| Author | Message | ||
     Ivan |
This discussion is a continuation of "Dialogue with a Muslim", now closed due to blog-spam attacks on these sites. It is worthwhile to continue this dialogue, which has a great level of interest today and hopefully with more participants, as it is a current topic worldwide. Avoid the politics as much as possible, but focus on the human factor, and principles involved. Islam means submission, and peace, so bear that in mind with respect for the faith, and all those who adhere to it. If there are faults, please bring them forth for discussion, and if there is praise, then this too. We are all human beings, no matter our belief, and as such must all be treated with equal respect. Only 'coercion' is our enemy, not each other. All the best, peace in God, Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The world wants Islam to be a religion of peace, the same as what you say. What the world sees in reality, instead, is a religion of war, violence, coercions, all committed in the name of God. How do you account for that? Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 07:06 am: Ivan I consider two scenarios equally probable. The first is those who were behind the WW I and WW II and have seen the Caliphate dismantled are going for the kill to eliminate the only force against oppression – Islam – and are manipulating the media. The second possibility is that the US war machine is under threat of annihilation by the FSB and the Japanese mafia as alleged by Col. Tom Bearden and as currently demonstrated by unheard of hostile weather. The KGB lost its prestige in its humiliating defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the CIA and its creation, the Mujahideen. It is my conjecture that the US war machine was promised a reprieve if it could destroy its own creation; and the attempt has failed. Irrespective of the prevailing scenario, maligning Islam is a prerequisite. The following quotes are offered as signs of such ‘perception management’ of the world. 1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt187.html === It was the crucible upon which the ideas and constituencies that drive Bush's aggressive foreign policy today were first hammered out. It was the place that secular neocons and anti-communist militarists came together with the Christian New Right to oppose Catholicism's Liberation Theology, the radical Islam of its moment – at a time when Reagan's CIA director was playing footsy in Afghanistan and elsewhere with the Islamic jihadists who would later be melded with the "axis of evil" into the War on Terror. Central America was also where Republicans first embraced the idealist language of spreading "democracy" abroad as a key justification for an aggressive, violent, preemptive foreign policy. It was in relation to Central America that, through the Office of Public Diplomacy, the executive branch first used a full range of PR "perception management" techniques to sell a war – again anticipating the media manipulation that led to the invasion of Iraq === 2. http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=4934 === As the remaining world superpower, the United States is targeted from nearly every corner of the globe. The FBI will focus its counterintelligence resources on those countries and non-state actors having the greatest potential to harm US interests, and will work to gain a greater understanding of the threats they pose. Specifically, the FBI will examine threats related to terrorism, espionage, weapons proliferation, national infrastructure, US government perception management, and foreign intelligence activities. === And 3. http://www.pjvoice.com/v11/11300words.html === In response to the election of Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) ran an ad in the Exponent that implied a connection between Dean and Palestinian suicide bombers. The Anti-Defamation League found the ad to be offensive, as did many others in the Jewish community. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reported on the controversy in a news article that was balanced in its original, unedited form. The first part discussed the RJC ad and the negative perception of Dean among some in the Jewish community. The last third of the article reported on Dean's support of Israel, Dean's Jewish family connections, AIPAC's strong support of Dean, and the fact that an overwhelming majority of Jews support the Democratic party. The Exponent ran the JTA article, but only after editing out this last section, effectively censoring all references to Dean's support among Jews as well as the ADL's condemnation of the RJC suicide bomber ad. === It is my understanding that the MSM is manipulated to portray Islam as a religion of violence. It is natural that the world understands what the MSM projects. Internet journalism is possibly countering the MSM manipulation. However, the number of readers of the printed word is many times the number of those reading the displayed word. Everyone does not have Internet connection; everyone has eyes to read the printed word. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ (Please note this post was sent to me via email while forums were 'locked down' due to blog spam attacks, I enter it here on Dr. Mohideen Ibramsha's behalf, an honored guest. Ivan) | ||
| Ivan |
Bewildered Palestinian Woman writes to Ali Sina, partial text.
This woman's account of her intensified look into the nature of the faith is an important testimonial, for all who are humanistically evolved to understand and love freedom, for all humanity. The Palestinian history at the hands of the Israelis, from her account if true, is a horrible shame. Peace will come only after great personal sacrifices, and forgiveness, a very long and painful process. I envision an ideal Islam too, but not the foolishness now taught to young men and women. For Islam to become Peace, it will take many fine human beings like the woman who wrote this Bewildered article. God help them. We are all human beings. Ivan Ps: Please also see (at bottom of "Bewildered" linked page) Ali Sina's response to this dear woman, a very sensitive and insightful response. WARNING: Graphic images of violence shown in above link. See more of similar testimonials by women, and men, at FaithFreedom.org: http://www.faithfreedom.org | ||
| Anonymous |
"It is my understanding that the MSM is manipulated to portray Islam as a religion of violence. It is natural that the world understands what the MSM projects. Internet journalism is possibly countering the MSM manipulation. However, the number of readers of the printed word is many times the number of those reading the displayed word. Everyone does not have Internet connection; everyone has eyes to read the printed word." Then how do you account the common man in the street perception of Islam after the cartoon riots, death fatwas by Islamic clericks, 911, 77, 511, countless suicide bombings to kill anybody with the bad luck to be standing near by, and not to forget punishments metted by Islam, like these two? Videos, Islam Religion of "Peace" http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/video/stoning_video_100kbps.wmv http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/video/handcutting_video_islam_200kbps.wmv This is the image of Islam the world holds in horror. Expect a very long uphill climb for Islam to shed itself of such ugly perceptions, if it can be truly a religion of peace, never mind the MSM or other media. The tarnish on Islam is from inside. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
finally I took off my head scarf Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 05:14 pm: Ivan We are in the process of shifting our residence. A just reply to this hurtful practice affecting more than 50% of the Muslims requires time more than at my disposal now; the movers are expected in about 7 hours to move. Hence, a short reply is given for now. In all fairness I should have perused Ali Sina’s response on this topic; lacks of time forces to me offer a blind response. I may please be forgiven this lapse. The Muslim adult woman is encouraged to cover her hair; it is not compulsory. My family – wheel chair bound father, wife, and two school going daughters lived in Riyadh from October 1984 till February 1991. Even though my daughters used head scarf, they did not cover their face. Friends and acquaintances alike impressed upon me that I should compel my family to cover the face as the Bedouin of Saudi Arabia do. Because I believe in Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran – that there is no compulsion in Islam – I never compelled my daughters to practice any of the rituals of the Muslims. On the strength of Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran I venture to say that there is no compulsion in an adult Muslim woman to cover her hair. Lest someone use the above to claim that they could live as they please and still claim to be Muslims, I must state that there is a governing principle about a lady’s dress, and that principle cannot be violated. From http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=molested&chapter=&translator=2&sea rch=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have: === O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Al-Ahzab, Chapter #33, Verse #59) (Yusuf Ali – English translation) === So a lady must dress in a society in which she lives in such a way that she shall not be molested. Thanks to Ivan for accepting my mail and posting the response attributed to me in the earlier post. | ||
| Ivan |
Mohideen, isn't it a bit strange that the woman is told to cover up because some male might lust over her? Shouldn't it be the male whose eyes are covered up, so that he will not lust? Why must the woman bear the burden of the man's lust, as if it were her fault? is it not the man's failings? So the religious dictate should apply to him, not to her. The man must cover his eyes in the presence of a woman! Is this not more correct, and fair? How would you explain this? | ||
| Le Chef |
Yaki yaki yada. Words words words. Here's the real picture.  The guy in the middle aughta have his eyes burkhad. Peace. | ||
| Ivan |
INDIVIDUAL CHOICE IN THE WEST http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/WolfgangBruno60524p2.htm I don't necessarily agree with this, but here is what the article says:
Rather, I think that Islam has the potential for individual freedom too. This personal freedom would come with personal responsibility for all actions of the individual, which is the power behind freedom: Once you give the individual the responsibility, he will act accordingly, more responsibly. This is what a mature mind does. Some will not, and they will be errant within the law, which is why we have laws and police. But most people will be responsible, which is why Western styled freedoms and democracy work: People are inherently responsible. Where Islam needs to address this, in my opinion, is that all the beautiful things of Islam, the personal reaching for God, are preserved; while at the same time, all the things that coerce the individual from his or her right to responsibility for their actions, those must be discouraged, or stopped. This is how a Modern society works, where individual human beings are free in their responsibility to themselves and each other. But they cannot do this if they live under constant pressure of coercions, even religious coercions, that 'micro-manage' their lives. Then they are unfree, and their inherent sense of responsibility is trampled, it counts for nothing. If Islam is to reach out to the Modern world, it must address this issue of personal responsibility, of tolerance (non-micro management), and of acceptance of humanity as it is. Men and women are beautiful, capable of great things, great art, great worhsip, and if they are given a chance, they will do this. This is how God made humanity, to become increasingly aware of their own greatness. That is he power of freedom. I do not agree that Islam is inherently evil or errant. Sure, the interpretations may have gone bad, but in essense what the people believe in their hearts, to do God's will, is not evil. But to bring out the truth of this, human beings must be given their freedoms, their human rights, and allowed to express the beauty of who they are, in God. That is the future of Islam. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
"I do not agree that Islam is inherently evil or errant. Sure, the interpretations may have gone bad, but in essense what the people believe in their hearts, to do God's will, is not evil." Ivan This is a very mystical way of looking at it. But if everyone looks in his heart to find God, there would be no need for the Quran or any Holy Book. I tend to agree with you. If there is a God he surly would have written his words in our hearts instead of revealing himself in old books consisting of incomprehensible gibberish open to multiple interpretations, misunderstanding and corruption. The Muslims believe that Mohammad recited the Quran while angel Gabriel whispered in his ear. His cohorts then commited the verses to memory and sometimes wrote them down on tree barks and loose cloths. In Mohammad's lifetime the Quran was transmitted basically orally. By the time the Quran was written down, based on the memory of some old men and loose verses scribbled down in odd places, it doesn't take a genuis to imagine that there was bound to be a lot of distortions.So even if you believe indeed the Quranic verses were dictated to Mohammad, there were many human hands involved in producing the Quran. It is foolish to expect the words of God are recorded unaltered in the printed pages. For me, I just can't believe an almighty God would use such a clumsy way to reveal his truth. Respectfully, Arnold P.S. Glad you're open for business again. ;) | ||
| Ivan |
I tend to agree with you Arnold, that by the time this stuff filters down through the ages, it's had enough 'replicating' drift to render some of it babble, and nonsense. This would hold likewise for the Torah, Four Gospels, Bhagavad-Gita, Egyptian Book of the Dead, or others like it, where the written word had to go through so many hands, and translations, that to take each word at face value is something of a reach. Would God be that clumsy in teaching humanity? No. Why should it be different for the Qur'an? But we are using reason here, and that may not predominate when it comes to religious beliefs. In fact, a truly good 'test' of a religious person's belief, is he must suspend reason, which easily gives an 'in' for those who wrote these texts: as a precondition of 'proof' that you are a 'true believer' you must suspend reason. Does this not 'checkmate' reason right off? Pretty clever of those old devils, eh? I hold nothing against anyone's desire to believe, truly believe, no matter what it is that they believe, even if absurd. My beef, or pork, with all this is that then the believer thinks he has the right to impose his belief on another. That, if forced against the other's will, becomes coercion. Once coerced, the rest of it is garbage. So, let them believe as they will, but not trespass on the lives of those who are not of like mind and not believers. Otherwise, whatever irrational nonsense turns them on, it's their baggage. Just don't dump it on us. Is it okay to laugh at another's belief? (I'm thinking of that cartoon above, which is inherently funny, though it is not specific of Mohammed, nor is it really anything, though some may see it as 'insult'.) I personally would avoid insulting with humor, if the recipient cannot respond to humor in kind. Freedom of expression, at least in the modern world, allows for this, but the issue is one of sensitivity and good taste. However, the converse is where the recipient of humor becomes violently foaming with anger, and that is a purely subjective reaction. Whatever we believe inside, it should remain inside, and not be expressed (politicized) with externalized reactions. Is Le Chef's cartoon in good taste? Not particularly, though he makes his/her point. But because it is not in the best interest of bringing people together, rather it forces them apart, then perhaps it is better to not indulge. (Humancafe decided not to delete the cartoon because it makes no reference to the Prophet, so take it merely as an illustration of humor.) So we should have the freedom to laugh, provided it is not injurious to others, but there is a delicate line easily crossed for those who believe in Islam. This line is much thinner than for any other belief system in this world, since the ability to handle humor is one of strength; and humor is not Islam's strong point. Ivan Yeah, that blog-spam is a bloody nuisance, but it seems to be holding. | ||
| Ivan |
FOR GOD'S SAKE, BE HAPPY! Stop worrying so much about going to Hell. You are already in hell on Earth with all this worrying. Fighting each other, when not fighting the outsider 'infidels', to force them to join your generalized unhappiness on Earth, to avoid Hell and go to Paradise; all this fighting is already bringing Hell to Earth. Look at the results! General unhappiness and pain here on Earth for Muslims, as well as for innocent non-Muslims affected by this fighting. Why not be happy? Is it such a sin to feel love and joy, and enjoy the happiness of others and ourselves? Is this happiness only the privilege of the few, while the masses must live in misery, anger, riots, hate, killings, and finally suicide? For God's sake, can't you be happy? I think if there is one thing I walked away with from all these discussions, it is this by Dr. Mohideen Ibramsha: "Because I believe in Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran – that there is no compulsion in Islam – I never compelled my daughters to practice any of the rituals of the Muslims. On the strength of Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran I venture to say that there is no compulsion in an adult Muslim woman to cover her hair." I take this as an extremely rich and beautiful statement, reaching directly into the heart. Non compulsion of rituals. This is what religion, all religion, as a belief in God demands. Take away compulsion, and it is between man and God, same as for woman and God. We are all created equal before God, all have the right to happiness in this world. Or else, what is the point? To suffer? Why? The answer to this is Fear. We are afraid to be happy. Somehow we feel undeserving of such happiness, and that if we enjoy life in the here and now, we will pay in the afterlife. Why? Because Hell awaits us? So? We already beat hell to the punch with our unhappiness here, and made our world into a hell. Surely God must have an incredible sense of humor to promise keeping you out of Hell by making you create hell on Earth! Or is this the price for Paradise, that you must be miserable on Earth? Then God's sense of humor turns diabolic, if so. Can't you see how absurd this is? God is not diabolical. And the way to Paradise, basking in the beauty of God, is to be beautiful on Earth. The only way to let your God given beauty shine on Earth is to be happy. Be joyful, be loving, be giving, and be forgiving, and you have a shot at Paradise. All else, this compulsion to force everyone else to be unhappy, to be unfree, to be covered with so many restrictions on your life that you can hardly breathe, that is the work of men, not God. Not even intelligent men, but self contradictory men who come from fear. What are they afraid of? Power. They are afraid to lose control, so they need power. That kind of fear comes from fear itself, a cowardly fear, because they are afraid that if anyone else is happy, they will lose control. Fear is our biggest enemy to happiness on Earth: fear of freedom, fear of human self expression, fear of beauty, fear of letting your wife or daughter show her ankles or hair, fear of Hell, fear of being rejected by others, fear of disapproval by those in power over us; fear of love and being loved. So many fears, that we suffer hell on Earth. Did God have this in mind for His creations? To go to Paradise you must suffer so much fear while alive on Earth? What's the point? Can't we see that this is Hell? By being afraid of happiness, we are doing this to ourselves, if we believe in fear? You want God's rule on Earth? It's simple: Be Happy! Find joy. Find love. Find freedom from fear in your heart. Find tolerance for others. Find peace in yourself and others. Find the strength to laugh. Find the richness of love for others, and they will love you in return. Have the courage to love another! Find that place in your heart where you can do this, and stop being afraid. God does not have Hell in store for you if you find joy in this life, and are happy. In fact, that is the way to Paradise, your happiness spreading to all others on Earth, and your soul will be received by God with his Joy, which is far greater than anything we mortal humans can imagine. Be Happy! For God's sake, be happy, smile, laugh, love, and enjoy the freedom of being alive as a beautiful being in the heart of God. If nothing else, do it for your children, and their children. Stop being afraid of God's Love on Earth. Then you will have Paradise, not only forever, but in the here and now. Write poetry. Make music. Dance! Art is your soul. Enjoy the fullness of your being, without fear. Have the courage of being God's creation, and believe this, for God's sake. The final sentence in Qur'an: 2: 256, The Cow, says: "They (unbelievers) are the heirs of Hell and shall abide in it forever." Happiness is for us humans, all of us equally, both believers and 'unbelievers' have a right to be free of Hell. It is not the hereafter we should fear, being in the presence of God, but the hell we created on Earth. What we created here in our ignorance, with our coercions and compulsions, is a hell devoid of beauty and love for one another. God did not create us for Hell. Each one of us is a beautiful being, so why not live in beauty? This is who we are. And once we do this, then it will be Peace on Earth. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
The Cow? For all her ravings there is one paragraph Muslims forget, which they should remember. Koran, 2:107: "If We abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten We will replace it by a better one or one similar." Think! This is a legal loophole for which their Allah gave them leave to improve on what that lunatic wrote in all his ravings. Why do Muslims never mention this? Can Islam reform? They have the right to do so, God given right, except they are so stuck in the past they are bereft of all understanding. Can anyone improve on the Cow's ravings? No intelligent person can read this without shaking his head, it is so full of irrational bull. Koran 2:156: "Your God is one God. There is no god but Him. He is the Compassionate, the Merciful." This is followed by Hell Fire punishments. How merciful and compassionate is that? A small god, not the One God. Islam is drenched in its own blood of sins, not God teaching peace, and love for all humanity, but a god of war. | ||
| Anonymous |
"A small god, not the One God. Islam is drenched in its own blood of sins, not God teaching peace, and love for all humanity, but a god of war." According to Muslims Allah is the same as the God of the Old Testament. Here is what "the Gnostic bible" has to say about this "God" http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/hypostas.html "Their chief is blind; because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance he said, with his power, "It is I who am God; there is none apart from me." When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" - which is, "god of the blind." ... " Sounds right. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
Thanks Arnold, interesting how the Gnostic text "Reality of the Rulers" referenced has similarities to Qur'anic ideas. When Sophia (wisdom) made a creature come to life and it saw the vastness of the universe, a metaphor for 'awakening', here is what it said (as you ref above): So this idea of the 'One God' got kicked around a good deal in ancient times, as a kind of 'unified theory of everything' being kicked around today. Relativity and Quantum theory don't match up, so the unification has not happened yet. In ancient times, the unification between a strong but benevolent God and a cruel and punishing 'God' was likewise a conundrum, so Mohammad did the best he could to try to unify these two competing aspects into his version of the 'One God' (as proof that he was the one called upon from ancient prophecies). The Gnostics were more level headed, though in typical ancient fashion still rather confusing in their textual content, in that they recognized that such unification maybe was not really doable. Their default was Jesus Christ, though even there they didn't seem too comfortable with his powers as 'God' so allowed for competing ideas to exist side by side (like Jesus getting married of the Da Vinci Code style), so allowed for some freedom of thought on the matter. (I don't recall the passage, but in one version Jesus was not crucified but up a tree laughing, while a willing impostor hung on the cross. Blasphemy! So they got branded as heretics. Also, the Book of Mary is one of exception in ancient religious texts, since written by a woman.) These were 'hot topics' back then, about the time Mohammad was 'waking up' to religion. So back to the Cow, or the Heifer as my ancient copy of Qur'an translated by Palmer --Max Muller 1880-- the text referring to God allowing change (per Anon above) in this immutable 'word of God' reads a little different. It says, Qur'an 2, 100: "Whatever verse we may annul or cause thee to forget, we will bring a better one than it, or one like it; dost thou not know that God is mighty over all?" Sure, this looks like an 'out' for Muslims to change their text, if one of them is truly God inspired to do so! I would not hold my breath though. Remember that Deuteronomy 13 pretty much 'sealed' the prophecies with this: "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder. And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying: Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Though shalt not harken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. ... (13.5) And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death." So this pretty much nixes any ideas of a new 'God' after Deuteronomy, a text of the ancient Hebrews and their version of 'one God', once it was written down. So Mohammad in this case was taking a big chance, since his Allah was a new God. Of course the ancients would have rejected him off hand, so he had to fight his way through to make them believe, by force, to convince them that he was the One they were all calling on (to unify God's duality paradox) as prophecy demanded. Then, to make sure nobody challenged him further, he called himself the 'seal of the prophets' and thus killed the idea of any challengers in the future. So what Mohammad did, in retrospect, was unlock the first seal of the prophecies, stated by Deuteronomy, and then resealed it again with his own. Is this crikey? Of course, I am looking at this through the lens of reason, since I am not one of the believers in any of this, but as stated earlier, reason is severely handicapped here, since a true test for a believer is to believe 'blindly'. Any wonder no one may alter 'not one word' of the Qur'an? This is one tough challenge for Islam, if it ever wants to modernize and become equal to the rest of the modern world; and truly become a religion of Peace, and not merely blind submission to their coercive teachings of a paradoxical God. Historically, seeing this through the eyes of reason and modern thought, not those whose vision is locked in ancient scripture with blind belief, this is a major obstacle to change. But it is interesting to see how they will handle this, if they can. Maybe there is no hope here, but they do have an 'out' it seems, if they choose to take it. In my opinion, true believers can believe whatever they want, free of criticism of their beliefs, provided they obey the laws of human freedoms, that they do not trespass with their beliefs on the beliefs of others. Otherwise. such trespass, especially if acted upon with the use of force and compulsion, is clearly coercion. Believe quietly what you will in your heart, without question from anyone, but do it quietly and with respect for the sanctity and inviolate rights to freedom for others. This is why we of the modern world have separation of church and state, to insure our freedom to believe as we will, without compulsions. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
"so Mohammad did the best he could to try to unify these two competing aspects into his version of the 'One God' (as proof that he was the one called upon from ancient prophecies)." The "One God" was already in the Jewish Torah. Mohammad's theology is crass and vulgar, there is really nothing much to Islam than wholesale plagerism from Jewish and Chrsitian sources, and Mohammad apparantly couldn't even get his story right. Scholars noted the hapharzard ways some Quranic verses were put together, it was as if Mohammad made them up as he went along like some rap artists do today. The "One God" concept served the political agendas of the day. The Arabs were tribal people who worshipped different gods. Mohammad's "One God " represented a consolidation in the political sphere. I have grave doubt that it was driven by any deep theological consideration. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
Well yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I gave it more depth, looking for something more reasoned, but really, what did he really know? Like us all normal people, we walk around with a sum knowledge of our day, more or less, so whatever's in the air, we sort of know what it's about. I'm sure those folks a millennium and half ago were not that different, though without the benefit of internet and instante communications. People talked, word got passed around, they argued over coffee or tea, or arake, and had a general knowledge of sorts. Why not take some of that stuff floating around and make something of it?  I got it! How about a new religion? And then make me "Master of the World!" Sad if this is the cause of it all... so much suffering, death, suicide killings, genocide, beheadings, amputations, oppression of the female sex, female mutilation, slavery... the list goes on. Ugh... the pain. What a legacy.  Cheers, Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
PEOPLE LOVE RELIGION, and they want to do good. Dr. Jerald F. Dirks's conversion to Islam, is a glowing example of how an intelligent and fine man and his wife converted to Islam. It is a beautiful testimony of human beings needing to believe, to emulate others who believe, and who want to do good things in life. For more testimonials on converts to Islam, both men and women, see: http://thetruereligion.org/modules/xfsection/ In thinking of Reform, can these individuals, both men and women, be the guiding force for a future Islam of Peace? As newcomers to the faith, perhaps they can offer an alternative to the sad and violent legacy former Islam had left the world? Surely they chose Islam of their own free choice. Can they do good once they are there? What I f find curious is why Muslims say "Peace be upon him" (Pbuh) after each mention of holy persons. Does a fallen human being have to keep repeating this for persons whom God already bestowed divinity? Should it not be the other way around, where the divine person should bestow peace upon the errant mortal, for whom peace is so illusive? Either I do not understand this properly, or it is mere human vanity. Do we have to keep repeating this bestowing of 'peace' on those who are already in God's grace, as if they needed peace? I think we fallen mortals need peace far more than those who reached divinity, and are already in peace. Curious point, but in my mind, with all due respect, it should be the other way around, where the divine bestows peace with the words "Peace be upon us." This would be more true, because humanity needs divine help for Peace. I think people convert, to any religion, because they really want to do good. Most human beings are good oriented most of the time, and sometimes they need help to achieve this goodness, or responsible behavior towards themselves and others, so they turn to religious guidance. I have known converts to Judaism, Sikhism, Bahaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism (I personally do now know any Islamic converts), and all had the same good hearted intentions. However, none I know converted under duress, where their conversion to another faith puts them under a 'death fatwah', something foreign to our way of thinking. Can Islam shed this one onerous aspect of its religious traditions interpretations? It would be a small step in the right direction, to offer people a freedom of choice, which would be a giant step for a humanity without coercions. Peace be upon us. Regarding women converting to Islam, 'American sister' writes: "In many “Islamic” countries, the system and following of Islam actually is not considered true Islam, its a “mixture” or the culture and the religion. In many Muslims countries, the government women have to wear the Chador or Burq’ha and are prohibited from working, education, or driving. All these practices are cultural, in many of those countries the Chador was worn by the wealthy Persian, Christians, Hindus and Assyrians as a form of social snobbery, and again many of these practices that are now considered Islamic are not Islamic at all!" So already we are seeing questions introduced by new blood to what others had accepted as the true faith. This is the future. Islam will experience change from within because it had attracted people, both men and women, who want to do good. There is a sadness here, that I must voice: Islamic born women do not have the same right to marry outside the faith that non-Islamic women have. A Muslim male may marry a non-Muslim female, usually where she converts, but the same equality is not offered to a Muslim female to marry a non-Muslim male. Often, she is threatened, and sometimes killed for her love of this man. This is a grievous inequality, a gross injustice, and an affront to human beings who happened to be born women in the Islamic faith. Even for a Muslim female who is courted by a non-Muslim male, the Islamic faith intereferes with their love. She can be killed! Can this injustice be corrected in Islam, to give Muslim women equality, so they do not suffer for their love of another human being, who is not Muslim? This, as is death for apostasy, are seriously grievous flaws in Islam. Human beings need to believe. It is something universally innate in us, and religion is one path to this need. There are others, some more reason based than pure belief, but all paths lead to a greater humanity able to rise above its small selfish concerns by turning to something bigger. In God, by whatever path we believe, we are turning to the biggest, an infinitely big belief of universal appeal, the Love of God. The Universe is a very big place. Salaam. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
Religion is a substitue for "God". That is the moral of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor.Jesus brought the masses God but the Church gave them religion. Most people would choose religion over God because they get certainty and prefabricated answers, they are promised salvation just by following rules. Humans are creatures of habits. Out of all religions Islam is extreme in its compulsive obsessiveness, there are rules and rituals for almost anything. When faced with an unknown situation, the first thing a devout Muslim does is to seek out answers from the Quran. He becomes panic striken when the answer is not to be found. That's why you have a whole industry of "scholars" and clerics who issue fatwas on anything imaginable. They were surrogate brains for the Muslims. Somehow praying 5 times a day must have the effect of cutting off oxygen flow into the brain. Dogmatism is a byproduct of the religious mindset. In Islam it is turned into a fine art. (Western Muslims are better because they don't have the cultural baggage. Many take a very liberal view with the religion, they pick and choose like your average Christian. But they are not the Islamic mainstream.) The Golden age of Islam is often cited as evidence that Islam is compatible with science and reason. But this argument is flawed. During the Golden age the Islamic world was in fact less religious, not more, than it is today.Many Muslim Sultans were patrons of the arts and sciences in the medieval peroid. They were more secular than their European counterparts. They had a much higher threshold for heresies than the Church then(and the Islamic world today)In those days Mullahs were not legal authorities. They were paid to perform religious ceremonies, funerals and marriage etc and that was it. The correct lesson that Muslims should draw from history should be that progress is only possible when religion is in retreat. Unfortunately, they seem to be reading history upside down and get a completely opposite message out of it. | ||
| Ivan |
I find that to be true, that not all people want the freedom to find truth on their own, and would rather be told by others. In fact, if I may state a personal observation, not all people want freedom. For some it is more comfortable, when faced with a free choice, to choose something other than freedom. In my opinion, it is a state of mind, where freedom requires a very high awareness of what responsibilities of choice this involves, while un-freedom is a more secure place with fewer choices. The trap, if I may call it that, is that un-free people will stop you from having more freedom, while those more aware of the value of freedom will be more inclined to give you the same freedoms. This creates an unequal exchange, so freedom is easily eroded while un-freedom is easily more dominant. The more I watch the world, the more I realize that at this point in time, freedom is still a new thing, tenuous and not deeply imbedded in human consciousness; while un-freedom is still largely the norm for the world. Being an unequal exchange, it is more difficult to bring freedom into the world than to take it away. The pendulum of history swings wide both ways, and where the period of European, and later American, Enlightenment brought greater freedoms, the current world, especially as it involves Islam, is swinging the other way. Some people do not want the freedom of choice, of personal responsibility, and would gravitate towards being told what to do. Whether from scriptures, the religious authorities, or from one's own peers, there are those who would choose to be un-free, of their own free choice. It appears a conundrum, but rather it is a historic fact: that once freedom is lost, it is very difficult to regain it. In Islam, this could mean a 'death fatwah' for apostates; in women, it could mean being beaten by their husbands; in children, because their parents chose un-freedom, they may be forced into violent rebellion to regain that freedom lost. Each generation must fight for it anew, because it is not yet common to our world to value our freedoms. If freedom's pendulum is swinging away from common human freedom, it will take many future generations to swing it back, perhaps with their blood. Dostoevsky understood this. It takes courage and will to be free. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
AN OPPOSING VIEW TO ALL THOSE NICE CONVERSION TO ISLAM STORIES. The links above on Converts to the "one true faith" tell you how the women converted after reading the Quran and life of Mohammed, in syrupy testimonies. Mostly these women converted for marriage into Islam, poor souls. I wonder how many are now black and blue with bruises from their oh so devout, so sweet husbands? Their testimonies, the ones who now live in fear and regret, I bet you will never see. Once inside Islam, you are are a slave of Allah. You will never be free to leave. The word "punish" in the holy Quran appears 196 times, in 184 verses. Try it for yourself! http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php This "almost convert" read the same texts and was revolted. His testimony is in this link. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Testimonials/UmmaAllergic.htm You judge good reader. See the truth of the evil lie. | ||
| Anonymous |
"In thinking of Reform, can these individuals, both men and women, be the guiding force for a future Islam of Peace? As newcomers to the faith, perhaps they can offer an alternative to the sad and violent legacy former Islam had left the world? Surely they chose Islam of their own free choice." Ivan Let's hope so. But keep in mind our friend Mohideen is not a village idiot, he has a Ph.D. in computer science for crying out loud. Somehow his brain turns into cabbage when Islam comes up. Speaking of conversion to Islam perhaps you will enjoy this short documentary. Texas Christian fundamentalist rednecks convert to Islam because Christian fundamentalism is not conservative enough for their taste. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069&q=Muslim Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
Thanks for the video link, Arnold. Though, the men look normal enough, it's the women who look different. I suppose they're happy with their choice. Do they realize that once they checked in, but can never check out? Apostasy is a real no no in Islam. Their children too, and their children's children and great great grandchildren, can never check out. It's like joining the army forever, for all generations to come, forever. It doesn't suit me, but if they're happy, that's their thing. Freedom? Once you can't get out, what does it really mean? Yet, they think they're free. Their choice. Forever. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
"Their choice. Forever." No, not forever. Only until the slaves of Allah are liberated. Islam will then fall from inside, like the Soviet Union, in their "Last Days." No cult is forever. | ||
| Ivan |
Anon, choice is forever, if there is no back turning back. But no 'cult' can last forever if it is based on compulsions and coercions. Then, it is far far far better to choose Reform over the alternatives, all of which involve spilling of blood. BTW, when I tried the above Qur'an link (yours?) on the word "punish" I got 265 times! Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I just finished reading the message given by the 'bewildered' and Ali Sina's response. It looks like Ali Sina had concentrated on the Israeli- Arab issue and ignored the cause of the anguish of the woman - whether to cover the hair or reveal the hair. At this point in time, I do not have Internet access in my home. I am responding from a library now. I have a lot of catching up to do. I hope to discuss the head scarf in a few days, God Almighty willing. | ||
| Ivan |
Good to hear from you Mohideen. Hope your move all went along well, though I know how much work that can be. Take your time, we're discussing some side issues, general topics on religious conversion, religion in general, and reform. No hurry. Take care, Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
WHAT IF ISLAM DID NOT REFORM? Some possible scenarios on the world stage, next 50 years. I would like to present what I think might be possible scenarios, without prejudice or forecast of which will play out. This is presented with the deepest respect for Islam and the people of the Book, in how some of these discussions pointed to possible scenarios, at least in theory. We have no certainty of the future, since that we cannot know, and it is is up to how we humans choose in toto collectively, and how God responds to what we do. I am starting this idea from the platform that Muslims are good people, have the same wishes and desires to do good in doing God' will, and who open their hearts to what it is that God demands of them. We all have a part of the future on Earth in all we do now, and for future generations to come, so we must be mindful at all times. Taken as a summation of zero to one, S1 i=0 1, where zero is that Islam does reform, meaning the coercive elements of ancient traditions and interpretations are negated (so none of the scenarios below apply); to one, where there is certainty that something else must happen. My opinion only, open to discussion, and not a negative judgment on the belief. I would present it as such: 1. 40% probability (+ 15% error). Reformations fail and lead to a secular vs. fundamentalists full scale civil struggle, led by intellectuals within Islam. This may become as violent as the religious wars of old Europe during the Reformation, or it might linger as small sectarian battles between groups competing for dominance in isolated geographical regions. It may show up on a major stage between Persian Shiah and Arab Sunni ideologies, where these struggles stretch from North Africa to Indonesia, all from within the Islamic states. If this conflict turns violent enough, large numbers of people die, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands to a million, before resolution is settled. The vanguards of this struggle, post failed reforms, would be the young, mostly students and their supporters, who would demand greater secular rights and to restrain the powers of mullahs in deciding socio-political affairs. I would place the epicenter of this scenario at Iran, with a secondary sphere in Egypt. Women rights plays only a minor role, with emphasis on secularist reforms. When these wars are over, Turkey joins the European Union. No outside nations get involved. Some reforms get instituted towards secularization, where religious clerics lose power in government but perform traditional ritual rites. The United Nations is sent in to administer peace, ineffectually. No real resolution, so future reforms remain open opportunities, or problems, for now. 2. 30% probability (+ 7% error). Repression of any ideas of reform are instituted early, so no dissent is possible from within Islam, where the vanguard of this movement would be instituted by religious clerics and their power base against secularism. Repression would be heavy handed, similar to Tsarist Russia against the early Bolsheviks. Women's rights are further restricted. The epicenter here would be Saudi-Arabia, and its Sunni allies who put controls on all other sects, such as Shiah and Sufi. This would lead to eventually intense sectarian violence, such as now seen in Iraq, stretching throughout pan-Islam, to a lesser degree in Europe. Iran would again be a major player, as it goes to war with its Sunni rivals. These wars would last a decade, and may involve millions of casualties, while China patiently awaits the results, so they can exercise control in the aftermath. America and the West have a 'hands off' policy, as does India. The outcome is never clear, leaving for repeat scenarios in the future, largely under Chinese direction and economic control. 3. 20% probability (+ 4% error). Europe and the West become engaged in the Islam debates on religious rule vs. secular rule, largely supported by the large populations of Muslims within their host countries. As religious fundamentalists seek to exercise greater control, they confront their host governments into action to support their respective cause. Equal rights for women becomes a central issue. The European nations are willing to make some adjustments to their laws to accommodate Sharia style laws, but fundamentalists press for full Sharia. The issue regresses into social violence and revolutionary action in the West, led by Islamic zealots, where soon the situation is one of internal civil wars. Turkey is cast out of the EU, or never really considered, so gets alienated by the West. America has only a peripheral interest in the outcome, more concerned with the European economic health of their trading partners than Middle East oil (from which it is seeking independence), and lend material support to EU governments. China and India stay out altogether, seeing it as 'internal affairs'. Casualties can range from hundreds of thousands to millions, depending upon the ferocity of the civil wars, and whether or not nuclear weapons are used. In the end, with the help of Israeli and Russian troops, order is restored in the European states. America becomes the financier for reconstruction, to the benefit of India and China. Venezuela gets attacked for its oil. 4. 10% probability (+ 2% error). Full scale war in response to aggressive attacks by fundamentalist Islamists. No reforms are even considered, while Europe swings towards full appeasement in answer to its swelling Muslim populations. Sharia laws work their ways into the EU constitution, creating a separate state of laws governing Muslims and non-Muslims. Dhimmie tax imposed on non-Muslims, leading to increased resentment by the European secular-Christian populations, polarizing groups against each other. Women rights are non-issues, as now they must all cover, even European women. Punishments by beheadings and amputation become common. Eventually violent revolts fed by resentments against Islamic rule leads a massive European revolution, led by American interests. China and India do not get involved, seeing it as a 'European' problem. Russia, Australia, and Japan side with America, as does South America. Africa sides with Islamic interests. The war is short, where casualties are immense on both sides, in the tens of millions. In effect, it is WW III, with use of nuclear weapons in the end. Iran no longer exists as a state, split up into American, European, and Chinese sectors, and Iraq takes over Saudi-Arabia. Egypt is devastated, but lesser damages in Asian states. Not even Indian Kashmir is spared, though Pakistan and Afghanistan manage to survive as independent states. Russia uses this opportunity to 'ethnic cleanse' its rebellious autonomous regions. When the wars end, there is little recognizable of the world as we know it today. Women gain their full equal status to men in the end, from American pressure. The Vatican remained neutral in all four scenarios. * * * * * * * From the above scenarios, though God help us they never happen, I think it is why intelligent and gradual Islamic Reforms now would be so much more advantageous to the world. We are a modern world built on human agreements, and human rights to our freedoms through rule of constitutional law, and as such had demonstrated the power of this as opposed to a world of coercions and slavery. We no longer accept slavery, planetwide, and nor should we accept any coercions against our being, except to stop coercion. It would be so much easier to bring gradual transition to those parts of the world where (1) women still do not have equal status to men, to where (2) severe punishments for religious beliefs are replaced with religious tolerance, and where (3) the sanctity of the individual is recognized by secular law equally for everyone, of all peoples. I think this will happen regardless, because this is where the planet needs to go to become a fully conscious world. To try to revert to ancient practices that restrict these human rights and freedoms, in some Medieval ideal fashion, is a grave error, and one which may lead to terrible wars, and large deaths. In today's modern world of horrific weapons, the beneficiaries of these wars will never be the combatants, for their destruction will be so grievous. I hope I am wrong about my scenarios above, and that reason and love of humanity prevails instead, with a new enlightenment honoring each human being of the planet as sacred before God. Reform is far better if it comes from within, God willing. War is a terrible waste. God's Love for humanity should never let it be anything but Peace. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
Ivan wrote: "Thanks for the video link, Arnold. Though, the men look normal enough, it's the women who look different. I suppose they're happy with their choice." What I find interesting is that Islam seems to appeal to people with a certain authroritarian mindset.Somehow I don't think intolerent, violent people would be drawn to the Dalai Lama as readily. While it is true that the Quran can be interpreted in many ways and most Muslims are nonviolent. But still, there are too many verses in the Quran that can be interpreted as endorsing violence,coercion and fanaticism(perhaps actually the correct interpretation?) Check this out: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,418783,00.html "German authorities may have thwarted suicide bomb attacks in Iraq by German women. According to intelligence sources, three women were prevented from travelling to Iraq after one of them had announced she planned to blow herself up in Iraq." You just wonder why? Do fanatics gravitate towards Islam for some reason, or is it something in Islam that turns normal people into fanatics? I am a typical liberal who believes in tolerence and pluralism.Sometimes I feel uneasy about the things I say about Islam as it may sound bigoted.But sometimes you just got to wonder. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
I hear you Anon. It is a perpetual struggle to keep a cool head and not get caught up in other people's passions, especially when they are fear based. Me too. It is just basic collective human instinct, but the wrong kind of 'empathy'. ;) Better to be more like the Dalai Lama, and find the good in each. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
No hurry. Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 05:47 pm: Ivan Thanks for the well wishes. The Internet is available now in my home. I hope to join the discussion soon. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Mohideen, isn't it a bit strange that the woman is told to cover up because some male might lust over her? Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 06:43 pm: Ivan Verse 59 of Chapter 33 of the Holy Quran quoted from http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=molested&chapter=&translator=2&sea rch=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all again for convenience is: === O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Al-Ahzab, Chapter #33, Verse #59) (Yusuf Ali – English translation) === What is the context of the above order? Whether other members agree or not, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the vicegerent of God Almighty; he was winning over his enemies; and thus annoying any women from his community risked a severe punishment to the annoyer. So, all that the above order indicates is a woman is safe if she camouflages like a woman of protection. Such a rule is still valid in a country ruled by Islam. Is it applicable in a country hostile to Islam? Can a woman dress in such a way to clearly reveal that she is indeed a Muslim in a land inhabited with persons who on purpose molest Muslim women? If any woman does so, she must protect herself. If she gets molested, she cannot complain because she did not protect herself. We might say that the culprit could be hauled before the law. Even if the culprit is punished, the humiliation suffered by the woman would hurt her for a long time. For analogy, we have Fire Service in every locality of USA. For the Fire Service to protect our homes, we must follow the instructions given by the Fire Service. We cannot wantonly violate the instructions and then blame the Fire Service that it allowed our homes to burn down. To me, the above Verse gives the freedom to a woman to choose that dress that would ensure her safety depending on the nature of the place in which she lives. Is that not common sense? What happens if the safe dress makes her feel uncomfortable? She must move to a locality where she would be comfortable wearing the dress as advised by the Verse quoted above. Can a woman walk in the streets of Jerusalem wearing a cover from head to toe, revealing just one eye only and carrying a small basket of fruits under her dress? If an Israeli soldier mistakes her as a potential suicide-bomber and fires at her, can she complain? Incidentally the above Verse is proof that Muslims are expected to live with non-Muslims. This is because Muslim men are advised to lower their gaze and not look at unrelated women. God Almighty willing, we plan to consider the specific issue of covering the hair in a subsequent post. | ||
| Anonymous |
Ivan, Interesting post on the various scenarios of the future of Islam and humanity. There will always be fanatics and nutcases who are drawn to extremism. So Islam fundamentalism will always have its followers. But that does not explain why fundamentalism is the Islam mainstream today, across the Islamic world and some Muslim communities in the West as well. By fundamentalism I don't mean people who blow up buses or engage in other forms of violence, I am sure they are the minority. But even among peaceful Muslims, there is a strong tendency of literalism and social backwardness. While most Jews and Christians cheerfully ignore or reinterprete outdated aspects of their religions, even moderate muslims subscribe to irrational beliefs and backward social practices in the name of religion. A Pat Roberston type character is an extermist among Christians, but such a person is a moderate among Muslims. In Islam a moderate is someone who does not advocate outright violence and Jihad. Why is the bar set so low for Muslims? Part of it no doubt is related to the Quran itself. It is a religion full of threats and punishment. But ideology is only part of the story. Where do Muslims come from? A majority of muslims live in some hellholes of poverty, ignorance and hopelessness. A dysfunctional society provides a fertile ground for recruiting extremists. In countries like Pakistan where poverty and illiteracy are widepsread and the governments abdicate most of its responsibilities of maintaining the civil society, the mosque is the orphanage, the daycare center, the school and the employment agency. A lot of the mosques are funded by Saudi petro dollars and preach a particularly backward form of Islam. In immigrant communities the mosque often provides a venue of social support and community. Again I was told that there are attempts by Saudi money to take over the mosques and turn them into fora for conservative Islam. The good news is that at least in North America, the local Muslims, who are typically more progressive, are fighting back. A Pakistani Imam was reported to the police by his congregation in Canaada for preaching hate against Jews and was deported a few months ago. I heard similar developments elsewhere. In Europe things are more grim. Unlike the U.S., European societies offer little reward for assimilation. Immigrants find themselves sugregated in ghettos, denied an education and a job.In Europe it doesn't matter how well assimilated you are. You will always be greeted with suspicion if you don't have a white face. This tension surfaced in the recent riot in France by immigrant youths. These young immigrants were nominally Muslims, but they were not religious and many of them spoke only French. It was not Jihadist declaring war on France like some propagandists wanted us to believe. Quite the opposite, the rioters wanted to participate in French society, they were angry because they were shut out. But that was then. If the social and economical apartheid continues I won't be surprised if many of these young people will turn to Islam as a result of despair. To successfully reform Islam it is necessary to challenge its ideology, but that is not enough.We must also address social reform. Religions of slavery will evaporate when more people experience a dignified existence. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.bahagia.btinternet.co.uk/sister.html#hijab gives a concise introduction to the dress advocated by Verse 59 of Chapter 33 of the Holy Quran. At the bottom of the article, there is a Tradition. The same Tradition is found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Asma+displays&translator=3&s earch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands. (Book #32, Hadith #4092) (Sunan Abudawud) === Notice that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, turned his attention from her and did not look at her even though he was advising her. The above Tradition with slight variation is found in http://members.tripod.com/~ibnfarooq/niqaab.htm This URL has a long justification for a woman to cover her whole body except one or both the eyes. We quote the part of our interest below: === The Ullima who are of the opinion that it is permissible to look at the face and hands of a strange woman (who is not mahrrum) say so mainly for the following reasons. The hadith of Aisha (Radhiallaahu Ánha) when Asmaa (Radhiallaahu Ánha) the daughter of Abu Bakr came to the Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) while wearing thin clothing. He approached her and said: 'O Asmaa! When a girl reaches the menstrual age, it is not proper that anything should remain exposed except this and this. He pointed to the face and hands. But this hadith is WEAK because of 2 main weaknesses. 1. There is no link between Aisha (Radhiallaahu Ánha) and Khalid bin Dareek, who narrated the hadith from her. And in every chain of narrators Khalid bin Dareek is mentioned. 2. In the chain of narrators Sa'eed bin Basheer appears, who is known by most of the Muhaditheen as being a weak narrator. This has been mentioned by Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Rahimahullah), An-Nasai (Rahimahullah), Ibn Madeeni (Rahimahullah) and Ibn Ma'een (Rahimahullah). This is also why Imaam Bukhari (Rahimahullah) and Muslim (Rahimahullah) did not accept this hadith to be in their books. === The ALIM CD has the accepted collections of Abu Dawood, Al-Bukhari, Al-Muwatta, Al-Qudsi, Al-Tirmidhi, Fiqh-us-Sunnah, and Muslim. A search in the Alim CD on – Asma displays – yielded just one Tradition, the one quoted above. Even that Tradition is weak as the person claiming to narrate from mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, had no direct contact with her. So, in a strict sense, we are forced to consider the Holy Quran only and as already explained Verse 59 of Chapter 33 gives freedom to a Muslim woman to choose an appropriate dress covering her as much as possible without sacrificing her safety. What about the demand that a woman cover her whole body other than her eyes? We hope to consider that on another day, God Almighty willing. | ||
| Ivan |
Muslims Questioning Islam " I share the article with the readers of this web site to acquaint them with the spiritual and intellectual struggles that many Muslims are having when they seek to understand their faith in a globalized context." Do not turn away your eyes, nor close your ears, for these questions must be asked. This article talks about the "modernization, the renewal, and the reform of Islam." The writer, translated frorm original Arabic, says: " It is very difficult for a person to be at the same time religious and rational." Open the door to light and air, as this is not new, rather common throughout the Modern world. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Mohideen, I appreciate the accepted traditions written for women, some from scripture, for the benefit of women. However, what I do not see is scripture or tradition writty by women. All this is written by men. Would you have any references in Islam to writings by women, for women? After all, to avoid the 'sexist' label, where men dictate all for women, it should be balanced by traditions and scripture written by women. Do you have such references? Thanks much, Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Yes, this is a grievous state of affairs, Arnold. Then we see its manifestation in French Islamic youth riots, though they may be only nominally Muslim, unassimilated into European culture. We scarcely hear Muslim voices from those who are assimilated into the European economy, though I am sure they exist. Add to that 'strings attached' to Saudi money supporting its Whahabi version of fundamentalist Islam, assimilation becomes further unlikely. Then you get 9000 cars burned, property destroyed, churches attacked, people attacked, etc., not in some impoverished Islamic backwater country but in one of Europe's most advanced countries. Notice how in my probable scenarios above I had the most violent outcome with the smallest likelihood, though I gave these probabilities enough error margin overlap where any may happen simultaneously, if perhaps separated geographically and by time. The last one, however, is so final that it would stand all its own, with truly disastrous effects. I most direly hope this never happens. But assimilation within non-Muslim cultures and traditions by Islam is exceptionally difficult, given that on one hand we have a 'slave' culture of pure obedience, while on the other is one of personal freedoms, where questioning is encouraged. Though intellectually Muslims may not think it this way, their religious teachings, forcing them to suspend reason and locked within blind belief, nevertheless maneuver them towards non-acceptance of Western values of freedom, of necessity. They cannot intellectually assimilate, which means they cannot culturally assimilate, which then leads to the inevitable, that they do not assimilate economically. I think women have an easier time with this than men, since they may not be as deeply tied to rigid beliefs, as was evidenced in your video referenced above, where the Texan who married his (arranged) Moroccan wife was more rigid than she. So economic assimilation becomes increasingly unlikely if the men, who are the vanguards of Islam, with their women in tow on short leash, if they turn more deeply to the teachings of Islam, which is essentially anti-freedoms. There's your problem in a nutshell. Without serious intellectual and religious reforms within Islam, such that align it more with modern values of freedoms, especially freedom of expression and belief, there is little hope for assimilating Muslims into mainstream western cultures, whether intellectually, culturally, or economically. Then, per force, we may be faced with one, or all, of my above listed possible scenarios. That would be regrettable, extremely painful for everyone involved, and very likely bloody. The question then remains: Can Islam reform? And if they cannot, what will be their future outcome? This is serious. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
"Then we see its manifestation in French Islamic youth riots, though they may be only nominally Muslim, unassimilated into European culture..Then you get 9000 cars burned, property destroyed, churches attacked, people attacked, etc., not in some impoverished Islamic backwater country but in one of Europe's most advanced countries. " Ivan, Maybe you know something that I don't. But to my best knowledge the riot in France has NOTHING to do with Islam. These youths are not religious, most never attained mosques. What happened was similar to inner city riots in the U.S. Poverty and social exclusion are the causes. But as I indicated if nothing is done these would be a fertile ground for militant Islam. In Europe racism is rampant. I wouldn't just blame the immigrants for failure of intergration. Example, until EU many Greeks stayed in Germany for twenty, thirty years but they were still deemed foreigners and couldn't get German citizenship. Greeks are no muslims. I know an Iraqi who got his engineering degree in Cech and speaks many different languages. He is outgoing, frinedly and no, he is not a muslim. Indeed he called himself a Babylonian and hates Islam and Mohammad with a passion. He stayed in Sweden for 5 years, unemployed all that time. He couldn't even get an interview because of his Arab name. He told me ever so often Swedes called him names in the street. Finally he migrated to America and in one year he became the supervisor of an engineering firm. Racism and self segregation feeds off and reinforces each other. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Would you have any references in Islam to writings by women, for women? After all, to avoid the 'sexist' label, where men dictate all for women, it should be balanced by traditions and scripture written by women. Do you have such references? Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 08:55 pm: Ivan http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Aisha&translator=1&search=1& book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === The word "Aisha" appear 1373 time(s) in 952 hadith(s) in Bukhari translation. === http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Aisha&translator=2&search=1& book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === The word "Aisha" appear 7 time(s) in 7 hadith(s) in Muslim translation. === http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Aisha&translator=3&search=1& book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === The word "Aisha" appear 263 time(s) in 198 hadith(s) in Abudawud translation. === http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Aisha&translator=4&search=1& book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === The word "Aisha" appear 0 time(s) in 0 hadith(s) in Muwatta translation. === The above is possibly due to some mistake in the software. The second Tradition in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=mother&translator=4&search=1 &book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === (2) Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that Abu Musa al-Ashari came to A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said to her, "The disagreement of the companions in a matter which I hate to bring before you has distressed me." She said, "What is that? You did not ask your mother about it, so ask me." He said, "A man penetrates his wife, but becomes listless and does not ejaculate. "She said, "When the circumcised part passes the circumcised part ghusl is obligatory." Abu Musa added, "I shall never ask anyone about this after you." (Book #2, Hadith #2.19.75) (Malik’s Muwatta) === clearly shows that Malik has collected a number of narrations from mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her. I tried with another search word and got from http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=A%27isha&translator=4&search =1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === The word "A\'isha" appear 0 time(s) in 156 hadith(s) in Muwatta translation. === This shows that Malik has included 156 Traditions possibly attributed to mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her. There could be overlaps between these collections. Adding the Traditions – mostly attributed to mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her – we get 952 + 7 + 198 + 156 = 1313 Traditions are linked with mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her. There are other Traditions attributed to many other women companions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Further, http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=wombs+bore&chapter=&translator=2&s earch=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all has the following: === O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you. (An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #1) (Yusuf Ali – English translation) === A mother gets the most respect after God Almighty. How can Islam be sexist? | ||
| Ivan |
Maybe I don't understand. But is Malik's (a man?) report on Mother Aisha (one woman) is enough to satisfy lifting the male dominated partriarchical label of 'sexist' in the teachings for women in Islam? Mohideen, you find this acceptable?
I understand this, Arnold, and not blaming Islam for the French riots, nor for attacks on innocent people in London or Madrid, nor common day roberries on people in Sweden or Paris, or wherever. This is all due to human actions, each individual human being chosing to do what they do, no matter their race or ethnicity. What I showed above was why Islamic youths, who then become adults, have an intellectual predisposition to not assimilate into their host country's culture. That then leads to racism, which goes both ways, and resentments, on both sides, which then leads to more intolerance and suspicions, by both sides, and finally hatred and riots. There is nothing surprising about that. We all have our inner motivations, desires, and responses to conditions. In France, this shows up as Muslim youth (not skin head Europeans, nor Romanian or Bulgarian or Greek or Ukrainian youths, many immigrants too)) who are rioting en masse. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://members.tripod.com/~ibnfarooq/niqaab.htm uses three Verses of the Holy Quran, seventeen Traditions and opinion of other scholars to argue that a woman must cover herself fully except her hands and eyes. The Verses of the Holy Quran are Verses 30 and 31 of Chapter 24 and Verse 59 of Chapter 33. Copying from the above URL, we have: ==== Surah Al-Ahzaab, Verse #59 ‘O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks ("Jalabib") veils all over their bodies (screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way Tafseer Al-Qurtabi) that is most convenient that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful." Surah An-Nur, Verses #30 and #31 ‘And Say to the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, head cover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) === Let us repeat the above without the additional meaning given in parentheses below: === Surah Al-Ahzaab, Verse #59 ‘O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks veils all over their bodies that is most convenient that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful." Surah An-Nur, Verses #30 and #31 ‘And Say to the believing women to lower their gaze, and protect their private parts and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna === But for the Arabic word Juyubihinna, the rest of the above Verses admit a full business suit as a proper dress for a woman. The point is the additional interpretation changes the meaning. Thus, future and current interpreters need not follow the interpretation given in http://members.tripod.com/~ibnfarooq/niqaab.htm . Indeed many do not consider it necessary for a woman to cover herself completely from head to toe. http://members.tripod.com/~ibnfarooq/niqaab.htm#hadith lists 8 Traditions from Sahih Bukhari; 1 from Tirmidhi; 7 from Abu Dawud; and 1 from Malik’s Muwatta. Most of these Traditions are found in the ALIM CD. If a Tradition is not found with exact wording, similar wording is found. Thus, 17 Traditions are listed indicating that a woman used a veil from head to toe. One of the above 17 Traditions is quoted below: === Abu Dawood Book 32, hadith # 4100 Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin (Radhiallaahu Ánha): I was with Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) while Maymunah was with him. Then Ibn Umm Maktum came. This happened when we were ordered to observe veil. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said: Observe veil from him. We asked: oh Rasulullah! is he not blind? He can neither see us nor recognize us. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said: Are both of you blind? Do you not see him? === The same Tradition from http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=veil+blind&translator=3&sear ch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all has important additional information. Quoting, we have: === Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin: I was with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) while Maymunah was with him. Then Ibn Umm Maktum came. This happened when we were ordered to observe veil (purdah). The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Observe veil from him. We asked: Apostle of Allah! is he not blind? He can neither see us nor recognise us. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Are both of you blind? Do you not see him? AbuDawud said: This was peculiar to the wives of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). Do you not see that Fatimah daughter of Qays passed her waiting period with Ibn Umm Maktum. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to Fatimah daughter of Qays: Pass your waiting period with Ibn Umm Maktum, for he is a blind man. You can put off your clothes with him. (Book #32, Hadith #4100) (Sunan Abudawud) === The mothers of the believers, Allah be pleased with them, were special; they were to talk to any other than their husband or a male who cannot marry them at all from behind a screen. It is not required of other women companions. Another Tradition cited in support of the demand that a woman must veil herself is found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=veil+puberty&translator=3&se arch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a veil. (Book #2, Hadith #0641) (Sunan Abudawud) === This Tradition simply indicates the level of obedience and cleanliness to be observed during prayer. None could offer prayer unless one is in wudu. Some believers try to remain in wudu all the time. However, it is not required to be in wudu all the time. Likewise, every adult Muslim woman must cover herself fully while offering prayer, not necessarily at other times. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Safiyya+wedding+meat&transla tor=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we find: === Narrated Anas: The Prophet stayed for three days between Khaibar and Medina, and there he consummated his marriage to Safiyya bint Huyai. I invited the Muslims to the wedding banquet in which neither meat nor bread was offered. He ordered for leather dining-sheets to be spread, and dates, dried yoghurt and butter were laid on it, and that was the Prophet's wedding banquet. The Muslims wondered, "Is she (Saffiyya) considered as his wife or his slave girl?" Then they said, "If he orders her to veil herself, she will be one of the mothers of the Believers; but if he does not order her to veil herself, she will be a slave girl. So when the Prophet proceeded from there, he spared her a space behind him (on his she-camel) and put a screening veil between her and the people. (Book #62, Hadith #22) (Sahih Bukhari) === The above Tradition gives the criterion for mandatory veiling. It is required of the wives of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him only. When a slave girl becomes the mother of a child of the master, she becomes his wife. Thus, the above Tradition clearly establishes that screening is required of the mothers of the believers, Allah be pleased with them only and not even for one who might become a mother of the believers, Allah be pleased with her, in future. How come there are so many Traditions stating that other women companions used veil when they were outside? The other women companions availed of the additional security by dressing like the mothers of the believers, Allah be pleased with them. Today no mother of the believer, Allah be pleased with her is alive. Thus, veiling offers no additional protection. What can we say in conclusion? With regard to the dress of an adult Muslim woman, she is expected to cover herself as complete as possible without compromising her security. Is it desirable to cover the hair? God Almighty willing, we hope to consider this issue soon. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
But is Malik's (a man?) report on Mother Aisha (one woman) is enough to satisfy lifting the male dominated partriarchical label of 'sexist' in the teachings for women in Islam? Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 06:43 am: Ivan The sexist label is rejected on the basis of Verse 1 of Chapter 4 of the Holy Quran. Religious knowledge for Muslims is codified in the Holy Quran and the Traditions. I just indicated the high position in teaching religious knowledge held by mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, by indicating the large number of Traditions attributed to her. In other words, after Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, from among the teachers of Islam, women have held positions of equal importance if not of higher importance. Are we planning to claim the credit goes to the publisher and not the author of a book? The collectors of the Traditions were men; they are like the publishers. The narrators are the authors. The credit belongs mostly to the authors. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
What I showed above was why Islamic youths, who then become adults, have an intellectual predisposition to not assimilate into their host country's culture. Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 06:43 am: Ivan To me the demand that a group assimilates into the culture of the majority is coercion. Don’t you agree? Are we not against coercion? | ||
| Anonymous |
"I understand this, Arnold, and not blaming Islam for the French riots, nor for attacks on innocent people in London or Madrid, nor common day roberries on people in Sweden or Paris, or wherever. This is all due to human actions, each individual human being chosing to do what they do, no matter their race or ethnicity." Ivan, The Madrid and London bombings were clearly carried out by Islamists. But the French riot was not.The rioters were not associated with Islam in anyway. Moreover, don't forget that shortly after, French students were rioting themselves for proposed changes in labor law.Would you call that a Christian riot because a lot of students happened to be white and are nominally Chrsitian(say with Chrsitian parents)? It doesn't help to lump everything together. "To me the demand that a group assimilates into the culture of the majority is coercion. Don�t you agree? Are we not against coercion?" Mohideen No if you have a choice of not emigrating. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Ivan |
If I may give a quick illustration to this issue, without lengthy discussion for now; CNN News article on Senegalese migration: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/05/31/senegal.migrants.reut/index.html Look at the pressure those young men are under to migrate to Europe. | ||
| Ivan |
Is there Sexism in Islam?
So, Mohideen, you answer is that women in Islam have no voice in the holy teachings? Except through the voice of a male? So there are NO women generated scriptures written by women!
Sounds reasonable, to compare the authors with the narrators, except that it is through the filter of the one doing the writing. And that is? Men! Of course. Men wrote it down! Are there no qualified women who could write for themselves, regarding issues of women? Remember what I wrote above, May 22, 2006: "Mohideen, isn't it a bit strange that the woman is told to cover up because some male might lust over her? Shouldn't it be the male whose eyes are covered up, so that he will not lust? Why must the woman bear the burden of the man's lust, as if it were her fault? is it not the man's failings? So the religious dictate should apply to him, not to her. The man must cover his eyes in the presence of a woman! Is this not more correct, and fair?" So this was written by men, for men, and women are merely the object of their attention? Now it begins to make sense to me. Reverence for the woman, yes, as per Qur'an 4:1, but not equal rights to men for women. So it is totally male dominated, written by men, even quoted by men what women said, for their benefit. Do you not think this just a wee-bit sexist? In Islam there are NO women generated holy scriptures at all!!! None at all, not even one. Now, in anticipation of your response that there are no women scriptures in other religions (except Christinan Science, written by a woman), remember that other religions do not have strict dictates demanding how women are to behave or dress. In the rest of the world, we had moved away from such tight ridig dictates on women, which is why women in the modern world enjoy more equal rights. How about Islam? Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Look at the pressure those young men are under to migrate to Europe. Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 03:09 pm: Ivan Let us look at some parameters. Senegal has a population of 11,987,121 with a total area of 196,190 sq km. The population density is 61.1 persons / sq km. GDP/capita (PPP) of Senegal is $1,800. Spain total area is 504,782 sq km. The population of Spain is 40,397,842. The population density is 80 persons / sq km. GDP /capita (PPP) of Spain is $25,500. Europe has an area of 10,390,000 sq km. The population of Europe is 710,000,000. The population density is 68.3 persons / sq km. GDP/capita (PPP) of Europe is $16,982. Senegal, Spain, and Europe are comparable in terms of population density. That is, they enjoy approximately same natural resources per capita. Still, the living standards are vastly different. Can we explain why this is so? I ask this question because I want to know what would happen if there is a world government with a single world currency? Is it because Senegal has agricultural economy and Spain and Europe have service economy? As a corollary, is it natural for the rich to demand the poor assimilate? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
So there are NO women generated scriptures written by women! Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 03:52 pm: Ivan It is Muslim belief that all Prophets, peace be upon them, were men. So it is natural that there are no scriptures written by women. Here is an interesting quote with respect to the original question we started with: the dress code of women in Islam. From http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565642872/002-8531637-9804026?v=glance&n=28315 5 we have: === A powerful critique of the popular western notion that the veil is a symbol of Muslim women's oppression. In postulating a positive theory of the hijâb, the author challenges with great sophistication both the commonly held view of Muslim women being subjugated by men, as well as the liberal feminists’ who criticize the choice of women to cover themselves as ultimately unliberating. The author argues that in a culture of consumerism, the hijâb can be experienced as a liberation from the tyranny of the beauty myth and the thin "ideal" woman. In dispelling some widely held myths about Muslim women and the hijâb, the author introduces respectability to the voice of believing Muslim women, claiming that liberation and the equality of women are fundamental to Islam itself. === Who is the author? A Muslim woman! See http://www.islamfortoday.com/12hours.htm There could be no scripture written by a woman, as all the scriptures are already written. Now we need to look at books. There are Muslim women writing books! | ||
| Ivan |
Well, Mohideen, like I said before, it is in our human nature that human beings all need to believe in 'something'. This woman, a sample of one and a former atheist, certainly made her choice on what she wanted to believe. Good for her. Her choice. But if there is going to be any kind of reforms in Islam to bring it up to parity with values of freedom, of equality of the sexes, of tolerance for all religions, and to bring a non-secterian universality to human kind, I think Islam may have to internally address its inequalities, rigid rules of controls on human thought and behaviors, and blind obedience at the expense of reason. At this point in time, given current interpretations of Islam, even by such liberals as yourself, I still do not see it. To be a truly universal ideal, it has to treat all human beings as universally equal, not just the two sexes into which we are born, but no matter where and how we are born, without dhimmitude, and without special preferences for those who are Muslims versus those who are not. Religious tolerance starts there. Anything lesser, whether the men's treatment of women, or non-Muslims, becomes 'supremacist'. My take on supremacists is that they come from an inferiority complex, so are unable to stomach equality for all. Only when you are free to do God's will, can you do God's will. Anything less, where God's will is dictated by men, is oppression of man by man. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Why is Senegal so far behind Spain and Europe? Think about it. These desperates are willing to chance death at sea to go to a nation where the population density of Spain is greater. Why is that? What is it about Senegal, or Somalia, or Haity, or Uganda, or Sudan, or Zimbabwe (or Eastern European countries of Moldava, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, etc), that they do not work? Anything to do with their leaderships? Perhaps their internal policies? Perhaps corruptions at all levels of society? What drives good and honest men, who want to work, into such dire straights to flee their homelands for a cold and unforgiving world up north? Why are they streaming north of the border from Mexico and South America? Human beings move, that's historic fact, but so desperate to go into such unwelcoming places, that takes someting special. So what is it about those countries where the desperate poor are so oppressed by the world into which they were born that they must flee? Europe and America used to open their arms to these arrivals. Why has that changed? Can it be that they bring with them the same things they are fleeing? Think about it. I personally don't think a world currency would change conditions germaine to those lands that suffer such internal strife. A world government is no guarantee either. Whose government? Yours? Mine? Why not let people govern themselves, democratically where they choose their leadership and laws, as free human beings? Make your choices, but then live by your choices. And if you don't like the outcome, then change your choices. We are not machines or animals devoid of freedom of choice. We are human beings with a mind, conscious at some level. Is it not about time that we start using our mind in how and what we choose in life? Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Why do people assimilate, Mohideen? In yours:
What do you think the answer to this is? If you were a western woman who migrated to live in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, would you be expected to 'assimilate' once there? As a matter of courtesy for the ways of the kingdom, you might not choose to wear your bikini at a public swimming pool or beach; more likely you'd be arrested if you did. So should that woman cover herself to 'assimilate' in that world. Why should it be so different for foreigners coming into a host country? Remember the host country practices religious freedom, equality before the law, and democratic ideals of human freedoms; why is it such a horror to assimilate? Why go there in the first place, if the immigrants are already hostile to these ideals? Remember the London demonstrations placards: "Freedom go to hell!" Is this respectful of the society into which these foreigners migrated? Do they even understand what British values are all about? Or are they ignorant, and so have no clue? People assimilate because they want to belong. If they fail to assimilate, they will not feel they belong. The host country may be welcoming at first, but if the newcomers do not become assimilated in the ways of the host country, resentments will build up. The frictions develop, law and order breaks down, crimes rise, and before you know it, you have a hostile alien group living inside your country. Does the country have the right to protect itself? I don't think any society can last long if it does not control its criminal behaviors. If a sex predator moves in next door to where you and your young children live, should you continue to be tolerant of his predatory behaviors? If a meth lab moves into your street, so now you have a steady flow of addicts coming, and your burglary and mugging rate goes up; would you remain tolerant of the addicts's needs? Would not the burglaries, and attacks on your person, be an affront for which you feel you should be protected from? Had these addicts simply not 'assimilated' into your neighborhood? Do you see my point? Every society has a right to protect itself against hostile and predatory behaviors, or else it is doomed. So back to my earlier example of a woman wearing her bikini at a public swimming place; is she a predator? Is she a criminal? Is she a deviant that is dangerous to society? No!!! But if she wants to belong, she has to assimilate into the local ways, or else face ostracism, or worse. Why should it be different for immigrants to a new country? Are their freedoms lost by assimilation? Can they still believe as they wish to believe, if this is not pushed on their new neighbors, as they believed? Yeah. Assimilation is not giving up who you are, if this identity is strong in yourself, but it is being respectful to the identity of others, as a courtesy and good manners. Rich and poor has nothing to do with it. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Assimilation is not giving up who you are, if this identity is strong in yourself, but it is being respectful to the identity of others, as a courtesy and good manners. Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 06:24 pm: Ivan Let us consider the French law banning religious symbols, the head scarf in particular, in schools. In what way does a teenage Muslim girl wearing her head scarf become disrespectful of others who love to show their hair in all its beauty? Is not that law forbidding the head scarf a coercion? I am not questioning a particular school legislating a special dress code - even if it be bikini - but to make a law for all schools is coercion at its worst. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
If you were a western woman who migrated to live in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, would you be expected to 'assimilate' once there? As a matter of courtesy for the ways of the kingdom, you might not choose to wear your bikini at a public swimming pool or beach; more likely you'd be arrested if you did. Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 06:24 pm: Ivan Inside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – indeed inside the whole Arabian Peninsula – only Islam is permitted. So I presume this western woman becomes a Muslim when she migrates. And no Muslim woman would show her body to any other than her husband or a male who by reasons that cannot be changed cannot marry her ever. So, the above situation does not arise. Consider any land outside the Arabian Peninsula. In that land, a Muslim must live with a non-Muslim as a neighbor. In that land, the neighbor’s wife, if she is a non-Muslim, has the freedom to appear in any dress she likes, even three fig leaves to cover what the US law requires to be covered. That is Islam; we do not ask her to assimilate; we close our eyes when we encounter such a woman on the roads. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Make your choices, but then live by your choices. And if you don't like the outcome, then change your choices. Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 05:54 pm: Ivan What is wrong if a group of Muslims have chosen the existing Holy Quran and the authenticated Traditions as their law (without violating the law of the land in which they live) and live as per that? What is wrong if a Muslim living in Europe desires to rid the Arabian Peninsula of the non-Muslim troops and works towards that? Why are we seeking the reform of Islam – internal or external? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Remember the London demonstrations placards: "Freedom go to hell!" Is this respectful of the society into which these foreigners migrated? Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 06:24 pm: Ivan How do we know those carrying the placards were foreigners? If they are children of foreign immigrants born on the British soil, they are British. The British born have the choice of accepting ‘freedom’ or rejecting it. Until unless we can prove that the placard holders were indeed immigrants, this particular event is outside the discussion on assimilation. I hope you agree. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Just now I encountered a historical fact. It has some profound implications. I state the implications and kindly correct me if I am wrong. From http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/main/history.html we find: === 358 Jewish calendar fixed on basis of astronomical calculations, celebration of new moons and holy days no longer dependent on announcements by the Sanhedrin. Theodosius forbids Sanhedrin to assemble, reaction to Julian's pro-Jewish stance. Calendar adopted at clandestine, & maybe last meeting. (Note: Julian ruled after Sanhedrin disbanded by imperial decree) (I) 359 Hillel II (Eretz Israel) Issued the Jewish calendar based on the lunar year. Previously, only the Sanhedrin could announce the new month and oncoming festivals. Due to the dispersion, every individual had to be able to determine the exact days for himself. (JH) === As long as the Sanhedrin decided the calendar, the Jews were following the Traditions of Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, and Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them. In all probability they were actually sighting the moon and announced the start of the next month as the Muslims do now. Once the moon sighting was abandoned, and the astronomical calculations replaced the actual sighting, the field of astrology developed. Astrology is nothing but classical estimation based on the correlation between the positions of stars and events. Predictions based on astrology rendered their faith moot. So, in my opinion, after 359CE the Jews as a group have deviated from the teachings of Prophet Israel, peace be upon him, and thus are ineligible to consider themselves “the Children of Israel.” Accordingly, the ‘Holy Land’ belongs to the real “Children of Israel,” the Muslims called ‘Palestinians’ now. The current frenzy to rebuild the Temple seems to be based on such astrological predictions encoded in the scriptures. I think the Holy Torah, the Holy Bible, and the Holy Quran are very emphatic that the end time is known to God Almighty alone. Thus, if the current generation of Jews is to succeed, they should share the Holy Land with Christians and Muslims and abandon their plans to raze the existing Masjids on the Temple Mount and revise their plans to build the Temple without disturbing the existing places of worship. If the above is accepted, the impending clash between Judaism and Islam could be averted. | ||
| Ivan |
DOUBLE STANDARD OF ISLAM?
Are you advocating a "double standard" for Muslims and non-Muslims when it comes to 'assimilating' into the local social culture? Where "only Islam is permitted" there is no possibility of anything but forced assimilation, because there is no possibility of dissent. This is where "coercion" rules, freedom is denied? So the situation is "impossible" as to whether or not you assimilate? While in non-Muslim countries you have the the leisure of freedom to either assimilate or not, your choice? But once you've made your choice, then live by it. And if this choice puts you at odds with the local culture to which you migrated, then live with that too. But if your failure to assimilate leads to hostility, then either pay the price of this hostility or leave. These are your choices. On in free society will you have the right to choose; in Muslim society, no such choice is possible. Is this the double standard you advocate? If you advocate a double standard for Islam and non-Islam, I would think you are advocating instead that the immigrants who are dissatisfied with their failed assimilation into the local culture of the nation to which they migrated should instead change that culture. Is this right? And if they changed it sufficiently, then the issue of non-assimilation (like the woman in a bikini in Saudi Arabia) would never happen. Is that right? As per your above "So, the above situation does not arise." So in an un-free society, you cannot not assimilate because it is forbidden by religious law? Therefore, suspend the local culture's freedoms to accommodate Islamic law to accommodate a hostile and unassimilated Islamic community, and "the situation never arises." Is that right? So one set of standards for free society, e.g., non-Muslim society, and another standard for Muslim societies, e.g. un-free societies, and the problem is solved with a "double standard"? If so, then the freedoms of secular society become overridden by Muslim law, which now places itself above the laws of the land (to which Muslims migrated) and the problem is solved? Wrong. That is invasion, coercion, and anti-freedom imposed by the invaders. Several fallacies here. One, the problems are not solved with a dual standard for Muslims and non-Muslims; which leads to further division. Two, there is no parity between religious law and secular law; religious law is always subordinate to the law of the land. Three, separation of church and state protects free people from un-free religious dogma. Four, to change the secular law into religious law destroys peoples freedom to the right to be who they are; now they must obey some prophet or scriptures written by men. Five, the assimilation sought for for people to live in peace with one another, no matter from what culture they come originally, they must respect each other; the head scarf issue is one of respect for local customs and secular values. Six, if Muslims do not wish to assimilate, they may form their own communities, but they must still respect the local laws (i.e., headscarf issue) and learn to live in peace within those laws. Remember what you said here: "What is wrong if a group of Muslims have chosen the existing Holy Quran and the authenticated Traditions as their law (without violating the law of the land in which they live) and live as per that?.. respect for local laws? Like the French headscarf law? And here: "What is wrong if a Muslim living in Europe desires to rid the Arabian Peninsula of the non-Muslim troops and works towards that?".. which is a separate political issue. Why did you bring it up here? Non-sequitur. Is this a sly nod for recruiting Jihad or European terrorism? And then: Why are we seeking the reform of Islam – internal or external?".. the answer is because as free human beings, humanity should be protected from Islamic coercions: your simple off hand answer "So, the above situation does not arise," is the best you can do. It simply is not an option in a free world, because we have the right to challenge. * * * Looking over this, Mohideen, I realize what is terribly wrong with it all: You will not understand one thing I just said. Regrettable, but I call you on it. Your way of thinking simply cannot accommodate human freedoms were free individuals are protected from coercions, protected from being forced against their agreement, if these agreements do not coerce another, while seeking to live with others mindfully and by agreement; where the individual's worth is greater than that defined by your prophets and scriptures, your religious laws, and is a free being within the universe of God, free to do God's will as that individual is him or her self. My words here are meaningless to you. In effect, "assimilation" of your way of thinking and my way of thinking, is incredibly unlikely. While I fight for my freedoms, you will fight for your religious right to coercions. And in this manner, we are unequal as men. This is why you seek a "double standard" for your world, while I seek to unify it with equality for all humanity, in peace. There's the problem: if our ideas cannot assimilate, then why would the cultures and greater society at large assimilate? Are the Paris riots, or worldwide cartoon riots, or "freedom go to hell!" riots, really that puzzling? Think about it. Can you make the connections? You have any idea of what I am talking about, when I say the words "freedom" and "coercions"? Where in your Qur'an does it talk about human freedoms? We know it talks aobut "punishing" and coercions. But where is it written about freedom? Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
FREEDOM BY LAW, a definition. If you want to have the right to coerce, in a free society, that is a contradiction; it is not allowed. Freedom is that you do not have the right to coerce another, by law, and only have the right to form agreements, if lawful, with other free human beings. Anything else, no matter what religion (from God or whomever) you quote, is a contradiction. You do not ever ever have the right to coerce. That is human freedom, equally for all, men and women, that is the Law of a free society. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
Mohideen wrote, "Let us consider the French law banning religious symbols, the head scarf in particular, in schools. In what way does a teenage Muslim girl wearing her head scarf become disrespectful of others who love to show their hair in all its beauty? Is not that law forbidding the head scarf a coercion?" It's a non sequitur. What if it is corecion? It is schools that you're talking about. In schools there are ALWAYS "coercions". You have to ask to go to the bathroom. You cannot carry certain objects which may be used as weapons, you cannot smoke, teachers may open your locker for inspection....you may get into trouble if you show up in class wearing a T shirt that says "F*** U" Is it an infringemnet on freedom expression? You bet it is. A school is not a democracy. France is an advanced democracy, the school is not meant to be a model for the whole society, unlike in Islamic theocracies where all citizens are treated like minors,--especially women. "How do we know those carrying the placards were foreigners? If they are children of foreign immigrants born on the British soil, they are British. The British born have the choice of accepting ‘freedom’ or rejecting it. Until unless we can prove that the placard holders were indeed immigrants, this particular event is outside the discussion on assimilation. I hope you agree." But we all know they are Muslims. Whether they are immigrants or not is immaterial to my mind. What this demonstrates is that *Islam* is a slave religion incompatible with freedom and choice. If these people are British converts, it is more reason to worry because it proves Islam can brainwash otherwise normal people into hateful robots like a cult. And it is more reason to limit its spread. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
As long as Islamism doesn't seek to poison others by spreading I don't care if they reform or not. Mohideen is right that whatver Muslims believe in is none of my business. I have no problem if Islam fundamentalists are content to live in isolated communes and obey the law of the land like the mennonites. The Mennonites don't seek to impose their religion and their taboos on others. They are self sufficient. They don't lobby/pressure public institutions and the legal system to change to accomodate them.They don't go around making death threats and calling for "Jihad". Islam doesn't respect seperation of religion and state, it is a "total way of life" Just check out the websites of MSAs in major American universities.Islam is an expanionist faith which seeks domination in the name of Allah(I am not saying most Muslims in the West subscribe to it, but the religion itself is expansionist) That's my problem with Islam as a Westerner. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Ivan |
Arnold, you reading my mind? I think exactly this issue, though I had Amish in mind, as it compares to Islamic fundamentalists. RE the French headscarf law:
Were these two statements made by the same man? His brain turned to mush? This is from an intelligent human being, who happens to be Muslim. How can such intelligence be reduced to such absurdity through his religion? Do I think they need reform? Only if it makes them intelligent humans again. Otherwise, who knows? It is God's will. I too don't care if Islam reforms or not, their business not mine. But if they're going to trespass on my world, and impact our freedoms, then they had better sit up and pay attention. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
ASSIMILATION, IN THE AMERICAN STYLE. I look around at the people I work with. It is a large office, merely a branch of a much larger multi-national, global corporation, and what do I see? There are Asian faces, Afro-Americans, Europeans descendent faces, Mexican faces. Does it matter to me? Not at all! If you were to call my office on the phone, whether speaking to an executive or support personnel, you'd have no idea what their background is like. They are all Americans. Their religions range from Buddhist to Christian, to Jewish to Hindu, to Islam, with maybe an atheist, and it makes not difference to any of us. We are all professionals treating each other with great respect and kindness, as Americans first, and anything else second. My best office buddy is Japanese; my secretary is Taiwanese, smart too. It makes no difference. One of the prettiest girls is Persian, another Indian with family in Nepal. Some of the Mexican descent women could pass for California Valley girls. It makes no difference where we come from. I am a descendent of Nazi extermination (non Jewish, except for my great great maternal grandmother) refugees, but I am American first. That's what assimilation is all about. And when we interact this way, that we are Americans first, our professionalism goes all the way up to the top, even the CEO has an open door policy; if your grievance is not satisfied at the local managerial level, take it to the top - to him; I know this because I watched him say so on a recent visit here. Respect for one another, kindness and support, and an occasional smile, and you'd be surprised how powerful "assimilation" can be. Why is it so hard in Europe, or the Middle East, or Africa? Surely, we human beings are capable of better. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
Ivan, I went to the Ali Sina site you linked to the other day. I couldn't believe what I read in their forums. There were quite a few Muslims there to defend the faith and they made Mr. Mohideen here look like a very reasonable man. One guy was arguing that he was a muslim because he had 0.41% chance to go to heaven and the rest of humanity will burn for eternality.He then told another poster that he would look down from heaven and laugh when the other guy was crying in the fire. You wonder what kind of monsterous religion of hate he follows. Another Mulsim quoted the Quran to justify wife beating. When being called out on that he complained his critics were unfair in calling Islam a mysogynistic religion because the Quran only allows beating for "valid reasons" as if wife beating under some circumstances is ok. He then smugly asked what do Western men do if their wives were having affairs?(He might have forgotten that in Islam having affairs calls for stoning to death, not just beating, but that is a seperate issue) I don't think these people were planted by Ali Sina to make Islam look bad. Instead of being fed sugarcoated messages by Islam PR machines I hope more grassroot Muslims are given a free forum to air their opinions on TV, radio and newspaper etc.It is an eye opening experience to see how Muslims shoot themselves on their own feet whenever they open their mouths. With authentic Muslims eager to defend their belief you don't need any Islamophobes. Respectfully, Arnold. P.S I find it an interesting site though Ali Sina strikes me somehow as a fanatic himself. | ||
| Ivan |
Arnold, I've glanced at FFI forums, and the Muslim stupidity that sometimes shows up there is palpable. Look at the 'conspiracy' theories clips. But it is not for me, as I value my time and mind. I think Ali is a fine thinker, but I do not agree with his approach to solving the problem of Islam's coercive interpretations. He doesn't acknowledge that people have a right to believe as they will; even if their belief in today's world is cult like; so thinks it should be destroyed. I have no wish to destroy, but rather would have Islam reexamine itself in depth. Still, I respect his fine mind, and think his site with some very fine articles is an important contribution to the world. Same for Spencer's site, which is more news oriented, thought it focusses more on the evils of Islam rather than what Muslims can become, if they only tried. I believe all human beings can redeem themselves, even Muslims, given half a chance. Where Islam is seriously handicapped is its inability to cope with dissent, so it responds with threats instead, and violence. Mohideen is unique in this sense, though he may not really 'get it', he is not advocating violence. If he did, I would not have welcomed him as I have. In fact, I respect his knowledge and opinions, but I also am very clear to show him where his reason is self contradicting itself. Give any human being the benefit of intelligence and time, and miraculous things can happen, even if it does not appear so at first glance. Will outspoken Muslims perpetually shoot themselves in the foot? Will they 'blow up' from their internal self contradictory struggles? That seems to be it, that they have set themselves on a path of self destruction. Can they change this? Of course! All they have to do is give themselves a free voice, to speak out freely. But most important here is what they must do: First, eliminate their practice of killings for apostasy; next, eliminate their practice of killings for their Jihad expansionist ideology; eliminate their death threats for questioning the teachings and interpretations of Islam; and finally, give women their equality so they are not oppressed, are free to think and be how they will, and are free to love as they will, as free human beings. Too much for their men? That is their test, isn't it: Can their men handle it? Trust is the most difficult thing, but they will have to trust their women. If they could do that, then the blue sky is wide open for Islam; but if they cannot, the dark clouds of war will surely gather on the horizons of humanity. This is why this self reexamination is so important. I have no grudge against their faith, nor their system of belief, nor how they treat themselves; but don't externalize it on the rest of us, with designs to export their coercions of intolerance on the rest of the world. Mark my words; that will not happen. Islam must solve its problems from within. Ivan Ps: I checked on women scholarship in Islam, where there are many fine scholars of the interpretations of the faith, but not one thing written in the scriptures of the faith, by women. FYI, I also did a word search in the holy texts on "freedom"... very interesting. You'll find more in searching the hadiths, etc. Then do a word search in these same texts for "slave"... there's no equality, not even close! | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Are you advocating a "double standard" for Muslims and non-Muslims when it comes to 'assimilating' into the local social culture? Posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 07:34 am: Ivan Muslims must obey the law of the land where they live. If the law of the land forces them to abandon their religion, they must migrate to another land which would permit them to live as Muslims. From http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=oppressed+spacious&chapter=&transl ator=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have: === When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: "In what (plight) were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed were we in the earth." They say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?" Such men will find their abode in Hell,- What an evil refuge! - ( An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #97) (Yusuf Ali – English translation) === If such migration is not possible, then they have no option but to fight and live as Muslims or perish as Muslims. In that sense, I would go along if the UN would give some piece of land to permit free migration to those persons who are unwelcome in all the current established nations. It does not matter where that piece of land is. It could be in the poles or in the desert or in any so called uninhabitable place today. Do we have any land today that would permit a Muslim to migrate just on that qualification that she / he are a Muslim? Not Saudi Arabia. Please tell me one nation that invites a Muslim just on the basis of faith? Let me make it explicit. Is there a land where the only permit that is required for immigration is to assert “There is no god but God Almighty and that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is His Messenger”? No passport, no visa! The rule about ‘only Islam inside the Arabian Peninsula’ is to restrict the Muslim supremacists so that they do not impose 'Islam only' rule outside the Arabian Peninsula. Without the 'only Islam inside the Arabian Peninsula' rule, the Muslim supremacist would claim that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, evicted the non-Muslims from the lands he conquered and thus we also would do that. Elsewhere I had shown that even at the time of his death Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, did not rule the whole of the Arabian Peninsula. There was a small pocket of land where the Christians were the rulers and had a peace treaty. Thus, ‘Islam alone inside Arabian Peninsula’ is to contain the Muslim supremacist and not to impose any double standard. At the end of WWII, the victors thought that they had weakened Islam: they did two acts contrary to the ‘Islam alone inside the Arabian Peninsula’ rule. 1. They created Israel inside the current Arabian Peninsula: I hope we convert the Suez Canal to “Suez Lake” so that the Arabian Peninsula reverts to its state at the time of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and thus the Holy Land is common to all faiths and not to Muslims alone. 2. They split the Indian subcontinent creating Pakistan and forced such a heavy migration of Hindus from Pakistan to India, and many Muslims from North India to Pakistan. (Very few Muslims from South India migrated during the partition of India.) That migration caused avoidable deaths and created hostility between two populations that were living and fighting the British together. Well, God Almighty permitted Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to dismember Pakistan and create Bangladesh. How I look forward to the day that the current Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh would reunite and become one single nation or part of a larger but single nation! The rule ‘Islam alone inside Arabian Peninsula’ is to contain the Muslim supremacist and not to establish any double standard. I hope you agree. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I checked on women scholarship in Islam, where there are many fine scholars of the interpretations of the faith, but not one thing written in the scriptures of the faith, by women. Posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 07:17 pm: Ivan The only act of Islamic scholarship today is the interpretation of Islam; no scripture could be produced. Creation of a scripture is possible by a Prophet, peace be upon him, alone. I had already explained the reason for no Muslim scripture authored by a woman. All Prophets, peace be upon them, were men. No more Prophet, peace be upon him. Only the descent of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, from his current abode in Heaven is expected. So, no woman-authored Muslim scripture is possible even in future. Incidentally, the Muslims believe and expect that Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, would follow Islam. Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, would break the cross, and abolish the Jizya, the protection-tax paid by a non-Muslim to the Muslim ruler. The reason is simple: every non-Muslim who could smell Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, would die. No non-Muslim could approach Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, to pay the protection tax. So, a tax that cannot be collected shall be abolished. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I have indicated a desire to design a world government in the Internet. We are looking at the burning issues of the day. Here is a document worth considering. Please visit http://www.jusonenews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4 I offer this document as it is stated that it is the first Constitution ever to be promulgated. Shall we look at this document and see if it is applicable today? As a starter, how would it be if we replace a tribe by nation in the above document? Would that be a charter for the world government on the Internet? | ||
| Ivan |
MUSLIM EQUALITY FOR WOMEN? Or is it okay to beat your wife, but not your husband? Arnold, in yours, you mentioned the FFI forum posts:
So where is it written that it is okay to beat your husband in the Quran? Surely, there must be something there that says a wife may beat her husband (or lie to him) for "valid reasons" if they're equals. But I can't find it in my search of the texts, so what am I doing wrong? What am I missing here, since Muslims deny their women are not treated equal to men? But beating your wife (only if she deserves it) is okay in their faith? That's monstrous all by itself, forget the mythical 'hell fire' stuff. So, Mohideen, when you say: Are you saying that Islam is a Male religion, given that its first author of the Quran, and secondary authors of the Hadiths and Surahs are all men? So women may only worship, follow the rules laid down for them by men, become scholars on what men had written (for them) and interpret the faith (if they are even allowed to do that), but that they may not write any new rules? Ever and forever? Until JC's return to Earth in some mythical distant future? So women are kept "down" by men with a promise of JC's return? You call this Equality for women? Or could you confess that women are treated as un-equals with men in Islam? The can't even write their own Surahs or Hadiths, can they? Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
"DOUBLE STANDARD" - Revisited.
Well, how about all the Muslim countries, or counties within those countries, that follow Sharia law? Sudan comes to mind; or northern Nigeria; some parts of Indonesia may work. As a Muslim you are free to believe in your faith, virtually world wide, as long as you do not trespass on the rights of others, nor do violence and coercions against those who do not believe as you do; and as long as you obey local laws. If you run afoul of local customs, then deal with it locally by either asking for the right to be exempt from local laws (like conscientious objectors to military service do on the grounds they are for peace and do not want to kill other human beings, for your 'religion of peace') , or else obey them (like the French headscarf affair) and learn to live in peace, as your belief system professes. Why play the victim here? In your subsequent: I fail to make any sense of this at all. First you complain you have no "Islam only" states, then you say that this does not apply to Saudi Arabia, which is an "only Islam" state? What in the hell are you talking about? Talking about a "double standard"!!! You make absolutely no sense. BTW, I should add here that Muslims are quick to fan out from the lands where their religion rules, to flee to countries where their religion does not rule. Where they come from life is hell, mired in poverty, political oppressions, and abuse at all levels of society. Then when they flee to other lands to escape this horror, where things work normally and human beings are respected, they want to institute the same things they just fled. How crazy is that?! The 'world government' link you gave does not work for me. (You have to sign up to see it.) Perhaps you can quote some relevant passages to what you have in mind here? Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
REASON TO CONFUSE? Arnold, you wrote earlier: "Reason" here is a relative term, because the more we read of Dr. Ibramsha's reasoning, the more confusing it gets. He comes back with stuff like this: "The rule ‘Islam alone inside Arabian Peninsula’ is to contain the Muslim supremacist and not to establish any double standard.".. which is nonsense. What 'supremacist' is he talking about? His own religious belief system for which he feels such a strong spokesman? I admire his faith, but not his reasoning ability, if it is based on blind faith. For example, when I asked earlier: He offered no response. Nor do I expect any, because I am asking a reasonable question; what I suspect will come back, if anythings, is some response that will be anything but reasoned. So I decided to pointedly ask a question for which he does not have to reason, and can do what he always does, which is quote from scripture. Where in his scriptures is it written about freedom? As of now, silence, no answer from him. | ||
| Ivan |
WHY ISLAM IS A 'BELIEF SYSTEM'. I seem to find myself saying Islam is a "belief system", which makes me pause and ask: why do I say that? I think what this belief system represents is a set of rules laid down for humanity, separately for men and women, by an order of beliefs as laid down by the founder of this system, who claims to be speaking for God. The legitimacy of this man's claim to God's word is that he is fulfilling a preceding set of prophecies from the Judeo-Christian belief systems, where he is the last of the line of prophets, hence the "seal of the prophets," where this new order is laid down in their holy scriptures texts, in imitation of the Judeo-Christian texts. Like for other dogmatic belief systems, this order is entirely self contained, which means outside reasonings or questions cannot be resolved independent of the texts; hence all responses to any questions are sought for within the scriptures exclusively. (We have seen this process in action in both threads here on Humancafe.com discussions on Islam.) If the questions become too bothersome, meaning no response within the scriptures are found, the system collapses; except in the case of Islam, it then says that such questions or reasonings either cannot exist, or they are from the devil to taunt them. (Often, for lesser intelligent people, this is where such questions would elicit a violent response, which makes such dogma dangerous.) The whole belief system is held in check with promises of rewards or punishments in some mythical afterlife, so people live either in fear of their God, or the devil; or in hope and anticipation of some imaginary rewards, as spelled out by the system. There can be no question ever about the validity of any of this, because the system is sealed in time, meaning it is like this forever, as their founder told them. If the human reality within this system is failing, meaning things are just awful and people are suffering, there is no basis to ever question what is wrong, because the system claims that within its order, everything is perfect, as a perfect teaching from God. So it is checkmate for anyone who wants to either improve on the system, since it is already perfect, or question it; and looking through the scriptures to resolve the failing human condition, only brings you back to where you started: what was said forever. So reason is suspect, cast out as jinn inspired for even questioning, and the self contained order keeps gravitating around its vortex created by its founder, who sealed it thus. There you are. Nothing to be done, because this belief system is entirely closed in on itself. The only outlet to this frustratingly dysfunctional state of human affairs is to then lash out, in violence and war: Jihad. The pressures of this internal self enclosed system, which is causing such failing and suffering for its members, is thus relieved by taking it out on those outside the system who enjoy a better life. Hence you get the riots. But all this is entirely self contained within its belief system, as it was written down, and as dictated by its founder. The only escape from it, is to either migrate to where the system does not predominate, or to suspend the beliefs within it (which makes the member a bad Muslim), or to renounced the faith. But you cannot renounce the faith without becoming an apostate, because this is punishable by death. Once inside the system, it becomes essentially impossible to leave it, except through death. However, not everyone joined this belief system voluntarily, since so many conversions in ancient times were made by force of conquest, where people either converted to Islam, were sold into slavery, or were killed summarily. So the system harbors within it descendants of millions of people who were born of predecessors who were forced to join, and now can never leave. This whole belief system is based on coercions to get it off the ground, by the sword, and then coercions to keep it whole, with threats of punishments and violence, or death and hell fire. That is the whole ball of wax, why I call it a "belief system", because no amount of reason, or change, can ever penetrate it from outside. It's truly "checkmate." Freedom values are impossible in Islam. (Was it Iran's president who said Muslims are the most free people on Earth?) Any wonder that Islam could not change for more modern values within its 1400 year existence? Unless the system changes itself, from within, it is virtually impossible to improve on it (because already perfect), a sealed system that cannot ever change. And yet, it calls itself a systemic "religion of peace." Believe it if you will, but this "peace" is ever so illusive in the closed world of Islam. History is the judge, as is today's world of Jihad terrorism and wars. Where is God in all this? Namaste (I worship the god in you) Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/06/03/1613289.html Canada launched the largest terrorist arrest last night. It is notable that all the suspects were home grown, second generation Canadian Muslims.So foreign policy cannot be the explanation. The Canadian authority says these people have no link to Al Queada, but they are "Al Queada inspired". This is a politically correct way of saying "Islam" for everyone who can read between the lines. It is surreal to hear terrorism experts keep saying they have searched in vain to determine what turns well educated, privileged young men into terrorists.A moderate muslim leader almsot hit the nail on the head when he said these people are motivated by a "cult like ideology". I don't expect him to name this ideology, though. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
What role does hair play in a woman’s life? From http://www.hair-news.com/hair-and-sex.html we have: === It simply isn't possible to appreciate the importance of hair in our daily life without examining its role in a sexual context. Whether we realize it or not, when we smell, touch, fondle or caress someone's hair, the behavior is a sexual act. … If our genitalia is a primary sexual object, then hair is a secondary sexual object. In most countries and cultures it is socially unacceptable to openly display one's genitals, and usually unlawful too. It is precisely this social taboo that gives hair most of its power as a sexual object as it can usually be openly displayed, and even flaunted. Female hair is usually viewed as seductive with the color and length being used to categorize. … Long hair an indicator of fertility and availability, and short hair as independent and forceful. === We see that the length of the hair is an indicator of fertility. From http://www.neoteny.org/a/femalesexualselection.html we find: === “Young women appear to be attractive to young men owing to the combination of paedomorphic and secondary sexual signal characteristics which they present to them initially at a distance. Hairlessness, voice tone, complexion and girlish behavior all have a childlike character that in ethnological terms appear to lower the probability of a male aggressive response of to appease if one is present. These same characteristics are likely to reduce male fear and anxiety on closer approach and to permit sexual expression. The male begins to display in various “show-off” performances including physical prowess (such as, dancing), exhibitions of virtuosity in the social graces, in demonstrations of charm and sensitive virility. These displays attract the female’s attention and provide the basis upon which she may choose to respond to or reject the male’s approach: or more usually, simply fail to observe them. ... From the purely ethological viewpoint this sequence has much in common wiht courtship in birds and often mammals....” (Sexual selection in the primates (1972) John H. Crook in Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971 Campbell, Bernard (ed.) pp. 274) === Does it imply that a female exposing secondary sexual signal behaves as a primate with respect to sexual selection? Are we to conclude that physical attributes alone are involved in sexual selection in human beings? http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000137/ disagrees. Quoting in a different order to give emphasis, we have: === 9. Charles Darwin, like his grandfather Erasmus, recognized that sexual reproduction was central to evolution. His theory of sexual selection was developed not so much to explain sex differences, but to account for complex ornaments that seem useless for survival, and therefore inexplicable through natural selection. He suggested that if animals of a species came to prefer a particular trait when choosing sexual partners, that trait would tend to grow in size, complexity, and quality over evolutionary time, even if the trait had high costs in every other domain of evolutionary competition. Abstract The mating mind' revives and extends Darwin's suggestion that sexual selection through mate choice was important in human mental evolution - especially the more 'self-expressive' aspects of human behavior, such as art, morality, language, and creativity. Their 'survival value' has proven elusive, but their adaptive design features suggest they evolved through mutual mate choice, in both sexes, to advertise intelligence, creativity, moral character, and heritable fitness. The supporting evidence includes human mate preferences, courtship behavior, behavior genetics, psychometrics, and life history patterns. The theory makes many testable predictions, and sheds new light on human cognition, motivation, communication, sexuality, and culture. === What does Islam say? Are physical attributes more important or mental attributes? From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=religion+beauty&translator=1 &search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we get: === Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A woman is married for four things, i.e., her wealth, her family status, her beauty and her religion. So you should marry the religious woman (otherwise) you will be a losers. (Book #62, Hadith #27) (Sahih Bukhari) === In the absence of the modern beauty industry, a woman gets wealth, beauty, and status through her birth; whereas religion is acquired by her through education. We could consider beauty to represent the physical attribute and the religion to represent the mental attribute. So, Islam considers the mental attribute to be more important than the physical attribute. Which attribute does a girl emphasize when she covers her hair? Shall we say mental attribute? Which attribute does a girl emphasize when she exposes her hair and gets happy when that hair is appreciated? We believe such a girl emphasizes the physical attribute. Put in other words, covering the hair emphasizes her acquired intelligence while revealing the hair emphasizes her inherited beauty. A girl might need to attract a male to mate with her (with or without protection from pregnancy). A girl who is not endowed with natural beauty resorts to make-up to level the playing field. Some resort to adding a wig that is artificial hair. Islam forbids the use of artificial hair. http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=artificially+hair+husband&tr anslator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all provides two Traditions from Sahih Bukhari collection: === (1) Narrated 'Aisha: An Ansari woman gave her daughter in marriage and the hair of the latter started falling out. The Ansari women came to the Prophet and mentioned that to him and said, "Her (my daughter's) husband suggested that I should let her wear false hair." The Prophet said, "No, (don't do that) for Allah sends His curses upon such ladies who lengthen their hair artificially." (Book #62, Hadith #133) (2) Narrated Asma: (the daughter of Abu' Bakr) A woman came to Allah's Apostle and said, "I married my daughter to someone, but she became sick and all her hair fell out, and (because of that) her husband does not like her. May I let her use false hair?" On that the Prophet cursed such a lady as artificially lengthening (her or someone else's) hair or got her hair lengthened artificially. (Book #72, Hadith #818) === So, in conclusion, it is highly recommended that a girl emphasizes her mental attributes rather than physical attributes, and thus wears hijab (a dress covering all body except face and hands) or a dress as close to it as her security permits. Allah knows best. | ||
| Ivan |
BY THE SHORT HAIRS
How do you live in such a small miserable world of restrictions? What a small world you've created yourselves. First, there are far many more attributes to a woman than the four listed above. There is kindness, total being, manners, melody of voice, caringness, lovingness, sense of humor, honesty, intelligence, courage, integrity, compassion, affection, and the list goes on; her hair or physical beauty is a very minor point. All this is woman. Where do you come up with merely four attributes? Again, this is so representative of your restrictive ideology as it applies to another human being. Then to focus on hair as if this was such an important attribute, or whether or not a person uses any kind of personal enhancements, such as make up or wigs, is so inanely silly to be laughable. Do you not realize how small you have made your world by doing this? You have minimized a human being's choices down to almost nothing; they have no right to be who they are except as you dictated for them (by men). Then to try to justify this coercive restriction on their being, you point to hair, as if this is somehow their most important physical attribute to attract the opposite sex for procreation. Have you heard of something called "LOVE"? You love a person for their whole being, not merely for their physical or sexual attributes. If you said a woman must cover her hair for hygienic reasons, because she carries lice, or is a food handler, I'd understand it. But to tell me that she must cover her hair because it is somehow a main attribute of her sexuality, at the expense of her whole being, is laughable. You can believe anything you want for yourself, but don't project it onto another human being. I find your justification for women covering their hair laughable, with all due respect, and insulting to women. Hair, whether it is on your head, or facial hair sported by devout Muslim men in their beards, or underarm hair, or hairy legs; it is all only hair. There is no special attachment to it, it does not define a person's whole being, and to focus on it is terribly restrictive to that person's being, to that person's right to be who they are. (Do you accept that people have a right to be "who they are"?.. I wonder.) For me, her hair covering is just another wig, which is also forbidden by you; but this wig instead of enhancing her beauty is to restrict it. It doesn't make her any smarter or more spiritual to cover her hair; unless she herself feels that this is how she wishes to signal to the world, that her wish is to cover herself from the world. Women, brave women, face the world; cowardly women shy from it. What have you done with your women? That's the real issue. Have the guts and courage to be free as men; and then have the guts and courage, and trust, to let your women be as free as men. That is the modern world, the one you so much fear. Otherwise, you are keeping them down by their short hairs. Love your women as full beings, with kindness and affection, and not just as potential sexual objects of their hair. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
TWO MONTHS OF POSTS RE ISLAM, and a Challenge. In re-reading many of the posts above, I think it is time to consolidate and recap what had been said. I will not recap the words of Mohideen, or others, but I will list mine, as they pertain to "human freedoms vs. Islam." Please re-read what I wrote in my (discussion above) posts, "Islam of Peace?": Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 12:04 pm: WHY ISLAM IS A 'BELIEF SYSTEM'. Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 10:47 am: REASON TO CONFUSE? Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 09:19 am: "DOUBLE STANDARD" - Revisited. Posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 07:34 am: DOUBLE STANDARD OF ISLAM? Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 03:52 pm: Is there Sexism in Islam? Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 09:00 am: FOR GOD'S SAKE, BE HAPPY! And finally this: Posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 07:58 am: FREEDOM BY LAW, a definition. If you want to have the right to coerce, in a free society, that is a contradiction; it is not allowed. Freedom is that you do not have the right to coerce another, by law, and only have the right to form agreements, if lawful, with other free human beings. Anything else, no matter what religion (from God or whomever) you quote, is a contradiction. You do not ever ever have the right to coerce. That is human freedom, equally for all, men and women, that is the Law of a free society. Also in (preceding discussion) "Dialogue with a Muslim": Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 08:11 pm: ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. RELIGIOUS FANATICISM Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 06:00 pm: DOING GOD'S WILL Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 07:36 pm: PROHIBITED COERCIONS VS. DEMANDED COERCIONS * * * YOUR CHALLENGE: I leave this challenge, for anyone who is reading this: Prove to us Islam is a religion of peace -- without threats, without violence, without death fatwahs. Thus far, it is a failure in bringing God's Peace to Earth. The hand of God only works through us in freedom, as sanctified by the right of the individual to be who they are, in doing God's will in honesty and truth; not when we advocate coercions and restrictions, which negate our freedoms and prevents us from doing God's will. Who are we, or you, to dictate what is God's will? Shouldn't we leave this to the hand of God? When the universe manifests your reality, don't you think there is a direct response from God in every choice and action you take? Take away that freedom, and your response is not yours, but now belongs to those who stole your freedom from you. How can that ever be God's will, God's peace? Keeping us from God is evil. There is never peace with evil, but perpetual war. The reality is there is no peace in your world, ever. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Who are we, or you, to dictate what is God's will? Shouldn't we leave this to the hand of God? Posted on Sunday, June 04, 2006 - 02:05 pm: Ivan Muslims understand that God Almighty’s will is communicated to the Prophets, peace be upon them; that chain has the first link in Prophet Adam, peace be upon him, and the last link in Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Neither we nor you have the authority to define God Almighty’s will: all that we could do is to interpret the revealed will as our intellect understands. The general opinion of the theologians is that a Muslim adult woman must cover her hair; we understand God Almighty’s will to be that the Muslim adult woman has the freedom to select her dress as close to the hijab as she feels without risking her security. We have indeed given the freedom to choose the way a Muslim adult woman dresses. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Many justify that jihad against USA is valid on the grounds that the population voted the same administration back in 2004. I was and still am of the opinion that jihad is valid only against the rulers of USA and not against the US population. Encouraged by an email that I received today, I found compelling evidence that Bush stole the 2004 election. See http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529 and http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1 We reassert our earlier conclusion that jihad is not permissible against the population of USA as the 2004 election was stolen by the winners. | ||
| Ivan |
FREEDOM FOR WOMEN?
No, Mohideen, with all due respect, but your Islamic belief system does not have equality and freedom for women. Scroll down to "women and adultery" in this link: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/quran_teaches.htm A man may "scourge" his wife? This means a husband may beat his wife? Barbaric in today's world. Where, I ask again, is freedom (for anyone) in your holy texts? Where is freedom here? | ||
| Anonymous |
Muslim men insist on covering women because they are always thinking about sex. Normal men in other cultures where women are not covered don't think of sex whenever they see exposed flesh. But Muslim men do, by their own admission.Islamic insistence that women must be covered up to protect themselves against unlawful sexual advance is a reflection of the Muhammad's own dirty mind, and the minds of those who like him.There has been a wave of rape in Holland by Muslims for uncovered Western women.It is quite telling. I can't help but think that the hair thing must be some kind of Arabic fetish. Modesty, what a crock. In Islamic countries women are seen as possessions of their men folks, who are both perverted and extremely jealous. Covering the women is a kind of property right thing, it has nothing to do with protecting the woman, just her owners. In Islam women are "cursed" for even refusing sex to their husbands. Spousal rape is divinely ordained. But it all makes sense if you see woman just as property and baby bearing machine. The mantra "Allah knows best" drives me up the wall.Allah is a figment of a child molester's imagination. Sorry for the outburst. I just lost it seeing the misogynistic nonsense posed by Mohideen. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
FREEDOM FOR WOMEN? Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 07:27 am: Ivan We started the discussion on ‘covering of hair.’ Am I right in assuming that it is accepted that Islam indeed gives an adult woman the freedom to choose her dress ensuring her security? Let us not forget that after 9/11 the so called freedom loving countries are calling for some loss of freedom for the sake of security. God Almighty willing, the issue of a husband beating the wife and the issue of a woman who refused sex to her husband during the night would be taken up in future. | ||
| Anonymous |
Mohideen wrote: "God Almighty willing, the issue of a husband beating the wife and the issue of a woman who refused sex to her husband during the night would be taken up in future." Do you need the Quran to tell you wife beating and rape is wrong? Sheesh.. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
I can't imagine what you will say about that, Mohideen! How can anyone take you seriously? Judging from your posts about women covering their hair, I can only assume that I will be once again 'surprised'.
Arnold, the 'women hate' stuff Muslims preach is so out of fashion today to make it laughable, were it not so cruel to their members of the females sex, just one Y chromosome away. Their sex fetishism shows up throughout their teachings, most annoying to us moderns, and most unfair to their women. Here is an example of a real woman's complaint, which their men will never address: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4955764.stm I am sure Islam is capable of producing great women, but their feeble minded, small minded, and cowardly men (who don't trust themselves nor their women), will keep them down regardless. Women in that world are treated like second class citizens, no matter what nonsense we get from our friend Mo. As I pointed out before, women are not free in their world to either interpret all the restrictions imposed on them, nor even to have their own voice. They are silenced, when not being beaten, by their so called 'men'. From the article: "Even if women become members of parliament, they can not talk about women's concerns - and remember these are women who are working close to the establishment!" ..and then these miserable men rape them, as taught by their holy prophet. 'Sheesh' is right. What a cursed part of humanity. Now we find that even Canada is not immune from this curse. Not that all Muslims are bad, far from it, and I love and admire all who strive do in all humility the will of God. It's all the restrictions and coercions, forbidden this and forbidden that, punished for this or that, the pettiness and infantileness of it all, that I can't stand. It's like they're stuck in the terrible twos, where "No!" is their favorite word. Of course, there will be no response to my question of "freedom" in their holy texts, because there is no response. That idea is as foreign to Islam as algebra is to a two year old. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
On the question of building mosques on 'infidel' land. There is a question I'd like to pose to our resident Muslim scholar: Why is it that once a mosque is built on land belonging to an 'infidel' nation, that land can never revert back to the host country? Think how damnable that is, and why should anyone ever allow a mosque to be built, if once that land is taken away, it is now no longer theirs? Even foreign embassies can revert back to the host nation. Why is this not the case of mosques? This alone is already a major coercion of Islamic teachings, never mind all the other violations of human rights, especially of women's human rights. So Mo, what about the mosque lands? Can they ever revert back to the 'infidel' country in which they are built? Fair question. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ISLAM? I highly admire the humility of the people of Islam, when they supplicate to God five times daily, and wish each other God's peace. I love the way each passage of their holy Quran starts with "Allah the Merciful and Compassionate." But I find none of this in the rest of their world, neither in their writings, nor in their actions. Upon closer inspection, rather the opposite of those beautiful words is evident. Islam lives in a world of repressions, deep human unhappiness, and no sense of the nobility of peace the religion professes. There is no freedom for humanity. Nowhere in the writings is there anything about human freedoms, except in a slave buying his freedom with 'blood-money' or a female slave freed upon marrying her master. What kind of freedom is that? Even aboriginal people have a generosity and nobility, though their beliefs are mere superstitions. Aboriginal people give gifts, one of the greatest things that separates humanity from animals. Why is this generosity not evident in Islam? Is this generosity simply abridged with an alms tax for the poor and orphans, as surrogate gift giving? What is wrong with Islam? Where is the Love in Islam? Does a Muslim man ever say to his woman "I love you"? Does a woman in Islam ever says she loves her man? Is love something not of God in Islam? What about love for humanity, for all living creatures? Nowhere in the writings does it talk about love. Punishments, yes, and love for Allah. But love? Did God simply forget to talk about love when he dictated to Mohammed his teachings? And what about peace? It is noble to say "Salaam alaikum" but where is the evidence? Both in history and the present, peace is perpetually absent. There is much war, much killings, much of men and women and children sold into slavery, acceptable men's infidelity to women during these wars, as they rape their conquered victims; but there is no peace. Where is this peace everyone is talking about? Where is forgiveness in Islam? A man or woman make a mistake, they fall in love, but are not married? Are they forgiven? No! They are stoned to death. It brings tears to ones eyes. Why so little love, so little generosity, so little forgiveness in the teachings of God? What is wrong with God? What went wrong with "Allah the Merciful and Compassionate"? And what is wrong with the men of Islam? Why the double standard for men and women? Why the double standard for believers and, so called, non-believers? Is this all but the machinations of the men of Islam who completely misunderstood God's messages to humankind? Is this when small and insignificant men seek to lord over others, so they inflate themselves with such egos of self importance? Where is their humility before God? What is wrong with those small men who would take the world of God and so belittle it with their violent repression against others? Surely there are great men and women in Islam who would prove this wrong. But where are they? Why do they have no voice, no power? Rather, it is the preponderance of the small over the great that rules. Where did we go wrong here? How had God's teachings to humanity, through his many prophets, gone so pathetically bad? What about freedom for humanity, the greatest engine of human achievements ever created by the mind of man? Did God have nothing to say about that? God gave us a mind. Are we not supposed to use it? Is reason, awareness, compassion, something God forgot to tell us about, though we have it in us? What is wrong here? It breaks the heart to see victims of such religious ineptitude perpetrated by a pathetic group small men, who rule in fear nearly half the 1.3 billion population of the world, and then keep oppressed the other half because they were born women. Where is the equality of men and women? Where is the freedom to love God, to love other human beings, to love doing good for others? To love life? Why is this missing? Where did God go wrong here? Why did God forget to tell Muslims about freedom? Your mind, as a free mind, free to explore, to think, to dream, to invent, to see new things, to understand; to create; these are our greatest gifts from God. Why is no one talking about it? Did God forget to tell us? What is wrong with this silence on the greatest gift God could bestow on humanity? A mind, a functioning mind. Is it any wonder that we have not achieved peace? If the mind is repressed, or ignored, suppressed from self expression; why would you expect to have peace? How can you make good choices in life, if your mind is brain dead? Even if you prayed a dozen times a day, standing shoulder to shoulder, or sitting knee to knee, it would not bring peace. To have God's peace, you must use the mind God gave you, and make good choices; not choices made for you, but free choices of your own God given talents, intelligent choices of your own free will. That is the strength of God in men, and women. What is wrong with using your mind? How could God so totally ignore his greatest gift to us in his scriptures for us? What is wrong? God did not make a mistake; we did! Where is the human beauty, the beauty of all of God's creation? Who stole it from us? Where is the love? Men is wrong. Small and vicious men, who would send their sons and daughters in suicide to kill for them. They, small minded, fearful, and spiteful men, took over the teachings of God. Fearing the devil, they feared God as much, so became fearful of everything beautiful, and the Love of God was lost in their writings. They forgot about it. They were not even smart enough to understand that for God to so love the world that he would send us a prophet, that is the Love of God. They missed this too: God is Love. That is what is wrong. This is why Islam is so lost today: It failed God's word. It would be hopeless, and tragic, were it not that, in God's mercy and compassion, Islam as God's peace also has a future. It must make a choice, it must use the intelligence God gave its men and women, equally, to come out of the darkness into which it had fallen. We did it to ourselves, the men. It is now up to us, men and women, to undo the terrible things that had happened to Islam, and the world. Take back the human freedoms you lost. It takes more than words alone. Take back your freedoms you lost to men. To have God's will on Earth, we need actions, bold actions, free human actions, noble and generous actions, and loving actions; to make yourselves true in reverence of God's love for us. This is God's will: To heal rather than hurt. And do this in true humility. Give of the very best in you, to each and every person you meet, as a gift of God's love for humanity. Do it not for yourselves, but do it for God. Then you will have Peace on Earth. God help us in this, because time is running short. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Why is it that once a mosque is built on land belonging to an 'infidel' nation, that land can never revert back to the host country? Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 04:12 pm: Ivan Masjid land? There is a housing colony built opposite the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India campus across the Mehrauli Road. The Indian Administrative Service, Indian Foreign Service and similar elite of the Central Government of India have built their housing colony there. The land: the burial ground of Muslims. During the partition a number of families migrated to Pakistan. When the families were collecting their most valuables, their burial ground – common burial ground of the Muslims in the village of Kalu Sarai – was surveyed and every family was assigned its part of the burial ground. The families that left India for Pakistan sold their part of the burial ground. Just one lone old man by name Yusuf refused to sell the bones of his forefathers. How do I know? My mother passed away on March 8, 1980 when I was an Assistant Professor in IIT Delhi, and in my frantic search, I met Yusuf and he permitted me to bury my mother. While the villagers were digging the burial pit around 10 pm the police arrested them; we intervened; the villagers were released; my mother was buried; the case was initiated in a court of law to declare the place where we buried my mother as a garden of the housing colony; the case dragged on for a number of years; and finally the place was allowed to remain a burial ground. You are asking me about the land of the Masjid! Anything goes in a land where non-Muslims have authority. Another example: the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya razed to the ground by VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad) volunteers; they built a Hindu temple on the rubble of the Masjid. Status: court case in progress!!! Do give me the references of a Fatwa if any so that I might, God Almighty willing, look into the same. | ||
| Ivan |
Mohideen, I am sorry about the burial lands, for great injustice was committed in desecrating the dead. I asked about mosques, specifically. Once they are built, can the land ever revert back to the people of the 'infidel' country where built? That is my question. What is Islam's ruling on this? Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We are against coercion. Is demanding honesty in trading coercion? Is opposing the stealing of the wealth of another by stealth coercion? From http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/gnazzo060406.html we have: === So make no mistake - a battle is waging, but it is a financial battle fought in the open markets of commerce, and on the floors of trade and exchange, especially in the gold and silver futures pits where the elite gladiators of today ply their craft. Why is Gold and Silver perceived to be the enemy of those who rule over paper fiat debt-money? It is because Gold and Silver stand in the rulers' way of controlling all markets and all players in the markets. As one of their best generals Sir Alan has said: "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." How can it be more clearly stated, and by one who knows from whence he speaks. Paper fiat debt-money is the insidious process of wealth confiscation - and only GOLD and SILVER stands in its way. === What is the stand of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him? From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Medina+dates+buy&translator= 1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have: === Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri and Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle employed someone as a governor at Khaibar. When the man came to Medina, he brought with him dates called Janib. The Prophet asked him, "Are all the dates of Khaibar of this kind?" The man replied, "(No), we exchange two Sa's of bad dates for one Sa of this kind of dates (i.e. Janib), or exchange three Sa's for two." On that, the Prophet said, "Don't do so, as it is a kind of usury (Riba) but sell the dates of inferior quality for money, and then buy Janib with the money". The Prophet said the same thing about dates sold by weight. (See Hadith No. 506). (Book #38, Hadith #499) (Sahih Bukhari) === The above justifies the creation of money. Money is the interface that permits trade between different kinds of material. What kind of money? http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=dinar+dirham+gold&translator =1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all gives some indication. === Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri : Allah's Apostle said, "There is no Zakat on less than five camels and also there is no Zakat on less than five Awaq (of silver). (5 Awaq = 22 Fransa Riyals of Yamen or 200 dirhams.) And there is no Zakat on less than five Awsuq. (A special measure of food-grains, and one Wasq equals 60 Sa's.) (For gold 20, dinars i.e. equal to 12 Guinea English. No Zakat for less than 12 Guinea (English) of gold or for silver less than 22 Fransa Riyals of Yamen.) (Book #24, Hadith #526) (Sahih Bukhari) === Dirham is a silver coin and Dinar is a gold coin. So, money that is recommended by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is precious metals. The following Tradition establishes the kind of transactions allowed. http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=usury+100&translator=4&searc h=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all has the Tradition. === Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Malik ibn Aus ibn al-Hadathan an-Nasri that one time he asked to exchange 100 dinars. He said, "Talha ibn Ubaydullah called me over and we made a mutual agreement that he would make an exchange for me. He took the gold and turned it about in his hand, and then said, 'I can't do it until my treasurer brings the money to me from al-Ghaba.' Umar ibn al-Khattab was listening and Umar said, 'By Allah! Do not leave him until you have taken it from him!' Then he said, 'The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Gold for silver is usury except hand to hand. Wheat for wheat is usury except hand to hand. Dates for dates is usury except hand to hand. Barley for barley is usury except hand to hand." "' Malik said, "When a man buys dirhams with dinars and then finds a bad dirham among them and wants to return it, the exchange of the dinars breaks down, and he returns the silver and takes back his dinars. The explanation of what is disapproved of in that is that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Gold for silver is usury except hand to hand.' and Umar ibn al-Khattab said, 'If someone asks you to wait to be paid until he has gone back to his house, do not leave him.' When he returns a dirham to him from the exchange after he has left him, it is like a debt or something deferred. For that reason, it is disapproved of, and the exchange collapses. Umar ibn al-Khattab wanted that all gold, silver and food should not be sold for goods to be paid later. He did not want there to be any delay or deferment in any such sale, whether it involved one commodity or different sorts of commodities." (Book #31, Hadith #31.17.38) (Malik’s Muwatta) === It is clear that the paper currency is not allowed in Islam. Only metals were used as the medium of exchange. At the start of this discussion, (Islam of peace?) we indicated that the perception of Islam as a religion against freedom is the result of ‘perception management’ by those controlling the media. Here we give just one more reason to show that Islam is maligned with ulterior motives by those who plan to usher in dictatorship of a few over the whole population. It is hoped that we – lovers of freedom – do not fall into the trap of the future dictators and demand reform of Islam. Discipline for the welfare of all is not coercion. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Once they are built, can the land ever revert back to the people of the 'infidel' country where built? That is my question. What is Islam's ruling on this? Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 07:46 pm: Ivan I must admit that I am on shaky grounds on this very important question. Let me first give an answer that I could defend. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=admiration+them&translator=1 &search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we find: === Narrated Qaza'a, the slave of Ziyad: Abu Said who participated in twelve Ghazawat with the Prophet said, "I heard four things from Allah's Apostle (or I narrate them from the Prophet ) which won my admiration and appreciation. They are: 1. "No lady should travel without her husband or without a Dhu-Mahram for a two-days' journey. 2. No fasting is permissible on two days of 'Id-al-Fitr, and 'Id-al-Adha. 3. No prayer (may be offered) after two prayers: after the 'Asr prayer till the sun set and after the morning prayer till the sun rises. 4. Not to travel (for visiting) except for three mosques: Masjid-al-Haram (in Mecca), my Mosque (in Medina), and Masjid-al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem)." (Book #29, Hadith #87) (Sahih Bukhari) === As a Muslim from anywhere in the world can travel to the Masjid-al-Haram, Masjid-al-Nabawi, and Masjid-al-Aqsa these Masjids cannot be converted to any other use; they must remain Masjids until the Day of Judgment. That is, Muslims must oppose the conversion of any of the above three Masjids to any other structure. What about other Masjids? Whenever one hears a ‘Call to Prayer’ a Muslim is advised to go to the nearest Masjid and offer the prayer. Thus, as long as the ‘Call to Prayer’ is offered from any Masjid, that Masjid cannot be converted to any other use. It could be used for additional use maintaining it to be freely available for offering prayer at stated times. That is how, Muslims run religious schools in the Masjids. What about a Masjid from which no ‘Call to Prayer’ is issued? From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=ruined+adhan&translator=1&se arch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we get: === Narrated Humaid: Anas bin Malik said, "Whenever the Prophet went out with us to fight (in Allah's cause) against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard adhan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear adhan he would attack them." Anas added, "We reached Khaibar at night and in the morning when he did not hear the adhan for the prayer, he (the Prophet ) rode and I rode behind Abi Talha and my foot was touching that of the Prophet. The inhabitants of Khaibar came out with their baskets and spades and when they saw the Prophet they shouted 'Muhammad! By Allah, Muhammad and his army.' When Allah's Apostle saw them, he said, "Allahu-Akbar! Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned." (Book #11, Hadith #584) (Sahih Bukhari) === Any Muslim army has no permission to attack a community from which an adhan (‘Call to Prayer’) is heard. From the perspective of the non-Muslim community, a Masjid from which no ‘Call to Prayer’ gets issued offers no protection from an approaching Muslim army. So, they are free to do either of the following: 1. They could install a computer that runs all the time; install the software that issues the ‘Call to Prayer’ at stated times and thus protect themselves from any approaching Muslim army. They could convert the rest of the space to any purpose they like. (The fact that the people have demonstrated their absence of hostility should gain them protection from any Muslim army in view of Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran.) 2. They could convert all of such abandoned Masjid to any other use they like losing the protection from an approaching Muslim army. Point 2 above is derived from the following Traditions: The first Tradition below is found in ALIM CD as 596 of Al-Tirmidhi collection. === Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "If anyone cultivates waste land he will have a reward for it, and that which any creature seeking food eats of it will count as sadaqah to him." Nasa'i and Darimi transmitted it. === With the advent of hydroponics, any structure could be used for cultivation. The second Tradition is found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=cultivate+yourselves&transla tor=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === Narrated Rafi bin Khadij: My uncle Zuhair said, "Allah's Apostle forbade us to do a thing which was a source of help to us." I said, "Whatever Allah's Apostle said was right." He said, "Allah's Apostle sent for me and asked, 'What are you doing with your farms?' I replied, 'We give our farms on rent on the basis that we get the yield produced at the banks of the water streams (rivers) for the rent, or rent it for some Wasqs of barley and dates.' Allah's Apostle said, 'Do not do so, but cultivate (the land) yourselves or let it be cultivated by others gratis, or keep it uncultivated.' I said, 'We hear and obey.' (Book #39, Hadith #532) (Sahih Bukhari) === It is expected that the land might remain uncultivated only when there is no one desirous of cultivating the same: every person is already cultivating some land already. We state this in view of http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=waste+property&translator=1& search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all quoted below: === Narrated Al-Mughira: The Prophet said, "Allah has forbidden you ( 1 ) to be undutiful to your mothers (2) to withhold (what you should give) or (3) demand (what you do not deserve), and (4) to bury your daughters alive. And Allah has disliked that (A) you talk too much about others ( B), ask too many questions (in religion), or (C) waste your property." (Book #73, Hadith #6) (Sahih Bukhari) === Allah knows best. | ||
| Ivan |
I discuss money in Habeas Mentem here: Ch. 13, "How Do We Measure Value?" http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-thirteen.htm (you may need to scale your window to realign text, sorry for formatting errors, but here is a short excerpt) " When money is advanced still further in a more complex market economy, it can be stripped almost entirely of its commodity value and become a unit of value representing its equivalent good or service available, through exchange, in the economy. At the limit, money can become merely an entry in a bank ledger, as authorized by the social agreement and as its exchangeability is insured by that agreement. Then, in addition to being represented as a coin or money certificate, it can also be represented as a claim against assets deposited at the bank, as a draft, and transferred from owner to owner merely through an account entry. Money need revert to its commodity origin only if this more sophisticated money fails in its function, as would happen if the social agreement that defines its quantity and insures its exchangeability is broken. Then, the market exchange once again reverts to a commodity medium of exchange, a commodity store of value over time. Thus, money can be any agreed upon unit of exchange." Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Mohideen, can you give us a more direct answer? Yes or no would suffice, in answer to this, which I state again: "I asked about mosques, specifically. Once they are built, can the land ever revert back to the people of the 'infidel' country where built? That is my question. What is Islam's ruling on this?" Well? Can the mosque land go back to the people of the 'infidel' country? Yes or no? Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreTopics/HiringFiringWorkers/Default.aspx?dire ction=asc&sort=4 has a table with ‘Difficulty of Hiring Index’, ‘Rigidity of Hours Index’, and ‘Difficulty of Firing Index’. Their meaning is given below from the same site. The fourth column is the average of the three columns. The first three parameters are specifically of interest to labor. The definitions are: === The table shows the main indicators. They include: difficulty of hiring a new worker (Difficulty of Hiring Index), restrictions on expanding or contracting the number of working hours (Rigidity of Hours Index), difficulty and expense of dismissing a redundant worker (Difficulty of Firing), an average of the three indices (Rigidity of Employment Index), and cost of a redundant worker, expressed in weeks of wages (Firing Costs). Higher values in the table indicate more rigid regulations. === The three indices of maximum concern to workers are reported relatively. Thus in each column there is bound to be at least one country with 100 against it. These countries are under extreme pressure to change. Well, we welcome change. The problem is – irrespective of the improvements made, there would always be at least one country at 100. That means as long as the ‘Doing Business’ report exists, there would be pressure to reduce wages cyclically. Thus, workers are getting reduced to ‘Economic Slaves.’ Such relative reporting perpetuates coercion on the weakest population. Are we in a position to influence the World Bank so that they report actual measures and not relative values for the three important parameters affecting workers? For example, difficulty of hiring a new worker could be reported as the time required in weeks to hire a new worker; rigidity of hours index could be reported as number of hours of flexibility (if we are allowed to schedule a 6 hour shift any time over an 8 hour slot, the flexibility is 2 hours); and difficulty of firing might be reported as the time involved in negotiation / dispute in firing a worker again in weeks. Such actual reporting would avoid perpetual reduction in wages and thus the workers need not become ‘Economic Slaves.’ Does Islam have any take on this aspect? May I get some opinion on this aspect? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Can the mosque land go back to the people of the 'infidel' country? Yes or no? Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 07:09 am: Ivan Yes when the Masjid is abandoned by the Muslims of that country, it automatically goes back to that country, except the three Masjids mentioned. Let me hasten to add that if a country harasses the Muslim population then the whole Ummah has the right of intervention. | ||
| Ivan |
MOSQUE LAND IS FOREVER?
Thanks for the response, Mohideen. I take it that as long as Muslims vacate the land voluntarily, it may revert back to the people of the host country? But if it is requested back, meaning the Muslims are not willing to give it back; in your words "that if a country harasses the Muslim population"; then the Ummah has the right of intervention? If so, then your "yes" answer is really a "no". Isn't that right? The people who had surrendered land to the Masjid Mosque are now forever barred from ever getting it back, unless it is "abandoned" by Muslims? Do you think this is right? Does this promote peace and good will, or is it (once again) confrontational? What kind of "intervention" can we expect? Legal law battles? Rioting by Muslims? I find your answer unacceptable, and sly. Once land is given to Muslims for a mosque, that land is forever lost to the local host nation, in effect. So if some poor hapless ignorant mayor endorses mosque land in his township, maybe for a little advantage for himself, then he had just done his township a great disservice. Maybe if the land was to be held in permanent trust for natural conservation, I would go along with it. But if it is turned over to a sectarian group whose ideology is so restrictive that the land can never go back to the township, since it is now their "holy place" as a mosque, then I think any nation that turns over such land should act on the premise that this land is now permanently lost to them. As long as a Muslim lives within earshot of their five times daily call to prayer, they will never get it back. Since such land can now never go back to the host country's people, I think it should command a special treatment, and not be turned over by deed as any other property would. I checked to see what MSA-USC Qur'an Database had to say about this, though it is not an exhaustive search: Quran 8:34: "008.034 So no pact is to be had with the "idolators"? Only guardians who guard (against evil--as defined by your faith) can then be the keepers of this land? What is this land worth, if it can never revert back to the "idolators" whose land it is? Think about that. I did a little calculation, figuring the land is now "lost" to the host nation's people in perpetuity, let's say for a thousand years. What is its future value, since it will never come back on the market again? My computer's "future value" screen only had so many spaces, and it would only calculate for 99 years at a time, so I am handicapped to give you a true answer. But what would the land be worth, in its future value, if it is appreciating (hypothetically) at 7% per annum, for 99 years? If we start with an original value, say some nice Canadian land overlooking a river with pristine nature around it, some desirable acreage; let's give it a starting value of about $100,000. Now compound that value for 99 years at 7% per annum, and in less than a century, the land is now worth about $81,000,000. Now take that and repeat it again, for another 99 years at same rate, and the land in 198 years is now worth nearly $66,000,000,000 (66 billion dollars); and repeat again, so in 298 years, it is now worth $53.3 trillion dollars. And that is not even three centuries! Muslims want that land, by their reasoning, forever. So even if I did this to merely a thousand years, the "future value" is prohibitive (off my screen!). And as far as your religion is concerned, once it is Muslim Masjid land, it is theirs forever, ad infinitum. What to do? Even Saudi oil money can't afford this nice piece of land for a mosque (since it can never revert back to the host nation's people) at its future value, not even for a mere three centuries. Now can you see how absurd is the idea that once land is mosque land, until you so decided to abandon it (meaning you moved out of the area entirely) how this land's true future value is prohibitively expensive? Of course, you can always con some gullible "dhimmie" into selling it to you for a fraction of its ad infinitum future value, in effect steal it; but then there are always fools to be had for easy pickings. I bring up this absurd scenario to drive home a point. Once you take possession, you will never let it go again, so you had removed a valuable piece of real estate from the host country, in your minds forever, though the gullible people of that country don't know that... yet. That is not acceptable, because at some point it will be resented; this is tantamount to "conquest and possession", if the fools let you have it in the first place. Imagine all those nice mosques in Germany, England, France, Italy, Denmark... all lost land forever. (People who sold that land must have been bloomin idiots!) So I propose a better solution, so that Islamics do not paint themselves into an ugly corner where the local people will eventually resent them, and hate them. I wish to avoid more violence and war. Would it not be far better to lease the land? Take out a 99 year lease, for a fair rent, and then renew it, if you had not "abandoned" it by then. Of course, there will be those "militant fundamentalists" who will not accept the land "reverts back to the dhimmies" after 99 years, so more confrontations should be expected, violent riots, as is common (in today's form of Islam). But at least there would be no legal ground on which the people of the land, the native people of the country where this mosque is built, would lose that land... forever. I hope you find this more acceptable, to your religion of peace, and still in keeping with your holy teachings. We would not want to accuse Islam of taking land by "conquest" for its mosques, would we? Ivan Ps: I am still awaiting an answer on my other two questions: 1. "Prove to us Islam is a religion of peace -- without threats, without violence, without death fatwahs." 2. "Where in your Qur'an does it talk about human freedoms?" FAIR WARNING: I plan to close this thread on July 7th, in memory of those innocent killed by the fanatics of their "religion of peace". So either an answer is fulfilled by then, or future posts will revert back to "Miscellaneous" or any other thread suitable. I think we had discussed this "Islam of Peace?" to its obvious conclusion, which is for the reader to decide. The readers, with a mind, know best. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We would not want to accuse Islam of taking land by "conquest" for its mosques, would we? Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 04:27 pm: Ivan Any place of worship, not Masjid alone, cannot be recovered unless the worshippers abandon it. Let us not forget that Jews demanded their places of worship to be preserved even after they vacated the Gaza strip. Currently Muslims in USA buy the land and build their Masjids. If they are forced to lease the land for 99 years at a time they would. Please do your calculations on the currency of the year of purchase: the value remains the same. All that your calculations have established is how negligible becomes the value of the man made currency as time passes. That is why Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, permitted gold and silver alone as currency. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I plan to close this thread on July 7th Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 04:27 pm: Ivan Yes, I appreciate that. For me the 7/7 is in honor of those innocents killed by the MI5 or some other intelligence agency of UK with the specific intent of maligning Islam by picking up four patsies and either really killing them or using them under a new ID. God Almighty alone knows the truth. God Almighty willing, I hope to answer as many queries as possible. Incidentally, I had been proving that Islam is indeed a religion of peace by stating that the Holy Quran is consistent; there is no abrogation of any Verse of the Holy Quran; Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran gives freedom of faith; thus Muslims have absolutely no permission to spread Islam by force. What other proof do you expect? Please give me some hint. | ||
| Ivan |
I appreciate what you are saying, Mohideen, that in the "word" Islam's aim is peace. I wish it were more successful in deeds, more like this, rather than this. Regardless, I find your posts and inputs invaluable, courteous and sincere. Truly appreciated. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
I sincerely hope this remark is not indicative of other Muslims's belief, for it is truly ungracious, disrespectful of the victims killed and their mourning families, and grossly insensitive for a real human being. Moreover, it is downright stupid. We shall take this here as merely your personal delusional ravings, and leave it at that. Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that Islam is unable to take responsibility for its errant "mis-believers" so must push the blame off on someone else, which would be a bad image for Islam. Surely you cannot mean what you just said. Either retract this statement with apology, or you have just "blown yourself up" with this remark, spiritually, intelectually, and your credibility had just been reduced to zero, as less than a human being. I hope it is not the latter. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We stated earlier that Israel desires to be a Jewish state and because in a democracy the majority wins, Israel would like to ensure that the Jews are in majority. Here we quote the current Prime Minister of Israel in support of our earlier stand. From http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060123/23israel.htm we have: === In a December 2003 interview in Yediot Aharonot, which prepared public opinion for Sharon's subsequent announcement of the "disengagement plan,"Olmert explained that his views began to change only after the Palestinian intifada broke out in late 2000 and he gradually came to see that the world would not tolerate the Israeli presence in Gaza and parts of the West Bank much longer. He also realized that if Israel clung to those territories, the fast-growing Palestinian population there would soon change Israel from a Jewish state into a binational one. "We didn't fight here for 100 years, we didn't spill our blood," Olmert said, "to lose the Jewish state." === | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Either retract this statement with apology, or you have just "blown yourself up" with this remark, spiritually, intelectually, and your credibility had just been reduced to zero, as less than a human being. Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 09:18 pm: Ivan I am what I am: a human being sensitive to truth; a truth hidden by the agenda of the war mongers in a number of colluding intelligence agencies. Truth triumphs but at its own time; it does not get established when we desire. In a post somewhere else I had sited evidence to show the culpability of the administration of UK in the 7/7 event. Of course such evidences are conveniently forgotten by the MSM (Main Stream Media). Because such reports are swept under the carpet, it is natural that honest persons like you have not read that report. Kindly give me some time to bring that evidence to your kind attention. May I request you to suspend judgment on my humanity until then? I hope you would give me time to redeem my honor. | ||
| Ivan |
30 DAYS OF SILENCE I will not respond for 30 days in Rememberance of all the thousands of human beings who died from the evil suicide bombings around the world. They too were human beings, who were horribly violated of their right to be who they are. God Bless America and all the good and free peoples of the world. Good will prevail over evil. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I plan to close this thread on July 7th, in memory of those innocent killed by the fanatics of their "religion of peace". Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 04:27 pm: Ivan For me the 7/7 is in honor of those innocents killed by the MI5 or some other intelligence agency of UK with the specific intent of maligning Islam by picking up four patsies and either really killing them or using them under a new ID. Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 05:21 pm: Mohideen Ibramsha Either retract this statement with apology, or you have just "blown yourself up" with this remark, spiritually, intelectually, and your credibility had just been reduced to zero, as less than a human being. Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 09:18 pm: Ivan In a post somewhere else I had sited evidence to show the culpability of the administration of UK in the 7/7 event. Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 02:35 am: Mohideen Ibramsha I will not respond for 30 days Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 05:33 am: Ivan I had no intention to hurt Ivan; if I had inadvertently done so, my unconditional apologies for the same. I give the evidence establishing the culpability of the UK administration in the 7/7 attacks. I posted the following in http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007356.php . Quoting from there, we have: === 7/7 was an inside job – pointers 1. From http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b 2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf we find: === He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said. They were led through the tunnel to the platform at Aldgate, which was just a few hundred yards away, and taken out of the station to wait for an ambulance. Mr Lait was taken to the Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, where he was visited by the Queen on Friday. He said: "They asked would I mind if my name were put forward and I said I'd love to meet the Queen, even if the circumstances weren't ideal." === 2. From http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Commentary/1040.html we get: === In a seemingly innocuous article in the British newspaper Cambridge Evening News, 32 year-old dance instructor Bruce Lait, in an interview from his hospital bed, said that "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag." Read that last part again, very slowly, and let it sink in. "The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train." "They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag." And the British authorities on the crime scene missed that, and just assumed that it was a carry-on bomb? C'mon, how many times have you seen that bad TV show where the eccentric detective figures out that the crime was an "inside job" because the glass was outside the broken window, not inside where it should have been. I repeat: Crime Scene Investigation 101. Basic physics. === Combine the two quotes given above. For any unbiased reader, the conclusion is obvious: the bombs were placed under the train carriage while the trains were at rest. Who has access to the train at rest? Is it that easy for anyone to attach the bomb under the carriage? Are the yards not under observation? We are told that London is a city full of cameras. It looks like the real conspiracy theory is the one alleging the four poor patsies – dead patsies – to have plotted and carried out the attacks. What a pity the dead do not talk. Rest assured they would talk very clearly on the Day of Judgment! Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at July 25, 2005 05:24 PM === Let us hope that the real culprits get punished, whoever they might be. | ||
| Anonymous |
Londonistan-Arabistan-Islamistan- What's the difference? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/ | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Democracy is not free of coercion. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage in which we find: === Gregg said that in 2004, he believed a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state would undermine the authority of other states, like his, to prohibit such unions. "Fortunately, such legal pandemonium has not ensued," Gregg said. "The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach." … Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes. The proposed federal amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. After approval by Congress, it would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. === Bush has suggested a Constitutional Amendment to force the remaining 5 states to effectively ban ‘same-sex-marriage.’ This is a clear case of tyranny by the majority. Let us wake up: democracy is not free of coercion. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Londonistan-Arabistan-Islamistan- What's the difference? Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 06:48 pm: Anonymous The link does not lead to the article hinted at. Please provide the link to the article. | ||
| Anonymous |
"Bush has suggested a Constitutional Amendment to force the remaining 5 states to effectively ban ‘same-sex-marriage.’ This is a clear case of tyranny by the majority." Even though I disagree with Bush's constitutional amendment it is largely symbolic. Gays still have the option of "civil union", where gay couples enjoy all the rights of heterosexual married couples but in name. Now compare this "tyranny of democracy" to Islamic theocracies where homosexuals are routinely killed or tortured with justifications from the Quran. Don't insult our intelligence Mohideen. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Le Chef |
You can give information but you can't give them intelligence.  The stupider they are the harder you hit them.... for their own good! Le Kind Chef | ||
| Anonymous |
Check this out for Londonistan http://sitesearch.timesonline.co.uk/sitesearch/jsp/Search/Search.jsp Enter search for "Come to Londonistan" in the site yu'all find it there | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Enter search for "Come to Londonistan" in the site Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 08:00 pm: Anonymous Thanks for the suggestion. The article has two pages. The URL of the first page is: 6-2212130%2C00.html,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2212130,00.html The second page with the URL 6-2212130_2%2C00.html,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2212130_2,00.htm l has the following: === In Britain, hundreds of thousands of Muslims lead law-abiding lives and merely want to prosper and raise their families in peace. But truly moderate Muslims are finding that, through such appeasement, the host community is cutting the ground from under their feet and delivering them into the hands of the extremists. === I fully identify myself with the moderate Muslims of London. However hard I try to explain Islam – true from the heart honest explanation – that it is a religion of peace somehow gets ignored and Islam is blamed. Granted the war mongers among Muslims twist the scriptures to justify their stand. But freedom lovers should not quote them and make their twisted interpretation of Islam to become mainstream. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The URLs given by me do not work. Please follow the procedure given by the 'Anonymous' poster at 8:00 pm on June 8, 2006. Sorry for the inconvenience. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Where Islam needs to address this, in my opinion, is that all the beautiful things of Islam, the personal reaching for God, are preserved; while at the same time, all the things that coerce the individual from his or her right to responsibility for their actions, those must be discouraged, or stopped. Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 05:02 pm: Ivan I perceive a contradiction between the above recommendations. How can a person reach God Almighty if that person does not obey God Almighty? Since this suggestion follows the discussion after the issue of revealing or hiding the hair of a Muslim woman, I take it that what is recommended is that a Muslim should be allowed to dress as he / she pleases. Science – in my opinion – is still in its infancy. We have not really understood group dynamics. Have we? Islam recommends dress code for both men and women. It is my understanding that unfettered freedom in dress would result in increased promiscuity. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3610487.stm we find that promiscuity aids in the spread of the dreaded disease AIDS. Here is a Christian school with its dress code. From http://www.prca-tucson.org/parents/dress_code.htm we have: === The way a person dresses reflects the way a person thinks. The appearance of our students communicates many things about our school to the community, and will be a valuable testimony in establishing our reputation as a Christ-centered school with superior students. === The dress code of this school is found in http://www.prca-tucson.org/documents/DressCode.pdf Let us not forget that Islam is a code of life given by the Creator to His creation. It is bound to be more like the concern shown by a school for the welfare of its students than a rule created by the majority of human beings whose thoughts are subject to change rather drastically. (Think taxation policies under Republicans versus Democrats in USA.) | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
If there is a God he surly would have written his words in our hearts instead of revealing himself in old books consisting of incomprehensible gibberish open to multiple interpretations, misunderstanding and corruption. Arnold Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 11:32 am: Anonymous Natural language has the distinction of being ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Such ambiguity and interpretations are the foundation of art and literature. As long as God Almighty’s words are written in natural language, we have to struggle with multiple interpretations. The mode of delivery was different: tablets for Prophet Moses, peace be upon him; Holy Spirit for Prophet Jesus, son of Mary peace be upon them; and inspiration for Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Irrespective of the mode, the medium was natural language. http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=ringing+forehead&translator= 1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all has the following Tradition: === Narrated 'Aisha: (the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Apostle "O Allah's Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Apostle replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes ' off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." 'Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over). (Book #1, Hadith #2) (Sahih Bukhari) === | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
…by the time this stuff filters down through the ages, it's had enough 'replicating' drift to render some of it babble, and nonsense. … Why should it be different for the Qur'an? Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 03:10 pm: Ivan It is indeed different for the Holy Quran. Please visit http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ and read about the picture displayed there. You might read articles 13 and 14 as well. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The final sentence in Qur'an: 2: 256, The Cow, says: "They (unbelievers) are the heirs of Hell and shall abide in it forever." Happiness is for us humans, all of us equally, both believers and 'unbelievers' have a right to be free of Hell. It is not the hereafter we should fear, being in the presence of God, but the hell we created on Earth. Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 09:00 am: Ivan There is a minor error. Permit me to correct the same. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=257&to_v erse=257&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal= 1&show_mkhan=1 we have: === Yusuf Ali 257: Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever). Shakir 257: Allah is the guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light; and (as to) those who disbelieve, their guardians are Shaitans who take them out of the light into the darkness; they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide. Pickthal 257: Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein. M. Khan 257: Allah is the Walee (Protector or Guardian) of those who believe. He brings them out from darkness into light. But as for those who disbelieve, their Auliya (supporters and helpers) are Taghoot (false deities and false leaders, etc.), they bring them out from light into darkness. Those are the dwellers of the Fire, and they will abide therein forever. === The earth that we know today is a finite earth. In a finite earth, there are bound to be competition: indeed we started our discussion with the impending competition for scarce water resources. In general, whenever the demand for a quantity is more than its supply, there is competition. Competition produces winners and losers. The winners are happy, while the losers are unhappy. Thus, in a finite earth, there are bound to be some who shall be unhappy. A Muslim accepts the possibility of not getting all her / his desires fulfilled on earth and thus is willing to suffer – be a loser in a competition and still live happily. I served the Computer Engineering Department of the College of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from 1984 to 1991. Those were the best years of my life: the colleagues if possible helped and if they could not help did not interfere. The whole campus was free of tension. Every one followed Islam. There I found that it is possible to live in harmony without competition. The earth is possibly on the verge of changing its nature from one of limited resources to one of infinite resources. The technology to bring this state of infinite possibilities is the quantum field. From http://www.cheniere.org/references/energydensityofvacuum.htm we find: === If we also allow for the time-energy (the “compressed” energy), we restore that c2 division factor, producing on the order of 10110 grams per cubic centimeter, or—in energy terms—on the order of 10127 joules per cubic centimeter. … Calculations by leading physicists such as Wheeler show that a cubic centimeter of vacuum (about the tip of one's little finger in volume) has so much raw energy in it that, if condensed into matter, there would be more matter than is observable in the universe through the largest telescope! === So, it is indeed possible that the earth has infinite potential. We are limited by our ignorance. We hope that we learn the process of extraction of energy from the vacuum and also the technique of converting one matter to another so that there need be no competition. It is possible that the Anti-Christ would master the technology of extraction from the vacuum; he would be unjust. Then, Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, shall descend and there would be peace for a thousand years. Muslims believe that Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, would be a Muslim; while Christians believe he would be a Christian. The issue would be resolved when Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, descends from Heaven. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
This is a legal loophole for which their Allah gave them leave to improve on what that lunatic wrote in all his ravings. Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 09:17 pm: Anonymous There is no legal loophole in Islam. God Almighty – and God Almighty alone - has the power to change His laws. No human being has that authority. Please see article ‘4.Is there abrogation?’ in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ posted on February 16, 2006 for details. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
In my opinion, true believers can believe whatever they want, free of criticism of their beliefs, provided they obey the laws of human freedoms, that they do not trespass with their beliefs on the beliefs of others. Posted on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 08:33 am: Ivan The essence of Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran is what is said by Ivan above. Jihad is to protect the Muslims when they are attacked simply on the basis of their faith. There is no jihad for any other purpose. Anyone attempting to spread Islam at the tip of the sword commits the sin of violating Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Mohammad's theology is crass and vulgar Arnold Posted on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 12:36 pm: Anonymous The Holy Quran is the Word of God Almighty revealed to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The Holy Quran has adopted a style of presentation that I would call ‘distributed’ like the contents of a picture are distributed in a hologram. A simple print of the hologram would produce a number of random speckles that make no sense. A hologram must be viewed by reconstructing the light waves. To really understand the Holy Quran, one needs to read it again and again. After every full reading of the Holy Quran the readers gains more understanding. The Holy Quran is not to be treated on par with any other work of literature: a small segment cannot be taken out of context and analyzed. | ||
| Anonymous |
DHIMMI BANKING ON THE RISE http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5064058.stm "Some financial analysts are concerned that the increase in Islamic banking opens Western financial institutions to influence informed by a conservative Islamic agenda. ... The business model of Islamic finance is based on partnership and not on "riba", usurious interest taking, which is forbidden in the Koran. However even though they don't charge interest, Islamic banks are generally not charity organisations. The customer and the Islamic bank share the risk of any investment on agreed terms, and divide any profits between them." "Interest" by any other name, when giving "profits" for deposits, or charging "fees" for loans, it is still "cost of money over time", regardless of whats it called. Is this the incursions of Islam into the West's "dhimmi" banking system? Invest at your own risk, pardner, and pay the "Zakat" to Islam, you dimwitted dhimmis, so they can greedily conquer the world with your "interest free" money! | ||
| Anonymous |
"To really understand the Holy Quran, one needs to read it again and again. After every full reading of the Holy Quran the readers gains more understanding. The Holy Quran is not to be treated on par with any other work of literature: a small segment cannot be taken out of context and analyzed." By Mohideen Ibramsha You can read it a million times, it still makes no sense, if it was written by a 7th century primitive without training in logic or philosophy. There is nothing, nada, holy abouit this vengeful hateful god of yours. You believe in this crap. Don't push your crap on us. | ||
| Anonymous |
Mohideen wrote: "A simple print of the hologram would produce a number of random speckles that make no sense. A hologram must be viewed by reconstructing the light waves. To really understand the Holy Quran, one needs to read it again and again. After every full reading of the Holy Quran the readers gains more What else is in the Quran apart from this constant theunderstanding. The Holy Quran is not to be treated on par with any other work of literature: a small segment cannot be taken out of context and analyzed." If you look at any random pattern long enough, you will be able to find some messages in them. Ancient people was able to read your whole life story out of animal entrails or patterns of tea leaves.Since Mohideen you are a computer scientist you must be aware of the story of Dr. Matrix who detected marvelous patterns in random sequences(a good discussion can be found in Knuth's classic, the art of computer programming vol III) Even devout muslims cannot agree on what the Quran actually says. There are different schools and sects all in sharp disagreements with each other over key issues. The literalists believe in a vengful and sadistic Allah who is always eager to punish harshly for the slightist transgression. On the other end of the spectrum the liberal Muslims argue that the Quran has a humanistic message not so different from what modern secular humanists subscribe to if one looks at a big enough picture,--i.e, after discarding sufficient amount of inconvenient details. Most muslims are somewhere between these two extremes. One must wonder why Allah coded his message in such a cryptic way. Was it his purpose to sow discords among people? Most likely people create their own Gods using the Quran and Hadiths only as foils. The bad news is the intolerent interpretations are the mainstream of Islam at the moment. The good news is reform is possible since different spins on the Quran are possible. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Humancafe |
Mohideen, just so you are aware, advertising on this forum is not acceptable. Posters who come here just to advertise are deleted. If we find that you are pushing your faith of Islam, your future posts will be deleted, as then you are proselytizing. Please be advised and warned. Any agenda for Jihad or world domination is coercive behavior, and if that is your intent, you will no longer be welcome. The same for pushing your agenda of there being only one interpretation of the Word of God, yours. We have been patient thus far. Every free human being is entitled to their "word of God", not only your Koran's interpretation of it. Some readers are already defensive, offended by your proselytizing style. For example:
We made bold what is the problem. You may not impose your religious view predicated on yours being the only "obey God Almighty." You do not have the right to monopolize anyone's belief, and you certainly do not have that right on the Humancafe, where dialogue is dedicated to freedom and not coercions. (It is our position here, officially, that a woman may wear her hair as she pleases, to cover it or not, as it is her choice.) Your interpretation of "obey God Almighty" is coercive in that it presumes that everyone must believe as you do. That is your agenda. Do not push your agenda here, or you will be stopped. Be warned. Editors, Humancafe | ||
| Anonymous |
Women are like domestic animals? Your prophet said so! http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&sid=96&file=article&pageid= 2 " Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency. If they do, then Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with the custom. Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves." Oh, I forgot. You can beat your wives too. What's this issue with the hair? Just beat them, as your prophet (pbuh) gave you order. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Mohideen, just so you are aware, advertising on this forum is not acceptable. Editors, Humancafe Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 04:08 pm: Humancafe I prefer to stop any further interaction. It is unfortunate that my responses are considered proselytizing. There are some points to which I would have liked to respond. God Almighty willing, I might post my responses in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ or in my web http://www.deentech.com/ . Those interested might monitor these sites. I express my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Pepper for inviting me to this forum. I also thank Ivan, an author of Humancafe for the kind words expressed regarding my following Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran in my life. May God Almighty help us all to evolve this resource-limited earth to one of unlimited possibilities and thus avoid conflicts arising out of scarcity! Thanks again. Goodbye! | ||
| Anonymous |
MUSLIM MEN RAPE WESTERN WOMEN Beware a woman's scorn. http://www.fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/04/confessions-of-ex-feminist.html "Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway - Authorities look the other way" http://www.fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html "Europe's Muslims worry bishops" http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/102299/102299a.htm (TEXT DELETED as it was inflammatory and encouraged vigilantism. Only titles and links retained, for information purposes. --Editors, Humancafe) | ||
| Anonymous |
Islam, the Church and the World http://tcrnews2.com/genislam.html "If the Islamic moderates in the West today cannot control the fanatic elements among them, then this can have devestating consequences for the lands in which they reside..." " VATICAN CITY - A bishop at a Vatican synod launched a broadside against Islam Wednesday, bluntly accusing Muslims of plotting to dominate Europe and de-Christianize the continent... (Bishop) Bernardini continued in his own words: "One can believe it because the domination has already begun.'' He accused oil-rich Muslim countries of "using petro-dollars not to create jobs in the poor countries of North Africa and the Middle East but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries where Muslims have migrated, including Rome, the center of Christianity.'' He added: "How can one not see in all this a clear program of (Islamic) expansion and re-conquest?''... Islam has overtaken Judaism as Italy's second-largest religion after Catholicism. Mosques and Islamic prayer centers, most of them small, have sprouted up in a number of cities. A growing number of Italians are also converting to Islam. Rome got its first mosque in 1995 at a cost of some $50 million dollars borne by 23 Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia provided the lion's share, $35 million. In his address, Bernardini said Muslims did not share Christian ideas about democracy and human rights. The archbishop said that "it is a fact that for Muslims terms such as dialogue, justice, reciprocity or concepts such as human rights and democracy have a different meaning than they do for us. By now, I think everyone recognizes and admits this.' "He said that while it was necessary to distinguish between ''the fanatic and violent minority'' and the "peaceful and honest'' majority in Islam, he believed even peaceful Muslims would, without hesitation, "follow orders given in the name of Allah.'' " " Archbishop Bernardini quoted an "important Muslim figure who, during an Islamic-Christian meeting said: 'Thanks to your democratic laws, we shall invade you; and thanks to our religious laws, we shall dominate you.' And, during a bilateral summit, another Muslim leader said: 'You have nothing to teach us, and we have nothing to learn.' " "Previously, Cardinal Godfried Daneels, Archbishop of Brussels, referred to an existing ambiguity: there is one "kind of Islam, with its monolithic faith, language, culture, economic and political strength that is difficult to dialogue with, in fact, almost impossible. And another Islam, which teaches the sense of God's transcendence." (Which Islam will win in Europe, the one "difficult to dialogue with" or "sense of God's transcendence?") " Muslims in Jakarta Call for Slaughter of Christians, Holy War Say "tolerance is nonsense, slaughter!" " " Sadly, Messori said, "the dark invention of the 'Crusade' has ended by instilling a feeling of guilt in the West, including among some members of the Church, who are ignorant of what really happened." In addition, "in the East, the legend has turned against the entire West: we all pay -- and will continue to pay, the consequences of the Islamic masses' desire for revenge, of their call for vengeance against the 'Great Satan,' which, by the way, is not just the United States, but the whole of Christianity, the very one responsible for the 'Crusades.' After all, is it not Westerners themselves who insist on saying that it was a terrible, unforgivable aggression against the pious, devout and meek followers of the Koran?" " (Will the West slay itself with Islam?) " "But there is a question we must ask ourselves. In the context of more than a thousand years of Christian-Islamic relations, who has been the victim and who the aggressor?" asked the journalist who interviewed the Pope in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope." When Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem in 638, the city had been Christian for over three centuries. Soon after, the Prophet's disciples invaded and destroyed the glorious churches of Egypt, first, and then of North Africa, causing the extinction of Christianity in places that had had Bishops like St. Augustine. Later it was the turn of Spain, Sicily and Greece, and the land that would eventually become Turkey, where the communities founded by St. Paul himself were turned into ruins. In 1453, after seven centuries of siege, Constantinople, the second Rome, capitulated and became Islamic. The Islamic threat reached the Balkans but, miraculously, the onslaught was stopped and forced to turn back at Vienna's walls. If the Jerusalem massacre of 1099 is execrated, Mohammed II's action in Otranto [Italy] in 1480 must not be forgotten, a raw example of a bloody funeral procession of sufferings," Messori stated. Messori concluded by asking a number of questions: "At present, what Moslem country respects the civil rights and freedom of worship of any other than their own? Who is angered by the genocide of Armenians in the past, and of Sudanese Christians at present? According to the devotees of the Koran, is the world not divided between the 'Islamic territory' and the 'war territory' -- all those areas that must be converted to Islam, whether they like it or not?" " " In order to clear the air of misconceptions and errors, historian Franco Cardini, an expert in Medieval history, wrote an article in the Italian newspaper "Avvenire," entitled "Crusades -- Not Religious Wars." In his article, Professor Cardini explains that the interpretation of the Crusades as antecedents of religious and ideological wars, was a thesis upheld by Enlightenment circles. It was used as a pretext and was a misunderstanding of the Crusades. According to Dr. Cardini, "the Crusades were never 'religious wars,' their purpose was not to force conversions or suppress the infidel. The excesses and violence committed in the course of the expeditions (which did occur and must not be forgotten) must be evaluated in the painful but usual context of the phenomenology of military events, keeping in mind that, undoubtedly, some theological reason always justified them." "The Crusade was an armed pilgrimage that developed slowly over time, between the 11th and 13th centuries, which must be understood by being inserted in the context of the extended relations between Christianity and Islam, which have produced positive cultural and economic results," clarified the scholar. "If this was not the case, how could one explain the frequent friendships, including military alliances, between Christians and Moslems, in the history of the Crusades?" " " In some Moslem countries, Catholics are not allowed to have a church, but there is a mosque in Rome. " (Will there be peace with Islam?) | ||
| Anonymous |
DA'WA? First invite the "infidels" to join your religion. If they "refuse" it is grounds for legitimate war against them, da'wa. From Aussie news: " After a brief stop to bathe his feet and pray, Bashir immediately launched into a brief sermon, telling thousands of students and onlookers seated in a dusty courtyard before him that Australian Prime Minister John Howard should "convert to Islam"... "The fight between right and wrong will never end until the end of days," he said. "Islam is the absolute truth. "I say to all infidels, it is useless to fight Islam for you will be destroyed and Islam will win absolutely." " Said and done? Don't count on Islam victory, da'wa or otherwise. We are in the 21st century, not the 12th century. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19478101-23109,00.html | ||
| Anonymous |
Interesting link: http://www.whatthewestneedstoknow.com/where_its_playing.asp | ||
| Anonymous |
Another interesting link - the Shariah law: http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475 ?!Islam of Peace?! | ||
| Anonymous |
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs5836; === The rebel Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka use suicide bombers and go into battle with cyanide capsules around their necks. The EU has labeled them terrorists, but they say it’s the Tamil people who are being terrorized. Formed in Sri Lanka in 1976 amid growing ethnic tensions between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), or Tamil Tigers, are known as one of the most disciplined, organized and ruthless rebel forces in the world. === Suicide bombing from 1976; and they are Hindus! | ||
| Anonymous |
Another interesting link - the Shariah law: http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475 ?!Islam of Peace?! Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 06:07 pm: Anonymous The above link has the following passage: === 7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman p. 523, m4.2 m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another: (1) a non-Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because of the hadith that the prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Allah has chosen the Arabs above others”) === The ALIM CD has all the respected collections of the Traditions: Abu-Dawood, Al-Bukhari, Al-Muwatta, Al-Qudsi, Al-Tirmidhi, Fiqh-us-Sunnah, and Muslim. A search in ALIM CD on – Arabs others – yielded 9 Traditions from Al-Bukhari, 1 Tradition from Al-Muwatta, 3 Traditions from Fiqh-us-Sunnah, and 1 Tradition from Muslim. None of them have the sentence – “Allah has chosen the Arabs above others.” So the Tradition referred to in the link is not authentic. Based on this one counter example we recommend that we reject the conclusions of the book referred to irrespective of whether one or thousand contributors had collaborated in producing the book. Islam is defined by the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions alone. No other work can represent Islam unless and until it is shown to derive from the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions. The book referred to in the link cannot represent Islam. Islam in its purest form is indeed a religion of peace! | ||
| Anonymous |
What are Islam's Weak Points? http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-are-islams-weak-points.html Some salient quotes: "Muhammed was a brilliant intuitive leader/general, and he and his companions devised a near perfect closed system of war aginst the rest of humanity. Only by showing that Allah is not infallible can we be victorious in keeping our freedom, our life, our liberty and pursuit of our happiness. Muslims are extremely childish in their view of themselves and the world - they are superstitious and thus afraid of dogs, of the Koran getting dirty etc. They continually tell us the truth about their paranoia, and their intentions." "There are a few issues central and vital to Islam and on which it is really vulnerable on, such as women's emancipation. If Islam really does go for it, Islam is dead. If it doesnt then its dead in the long run." "It should be done by giving Islam its proper name: Slavery and apartheid. Women are the slaves in the cult of Islam (submission = slavery). One peculiar thing about male supremacy or any form of slavery, is that it enslaves both parties. Muslim men should realise, that the emancipation of women also emancipates and frees men. This has been the lesson in the West. And so it has continued. Thus Muslim men should not be frightened in letting go - they will also be freeing themselves from the chains of islam." "Islam is institutionalised slavery, and the Jihad's main purpose is to garner slaves, both men and women, from the lands of the Free. Muslims, both men and women, then become the first slaves of Islam. Two points come to mind immediately. 1. The institution of slavery crushes the spirit of slaves. They were unable to think for themselves as a consequence. A striking feature of Islamic societies. 2. .." "Some claim that Islam will die as a global force during this century, simply because its core ideas aren't flexible enough to adapt to a modern world. This pre-supposes that Islam will have to rely on its own tenets. Islam is basically parasitical, and will continue to survive on the back of the rest of humanity as long as we allow it to do so. The roots of Jihad have been invigorated primarily due to immigration to the West and Saudi money. The only way that islam will die out, is if it is contained within dar-ul-Islam. No immigration and all contact reduced to the necessary." "Ending the problem for good would require large parts of the opinion makers of the world recognizing that Islam is not a "religion" but an "ideology". Once that is done then the ideology would have to be tackled on all levels just like Communism. .. (and Nazism)" "Islam is a warrior’s creed that served its early followers well. From impoverished desert tribes, they rose to forge an empire in a short time that stretched from Spain to India. The ethos it engendered – brotherhood for believers, contempt and hatred for non-believers, belief in heavenly rewards for fallen warriors, a high fertility rate (which requires the subordination of women), blind obedience – created formidable warriors. But these same qualities are handicaps for Muslims in the age of the microchip. Today they lead to poverty, belligerency, war and defeat. Many Muslims look back with fondness to their days of glory and try to recover their former days by using the old methods. That is why there is today a rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism across the Muslim world. They are bewildered at their weakness and look for conspiracy theories. Muslims think their failure is due to some Jewish or American plot not realizing that failure comes from within themselves. They are out of touch with reality." (more commentaries listed below article, read 22Dec,2005 7:25 PM, Kactuz) "Quote: “And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess (your slaves). It is a decree of Allah for you.” (The Koran, Muslim 4:24) Can anybody justify this? There are dozens of verses that tell of unprovoked attacks, horrible torture (like building a fire on a man’s chest, for example), wife beatings, slavery, rape of married women, disrespect for women, murders for petty reasons (like the killing of Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan and her 5 children by the prophet's men –" (Islam is ..DELETED..) unacceptable inflamatory wording. -Eds. Humancafe. "Note: jihad means Holy War 99% of the time; it only means ‘inner struggle’ when Muslims are explaining it to stupid infidels. This distortion of reality in Islam is known as the doctrine of Al-taquiya - deception." | ||
| Anonymous |
Quote: ""Ending the problem for good would require large parts of the opinion makers of the world recognizing that Islam is not a "religion" but an "ideology". Once that is done then the ideology would have to be tackled on all levels just like Communism. .. (and Nazism)"" -anonymous Their religion is more than religious ideology. It is a political ideology, regressive towards others outside their ideology, and progressive only through conquest, subversion, ultimately conversion, to make the world 'safe for Islam.' Unfortunately, that makes the Islam politic ideology unsafe for freedom in democratic societies. All the peoples who love freedom and understand this regressive (neanderthalic) ideology must resist it with all the force they can. The primitive ideology may not win in this world. If they all perished in this struggle, they would clearly be the 'winners' in their future (paradisic) world of heavenly peace, as taught to them by their prophet, with a first class ticket to virgins. salamaliekum | ||
| Anonymous |
So, Mohideen is back under annoynimity, even though he told us he was quiting this forum for good. May I suggest Mohideen to debate Ali Sina at http://faithfreedom.org He has a cash prize of $5000 for any muslim who can prove him wrong. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
WW III http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011866.php It is begun. | ||
| Anonymous |
Jihadwatch is run by and for a bunch of far right extremists. The majority of posters on their forums are foaming in the mouth Christian fanatics "Hugh", "Vice president" of Jihadwatch, is especially hateful. He is an insufferable windbag with a penchant for hyperbole and verbal diaherra. He has advocated ethnic cleansing of Muslims,among other things. There was an article on the Jihadwatch about some guy arrested in Sweden for allegely making a bomb. Jihadwatch created a heading for the article which mentioned Jihadist or something like that. But in it there was no mention anywhere that the guy was a muslim. The best part is, Robert Spencer commented in the end, that *if* this guy was a muslim, then blah blah.. and if he is not, "he likely was inspired by the muslims". What kind of yellow journalism is this? Jihadwatch is a hate site, pure and simple. The last thing we need is to turn legitimate critique of Islam into mindless Muslim bashing.It is wrong, and self defeating. Jihadwatch apparantly *wishes* for WWIII. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
Quote: "7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman p. 523, m4.2 m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another: (1) a non-Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because of the hadith that the prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Allah has chosen the Arabs above others”)" - anonymous June 16, 2006 - 06:01 am That quote goes with this quote: "There is a sadness here, that I must voice: Islamic born women do not have the same right to marry outside the faith that non-Islamic women have. A Muslim male may marry a non-Muslim female, usually where she converts, but the same equality is not offered to a Muslim female to marry a non-Muslim male. Often, she is threatened, and sometimes killed for her love of this man. This is a grievous inequality, a gross injustice, and an affront to human beings who happened to be born women in the Islamic faith. Even for a Muslim female who is courted by a non-Muslim male, the Islamic faith intereferes with their love. She can be killed! Can this injustice be corrected in Islam, to give Muslim women equality, so they do not suffer for their love of another human being, who is not Muslim? This, as is death for apostasy, are seriously grievous flaws in Islam." - Ivan May 29, 2006 - 08:16 am Both quotes show Muslims' Islamic double standard. Muslim men are encouraged to marry non-Muslim women, as one or more of their four wives, by forcing them to convert. (Any woman who accepts this must have her head examined.) But women of Islam are not allowed to marry outside the faith, under penalty of beatings, threats of death, and death. How horrible! How unfair! How racist and sexist! Islam is bigoted to the n'th degree. Islam of peace? Don't get your hopes up. Jihadwatch.org may be closer to the truth than all us good, honest, fair minded people wish to admit. Unfortunate, but true. | ||
| Humancafe |
Just a note, Mohideen is not barred from posting on these forums. His contributions are in fact appreciated, since it sheds light on what (his interpretations of) Islam is about. He is welcome to challenge ideas, or introduce his ideas based on reason, rather than quoting scripture to 'prove' his points. All arguments are welcome, provided they are not founded on 'blind belief' where the writer insists only his dogma's belief is valid, rather than have merit on grounds of intelligent human reason. Check premises and build a reasonable argument, and all are most welcome. This thread is scheduled to close on July 7, 2006. Editors, Humancafe | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
So, Mohideen is back under annoynimity, even though he told us he was quiting this forum for good. Arnold Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 10:48 am: Anonymous Dear Arnold, Your inference is indeed right. I posted just thrice as anonymous as detailed below: 1. Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 02:25 am: Anonymous 2. Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 05:04 am: Anonymous 3. Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 06:01 am: Anonymous I withdrew because under threat of a ban the level playing field vanishes. I did not like to be posting under conditions unknown to me when I violate the norm and when I satisfy the norm. As an anonymous poster, there is no stigma if the post is rejected. You would notice that the first post is about a movie that is critical of Islam; the second post is just to show that suicide bombing is not the exclusive right of Muslims, non-Muslims also practice the same; the third was necessary as it was alleged that Islam is racist on the basis of some book written by Muslims themselves. I have no hesitation about posting on my own name provided ‘Humancafe’ would be kind enough to announce the rules violation of which merits disqualification. I cannot work under unknown rules. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
May I suggest Mohideen to debate Ali Sina at http://faithfreedom.org He has a cash prize of $5000 for any muslim who can prove him wrong. Arnold Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 10:48 am: Anonymous Dear Arnold, Thanks for the suggestion. I must with due respect decline the suggestion. I know as part of my belief that all my total wealth must reach me before I die. So, I am not enamored by the $5,000 prize. In any debate, one of the debaters cannot be the judge. In case Ali Sina sends an invitation through Ivan by private email (Ivan has my email.) I would consider discussing with Ali Sina, not debating. I am still learning about Islam and hence I cannot assume any authority in Islam. A discussion could take place between a student and a professor: Ibramsha as student and Ali Sina as professor. | ||
| Anonymous |
Dear Mohideen, Even though I disagree with a lot of what you say, but let me say on record that I find you to be a very gracious man, a true gentleman.It takes a big man to carry on a patient dialogue with a mostly skeptical, at times hostile audience without losing temper. I am in agreement with you that suicide bombing is not an exclusively muslim phenomenon. It is tricky to try to explain political events entirely in terms of religion. There are other factors such as economics, history, ethnic hostility and geo-politics. it is often difficult to disentangle these factors. A more nuanced analysis is required to understand these events. Suicide bombing seems to be more of a military tactic rather than related to any religion in particular. I should note that even in the muslim world, suicide attack is a fairly recent development, primary practiced by Palestinians and some Al Qeada followers. It has been pointed out that Suicide attacks were rare in Iraq and Afghanistan until the foreign fighters arrived. Since these developments are recent, I agree that they should not be blamed on Islam. Indeed one problem I have with Jihadwatch is that they see everything through their "us vs muslim" lense. If some guy with the name "Mohammad" robs a bank,they would make a big deal out of it as if Islam has anything to do with it. Regarding Ali Sina. I have visited his site recently. I have no way to appraise his facts regarding Islam, but his arguments seem compelling. Most of all, I am impressed by his logical ability. This I can tell without too much knowledge of Islam. I see this in the way he frames his questions to his opponents, or the way he uses their own facts against them. Having said that I must say he sometimes comes across as too fanatical and unnecessarily hostile. His demeanor may undermine the effectiveness of his message. I sincerly think that it would be interesting to see you debate or discuss with Sina. I mention the $5000 just because he offers it. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
He is welcome to challenge ideas, or introduce his ideas based on reason, rather than quoting scripture to 'prove' his points. Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 01:19 pm: Humancafe There are situations when the Holy Quran or a Tradition or both need to be quoted. For example, in a post by Anonymous Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 06:44 pm:, we are challenged as follows: === "Quote: “And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess (your slaves). It is a decree of Allah for you.” (The Koran, Muslim 4:24) Can anybody justify this? === How does one defend the Holy Quran when it is quoted out of context and criticized? One needs to quote the context and show that the coercion arises from quoting out of context rather than the nature of the Holy Quran itself. Would the editors please clarify? | ||
| Humancafe |
We do not think you should be defending the Koran, as that is the 'proselytizing' we talked about. We think you should be able to discuss issues as they regard to the validity of your position on reasonable terms. Quoting the Koran does not impress nor does it clarify your position. You might as well be quoting Alice in Wonderland, it would not further your argument. What it does do is push your dogma. Can you argue your points without the Koran, for example, and still make logical arguments in favor of your position, based on human reason? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Can you argue your points without the Koran, for example, and still make logical arguments in favor of your position, based on human reason? Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 10:02 pm: Humancafe No. | ||
| &n |