamic coercion of non-Muslim faiths, of dhimmitude, is that the concept of "humane" doesn't seem to exist today within the closed circle of Islam.  "Compassionate" exists. "Merciful" exists.  These are two descriptions attributed to Allah in the Koran. But the very concept of "humanity" grew out of a Christianized worldview in which communities, governments, and individuals were thought to have an obligation to be compassionate and merciful as well. Of course, "humanity" quickly became a concept that could stand on its own, without any reference to a religious point of view.  Indeed, one may say that "humanity" has risen to an ideal of human conduct that has transcended most secular ideologies. A Cuban Communist and a Texas Republican probably both would agree on what constituted "humanity" when they saw it.
...
" "Humanity," in most of the world today, seems to be a self-evident moral concept.  Perhaps this concept did exist at some point in Islamic philosophy.   But it certainly seems to be extremely difficult to discern now, or you would not have Muslims all over the world complaining that much of the world seems to regard so many recent Muslim actions as repugnant.   Could an Islamic version of Mother Teresa ever exist?  One wonders."

---

quote:

While the Christians are leaving Bethlehem, the Muslims continue to live there. Is this a pointer to the possibility that the Holy Quran is right in claiming that Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them is a mortal created in a special way by God and not the Son of God as claimed by Saint Paul?

---

---

quote:

In pure Christianity we need no Churches or places to find God. In ancient days we built temples and planted sacred groves of trees to define our places of worship. Christ came and proved that such places were not necessary, but being human we continued to build such places for a variety of reasons some of which had little to do with God. --Ed

---

---

quote:

Learned men marvelled at the credulity of their fathers, with their faith in ghosts, and demons, and black magic, but felt it impossible to take any serious interest in the subject in their age of enlightenment. --Friendly

---

---

quote:

The only scripture that is guarded against corruption is the Holy Quran. Even the Traditions are not guaranteed to be correct. We need to test each and every Tradition for inconsistency. Any Tradition that is inconsistent is rejected as non-authentic. --Mohideen

---

"According to what is one common typology among sociologists, religious groups are classified as ecclesias, denominations, cults or sects. Note that sociologists give these words precise definitions which are different from how they are commonly used. Note especially that the words 'cult' and 'sect' as used by sociologists are free from prejudice, even though the popular use of these words is often pejorative."

"Anthropological approaches to religion reflect a more general tension within anthropology: the discipline defines itself as a science in that all anthropologists base their interpretations and explanations on empirical evidence (and many anthropologists are concerned with developing universal models of human behavior), and the discipline also defines itself in terms of the seriousness with which it takes local beliefs and practices (see cultural relativism), and its commitment to understanding different cultures in their own terms through participant observation."

---

quote:

Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not lead us into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For Yours is the kingdom
and the power
and the glory forever.
Amen.

---

"forgive us of our trespasses, as we forgive the trespasses of others"

---

quote:

Transfixus sed non mortuus" (Pierced but not dead)
...
On one side we have families bred for over 2000 years to defend the peoples of Europe and Christianity on the other People bred for 1400 years to defend and advance the cause of Islam.

---

---

quote:

The Holy Quran claims consistency and not completeness. We could list a lot more as not mentioned in the Scriptures of religions. With respect to Islam, what is important is to show that something mentioned in the Holy Quran is wrong. That is, there exists no other explanation but the erroneous interpretation of that particular passage in the Holy Quran. --Mohideen

---

1. Quran is claimed by Prophet Mohammed as final and for all time.

2. If final and for all time, then it must be complete.

3. If not complete, then it cannot be final and for all time.

4. If not complete and for all time, then it is inconsistent.

5. If Quran is inconsistent, per its claim as being complete and final for all time, then why should anyone believe Mohammed's claim it is final and for all time, for all humanity?

---

quote:

Whether this has bearing or not I do not know. However, I know for a fact that a drawing of three children, one black, one white, one asian was left on Ed's desk following his recovery from spinal injury and poisoning. --anonymous

---

---

quote:

How does this dove tail into a dialogue on the world's religions?
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 09:37 am: Ivan

---

Fitzgerald: "And that is the problem. It is regarding the Qur'an as outside of time, instead of as a product of humans, produced in time and space and seen in its historical context. That is why the work of scholars of early Islam, if heeded, can do much to help the genuine "moderate" Muslims -- those who comprehend the nightmare, and who out of fear or filial piety cannot declare themselves to be apostates, but continue bravely to tell themselves that something can be done: perhaps we can eliminate the Hadith, perhaps somehow we can claim that the biography of Muhammad was tampered with or begin to diminish his role, perhaps perhaps perhaps."

" After leaving to the Jihad, we found present freedom. We can, it is opened to call to Islam without the distortion. After taking in the hands weapon, we found the possibility to punish the enemies of Allah and Islam. Perhaps not this is sublimity? Perhaps not this is worthy for present Muslim?

Yesterday we were close to the state of those, Allah says: "they (persons) hesitates between this (by faith and by disbelief), but they belong neither to those nor to others. For that, whom Allah leads into error, you will no longer find road ". (An-Nisa ', 4:143)

Today, on the favor of Allah, we adhere to straightness and we experience no doubts. And thus far Muslims will not free their consciousness from the stereotypes, which are imposed on them incorrect, they will not get rid of the doubts, and they will vary to death itself."

"The pragmatic issue of protection (and in some minds, pre-emption) naturally follows for Western cultures victimized by other fatwas that explicitly declare jihad (holy war) against them. This requires military, law enforcement and political leaders to "get in the heads" of terrorists. Where does one begin to understand an event like the following? A Mogadishu-style mob kills and mutilates American civilians, dragging them through the streets. Crowds chant, "Long live Islam!" and "God is great!" Was this representative of Islam or an insane riot?"

"The first in-depth analysis of Benedict VXI’s lecture in Regensburg on the part of a Muslim theologian was published on this website on October 4. The author, Aref Ali Nayed, born in Libya, is currently the managing director of a technology company headquartered in the United Arab Emirates. He studied hermeneutics and the philosophy of science in the United States and Canada, has taken courses at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and has given lectures at the Pontifical Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies. He is a consultant for the Interfaith Program of the University of Cambridge. He is a devout Sunni Muslim, and describes himself as a “theologian of the Asharite school, Maliki in jurisprudential tendency, and Shadhili-Rifai in spiritual leanings.”"

---

quote:

Some define the strength of their people by the number of believers and the "sameness" of their belief.

Is there validity to this mindset? -- Naive

---

---

quote:

What I am trying to say is:

The morality of belief is inconsequential to those with power. The "sameness" or uniformity of the following is what they want.

And once again I will ask are they right? Is there strength in this doctrine of numbers? Is this the agenda of all who hold power (whether it be religion or government)?

---

---

quote:

Is religion a subconscious, collective human expression of frustration over the unattainableness of knowledge of God/Universal truth? An attempt to defy, define, and control the unknown by labeling it? The first science (albeit primitive)? A reflection of the brain's desire for order? A recognition of divinity in which the truth is pimped to manifest control of the masses? Love personified in words? Or words used to personify love and then demand worship?

---

---

quote:

Freedom will never free those who don't want to be free, nor will science. Rather, they will find disillusionment in their belief system, through an event of their own making.

---

"The above description of practicing Islam may look like a comic story, the sad news it is not. This is a reality and all Muslims are aware of it and all live in fear because of it. This fear explains why Muslims work hard to reduce their grave torture and shorten their stay in hell to the minimal possible.

Muslims also know another secret about Islam; They know of the only way to avoid all the above nightmare altogether, with no worry about the grave torture or ever seeing hell at all – become a martyr!

That is true because according to Islam, martyrs are not dead at all. They join the fast lane straight to paradise (just like prophets) regardless of their sins or the state of their hasanat/ sayaat account balance (Q, 2.154, Q.3.169- 170)"

---

quote:

Love personified in words? Or words used to personify love and then demand worship? --Naive

---

"The objection is that, in the areas of life and the family, the Church’s hierarchy preaches truths defined as non-negotiable, pure, and solid, binding even in political decisions, while in the areas of peace, justice, and the protection of the environment, it waters down “Christian distinctiveness” and makes feeble statements, acquiescing to the temporal powers.

According to the progressive Catholic circles, the priority should be reversed. The Church should put in the first place the struggle for peace, justice, and the defense of nature, and should be more understanding toward modern “subjectivity” in the areas of life and the family."

---

quote:

I have written the above explanation so that offering prayers at their correct times does not create panic.

This knowledge I hope fits with the theme of this topic - dialogue. --Mohideen

---

"Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
The Pope is threatened with death, no Muslim outrage.
Muslims are made to obey airflight rules, Muslims are outraged. (bold mine)

Posted by: TheRegulator at November 21, 2006 03:11 PM"

---

quote:

As this fight evolves it will be conducted here in the United States and abroad, in the courts, in the media and the rest. One of the goals of this type of operation is to build anger in Muslims in the United States that can be directed against us. Creating the perception that Muslims are targeted unfairly and repressed.

---