Free Thoughts on Iran
Front Page | About FToI | Authors | Archives | Comment Policy | Disclaimer
e-mail

bra.gif Free Speech in Practice | Main | America's Short-Term Memory Dilemma ket.gif

January 24, 2004

Tough Love and Global Adolescents
Guest Author: Alexandra Westland

clericsm36.jpg
Anyone who has been a parent long enough is familiar with the phenomenon of the hormone impaired, know-it-all, teenager, who is a danger to both himself and his friends. The kid who regularly makes his parents desperate to answer one of those ads in the back of the family magazines for a boarding school far, far away that will apply Tough Love to their little spawn and in theory, make him fit for civilized company by the time he is thirty-five.

Adolescents have an over-inflated ego, believing themselves to be super competent, knowing everything as well being convinced they are immortal, while actually suffering from overwhelming feelings of inadequacy and a mortal fear of hard work. Teens consistently want everything their way. They sleep all day if at all possible and stay up too long into the night. They scream, "I hate you," for no apparent reason and in the next breath, demand their allowance. They blame everything on everyone else, especially their parents, while failing to take responsibility for their own actions claiming straight faced, "You made me do it i.e lie, "borrow" the car, “borrow” the money, etc. because you would not let me go with my friends and stay out all weekend." One day the parents wake up and look at their "special" child, the one who was so interesting and had so much potential just yesterday, asking, "Who ARE you"?

So too was the world rudely awakened on 9/11 and is now looking at the Islamic ummah all claiming to be following the "Religion of peace," while some peace lovers were slamming fully loaded jet-planes into sky scrapers, asking: "Who are you"?

On the six-o-clock news, day after day, we watch in bemused bewilderment incessant reruns of the writhing, screeching, spitting sons of Allah, with toothless open mouths, their fists punching the air screaming, "WE HATE YOU, WE HATE YOU, WE HATE YOU," and wonder if they've all got a screw loose or just haven't had any breakfast. Yet, like any good parent, the West is expected to continue giving a generous aid "allowance" in a gesture of unconditional love to the indolent sons of Allah; because, they are not working and are not employable due to having obtained one too many "religious studies" degrees in some non-accredited madrassa—And of course, that is all our fault!

Islamic clerics screech in nasal tones, crying crocodile tears every Friday from the bully pulpit of their mosques, "Islam is perfect! It is for all time! It is absolutely compatible with modernity and of course. . . adulterers must be —stoned." In the meantime, millions of sons of Allah are risking their lives trying to immigrate to the West because in their part of the world obtaining a piece of falafel is getting harder and harder to do.

Like all teens, the sons of Allah claim they know "everything!" EVERYTHING one needs to know is contained in the "perfect" Qur'an and the hadith from nuclear physics to how to cut one's finger nails—i.e., like this: " . . . start from the right index finger to the right small finger then the right thumb. Thereafter, the left hand from the small finger to the thumb. Cutting of the toe nails will be from the small left toe to the small right toe." (Mirqaat vol.2 pg.45) and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best”

And they HATE our clothes. Unlike our adolescents, the sons of Allah don't want us to look "cool" to keep us from embarrassing them down at the mall in front of their friends. No, the sons of Allah prefer we make ourselves downright ugly in a shroud made by Omar the Tentmaker, a garment that will hide the shapes of our women and make our females look as unappealing as theirs. Although, fair is fair. It would really be a blessing if some of our 300-pounders would wear the burqa. One cannot deny that the veil certainly does solve the "what to wear" dilemma if one only has one sack in one color—black—simple.

Like any adolescents, the sons of Allah are hormone impaired and sex obsessed. The whole focus of their failing societies appears to be on how to keep evil in check by covering the source of evil—women—from head to toe to fingertips, so as not to let "evil out" an evil that would tempt those weak, undisciplined sons of Allah into immorality. In the mean time, they are "doing it," behind the tent with the sanction of a little thing called "temporary marriage,” to anything that is moving from nine to twenty-five. After that, women are too old anyway and only good for being recycled for 72 raisins in Paradise.

And of course, like any kid, the sons of Allah insist on their right to obtaining things that are dangerous, such as WMDs, long before they are mature enough to handle these; shrieking and demonstrating that "everybody" else has them, especially the highly precocious Jewish neighbor kid, the one who consistently wins the science prizes and plays the violin to boot.

So we pace and debate and worry that the recalcitrant sons of Allah are going to do something rash and hurt someone in their adolescent zeal, all the while asking the professionals, "What to do, what to do"? The answer comes to us after much soul searching and many sleepless nights:

"Now, darlings, you just calm down and drink your tea. No, you can not play with those nukes!

Mommy is just going to have lie down in a darkened room with a cold cloth on her head. And after the migraine goes away, she will call about that nice boarding school in the middle of nowhere, the one with the great, big fence around it, that might be able to apply some Tough Love and make you fit for civilization in a decade or two; not to mention bring up your test scores. In the mean time, we'll just have to lock you all in your room."

© 2003 Alexandra Westland
Westland is a writer who travels a great deal in Europe, the U.S. and Asia; never staying in one place very long, thus, keeping herself a moving target. Not being obese and having made a heavy investment in a wardrobe, Westland has no intention of wearing a burqa. Given the penchant of the "Religion of peace and tolerance” to issue death fatwas for telling the truth, Westland also has no intention of using anything but a pseudonym.

For more on how this post was formed, look at the background information provided at WessLog.
Comments
Tautologist at January 25, 2004 12:46 AM [permalink]:

And what is "THE" truth that you are bragging about.

ابومنظور جوزجانی از او پرسيد:

- حرف بزن حقيقت چيست ؟

وشرزين در پاسخ گفت:

- سخنی که اززبان لالی گفته می شود و کری ميشنود وکوری برکاغذ می آورد

Ali Mostashari at January 25, 2004 02:15 AM [permalink]:

When parents don't take responsibility:
Links between Abuse/Neglect and Juvenile/Teenage Delinquency

Overwhelming numbers of adolescent runaways, teens involved in delinquent acts or violent behaviors, and adult criminal and sexual offenders report childhood histories of physical battering, emotional abuse and sexual exploitation. Researchers have used interviews, case file analysis and reviews of court and protective services records to determine the prevalence of maltreatment in the lives of incarcerated adolescents. Results consistently reveal a history of recurring and often severe maltreatment in the childhood of delinquent teens.

A 1998 Boston University study concludes that children who are abused and neglected are 1.8 times more likely to be arrested as juveniles, and 1.5 times more likely to be arrested as adults, than children who have not been exposed to abuse or neglect.This is an alarming trend, as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts predicts a 24 percent increase in the adolescent population between 1995 and 2005.

Without intervention to stop the trend of juvenile incarceration, we will continue on the path of building more prisons for our abused/neglected children and the adults they will become rather than investing in prevention and treatment options that would improve their opportunities for success.[278] As Margaret Mead has stated aptly: "The solution of adult problems tomorrow depends in large measure upon the way our children grow up today. There is no greater insight into the future than recognizing when we save our children we save ourselves."

Source:
Massachusetts Call to Action Website
http://www.masskids.org/cta/cta_vi_ch18.html

Wessie at January 25, 2004 03:14 AM [permalink]:
Thank you for that long quote Ali, even though the editors object to such material from other sites. They move mine to Wesslog regularly. ;-) There certainly are many, many abused and neglected children in the U.S. who ultimately become criminals. However, not one of them has yet strapped on an explosives belt and murdered innocents in the name of Christian jihad, half-way around the world. We aren't breeding these children by the millions, instructing them in special schools to hate the Islamic world, urging them to demonstrate in the streets screaming "DEATH TO ISLAMIC TERRORISM!" Not too many of our people have sought revenge for 9/11 or for other Islamic atrocities against the West prior to 9/11. However, there are a few western born Muslims who have committed jihad against the "infidel." Therefore, since you are comparing the education of children: Child to killer by Fatima Farideh Nedjat Reasons behind idolization of destructiveness ". . . The relationship between the status of women in the "constructed Islam" (different from what the holy book prescribes) by the heads of some theocratic governments and the environmental profile of being raised by some abused mothers in a religiously strict, ascetic household lead us to the psychological, ideological, and sociological reasons why one can be encouraged to idolize destructiveness in order to become a martyr. I describe a few socially situated conditions among such populations. The lack of public and economic benefits results in functional illiteracy. Women's oppression then flourishes under these constructed Islamic traditions. This creates dominant psychological conditions that promote fundamentalism. The political aspect of suicide bombing among Muslim fundamentalists is the central concept of this paper. We must understand the instigating forces that drive individuals to become perpetrators of suicide bombing. These influences are divided into four categorical segments: The psychological impact of family environment; the moral efficacy of religion; hegemonic ideology; and a society of organized violence. All of these forces are inculcated through women's oppression, the agent whose nurturing power becomes dysfunctional. The backbone of such structure is a theocratic government ruled by hard-line fundamentalist militants, whose outlook is determined by a literal interpretation of scripture. This oppression produces fundamentalist households in which abused, narcissistic mothers raise children. The current global violence perpetrated in the name of "God" by the Islamism fundamentalists makes one wonder what encourages individuals to act so violently. What is the ideology behind the phenomenon that enforces such behavior? The viewpoint justifying the act of violence is defined as "retaliation and retribution" in the classical Shari'a law. Muslim societies living under this ideology must systematize such ideology within the government, in order to execute punishments terrorizing the unbeliever, or the enemy of Islam. The violent act of suicide bombing and the moral efficacy of religion are interlocking. The government passively observes as the disease of intellectual deprivation is spread among lower socio-economic groups that are functionally illiterate. The interrelation of martyrdom and reprisal are positively reinforced within the social context as a pillar of Islam, Jihad. The child growing up is conditioned to believe in martyrdom. For instance, during the Ira ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Borghan N. Narajabad at January 25, 2004 05:02 AM [permalink]:

Beside all of junk comparison made in this post, usage of "sons of Allah" reminds me how most of western people, despite their claimed intellectuality, can not see the world other than the way their parent taught them.

No Muslim considers himself/herself "son" of "Allah", and as a matter of fact that is against the very basic faith of Islam.

I should remind those arrogant people, who still believe they are “son of God” the time when they use to drill the skull of mentally ill people so devil can come out of their brain, while hundreds of volumes of Muslims’ medical books were written about treating mental disease by psychological methods.

History is full of ups and downs, but it shows arrogance is sign of ignorance!

Borghan N. Narajabad at January 25, 2004 05:27 AM [permalink]:

Wessie writes:
“There certainly are many, many abused and neglected children in the U.S. who ultimately become criminals. However, not one of them has yet strapped on an explosives belt and murdered innocents in the name of Christian jihad”

Christian Jihad! You think the last one was during crusades, huh?

I don’t know how we should categorize “Ku Klux Klan”? I bet it’s common to consider them just a racist group; but can one underestimate their claimed holly Christian cause? And if you think it’s just part of history: it’s less than 2 years since then to-be majority-leader of US senate, from Conservative-Christian GOP lost his position because of his swift segregationist remarks.


It seems arrogance sometimes provoks ignorance not only about others, but also about yourself!

Just don’t get me wrong about how I think of Christianity. I’m just trying to say, Wessie’s points are as ridiculous as trying to condemn Anthropology just because Hitler used it for justifying his racist conducts.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at January 25, 2004 06:30 AM [permalink]:

That was a well written article, and quite funny as well. I for one enjoyed it a lot and agree with most of the analogies. I'm just wondering how to portray the normal poor and non-fanatic people among those fundamentalists in your analogy....
I also liked Ali Mostashari's continuation of it. Wessie, he was not talking about western children! you didn't get it, did you? It was more of a remark on why those 'sons of allah' might have become so impaired and what the best logical way is to deal with the situation.
Anyway, I had a good time reading this. :)

AIS at January 25, 2004 07:03 AM [permalink]:

O, and since some of the hot tempers are cooled a bit now, let me also apologize to you Wessie for my tone. Although my criticisms of you still stand, nothing justifies my using such tones. As you can see I have no problem in conceding to my mistakes and apologizing for them. I ahve already done that a couple of times here as well.... :)

AIS at January 25, 2004 08:00 AM [permalink]:

And a spelling correction:
Islam is not the religion of 'peace', it is the religion of 'pieces'!

Mehdi Y. at January 25, 2004 01:48 PM [permalink]:

Well, the article by Alexandria is a typical misguided mentality currently shared by unfortunately a considerable number of people in the West. This is a mentality that claims democracy, tolerance and diversity but at the same harbors one the most intolerat and hateful worldview.

Alexandira is an example of someone who watches Foxnews and CNN, learns about Middle East through the eyes of Tomas Friedman and twisted self-hating Middle Easterns.

Islam is a great religion which has survived for 1400 years. It will survive desparate attacks of people like Alexandria and will also survive the abuses of Mullahs and religious extremists.

Wessie at January 25, 2004 02:13 PM [permalink]:
First AIS, let me thank you for your public apology. That is very big of you. You are a gentleman and a scholar. :-) Second, I am glad that you liked the article and found it humorous. It was meant to be quite funny as well as stingingly truthful. I had people in my office rolling on the floor after reading it. Although there were the usual concerns about a "religion of peace" fatwa. ;-) As to Ali's post—given that he used U.S. statistics, I felt that it was important to counter with the pertinent information for the SoA and how they are educated. It is not the same in the U.S. as I mentioned, since we have no madrassas. The closest thing might be "gang education" which of course is not formal, but just as lethal. The striking similarity is that gangs will try to murder anyone who tries to leave—same as Islam. --- Borghan, can you be specific as to what is ridiculous about the article? Which points are not true? Please name them. You cite the Crusades, yet the last one was finished hundreds of years ago. The SoA continually forget that the First Crusade was called because of Islamic aggression having taken over the Holy Land from its historical inhabitants the Jews and the Christians; peoples who resided in the region thousands and hundreds of years, respectively, prior to the invention of Islam. What have the SoA done since the last Crusade to bring the ummah out of the dark ages? The KKK in the U.S. is finished—bankrupt. It was destroyed financially via legal suits by the Southern Poverty Law Center.Landmark KKK Lawuits here. The SPLC is an excellent place to learn as to what is being done in the U.S. regarding hate, intolerance and discrimination. http://www.splcenter.org/ And yes, isn't it a GREAT thing that a man such as the powerful Trent Lot was forced to resign for his racist remarks! When will such a thing happen in the Islamic world? Perhaps Muslims could start a "Muslim Poverty Law Center" and sue the perpetrators of intolerance and hatred within their societies. Certainly that would keep an army of attorneys gainfully employed for a life-time. As to being the "sons of God" If one believes that God is the creator of men then it follows that we are all the "children of that God." The free West has a problem with the Islamic concept of humans being "slaves of Allah." As to using the term the "sons of Allah" (for which Oriana Fallaci must be credited in her book "The Rage and The Pride") I felt it might be less annoying to some than saying Muslims or SOBs. If you like, we could substitute either in the next, edited, version of the article. ;-) "History is full of ups and downs, but it shows arrogance is sign of ignorance!" Absolutely! And nothing is more ignorant or arrogant than a SoA who believes that the Qur'an is a peaceful document that was inspired by God, and that the Islamic nation is “the best of peoples,” when all evidence, particularly in the modern era, points to the contrary. As AIS said, "Islam is the religion of pieces," those pieces are body parts. The Qur'an is a war manual with a great majority of it dedicated to instructions on how to subjugate the "unbelievers" and how to attain war booty including slaves for Islam. Here we have Chapter 48 of the Qur'an: AL-FATH (VICTORY, CONQUEST) Total Verses: 29 Revealed At: MADINA http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/048.qmt.html#048.001 There is nothing comparable in any other Holy book, particularly those of the monotheistic religions. Wessi ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at January 25, 2004 02:27 PM [permalink]:

I guess you did not find the article funny, huh, Medhi? ;-)

Medhi, please specify EXACTLY what is incorrect or untruthful about the article instead of using generalities. It would be good if you posted supporting documentation to substantiate your claims.

BTW, the author's name is Alexandra. Alexandria is a city in Egypt.

How do you know what sorts of news programs the author watches or what sorts of articles the author reads? Thus far supporting documentation has been from Islamic sources and not CNN, FOX or Mr. Friedman.

Wessie

Azad at January 25, 2004 04:39 PM [permalink]:

Just for a clarification:

Jerusalem was taken by the caliph Umar in the 7th cent. First Crusade started in 1096 (i.e. about 400 years after the invasion of Jerusalem).

And also read this (from www.encyclopedia.com):

Late in the 11th cent., Byzantine Emperor Alexius I , threatened by the Seljuk Turks, appealed to the West for aid. This was not the first appeal of the kind; while it may have helped to determine the time and the route of the First Crusade, 1095-99, its precise import is difficult to estimate. Direct impetus was given the crusade by the great speech of Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont (now Clermont-Ferrand) in 1095. Urban exhorted Christendom to go to war for the Sepulcher, promising that the journey would count as full penance and that the homes of the absent ones would be protected by a truce. The battle cry of the Christians, he urged, should be "Deus volt" [God wills it]. From the crosses that were distributed at this meeting the Crusaders took their name. Bishop Ademar of Le Puy-en-Velay was designated as papal legate for the crusade, and Count Raymond IV of Toulouse was the first of the leaders of the expedition to take the cross.

Don't you see a similarty between Pope Urban II speech and todays hardliner mullas calling for a Holly war?

The Bass Voice at January 25, 2004 04:51 PM [permalink]:

Stinging and funny--truth, that is. Well said, Alexandra!

Mamdali at January 25, 2004 05:30 PM [permalink]:

Danke Azad.
God's will, God's gift, God's present, liberty delivery 24/7 ...

SG at January 25, 2004 05:35 PM [permalink]:

Just stopped by to see what's going on in FToI. Since can't handle a lot of crap today, just browsed the *names* of comment-writers. Found Tautologist's quote refreshing, maybe just for the simple reason that it is written in a language that *I* can read and enjoy, but the writer of this entry cannot. :-> Gotta go...

hajir at January 25, 2004 05:35 PM [permalink]:
The writer (Alexandra) has proved her ignorance and nothing more. Her anger has dominated the article and one gets nothing out of it but some hateful remarks about Islam. The article is more to soothe the anger of some people like Wessie and AIS against Islam and has no other value. The biggest mistake of the writer; Calling muslims by the name "sons of Allah" is her worst mistake that reveals her ignorance about the most fundamental principle of Islam which is Tawheed. 1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; 2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; 3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 4. And there is none like unto Him. (Surah Ikhlas) If she doesn't know about this first principle of Islam, then how can we give any credit to the rest of her article which is supposedly about Islam? She writes: "Unlike our adolescents, the sons of Allah don't want us to look "cool" to keep us from embarrassing them down at the mall in front of their friends." Muslims must do their best to look cool. Prophet said: "Allah is beautiful and loves beauty." One of Allah's names is "Beautiful". Beautiful things are signs of Allah SWT and we pay attention to them not only by our eyes but by our hearts and in any beautiful thing or person, we see Allah's beauty and we praise him for creating this beautiful world; he has created everything in perfection: 95:4 We have indeed created man in the best of moulds. It is the right of our body upon us to look after our body and keep ourselves in good shape and good health. It's the right of our brothers upon us to look good in front of them and please them by our look and good manners. Prophet SAW before going out of home used to look at himself at the mirror and say: "O Allah! You beautified my look, so beautify my manners too." She writes: "Like all teens, the sons of Allah claim they know "everything!" EVERYTHING one needs to know is contained in the "perfect" Qur'an and the hadith from nuclear physics to how to cut one's finger nails—i.e., like this: " . . . start from the right index finger to the right small finger then the right thumb. Thereafter, the left hand from the small finger to the thumb. Cutting of the toe nails will be from the small left toe to the small right toe." (Mirqaat vol.2 pg.45) and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best” " Please notice that it was 1400 years ago when prophet SAW talked about cutting the nails. Though clippin the nails is amongst the teachings of prophet, I didn't find any hadith about the order of clipping one's nail in the 6 authentic books of hadith. Islam is indeed a completed and perfected path to Allah SWT. This doesn't mean that we can find the answer to all our questions directly from the primary sources of Islam. The answers to questions regarding nuclear physics, as the writer suggests, cannot be found in Quran or Hadith. Prophet Mohammad SAW and the companions or the Salaf never claimed that all questions can be answered by Islam. She also writes: "On the six-o-clock news, day after day, we watch in bemused bewilderment incessant reruns of the writhing, screeching, spitting sons of Allah, with toothless open mouths..." This reveals her sources of knowledge (i.e. the six-o-clock news); this shows the huge impact of media in distorting the image of Islam in America. But still thousands of americans manage to find out the truth by themselves and revert to Islam, the religion that they had at the time of birth. "Toothless open mouths" is the phrase that catches my ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Laugh at January 25, 2004 05:59 PM [permalink]:

I am really worried about America if the most strong and sincere Muslims are living there.

Case for applying for my Japanese immigration maybe.

By the way there are 10 million muslims in France. That is the country with a real problem not US, I think.

Wessie at January 25, 2004 06:29 PM [permalink]:

No, Azad, I don't see "a similarty between Pope Urban II speech and todays hardliner mullas calling for a Holly war?"

What I see is the history that Islam burst out of Arabia with violence, just as it says to do in the Qur'an, and conquered lands where it had no business being—the Holy Land and Iran as well. The First Crusade was called to get the Holy Land back from the Muslims. In other words the Muslim STOLE the Holy Land just as they STOLE so many other places they occupy today—like Iran.

What right do hardline mullahs have to call "holy war"? Who has taken anything away from them? The West, particularly the U.S. has helped Muslims all over the world. It was Islam that attacked the West on 9/11 and many times before that, and not vice versa!
---
No time now to answer dear Hajir. But, just for his clarification, the article is not a research article, otherwise there would have been references, it is humorous. ;-)

I need to get into one of those decadent, little Western dresses, one that shows lots of skin and meet old friends for dinner. Being a thoroughly western woman, and very competitive, I have no problem if a Muslimah wants to make herself look ugly in a shroud—however "stylish and colorful." Because, that makes the rest of us normal people look better. ;-)

I look forward to seeing all sorts of interesting people of both genders, of many ethnicities and cultures in the restaurant, dressed to the nines or not as they wish, having a wonderful time together. People will greet each other with handshakes, kisses and hugs. Men and women in love will be holding hands and touching each other across the table in public. They will also be drinking alcohol with their food. After dinner we shall all go dancing in a place where more alcohol is served. Imagine, people of opposite genders writhing together on the dance floor, sweating to the pulsating beat. Who knows what can happen after that. . . ;-)

Wessie

Saeed S at January 25, 2004 07:11 PM [permalink]:

I should congratulate US media for their effective transformation of US to a BLIND nation.

As for your hatred, I left a more complete comment in “WHEN WILL YOU BE CLEARED?” to address your criticism in some details. In short you need to consider the US role (and its father, small Britain) in the transformation of Middle East to what it is now.

As I explained in that comment, which I referred to here, radicalization of Iran is partly due to your coup in 1953 and the vacuum it created. It was then that the tree of hatred started growing and it takes time and effort on your side to take out the tree from its roots and the reinterpretation of Quran or “burning” it will not help in that regard.

You also gave birth to Al Quada for the “holy” cause of fighting the “evil” communism. And if they try to get nuclear bomb, it’s because their father (in the context of your analogy) is a drunk monster that can’t be trusted!

One necessary part of the resolution for the problems in the Middle East is to quarantine US! Unfortunately the cow is too big to be quarantined easily.

Wessie, keep up with the hatred. It does show nothing but your ignorance and ….

Let me be clear that I don’t want to answer you and I think you don’t deserve to get an answer. This is just to give another perspective to the readers of this website.

Mamadali Hafsman at January 25, 2004 09:05 PM [permalink]:

Dear Mr.Wessie,

I'm not at all a kind of person who rifles through Holy Books to find some evidence that they don't match the modern life. But since you are interested in these kind of things I've put together a humble list which may be invigorating when you want to surmonize for Jewish brothers :

1. Stoning for Blasphemy:

"Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." (Leviticus 24:16)

2. Death Penalty for murder :

"You shall not take a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death" (Numbers 35:31).

3. Eye to Eye :

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." (Leviticus 24:19-20)


4. Adultery :

"If a man commits adultery with the wife of another man, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (Leviticus 20:1).

5. Polygamy :

Although the Torah implies that monogamy is the preferred and ideal state, both the Tanakh and the Talmud allow polygamy.

Again don't get me wrong, it's just FYI (Wessie) corresponding your field of research.

Mehrad at January 25, 2004 09:42 PM [permalink]:

As my post was pointless, this comment is aimless. No talking to anybody. No shooting at nobody. Just thinking aloud. And apology if I'm not that gentle...

I don't think nobody gains no shit from kicking others' ass. Why not just be friends and enjoy the disagreement?

It's simple. You push somewhere, I tell ya it hurts, does it not seem humane, rationale, cool or fuckever not to push it again? It's easy to laugh at, be it american girls in Italy or toothless boys in Iraq. It's even easier to call somebody ignorant, be it Christian or Muslim or Jew. And it's the easiest to make any of these mad. But why?

And just one more thing, History has far better functions than proving each others' guilt with or finding the shit out of it to throw at each others' face. Why not just enjoy reading it?

hazhir at January 25, 2004 09:53 PM [permalink]:

It seems to me that Alexandra's hatred against Muslims is mainly fueled by her perception of Muslims being these dangerous creatures who are lining up for killing Americans. This picture is well aligned with what one can get from public media here: from the angry Muslims in Pakistan who are shouting against the U.S. to Palestinian young children who put on explosive belts and kill innocent Israelis, they all confirm this picture.
I think there is some truth in this picture, many of us coming from Iran have experienced the kind of intolerance that extremists can nurture into blind violence. Yet, I also believe this is a very biased picture, as it ignores all the diversity that exists among different Muslims, painting everybody with the same brush. This is where Borghan’s example of counting KKK as what is U.S. makes the point. There is a lot to be said on this regard, but let me just give the example of international terrorism:
Do you think Muslims are the main source of international terrorism and Americans the main target? If so, you are wrong! Looking at the patterns of global terrorism in the world, neither middle east comes up to be in the first place for abundance of terrorism (in fact it hardly gets to third or forth place among 7 regions of the world), nor U.S. has a significant share of victims of terrorism (except for 2001). The state department report on patterns of global terrorism gives a good overview on this issue (check out the statistical overview for a quick summary):
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/

The report does not provide the data to correlate between the religion and terrorism, yet, I suspect from the regional trends provided, that the per person share of Muslims in doing terrorist activities is not higher than any other religious groups. In fact even if that was not the case (i.e. Muslims had the highest rate of terrorist act among different religious groups), one could not label hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims as terrorist. This is the type of generalization that we can see in Alexandra’s article, as well as in stereotypes about Muslims in the U.S.

One a more personal note, many of us in this forum have suffered similar hatred caused by intolerance and blind generalizations that viewed us in our country as dangerous infiltrators from the west, hippies and punks, or plain infidels. That is why I see an ironic parallelism between the views of people like Wessie and Muslim hardliners she claims to hate. Here is the subtle point: The decisive line is not between Muslims and non-muslims, the line of separation is between those who believe in tolerance, dialogue and understanding of differences, and those who don’t!

Mehdi Y. at January 25, 2004 10:15 PM [permalink]:

Salam Pax has a nice paragraph which is worth quoting here:
"And Salam wanted that as well. When you get pushed into a corner because of a name and a place of birth you try to make the best out of the corner you have been pushed into. And believe me being pushed into the corner labeled [young male of Middle Eastern / Muslim origin] hasn’t been much fun lately. But since it is all you have you dig deeper into it and hold on to it. The current western world view has antagonized a huge number of people, the West wasn’t that interested in dialogue. We were simply labeled as Muslim terrorist.
One of the more amusing results of this has been my friend’s G arrest by American soldiers while he was on a job for an American Newspaper. He was given the head-sack and an angry soldier shouted at him “it was you [your type] who attacked the world trade center”. Now this is funny because G. is so pro-American it gets to me sometimes, he is Christian (but he hates it when you tell him that because he really is “agnostic”), so why did the soldier accuse him of attacking the World Trade Center? Because he had a Muslim looking beard and looked “of mid-eastern origin”. "

Ali Mostashari at January 25, 2004 11:48 PM [permalink]:

Wessie,
I don't understand how you missed the point of my comment twice in a row :) Instead of blaming you for it, I am going to assume that my point wasn't made clear enough. While I don't think the analogy you used was particularly insightful in any way, I was following up on the analogy you made (Good mature America as parent, deliquent, muslim adolescents as the teenage sons to be spanked and disciplined). With that analogy, I was pointing out to the fact that maybe it was the parents (good old USA) who through their abusive relationship with their children made them into the deliquent, adolscents that they are now. Anyway, given that you didn't get it, don't worry about it too much.

Tautologist at January 26, 2004 12:03 AM [permalink]:

Some random days in reverse chronological order
July 3, 1988
September 11, 1973
August 19, 1953
August 9, 1945
August 6, 1945

Wessie at January 26, 2004 01:27 AM [permalink]:
Ali, I did not miss your point. I simply am NOT buying it. You and your friends want to blame everything on the U.S. and the West like recalcitrant adolescents. Have you not noticed that no one is buying it except perhaps the Chomskeyites? The reason I posted the article "Child to Killer" from the Iranian is because the author blames your cultures and Islam–just as the rest of the world does. Making the U.S. an "abusive" parent is a cop out. When will your people grow up and take responsibility for themselves and their actions? The U.S. has acknowledged that supporting the theocratic rulers of Islam was not good. When will you all acknowledge that you are responsible for those who lead you? You, yourself, Ali wrote an article to that effect here: http://freethoughts.org/archives/000238.html Ali Mahani at November 2, 2003 08:30 AM: "No, don’t give me that crap “ It’s the Iranian government, not the people”… The bunch of thieves and tarts running this country were brought to power by no-one but the PEOPLE, and the same people should have the courage to pull their heads out of their collective arses and take responsibility for their acts: You folks constantly speak of hatred. I have never once in my life used the world "hate" against any race or ethnic group. You interpret criticism of your cultures and Islam as hatred. It is simply criticism. You all criticize the U.S. and the West with impunity. Yet, we are not sending terrorists all over the world to target innocents. We don't send female suicide jihadis to deliberately stand next to baby carriages and blow ourselves up. But, Muslims do that. BTW—Salam Pax has lost his "lustre" in the West. We realize that he is clearly an opportunist. There are far better Iraqi bloggers. We in the West believe in tolerance and diaglogue. The problem is that Islamic nations have no clue how to do that. The West is labeled as debauched and decadent and that is all you see—yet, you all want to come here anyway. One wonders about all the innovations, the developments the inventions that the West has made, which the Middle East and the rest of the world gladly use—why do you all forget about those things? Without those things, ALL developed in the West, modern life would not be possible! What EXACTLY have Muslims produced in the lasts 500 years except more of the same—Islamic terror? Mamadali, quoting the Bible is plain silly given that no one stones people any longer in any other culture except Islam. Polygamy may be "permitted" but, you'd be hard pressed in the civilized world to find it. It certainly is not legal as all of the above are in the Islamic world. Ditto for any of the other quotes. The only religion that is still in the 7th century is Islam! The rest have had a reformation and are living with their modernized religions in the modern world. Saeed, you claim we are responsible for al Qaeda!? Now that is a bit of a stretch. Do you remember the Muslim Brotherhood? The blame game will only get you more of the same— disdain from the world. You may believe that there is a lot of anti-Americanism in the world and that may be so. But, you can see by the security measures implemented worldwide that people and their governments are much more concerned about Islamic extremism that anti-Americanism. You can see by the articles being written, the Islamic terror funding trails being shut down, the Islamic terrorists being arrested that Muslims are not exactly the “favorite son” at this time ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
AmericanWoman at January 26, 2004 02:23 AM [permalink]:

I just want to go on record as saying that I, for one, am a big fan of Shalwar and Kameez. There is not a more flattering, utilitarian, comfortable, well-designed type of apparel anywhere in the world at any time in history. As the engineers say, it is elegant. I would happily wear nothing but S&K for the rest of my life. In fact, I do wear a clumsy imitation every day to work (medical scrubs). Most of the utility, none of the charm. I don't believe Muslims universally HATE our clothes. All the ones I know personally are far more discerning than any American I ever met. In fact, now that I think of it, an Afghani taught me pretty much everything I know about dressing well. Subtle things, like putting together colors to make sale items look "designer." I think generally people who identify themselves primarily by their religion object to a certain style of dress, lets call it "Pamela Anderson," (and they are not the only ones), but are Muslims any worse than Mormons, or the Amish? I took my kids to a Greek Orthodox Monastery last weekend, and we all had to wear headscarves,long skirts, and jackets to cover our arms. We were uncomfortable, and finally had to leave because the kids couldn't stand the scarves any more, but even the 9 year old understood it was a gesture of respect. It's only in my own religion, Catholicism that there is absolutely no dress code, dress hasn't been mentioned since the 60's. Any other time in my life I've attended some kind of religious ceremony I've received instructions on what is or is not acceptable to wear. I was a reader at a Bat Mitzvah last Spring and I was informed 4 times that I had to cover my arms. My point is, something about religion doesn't like any emphasis on the body. Or maybe it's just the patriarchal religions, trying to eliminate distractions.

Wessie at January 26, 2004 03:37 AM [permalink]:

AW the point of the article, aside from being funny, regarding clothes is that many Muslims are constantly trying to impose their values on the rest of the world while denigrating ours. So, they claim our women dress like "whores" because we prefer to reveal skin—and they want us to cover up. That's all fine for them. But NOT for us!

I say, don't come to the West and impose your values on us. No "infidel" can go to any Islamic land and dress as he wants. If we travel to a Muslim country we have to wear a scarf at the least and a full abaya or burqa at worst. Why should Muslims dictate to the world what we can wear? Why should Muslims in an Islamic land demonstrate for the hijab in the West. It is NONE of their business what Western laws are! We don't have people demonstrating in our streets that our women have to wear hijab (against our customs) in Islamic lands.

I know women who have traveled in the Middle East and have been spat at by men and women because they did not dress "appropriately." Can you imagine if someone did that in the West to a veiled Muslim woman? They would be SCREAMING "racism" again.

There is a difference between wearing modest clothing in a house of worship and being dictated to as to what one can wear on the street or even at home. What good is Shalwar Kameez, Caftan or whatever if one has to wear a sack over these?

Hajir imagines that Muslim women dress in hijab voluntarily because they are "higher" than Western women. That is not always the case. In Iran young women are rebelling as much as they dare. They wear as little as possible under the chador and let their hair peek out. Sometimes they get beaten for it.


"At the parties I go to I see girls wearing very open clothes - short skirts and low-cut evening tops," Parisa says. . .

"Today's young people want freedoms in line with what the young have everywhere else in the world. Because they are denied that we are a society in crisis," she says. .. ."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3053383.stm

Iran has been "locked in a room" for several decades now. They are ready to burst out. It is just a matter of time.

What gives Muslim men the right to impose 7th century mores on their women and even presume to do the same to non-Muslim women?


"Malaysian city rules on women"

"The Islamic government in the Malaysian city of Kuala Terengganu has laid down strict new laws about what non-Muslim women can wear to work.

The rules, which ban even moderately revealing clothing, are an unprecedented attempt to impose the party's values on the personal lives of non-believers in Malaysia. . .

. . .Even non-Muslims will be banned from wearing short sleeved blouses, tight jeans, skirts with slits, or skirts cut above the knee.

Muslim women will have to wear a tudong, a headscarf drawn tightly about the face. . .
. ..
The state government has decided to close down karaoke lounges and snooker halls and to bar Muslims from all premises where liquor is sold. . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3368115.stm

---

After much protest the law for more "modest" clothing for non-Muslim women has been lifted. But, you can bet that they will try it again at a later time.

Clothes Nazis, that's what Muslim men are! ;-)

Lisa S. at January 26, 2004 03:52 AM [permalink]:

Wessie!
Go get a life!
Get a hold of yourself woman!

Best Wishes,
Lisa S.

AIS at January 26, 2004 04:36 AM [permalink]:

Hajir,
"Islam is indeed a completed and perfected path to Allah SWT."

Does that also include slavery which Islam endorsed. And don't give me 'the situation at the time' thing, because you just said it was a complete and perfect path. Besides somehow 'the situation' did allow banning something as harmless and natural as drinking alcohol, including wine which in all other monotheistic religions,including Zoroastrianism if you accept it as one, has a religious significance. But slavery was OK? This is perfection?!
What about genocide? (a la the tribe of bani quradha for example), political asassination (Kaab), or having sex witha nine year old? They are signs of a perfect path to God? How about kissing a meteorite and walking round it, a bit pagan don't you think?
(Sorry Hajir for picking on you all the time, you at least present verses and evidence. The other guy, Saeed just says how much he has read the Koran nd that it is so peaceful and democratic, but for some reason others who have read it through history, including its own experts Mullahs and Muftis and the like who spend their life time studying the very same Quran miss what Saeed sees so clearly. So I simply ignor his baseless remarks. :) )


Mamadali Hafsman,

Indeed the Tanakh is FULL of such things, but even before the middle ages many of it were considered banned to be practiced by the Rabbis. You know, those 'bad guys' who have this bad habit of changing the words of the 'merciful' God. Stoning ahs not been practiced for even before the birth of Islam. It is an on going culture. Those parts are very old, have you read the laws of Hammurabi as well? The Islamic one is practiced to this very day in our Iran, buddy.
Muyhammad and Islam, unlike the mythological beginnings of the Bible, belong to politicl history and that is not disputable. Islam is unchangable, remember?

Ali Mahani at January 26, 2004 06:09 AM [permalink]:

Wessie: "You, yourself, Ali wrote an article to that effect here:

http://freethoughts.org/archives/000238.html

Ali Mahani at November 2, 2003 08:30 AM: "No, don’t give me that crap ...


There seems to be a bit of a mix-up here. It was me (Ali Mahani) who wrote that article, while the person you are replying to is named Ali Mostashari. I haven't taken part in the present discussion of "Tough Love and Gloabl Adolescents".

With regards,
Ali Mahani

Saeed S at January 26, 2004 10:28 AM [permalink]:

I don't see the concept of brotherhood here, Wessie. I feel the brotherhood with AlQuada as much as I feel brotherhood with Sharon. This presentation of the concept of brotherhood by itself shows how deep your understanding of Islam is.

AIS, I have come up with a lot of evidences during my other comments ,the most recent one, “EBADI RECONSIDERED” and I explained quite thoroughly why your understanding is wrong (=SIMPLISTIC).

Loose Can at January 26, 2004 11:25 AM [permalink]:

I think Wessie is talking about the Muslim Brotherhood organization that existed in Egypt well before the new generations of Islamic Terrorism...

See for yourself, from Wikipedia.

Saeed S at January 26, 2004 12:24 PM [permalink]:

United States ARMED the group that we call now AlQuada. That's a historical FACT. A very recent one!

You can also trace back the foundation of Muslim Brotherhood to see how British policies at the time fostered Islamic fundamentalism.

Vahid at January 26, 2004 01:25 PM [permalink]:

Wessie,

Why don't you use your real name, and give a real bio. "Westland" for sure is not your real last name, or is it?
All the authors on free thoughts do so. They are not afraid of using their real name, give they real occupation. It gives their post more creadibility.
I am sure you are not afraid of taking responsibility for your ideas. By the way, have you also travelled to Middle East?

hajir at January 26, 2004 11:06 PM [permalink]:
AIS, I understand your points and I cannot claim that I know all things about Islam. It's a matter of belief and disbelief. When I believe in Allah and his messenger, then I believe in whatever that is presented to me through Allah's book and the messenger's words and actions. About each one of the points you mentioned, numerous books have been written. I try to comment on some of your remarks. Slavery: Yes Islam accepts slavery in a very limited form. The majority of scholars believe that taking slaves is only allowed during war against the enemy; During such times, muslims are allowed to take the enemy soldiers as slaves. An example is to use them as work forces in prisons or elsewhere. But in any case slaves have great rights upon the masters (for example the government or the owner if they are sold to the public; the latter case is very unlikely in present times because of the dangerous consequences); Having said this, if the islamic state signs an agreement (for example international conventions), then it has to follow the items in that agreement and Islam has never said that it is obligatory to treat the soldiers as slaves; a popular example is when prophet SAW freed the enemy soldiers in condition they would teach 10 muslims how to read and write. So the point is simple: Slavery is allowed but limited to international agreements. It was an unwritten law in 1400 years ago that people would take the enemy as slaves. The law is different now; it may change 1000 years from now; Islam is for all ages. Islam doesn't say slavery is forbidden because there may come times where slavery is practiced again. We don't know what direction this world is taking. This is what prophet has said about slaves: Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The faithful and diligent slave will have a double reward.'' (Abu Hurairah added:) By Him in Whose Hand the soul of Abu Hurairah is! but for Jihad in the Cause of Allah, and Hajj and kindness to my mother, I would have preferred to die as a slave. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]. i.e. when a slave prays, his reward is twice a free muslim's prayer. Mohammad SAW said so to honour the slaves and higher their status in the eyes of the community. Also: Abu Ali Suwaid bin Muqarrin (May Allah be pleased with him) said: I was the seventh child of Banu Muqarrin and we had only one slave-girl. When the youngest of us once happened to slap her (on the face) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) ordered us to set her free. [Muslim]. Subhanallah! Abu Mas`ud Al-Badri (May Allah be pleased with him) said: I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me which said: "Abu Mas`ud! Bear in mind...'' I did not recognize the voice for the intense anger I was in. Abu Mas`ud added: As he came near me, I found that he was the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) who was saying, "Abu Mas`ud! Bear in mind that Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave.'' Then I said: "I will never beat any slave in future.'' Qardawi writes: " During the period of jahiliyyah some people used to exact a daily tribute from their female slaves without caring in what manner they earned this money to pay their masters. A majority of them had to resort to prostitution; some masters even forced their slave-girls to prostitution in order to earn a paltry fee. When Islam came, it lifted this disgraceful burden from its sons and daughters. Allah Ta'ala revealed, ...And do no ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wellesley Girl at January 27, 2004 12:48 AM [permalink]:

Jews went to Palestine, occupied the land, kicked muslims out of their homes, killed many based on something their prophet promissed to them in their book! And they aren't even willing to share the land with muslims! How come that's no alien concept to anyone? A simple analogy, how do you like it if I take over your house and say I had a dream that God promised me your house! Do you guys understand how it feels like to live in tents all your life!? I had a palestinian friend who said he needs to get a visa to go back to his own country!!! How come that's no alien concept to anyone? In my dictionary, Israel is The Occupied Palestine!

Tautologist at January 27, 2004 01:11 AM [permalink]:

Islam does not need any enemy with Hajir-kind of defenders. His logic (if it can be called logic) in justifying slavery is really ridiculous and a disgrace to any muslim. Their trade-mark is using a hadith in every other sentence, as if it can compensate the lack of logic. Even if we accept that one could use a hadith to corroborate his/her story, more than %99.9 of these hadiths are not authentic, most of them are fabricated stories from people who are called Hadith Factory even by many Islamic scholar.

AIS at January 27, 2004 03:06 AM [permalink]:
Hajir, first of all let me say that I personally have great respect for your honesty and the sincerity of your faith, and I am positive that that faith has made a much better person out of you than 90% of the people of this crazy world. You are a good example for Wessie to see the difference between such a general term as muslims, even those who sincerily believe in Islam and Islam itself as what it really is. Had we been living in Switzerland (as we say in Persian) I wouldn't have had any problem with your opinion and worldview including your Islam, however we unfortunately do not live in Switzerland but in a very backward third world country with at least 1600 years of superstition and almost non-stop tyranny that has made it into this infernal wasteland that it is today. For us there is no place for reservation anymore, this thing should be exposed as what it really is and the ugly facts about it brought to the open, even at the cost of insulting the beliefs of people like you. I'm sorry. I don't think I need to reply to the points you raised any more, except these three: "It's a matter of belief and disbelief. When I believe in Allah and his messenger, then I believe in whatever that is presented to me through Allah's book and the messenger's words and actions." That's the problem, isn't it? That is why Renaissence was such a momentous event in human history when a large and ever increasing number of people decided not to do that any more. May I (mis)quote Nietzsche? '...You hadn't sought yourselves yet when you found me, all believers act thus, That is why belief is so worthless...' "About each one of the points you mentioned, numerous books have been written. " I told you a couple of months back that this is the usual mulla sophistry to shy away from problematic issues. I just say this here, for all the points YOU raise against Christianity or Judaism numerous books have been written by their proponents as well, but is that an answer at all? "Having said this, I have no idea what is the significance of Hafarul-Aswad." Allow me to help on this and other obscure 'rituals'. :) read these articles.(chapters III and V were especially illuminating to me.) I also recommend it to everyone else in this site: http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Tisdall/Sources/index.htm But a remark on them before you go. The website is a Christian one and the author is also a Christian. The point is that what these people (and their Islamic and Jewish etc. counterparts) say in FAVOUR of their religion is worthless mumbo-jumbo, but the points they raise AGAINST their rival religions are usually very acute and worth paying attention to. One reason is that they take their faith very seriously and so the points they find on others is for them a matter of (eternal) life and damnation. It is very informative to see how each group exposes the other's weakness (pate-ye hamdigar-raa ruyeh ab miandazand!) especially for those of us who have been through the education system in Iran. The points raised against Christianity and Judaism, the inconsistencies in the Bible etc were actually quite intelligent in general, so seeing the similar one from the other side is very good in keeping the balance in our minds, I think. (And this is NOT were I have all my views and inforfmations from-I actually just found this yesterday, I usually can't resist sharing what I find interesting to others for a long time.) Again to every one, many points are EXTREMELY informative a ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
AIS at January 27, 2004 03:33 AM [permalink]:

Saeed,

I know of your detailed remarks. Unfortunately they mean nothing. You mention 'La ekraha fiddin'? and other 'softies'? The explanation is quite easy. They usually belong to the period in Mecca and early period in Medina, where our guy didn't have much POWER and still hoped the Jews would sort of accept him, praying towards Jerusalem, keeping the Yom Kippur fast and the like, you know...things changed when he was rejected and when he attained ever more power. It is almost like a Greek tragedy, the corrupting effects of power.
You say he was always in the defensive? Not true. The first war was waged against a caravan of merchants! forgotten? how about the peace treaty with the Quraysh? He broke it on very silly excuses when he summoned enough power to take the city over. He TOOK OVER the city and his followers took over countries and you say Islam does not impose itself on others? what is this,a joke?
You say Islam does not impose itself but leaves the people with choice?
OK, just answer this. He -Muhammad- ordered the death of many people, including other tribes and
apostates, didn't he? The tribes were in war, as offensives, fine, not true but let's accept that for the sake of argument.
What about that Katib of Vahy who claimed to have changed the verses by himself and that Muhammad hadn't realized it and turned back from Islam and went to Mecca? After the conquest a villain such as Abusufyan was spared, though his 'choice' was obviously only under the threat of death, but this poor guy was orderd specifically to be killed! If there is choice, under what f**ing authority did he give himself the right to take the LIVES of other HUMAN BEINGS? They obviously didn't CHOOSE to be muslims, did they?
What about killing apostates all through its history till today ? What if some unfortunate soul who happend to be born a moslem CHOOSES otherwise, how come they KILL him/her?
You know, nothing of what I said about Hajir includes you. You are neither honest nor really faithful.
You may learn something on reading those links I put above as well.

AIS at January 27, 2004 03:59 AM [permalink]:

Wellesley Girl,

Instead of ranting such meaningless mumbo jumbo you might read about some facts for a change.
(sigh) I am really tired of repeating historical facts over and over again here-and I am not even Jewish- but I guess one more round is in order:
Israel is the land of the Jews as well, has been for near 3 thousand years. Palestinian Arabs are there only for a couple of centuries, and a state called Pallestine never existed. (Palestine was the geographical name of the region since the Romans), and nobody destroyed their homes and forced them out of their land. When Isarel declared independence, she made a policy of supporting any similar decleration by the 'Palestinians'. They never made one. All they wanted was to draw the JEW away. And they left by the advice of their other arab brethren, before the six day war, because they were told they would soon return victorious and there was no need for them to stay in the middle of cross fire. They are kept in misery by their arab bothers and vermins like Arafat to gain political advantages and propaganda material against Israel. Now the war is very dirty, but don't forget who started it and who keeps it dirty. There is no symmetry here.
Why don't you read the sources in the net, icluding a real history of Israel or the real Zionist papers by Herzl and the like by yourself, they are a click away , and form your ideas based on what you read from both sides instead of just parroting the rubbish we were and are fed as propaganda, by the regime and before that the leftist ver...sion (be polite AIS, OK? you have apologized enough already... and don't forget to brush your teeth and cut you nails and drink your milk and...OK, I'm ready now) of lies. You do that, OK? Good girl.

(And before you attack the keyboard Wessie, no sexism implied here, I would have said 'Good boy' equally as well if that was the case!)

Ali Mahani at January 27, 2004 08:13 AM [permalink]:

Just a word of rant before you Muslims all start:

It’s ages since I stopped sending posts and articles into this weblog. [Now it’s so good to see other people (eg, Wessie) with mentalities similar to mine taking over]. But looking at the endless reams of rubbish in the Comments section, I decided to briefly pop out of retirement, put finger to keyboard, and jot down a few blasphemous lines.

The author takes an altogether realistic view of Islam and its precepts, that religion of “tahaarat” (1) and “aftabeh”(2) that we’ve come to be so proud of; calling non-Muslims "dirty" and "impure", sanctioning slavery and racism (i.e., different civil rights for Muslims and non-Muslims) and countless other atrocities I can’t be bothered typing.. . Ms Westland has got some insight into the Muslim’s ways and their collective character, she has no qualms about speaking her mind, and she ain’t one for suffering fools gladly. Keep up the good work, lass, you’ve got it spot on.

(Just remember you aren’t supposed to discuss certain habits of a certain prophet, e.g., the massacre of Jews, enslavement and exploitation of Kuffar,….AND an all-inclusive sexual taste ranging from the almost-infant Ayesha to the Egyptian teen beauty Maarieh, the mature and wealthy Khadija and that old, withered granny Umm Salama).

As for the veil, another ingenious product of Muhammad’s holy mind, I actually wrote a couple of articles on the issue of hijab (the Islamic code of dress) in another forum on this site. They are available at:

http://freethoughts.org/archives/000104.html

The first one is dated [September 9, 2003 03:26 AM], and the second [September 10, 2003 03:38 PM].

Anyway we must notice that the veil was not invented or promulgated by Omar the Tentmaker. It wasn’t even the second caliph Omar ibn Khattaab who introduced the veil, though the latter character is largely responsible for the introduction of the Islamic pestilence into Iran, Egypt and a few other civilised places of that time. Interestingly, the second caliph is known to have banned temporary marriage, a “bid’at” (precedent) that earned him eternal condemnation from the glorious Shiite sect.


The other Omar, better known as Khayyam (the Arabic for tentmaker) was an Iranian poet and mathematician renowned for his love of wine and a blatant disdain for the tenets of Islam. That’s why he is often regarded as an apostate by clerics in this country, and that’s why he became the only poet to win respect and admiration from Iran’s greatest contemporary writer, Sadeq Hedayat.

May their souls rest in peace.

Hedayat (who might be described as the modern Khayyam) has written some very enlightening novels and essays, exposing the true face of Islam and Shiism in Alwiyeh Khanoom (Lady Alwiyeh), Toop-e-Morvary (the Pearl Cannon) and Al Be’sat ol Eslamiyah…(the Islamic Mission to Europe). Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know Islam and Iran for what they really are.

Ooof, I’m glad all this is off my chest!

________________________________________________________________

1) Literally: “cleaning” – the Islamic ritual of cleaning your anus after defecation, in the true tradition of the Holy Prophet

2) A sort of jar fitted with a spout, used by Muslims for tahaarat (washing the arsehole)

AmericanWoman at January 27, 2004 08:54 AM [permalink]:

And this is why we like separation of Church and State.

AIS at January 27, 2004 09:14 AM [permalink]:

Ali,
I am spellbound by your courage, man!
But please do be careful, the rope is no joke.

AmericanWoman at January 27, 2004 09:20 AM [permalink]:

It's always tricky to take statements addressing a specific time and place too many centuries out of context. Muslims certainly aren't the only people in the world at the time of Mohammed's life time "marrying" (or taking into concubinage) girls right from the onset of menses. One society's pedophelia is another society's fight against a high mortality rate among women and infants. Before the 1930's, when antibiotics were invented, childbirth was the number one cause of mortality in women. All those medeval fairy tales of orphans and wicked stepmothers aren't just allegories. It used to be life as we knew it. In fact, my understanding is that one of the initial goals of Islam was to improve the treatment of women, injuntions against abandoning them on hillsides, and that type of thing. Limiting concubines to 4, setting up consequences or fiscal responsibility for divorce. These rules were addressing situations everywhere history was being recorded at that time. Maybe not in Europe, but that may have been becuause not much was recorded there before the Romans.

AIS at January 27, 2004 09:23 AM [permalink]:

merican Womn,

"In fact, my understanding is that one of the initial goals of Islam was to improve the treatment of women...."

Well, your understanding is wrong.

AIS at January 27, 2004 09:25 AM [permalink]:

Sorry, I meant American Woman.
(the 'A' doesn't work properly in my keyboard.

AIS at January 27, 2004 09:38 AM [permalink]:

AW,

Women had a much higher status before Islam in Arabia. Not only a lot of femal deities were worshipped, including the chief two 'couple' Allah (masc) and Al-lat (fem), but women could have asked men for marriage, as Muhammad's first wife actually did, fight battles and have a lot of influence in politics and social life.
Compare that , in 7th century, with tody's Saudi Arabia (or elsewhere where Sharia is in practice) and see for yourself.
Islam is really a curse.

Kaveh Kh at January 27, 2004 11:21 AM [permalink]:

AIS, putting names on things that are there already, will hardly solve anything; it will provide fire for the rhetoric only, which is useful in its proper place, mind you.

Repression of women is a historic part of every global culture on the globe, just look at the distribution of wealth in the US based on sexes, for example.

Now, put these nasty trends in perspective and ask why has the people's attitude towards organized violence against women changed in, say, the US, while it has remained more or less the same in Islamic countries? Is it only that the Western tradition is simply older than the Islamic one?

Women's suffrage and the feminist movements in the West were in this sense very revolutionary and quite recent. In fact if we expect a proper change in the repression of women in the Islamic countries, it would be even more revolutionary!

However, I believe that the most important group of people for overcoming this barrier, are mothers. Look at the role that educated women are playing in educating the society in Iran already. I even believe that the fact that many (male) kids in Tehran have female elementary teachers in the first years of school is a very positive thing in this regard.

For me it's either revolution or education.

I apologize for the dis-arrayed and mistakeful comment. It's just too much snow today.

Ron at January 27, 2004 12:08 PM [permalink]:

AIS,
You are WRONG about Israel!
Here are some facts to refresh your mind about Israel!
1) In 1896, Herzel wrote The Jewish State, in which he argued that for Jews assimilation was impossible! The only real solution was a Jewish state. Religious Jews believed that they were not entitled to return to Israel until after God had sent the Messiah!
2) After an abortive revolution in 1905 in Russia, a lot of Jews immigrated to Palestine, most of them would have preferred America but the US strictly limited Jewish immigrants! Palestine was the next choice, partly because Jews were treated better in Muslim countries than the Christian countries.
3) After WW1 the King-Crane commission was dispatched to the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, they stated in their report that first, 90% of Palestine’s inhabitants were non-Jewish and did not want a Jewish state in Palestine. Second, If they (Zionists) are given Palestine, they will complete the disposition of the present non-Jewish inhabitants and finally the commission said that a Jewish state in Palestine would violate the Palestinian’s right to self-determination!
4) Chaim Weizman declared Palestine “a country without a people for a people with out a country!” the first part clearly a lie.
5) In 1938, Ben Gurion told the Jewish leaders “……in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us, but let us not forget among ourselves that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves….”
6) After the coming of Hitler and his mistreatment of Jews in March 1938, The US invited 33 countries to a conference on helping Jewish refugees from Germany. Australia, News Zealand, Canada, Peru, Colombia, .. said No. France said it had 200,000 refugees and could not get more. England offered apologies and the US after calling the conference, offered nothing but to honor the quota it already had!
7) In 1938, the congress of the US began hearings on whether or not to admit 20,000 Jewish children into the US to escape Hitler. Congress voted NO!
8) In 1941, when the massacre of Jews spread in Romania, a Turkish minister came up with a plan to save 300,000 Jews. When he asked the US for help, the US said NO!
9) Some of the Iranian consulates in Europe started giving Iranian passport to the Jews in order to help them escape! A group of Polish Jews came to Iran they were known as the “Tehran children” and after the war were sent to Israel.
10) The Zionists threatened and terrorized the Jews who had survived the holocaust to persuade them to go to Israel! Some of them even offered collaboration to Hitler.
I could continue writing more and more, but don’t like to make it very long!
Dear AIS, I suppose you don’t really know much about Israel.

Saeed S at January 27, 2004 12:11 PM [permalink]:

AIS,

You better watch some documentaries of women movements in US and Europe (I don’t know much about Europe) to see how they FOUGHT for their rights. I don’t forget this part of the documentary, I watched, that one of their leaders burned herself in a protest to fuel their movements.

There are many women who study here and we have only 5 posts in this website with a woman author and only 2 of them regarding the women issue in Iran! Iranian women can’t even show themselves in an open (almost secret) forum like here. It seems you can't do the minimum effort to ger your rights back. When it comes to talk everybody talks!

See curse in yourself!

Alexandra Westland at January 27, 2004 12:34 PM [permalink]:
Thank you all for diligently contributing while I was out of town working. Ali, my most sincere apologies for confusing you with the "other" Ali. In real life I solve the name mixup dilemma by calling everyone "darling." ;-) Vahid, regarding using my real name. I have always used a nom de plume for privacy reasons. I do not want groupies on my doorstep. I want to be able to walk about without being pointed out as "somebody." As to writing about Islam under another name, it is the same reason that so many others, such as the Muslim scholar ibn Warraq or the German, Christoph Luxenberg who write about Islam in a scholarly, truthful and forthright manner, use pseudonyms. As stated in the header it's the fatwas! ;-) Islam just incites too many "true believers" to do crazy things. While many of you here use your real names, you still cannot and will not post all you would like, particularly if the danger is that you must go back to a Muslim country. A number of you have written me e-mails that you are concerned that your mail is being read. I believe it was Babak who stated that he could not denounce the violent, misanthropic, misogynistic passages in the Qur'an when I challenged him, because that would make him subject to a death sentence as an apostate. I have a family to consider also. Thus, the pseudonym—but I write the truth no matter what! Federal Court reserves judgment on appeal by four in apostasy case http://beta.yellowbrix.com/pages/beta/Story.nsp?story_id=43678416 Recently, a reform minded Saudi prince Sultan bin Turki bin Abdel-Aziz was abducted from Switzerland back to Saudia and is now being held prisoner. . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38352-2004Jan22.htm I can give you a bit of a bio if you like. I am president and a CIO, working in both the worlds of science and art/design. Our client base is international. I have a wide body of knowledge in a number of areas that ties those worlds together—as a "techie/artsy" type. I speak about half a dozen languages, several with native fluency. I have always had a career and don't find combining a profession and my duties to a family in conflict. Indeed, I believe it is my (God given, if you like) duty as a talented, educated person to contribute to the world and not just take up space. I understand the need for religion, but reject organized religions as a way to move humanity forward. They have done more harm than good through the ages! Believe it or not, I am not a republican. I am socially "liberal" (provided you work for a living) and fiscally very conservative, which is why I have a serious problem with the policies of the present administration. I was against the war in Iraq and continue to hold that position. Although leaving now would created a disaster for the world. The international community clearly must take over regardless of the impotence of the U.N. I take responsibility for my ideas. If I did not, I would tell you what you wanted to hear as Daniel Pipes et al. do— claiming that there are two types of Islam—the militant and the benign. He writes that Islam can and should be reformed, because if he did not then there would be a fatwa on his head and Muslims would demonstrate screeching in the streets for his head, as they did to Salman Rushdie once again just a few weeks ago when he went "home" to India: Muslims protest Rushdie in India http://washtimes.com/world/20040118-114336-8841r.htm Honest people like me, Ali Sina, ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at January 27, 2004 12:45 PM [permalink]:

Kaveh,

Women in the West have ALWAYS enjoyed more rights than those in Islamic lands, even when they were repressed. The women of ancient Rome had incredible power, status and rights—despite being "second class citizens." There is simply no comparison between the veil and purdah say, and the compulsion to wear hats or not being able to vote. Women in the West have always been able to work, to walk about among men despite being "second class citizens" for millennia.

As to wealth in the U.S. are you aware that it is women control most of the financial assets in the U.S.?

" Women control 51.3% of the private wealth in the US"

http://www.trendsight.com/gendertrends/highnetworth.html


Besides: "She who sits on his lap is king" is one of our sayings. ;-)

Wessie

Wellesley Girl at January 27, 2004 01:15 PM [permalink]:

AIS,
I am not sure which regime you are talking about, I was just quoting from a palestinian friend! Besides, based on what you said we should give America back to the native americans!

Vahid at January 27, 2004 04:45 PM [permalink]:

Wessie,

Thanks for the bio. You Americans are not very modest. Are you :)

Translation of the Taulogist post :

Abu Manzoore-e joozjani asked him " Tell me, what is the truth"
Vasharzin (? some name) answered " It is the discourse that is said by mute, and it is heard by a deaf, and it has been put on paper by a blind"

Wessie at January 27, 2004 08:57 PM [permalink]:

"Modest"? Huh?

What does that have to do with a bio, Vahid? I didn't say, "I am the greatest." I gave you facts about who I am and some of what I have done. A resume can be "embellished" but a CV is generally just a list of accomplishments with pertinent dates—neither of which I plan to put on this website. ;-)

Regarding the proverb and the "truth" we always say it is somewhere in the middle. But, the truth is different than indisputable facts and scientific data.

Wessie

Tautologist at January 27, 2004 10:12 PM [permalink]:

I wonder how you can do substantive work and be quite knowlegable on Qur'an, Hadith and islamic jurisprudence schools , which is not limited those four you mentioned, when your Arabic and Persian is limited to menue speak. To the best I know in almost all middle eastern studies departments, knowing one of these languages or Turkish is compulsory.
I had this feeling thay you are a medical doctor, right?

Wessie at January 27, 2004 11:04 PM [permalink]:

What was all that Hajir said about slavery, Islam and war? Modern day slavery is a world-wide phenomenon. However, Arab/Muslims appear to be still doing their share of trafficking, just as they did millennia ago.

'My life as a modern-day slave'

"On the surface, Mende Nazer is a bright, bubbly, confident young woman, quick to break into a beautiful infectious smile, which lights up her whole face. . .

. . .She was just 12 when one night her village was targeted by Arab slave raiders, who snatched her away from her loving family to be a slave in far away Khartoum.

The story of her capture and life in servitude, published in her book Slave, reads like something from the Middle Ages but it happened in the early 1990s and she says this is still the lot of many young girls from southern Sudan. . .

. . .She worked from first thing in the morning until late at night, washing, cleaning and ironing, without any pay or days off, sleeping in a locked shed in the garden. . . "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3430305.stm

---

'Thousands of slaves in Sudan'

Some charities buy slaves' freedom

"More than 11,000 people have been abducted in 20 years of slave-raiding in Sudan, a new report says."

". . .John Ryle told BBC News Online that many of them were being held by northern, Arab militias. . . "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2942964.stm

---

Millions 'forced into slavery'

". . .The trafficking of child camel jockeys to the United Arab Emirates, bonded labour in Pakistan and forced labour in Sudan are also highlighted. . . "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2010401.stm

AIS at January 28, 2004 12:32 AM [permalink]:

Ron,

I didn't want to answer your kinds of 'historical' (right!) points, but some of them were quite funny so I couldn't resist:


4) Chaim Weizman declared Palestine “a country without a people for a people with out a country!” the first part clearly a lie.

Buddy, Palestine was no country. It was at that time a waste land, hardly inhabited, inside the ottoman empire. Many of those who today call themselves 'palestinians' were born either in Syria or Egypt ...or are their discendants.

5) In 1938, Ben Gurion told the Jewish leaders “……in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us, but let us not forget among ourselves that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves….”

I just wonder how you know what he said to the other leaders? were you one of them?


3) After WW1 the King-Crane commission was dispatched to the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire....

O, refresh my memory, wasn't it the same British forces who stood by when Arabs massacred the Jewish community there who were under their protection?

7) In 1938, the congress of the US began hearings on whether or not to admit 20,000 Jewish children into the US to escape Hitler. Congress voted NO!

So much for 'Jews control the US!' ;)
And after the war, the same allies prevented the remaing Jews, the Holocaust survivors to go to Plaestine, but they were forced to return to their country of origin. The ones who tried to get to Palestine were imprisoned. The prison in Cypress was full back then. The Jews had to FIGHT the british to get independence. Go read some facts!

10) The Zionists threatened and terrorized the Jews who had survived the holocaust to persuade them to go to Israel! Some of them even offered collaboration to Hitler.

LOL! Tell me, did these Zionists also have lizard like tongues by any chance? :))

I wonder how this particular one about zionists helping Hitler got started first, if they need a reason in the first place of course. My guess is it is that Himmler thing. When he like many others finally figured out the war lost, he decided to do something to present to the allies afterwards. The idiot thought anything he did now would make any difference after all that was done.So he contacted some Jewsih partisan groups, broke a deal to set a group of the prisoners heading towards a KZ (I think) free. The partisans OF COURSE accepted, since it meant saving innocent lives.


Ah, it is interesting to study why people like you assume who ever disagrees with them necessarily know nothing of what he is talking.

AIS at January 28, 2004 12:38 AM [permalink]:

Kaveh,

I agree with most of what you say here. But the point AW made was that Islam had made the condition for women better in Arabia back then and this is dead wrong.
It doesn't mean that they were all of equal to the men before Islam or denying the fact that women rights is a modern thing. I really don't see the relevance.

Besides, now that all the feminist and women rights fights and struggle has given fruit, why not take advantage of it? Why do we have to re-invent the wheel all the time?
In many other places the transition to a modern equal right society is goiung smopothly now without that much hardship, thanks to the success of it. Except the Islamic world. That's why thsi thing has to be dealt with historically, since it is a barrier against using the fruits of modern life in all aspects.

AIS at January 28, 2004 12:41 AM [permalink]:

Saeed,

first of all I am not a woman.

Second I love it how you totally ignore the points I made directly to you. It is so funny how you people simply ignor the people who confront you with what yoiu have no answer for and start looking at the sky and whistling! :)
(Be ruy-e mobarak ham nemi-avarand!)

Saeed S at January 28, 2004 08:25 AM [permalink]:

AIS,

Wow! You picked the gender issue of yours in my comment instead of the message?

As I said before you guys tend to forget strong messages of Quran , like "there is no compulsion in religion" or "if they denied you (Muhammad) remember that you are only the messengar" (the 2nd for example can be found several times in Quran), and stick to a message like have no mercy in killing infidels which are all during Muslim wars (which were imposed on them) and should be guaged by the historical atmosphere then.
I don't want to repeat what I have said before. Read my comments in "ebadi reconsidered".

Our problem in Iran is mostly because of our laziness in the past and the present. Only 2 posts on the women issues in this website should speak for itself about how important this issue is for the Iranian women and how lazy they are if this issue is important!

It was my mistake to communicate with you. Your standing on the Isarili "land" should have told me that we speak different languages!

Grand Vizier at January 28, 2004 09:40 AM [permalink]:

People with different languages can still communicate with each other by using mediators. Don't give up the fight both of you, Saeed and AIS.

There's much to be discussed.

Ordak D. Coward at January 28, 2004 12:59 PM [permalink]:

Saeed S,
I am wondering what is the criteria to choose some of verses as "strong" ones, and some others as conditional ones ("during Muslim wars")?
Is there any Quranic verse that indicates how to resolve this kind of conflict between verses? Notice that, without any mehtod of choosing the "stronger" verse, one can always arbitrarily choose the verse he likes as "stronger". For example, your own message could have been worded as following (except that I do not know the time each verse was told, so this is not accurate):
As I said before you guys tend to forget strong messages of Quran like have no mercy in killing infidels, and stick to a message like "there is no compulsion in religion" or "if they denied you (Muhammad) remember that you are only the messengar" (the 2nd for example can be found several times in Quran) which are only said when Muslims needed more followers.

Another question is, if we have to look at the historical atmosphere around each verse, then how one should apply those verses to the contemporary atmosphere of now. What is your tool to find the appropriate verse for every day of your life? Notice that you cannot use your own guidance for that, as that makes it relative to your person, your tool should provide a clear cut method that every person could follow it the same way, regardless of their own personal motivations.

One final thing to mention, is that, as I understand, logic was dicovered by Muslims long after Quran. So, again, your tool of understanding Quran does not need to use logic either.

All said, the only way possible that Quran is not understood arbitarily, is to form an Islamic dictatorship, in which a single person or council dictates which verses of Quran are to be followed for each "atmosphere". This is exactly the basis of Taqlid in Shia Islam (and I am ignorant about Sunni Islam). However, the only subtle difference is that, poeple can choose their own dictator (Marja'E Taqlid) as long it is a personal matter. However, in an Islamic government, there should be only one such dictator as the ultimate head of government. Otherwise, the other Marja'E taqlids may not rule the same way in state related matters, and therefore state would weaken. This is also the basis of Velayat-e-Faqih as I understand it.

Now, like all other dictatorships, as long as the dictator is wise and benevolent, the people are happy. Otherwise, people feel miserable. I should add that unless there is a separation of church and state, that makes Islamic laws and Quran inferior to laws passed by people, there can be no notion of a Democratic Islamic state. Not that this could make people happier. But, it makes them responsible to govern their own destiny.

Wessie at January 28, 2004 03:06 PM [permalink]:

Saeed says "Muslim wars were imposed on them." History says otherwise. Muslims STARTED wars from the time blood-thirsty Mohammed was driven to Medina. Islam is aggressive as written in the Qur'an. It is NOT, peaceful; it is NOT tolerant. Islam is against anything that is non-Muslim.

Grand Vizier says, "There is much to be discussed." Not really. Muslims don't want to get anywhere, because, as Saeed has admitted they are lazy—not to mention indolent and nihilistic.

"Inshallah," keeps Muslims where they have always been—backward. We talk in circles and still Islam is in the 7th century. Who cares!

As Ordak has noted, there can be no democracy with Islam. That is my point.

---

A chilling reminder of why things are as they are:

A Calm Voice as Disaster Unfolded in the Sky

"My name is Betty Ong," she said after reaching the reservations office in North Carolina, speaking quickly but in a tone that was remarkably calm and lucid. "I'm on Flight 11."

"Our first-class galley attendant and our purser are stabbed," she said. "We can't get into the cockpit. The door won't open."

"Can anybody get to the cockpit?" she can be heard asking someone nearby on the plane. "We can't even get to the cockpit. Nobody can call the cockpit. We can't even get inside."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/national/28TAPE.html

---

And so they murdered innocents in the name of their blood-thirsty, 7th century so-called god, allah and continue to do that all over the world with impunity. And you wonder why Islam gets no respect.

Misunderstood? No way! We understand Islam alright. The body count is making things crystal clear!


Saeed S at January 28, 2004 03:22 PM [permalink]:

Ordak, There is no logic in it! I have learned this approach in learning Physics. There are so many questions in my mind about Quantum Mechanics but I can still solve quantum mechanical problems.

I have found Quran a book that teaches tolerance and I have told here my evidences for it. So I interpret those verses, which are in total will fill 5 or 6 pages of Quran in osman taha format ;), as I interpreted it.

I have never looked for a logical structure in Quran that explains everything. I have looked for “character”. I used the word “character” to emphasize the vagueness of the matter! It’s vague but it’s something! (That said, I think an academic investigation of finding the characters of Quran will not find absoloute OPPOSITE characters. It might differ in detail though.)

The characters like:

1)Tolerance (already told you the passages)
2)Its encouraging character to study universe which is just about everywhere in Quran .
3)Its solidness character when it comes to fight which I really like!
4)Its message of hope which is universal in all religions.
5)Its emphasis on “thinking” which also can be found a lot.

So in this sense I also like “the gay science” by Nietzsche. Many sentences of that book seem strange to me. But its gay character is “inspiring”. I wish I had time to explain more.

I think the understanding of Quran by "logic" ONLY was the downfall of understanding it.

I absolutely believe in separation of mosque and state and I have explained quite extensively in “ebadi reconsidered” how the social verdicts of Islam can be viewed with this shadow (of the separation of mosque and state).

Vassalam.


AIS at January 29, 2004 01:52 AM [permalink]:
Saeed, why don't you answer the point I raised instead of beating around the bush? I know what you are saying. Quran says that Muhammad was just a messanger, a 'nazir', a warner, it is left up to the people to choose the right from wrong, there is no obligation on them. Then he went to Medina, a community was formed by the people who FREELY chose to abide by his message, they were attacked, the defended themselves, that's the reason for the harsh verses, there is still no obligation. I understand this, only it is not true. The facts speak another language. He was not attacked, he attacked a caravan of merchants under the excuse that the Quraysh had confiscated what the Muahjerin had left behind in Mecca-of course they would, the had left it behind!. He later signed a treaty with them. But again used an excuse about one of the far allies of the Quraysh receiving help against one of the far allies og Moslems somewhere far away from Medina to attack Mecca, destroy the idol, the symbols of faith of a free people who simply didn't choose the message, and pressed it on them by force. Howvere that is not what I am challenging you with. I repeat my challenge on very SPECIFIC cases that I list below. Please naswer THOSE people's execution by Muhammad SPECIFICALLY: Muhammad was not very patient with those who would oppose him or his message with stories or poems. The deaths of Ka`b bin al-Ashraf, Abu `Afak, `Asma' bint Marwan and al-Nadr bin al-Harith all speak the same language. Ka`b was a Jew. Ka`b never lifted a weapon against Muhammad or any Muslim, he only voiced his opinion against Muhammad, and made up some unsavory poems about Muslim women. Muhammad saw him as a threat, and therefore had him murdered in the night. The Jews around Medina were not under Muhammad's rule; they had only entered into a treaty with the muslims. Muhammad did not have legal right to murder Ka`b, rather he took it upon himself to rid himself of a man who hated him. Abu Afak, a man of great age was killed because he lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. 'Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated. Her crime was that she spoke out against Muhammad for having another man murdered named Abu Afak. In his displeasure towards her, Muhammad asked his followers to murder her as well. She was killed while she slept. (From the Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guilaume's translation "The Life of Muhammad") page 675, 676.) Sirat, pages 162-163 state: Al-Nadr b. al-Harith b. `Alqama b. Kalada b. `Abdu Manaf whenever the apostle sat in an assembly and invited people to God, and recited the Quran, and warned the Quraysh of what had happened to former peoples, followed him when he got up and spoke to them about Rustum the Hero and Isfandiyar and the kings of Persia, saying, "By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied [Sura 25.6] as I have." So God revealed concerning him, "And they say, Stories of the ancients which he has copied down, and they are read to him morning and night. Say, He who knows the secrets of heaven and earth has sent it down. Verily, He is merciful, forgiving." [Sura 83.13] And there came down concerning him, "When Our verses are read to him he says, fables of the ancients". [Sura 83.13] And ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
AIS at January 29, 2004 02:03 AM [permalink]:

I forgot to include that Kateb of Vahy (the writer of revelations (coming to Muhammad)) who became an apostate after allegedly changing a verse by himself in a mistake and seeing in his shock that Muhammad didn't realize this and accepted the changed verse, fled back to Mecca and was specifically ordered to be executed by Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca to the list of my challenges. Please add that as well. Unfortunately I can't remember his name here, but as a learned moslem you sure know who I am talking about.
The ball is in your side now, Saeed!

AIS at January 29, 2004 02:07 AM [permalink]:

Oh, here I found his name:
Execution for apostasy is Qur'anic: “But if they turn renegades seize them and slay them wherever you find them” (4:89) Prophet Muhammad killed a number of people who deserted and so the punishment is Sunnah (actions and sayings of Muhammad) and Shariah, ic Law. One whose name has been left to posterity was Abdullah ibn Saud, one of Muhammad's scribes (Muhammad was illiterate). Abdullah had come to the conclusion that Muhammad himself, and not Allah, was the author of the Qur'an and left .


Saeed, I even give you a Quranic verse to handle, please! :)

AIS at January 29, 2004 02:37 AM [permalink]:

I might as well give th elink to this site for others, to see the lovingkindness of Islam and its loyalty to free choice and moderation!:

http://www.hraic.org/apostasy_and_prophet_muhammad.html

Wessie at January 29, 2004 03:01 AM [permalink]:
"I have found Quran a book that teaches tolerance and I have told here my evidences for it. So I interpret those verses, which are in total will fill 5 or 6 pages of Quran in osman taha format ;), as I interpreted it." The mistake that Saeed makes, is the same one that so many Muslims, ignorant of the teachings of their religion make. He picks and chooses what he "likes" out of the Qur'an, when according to the tenets laid down by Muhammad the later verses "revealed" at Medina abrogate the earlier peaceful ones "revealed" at Mecca. And the Qur'an is immutable. Thus, people like Saeed are not "true believers." Indeed, such Muslims would be considered apostates by the leaders of Islam today and in Muhammad's time. The penalty for apostasy is death. "I have never looked for a logical structure in Quran that explains everything. I have looked for “character”. There are 114 Sura in the Qur'an 90 of which can be dated internally. They begin fairly benign and peaceful, although right from the second one there is the threat of Hellfire— and then they get progressively more violent. Indeed, most Sura are violent and misanthropic. Like many religious figures who had "revelations" or heard "voices" (i.e. Joan of Arc and schizophrenia ) it is suspected that Muhammad had a disease called acromegaly which may have contributed to his psychosis as well as been responsible for his early death. (2:256) “Let there be no compulsion in religion” this is the last of the tolerant verses. With (2:88-89) the first bigotry against the Jews is "revealed." Warfare in the name of Allah is mandated: “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you.” (2:216) “Give us victory over the disbelievers” (2:286) Re: The Battle of Badr: "And call not those who are slain in the way of Allah "dead." (2:154) Revealed as #92 (98:6) “The Jews, Christians and Pagans will burn forever in the Fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” Revealed as #95 Muhammad portrays the attack on the first caravan as a religious war as stated above by AIS. “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.” (8:39) “…of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger … “(8:41) One of Osama bin Laden's recent favorites: (8:60) “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah…” Revealed as #96 (47:37) “… invite not the infidels to peace when ye have the upper hand …” Revealed as #113 progressively: (9:5) “… fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they convert …” (9:11) “Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer and pay the tax, then they are your brethren in religion…” (9:14) “”So make war on them: By your hands will Allah punish them”. (9:29) “Make war upon …the Jews and Christians …who profess not the Religion of Truth, until they pay Jizya and be humbled”. (9:33) Allah hath sent the religion of truth that it may prevail over all religions”. (9:123) “Believers! Wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors”. #114 (5:4) “Woe this day on those who forsake their religion”. (Death penalty as prescribed by Sharia) --- Not much tolerance in the Qur ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ordak D. Coward at January 29, 2004 04:11 AM [permalink]:

Saeed S,
If I understand you correctly, you read Quran to only get inspired by it, like a work of art, rather than an instruction manual. Further more, you take full responsibility of your actions, even though they may be inspired by your understanding of Quran. You never use Quran as an excuse, you never do certain acts just because it is written in Quran. So, basically while you may get more inspired by Quran than I can, none of us decide about our actions solely based on what is written in Quran. And, you never are going to claim that you are tolerant of others because it says so in Quran. Rather, you will say, after you read Quran, you get inspired by it to be more tolerant of others.
Again as I understand, you do not consider Quran a sacred text. You do not get offended if people consider Quran full of sh.t; as that is their own perception of Quran's character.

You also never quote Quran to discuss anything except in relation to Quran itself, or maybe to inspire others.

Futhermore, you never accept concepts known as "religious duty", or "religious resposnsibility".

You are a secular person then.

Saeed S at January 29, 2004 12:22 PM [permalink]:

Ordak,

You got me wrong partly. There is always a barrier between a book as the author intended and the one the reader perceives. Our experiences may make this barrier wider or narrower. As I’ve heard people who killed Ali got their inspirations from Quran! "...you take full responsibility of your actions..." everybody should take responsibility of his/her actions! I certainly don't dispute over this ;)

"So, basically while you may get more inspired by Quran than I can, none of us decide about our actions solely based on what is written in Quran." If by "solely" you meant as its black and white meaning, Of course not! I think before my actions. However sometimes when you become familiar with something more and more it becomes part of you so you'll see it "automatically" drives you. I don't know if you have heard a CD, say Bach, zillions of times it's the same CD that you heard the first time but it's a totally different experience.

"You never are going to claim that you are tolerant of others because it says so in Quran" I think you know my answer from above paragraphs.

"Again as I understand, you do not consider Quran a sacred text" I think there can be many discussions on what sacred means. I am sure this is among concepts that people have a very wide range of understanding of it. I consider Quran as a sacred book if you want a YES or NO answer. I think to believe in one God and life after death and the fact that Muhammad was his last messenger is heavy enough that brings sacredness to it. I don't try to take actions on some part that it's very strange or simply I don't understand. I consider it as my lack of understanding. I think the music metaphor works best here. I have almost all Beethoven compositions and I listen to them a lot. I don't think I understand all of them but this doesn't reduce my "special" respect for him. I think everybody is familiar in some sense with the concept of "sacred" even a secular person who has a special affection towards something. IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF DEGREES.

"You do not get offended if people consider Quran full of sh.t; as that is their own perception of Quran's character" I'll see it as their LOSS. PURE hatred is more laughable than outrageous!

"You also never quote Quran to discuss anything except in relation to Quran itself, or maybe to inspire others." I have no intention of inspiring others and I never have. As I said when something becomes part of you, it's part of you! We may have different experiences of what lasting inspiration is. About “except in relation to Quran itself,” of course I’ll use it in relation to my other thinking and actions. I think I have explained enough above.

"Futhermore, you never accept concepts known as "religious duty", or "religious resposnsibility"." Actually I knew you would come with this sentence but I didn't have time to explain it. As I said inspiration will progress if it's really a lasting inspiration. You may use the word "duty" or "responsibility" if you want.

"You are a secular person then." I hope that you know my answer after reading this long comment: I believe in separation of mosque and state. If by secular you mean that, yes. If you mean this by Meriam-Webster "not overtly or specifically religious" I think "overtly" or "specifically" are too vague to deserve yes or no answer. Overall I consider myself as a religious person if you want an answer.

Saeed S at January 29, 2004 12:27 PM [permalink]:

Ordak,

You got me wrong partly. There is always a barrier between a book as the author intended and the one the reader perceives. Our experiences may make this barrier wider or narrower. As I’ve heard people who killed Ali got their inspirations from Quran! "...you take full responsibility of your actions..." everybody should take responsibility of his/her actions! I certainly don't dispute over this ;)

"So, basically while you may get more inspired by Quran than I can, none of us decide about our actions solely based on what is written in Quran." If by "solely" you meant as its black and white meaning, Of course not! I think before my actions. However sometimes when you become familiar with something more and more it becomes part of you so you'll see it "automatically" drives you. I don't know if you have heard a CD, say Bach, zillions of times it's the same CD that you heard the first time but it's a totally different experience.

"You never are going to claim that you are tolerant of others because it says so in Quran" I think you know my answer from above paragraphs.

"Again as I understand, you do not consider Quran a sacred text" I think there can be many discussions on what sacred means. I am sure this is among concepts that people have a very wide range of understanding of it. I consider Quran as a sacred book if you want a YES or NO answer. I think to believe in one God and life after death and the fact that Muhammad was his last messenger is heavy enough that brings sacredness to it. I don't try to take actions on some part that it's very strange or simply I don't understand. I consider it as my lack of understanding. I think the music metaphor works best here. I have almost all Beethoven compositions and I listen to them a lot. I don't think I understand all of them but this doesn't reduce my "special" respect for him. I think everybody is familiar in some sense with the concept of "sacred" even a secular person who has a special affection towards something. IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF DEGREES.

"You do not get offended if people consider Quran full of sh.t; as that is their own perception of Quran's character" I'll see it as their LOSS. PURE hatred is more laughable than outrageous!

"You also never quote Quran to discuss anything except in relation to Quran itself, or maybe to inspire others." I have no intention of inspiring others and I never have. As I said when something becomes part of you, it's part of you! We may have different experiences of what lasting inspiration is. About “except in relation to Quran itself,” of course I’ll use it in relation to my other thinking and actions. I think I have explained enough above.

"Futhermore, you never accept concepts known as "religious duty", or "religious resposnsibility"." Actually I knew you would come with this sentence but I didn't have time to explain it. As I said inspiration will progress if it's really a lasting inspiration. You may use the word "duty" or "responsibility" if you want.

"You are a secular person then." I hope that you know my answer after reading this long comment: I believe in separation of mosque and state. If by secular you mean that, yes. If you mean this by Meriam-Webster "not overtly or specifically religious" I think "overtly" or "specifically" are too vague to deserve yes or no answer. Overall I consider myself as a religious person if you want an answer.

Babak S at January 29, 2004 02:35 PM [permalink]:

Saeed:

I always am agaist using metaphors or examples that are too stretched to fit our subject of discussion. It can especially lead to wrong results. So, to use a famous quote in the realm of physics (for Gedanken Experiments originally) I think one can only use metaphors to show what one does not mean, not what one means.

Specifically, borrowing examples from the realm of art, say Beethoven's or Bach's works and so on, cannot be applied "positively" to a book like Qur'an, that is taken as the message of God and the ultimate word of wisdome by its followers. However, it can be applied "negatively" (as I suggested above): that is, if you listen to Bach, and your best friend thinks Bach's music is just bullsh*t and loves Rock 'n Roll instead, that should not result in bloodshed, even if in contrast with what your "music" tells you to do.

Moreover, in most of your comments in response to Ordak or AIS, I see a lot of evading from the facts presented: when they talk about Quran, you say it's a work of art you get inspired from, but when they say so you do not believe it's a sacred (in its religious, or let's say strong meaning) you say the answer is YES if one wants a yes-or-no answer. I find this quite a puzzling, to say the least, and contradictory way of answering.

Saeed S at January 29, 2004 03:20 PM [permalink]:

Babak,

I don't intend to write a BOOK to answer the comments. I have spent more than I should have here. That is why using metaphors are helpful. I didn't use it to see the subject ,here Quran , as a form of art and I have never thought of it that way. You better read my comments more carefully or I better write them more carefully the next time ;) Using metaphors is a way to connect with people when they , as it appears in here , don't understand each other's language. Most of the problem is people have different meaning of different words like "belief" and start discussing with each other and after wasting a lot of energy they realize that they are talking about different concepts.

As for the brought passages of Quran I have told before that all of it that they brought here will fill less than 10 pages of a book with 604 pages. I have told before that these verses are overemphasised by the current violence in the Muslim world which US and Britian are , in my view, the CAUSE of it(please pay attention to the word , cause). Their approach of bringing on excerpts with the weight around 10/604~0.016 is simplistic if not absurd.

I simply don't BOTHER to go to look carefully at the resources to explain those 10 (out of 604) pages! I want to be a physicist not an Islamic scholar :) I have looked at some of them , including the history behind them, when I was in Iran and it was somehow convincing for me at the time regarding the fact that how the resources in Iran can be one-sided.

My word is SIMPLE: their APPROACH in evaluating a religion is simply wrong! Please pay attention to the word APPROACH.

Saeed S at January 29, 2004 03:47 PM [permalink]:

Babak,

As for the your point about "sacredness" I wrote "I think everybody is familiar in some sense with the concept of "sacred" even a secular person who has a special affection towards something. IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF DEGREES.
"

So I look at it NOT as an absoloute concept. I explained that if I don't understand a passage I don't act according to it. You should see my YES answer with that in your mind.

Dr. Metaphor at January 29, 2004 03:55 PM [permalink]:

I like metaphors. :-)

Ordak D. Coward at January 29, 2004 05:10 PM [permalink]:

Saeed S,
What if you understand a passage of Quran, but it
seems WRONG to you? In your own words, that passage may not inspire you. Will you then act on that passage of Quran or not? Or, on the other hand, you follow the passage even though it seems WRONG. There is also another situation, and that is, you have the assumption that nothing in Quran is WRONG, and if something seems wrong to you, is because YOU do not understand it. Using your own metaphors, parts of Bach music may not appeal to you, will you still try to get a LASTING INSPIRATION from those parts?

Igno Fella at January 29, 2004 05:46 PM [permalink]:

What is "menstruation" people? Is it the same as "masturbation"?

Saeed S at January 29, 2004 05:48 PM [permalink]:

Ordak,

I do NOT act according to it if a passage seems "wrong" to me. In the case of
Bach or Beethoven I'll try to listen them over and over again because I beleive in
Bach and Beethoven! In the same metphorian space I don't waste my time listening one of , say Bernstein's compositions, over and over again because I found him overall a boring composer. I don't care to read strange sentences of "the gay science" over and over again. I like its character but not that much! As I said it's only a matter of degrees.

So in MY case, I'll call those passages as strange: as somethings that I'd be happy to understand them some day as the missing part of my belief in Quran. So YES I 'll regard them as my own lack of understanding.

Remember! this is just my experience. I don't have any intention to generalize it to other people as some other in this website tend to do.

Señor Græd at January 29, 2004 06:03 PM [permalink]:

True, nobody asked my opinion on this matter, but according on my experience, disputing religious matters is pointless. And boring. Some things better left un-discussed. But I guess everybody is entitled to reach that conclusion (or any other conclusion) herself.

hajir at January 29, 2004 06:50 PM [permalink]:
Quran is the book of guidance: (2:2). This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah. Early muslims didn't consider Quran to be merely an artistic book. "But no by the Lord, they shall not be believers, until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction." [An-Nisa: 65] For the muslim community what Mohammad SAW would order was the order of Allah. Muslims, in any dispute, have to refer to Quran and Sunnah. Quran is not only an inspiration but it is a judge too. Wessie Quran is not understood simply through a translation or even through reading the arabic script without a deep knowledge of Quranic sciences. The common mistake of nonmuslims and uneducated muslims is that they take the verses out of the context and wishfully think they have proved their points by using Quran. Quranic sciences are many; a full knowledge of arabic language and grammer is the least. For any verse there is a historical context that without knowing that context, one has to refrain from interpreting the verse. Such a context is called "Sha'n Nuzul" (the reason of revelation); Also some verses are abrogated by later verses and without the full knowledge of abrogated and the abrogator one has to refrain himself/herself from interpreting Quranic verses. There are also verses that are called "Muhkamat" and there are verses that are called "Mutashabihat". Attaining enough knowledge about these terms and their applications and reading the well known Tafseer books takes the most intelligent people at least 10 years. Even after that, such knowledgable shake in fear when they want to talk about Quran. It's funny how someone who has barely studied even the english translation of Quran and knows very little arabic considers herself a Quranic scholar and dares to interpret the quranic verses. For those who know about Islam and Quran, she is just joking! I implore you dear, have mercy on yourself and before learning arabic and reading some Tafseer books, don't even think about interpreting Quran because you only prove your ignorance. This is my honest advice to you. You may get a good audience of westerners who know nothing about Islam and Quran and you may impress them but not us. AIS, Ka'b was a threat to the Ummah. Islam established a new form of nationality based on religion. All muslims were the members of the nation (Ummah) and Mohammad SAW was the leader of that nation. Ka'b was insulting the messenger and hence putting the whole nation in danger. His words could bring disunity amongst muslims and even make some to return to Kufr and resume their enemity towards muslims. No nation allows that to happen and Mohammad SAW made a wise choice by ordering his death. To make my points clear I give you an example: Let's say it's the time of war and enemies from all sides have attacked your people (wherever you are from, american or iranian); the war is not only fought by swords and on the battlefield but it is psychological most of the time. That part of the enemy that conducts the psychological warfare is much worse than the military part. To survive (and that means saving your wives and daughter from being raped and yourself, your neighbors and your friends from being killed, etc) you need to take care of both fronts and specially the psychological squads of the enemy. Now you ask on what authority did Mohammad order ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
hajir at January 29, 2004 07:10 PM [permalink]:

Saeed please be careful not to fall in a category who accepts some parts of Quran and rejects other parts just because that doens't fit into his understanding. We muslims must follow the revelation even if we don't understand the true reasons behind it. So if wine is prohibited, we follow and if the female inherits half of what male does we follow, etc.


“So do you believe in some part of the Book and disbelieve in some? The penalty awaiting those who do this is nothing but humiliation in this life and the severest punishment on the Day of Judgment." [Al-Baqarah: 85].

The Bass Voice at January 29, 2004 07:29 PM [permalink]:

Mulla Hajir:

So, Quran is not that complete after all. There are Mutashabihat, and we have to know Sha'n Nuzul, and be aware that 1,400 years ago, it was customary to marry a seven-year-old girl and consumate the marriage with a nine-year-old, to kill a nonbeliever since he was a security threat to Muhammad's power. So, thos things have changed now; we are ignorant and uneduacted in Quranic sciences and we should refer to Ulama, and what do they tell us? Wessie has brough but few examples of their teaching (how to clip the nails and so on). Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi is one of them. He preaches death and destruction to nonmuslims and those turned away from muslims. He does not evn hesitate to call for the elimination of those muslims whom he finds weak and thus agents of the West. You sanction all that under the pretext of Ummah.

A reminder: all this is what is being fought conciously or unconciously in Iran. A battle between 7-century Arabia's mindless superstitious anti-wisdome and modern-day self-liberating Enlightenment.

No Name at January 29, 2004 09:53 PM [permalink]:

"It takes 10 years to study the Quran" What a load of baloney. I bet the ulema don't want people to read the Quran so that they can unload their bs on the people without being challenged, so they can say, yeah the Quran is mubeen clear whatever, or alternately the Quran is so complex that no regular person can understand it, the translation is not enough, etc. Yeah yeah whatever. So basically to love the Quran you've got to squint your eyes just so, hold your nose, have a few beers, chant it's all good i dont understand it it's all good i dont understand it it's all good i dont understand it...

Wessie at January 29, 2004 11:04 PM [permalink]:
"Correct! Muslims have every right to defend themselves and that's what bothers you. We fought in Afghanistan, Iran (against your back-then-beloved Saddam), Bosnia and now Chechnia, Kashmir and Palestine against oppression and injustice. That's what our religion teaches us and we don't put aside our obligations just to please the Kuffar." What a load of BS, Hajir! Muslim don't defend themselves, they START wars and have done so since the time of pedophile Mohammed. Osama et al. attacked the West and NOT vice versa. Muslims attack in Chechnia, Kashmir and Palestine—and NOT vice versa! Oppression and injustice is written in the Qur'an against the Kuffar because Islam is a racist, misanthropic, misogynistic 7th century death cult. The Qur'an is NOT complex. It is simply a war manual for the simple-minded. Those who cannot and will not think for themselves, like the Hajirs of the world. Mullah Hajir, that's about right. Taking 7th century ignorance and trying to apply it to the 21st century. "Saeed please be careful not to fall in a category who accepts some parts of Quran and rejects other parts just because that doens't fit into his understanding. We muslims must follow the revelation even if we don't understand the true reasons behind it. So if wine is prohibited, we follow and if the female inherits half of what male does we follow, etc. Muslims like you, Hajir don't understand anything because they refuse to educate themselves and continue to cling to the ignorance of the Qur'an. “So do you believe in some part of the Book and disbelieve in some? The penalty awaiting those who do this is nothing but humiliation in this life and the severest punishment on the Day of Judgment." [Al-Baqarah: 85]." As for "humiliation in this life" that is the doing of ignorant Muslims who humiliate themselves by believing in a 7th century death cult brought forth by a psychotic pedophiliac to amass his Islamic empire. On the "day of judgment" (if there is such a thing) Muslims will be held to account for their murderous ways, Hajir. People like you should pay through eternity for their support of murderous, backward Islam! Nobody really gives a fig, Hajir what you or any other Muslims thinks about the Qur'an. We only care that you don't murder innocents. Today, again, Muslims showed the world what barbarous, psychotic, savages they are: 11 Killed By Bomb On Bus In Jerusalem http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60722-2004Jan29.html?nav=hptop_tb "The 9 a.m. bombing, which was so powerful that it sprayed body parts into surrounding apartment buildings, wounded more than 50 people, Israeli police and rescue officials said. . . " "The 15-pound bomb, which was carried in a sack packed with pieces of metal to increase its destructive power, was detonated about two-thirds of the way toward the back of the bus shortly after it pulled away from a passenger kiosk, police and eyewitnesses said. The explosion blew out all the windows of the bus, peeled off half of the roof, created a crater-like hole in the floor and blasted away the metal sides, scattering broken glass, clothes, papers, blood and body parts over a wide area. Investigators collected body parts and pieces of the bus from the roofs and rooms of nearby buildings. "People were killed and thrown out of the bus 30 meters away," said Eli Beer, 31, a coordinator for the Magen David Adom emergency rescue service who arrived on the scene minutes after the blast occurred. "People ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at January 29, 2004 11:10 PM [permalink]:


"True, nobody asked my opinion on this matter, but according on my experience, disputing religious matters is pointless. And boring. Some things better left un-discussed. But I guess everybody is entitled to reach that conclusion (or any other conclusion) herself."

So, Señor, do you also find Islamic murder of innocents "boring and pointless"? Shall we just bury the dead (if we can find the pieces) murdered by Islam and forget about it?

The conclusion many in the civilized world are reaching is that Islam and its murderous teachings has got to go!

Ali at January 30, 2004 12:09 AM [permalink]:

Given that nothing is irrelevant in Wessie's posts:

Vice Premier Ehud Olmert acknowledged that Israeli reprisals have proven ineffective and has instead said Israel should withdraw quickly from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and impose a boundary on the Palestinians — something Sharon has suggested he would do by June if peace efforts fail. "Terror has ... continued without any relation to the strength of our response," Olmert said.

AIS at January 30, 2004 12:21 AM [permalink]:
I think it is clear now to every one with a clear mind that people like Saeed, despite their allegations of deep understanding and so on, can not afford to take on a single challenge of documented facts presented to them. Although I am quite confident that he will continue his high browed assertions to non-muslims or muslims who not much of Islam in the future, (Laf dar ghariby va...!). But it also makes more things clear. One of them is the habit of these people to boast at high grounds first and then when confronted suddenly lower their claims to keep the face. Kasravi had a nice example for this. You might know of the shiite obsession with their holy imams and how they cry for them, and when the circumstances are right, even go as far as explain the whole reason for existance to be the five holy ones, ahl-e abaa, or have the practice of asking their imams to take their hands in the world to come..., but when confronted with the absurdity of their claims and the fact that it is contrary even to Islam itself they all of a sudden answer with something like every poeple want to preserve the memory of their heros! From the very reason for the existance of the universe down to remembering our heroes memories! A passing glance at Saeed's tone and type of assertions relating to Islam shows a similar trend, to say the least. The other thing this showed once again is why the Isllamic regimes have to be tyrannical ,with censorship and torture. In a free environment of open discussion, Islam cannot maintain its justification for ten minutes! It is just too 'rosvaa' for that! Ever Islamic system must rely on fear to survive. (And before you mention the fastes growing religion line, Hajir, let me hasten to add that that has to do with uncontrolable zippers among Muslim husbands than any convincing conversions among others.) Just to make the case clear all together Saeed, your analogies with Bach are meaningless. Quran is made of sentence which convey meanings and themselve demand certain things as Hajir pointed out from the Quranic verses themselves. A piece of Music has no external meaning attached to it, but consists of abstract forms and structures that pleases the mind and arouses the feelings. That again is an instance of your graduall lowering of your assertions. Should the world conduct foreign policy or base their morality on what they 'hear' between Bach's notes? Does Beethoven's music present the world with an alternative to the American and British 'money led policies' as you claim? :) Apropos 'money policy', let me give you a passing musical analogy. You and others like you are like people who have been subject to very very loud shout and sounds most of their lives. It is no longer possible for your ears to comprehend the subtle changes of volume and sharpness, tonality etc of sounds in the midium range from on another that are ironically where real inspiring music is made. Your one dimensional morality, formed on the face of a very loud illusion of an absolute deity with absolute distinction of honorable and dishonorable has made you deaf for the subtle music of realism and effective policies. One more point, not everything is correctly expressible by percentages. As someone studying Physics you should know that even a slightest inconsistency is unacceptable and must be dealt with. (Not that a TRUE theory can ever be completely as far as nature is concerned, but the inconsistant theories are already refuted!). Here is an even ea ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
AIS at January 30, 2004 12:25 AM [permalink]:

Hajir's case is another interesting instance. As Brass Voice correctly observed, their self contradictory and self exposing comments when confronted with solid evidence is a remarkable contrast to the holiness, completeness and perfection of Islam that they usually claim when not directly confronted! He is honest how ever and shows very plainly the correct Islamic attitude of closing your eyes, stopping to ask questions and following the epilectic blind all the way down the well, as we say in Persian again!
It is ironic that Islam BEGAN as opposing such attitude, asking people to think for themselves. That is the favourite suction method of the Saeed type muslims, before they get you to the beasts den where you have to continue in Hajir's ways the rest of your life.
That by itself of course was hardly a merit of Muhammads open mindedness, rather it was his lack of credibility and enough prestige as far as such religious issues are concerned. Once he got the power of the sword, of course he didn't need that much asking for thought any more and he made a good use of it as well.
Your assertion that one should study for years before understanding what Quran says is also very funny, since that is against what Quran says of itself all along. It is supposed to be a simple warning to everyone, a message, something that EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND. The reason for Tafsir later on, besides the benefit it gave to those lowlife mullahs and muftis, was that Quran was too inadequate, beeing the result of a backward desert culture, and to self-contradicting to be of any real use in real affairs of life in the empire the moslems conquered by the sword, enslavement and yes Hajir, RAPE.
As you said with Sha'n-e Nozul and nasekh and mansukh, not two parts of the Quran say the same thing. It is a masterpiece of self-contradiction, irrelevance and meaninglessness.
I hope this shows to you Wessie as well that to expose the inhuman nature of Islam you don't need to go around insulting people directly like that. All you hve to do is confront the praciticing ones with some facts and let them talk, they'll expose themselves much more effectively.

Nothing is easier! :)

AIS at January 30, 2004 12:31 AM [permalink]:

BTW Hajir,I did praise your honesty and sincerity of faith, but you remind me once again that one should never put any hope on a practing moslem's morality.
Hajir said: "We fought in Afghanistan, Iran (against your back-then-beloved Saddam), Bosnia
and now Chechnia, Kashmir and Palestine against oppression and injustice. That's what our
religion teaches us and we don't put aside our obligations just to please the Kuffar."

This is just a glimps in what he means, giving a new meaning to 'death cult' (sounds familiar from our Mullah ideals, people?) :

"PA ideology rejects the values that other societies hold supreme. Here is Issam Sissalem on
PA TV: “We are not afraid to die and do not love life.”
Palestinian children have learned to see dying for the deity as their goal in life. In a
chilling talk show interview on PA TV, two 11-year-old girls explain cheerfully and eloquently what they and their young friends desire:
Walla: Shahada is very, very beautiful. Everyone aspires to shahada. What could be better
than going to paradise?
Host: What is better, peace and full rights for the Palestinian people or shahada?
Walla: Shahada.
Yussra: Of course shahada is sweet. We don’t want this world, we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life but from the Afterlife... Every Palestinian child aged, say 12, says “Oh Lord, I would like to become a shahid.”
Public opinion polls indicate that Yussra and Walla represent an overwhelming majority of Palestinian children who embrace this belief. According to three different polls, 70 to 80 percent of Palestinian children aspire to shahada.

In the ancient world, there was widespread belief that the deity wanted humans to die as the ultimate form of worship. People gave their children to the deity of Molech and the Baal.
This ancient belief has now returned to plague the world."
(Source JPost)


Oh and the Israelis don't kill people who say poems against them, they defend themselves
against those who blow themsleves up amidst their civilian popluation or those who DELIBERATELY (that's the key here) shoot 3 year old children in their homes, and with the soldiers of Islam track record in their 14 century history up to this day, you better not even open the topic of rape.

In the context of our discussions this should be illuminating, You can view the latest example of
the glories of the Islamic law here, Be sure to praise the Allah (the last one was the sex slave trade in our own country,Iran):

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=C9CE3CEBD341410FACBEFAABD8F66FE0&ci=22958&ak=null&ClipMediaID=28655

(source:LGF)

And Hajir, 'dear zioinists' is not really correct. You should have known by now that they
are my evil lizard masters and I am in their payroll after having sold my precious soul.

BWAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AIS at January 30, 2004 12:36 AM [permalink]:

BTW Hajir,I did praise your honesty and sincerity of faith, but you remind me once again that one should never put any hope on a practing moslem's morality.
Hajir said: "We fought in Afghanistan, Iran (against your back-then-beloved Saddam), Bosnia
and now Chechnia, Kashmir and Palestine against oppression and injustice. That's what our
religion teaches us and we don't put aside our obligations just to please the Kuffar."

This is just a glimps in what he means, giving a new meaning to 'death cult' (sounds familiar from our Mullah ideals, people?) :

"PA ideology rejects the values that other societies hold supreme. Here is Issam Sissalem on
PA TV: “We are not afraid to die and do not love life.”
Palestinian children have learned to see dying for the deity as their goal in life. In a
chilling talk show interview on PA TV, two 11-year-old girls explain cheerfully and eloquently what they and their young friends desire:
Walla: Shahada is very, very beautiful. Everyone aspires to shahada. What could be better
than going to paradise?
Host: What is better, peace and full rights for the Palestinian people or shahada?
Walla: Shahada.
Yussra: Of course shahada is sweet. We don’t want this world, we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life but from the Afterlife... Every Palestinian child aged, say 12, says “Oh Lord, I would like to become a shahid.”
Public opinion polls indicate that Yussra and Walla represent an overwhelming majority of Palestinian children who embrace this belief. According to three different polls, 70 to 80 percent of Palestinian children aspire to shahada.

In the ancient world, there was widespread belief that the deity wanted humans to die as the ultimate form of worship. People gave their children to the deity of Molech and the Baal.
This ancient belief has now returned to plague the world."
(Source JPost)


Oh and the Israelis don't kill people who say poems against them, they defend themselves
against those who blow themsleves up amidst their civilian popluation or those who DELIBERATELY (that's the key here) shoot 3 year old children in their homes, and with the soldiers of Islam track record in their 14 century history up to this day, you better not even open the topic of rape.

In the context of our discussions this should be illuminating, You can view the latest example of
the glories of the Islamic law here, Be sure to praise the Allah (the last one was the sex slave trade in our own country,Iran):

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=C9CE3CEBD341410FACBEFAABD8F66FE0&ci=22958&ak=null&ClipMediaID=28655

(source:LGF)

And Hajir, 'dear zioinists' is not really correct. You should have known by now that they
are my evil lizard masters and I am in their payroll after having sold my precious soul.

BWAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Daaneshgara at January 30, 2004 02:04 AM [permalink]:

Wessie and AIS,

If I may, do you have a problem with Islam,
or you have problem with all the relegions?

A guy named Satan at January 30, 2004 09:46 AM [permalink]:

On the Superiority of Christian Fundamentalist Gods over Islamic Fundmantalist Gods

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, US Army Lieutenant General, William G. Boykin, suggested that radical Islamists hate America "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian...and the enemy is a guy named Satan."
He added, that the United States is engaged in a religious war with Muslims and our "spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus." Boykin discussed his efforts to capture a Muslim Somali warlord, saying, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

Boykin, a born-again Christian, is a former commander of the army's anti-terrorist Delta Force. In his new position as deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence Boykin is responsible for hunting down high-profile targets like Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Mullah Omar.

Onwards Christian Soldiers at January 30, 2004 10:00 AM [permalink]:

"The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe Islam is a very evil and wicked religion.Islam, as a whole, is an evil. It wasn’t Methodists flying into those buildings, it wasn’t Lutherans. It was an attack on this country by people of the Islamic faith."

Onwards Christian Soldiers at January 30, 2004 10:09 AM [permalink]:

The women in the bible are secondary creatures and usually considered inferior in Judeo-Christian literature. The woman is portrayed as the tool of the serpent (a.k.a. Satan). When the first couple was banished from Eden, Yahweh laid a threefold curse on all women:

· That her suffering in childbearing would be "greatly multiplied.'
· That she would nevertheless be made to lust for her husband.
· That she would be subsidiary to the man: "He will rule over you."

Based on the teachings of the old testament, an unmarried woman was regarded as the property of her father or of a brother. A father could, at his option, give her away or, indeed, sell her to a prospective husband. He could also sell her as a slave and she had no say in the transaction. A prospective groom paid what was called a "bride price," in part because the bride had some value around the house and in the bedroom and because if she bore him children they would be the property of the husband. If a man seduced a virgin he was required to pay her father a bride price and do so even if the father refused to give her to the seducer in marriage.

Married, the woman remained a chattel. If her husband died before she bore him a son she was not permitted to marry anyone outside the family. Her husband's brother was required to take her as his wife and the first-born son of that marriage bore the name of the dead husband.

A man could offer his daughter as a prize. King Saul offered his eldest daughter to the man who would bring down Goliath, and his youngest daughter to the man who would bring him the foreskins of one hundred Philistines.

Onwards Christian Soldiers at January 30, 2004 10:12 AM [permalink]:

Lessons on Judeo Christian Traditions

The women of enemy nations were regarded as part of the spoils of war. The law of Israel specified: "When you go to war against your enemies and take prisoners: if you see a beautiful woman among the prisoners and find her desirable, you may make her your wife and bring her to your home. Should she cease to please you, you will let her go where she wishes, not selling her for money. You are not to make any profit out of her since you have had the use of her.

Onwards Christian Soldiers at January 30, 2004 10:14 AM [permalink]:

Christian teachings on Women

Paul (Letter to Timothy at Ephesus)

I direct the women to wear suitable clothes and to dress quietly and modestly; not with braided hair, gold, jewellery, or expensive clothes. During mass women are to remain silent and submissive. I permit no woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. Women should keep silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak. As the Law says, 'They are to be subordinate.' If there is anything a woman wants to know, she should ask her husband after they get home. It is shameful for a woman to speak in church."


Señor Græd at January 30, 2004 12:14 PM [permalink]:

Comment removed: Rule 2 of comment policy.

Señor Græd at January 30, 2004 12:49 PM [permalink]:

With all due respect to all comment-writers who have heatedly contribued under different names, I still find it futile (definitely more so after those comments, not less) to try to "disprove" the validity (or authenticity) of a faith to its ardent believers. As futile as trying to "prove" the validity of a faith to a "heathen".

Like I said a long time ago in a comment, great religious traditions did not start or spread by means of "logical arguments". Founders of these spiritual faiths may have occasionally resorted to arguments, but I don't think they ever relied on Reason alone for persuading people to believe.

Likewise, as the history of mankind must have shown to us, no matter how long you reason with a believer and point out to them the contradictions in their systems of belief, or things in their sacred texts that look simply "wrong", they are not going to give up their faith just because of some stupid logical flaws. After all, their faith is way more important to them than ANYTHING else.

Babak S at January 30, 2004 02:33 PM [permalink]:

Señor Græd:

I beg to differ. First of all, it's not true that pointing out logical flaws to a believer, an ardent believer as you wrote, is futile. There are many a believer who think, or are convinced, there is no illogicality in their belief. Challenging this conviction is quite important. Examples of those who left their beliefs, or at least modified them beyond recognition as a result of discovering such inconsistencies and illogicalities are abundant.

Secondly, the point in bringing up logical faults of a belief system is not just to show, or "prove"—whatever the word means here—the fault of the belief sytem to its believers. I agree that these systems do not rely on Reason alone but they do rely on Reason, especially nowadays that science has shown itself to be such an important and succesful factor of our lives. So, laying out in open any belief system's logical faults, serves to take away one of their tools of propagation they have been using against its purpose.

Last but not least, if it comes to it, it will become a battle between logic and blind belief; it's an important question to be answered by human race, in my view, that will in large part determine its destiny, too.

Borghan N. Narajabad at January 30, 2004 02:51 PM [permalink]:

In respond to Onwards Christian Soldiers’s comments, as a Muslim, I should say, Muslims believe in Jesus and Moses as God’s prophets, as well as authenticity of ORIGINAL bible.

Having inferior position for women, or approval of slavery, in Judo-Christian as well as Muslim traditions (I’m using tradition, because it is different than faith), had rather economic reasons, and was dominant among all traditional societies. As a matter of fact, the change in these attitudes was highly correlated with economic aspects of each society rather than its faith.
(Recall:
1) West Europe and North America are not the only Christian regions in the world; Latin America, East Europe and West Africa are dominantly Christian as well.
2) The worst possible period of slavery in the whole history, was 150 years ago in the south of the US, which was and is dominantly Protestant Christian.
)

We shouldn’t and do not consider a hardliner like Boykin as true representative for Christians.

Personally, I think a guy like Boykin is not that much different than Ben Laden. Both of them are using religion as a cover for their earthy evil causes. Both of them are ignorant of their own faith, as well as others.

However, I should appreciate the comments for pointing the fact that being ignorant and hateful is not restricted to Muslim community; one can find these sorts of people in any faith, and it’s just wrong to make these people stereotype for followers of that faith, as Wessie does.

Señor Græd at January 30, 2004 04:16 PM [permalink]:

Thanks for the counter-comment, Babak S.

Overall, I agree with what you wrote in your last comment, especially your first paragraph. As for the second paragraph, hmmm, I'm not sure if Reason is, or has ever been, an effective tool to stop or slow down the propagation of a faith. (In our time, no faith seems to be all that successful in attarcting a lot of non-believers, as far as I know, and in the past, too, a lot of mass-convertions took place when a king converted and made his people convert too. That is how Aremnians converted and how Iran became a Shia state under the Safavids and I guess there must be other examples of which I'm unaware. For a more recent example of this phenomenon you can read this amusing piece: http://economist.com/World/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2375422 )

99% of people (of course I don't mean exactly 99 percent, but you know what I mean) cannot care less about whether the faith they are raised with is "illogical" or not. To many, a faith is not so much a set of beliefs as it is a way of living their life. A way that they're convinced will lead them to good results (salvation, paradise replete with un-deflower-able virgins, or simply peace of mind and the assurance that one has done the "right" thing) at the end.

As for your last paragraph I would like to say the following: Faith, by definition, *is* blind. For example, as someone put it so nicely, if it was possible to prove the existence of God, then there would be no point in believing; would it? You could simply prove it (say, by means of a logical reasoning or by conducting an experiment) and then everybody in their right mind would of course believe, don't you think?

hajir at January 30, 2004 05:39 PM [permalink]:

What is logic and what is "blind faith"? Why believing in god is illogical and not believing is logical? How do you measure the "logicality" (not sure if this word exist lol) of a belief system? These are questions that whoever claims that a specefic belief system is not logical has to answer. These are not easy questions. If you want to project your own set of defenitions and call your ideas logical and others illogical then you are not being fair.

Islam doesn't contradict our logic. For me it's illogical if one thinks there is no god or no higher intelligence who governs this universe; for me it's illogical if one thinks such a god created humans and left them alone and didn't communicate with them. These may not sound illogical to you but there is 'no way' for us to prove our 'belief' that our opinion is logical and the other's opinion is illogical. See the point is that logic by itself leads you nowhere and you need some set of 'axioms' to rely on. This was known even to ancient greeks.

I challenge anyone of you who wants to present an argument proving the "illogicality" of Islam.

The Bass Voice at January 30, 2004 07:40 PM [permalink]:

Good try, mulla hajir! But you missed it again, unfortunately.

"logic itself leads you nowhere...," not true! Granted, you will need a set of axioms. So, what are the axioms of Islam? You might as well want to remind yourself of Gödel's Theorem too.

I do not intend to engage in a boring, ultimately fruitless discussion—I can guess what your answers are going to be; but let me just make an effort nevertheless. Would you be so kind to enlighten me on the internal logic of the following two verses of Quran:

1) 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. [2:256, link]

2) They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- [4:89, link]

Emphasis is mine. There are other verses that amount to the same verdict, but this one is the one upon whose meaning virtually everyone agrees.

Señor Græd at January 30, 2004 09:14 PM [permalink]:

Sounds like in spite of my own admonitions, I am being lured to this "religion talk".

Hajir:

We may have used the word "logic" loosely in the above comments, but one can rigorously talk about the consistency of a (formal) system, that is to say, it's being free from contradictions. The Bass Voice points out an example of such an inconsistency in Koran. There are, however, a million ways to get past that inconsistency! One may think, Okay, it's probably not all what was revealed to the Prophet (beware that this option could cost you your life in a muslim society!), or that one of these two statements overrides the other one, depending on the circumstances, or if all else fails, one can say that as we humans ourselves are not free from contradiction why should the scripture addressed to us be? It's not meant to be a science book, after all. It's a unique creation, a mixture of poetics (watch your heads!) and a manual for living and a lot of other things all at once!

I thought a little bit more about these last comments and I now think the main function of religion, as I hinted at, is to give humans an "assurance" that they cannot achieve (not for a long time, at least) through other means. Religions provide explanations for the strange things that cannot be explained otherwise, tell us why we're here, where we're headed, and what the hell the whole thing means anyway. (I know it's gonna sound cheesy, but let me say it: Go out tonight and stare at the sky for a moment, and ponder: What the fuck is the whole thing about?)

Finally, I don't approve of calling someone, Mulla Someone, unless there is mutual understanding that it is meant to be a joke and both parties find it funny. Some people easily take offence at being called by titles such as mullah, haji, honey, jigar, etc.

ö

Señör Græd at January 30, 2004 09:16 PM [permalink]:

The Bass Voice wrote: "Emphasis is mine."

I missed it the first time I read it. Quite funny, indeed. :-)

hajir at January 30, 2004 11:35 PM [permalink]:

The Bass Voice,

You did not mention the verse before and the verse after 4:89. You simply took out the verse out of context and claimed a fake victory! Let's read from 4:88 to 4:91


88. Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.

89. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

90. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

91. Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.


Now the issue of apostacy; it is true that there is no compulsion in religion but as soon as you become a muslim and accept Islam willingly THEN it means that you have admitted the laws of Islam INCLUDING the law concerning the apostates. If you want to keep your options (of changing your faith whenever you want) then of course you don't become a muslim. It's that easy! Nobody is forced to accept a religion that orders the death of apostates. It's up to you to accept Islam or not BUT if you accept it you should know that the punishment of the apostate is severe. As you see there is no contradiction whatsoever and you were simply mistaken.

Having said this, not all apostates are killed. By law an apostate is given a few days to repent; if he doesn't then it's up to the muslim judge to take all things into the consideration and issue a sentence based on his understanding. The verses after 4:89 shows that the islamic state shouldn't offend those who reject Islam and at the same time are peaceful towards muslims. But if someone rejects the faith and starts to weaken the other people's faith, then he has committed treason (islamic nation is a nation based on Islam and any act that weakens the ties of unity and threatens the national security is treason) and must be punished.

If this explanation is not clear please be patient and let me know and I will try to clarify points as we proceed.

Azad at January 31, 2004 12:03 AM [permalink]:

Well, I think all these arguments on the faith are analogous to a debate between two groups: Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometries supporters. Now, as long as you have accepted
Euclidian postulates (or axioms), then the entire propositions can be proved and there is no contradiction. But, if, for example, you believe that there exist two lines parallel to a given line through a given point not on the line, then it obvious that you easily can find many contradictions in Euclidian geometry. Therefore, I think various viewpoints all depend on their postulates which have been accepted. However, remember that postulates are basic assumptions accepted without proof and any effort to logically prove them is just worthless.

The Bass Voice at January 31, 2004 01:17 AM [permalink]:

Hajir preached: "as soon as you become a muslim and accept Islam willingly THEN it means that you have admitted the laws of Islam INCLUDING the law concerning the apostates. If you want to keep your options (of changing your faith whenever you want) then of course you don't become a muslim. It's that easy!"

Let's have another question then from our dear (hat tip, Señor Græd!) hajir:

What about born-muslims? How could they keep their options? Even as a citizen of a nation you could turn down your citizenship and simply take off. At least in modern-day tolerant state nations it is so, as far as I know. Although building a nation upon a religion raises itself many questions, which I let go now.

AIS at January 31, 2004 01:57 AM [permalink]:

Damn it Bass Voice, I wanted to say that first! ;)
And sorry for writing your name wrongly.

AIS at January 31, 2004 04:41 AM [permalink]:

Senior Grad,

To complement what Babak S has written I must say that I also have no hope that the hard core believers would be enlightened with any kind of arguments, but it is necessary that they be exposed as what they really are like, and their claims of rationality, perfection or deep understanding shown to be completely baseless.
More importantly, I think you are mistaking religiosity , which I actually think high of, with an organized religion such as Islam with a historical basis, dogma and political and historical consequences. It is absolutely possible to completely refute the autenticity of Islam using historical evidence, the original sources of the Quran and the internal inconsistencies in its factual assesments as well as its contradictory demands.
Finally I think any free person who believes in human rights of freedom of thought and speech has a moral obligation to stand very clearly against the inhuman teachings of a religion like Islam.
Just read what Hajir has been saying correctly based on Quranic verses and Islamic law and tradition:
"[4:]89. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
or this:
"But if someone rejects the faith and starts to weaken the other people's faith, then he has committed treason (islamic nation is a nation based on Islam and any act that weakens the ties of unity and threatens the national security is treason) and must be punished."

Don't you see? He is saying that if someone has convincing arguments that makes you doubt the stupid dogmas you are meant to follow blindly, you should go after him and MURDER him!
There is no way you can turn a blind eye on this, equate both side as personal beliefes that shouldn't be confronted.
After all it comes down to this, the case where a human being that is alive is very dofferent from
when (s)he is dead.

AIS at January 31, 2004 04:52 AM [permalink]:

Daaneshgara,
"If I may, do you have a problem with Islam,
or you have problem with all the relegions?"

I do not have a problem with religion in general or with religiosity, seeing sacredness in the universe at all. All organized religions howvere are the result of old times, based on a cosmology that is shown to be wrong, so none of them can be taken literally. The challenge therefore is in their moral structure and the question of the strebgth of the dogmas they need to preserve. In that light I do have a lot of problem with Islam. I also have a lot of problems with Christianity, for it also has a historical dogma and internal fascism. But I regard it a degree better because it has in its core the idea of personal reponsibilty and love to God instead of just blind fate, and leaves certain things open that have been used to reform it beyond recognition as someone put it.
Now this may come as abit of surprise but the religion I fear most and have the most problem with is actually Buddhism and most branches of Hinduism. It is very very subtle and also never imposes its laws directly on others. But it is the ultimate deathcult in my view and where Islam is openly hostile and loud, Buddhism is creepy and psychologically effectiuve that will make it mucm more dangerous in the long run, IMHO.

hajir at January 31, 2004 05:01 AM [permalink]:

The Bass Voice,

Remember that you came to the scene by claiming that Quran contains a contradiction. Please don't change the subject and first let me know if you still think those two statements that you mentioned from Quran are contradictory or not.

Secondly, Quran does not talk about 'born muslims' and hence your professional change of subject doesn't help you. At the time of revelation nobody was a born muslim; everyone was a convert and all of the accepted Islam willingly. Mohammad and his companions never forced anyone to convert to Islam. So those verses CANNOT possibly be talking about 'born muslims' and hence the fallacy of argument.

Concerning born muslims there are different opinion amongst Ulama. The general rule for changing religion still holds, i.e. if someone leaves Islam but he is still peaceful towards muslims or joins a group that have peace treaties with muslims, then it's not a problem.

Try again!

AIS at January 31, 2004 05:02 AM [permalink]:

Borghan N. Narajabad ,
"In respond to Onwards Christian Soldiers’s comments, as a Muslim, I should say, Muslims believe in Jesus and Moses as God’s prophets, as well as authenticity of ORIGINAL bible."

The charge that Bible is changed came later in Islamic history. In 1064 AD, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST charged that the Bible had been corrupted and the Bible falsified. This charge was to defend Islam against Christianity because Ibn-Khazem come upon differences and contradiction between the Bible and the Quran. Believing, by faith that the Quran was true, the Bible must then be false. He said, "Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad." His argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts but only on his personal faith, reasoning and desire to safeguard the Quran. This led him to teach that, "The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them."

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.

Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "
BUKHARI (810-870) " " " " (he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
Al-Mas’udi (956) " " " "
Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "
AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " " (probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " " (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.)
Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."


So how do we explain the differences:
Easy. Muhammad thought at the time that those stories are in the Bible. He never had access to original texts himslef. Mots of it were either apocryphal gsopels, themsleves somewhta influenced by Greek mysticisms like agnostism or even Buddhism or half correct recantaions of Talmudic stories.
You can see the full scholarly exploration of Qurans' sources here.


You also say:
"Having inferior position for women, or approval of slavery, in Judo-Christian as well as Muslim traditions (I’m using tradition, because it is different than faith)"

Oh God, here we go again. Those are in the faith. Ask Hajir he can give you the corresponding verses and Hadiths. (sigh)

AIS at January 31, 2004 05:15 AM [permalink]:

Hajir,

"These may not sound illogical to you but there is 'no way' for us to prove our 'belief' that our opinion is logical and the other's opinion is illogical. See the point is that logic by itself leads you nowhere and you need some set of 'axioms' to rely on. This was known even to ancient greeks."

Thsi kind of sophistry is too old Hajir. There are obvious ways of showing it to be wrong, for example this one: If I have one apple and another apple, do I have two apples?
Is it possible that something exists and not exists at the same time?
CAn you dispute them? where did their correctness come from? why can't you continue this line of argumentaion to show the incorrectness of Islam, its historical and cosmological claims or SELF-contradictions? (Self is the keyword here!)

But there is another way:
You say you don't understand all of Islam, there are elements you simply accept because you have faith. Here you also say that logic can't prove or disprove anything, and that it all comes to axioms. So here is the question hoe did YOU become faithful in the first place. All you say seems to apply after you have chosen your faith. Based on what criteria did you find out that it was a true one?! And how can you relay that to someone who hasn't heard of Islam before without refering to ANY objective truth OUT THERE?

Your idea of 'logical' and 'axiom' are false. For a complete reply see the next comment, my reply to Azad.

PS. "Concerning born muslims there are different opinion amongst Ulama. The general rule for changing religion still holds, i.e. if someone [WHO IS BORN MOSLEM IN THIS CASE] leaves Islam but he is still peaceful towards muslims or joins a group that have peace treaties with muslims, then it's not a problem. "
Oh yeah? So what is 'Mortad Fetry' (Born apostate) that should (s)he repents? Why are they killing all such apostates in all Islamic lands then?

AIS at January 31, 2004 05:42 AM [permalink]:
Azad, your understanding of axioms and your example of non-euclidian geometries are not correct. It's hard to explain ina short comment , but I'll try any way since it might clear many things here. Unlike the common belief, that has been inherited from Plato, Mathematics and Physics (and thus other 'natural' sciences) are not essentially different and do not belong to different categories. Both are dealing with finding theories about the way nature works, the dividing line is a bit arbitrary, ususally studying the most general truths are deemd mathematics. No mathematical proof is any bit more accurate or unchangable than a theory of physics. Indeed the linear idea of starting from axioms or postulates and building up with logical inference rules untill reaching the deired theorem is not correct. That is just the way it gets presented to the rest of the world. The validity of a proof, logical, mathematical or physical comes from the EXPLANATION that it provides, not its axiosm or logical rule sof inference per say. And since we already know for physical theories that we can never verify them, that htey remain as guesses until they are refuted. (The great Popper showed this beyond doubt), so the same also goes for mathematical proofs! Geometry is actually a very good example. It is really part of physics because it deals with the stationary spatial relations (or spatio-temporal for that matter) and that is the way it was understood up to the eighteenth and nineteenth Century. (You can see for example Newton's preface on the Principia). When you pay attention to the logical inferences in geometrical proofs you will see all sorts of physical assumptions that are unconsciously made, lines passing in BETWEEN points, getting connected by each other etc. The Euclid's 5th axiom, whose proof elluded so many and lead to the discovery of non-euclidean geometries, it turns out does have a proof. (actually its negation). The proof is nothing but Einsteins General relativity theory. In essential there is no difference between relying on Einstein's experimentally tested theoretical predictiosn or concepts and the more mundane 'spatial intuitions' we had in proving other theorems in Geomtery! So what about other kinds of geometry. Well the pun here is the use of the word geometry in a different context. In their case, 'geometry' is a name TRADITIONALLY given to this axiomatic system because it shares the first 4 axioms with the real Geometry (as far as we know it to have remained unrefuted till this day). It might be insightful to see how the consistency of non-euclidian geometries were stablished in the first place. Just because they assumed other axioms and didn't reach to any inconsistency does not guarantee that they won't raech one in the next theorems they prove. So how do they knwo it is consistent? Because they have found a model that satisfies those axioms ONCE YOU USE TERMS SUCH AS POINTS AND LINE...TO SIGNIFY OTHER OBJECTS IN THAT MODEL. So since the model exist, it couldn't have been self-contradictory. But what is a model, but a PHYSICAL entity?! So those geometries are also DESCRIBING ( a different) part of the physical world using the terminology they borrowed from the real geometry. That is the difference between omega consistency and consistency. So you see, it is all about good (but refutable) explanations. How does that relate to our discussion here? It shows clearly why 'proving' something in the old platonic way in general and ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
AIS at January 31, 2004 05:57 AM [permalink]:

Hajir,

Some more minor points.
You say:
"For me it's illogical if one thinks there is no god or no higher intelligence who governs this universe; for me it's illogical if one thinks such a god created humans and left them alone and didn't communicate with them."

What exactly is God? And in what sense can you use the term 'for it'? Can it exist as a chair exists? or is it rather the end of an epistemological approach to the uninverse?

Even if the answer to your questions are affirmative, how can you jump from this to a particular person ina Arabia to assert that he is the guy through which God communicated with us? Why not for example through our own soals, our self-consciousnesses and so on? fuzzy words, fuzzy conclusions!
It reminds me of the 'Elatolelal' 'proof' (prime cause). We use a sort of mathematical limiting case for causes and "define" the limit as God. This very thing is faulty enough, but the next episode is funny. All of a sudden this semi-mathematical limit speaks in rabaic, wants women to cover their hairs, orders executions and wars and is very anxious to his apostles sexual pleasures! :)
-----
A playful hint at your challenge:
"as soon as you become a muslim and accept Islam willingly THEN it means that you have admitted the laws of Islam INCLUDING the law concerning the apostates. If you want to keep your options (of changing your faith whenever you want) then of course you don't become a muslim. It's that easy!"

Let's assume this line of reasoning is valid. What do you say about Abdullah ibn Saud that I mentioned above? He became an apostate before all the laws of Islam were stablished. Before Islam was finished. Indeed the very Quranic verse on killing the renegades that I wrote there and Bass Voice also presented was delivered because of his case, anyway definitely before he choose to be a muslim. So why was he killed? He didn't know when he accepted to be a muslim that such a law will come later on! :)

Here is another thing. If Quran does not contradict itslef, then what are these 'Nasekh' and 'mansookh'? what is the need fro 'sha'n nozool'?


When will you leave this childish games away and grow up?

AIS at January 31, 2004 06:15 AM [permalink]:

Onwards Christian Soldiers ,


Yes, I said earlier that Chrsitianity is already bad enough and that Judaism has also a lot of nonesense in its earlier roots.
But what about now?
TYhe debate sin Conservative and reform Judaism and many Chrsitian sects are about Gay marriages or having Gay priests. Can you even compare this with Islam? Just listen to Hajir for a change, ok?

A Guy Named Satan,

yes , that man is quite a balooney. But there is a difference. He wouldn't have gone imposing his will on others before Sept 11 or without muslim tgerrorist attacks. that is quite essential here.
Here is another balooney:
Changing the name of 'Evolution'

The mullahs were way ahead of this lady. 'Bilogical change over time' is the term used in Iranian text books after the revolution.
(The minister of revolution of the formere regime was executed for havinmg included heretical doctrines such as evolution in textbooks)

AIS at January 31, 2004 06:17 AM [permalink]:

I just want to recommend this saite again. It has very well researched analysis of the sources used in the Quran. Very informative:
Original Sources of the Qur'an

mytwocents at January 31, 2004 11:31 AM [permalink]:

I'm sorry that AIS called Buddhism a creepy deathcult, because I wanted to remind everyone that the "Kamikaze" who bombed Pearl Harbour were Shinto Buddhists (so quit harping on the fact that the Towers were bombed by Muslims, like the one thing explains the other). Anyway, whatever factor religion or culture (or testosterone) played in their decisions, the overriding cause was political in both cases. So why isn't there more name-calling and insulting done in these threads in the name of political beliefs? Why not quote Marx or Jefferson or Payne instead of always the Koran? I am not Muslim, but I'm tired of hearing about what a lousy religion it is. As some littel fat girl on MTV once said "Religion is the smile on a dog." In other words, who the hell knows what it means? Religion is a tool like any other. The parts that are helpful are useful, the parts that are not helpful are useless. You can't use a hammer to bake a cake, no matter who gave it to you

Wessie at January 31, 2004 02:04 PM [permalink]:
"Given that nothing is irrelevant in Wessie's posts:" You're catching on Ali. LOL "Vice Premier Ehud Olmert acknowledged that Israeli reprisals have proven ineffective and has instead said Israel should withdraw quickly from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and impose a boundary on the Palestinians — something Sharon has suggested he would do by June if peace efforts fail. "Terror has ... continued without any relation to the strength of our response," Olmert said." I have always said that the Israelis MUST withdraw and remove the settlements. They were willing to do that in 2000 but instead the Palestinians called their intefadah. The current destruction is the doing of the Palestinians. They have no one to blame but themselves for this mess. The Israelis need that wall to keep these savages out! "The other thing this showed once again is why the Isllamic regimes have to be tyrannical ,with censorship and torture. In a free environment of open discussion, Islam cannot maintain its justification for ten minutes! It is just too 'rosvaa' for that! Ever Islamic system must rely on fear to survive. (And before you mention the fastes growing religion line, Hajir, let me hasten to add that that has to do with uncontrolable zippers among Muslim husbands than any convincing conversions among others.)" You are SO RIGHT, AIS!!! It's is refreshing to see some common sense on these boards. This bears repeating: " not two parts of the Quran say the same thing. It is a masterpiece of self-contradiction, irrelevance and meaninglessness." And as a result, Muslims can't think for themselves, can't think logically and constantly reverse their "thoughts." Daaneshgara, I am against ALL organized religions because they have caused more suffering than any other ideology in the history of the world. However, Islam is in a category all by itself because unlike other religions its tenets teach bigotry, misanthropy and misogyny. I do see the need for religion. But, Islam has go to go! As AIS has said, "Islam is a curse!" Onwards Christian Soldiers, get over the Old Testament. "Christian" means the NEW testament which has NONE of the clap-trap you posted from the Old Testament. Additionally, America is not a "born again" nation. We have many religions—including Islam. I tend to agree with the general that this allah is not the God the rest of us believe in. Also, all the examples you used, especially those for the subjugation of women, don't happen on the scale they happen in Islamic lands in the Christian world. Hajr, Muslims claim EVERYONE is "born" a Muslim and that Islam is the original faith and that EVERYONE one must revert to Islam. Which is clearly a way of trying to dominate the world with this so-called religion. ""if someone leaves Islam but he is still peaceful towards muslims or joins a group that have peace treaties with muslims, then it's not a problem." So why all the death fatwas for apostates? Why do people write under pseudonyms if Islam is so "peaceful"? I have to be honest in that I am again skipping many of the posts because this sort of discussion is (as Senior said) BORING and quite futile. Like I have said all along, NO ONE gives a fig what Muslims believe as long as they don't espouse TERROR. People like Hajir who believe in the literal Qur'an are terror supporters and are just as culpable for the atrocities of Islam as if they were jihadis! These sorts of prayers, (below) if they were made by any other ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at January 31, 2004 02:55 PM [permalink]:

THIS is Islam! (WARNING!!! These are very, very graphic photos.)

LINK

It is time that all believers in the 7th century death cult took a good look at what their so-called religion is doing in REALITY.

(9:123) “Believers! Wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors”.

(5:51) “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends.

(9:29) “Make war upon …the Jews and Christians …who profess not the Religion of Truth, until they pay Jizya and be humbled.”

The Bass Voice at January 31, 2004 03:58 PM [permalink]:

Hajir stated: "Remember that you came to the scene by claiming that Quran contains a contradiction. Please don't change the subject and first let me know if you still think those two statements that you mentioned from Quran are contradictory or not."

I'm not changing the subject at all, hajir. It is the same subject. I still think the two verses ("no compulsion" and "slaying of renegades") are contradictory. The reasoning is so easy: There is no compulsion in religion, with no stated condition. This is an absolute statement. If you practice any form of compulsion in converting people or keeping them in your religion you have violated this verse. The next verse however, orders to slay those who turn back wherever they are found. The understanding of virtually all various versions of islamic law (sharia) from this verse and its likes--after all the ijma and tafseer--is that an apostate's (mortad or moshrek) blood is mobah, that is lawful to shed. This is in direct contradiction with the "no compulsion" verse; so Quran is self-contradictory.

Hajir also stated: "So those verses CANNOT possibly be talking about 'born muslims' and hence the fallacy of argument. Concerning born muslims there are different opinion amongst Ulama. The general rule for changing religion still holds..."

So if there is no verse in Quran regarding born-muslims, where does the ruling come from? If it is derived from Sunnah (manners of the Prophet) it is still in contradiction with "no compulsion" rule, hence showing a contradiction between Sunnah and Quran. If it's not it should be dropped altogether. In any case, the contradiction between the verse and the rule (taken from Quran or Sunnah or whatever) remains.

A general note. I am not arguing in the spirit of a Platonic argument. I'm not trying to "prove" anything; so in a sense I fully agree with explanations given by AIS in this regard. I believe the source of contradictions is in human being herself. Humans can make contradictory decisions and accept such decisions because the whole process is a bio-neuro-psychological one involving memory and whatnot, which admits such contradictions. However, once the price of such contradictions are as grave as the life of a human being or other sever consequences, one must be careful to eradicate them, in practice.

Hopefully I will not be obliged to sing in my very bass voice again. It's very husky now, almost a baritone!

hajir at January 31, 2004 09:46 PM [permalink]:

The Bass Voice and AIS

Please refrain yourself from such comments as: "When will you leave this childish games away and grow up?" I have not offended anyone of you so I demand the same respect from you that I have had for you guys.

This is a sensitive subject and given all the oppression in Iran (that I have also gone through if not more than you not less), I understand your hard feelings about Islam but that should not lead us to 'hate'.

Having said this, I have no bad feelings about anyone of you and you are my brothers in humanity.

I don't want to repeat my arguement about seeing apostacy as a form of treason specially when the muslim nation is under attack. There is no compulsion in religion and we know even in Iran nobody could force us to be muslims. 'Murtad Fitri' is a term invented by later Fuqaha and such a term has no roots in Quran or Sunnah. I am not here to defend whatever Islamic jurists have said or muslims have done throughout the history. I am here to defend Quran and Sunnah of prophet Mohammad up to the best of my ability.

The question is what has made Islam such a threat that so many people and so many groups have declared war against Islam? What is so special about this religion that had a major role in defeating communism and has made it the new enemy of imperialism and has paralized zionism and all other 'isms' out there? Why is it that media day and night attacks our beliefs and our practices and distorts the image of Islam as a barbaric 7th century death cult as a misinformed observer like Wessie repeats? So much conspiracy, so much hate, so much anger against the religion of god, is rooted in ignorance and fear. It's fear that governs the mentality of the opponents of Islam. If communism was one day a threat and communits were portrayed as wild creatures who could come to american homes and eat american babies, now that fear has found a new face: muslim terrorists? A country goes to war, innocent people get killed because of that fear; travelers are fingerprinted and photographed because of that fear, books are written and movies are made to make money out of that fear and people waste their time on internet to discuss that fear.

43. On account of their arrogance in the land and their plotting of Evil, but the plotting of Evil will hem in only the authors thereof. Now are they but looking for the way the ancients were dealt with? But no change wilt thou find in Allah.s way (of dealing): no turning off wilt thou find in Allah.s way (of dealing).

44. Do they not travel through the earth, and see what was the End of those before them,- though they were superior to them in strength? Nor is Allah to be frustrated by anything whatever in the heavens or on earth: for He is All-Knowing. All-Powerful.

45. If Allah were to punish men according to what they deserve. He would not leave on the back of the (earth) a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: when their Term expires, verily Allah has in His sight all His Servants.

The Bass Voice at February 1, 2004 01:54 AM [permalink]:

Hajir:

Speaking of fear, you wrote at January 29, 2004 06:50 PM: "Quran is the book of guidance: (2:2). This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah."

So Islam is, by Quran's own word, also built upon fear, huh?

Imam Khomaini at February 1, 2004 02:05 AM [permalink]:
در سال 1363 بمناسبت سالروز ميلاد پيامبر اسلام (ص) ‏آيت الله خميني خطاب به مقامات لشكري و كشوري و ائمه جماعت ، چنين گفت : « مذهبي كه در آن جنگ نيست ناقص است ….آنهائي كه مي گويند اسلام دين جنگ نيست و اسلام نبايد آدم كشي بكند ، اسلام را نمي فهمند . قرآن مي گويد جنگ جنگ ، جنگ يك رحمتي است براي تمام عالم و يك رحمتي است از جانب خداوند براي هر ملتي در هر محيطي كه هست . محراب يعني مكان حرب ، يعني مكان جنگ ، از محراب بايد جنگ پيدا شود چنانكه بيشتر جنگ ها اسلام از محراب ها پيدا شد . پيغمبر شمشير داشت تا آدم بكشد ، ائمه ما هم عليهم السلام همگي جندي بودند شمشير مي كشيدند آدم مي كشتند . امير المؤمنين اگر بنا بود مسامحه كند شمشير نمي كشيد ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
AIS at February 1, 2004 03:13 AM [permalink]:

Hajir,

I'm sorry you got offended, I didn't mean any insult. However after such heated debate, me calling myself a zionist slave! and you qouting verses you stated you believe in that ask for the blood of those who try to show the invalidity of this religion (like me, I guess), I thought you might have a bit more 'janbeh'. Sorry anyway.

As for the world and media all presenting a demonizing view of Islam, stop whining man!
Just look at the link about the collage of Islamic features on Western capitals that Wessie has given. Unlike what she thinks, the group are a Jewish-Russian tro who wanted to make fun of Western Paranoi against the Islamic world there. The Mulsim community in the Rutgers University protested nevertheless and so did ADL (Anti Defamation League)-the major Jewsish organization against the defamation of Jewish people- for implying a wrong image of an already misrepresentd Islam.
(One of the Muslim protesters there was Amirahmadi by the way, a major lobbyist for the Islamic Republic in the US, By the way!)

For God's sake, the media has been extra careful from the very day it became clear who the perpetrators of 9/11 attacks were to insist the difference between Islam and 'those who have hijacked it'. The president of the US has expressed this many times and even held 'eftari's in the White House!
This might very well have been hypocritical of him but that is irrelevant here since we are talking about the way the media and the West have been portraying Islam to the public. What you say just amazes me, when I see news agancies such as BBC so obviously biased in favor of Islamic groups, or the AP even putting the word Terrorist in scare quotes up to this day.
That also goes for the Christian and Jewish and other religions' authorities that have constantly warned people against mixing up muslims with 'a small group of terrorists'. Indeed as far as the media nd world opinon goes, the US has been much more misrepresented than Islam.
Rest assured Hajir, people like me who say things as they are constitute the ABSOLUTE MINORITY in this world of ours.

AIS at February 1, 2004 03:16 AM [permalink]:

mytwocents,

If you were saying what you just said here publically and repeatedly in an Islamic country, you would have found yourself in very serious trouble. THAT is what all this discussion is about.

AIS at February 1, 2004 03:26 AM [permalink]:

Imam Khomaini,

First of all I don't think it is really correct to post in Persian where some people don't know the language.
Second, I know what you are trying to do, but it won't work anymore. Implying that all this 'turning back from Islam' is just a reaction to what the Mullahs have been doing the past 25 years is dead wrong. Of course it was a major reason for the eyes to be opened, but as I have tried to show here the main problem is in the Quran and the deeds of Muhammad himself, not the other way around. If you ask me, I still think the Mullahs have given us a more humane system than one that was completely based on Islamic laws.

Oh and 'shadravan' Bazargaan was in every respect more guilty than any of the Mullahs, Khomeini himself included. It was people like him, having studied in Europe and everything, that mislead this people to follow these apostles of death. Compared to the likes of him, the mullahs have ALWAYS been very very honest on their nature.
I for one wished there was really a Hell for this guy to burn in for ever.

AIS at February 1, 2004 03:28 AM [permalink]:

Bass Voice and others,

I'm sure glad I'm not alone in this debate! :)

Wessie at February 1, 2004 03:44 AM [permalink]:
"I have not offended anyone of you so I demand the same respect from you that I have had for you guys." Hajir, you seem to not comprehend that by supporting such an intolerant, bigoted faith that you offend—and you offend greatly! Because Islam is responsible for Islamic terror around the world. "What is so special about this religion that had a major role in defeating communism and has made it the new enemy of imperialism and has paralized zionism and all other 'isms' out there? Why is it that media day and night attacks our beliefs and our practices and distorts the image of Islam as a barbaric 7th century death cult as a misinformed observer like Wessie repeats? So much conspiracy, so much hate, so much anger against the religion of god, is rooted in ignorance and fear. It's fear that governs the mentality of the opponents of Islam." This is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever heard, Hajir! Islam "had a major role in defeating communism" PULEEEZE give us a break! Communism was defeated because America out spent it. Communism went broke, it imploded and that had nothing to do with Islam. If it were not for America the Arab states would either be speaking German or Russian now. As to the enemy of imperialism. Are you joking? Islam MANDATES Islamic imperialism. The ummah is instructed to subjugate the world. There is NO ignorance about Islam, Hajir. That is what you refuse to accept. I and others have been quoting the Qur'an and the hadith to show you what a contradictory cult Islam is. But, of course, you refuse to see it. " A country goes to war, innocent people get killed because of that fear; travelers are fingerprinted and photographed because of that fear, books are written and movies are made to make money out of that fear and people waste their time on internet to discuss that fear." Hajir, it's about the bodies!! The DEAD BODIES, that Islam produces every day of the week in the name of their blood thirsty so-called god, allah— BODIES, dead people in the name of Islam. That is what Islam is about, murder of those who are not Muslims. Don't you understand that the world does not trust Muslims! They fear Muslims because their religion tells them to MURDER innocent people. When jihadis are photographed with the Qur'an in one hand and their babies on their arms saying suicide is a good thing—the world looks at this and thinks Muslims are mentally ill. When thousands of Muslims go screeching through the streets chanting "allahu akbar" and supporting murderous jihad—the world thinks Muslims are all crazy. When the world sees the terrible bigotry and misanthropy in the Islamic ummah the world thinks Muslims are not capable of civilized behavior. Islam declared war on civilization—and it is not the first time, Hajir. The first time was when pedophile Mohammed was alive. AIS said it correctly. Islam is a curse! --- Top Saudi Cleric Assails Terrorists http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World ap20040131_1099.html "Saudi Arabia's Top Cleric Says Terrorists Claiming to Be Holy Warriors Are an Affront to Muslim Faith . . " Now, now that the terrorists are also targeting Muslims, Sheik Abdul Aziz al-Sheik is railing against the monster he and his society spawned. Well, it's too late. The genie is out of the bottle. "Is it holy war to shed Muslim blood? Is it holy war to shed the blood of non-Muslims given sanctuary in Muslim lands? Is it holy war to destroy the possession of Muslims," he said. . . "Liberal intellectua ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
hajir at February 1, 2004 05:28 AM [permalink]:

Wessie I understand your anger but I am not a terrorist! The percentage of terrorists to all muslims is less than the percentage of american criminals to all americans. Educate yourself and stop accusing me of supporting terrorism just because they happened to be muslims.
I don't change my religion just because you are angry at Islam. Islam is the only universal religion that invites to worshipping one god and one god only.

The most important message of Islam is Tawheed i.e. to believe in one god and submitting to that unique creator. If we pray 5 times a day, fast in Ramadan or perform pilgrimage to Hajj it's for him. America or nonbelievers in general occupy very little of our minds. You are wrong if you think we wake up in the morning and hate america, eat breakfast and hate america, go to school and hate america... it's not like that. Muslims around the world are like other human beings, they eat, sleep, make love but not only that they praise god for giving them life and for creating this beautiful universe.
The spirit is wandering on Mars and sends stunning pictures from the red planet, the god's power is infinite and his knowledge encompasses everything.

41:53 Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?

Islam is about god and worshipping him and all other things come after that. Islam is the only religion that gives an intelligible understanding of god. I suggest you guys study the 99 names of Allah. I know many of you have learnt them in your childhood and your later resentment for the islamic regime may have affected your comprehension of the beauty of those names. It would be a good idea to re-read them and reflect upon them.
This is a link to a page containing all names with translation: 99 names

Wessie at February 1, 2004 07:08 AM [permalink]:
33s about god and worshipping him and all other things come after that. Islam is the only religion that gives an intelligible understanding of god. I suggest you guys study the 99 names of Allah." What sort of intelligible understanding of God is given when Islam teaches the murder, maiming of "unbelievers" and taking of slaves, as well as the subjugation of women and dhimmitude—and Islam does just that. Every day we hear of murders by jihadis and even slave taking, in this day and age, in the name of Islam. Hajir, perhaps the 100th name of this allah is—TERROR! If you believe in this bloodthirsty allah, YOU are just as guilty as the Islamic terrorists. Because the Qur'an is the instruction manual for Islamic terror. The god of Islam is NOT my God nor is he the god of any decent person on this earth! Civilized people don't believe in a bloodthirsty god. Decent people don't believe in a god who instructs to atrocities and genocide. THIS is Islam: http://www.reuters.com/newsGalaxyPhotoPresentation.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4256153&index=0 "The percentage of terrorists to all muslims is less than the percentage of american criminals to all americans." Really, Hajir. Why don't you tell it to that poor Iraqi policeman or the widows and orphans of today's attack by the "religion of peace." It is estimated that 10% of Muslims have Islamist leanings. Do you know how many millions of people those are? I'll take an American criminal any day over an Islamic terrorist! Any day!!! The religion of pieces strikes again murdering its own. But, perhaps Kurds are not "real" Muslims. Suicide Bombers Kill 10 in Twin North Iraq Attacks http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4256153 "ARBIL, Iraq (Reuters) - Two suicide bombers strapped with explosives blew themselves up at the offices of two Kurdish parties in northern Iraq on Sunday, killing at least 10 people, witnesses and medical sources said. One of the dead was the deputy governor of Arbil province, witnesses said. Witnesses said the blasts hit the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the main factions in Iraq's Kurdish north, as officials received visitors for a Muslim holiday. " ---------- You Hajir and all those who believe and support this 7th century death cult are just as culpable as the terrorists who commit these Islamic atrocities. Shame, shame on you! Now, I am not a Christian, however, Dante was right. Hell is where Mohammed belongs in the 8th or 9th circle close to Satan himself. All who follow his misanthropic, violent teachings belong there as well, Hajir. "Wessie I understand your anger but I am not a terrorist!" You don't understand anything, Hajir. You only hear what you want to hear. You are deaf, dumb and blind to the horrors of Islam— as are all Muslims who insist that "Islam is peace" when it is NOTHING of the kind! Islam is terror and it always has been from the time that Mohammed was driven to Medina and began his bloodthirsty, wars of aggression to solidify his Islamic empire. Islam was and is even today spread by force. The only reason Islam is the "fastest" growing religion is because Muslims use their women like brood-mares. If you support Islam then you are a terrorist supporter, Hajir—and that makes you just as guilty. Because Islam is a misanthropic, misogynistic, fascistic political system that seeks to dominate the world. Do you honestly believe that with mor ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at February 1, 2004 07:25 AM [permalink]:

" Islam is the only universal religion that invites to worshipping one god and one god only. "

The arrogance and lies of Muslims is really astounding. Ever hear of Judaism or Christianity, those are two monotheistic religions—believing on ONE (1) God, Hajir. And they were around long before Islam was dreamed up by empire building Mohammed.

". . .but not only that they praise god for giving them life and for creating this beautiful universe. . . "

Again, that Muslim arrogance in ignorance. Do you honestly believe that Muslims are the ONLY ones who praise and give thanks to God?

"The spirit is wandering on Mars and sends stunning pictures from the red planet, the god's power is infinite and his knowledge encompasses everything."

Yes, well if it were not for those "decadent" "godless" Westerners— ignorant, backward Muslims would not be able to look at the photos of Mars on their Western developed TVs or computers.

Get off your high horse, Hajir, Muslims have little to be proud of. They have discovered or developed little to nothing in the last 1000 years. Indeed, very little was actually discovered or developed by Muslims through the ages. They depended on the conquered dhimmis to keep their societies innovative.

Islam is a parasitic system that depends on dhimmis to keep the coffers of the Islamic state full. Once the "host" dies or is absorbed into Islam the Muslim state can no longer function.

So, you had better hope that Islam does not prevail because such parasites as Islam kill their hosts and then they too die.


Alexandra Westland at February 1, 2004 01:08 PM [permalink]:

244 Muslim Pilgrims Die in Hajj Stampede
Link

"MINA, Saudi Arabia - Nearly 250 Muslim worshipers died in a hajj stampede Sunday during the annual stoning of Satan ritual in one of the deadliest tragedies at the notoriously perilous ceremony.

The stampede, during a peak event of the annual Muslim pilgrimage, or hajj, lasted about a half-hour, Saudi officials said. There were 244 dead and hundreds of other worshippers injured, some critically, Hajj Minister Iyad Madani said.

“All precautions were taken to prevent such an incident, but this is God’s will. Caution isn’t stronger than fate,” Madani said.

---

This happens regularly and the authorities simply shrug their shoulders.

No, it is not "God's will" it is the incompetence of man! Muslims simply seem to view people as expendable. Plenty more where those came from . . .

That is the trouble with Islam, it makes men drones who cannot help themselves.

-------
. . . Last year, 36 pilgrims were trampled to death, most of them en route to the devil stoning ritual.

In 2001, a stampede at the same ritual killed 35.

. . .The gathering of millions is often the scene of deadly stampedes and other violence.

The most deadly Hajj-related incident was a 1990 stampede in which 1,426 pilgrims were killed.

1998 - 180 people died in a stampede near Mecca at the end of the Hajj;

1997 - A fire in Mina tore through the sprawling, overcrowded tent city , trapping and killing more than 340 pilgrims and injuring 1,500;

1994 - a stampede kills 270 pilgrims;

1991 - a chartered airliner carrying pilgrims home to Nigeria crashed, killing 261;

1991 - a plane crash in northern Saudi Arabia killed 91 Senegalese soldiers returning from a trip to Mecca which had been a reward for their service in the U.S.-led coalition that drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait in the Gulf War a month earlier;

1989 - bombs exploded near the Grand Mosque in Mecca, killing one pilgrim and wounding 16 others;

1987 - some 400 people, mainly Iranian Shi'ite pilgrims, were killed in clashes with Saudi security forces during anti-Western protests in Mecca.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/01/hajj.stampede/index.html

Azad at February 1, 2004 04:57 PM [permalink]:
AIS writes: “Your understanding of axioms and your example of non-euclidian geometries are not correct ...” AIS: Thanks for your lengthy and comprehensive comment. Initially, I was reluctant to discuss more on this subject for two reasons: 1-Honestly, I did not consider myself knowledgeable enough to talk on this quite complex subject (i.e. philosophy of mathematics!) 2- I was not sure this discussion would be conclusive Although both of these concerns still stand, I decided to give my two-cent opinion based on my understanding of your comment and hope that it will shed some light on our discussion on faith in general and Islam in particular and also it will provide a new perspective to the subject. Let me first give an introduction to the discussion to the readers to have them familiar with our argument: In this lengthy thread some people pointed out that Islam is self-contradictory. Without getting involved in that type of argument, in my earlier comment, I compared the faith with mathematics (Geometry in particular) and I explained that if there was any contradiction in the faith, it could be fixed by adoption of a new set of axioms. In fact, this was the technique used in mathematics. Throughout the history of mathematics a number of mistakes were accepted as truths. Inadequate understanding of concepts, a failure to recognize all of the required principles of logic, inadequate attention to proofs, and slips in reasoning were found throughout mathematics. Intuition, physical arguments, and appeal to geometric diagrams had frequently taken the place of logical arguments. These developments began as early as Euclid’s Elements, ignoring certain assumptions that were implicitly assumed in the proofs. Axioms critical to the development of mathematics were being reviewed, with regard to calculus in particular. Missing logical structures were completed and the defective portions were repaired as best could be done. In order to make this clear, let’s employ this technique for our subject of discussion( i.e. Islam) to see how this could resolve many of the contradictions. We can arbitrarily adopt the following axioms: 1-God exists 2-Mohammad was God’s prophet 3-Mohammad was truthful Using these axioms and deductive reasoning, many of the contradictions (probably not all of them) can be resolved. I do not want to argue whether these are a correct axiomatic system or not. I just want to demonstrate the technique that I suggested. So is this technique practical then? Well, it turned out that the answer is NO! As AIS pointed out correctly (and I was not aware of it) this method which was based on Plato deductive reasoning does not work even for mathematics! Why? Well, it maybe can be explained by Godel’s theorem: Any sufficiently strong consisted system cannot prove its own consistency. Or in other words: If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent from within itself, then it is inconsistent. Thus, if we use merely mathematical logic with any axiomatic system, we can never be sure that the system of theories built based on deductive reasoning is consistent. If we still assume that the faith is analogous with mathematics we concluded that the faith can not prove its consistency either. AIS pointed out that scientists have tried to fix the consistency issue of mathematics by combing it with physics rather than maintaining it as a abstract entity. He explains that the universe is a consistent entity so if we can correlate the ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at February 1, 2004 05:15 PM [permalink]:

There is one problem with your premise. Mathematics is not immutable— Islam, according to the way Mohammed set it up, is. Mathematical theories can always be changed as knowledge increases. Islam does not permit such changes.

"Instead of focusing on inconsistency of any faith, we might need to think more on its application or its usefulness"

What specifically is "useful" about passages that mandate murder of innocents because they are not of that faith— other than reducing the population? What, specifically is "useful" about a faith that claims its followers are, "the best of peoples" and excludes and derides others going so far as to say they are "monkeys and pigs"?

The only thing Islam is "useful" for is subjugation of the "other," it seems and pretending it is superior—with nothing much to show for it.

Wessie

Wessie at February 1, 2004 08:34 PM [permalink]:
Teach your children well! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040201/481/jrl10602011527 Now here is an article that tells the truth! anarticle that tells it like it is. Let Muslims GROW UP and take responsibility for what they are and what they do. Why it’s Islam vs rest of the world Tavleen singh In Davos this year there was much talk of Islam and its differences with the West. The emphasis was on trying to understand why rather than on dismissing the whole issue as that clash of civilisations Samuel Huntington wrote so prophetically about nearly ten years before 9/11. A whole gamut of Muslim intellectuals were invited to address sessions with subjects as diverse as religion and globalisation, modernity and Islam and the shared roots of Western and Islamic culture. Arab princes spoke, as did professors and scholars from the Islamic world and women in hijab who argued that the West try and understand that democracy and gender issues had different meanings in different cultures. The Grand Mufti of Bosnia was there alongside the former American Archbishop of Canterbury and representing the Indian subcontinent was, ironically, General Pervez Musharraf. As I watched him expound on his theory that Islam was a peaceful religion that sought only friendship and peace with the world, I found myself wondering why then it had been necessary to break India up for reasons of Islam. But, that is the sort of politically incorrect question nobody asks these days just as we do not ask why the Kashmir Valley’s struggle for autonomy has ended up becoming part of the international jehad against Americans, Jews and Hindus. Political correctness was very much the mood of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting so many of those who spoke for Islam got away with blaming the West for their woes. You must understand, they said, that terrorism was not Islamic or Christian but just terrorism. And, you must understand that at the root of what was going on lay unresolved political problems like Palestine and Kashmir. Our friendly, neighbourhood military dictator went so far as to say that because of these unresolved political issues young Muslims had developed a sense of persecution and had begun to believe that the world was against Islam. It was the duty of the West to not just help resolve these political issues fairly but also help solve some of the socio-economic problems of the Islamic world. Then, the world would be at peace once more and we could live without the threat of suicide bombers. Since this column has never had pretensions of political correctness let me spit it out. It would, in my view, be a terrible mistake to try and understand the causes of Islamic terrorism. And, please let us call it Islamic since nearly every terrorist act in recent years has been committed by Muslims in the name of their so-called jehad. These terrible acts of violence cannot be excused on political grounds. There have always been political disputes and there always will be but the solution is not terrorism. As for ‘‘socio-economic’’ causes we need to remember that none of the hijackers of 9/11 were poor, illiterate or underprivileged.. . . Moderate Muslims need to ask why just as they need to ask why, despite all their oil, even rich Muslim countries are unable to create just and enlightened societies instead of ones that produce disaffected, desperate youths who are prepared to give their lives to kill innocent people. If the West is suc ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
hajir at February 1, 2004 10:20 PM [permalink]:

Wessie,

You have brought up many points and I am afraid I cannot address all of them and if I do, I am not sure you read what I write carefully and openmindedly.

Today's incident in Hajj was unfortunate but I cannot believe that you misused that incident to prove your points. It sounds like the goal justifies the means for you Wessie. As human beings we must feel sorry for those 'human beings' who died. It's not Islam that is to blame but our own shortcomings:

(42:30)30. Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because on the things your hands have wrought, and for many (of them) He grants forgiveness.

There are numerous ways to prevent such an incident, one of them being a cut down on the number of pilgrims. 2 million pilgrims makes a huge crowd and that must be reduced to a logical a few hundred thousand people.

The other incident in Kurdistan has made me very sad. The terrorists who committed that crime will not escape god's justice. As you see it's not only americans who have suffered at the hand of terrorists but I assure you that nothing can stop the will of kurdish people on their way to freedom and prosperity.

A similar incident to Erbil's incident happened in Iran a few months after revolution when MKO blew up a building in Tehran and killed more than 70 officials. The same MKO was protected by west and America; it was a few days ago when Richard Perle (republican strategist) attented one of their fundraising events.

I said that Islam is the only 'universal' religion that invites to worship only one god. Judaism is not a universal religion and jews have never said that judaism is for all human race. Jews comprise a nation or race rather than a religious group. Christianity doesn't give an intelligible understanding of god. Christians have no idea what they are talking about when they say god. God, Jesus or Holy Ghost. That makes 3 not one. Is Jesus=God? If yes then how is it that Jesus talks to god and how is it that he dies? If not then they are two different beings. Ask any christian and after hours of debate they can just say: we believe and that's it. They are really confused about the concept of god. But Islam is clear and meaningful: God is one; Islam is for everyone.

Wessie at February 1, 2004 10:46 PM [permalink]:

"As human beings we must feel sorry for those 'human beings' who died. It's not Islam that is to blame but our own shortcomings:"

Hajir, do you EVER read??? That is precisely what I said. It is up to people to fix this and not simply state, inshallah. It is because of this primitive belief in "god's will" that this happens all the time to Muslims at the Haj.

"Jews comprise a nation or race rather than a religious group."

Careful, your bigotry is showing, Hajir. Jews are NOT, NOT, NOT a race nor are they a nation. They are a religious group of many ethnicities.

"Christians have no idea what they are talking about when they say god. God, Jesus or Holy Ghost. That makes 3 not one. Is Jesus=God? If yes then how is it that Jesus talks to god and how is it that he dies? If not then they are two different beings. Ask any christian and after hours of debate they can just say: we believe and that's it. They are really confused about the concept of god. But Islam is clear and meaningful: God is one; Islam is for everyone."

More Islamic supremacist bigotry from a supremacist Muslim. How dare you constantly claim, "Islam über alles!" HOW DARE YOU! Islam is backward and ignorant and primitive. The REST of us civilized people DON'T want anything to do with Islam!

Hajir, will you admit that each and every human being is a spiritual as well as a flesh and blood creature? If so, then there you have it: "God the father, the son and the holy ghost." God is in us and we are in God. That's about it. You don't need to be a Christian to comprehend this simple truth. We are ALL the children of God. Not allah—but God!

Islam is NOT for "everyone" because Islam is not a religion but a misanthropic, fascists political system contrived by criminal Mohammed to form his Islamic empire.

"You have brought up many points and I am afraid I cannot address all of them and if I do, I am not sure you read what I write carefully and openmindedly."

Please address some of the other points, Hajir. Since when do you read anything "open mindedly" and without your Islamic bigotry?

Please address the points made by Tavleen singh in the Indian article "Why it’s Islam vs rest of the world"

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=40236


Wessie

AIS at February 2, 2004 02:40 AM [permalink]:

Azad,
I'm happy that despite my clumsy way of putting it, my message got through to you so well.

Just a quick and short note:

"Well, I am not sure about that because the experimental technique which we use to examine the accuracy of any physical theory, is not absolute and unconditional. For example, only based on experiment, we can not say that Einstein relative theory is final and ultimate theory since every experiment is associated with its uncertainties.
However, we can discuss about its usefulness."

That's true, there is NO way you can say that any theory is final, ultimate or even correct. Verification is a myth. We can only refute theories, what we hold as true remains always hypothetical, and this can never be improved. The point is, it does not need to be. That is the importance of Popper in epistemology. Everything works out just fine even though we are not sure , or ever can be of what we hold to be true. We CAN be sure of things being wrong at each moment though. This asymmetry between verification and refutation is what makes realism, rationality and the scientific endeavour justified. Not every thing is acceptable, even though there is no verification.
Usefullness is not the ultimate criterion. Not being refuted (yet) is.
Newtonian mechanics is even today more useful in many mundane practices than Relativity or QC. But Newtonian Mechanics is wrong, so there it goes, and please note that it is 'out' despite the fact that it was so succesful to explain many things for two centuries unrivaled.
(One extra point on Newtonian Mechanics being still valid as an approximation as far as the macroscopic world is concerened. That is also not true. It is a good approximation in certain regards and not so in others. For example it fails completely to describe the stability of matter, and that is both macroscopic and related to our every day life.)

So, to summerize, usefulness is meaningful with respect to some context and can't be a substitute for validity of a theory.
The validity comes from not having been refuted yet, and this lack of ultimate certainty in the correctness of our views includes mathematics and its proofs as well.

(It was not that short , was it?)

Alexandra Westland at February 5, 2004 09:42 AM [permalink]:

Thank you all for your responses.

Nice to see this end on a mathematical theme. Mathematics, is after all, the underlying force of the universe—that from which everything is designed.

Of course mathematics is no match for common sense—something sorely lacking in Islam and many mathematicians.

Alexandra

Senior Grad at February 12, 2004 04:59 PM [permalink]:

This is not related to your post, Westland. This is related to YOU. For your own good, you need to see a shrink. I hate to analyse people, but you have shown in your comments unmistakable signs of a greatly unhappy and deeply troubled person. No psychologically sound person does what you have been doing here. A shrink will help you step out of your bubble and see things the way mentally OK people see them. This is not to insult you, don't get me wrong, ma'am. Just get help, OK?

Wessie at February 12, 2004 06:18 PM [permalink]:

" but you have shown in your comments unmistakable signs of a greatly unhappy and deeply troubled person. "

Let's see, I must be nuts and ever so unhappy because I think your Islamic nations are all screwed up and because I think Islam is fascist and non-reformable. And the proof is in failed Islamic states with torture chambers, paper shredders and limb amputations and other nice things like that. Not to mention madrassas and terror training camps and opium fields and women who don't have any rights and children who are sold into slavery and bomb belts and mothers who hold the Qur'an in one hand and an AK-47 in the other and proceed to murder innocents. . .

I must be "crazy" to think these are bad, bad things that Islam has wrought. Hmmm—but there are lots of others with that mindset—some of them are even Muslims—some even post here when they are not busy studying for their Ph.D. defense.

"A shrink will help you step out of your bubble and see things the way mentally OK people see them. This is not to insult you, don't get me wrong, ma'am. Just get help, OK?"

Why don't you try that, Senior. The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. ;-) Since you come from a deeply troubled culture, perhaps you could take some of your screwed up brethren with you. Take a mullah. They really need head shrinking.

Maybe I'll dig out some old posts from some of your brethren who have "seen the light." Oh, here's one I remember: "Islam is a plague!" I do believe AIS said that. ;-)

Here is some really great news that just came over the wires. It should send you straight to your university shrink:

Undeclared Centrifuge Design Found in Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Nuclear-Agency-Iran.html

Will you be on your Western shrink's couch when the bomb hits or will you be back in Iran? Which is the better place to be, Senior? ;-)

Some day, when you are all grown up, maybe you'll get lucky and meet a real crazy person—like a mullah. @:^}

Try to grow up quickly, sonny and help your miserable nation before it's too late!

JFTDMaster at February 12, 2004 06:47 PM [permalink]:

I guess accusing each other of being crazy and senile is a sort of game you two play or something.

Wessie: many of these rapes/killings/massacres/madrassas etc that "Islam" is doing come directly from either wahabism and muslim brotherhood groups, PLO or iranian aytollahs.

Hmm going off on a tanget now..

Old and "traditional" muslim neighbourhoods are often pretty peaceful, like a bazaar.. and there islam is like a big extended family..

Its the new partially-westernized and partially-educated neighbourhoods/societies is where terrorism seems to come from.. Palestinians are the best-educated among all arabs, and yet they are the most radical..

Current levels of violence could be viewed as the crumbling of belief systems and attempts to prove to oneself that the belief system really IS true.. "god, if u're there, show us by making us powerful and victorious like we're supposed to be!".. or it could be viewed as a result of radical change in a previously isolated society.. etc..

its not as simple as "islam is evil and needs to be wiped out"

Senior Grad at February 12, 2004 08:10 PM [permalink]:

All right, I'm no psychiatrist, but I'm gonna give it a shot anyway. First of all, though, please note that this "website" (since Babak S insists) is not called Free Thoughts on *Islam*.

As for your problem, I think it's called trauma. Allow me a wild guess: You've been *traumatized* by the September 11 attacks. You may even have lost a friend or a relative. Whatever the case, nlike most of us, you haven't been able to get over it. You have been haunted by the events ever since and Islam and Muslims and anything that has to do with them (for example, Iran!) scares the sh*t out of you. Unfamiliar with Islam, you have created, in your illusions, a disproportionately horrifying monster, something to be avoided like "plague" and to be fought vigorously. It is only when Muslims are all gone that you can sleep well, without fearing that another building gets blown up. Like I said, you are traumatized, which makes you look like a Don Quixote of sorts. You keep saying the same things over and over in your comments, and some of it is the stuff others have also said in this very site. You have failed, and miserably so, to realize that we're not all one voice, that we disagree on a lot of issues, but your poor traumatized mind can't perceive us as anything other than Muslims who go around killing infidels in the name of Islam. You have imagined, like a Don Quixote, enemies that do not exist, or if they do, they're hardly as monstrous as your panicky little mind has made you believe they are. It's all (well, almost all) in your mind, Westland; make an effort to get a grip, ma'am. In order to affirm the way you feel about Islam, you have seen in all "paperclips" you gather from all around the internet, nothing but what is in line with your hurt emotions, and you're totally blind to whatever others say which is not in accordance with your mindset. You keep coming back with more paperclips confirming your hallucinations. Makes sense now?

Wessie at February 12, 2004 08:53 PM [permalink]:

"You've been *traumatized* by the September 11 attacks. You may even have lost a friend or a relative. Whatever the case, nlike most of us, you haven't been able to get over it."

You are sooo stupid—and wrong! Haven't you paid any attention to how ordinary Americans feel about 9/11? Clearly you (and a number of others here) are CLUELESS!!!

" Makes sense now?"

No!

Like you said, Mr. Google, you are not a shrink. And it's a good thing. You might flunk your finals. LOL

Silly boy, you are just annoyed that you used to be the posting king around here—and now, this 98 year old great, great, great, great, (great by Islamic standards) grandmother confined to a wheel chair—posting form the old age home—is getting your goat. ;-)

Get a grip Sonny! Islam is what it is, whether you believe my postings or not. READ the Qur'an and the hadith. Read Islamic jurisprudence. Watch as Islamofascists murder innocents around the world—every day of the week. Check how they pour acid into the faces and the bodies of those who thwart them.

I just LOVE Muslim conspiracy theories and convoluted plots. "Ah what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive."

So, have you done your Ph.D. Defense yet, Mr. Google? When are you returning to that great nation—Iran with your freshly minted degree in hand?

"You keep saying the same things over and over in your comments, and some of it is the stuff others have also said in this very site."

Uhuh. And you , Mr. Google, you "never" say the same thing!? Right! ;-)

" First of all, though, please note that this "website" (since Babak S insists) is not called Free Thoughts on *"

Tough to separate Islam from Iran don't you think? Why do YOU have a problem separating Islamic reality from the BULLSHIT that Islam tries to feed us?

Why don't you speak to Ali or AIS? They seem to have a grip on the reality and horrors of Islam.

Shame on you, Mr. Google. We'll just chalk it up to your misspent youth. ;-)


JFTDMaster at February 12, 2004 09:15 PM [permalink]:

hajir:
"Judaism is not a universal religion and jews have never said that judaism is for all human race."
- Incorrect. The point of judaism is to live in Israel as an example of monotheism to the rest of the world. Jews are not meant to include the entire humanity, although some can join "the tribe", but when the jewish messiah comes and brings world peace, everyone will see the truth of the One god.

Wessie:
"Jews are NOT, NOT, NOT a race nor are they a nation."
- Incorrect. Jews are a nation, and judaism is the official religion. You can "join the tribe" by joining the religion, but that is discouraged. Judaism didn't go around trying to force everyone to convert, like Islam and Christianity has done in the past 2000 years.

Senior Grad: I think you're being unfair. She doesn't think you're individually "monsters", but she believes Islam as a system of beliefs is "unreformable" and so she is trying to "educate you" out of it.

One could argue about what "submission" in islam means, and whether its compatible with freedom, but its rather pointless. Practically, we (the west) should support democracy and freedom in the Muslim world, reject the truly dangerous and truly dictatorial organizations (including PLO, Khomeneists and all muslim brotherhood organizations) as illegitimate.

Islam does need to "come to terms" with the rest of the world, that much I think you will agree with. For example instead of 'dar al islam' vs 'the other' one could have 'dar al islam' and 'the rest of the world, with whom the entire ummah made a permanent peace treaty'. Anyway, I'm going off on tangets again...

JFTDMaster at February 12, 2004 09:21 PM [permalink]:

Wessie: the majority of people here are Iranian more than Muslim. Do you think you could try talking to them as the Persian/Iranian people instead of solely Muslims?

The things you talk about, 'conspiracy theories' about america being evil, are all over the communist parties, and in europe, and to some extent there are 'conspiracy theories' about the Republicans being evil are all over your 'Democratic' party. Maybe some of those 'conspiracy theories' they picked up from your party, by listening to what your 'candidates' are saying?

wessie at February 12, 2004 09:33 PM [permalink]:

JFTDMaster, "Incorrect. The point of judaism is to live in Israel as an example of monotheism to the rest of the world."

Please! Not every Jew wants to go to Israel! Jews are very exclusive. They do not proselytize. Depending on how "orthodox" they are they don't even recognize a convert.

" Judaism didn't go around trying to force everyone to convert, like Islam and Christianity has done in the past 2000 years."

Christianity proselytizes but does not force anyone to believe the "good news" about Jesus. Regardless of what the "Church" did years ago it is not written in the Bible! While in Islam it is written that if a person is "offered" Islam and refuses same—he must be killed.

"Islam does need to "come to terms" with the rest of the world, that much I think you will agree with. For example instead of 'dar al islam' vs 'the other' one could have 'dar al islam' and 'the rest of the world, with whom the entire ummah made a permanent peace treaty'. Anyway, I'm going off on tangets again..."

No, that is exactly the point. The "land of Islam" (Dar al-Islam) and the "land of war" (Dar al-Harb)—that is the point. Just as it states in the Qur'an. The only time Islam makes a "peace" treaty is when Islam is weak. When Islam feels strong it's jihad.

"One could argue about what "submission" in islam means, and whether its compatible with freedom, but its rather pointless."

No, it is not pointless. It is exactly the point. Islam is a mindless cult that brainwashes its followers into submission to a fascist, 7th century supremacist system that wants to rule the world.

FYI—I am NOT trying to "educate" Mr. Google or anyone else here out of Islam. I am making the point that the ummah must be educated out of the primitive belief in Islam. And that will take longer than any of our life times. Provided that good old Islam does not destroy the whole planet before then.

The mullahs are working on that though—never fear. ;-)

You cannot separate Islam from Iran or any of the other Islamic states—Turkey included!

JFTDMaster at February 12, 2004 09:45 PM [permalink]:

"JFTDMaster, "Incorrect. The point of judaism is to live in Israel as an example of monotheism to the rest of the world."
Please! Not every Jew wants to go to Israel! "
- That doesn't change that this is the primary purpose of judaism.

"Christianity proselytizes but does not force anyone to believe the "good news" about Jesus."
- Umm hello, what do you think christianity did ever since it became a tool for the Roman empire? And you do realize that almost the entire world was colonized by the Europeans, and "converting people" "by the sword" was one of the strongest motivations, right? Historically this happened pretty recently...

"While in Islam it is written that if a person is "offered" Islam and refuses same—he must be killed."
- Hmm why don't I spam with long articles too..
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/default.asp?pane_2=content-legal-jihad_forced_conv

So the foundation of Jihad is Islamic propagation (da’wah). The question often asked is whether Islam condones and teaches the forced and armed conversion of non-Muslims. This is the image sometimes projected by Western scholars and as any Muslim scholar will tell you, is seriously flawed. The Qur’an clearly states “There is no compulsion in religion, the path of guidance stands out clear from error” [2:256] and [60:8]. In this verse, the word “rushd” or “path of guidance” refers to the entire domain of human life, not just to the rites and theology of Islam.

There is no debate about the fact that pre-Islamic Arabia was a misguided society dominated by tribalism and a blind obedience to custom. In contrast, the clarity of Islam and its emphasis on reason and rational proofs excluded any need to impose it by force. This verse is a clear indication that the Qur’an is strictly opposed to the use of compulsion in religious faith. Similarly, Allah addressed Sayiddina Muhammad r saying, “Remind them, for you are only one who reminds.” [88:21] Allah addresses the believers, urging them to obey the injunctions of Islam, “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if you do turn back, then know that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner.” [5:92] However, this verse makes it clear that the Messenger’s duty is only to proclaim and preach the message; it remains to each individual to accept and to follow.

"The only time Islam makes a "peace" treaty is when Islam is weak. "
Like I said, the ummah can make a permanent real peace as well:
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/default.asp?pane_2=content-legal-jihad_terms

Anyways... I've things to do. chao.

wessie at February 12, 2004 09:55 PM [permalink]:

"The things you talk about, 'conspiracy theories' about america being evil, are all over the communist parties, and in europe, and to some extent there are 'conspiracy theories' about the Republicans being evil are all over your 'Democratic' party. Maybe some of those 'conspiracy theories' they picked up from your party, by listening to what your 'candidates' are saying?"

You CONSTANTLY keep putting words into my mouth. What the H*** are you talking about? I have never said anything about "America being evil." The only "conspiracy theories" I make fun of‚ you know like, joke, joke—are Muslim conspiracy theories. Which—are all over the news and the net. I know Muslims who have Ph.D.s who still believe that the Mossad perpetrated 9/11 or that the U.S. did it with the Jews. There are one or two such "deep thinkers" on this very site. I think those people deserve to be make sport of.

As for the "party" BS—I am only a registered party member because I want to vote in a primary. I don't cotton to or listen to party propaganda—never have—never will.

STOP putting words into my mouth, JFTDMaster! If you have a quote from me then fine. But don't use YOUR, personal BS interpretation of what you think I said.

Just like above. You claim that we called each other crazy and senile. When we did no such thing! Go back and check the fact as to who called whom what!

In my business life, I have to be very, very accurate. Please, do me the favor of at least quoting me correctly.

Iranians may be "more" than Muslims, but they are products of their collective culture nevertheless— that includes Islam. I am a product of the Judeo-Christian culture, despite the fact that I am neither a Jew nor a Christian.

Iran is a Muslim nation. It is DEFINED by Islam. You cannot separate one from the other despite the fact that some—a very few—elite Persian princes here are atheists or apostates. Iran is a Muslim nation and is conducting its world affairs as such—ditto for other Muslim nations.

If it were not for Islam, there would be no murderous jihad! Islam MANDATES jihad. And that does NOT mean "introspection."


Wessie at February 12, 2004 10:56 PM [permalink]:
"There is no debate about the fact that pre-Islamic Arabia was a misguided society dominated by tribalism and a blind obedience to custom. In contrast, the clarity of Islam and its emphasis on reason and rational proofs excluded any need to impose it by force." Muslims today obey the Qur'an and the hadith just as blindly as the tribal culture of pre-Islamic Arabia worshiped idols. Muslim lands are still, to this day, DOMINATED by tribal culture. Islam is not clear, there is no "reason" or "logic" there is only blind obedience. Muslims are SLAVES of this allah! They even state they are 'slaves of allah.' Muhammad was a psycho who had more and more vicious and violent "revelations" as he grew more powerful. " [88:21] Allah addresses the believers, urging them to obey the injunctions of Islam, “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if you do turn back, then know that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner.” Your quote is not from a recognized source. You have forgotten the following verses which make it VERY clear what will happen if the people "disbelieve"— PUNISHMENT and CHASTISEMENT! 088.021 YUSUFALI: Therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish. PICKTHAL: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, SHAKIR: Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. 088.022 YUSUFALI: Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs. PICKTHAL: Thou art not at all a warder over them. SHAKIR: You are not a watcher over them; 088.023 YUSUFALI: But if any turn away and reject Allah,- PICKTHAL: But whoso is averse and disbelieveth, SHAKIR: But whoever turns back and disbelieves, 088.024 YUSUFALI: Allah will punish him with a mighty Punishment, PICKTHAL: Allah will punish him with direst punishment. SHAKIR: Allah will chastise him with the greatest chastisement. . . . 089.013 YUSUFALI: Therefore did thy Lord pour on them a scourge of diverse chastisements: PICKTHAL: Therefore thy Lord poured on them the disaster of His punishment. SHAKIR: Therefore your Lord let down upon them a portion of the chastisement. [5:92] However, this verse makes it clear that the Messenger’s duty is only to proclaim and preach the message; it remains to each individual to accept and to follow." This message is all about food and Halal or Haram dietary laws. You are being dishonest to claim anything else. AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051 --- There are many verses that are misanthropic. The # sign indicates the order in which the sura were revealed. Of 114 sura 90 can be historically dated internally from the Qur'an. Here are a few from the, "religion of peace" that show how vicious against the "unbeliever" and the Jew it is. --- #92 (98:6) “The Jews, Christians and Pagans will burn forever in the Fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” #95 Muhammad portrays the attack on the first caravan as a religious war. “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.” (8:39) “…of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger … “(8:41) One of Osama bin Laden's favorites, (8:60) “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah…”. #96 (47:37) “… invite not the infidels to peace when ye have the upper hand …” ( ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
atmikha at February 13, 2004 01:58 AM [permalink]:

Who is the real Wessie/Alexandra Westland? She says she is a German immigrant.
She likes this site because "finally some intelligent debate."
Her mother was Catholic, her father Jewish.
She has one child.
She travels and moves frequently.
She is not obese.
These are not her real names because...she is afraid of something.
She is angry about 9/11.
She knows many more Middle Eastern men than "most people" (?)
She says they are always trying to either buy her or convert her.
She is "old, old, old."
She has spent most of her life studying comparative religions, but she only talks about one, and never really compares it with any other.
She likes men better than women.
She takes pride in being a good debater, yet she often makes personal attacks, or is pointlessly defensive.
She says:
"I can give you a bit of a bio if you like. I am president and a CIO, working in both the worlds of science and art/design. Our client base is international. I have a wide body of knowledge in a number of areas that ties those worlds together—as a "techie/artsy" type"
And she says:
"this 98 year old great, great, great, great, (great by Islamic standards) grandmother confined to a wheel chair—posting form the old age home—is getting your goat. ;-)"
Is she some kind of librarian? Has she been treated badly by one Iranian man in particular? Who is she really, and why does she come here to browbeat everyone?

wessie at February 13, 2004 10:14 AM [permalink]:

atmikha, sounds like you have really been paying attention without picking up correct information. How Islamic. Your conclusions are incorrect on a number of points and you, like a few other people, attribute things to me that I never said.

No, I am not a librarian. And I would not get within ten feet of an Iranian man or Muslim man for anything other than work. I know how they treat their women. ;-)

I come here because this site is filled with people who piss and moan about the lack of freedom and democracy in Iran and other Muslims states and they criticize the U.S. with impunity— while they don't comprehend that it is their own damn fault that their lands are not free and the U.S. does not trust them.

Inshallah is the worst phrase in your world. It is responsible for your lack of freedom and personal responsibility.

Somebody has to "brow beat" you people since you won't get off your a**es and do anything yourselves.

Alex

Senior Grad at February 13, 2004 11:29 AM [permalink]:

JFTDMaster, you wrote:

"Senior Grad: I think you're being unfair. She doesn't think you're individually "monsters", but she believes Islam as a system of beliefs is "unreformable" and so she is trying to "educate you" out of it."

I think you are missing the point, Master. See, the point is: I myself, and a lot of other people who write here, and I'm sure the strong majority of Iranians who read FToI comments are *already* aware of the problems that Islam and Muslims are grappling with (and who better than us ourselves with a first hand experience?) in a modern world. What this person does is whining and wailing over and over again about things that she thinks we do not realize. She is just fighting a scarecrow she herself has created in her imagination. Come to think of it, it's none of *my* business if the Iranian government secretly develops its nuclear program. All I could have done was writing some words or siging a petition. Likewise, it is none of *my* business if a Palestinian blows herself up and kills Israeli children. I'm not sending them money! (In fact, I'm being taxed by the US and my money goes right to Israel!) Why should I be reading over and over and over and over again her whinings that Islam is not reformable. You said it once, you said it a hundred times. Enough is enough already. Finally, it's funny if *she* with her clearly flawed reasoning skills wants to educate *us* about our situation. To sum it up:

1. She doesn't see the fact that we agree with her on some of the issues that she talks about although we don't voice it in her style. We talk about it, sometimes quite harshly, in a civilized manner. The hundreds of pages of FToI comments prior to the cursed moment when she found this site are witness to that.

2. She doesn't *think* for a moment that if Islam with allegedly a billion or so followers cannot be reformed then what can be done to improve the well-being of us all. Would it help if we keep leaving annoyingly long comments, all of the same flavor with no new ideas, in a website that has, let's be honest, a limited impact on the dynamics of the Muslim world? OK, if a woman starts crying hyterically or nagging constantly in the context of a relationship, then her lover may change his behavior. This approach, unfortunately, doesn't work that well when it comes to world politics.

Senior Google at February 13, 2004 03:18 PM [permalink]:

I'd like to keep conversations strictly regarding the Westland Problem here, rather than under poor Yaser's (or anybody else's) entry. (Yaser K. has shown a lot more patience than some other writers who close their columns right away!)

In continuation of my conversation with WhoMan, I found this. It's not hard when you have google at your disposal. I think something good will come out of all this after all. (ADOO SHAVAD SABAB E KHEYR AGAR KHODAA KHAAHAD!) At the very least, we're now forced to re-evaluate the subtle notion of Free Speech. The following may be helpful.
--------------
I make several practical suggestions for administrators of virtual communities that appear to follow from the philosophical justifications.

1. ...
2. ...
3. Consider balancing the quantity of speech devoted to different points of view, if one point of view threatens to overwhelm alternative viewpoints by sheer quantity.
4. Ask members to rephrase inflammatory or offensively-expressed messages before publishing them in public parts of the community.
5. Do not allow very aggressive or harassing speech, or monopolizing speech, if its probable net effect would be to decrease community participation.
6. ...
7. ...
8. ...
9. Try to ensure that evaluations of offensiveness of types of speech are based on the opinions of members or possibly on the opinions of the target membership for the virtual community.
10. ...

http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/conferences/ccsrconf/ethicomp2001/abstracts/mowbray.html

atmikha at February 13, 2004 09:20 PM [permalink]:

Wessie, once again, your obsession has led to an erroneous assumption. I AM NOT MUSLIM!!!
How can you have spent most of your old, old, old life studying comparative religions without recognising the feminine diminutive of Atman?

Wessie at February 14, 2004 06:07 AM [permalink]:

Senior Google. YOU are one of the worst offenders here. You are rude, offensive, consistently off subject, post the same things over and over again— and pose no cogent arguments.

Why don't you take your own advice?

Stop clogging up my thread with your whining! You may be "aware" of the problems of Islam but you NEVER address how to fix them.

Like I said, It is NOT our problem! It is YOUR problem. The American tax payer does not want to send money into the black hole called Islam. And all that BS about tax moneys going directly to Israel is also baloney! Might I remind you that Egypt alone receives 2 BILLION of our tax dollars annually—and they still sponsor and support Islamic terror.

"She is just fighting a scarecrow she herself has created in her imagination."

The only "scarecrow" is the straw between your ears. Tell it to the widows and orphans of Islamic terror. Tell it to the maimed that it is all in their imagination.

People on this website whine over and over and over again about how they can't get a U.S. visa or how they can't make a "perfect" democratic state and on and on. All one has to do is to read the same drivel over and over and over again about how the sky is falling and it's not "your" fault.

You have contributed NOTHING to this thread from the beginning and you are notorious for contributing little to nothing to other threads. Now, stop posting your non-sensical, off subject CRAP on my thread! Develop a sense of personal responsibility!

Alex

Senior Off Subject at February 14, 2004 07:04 PM [permalink]:

Happy Valentine's! :-D

Wessie at February 14, 2004 07:26 PM [permalink]:

"Happy Valentine's! :-D"

That's not Islamic. They would kill you for that sentiment, Mr. Google. Hope you had a decadent Valentine's Day with lots of champagne, chocolates and love. ;-)

---

Egyptian Muslims Protest Proposed French Headscarf Ban

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DC342F58-765A-48D4-B77ADBB2B046F3D9

Why is it that these women don't protest against Turkey's ban of hijab? (What an ugly world that is!) Ugly word for an ugly-making-veil, designed to make women second class citizens—less than men under misogynistic, fascist Islam. Ever notice how all of a sudden they all look like half-baked nuns? Muslims never used to look that way—until they got militant. The veil is militant!

Let them protest their own lack of freedoms in Islamic states and leave the secular West alone! It is none of their &*^%$ business what France or any other Western nation does in its internal affairs.

"This will lead to more violence," he said. "If you want us to live peacefully with each other I cannot take off my religion and live in peace with you."

" Say Islam is peace or we'll kill you." That is the threat.

One wonders if these morons ever consider how stupid we all think they are? Probably not. Who cares! Let them wear a whole sack over their heads. But leave the rest of the world in peace!

Question: "Why do Muslim women wear the veil?"

Answer: So they don't frighten the donkeys.

wessie at February 14, 2004 08:04 PM [permalink]:

People Warned Against Celebrating Valentine’s Day

Brought to you from the land of the "two holy mosques" and one black space rock:

http://www.arabnews.com/services/print/print.asp?artid=39498&d=14&m=2&y=2004&hl=People%20Warned%20Against%20Celebrating%20Valentineís%20Day


“Celebrating such an event will create an identity crisis in the minds of our youngsters,” said one religious leader.

[yes, correct! It might make them act human instead of like Islamobots. ]

You see Senior, the religion of "peace and tolerance" is at it again—spreading its love for humanity.

“It is a pagan Christian holiday and Muslims who believe in God and Judgment Day should not celebrate or acknowledge it or congratulate people on it,” an edict issued by the Fatwa Committee said.

“You should also enlighten Saudi citizens on the danger of this custom, which is alien to our society, and make them aware of its negative effect,”

“Our religion is very clear in this matter. We only celebrate two occasions every year at the end of Ramadan and during pilgrimage. Anyone who adopts another culture is very weak and misguided,” said another young man.

Right, but, Islam wants US to adopt their 7th century death cult. Oh—such logic! I can hardly stand it.

"Waleed Al-Anazi attributed the spread of such un-Islamic attitudes to the information age such as the Internet and satellite television.

The more of this 7th century idiocy one reads the more one has to believe that Islam is a religion of congenital idiots. Perhaps its all the inbreeding?

--------

Dear God, help us to develop alternative energies to finally be free of these pathetic, camel jockeys.

So, did the mullahs ban St. Valentine's day too? I mean they are into LOVE aren't they? ;-) What with all the prostitution rings they have.


Wessie at February 14, 2004 08:14 PM [permalink]:

Stampede Victims Buried on St. Valentine's Day

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=39493&d=14&m=2&y=2004&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom

MAKKAH, 14 February 2004 — Security and health officials are still trying to establish the identity of 16 pilgrims who died in the Jamrat area on the first day of Eid. The director of health affairs in Makkah, Othman Maymani, said that 235 victims of the stampede were buried in Makkah.

-------

So, let me get this straight. St. Valentine's day is "pagan" and very, very bad for the "believers." But perambulating around a large black rock—and getting stampeded in the process—is not.

OK! Do not pass Go!—But proceed straight to paradise and your 72 raisiiiins. ;-)

Serendipity at February 14, 2004 11:45 PM [permalink]:

There's only one country foreigners write more self-righteous, intellectually assured rubbish about than Afghanistan: ours. To any American who's been asked overseas whether we all -- depending on gender -- wear miniskirts or carry guns, the lurid colors and broad brushstrokes of most journalism about Afghanistan should look familiar. Afghan men, we've been reminded over and over, are savage warriors, jealous of their honor, harsh to their long-suffering women, fanatically religious. And Afghan women -- forced to wear the burqa and be virtual slaves to their husbands -- deserve our pity.

The reality, when I made two trips to Afghanistan in 2002 to teach English and buy supplies for schools, was otherwise. From schoolboys at play to university students, Cabinet ministers to legendary commanders, Afghans were quieter, gentler and more self-contained than Americans. One young man confided that to him and his friends in northern Afghanistan, Americans' body language and loud voices seemed exaggerated, like the gestures of stage actors.

It was hard to pity the women when I lived with an extended Uzbek Afghan family in Mazar-i-Sharif and Maimana for a couple of weeks. A withered 80-year-old widow sat bala, or at the head of the room, and she was the only person who smoked. The family's resources were lavished on a bright teenage daughter, who had her own room and computer and was preparing for her university entrance exam. And the men were tender with their children and treated their wives, sisters and mothers with dignity. I felt at home more quickly than I ever have in an American household, and the fondness and respect I saw between young and old and men and women gave me new yardsticks for my own life.

Read the rest here: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2003/11/17/kabul/index_np.html

Wessie at February 15, 2004 11:04 AM [permalink]:

Well, that settles it then. Islamic terrorism— along with opium bred in Afghanistan and then exported to the world— is simply a figment of our imagination. There really were/are no terror training camps in Afghanistan to which Muslims from all over the world, including from Western nations, flocked to be trained to murder "infidels." The 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda were not planned in Afghanistan. That video of a joyful Osama bin Laden, celebrating 9/11 that was made in Hollywood, as everyone knows.

And those videos of chemical experiments on animals, those were made in some sound studio with American actors dressed up as al-Qaeda. Those puppies and dogs did not die a horrible, painful death—they got up to act another day. Oh—and the destruction of the world's cultural heritage—the Buddhas of Bamiyan —that was certainly another Hollywood trick—just like 9/11. After all, Muslims, especially Arabs, are not "smart enough" to have done these things.

Clearly, this one person's report after witnessing a few people in a rural part of Afghanistan vindicates the Muslim male population of all those years of public floggings, amputations and murders in the former soccer stadium. And, those burqa wearing women who got raped for showing an inch of skin—well, that's just a charming tribal custom—along with secret schools for girls. All the escapee's stories are clearly erroneous. This is a poor, but noble land that just wants to be left in the 7th century.

Let's leave them to allah! We did that once before and all those Hollywood tricks came into being. The Nazis too were very well mannered, disciplined and kind to their dogs and they loved high culture. . .

Tell it to the widows and orphans!

Youssef Cherem at February 20, 2004 08:03 AM [permalink]:

Just to tell you the points that are utterly incompatible with sound reason and accepted to a social science research standard, I'll just copy parts of it that show that you just try to be funny, instead of understanding what goes on and why it is that way.

First thing, you don't respect the clergy.
2nd., you generalize and make them all be the same.
3rd., you disregard years of religious studies just because you don't believe in them.
4th., your Western values are considered a priori better just because you believe in them, ergo people who believe in different things are not supposed to give you more than 5 minutes for you to spend thinking about why they do think differently;

5th., when you say "Omar the Tentmaker" you're just being racist, it's just like saying rastafaris look like exotic African tribal chiefs and smoke grass like any other addict in NY;
6th., "And of course, like any kid, the sons of Allah insist on their right to obtaining things that are dangerous, such as WMDs", so you might call the Hindu president of India a child of Allah, too; just like the French, the English, the Russians, the Chinese, who are all little children who like to play the Hiroshima-fear game the same way a childish American president did some 50 years ago with some help of the most brilliant child geniouses of the time like Einstein and Co.

Treating an institution as if they were children won't make things better, darling, and if you reduce everything to an ignorant biased vision, no matter how much you hate them, you risk loosing all credibility.

Resuming: what you wrote is just like a 15-year-old WASP that wants to study International Relations to act like daddy Bush.

P.S., if you think I just love the buddies with turbans, I don't. My maronite background would tell a lot, if you even knew what a maronite is.

Wessie at February 20, 2004 09:21 AM [permalink]:
Youssef Cherem, you apparently can't logically discern the difference between satyrical humor and a piece of hard research. But, I shall answer your less than cogent post just for the hell of it. "First thing, you don't respect the clergy." I certainly do respect clergy who deserve to be respected. Those who peach hatred and violence don't deserve to be respected. Neither do pedophile priests—of which the Christians have had their share lately. But, the biggest pedophile of all was Muhammad himself who made it legal under sharia for men to abuse pre-pubescent girls. "2nd., you generalize and make them all be the same." Duh! It's is a piece of satyrical humor. But, they do act en masse. I don't see Muslims marching against terrorism—only for it. 3rd., you disregard years of religious studies just because you don't believe in them. I certainly do believe in religious studies—being a student of comparative religions myself. However, I don't believe that Islam is a religion. It is more a cultural, social, political system masquerading as a religion—brought forth by Muhammad to conquer the world via violence. 4th., your Western values are considered a priori better just because you believe in them, ergo people who believe in different things are not supposed to give you more than 5 minutes for you to spend thinking about why they do think differently; That is the way the world works. Easterners, especially Muslims, certainly believe THEIR values are better, superior to our "decadent" Western values. But, of course, not too many Westerners are trying by the millions to emigrate from the West. However, when Muslims come to the West, they try to force their "superior" values on Westerners—who, BTW don't want that and are starting to deport Muslims who preach their "values" of violence, hatred and their belief in taking over Western society and the whole world. 5th., when you say "Omar the Tentmaker" you're just being racist, it's just like saying rastafaris look like exotic African tribal chiefs and smoke grass like any other addict in NY; Get a grip man! Since when are Muslim women a "race"? The veil is UGLY as are the chador, the abaya and the burqa. They are designed to keep women second class citizens. I also think that certain Western clothes are UGLY such as mumus and leggings on fat women and ratty fur coats made from little pieces. The veil is designed to make women ugly and unappealing, I am not sure about the mumu. ;-) I do think it is "racist" of Muslims to claim that they are, "The best of peoples." Don't you? 6th., . . .so you might call the Hindu president of India a child of Allah, too; just like the French, the English, the Russians, the Chinese, who are all little children who like to play the Hiroshima-fear game the same way a childish American president did some 50 years ago with some help of the most brilliant child geniouses of the time like Einstein and Co. LOL First, I don't believe in this bloodthirsty allah. We are all children of God, however. America used the bomb responsibly to stop a war of AGGRESSION by the Japanese. I don't think the mullahs will do that. They will use the bomb aggressively to wipe out Israel—they have already said they will do that. Of course, like stupid adolescents, they will not think ahead that the fallout from such an act will drift all over the Middle East. To be frank, I would rather see any real teenager with a loaded gun than a theocratic, despotic Muslim state ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
retha at March 28, 2004 02:29 PM [permalink]:

i have a 14 uyr old son who has a MAJOR anger problem,when he caught doing something the blame is NEVER on himself ,,but always others,,he is really out of control and i have no other ideas on how to deal with him,i am cisidering counseling for him to see what "if anything" is the problem with him,he was sexually abused when he was only 2 yrs old,we tried counseling with him for a little while but it seemed not to be helping,,even though we are agian starting couseling i wonder if that will take care of his out of control behavior,,,,ANY comments would be GREATLY appreciated,,,SO plz plz SOMEONE help me before i go off the deep end with him,,,,