1. rocky said:

I totally agree with Ali Sina.
If you read the Coran, substitute the word "Allah" by "Satan" and the whole thing will make more sense.

2. Bill Narvey said:

Ali Sina’s untitled article posted first to Faithfreedom.org has taken its title in this post as Islam is A Religion of Hate, of Terror and of War from a line in the opening paragraphs of the article which succinctly state Ali Sina’s conclusion.

Sina’s article cites a number of sources for information, but seems to rely on what appears to be a series of comments by Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir. The source, purpose and context of those comments are uncertain. Other sources of information cited include articles, that also include Sina’s previous articles.

It appears Ali Sina is not relying on original source documents for information. Further, other writers have pointed out from various direct quotes from the Koran, Hadith and Sha’ria texts, a number of passages that speak of peace and harmony in contradiction to those Islamic religious passages that speak of hellfire to be visited on infidels.

Some serious efforts at reconciling or interpreting the Islamic religious writings, however those articles have suffered from poor analysis and poor scholarship.

In spite of some misgivings for Sina’s scholarship, the conclusion Sina reaches mirrors the conclusions of many other Western writers and a few Muslim writers who dare to speak out against Islam .

To those only familiar with events over the last 25 years or so and in particular events since 9/11, the face of Islam has been shown us by Islamic radicals and that face is not a pretty one. The vast majority of Muslims remain silent or engage in explanations, excuses and qualified condemnations, apologetics, and justifications for the inhumane barbaric acts of radical Islamists all of which tend to blame the West or America and Israel in particular.

Taking responsibility for these outrages committed in the name of Islam and standing up with the West against Islamic terror and its entire support infrastructure is rarely seen amongst the large majority of the world’s Muslims.

The history of Islam recorded by Western historians, the veracity of which is immediately questioned or denied by the vast majority of Muslim advocates tells a story of an aggressive warlike people, inspired by their religion to expand the influence and authority of Islam throughout the world through performing the holy duty of Jihad to conquer non-Muslims, take their lands for Islamic land and to convert, subjugate or kill the conquered non-Muslims.

When considering and viewing history, current events, second hand sources and selected quotes from original Islamic writings through Western eyes, a compelling case is made that Islam is indeed a religion that inspires hate, terror and war against non-Muslims and as a religion it is a barbaric inhumane anachronism that should have no place in today’s world.

Sina however is also advocating that Islam itself be eradicated.

As with many such articles that recite reasons why Islam itself or radical Islamists who have supposedly hijacked their religion, pose a mortal danger to the West and call for the West to wake up to that fact and take action to defend itself and defeat the enemy, there is little if any attention paid to just how the West might go about eradicating Islam.

Western leaders often make a point of saying in most politically correct fashion that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, harmony and good will and that the problem with Muslim terrorism is only a few radical Islamists who have hijacked Islam for their perverse evil purposes.

It is difficult to accept that those world leaders who mouth such platitudes believe a word of what they are saying.

It is easy to say that Western leaders need to abandon political correctness and start speaking truths and to unite in taking all actions necessary to meet, defeat and destroy the enemies of the West, whether it is Islam itself or its radicalized adherents, which incidentally are anything but a relative few in number, especially when one considers the vast supporting infrastructure for radical Islam and its terrorist army.

Obviously there are a number of factors at play that compel Western leaders to avoid taking the defensive/offensive action that cries out to be taken to defeat and destroy the enemy and which continue to compel them to speak glowingly of Islam as a religion of peace, tolerance, harmony and goodwill.

A recent Pentagon study is on the verge of or has already come out with its conclusion that Islam has not been hijacked by radicals, but rather Islam itself is an ideological war engine and it is the cause of Muslim hatred, radicalism and terror designed to destroy the West.

It will be interesting to see whether America (and other Western nations) takes heed of its own Pentagon’s findings and conclusions and act accordingly or whether political correctness and other motivating factors that mitigate against plain talk, clear vision and decisive action against the Islamic radical threat, result in the Pentagon study being denounced or buried and ignored.

3. Per said:

"Western leaders often make a point of saying in most politically correct fashion that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, harmony and good will and that the problem with Muslim terrorism is only a few radical Islamists who have hijacked Islam for their perverse evil purposes.

It is difficult to accept that those world leaders who mouth such platitudes believe a word of what they are saying."

For these "world leaders" it is simply irrelevant whether they believe what they are saying or not. What they believe in is the political utility of what they are saying. The "truth" does not count.

4. GeorgeSaid said:

Islam is not a Religion

Execuse me for my poor english,
I live in the middle east. I agree with all of you. And I'm seeking an answer for some question.
When the constitution of any country like USA states that, a citizen is free to chose his religion. Is there anything in the constitution text discusses the case in which some religion doesn't confess the freedom of others, which is the spirit of the same constitution itself? What if the religion original text itself (which cannot be denied from its believers) is a destructive ideolgy like islam? Don't we have then a definition of the word Religion and need to state that clearly in constitutions and laws of our respectiful (sorry I mean your respectiful) countries?.

5. Stuart Dauermann said:

I think we need to be careful here of superheated rhetoric. Certainly most of us have encountered writings that villify the Older Testamemt and Judaism, and the Newer Testament and Christianity, as bigotted, violent, mysoginist religions. We also all recognize that those who do so take things out of context, and fail to either understand or present the whole picture. On a site such as this, it is too easy for us to shout "HUrrah" or perhaps "Hazak" at any Muslim/Koran bashing. However, we ought to have the intellectual integrity to recognize super-heated rhetoric and to call it what it is. Or am I the only one here who is weary of grandstanding and bandwagoning?

6. Ted Belman said:

Stuart

What you are is gfuilty of closing your eyes to reality. You prefer moral equivalence even if the facts shout otherwise. The Pentagon did a study and concluded Islam is a religion of War. Many scholars have said the same thing. The same can't be said of the other religions. Christian violence wasn't sanctioned by the Gospels but Islamic violence is sanction and ordered by the Koran.

7. Ameen said:

Islam is a religion of peace, love and affection. I love my self. Surely. So I chose Islam, as God's last message to humankind. I hope that all Jews and Christians convert to Islam and share Muslims the paradise.

We are taught as Muslims, by our religion, to invite non-Muslims in a peaceful but vehement way to Islam. Those who kill innocent people wrongly believe they represent Islam. A clear example of terrorism is Israel's current killing and maiming of hungary and already kidnapped Palestinians.

I hope that Allah blesses you and recognize Islam as revealed from God.

We the Muslims have to be patient in tolerating teasing in order to preach Allah's message that was presented by prophets, Abraham, Joseph, David, Solomon, Moses, Jesus and Jesus (Peace and Prayers be Upon Them).

8. Ameen said:

Sorry, Jesus and Mohammed.

9. ajm said:

- - - - Islam is a religion of peace, love and affection. I love my self. Surely. So I chose Islam, as God's last message to humankind. I hope that all Jews and Christians convert to Islam and share Muslims the paradise.

Islam is peace only within, that is only for the believers. For the other people, there’s dawa, djihad, and dhimma. This is plain hate.

- - - - We are taught as Muslims, by our religion, to invite non-Muslims in a peaceful but vehement way to Islam.

Yes, and those who don’t accept have to pay the jiziah or get killed. This is the Islamic law. Written as such by all madhabs, applied in all times. This is the law of jihad. This is war.

- - - - Those who kill innocent people wrongly believe they represent Islam.

For Islam, a non believer cannot be “innocent”. In Islamic law, fasad (usually translated as corruption from the philosophical sense of the term) is enough for not being innocent anymore. And in law language, fasad is just any offense, anything that prevent from respecting a legal disposition. Further, all Christians are guilty of shirk (associating things/beings to God, the worst offense of the tahrif, that is, the offense against religion) by definition: all can be killed. All Jews are guilty of several bad deeds (corrupting their own scriptures, not recognizing Muhammad, etc.) by definition: all can be killed. This is terror.

- - - - We the Muslims have to be patient in tolerating teasing

No, you Muslims have to make an effort (jhd). You Muslims have to reform your hateful, terrorist and warmongering religion and make of it what you falsely pretend it is.

10. macnietspingal said:

I downloaded the Koran from www.submission.org. It's a wonderful education about the situation in the Middle East in the 7th Century. No one has to explain Islam for me. The book tells all. In fact I consider it completely Israeli/te. In fact, because of this book, I call myself Israeli/te instead of Jewish. Seems Allah prefers Israeli/tes to Jews. Besides it's a political asset today :)

Well, it seems no one I know wants to help me with this. So I thought some person who really loves Israelites would help me.

I tried on my own to do this but there are just too many choices.

I want to say/sing :

I wish you a Merry Solstice and a Happy New Year in Hebrew and Arabic.

Can anyone help me? Isn't it a shame that Israel doesn't help one to evolve beyond the 7th century CE. Even RaMBaM was really only 7th Century thinking. I think he loved the Koran, didn't he? That's what I learned in my personal home study.

Please use transliteration, I can do the Hebrew thing myself. Besides it helps compare Arabic roots with Hebrew roots.

11. BobW said:

Shalom George,

(Your English is good. I understand what you are asking.)

Re # 4

America's Constitution allowing for different "religions" uses a different definition of the word "religion". Plus, the US Constitution is modified by the court system as time goes on.

Americans are allowed unlimited theological beliefs and much ritual and rite. All this is determined and governed by the secular US Government.

For example, polygamy is illegal even though it was a major doctrine of a "religion" in the US (Mormons, 1890). Animal sacrifice requires prior court permission. Some recent events occured in South Florida where permission was obtained. The use of =peyote=, usually an illegal drug has been recently used by certain American Indian tribes with court permission for their ritual. In government cemeteries for example, a seperate Jewish section, is illegal. Animal slaughter to comply with various religions, such as the Jewish and Muslim, is regulated by the Government.

My above comments are basic. Don't know that much more.

Kol tuv, all the best...
BobW

12. BobW said:

Shalom Ameen,

What you call peace, love and affection, I use different definitions.

Islamic affection for women is like a Southern Baptist getting a new car.

My love is for XO cognac so please don't plan on me joining up.

Make love, not war.

May James Baker be with you,
BobW

13. rocky said:

Stuart,

I remember one posting from Egypt in some blog which said:

"It's surprising that you Western intellectuals go through your books and minds, never quite agreeing on something which any illiterate Copt could tell you, namely that Islam is from Hell and that it makes Muslims devils.."

Sometimes, the position certain people are in, justifies those superheated arguments you mention. It is easy to talk about these subjects in an abstract and politically correct manner when you feel that the danger is far away from you.
The immediacy of the danger gives life to the words.

14. kuhnkat said:

For al the Muslims, if the so-called Palestinian claim for Palestine is so strong, and Islam is a religion of peace, why did you have to kill Muhammad Al Dura and blame it on the IDF???

http://www.seconddraft.org/home.php

15. Shelley said:

GeorgeSaid:

"Islam is not a religion." If it is not a religion, what is it? Some people think that Islam is more like a cult than a religion. How would you describe it?

Do you think that there is an organized effort to spread Islam to the West, to dominate the West?

Since you live in the Middle East, your perspective is important. I hope you can come back and answer my questions.

16. rocky said:

Shelley,

You should read Bat Ye'or's book "Eurabia", which talks about the peneration of Islam and the taking of positions by Muslims in key places in the West.

17. Yazeedi said:

Well, they used to say if your house is made from glass do not through others with stones.
To condemn any religion is only a sign of the only hate and racisim.

18. ajm said:

Yep. But to comdemn religions is at the very core of Islam.

19. MohammedToShelly15 said:

There is no organized effort to spread islam. Proof: at the governmental levels, show me anything muslim countries do in a cooperative framework. More, show me any any country that applies Islam as said in the Koran.
On the fundamental basis and this is the importatnt (what Islam is saying): It is up to every muslim to INFORM the people of earth about islam without compulsion to the point that it is authorized for muslims to get married to woman of the people of the book without forcing them to convert to islam. Cause we believe it is the final message of Allah to humans. We dont look at it as better or not better than Judaism and christianity; it s just Allah sent thousands of messangers to humans and it happens Islam is the last one. And because of this chronological aspect, the teachings of Islams summarize the teachings of all other messages.I.E worship God, the almighty, the only God (see2:136)and follow his orders that translate into a vertical relationship with him and a horizontal one between humans.
As I said, the duty is to INFORM. God knew that some wouldnt accept his message, so there is no compulsion (see 2:256 and 109:9).
Another proof there is no compulsion (see 9.6). This is a verse that states clearly that if a non muslim (and here its about idolators that dont believe in Allah contrary to people of the book)asks for protection in a muslim country even in a state of war, one has to protect him until he reaches his place. Again it is stressed that one has to inform him about Islam not to force him to convert (and notice that there is no suitable situation to force someone to convert than this).

[9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

2:136 say ye: "we believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

[109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion

20. MohammedToAjm18 said:

What do you mean by condemning other religions? I have never seen a muslim bashing christianity and Judaism and their prophets and if someone is doing this, he is out of Islam.

2:136 say ye: "we believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

21. ajm said:

There IS an organized, and islamically legalized, effort... The very word Jihad, in Islamic law, means just that. See for example:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14439

Jihad wars have been waged continuously for well over a millennium, through the present, because jihad, which means “to strive in the path of Allah,” embodies an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the 8th to 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur’anic verses (for e.g., 9:5,6; 9:29; 4:76-79; 2: 214-15; 8:39-42), and long chapters in the Traditions (i.e., “hadith,” acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, especially those recorded by al-Bukhari [d. 869] and Muslim [d. 874]). The consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i) is clear:

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), Maliki jurist 1

Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist 2

Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).

From (primarily) the Hanafi school (as given in the Hidayah) 3

It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.

al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), Shafi’i jurist 4

The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…[I]t is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached….

22. ajm said:

Muslims are bashing Christians and Jews over 15 times a day, saying Al-Fatiha. Demonstration:
1. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. …
6. Show us the straight way, 7. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.
These last words are used all over the Koran for designing what Islam wants to consider as non-believers:
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0027/BF.HTM
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0027/9Z.HTM

For a good example, read 5:59-60 (but read although what comes before and after these two verses):
59. Say: "O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"
60. Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"

23. Ameen said:

What? Do you expect Muslims should strip themselves of the innate inclination of self-defense? Should they give a big hand to the Israeli Apatches and armoured tanks that march down on their bones and houses just to avoid being called terrorists.

Secondly, Yes Islam doesn't believe that Judaism is the right religion now or christianity is. Just like Christians believe Christianity is the only religion accepted by God. Just like Jews/Budhists/Sikhs believe Judaism/Budhism/Sikhism is the only true religion.

You need to read about Islam and know what it is before you fear it. Jihad is a self-defense. And people of other religions are not on the right path. Just like followers of each religion believe about all others. But we certainly claim that Islam is Allah's last message to humankind. It approves the Abrahamic religions in principle. But says their scriptures are no longer guaranteed to be true. The Koran says that the earlier Christians and Jews - namely some of those who were defencts during and after the times of their prophets managed to corrupt the holy books - and God chose Islam as a final message preserved from corruption to the End Time.

24. Mohammed To ajm22 said:

On the Koran bashing Jews and Christians:

The koran speaks of Jews in different forms according to which Jews are meant by the verses; he doesnt talk about all Jews, otherwise explain to me what this verse is saying:

[2.47] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.

On the other hand, there were Jews who disobeyed Allah to the point that he was very angry on them and those are the Jews Allah punished in different ways, cause otherwise how do you explain this quote from the Jews book(In the same time, show me a verse in the Koran that speaks about Jews this way):

Isaiah 1:4 'Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers'

To summarize;
1. we muslims believe that there were Jews that are so pious that Allah was very pleased with them and there were Jews who Allah was angry with,
2. Yes, we believe that Islam is the last message from allah (see poster 19)and that who are following other than Islam are following the wrong path. Dont use this as basis to say islam is excluding other religions cause christianity and judaism are doing the same thing (proof):
*.I believe in Moses (peace be upon him), his message and all the Jewish prophets (peace be upon all of them)and I believe in Mohammed(peace be upon him); I am asking a Jew, can I go to paradis(i.e is islam the right path, though being muslim doesnt garratee paradis)? I know the answer
*.I believe in Jesus (peace be upon him) as a prophet of God, his message and that his mother (peace be upon her) as the purist woman on earth and I believe in Mohammed (peace be upon him) and that God in one who has no son, I am asking a christian,can I go to paradis? I know the answer

3. So the point is that the 3 religions are excluding each other in that sense and fortunately, judgement on this issue is the duty of God alone cause he knows humans would abuse if allowed to do that and thats why he stated clearly in islam for example that abusing the rights of others (muslims or not muslims) is sin that Allah doesnt forgive and one needs to return people's rights and stuffs and ask forgiveness from those who were abused; so this shouldnt translate in exclusion on earth and I have said the view of islam on compulsion on earth in poster 19.

25. ajm said:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0027/_P2.HTM

The 2nd surah is an interesting one. Well, not at first sight, very verbose, very repetitive, with ideas he already expressed before. Very confuse, too, I mean without a line of thought you may recognize if you ignore the context. Because Muhammad really had a big piece to swallow then. So he talked at length about all he knew or could remember about what he considered religion. It was a big turnaround for him, and I guess he hesitated a long time before he could spell that thing out.

The real point of those 286 verses is contained in the Nr. 217:
217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

The problem was that his new fellows Muslims had made their first raid as such, and it was hot stuff: they had attacked a small place, Nakhla, killing a few people. That was not really that bad yet, but it was during a sacred month, and they attacked at night, disguised as pilgrims. You could hardly have made something worse by the standards of the time. And when they came back, they wanted that Muhammad condone them. Well, he sure hesitated, but finally he said it: it is alright to kill and steal, even during a sacred month, even using ruses, as long as you do it in the name of Allah. If you can anyhow say that you act in the path of God, you are allowed to kill whoever tries to prevent you to do so, including what is otherwise most sacred.

After that, Muhammad’s religion was the sanctified crime itself. And he never turned his back. Well, if we are to believe his story, written decades after his alleged death. But what counts here is not what really happened. What counts is what Muslims believe. And after having read the 2nd surah in context, they know that their prophet condone any crime they may perpetrate in the name of Allah. That is one of the most profound reasons why Islam is such a mess. It condones crime, in the name of God.

Now, “normal” Muslims won’t admit that, because they have to speak only in nice terms of their religion, at least with non Muslims, in order to convince them to convert. Not doing it, I mean actively so, by explaining such things for example, is almost as bad as an apostasy, and that means a death penalty (not obligatorily applied of course, because it is so inhuman, but the angst will be there forever). So they just carry on with the faith.

26. Mohammed To Ajm25 said:

You didnt answer my poster24 and you keep jumping from one thing to the other by posting things that you dont even check; you brought a story and you convince yourself and you want to convince people that it happened. Just to highlight how the story is stupid:
''If you can anyhow say that you act in the path of God, you are allowed to kill whoever tries to prevent you to do so, including what is otherwise most sacred'':
and you think there is anyone that can follow a guy saying this!

The story says that Mohammed (peace be upon him) encourages stealing... Koran states clearly that the punishment of stealing is cutting hands. It also say that stealing as it is a kind of abusing the rights of the others (muslims or not) is a sin that Allah doesnt forgive.

Definetly hate blinds the hearts of people:

[22.46] Have they not travelled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to understand, or ears with which to hear? FOR SURELY it is not the EYES that are BLIND, but BLIND are the HEARTS which are in the breasts.

27. ajm said:

Well, nobody’s perfect. And English is my third language. I meant to say that with that surah out of which you (in post 24) picked a one verse (2:47) without any context in order to pretend that Jews are anyhow respected in Islam, the prophet did, as the most important thing contained in the surah, condone, officially, in the name of Allah, the killing and stealing of people, even during a sacred period of time and using foul tricks. Of course, he didn’t call that killing and stealing and using tricks. I call that so. I see that so, when I read the whole thing and consider its context.

I was hoping that readers would understand, without saying, that you were actually quoting the Koran totally out of context, and that the result is terrible, when you think of it. See: you are looking for a reference of tolerance, and you just happen to pick a surah where the prophet condoned the worst crime that could be committed at the time. Now, that is such a bad luck, really.

28. Mohammed to ajm 27 said:

thats the verse I used that talks about Jews (and I was talking about Jews in the Koran):

[2.47] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.

You didnt comment on this but you went to verse 2:217 that talks about how the the months that were considered by the arabs of Mecca haram (i.e: fighting dusring those months was considered forbidden and this before the coming of Islam). So you changed totally the subject of discussion but still, where is the out of context issue here you are talking about and what do Jews have to do with this?

Now about your reading of the the 2:217, I answered you in poster 26.i.e how can prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) encourages theft while the punishment of stealing is clearly stated in the Koran: cutting hands.

29. rocky said:

Mohammed,
By idealizing Islam the way you do, you are ignoring so much ground reality. If Islam is so perfect, why is it that it has not solved much in the countries where it rules. You cannot take the easy way out by saying that there is "no country that applies Islam as said in the Koran".

Suppose i need a plumber to fix a leak in my home, and I call the plumber and he tells me he is the best plumber in town and can fix anything and that the other plumbers are no good, so I'm supposed to trust him and don't call any other plumber.
Years pass and the plumber doesn't come and the leak in my home is so bad, the basement is flooded and the structure of the house is threatened.
But this plumber keeps telling me every time I call him that he is the best plumber and that he can fix anything...

That is how Islam is. Always taking credit, but never facing any responsibility when islam itself has caused damage.

Still there seems to be no shortage of starry-eyed idealists like you, thinking loftily about such a useless murderous, satanic doctrine.

30. ajm said:

Mohammed, you are accusing me of your own shortcomings. If we, you and me, are talking about Jews in the Koran, it is because I answered to Yazeedi (18) that to «condemn religions is at the very core of Islam».

To what you react (20) by saying that you “have never seen a muslim bashing christianity and Judaism and their prophets and if someone is doing this, he is out of Islam.”

To what I replied (22) that the first and most said surah of the Koran, Al-Fatiha, is actually a bashing in disguise. As an example.

And then you attempted to evade the question, saying that not all Jews are meant, but “Jews in different forms according to which Jews are meant by the verses”, whatever that means, by quoting a verse about Jews (2:47) without explaining the context or what could have been meant there, and quoting a verse of Isahia and challenging me to find anything that offensive in the Koran (I might send you back to my post 22 quoting Koran 5:59-60), and then ranting about your own beliefs.

The important point here, I think, is to see that Islam, the religion, the dogma, the fundamental texts, are a message of hate against Jews, without any doubt. You just have to hate people to behead all men of their tribe and sell the rest for money, as Mohamed (the other one) did to the Qurayzah. And even if there were no hate involved, the story itself is a solid call to hate in itself, because either you condemn the prophet as a mass murderer, or you condone him, and the latter means taking for granted that it was/is okay to beheads hundreds of Jews at once. That is the core message of the story.

Actually, you have to wonder why some Muslims could be pious and nevertheless could prevent themselves from hating Jews. Keeping a healthy mindset in spite of being in close contact with Islam is a proof of very good commonsense indeed. And I think that the solution is right here, in the commonsense of healthy-thinking Muslims. May they find the force and courage to come out.

31. Mohammed To rocky29 said:

I am not trying to Idealize Islam; I am just reading what Islam is saying, something that everyone can check by himself through the Koran.
The story of the plumber is very nice (I am really serious about this)and very speaking; the conclusion however is not true: the story can apply to the state of muslim countries, then your conclusion is : that is islam how it is. I would have accepted the conclusion thats how people in muslim countries are (still its debatable).
So again I insist that how muslim countries are governed has nothing to do with Islam. The elite ruling were raised, educated and are supported by western forces (wich at the first look is not a bad thing). This elite is not allowing a sane debate about islamic values and rules inside their countries because they know that one of the first questions that they would have to answer is who has the right to rule, where is the money of people is going....Results: The values that Islam is coming with are not known to people and of course there is a developpment of a reaction among some of the people against this situation. Censoring debate would create always some negative ideas (but not in the proportions, many forces in the west are trying to highlight, cause we know that the aim of such forces is vilifying, and they say it.. see lets say as it poster). Another speaking example: many countries are not allowing banks (even affiliates of western banks such HSBC, JP Morgan..) to have an islamicbanking: without interest. Interest is considered one of the major sins, but still many countries are just imposing on their people to do this sin or not to have any possibility of having legal debt to run their lifes and business; a basic life stuf.._Thats the conclusion of your story is not correct.

32. Mohammed To Ajm30-ISLAM&JEWS said:

Sorry but you same to me that you are recycling the same thing and you are not reading what I am saying.

I will repeat it:
Jews are not a single nation that came in one point of time. There were Jews that were so pious that when Allah told them kill yourself because they done a sin, they were so obeydiant, they say Ameen. I do believe that what ever I do in my life I cant reach their feets in piousness. They were Jews that they were so pious that when they were fighting Jalut and when their friends let them down, they said, we count on Allah and Allah gave them victory (David peace upon him was among them and he killed Jalut) and so forth......Allah was so happy with the good Jews that he said:
[2.47] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.

But they are Jews who were very bad (same for christians and muslims in islam) and Allah was very angry with them. And in the Koran they were coerced as in the bible and the Torah: and I am saying if you want to say Koran is bashing Jews and christians, I say Yes its bashing the Jews and Christians Allah was angry with, Otherwise HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS:
Isaiah 1:4 'Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers'

Concerning how Islam looks at Jews and Christians now in terms of belief; this is what I wrote in poster 24:

To summarize;
1. we muslims believe that there were Jews that are so pious that Allah was very pleased with them and there were Jews who Allah was angry with,
2. Yes, we believe that Islam is the last message from allah (see poster 19)and that who are following other than Islam are following the wrong path. Dont use this as basis to say islam is excluding other religions cause christianity and judaism are doing the same thing (proof):
*.I believe in Moses (peace be upon him), his message and all the Jewish prophets (peace be upon all of them)and I believe in Mohammed(peace be upon him); I am asking a Jew, can I go to paradis(i.e is islam the right path, though being muslim doesnt garratee paradis)? I know the answer
*.I believe in Jesus (peace be upon him) as a prophet of God, his message and that his mother (peace be upon her) as the purist woman on earth and I believe in Mohammed (peace be upon him) and that God in one who has no son, I am asking a christian,can I go to paradis? I know the answer

3. So the point is that the 3 religions are excluding each other in that sense and fortunately, judgement on this issue is the duty of God alone cause he knows humans would abuse if allowed to do that and thats why he stated clearly in islam for example that abusing the rights of others (muslims or not muslims) is sin that Allah doesnt forgive and one needs to return people's rights and stuffs and ask forgiveness from those who were abused; so this shouldnt translate in exclusion on earth and I have said the view of islam on compulsion on earth in poster 19.

HOPE THAT THIS CLARIFIES THIS ISSUE!

33. ajm said:

Isaiah is just the son of Amoz. And while that might be great, there’re plenty of characters as strong as that, and stronger, who have other discourses. There’s a balance, just like in life itself.

But it is something else entirely when the very last prophet of God, the one that speaks His very words, and gives His very orders, says things like:

5:41. O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.

5:51. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

5: 64. The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief.

5:82. Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

9:30. The Jews call Ùzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

And I am limiting myself to the very last surahs revealed, so that there’s no problem of abrogation. Islam, the root of it, promotes anti-Semitism. Quite directly, without differentiation. Jews and Christians are bad. Period. That is not an interpretation, that is the text. And the Islamic scholars have taken it on board just as is, making of Jews and Christians second-class people, whose house should remains so low that Muslmis can see their roof while standing in front of them (they were allowed to dig under the surface, though…), prohibiting that a Jew or a Christian ever gets a better deal than a Mulism, and on and on.

There were tough times, everywhere on earth. And things have changed. Almost everything has changed. But the Koran did not. The Islamic law did not. And that is a total disgrace.

34. Mohammed To Ajm33 said:

Again, it seems you dont want to read what I wrote POSTER22 about how Islam looks at Judaism and christianity. So be it.

35. Mohammed To Ajm33 said: said:

sorry, POSTER32

36. MohammedToajm33 said:

If you are not satisfied with Isaiah (peace be upon him), what about Moses (peace be upon him)talking about those Jews who wont follow his path.

"For I know that after my death you will act corruptly and turn from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days, for you will do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger with the work of your hands (Deut. 31:29).

The point is that you want to create a confusion (the vilify the ennemy apparoach) and hide a truth which is that Islam speaks highly of pious Jews and speaks badly about sinful Jews. Again read poster 32 careully; Islam is a message to mankind, so there is nothing to hide.

[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

And,

[22.46] Have they not travelled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to understand, or ears with which to hear? FOR SURELY it is not the EYES that are BLIND, but BLIND are the HEARTS which are in the breasts.

37. rocky said:

Mohammed,

If a doctrine that has been 1400 years around this planet is still being misunderstood by people, isn't that a proof of its being ineffective, and thus incompetent?

And you still didn't give a satisfactory explanation as why is it not a blasphemy to claim that Muhammad, a polygamous and warmogering tribal chieftain, is better than Jesus.

I consider that Islam is founded on a blasphemy and together with its incompetence mentioned above I think it's high time to put it to sleep.

38. ajm said:

I am willing to read you, Mohamed, and even to accept that you might be sincere, but sure not to take your word against the koranic scriptures. Who are you to say what “we Muslims believe”?

The Koran itself says (3:7) that only clear messages are making the base of the Koran and that the things that can or should be interpreted are for those “seeking discord”. Then, the same Koran says quite clearly that non believers can and should be killed, crucified, mutilated, and that God has much worse things in store for them after that. Really, Allah is terrible with his chastisement: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0027/3H.HTM

If Muslims want to be convincing when they speak of peace, tolerance, or discriminated judgment, with people informed of the basic tenets of their faith, they first have to refute the Koran and the whole heap of juridical texts based on it. If they do that, they will be heroes indeed, for that is really not a piece of cake. But if they don’t even try, what should the rest of us think of them?

39. Mohammed To Rock37 said:

''And you still didn't give a satisfactory explanation as why is it not a blasphemy to claim that Muhammad, a polygamous and warmogering tribal chieftain, is better than Jesus'':

READ THIS CAREFULLY:
2:136 say ye: "we believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

''For the incompetence issue'': mathematics is not an ''incompetent'' discipline if you or me are not able to understand Fractal Geometry.

40. Mohammed To Ajam38 said:

''Then, the same Koran says quite clearly that non believers can and should be killed, crucified, mutilated'': Where?

41. ajm said:

5:33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

42. Mohammed Tio ajam41 said:

first read the verse you brought: THE PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WHO FIGHT ALLAH.... AND DO MISCHIEF THROUGH THE LAND IS...

1. Just read it again and see whether it is fair or unfair to punish those who do the michief..
2. Where are the Jews and christian here
3. For your additional information, the verse was for some arabs who effectively did mischif by forming a gang, kiling shephards and stealing their camels, sheeps...But without this additional knowledge, you should be able to see that this verse weights positively for Islam not against it!

43. ajm said:

You are so right to talk of the context. There is the key to the true meaning of the verses indeed. But you are wrong of course to think that the prophet was talking of “war against Allah” for settling a case of camel thieves. The error is understandable, though, for he did settle that case indeed in that same surah, but it was a couple verses down the line, in

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful.

Now, let’s talk of a big picture that could explain why the most important man of history was talking of “war against Allah” in 5:33.

That surah was revealed at the end of Mohamed’s life, that is, at a time when Muslims had made several dozens military operations in the region. For the record, Muslims scriptures attest of at least 27 campaigns led by Mohamed personally and of some 59 others which he just deputized.

There were several kinds of “campaigns”. Besides the “thematic” battles [Badr (624), Uhud (625), Khandaq (627), Mecca (630), Hunayn (630)] which permitted him to dominate the settled areas of the region (Mecca, Medina, Al-Taif), there were raids against the Bedouins, attacks against Jewish tribes (the bloodiest of all operations – Jews’ blood of course), and there was a yet small and little successful series of raids and campaigns “abroad”, that is, against the Bizantines (Muta, 629; Tabuk, 631) and Syria (632).

Short: Muslims had enemies everywhere, most notably Jews and Christians of course (Bedouins were not a real threat at that time), and it was getting very scary. Mohamed had all reasons to await a massive attack against him indeed, and his only option by then was to raise the scale of war, to attack real hard, so hard that his enemies will bow before being able to gather against him. And that is why the last surahs (9 and 5), just before he passed away, are so full of war and blood and maledictions.

Now, as the story went, Muslims chose to bet on the last surahs and to consider that the whole world around was at war against them, which was not totally wrong of course. And they prevailed, oh yes they did. And when they eventually took a minute to have converts write down the record of all this, some decades later, they insisted on what made them victorious, and that is why their laws are so hard on thieves and on “enemies of Allah” (keywords: shirk, tahrif, dhimma), which were, in fact, of course, no else than Jews, and Christians.

44. Mohammed To Ajm43 said:

5:38 is a general shariaa rule in the sense that it applies to thieves in every time (in a country that applies sharia law). 5:33 was about the gangs who were doing'mischief'' and stealing and abusing travelers..AND THEY WERE ARABS pagans. Now I dont know why you want to read this verse as for Jews and christians, and to please you, EVEN IF it were for them, its not because they are Jews or christians but the verse states clearly its because of mischief. Now for your point: is this for the cause of Allah: I say yes and this is true even muslims are fighting muslims who are doing ''mischief'' (example: story of muslims who refuse to give Zkat=money of the poors).
Besides all that:
your comment:''Short: Muslims had enemies everywhere, most notably Jews and Christians of course (Bedouins were not a real threat at that time), and it was getting very scary'':
Note History not the Koran tells that most of the wars of muslims were against arab pagans!
Now if you want to continue believing wrongly that Koran encourages war against Jews and Christians, I am afraid I wont be of any help to correct this view in you mind.

45. ajm said:

That is a fair end.

46. SIK said:

no matter what you say about islam or muslims, it will change what is the truth. the truth is Allah (swt) is the Lord of everything that exists. Everything follows the commands of Allah (swt). YOU CANT CHANGE IT. what you can change is your thinking. what you can do is remove your arroagnce. after all, you are not hurting Allah (swt) or benefitting Him (swt) in any way - if you follow the truth, you will attain happiness at the end. I make dua that Allah (swt) help me from evil doers and help others guide to islam.

47. SIK said:

err crrections: ...it will NOT change what is the truth
...help guide others to islam.

48. ajm said:

Last thing I want is to change what is the truth. But I don't think that any god will help a man doing or getting anything just because he prays for that. I do think that any god, though, will help sincere seekers for the truth.

For there is such an important difference between praying for getting something and trying to deserve it.

49. mohammed To Ajm48 said:

well said Ajm; but just remember one thing: neither me nor you nor anybody else can say I deserve the truth (i.e the mercy of Allah), cause the right path is really a gift from the Almighty. It is a gift as all the other gifts from him the Almighty; do you think you deserve to have the vision (two eyes) or the health in general: everything is a gift from him, but you have to strive to please him cause you owe him a lot and first step would be let the prejeduces and hate veil fall down cause you may be surprised there is a truth behind the veil. And remember that while you have been and others treating this religion as a hate religion, ask yourself how come you develop hate against this religion and how come you got trapped into what you claim Islam is about.
If you use the same approach you are using towards Islam which is reading verses from the Koran with the aim to vilify the Koran and not accepting their true meaning (as we have been discussing for long), you ''should'' end up refusing everything (christianity if you are christian, Judaism if you are Jew..). Otherwise, you are not consistent in your approaches and you are just unfair towards Islam (and towards yourself!).

50. ajm said:

I do refuse the whole thing indeed. I refute the validity of all religions. And thanks to that, I have a chance to see the truth about them, that is, as I am not bound to believe in each and every precepts of a one religion, I become able to compare them in terms of results, of achievements, of objective qualities as revealed by history and fitness in front of the challenges of our time. And I distinguish their original purpose too: they are there to support faith in the first place. People need faith, as plants need water.

You may be correct saying that the right path is a gift from above, but that is just a half of the story. The other is to understand who becomes the gift, and as a recompense for what.

As for hate. If Islam is indeed a religion of hate, as I claim, then I sure am entitled to say it, as loud and clear as I can, and I don’t need to be hateful for that. Not in the least.

Whether I am right or wrong, the close and objective study of Islam will tell. I say let’s have a great divan about that, with all believers and non believers who want to debate it. In Mecca. One of those years. Next year in Mecca, Mohammed?

51. Mohammed To Ajm50 said:

Well, we are already debating it; all what is required is that parties involved should accept results if they are true. If I read a verse in a certain way and muslims who are supposed to apply it in their lifes read it in the way the Koran wants it to be read and happened, why should I insist that it has the meaning I understand :)
Now cocerning you refusal of the three religions, of course its up to you, but just and advice (if you can accept it) just start from the basics:
1. Here we are in World with things following specific rules(composition of air water, gravity forces proportional to masses....)that there is a probability of 0 such things are created as random events and stuff. So definetly there is a creator.
2. ''Who creates the creator'' reasoning shows there is just one ceator.
3. There is a reason for the creation shows there is something one should do towards this creator: basically its worshipping him the way he wants.
4. How do we know how to worship reasoning justifies sending prophets and messengers.
5. The fact that those prophets set the example how to worship God, they should be like us humans so as not we can claim, they are endowed with more ability not to sin that us.
6. The last step is which religion and thats more or less difficult step; but for someone that seeks the truth (and one should cause the stakes are high here: we are talking about hell and paradis), there is nothing better that stugying religions but should start with no prjudices not in the interest of any religion but for his own interest cause as I said, the stakea are high and life is short and unpredictable.

May Allah guide us to his right path and illuminate our heart to accept his true message for our own interest.

52. ajm said:

Debating is good. A divan is better. At the end of the day, a debate without a settling is a loss of time. Only a divan can bring a lawful settling in an Islamic affair. And Islam, today, definitely has to set what is Islam. If it is a religion of hate, it must be abandoned by believers. If it is a good religion, its tenets must be redefined in a way that doesn’t let any place for doubt. A great divan in Mecca could settle that matter. Islam and the world need it.

Let’s take your points:

1. Whether there is a creator or not is irrelevant for assessing religions. You can have religions of love or of hate, good or bad religions, true or false religions either ways.

2. Well, if we accept just any indefinite or infinite variable as element of any “reasoning”, we will be able to make such looping and useless demonstrations. I don’t think that man can and thus should define things that are out of the reach of science yet without first stating that they are but hypothesis and must not be conceived as truth. That is a recurrent reasoning error in religions. What we can and should do, however, is take great care that what we believe (for we have to believe things indeed) stay in line with what observation of reality can reveal as being universal laws.

3. It is an opinion you are fully entitled to. While I don’t think it is worth devoting a whole life, or any institutions, to that activity, I can see that many people strive for such worshipping during one or several periods of their life. So be it. But I’ll propose, as a hypothesis, that the objective results of such worshipping will be as good as the worshipper will be free from any prejudice in his/her approach of the deity. And that implies that religions which offer any intellectual “help” on that path are off base.

A good religion makes worshipping possible and its results fruitful for the community. A bad religion takes for granted what the results of worshipping should be and discards what doesn’t fit its dogma. The right path in-between is extremely thin, if at all. Who can say s/he definitely will do it right? And if that cannot be assessed with certainty, universally, there will be disputes. I say let’s discard all dogmatic religions. As a long-term goal.

4. It is another opinion. I think it is as wrong as can be. A good creator creates wholly. It creates evident things. Therefore, the message is in the creation. We just have to look.

5. Well, yet a third point of view based on an uncertain foundation. But let’s look at it. While it sure is okay to inspire oneself of the example of great souls, it implies a risk proportional to the loss of direct contact with those beings. If we accept that premise, we have to see that legitimate “prophets” can be but contemporary people. If people obviously have some grace about them, and things they do become naturally fruitful and benefic to all, it is okay to follow them, of course. But only as long as you can assess that their deeds are indeed benefic, with your own senses and conscience. Everything else is like running in the dark.

6. The one who truly seeks for the truth doesn’t need religions. For truly pious people, religions only get in the way. Truly pious people are living religions: their very persons are the real religions, as long as they are truly pious.

Now, a divan with several thousands people is a thing that wants to be well prepared. In order to have so much people participate, and vote, we need an infrastructure and an organization. I say we should think about that. How would it look like? How can we organize the whole thing so that all people who really have something to say will be heard, and that the result of the divan will become the publicity it deserves?