26 Year Old Iranian Woman Raped and Murdered by Basij Members for "Bad Hijab"

Isnt it illegal in the Islamic religion to have sex with a female that is not your wife? If she was raped, arent these men guilty of a religious crime also?

i think rape is ok in islam as long as the woman isnt married, cause then she is guilty of adultery. but the rape thing is still ok.

I think rape in islam is ok period....and that's why women probably don't mind wearing the burkha's. Obviously those men can't even look upon a woman's hair or arms or ankles without wanting to rape her.....so women have to 'hide' to feel safe....and even then it doesn't work if a man or gang of men decide to rape you.

Women have been raped even when they were clad in a burkha. The burkha is not an anti-rape shield.

Elishia, this is far beyond sad. This is evil masquerading as religion. The fact that Sharia allows men to do such things, placing the blame for their actions on the victim, with no shred of proof to their allegations, is an indictment against Islam and a warning to the rest of the world. The world must wake up and oppose this evil. Europe is starting to get the idea, but Britain waffles as does America.

This is evil masquerading as religion

You should have stopped right there its the only true thing in your post after that its bigotted nonsense that paints with too broad a brush a people who are no more good or evil than you or I, well I. This is the result of the religion being in the hands of evil people, the religion itself is not evil.

This is the result of the religion being in the hands of evil people, the religion itself is not evil.

And I assume you are about to provide us with the surah and ayat to back up this statement?

Something about beatings of the wife being allowed if and when she does not cook, or does not put out?

Or alternatively something about men being one step closer to allah than women.

Anything of any substance to proove your statement.

Justin,

paints with too broad a brush a people

Wrong. I painted no people, just pointed out the paint on the face of their religion: BLOOD RED.

I figure he can paint with as wide a brush as he would like. Seems not many people over there are standing up for the rights of the people that are being mistreated. That makes them as bad as them because they are letting them do what they want. You say that all of islam is not to blame, well then I ask, where is the rest of islam, and why do they not help these victims or try to stop it.

Decurion - which Sharia Law is it that you know of that allows such brutality in women? Take it as it is. A bunch of stupid, sick, should be in jail bunch of men who are using religion to justify what they did.

Don't use the action of these ignorant fools to justify hatred against a religion you know nothing about. I hope they get what they deserve.

My family has had intimate knowledge of the kind loving hand of Christians and know what IT is capable of. I could personally condemn Christians as evil monsters too but I know too many who are neither evil nor monsters. I know some Muslims that are fine people too. The difference is that those that committed these horrific acts share the very same sense of religious moral uprightness that is on display here.

"We are Holy and Righteous and God is on our side... THOSE! They are the evil spawn of Satan while we are pure and moral".

Whenever anyone has convinced themselves that committing horrible crimes is justified by their self-anointed duty to enforce "God's" morality they become of the same in spirit.

Peace (yeah, really original moniker there),

religion you know nothing about

What? Because I am not Muslim my eyes are not to be believed, my ears deceive me? Pfeh! I have been to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait. I know what I saw and I know what was told to me by Muslims in answer to my questions. I have read translations of the Qur'an and the Tafsir of various scholars and I know that this "religion of peace" is no such thing.

There are different kinds of Muslims - there are those who are good and those who are bad. I wonder which ones you have met. There are some who claim they have knowledge and some who know that their knowledge is limited. I don't know who answered your questions.

Anyway, differences aside, we both agree what happened to this woman is henious. Unfortunately, we don't agree that this is not Islam. I hope those who did this to her are punished both here and the afterlife.

Mr Roger Rabbit,

"Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. God is fully cognizant of everything they do." Qur'an 24:30

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparant, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands..." Qur'an 24:31

"And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till God give them independence by his grace." Qur'an 24:33

"The most perfect of the believers in faith is he who is the best of them in conduct, and the best of you in conduct are those who are best to their wives." Hadith of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

"Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who think." Qur'an 30:21

"Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female, you are equal to one another." Qur'an 3:195

I think I just about covered all of your points, no?

This rape and murder is a horrible crime and the Basij men who committed it should be arrested and tried for it. It is against Sharia for any person to take the chastity of any other person. The Qur'an specifically tells us that we are all responsible for protecting the chastity of everyone else around us.

If the government of Iran allows this kind of despicable behavior to go on, then they are hypocrites and do not believe in Islam.

Also I put in bold what muslims refer to as "hijab" in the Qur'an. Notice it says nothing about covering the head or face or the entire body. It only states that a woman's chest must be covered. The actual "hijab" as we see today comes from the teachings of the bible. Muslims must believe in the bible and torah as well as the Qur'an. In the bible it states...

""But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority 6 on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God." I Corinthians 11:3-16

Just because Iran calls itself muslim doesn't mean it upholds the true values of Islam. Following that logic, you would then also have to say that christianity condones child molestation and rape since the pope and bishops knowingly let it happen and put children in harms way by continually placing priest that had past problems with molesting children in charge of watching over children time and time again.

We all know Christianity doesn't really condone child molestation. Nor does Islam condone the rape and murder of women. The government of Iran needs to be overthrown because it is not Islamic yet it claims to be. This is why the green party movement is so strong in Iran and why the Iranian government literally kills and tortures green party members and protesters. That is NOT Islamic in any way, shape or form. It is Tyranny and Oppression, plain and simple. And the Qur'an is very clearly and very strongly against the tyranny and oppression of people. The US is more Islamic than the "Islamic Republic of Iran". And that is one of the big reasons why so many Iranian citizens want to move OUT of Iran. The "Republic" part of the government is all a facade. It is really a dictatorship run by the Ayatollah.

Allah Akbar! I heard the words you chose to tell me, but I did not hear the other words that teach us how a muslim is to deal with women:

"Men are (meant to be righteous and kind) guardians of women because God has favored some more than others and because they (i.e. men) spend out of their wealth. (In their turn) righteous women are (meant to be) devoted and to guard what God has (willed to be) guarded even though out of sight (of the husband). As for those (women) on whose part you fear ill-will and nasty conduct, admonish them (first), (next) separate them in beds (and last) BEAT them. But if they obey you, then seek nothing against them. Behold, God is most high and great. (4:34)

The divorced women shall wait three menstruations. It is not lawful for them to conceal what GOD creates in their wombs, if they believe in GOD and the Last Day. ...the husband's wishes shall supersede the wife's wishes, if he wants to remarry her. The women have rights, as well as obligations, equitably. Thus, the man's wishes prevail. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise. (2:228)

And on a more cheerful note - please provide some examples of actuall enforcement and punishmen of men for violation of 24:30?

Man, what interpretation of the Qur'an are you reading? Is it from Saudi Arabia or something? Those quotes aren't even close to being correct. Let me give you the correct ones first...

"The men are taking care of matters for livelihood on for the women wiht what god favoured some of THEM [the couple], and with what they spent from THEIR [the couple's] properties, so the righteious females are boeying humbly, worshipping humbly, safekeeping to the invisible with what God Protected, and those whom you fear their quarrel, so advise them and abandon them in the place of lying down, and ignore them, so if they obeyed you, so do not transgress on them a way, that god is high and mighty" Qur'an 4:34

"And the divorced wait with themselves three menstrual cycles, and it is not permitted to them that they conceal what god created in their wombs [If they are pregnant while getting a divorce, they can't hide that fact], if they were believing with God and the day of Resurrection, and their spouses are more worthy with returning them, in that if they wanted a reconciliation. And for them equal what is on them with generocity, and to the men a grade on them, and god is glorious, judicious." Qur'an 2:228

And you should continue reading, because the next Ayat is a good one!!!

"The Divorce is twice, so holding the marriage with kindness or releasing with goodness, and it is NOT PERMITTED that you take from what you gave them a thing, except that they fear that they do not take care of God's limits, so if you feared that they do not take care of God's limits, so no sin on them in what she compensated with it. Those are God's limits, so do not violate it, and who violates God's limits, s those are, they are the oppressive." Qur'an 2:229

For punishment of rape, one needs to look to Hadith, for there is no prescribed punishment for rape in the Qur'an itself. This is where the "Sunnah" comes in. We look at how Muhammad (pbuh) dealt with situations and we try to respond in kind.

As for rape, during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) punishment was inflicted on the rapist on the solitary evidence of the woman who was raped by him. Wa'il ibn Hujr reports of an incident when a woman was raped. Later, when some people came by, she identified and accused the man of raping her. They seized him and brought him to Muhammad (pbuh), who said to the woman, "Go away, for Allah has forgiven you," but of the man who had raped her, he said, "Stone him to death." (Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud)

Islamic legal scholars interpret rape as a crime in the category of Hiraba. In ‘Fiqh-us-Sunnah’, hiraba is described as: ‘a single person or group of people causing public disruption, killing, forcibly taking property or money, attacking or raping women (hatk al ‘arad), killing cattle, or disrupting agriculture.’

The famous jurist, Ibn Hazm, had the widest definition of hiraba, defining a hiraba offender as: ‘One who puts people in fear on the road, whether or not with a weapon, at night or day, in urban areas or in open spaces, in the palace of a caliph or a mosque, with or without accomplices, in the desert or in the village, in a large or small city, with one or more people… making people fear that they’ll be killed, or have money taken, or be raped (hatk al ‘arad)… whether the attackers are one or many."

Al-Dasuqi held that if a person forced a woman to have sex, his actions would be deemed as committing hiraba. In addition, the Maliki judge Ibn ‘Arabi, relates a story in which a group was attacked and a woman in their party was raped. Responding to the argument that the crime did not constitute hiraba because no money was taken and no weapons used, Ibn ‘Arabi replied indignantly that "hiraba with the private parts" is much worse than hiraba involving the taking of money, and that anyone would rather be subjected to the latter than the former.

The crime of rape is classified not as a subcategory of ‘zina’ (consensual adultery), but rather as a separate crime of violence under hiraba. This classification is logical, as the "taking" is of the victim’s property (the rape victim’s sexual autonomy) by force. In Islam, sexual autonomy and pleasure is a fundamental right for both women and men (Ghazali); taking by force someone’s right to control the sexual activity of one’s body is thus a form of hiraba.

Rape as hiraba is a violent crime that uses sexual intercourse as a weapon. The focus in a hiraba prosecution is the accused rapist and his intent and physical actions, and not second-guessing the consent of the rape victim. Hiraba does not require four witnesses to prove the offense, circumstantial evidence, medical data and expert testimony form the evidence used to prosecute such crimes.

Islamic legal responses to rape are not limited to a criminal prosecution for hiraba. Islamic jurisprudence also provides an avenue for civil redress for a rape survivor in its law of "jirah" (wounds). Islamic law designates ownership rights to each part of one’s body, and a right to corresponding compensation for any harm done unlawfully to any of those parts. Islamic law calls this the ‘law of jirah’ (wounds). Harm to a sexual organ, therefore, entitles the person harmed to appropriate financial compensation under classical Islamic jirah jurisprudence. Each school of Islamic law has held that where a woman is harmed through sexual intercourse (some include marital intercourse), she is entitled to financial compensation for the harm. Further, where this intercourse was without the consent of the woman, the perpetrator must pay the woman both the basic compensation for the harm, as well as an additional amount based on the ‘diyya’ (financial compensation for murder, akin to a wrongful death payment).

Islamic law, with its radical introduction of a woman’s right to own property as a fundamental right, employs a gender-egalitarian attitude in this area of jurisprudence. In fact, there is a hadith specifically directed to transforming the early Muslim population out of this patriarchal attitude of male financial compensation for female sexual activity. During the time of Prophet Muhammad, a young man committed zina with his employer’s wife. The father of the young man gave one hundred goats and a maid as compensation to the employer, who accepted it. When the case was reported to the Prophet, he ordered the return of the goats and the maid to the young man’s father and prosecuted the adulterer for zina (Abu Daud 1990, 3: Bk. 33, No. 4430; Bukhâri 1985, 8:Bk. 81, Nos. 815, 821, 826).

Early Islam thus established that there should be no tolerance of the attitude that a woman’s sexual activity is something to be bartered, pawned, gossiped about, or owned by the men in her life. Personal responsibility of every human being for their own actions is a fundamental principle in Islamic thought.

I will end this by simply saying, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali Islamic law all state that rape is a crime of Hiraba. ONLY the Wahhabi view it as a crime of Zina. And as I mentioned in another post in this thread, the Wahhabi are not recognized by the muslim community as being Islamic. The Saudi's are the "leaders" of the Wahhabi movement. And so it is no surprise Wahhabi quote other Saudi clerics/scholars in their messed up views of Islam. Case in point, see the link below

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1125407868541

Notice he goes on to say:

"Responding to the question [of rape], the prominent Saudi Islamic lecturer and author Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid states the following:

...The punishment for rape in Islam is the same as the punishment for Zina..."

BUT!!! What happened to stating what the actual LAWS OF SHARIAH STATE!?!?! Why are you stating what some Saudi (Wahhabi) lecturer is saying???? Shariah clearly states that rape is Hiraba not Zina. Why is that important then? Because in order to accuse someone of Zina you need testimony from FOUR witnesses. In order to accuse someone of Hiraba you only need the testimony of the person who was wronged. This is how/why the Saudi's, Iran, Taliban, etc let these atrocities go unpunished. They are NOT following Shariah.

Man, what interpretation of the Qur'an are you reading? Is it from Saudi Arabia or something?
........
This is how/why the Saudi's, Iran, Taliban, etc let these atrocities go unpunished. They are NOT following Shariah.

Since Islam is not a centralized religion with a single religious authority your statements do not reflect the huge variety in actual Islamic practice .

Saudi influence is felt globally through their huge cash reserves .
I have yet to see Imams from other muslim countries criticize the ways
of the Saudis because that would cut off funding .
Likewise for criticism of Iran . I expect the motivation here is just fear of reprisal .

The net result is that very very little Islamic criticism of those 2 countries is heard . Likewise for the Taliban .
Silence equals compliance in most people's minds .

Man, what interpretation of the Qur'an are you reading?

Did you just use the words interpretation and Quran in the same sentence? This is nothing short of blasphemy. Quran is not to be interpreted (although imams do it all the time), it is to be taken literally and followed literally. And Quran itself is only half bad, the book of life and adventure of the sociopathic paedophile with a damaged brain AKA Sun-nah, which is to be taken as a glorious example and to be followed by every muslim for the rest of their life. Which makes it Ok to lie to infidels and to rape little girls.

I generally try to read an officially sanctioned translation (which are 2 or 3 in English) and try to compare them, they get an officially sanctioned translation in a different language and double-check. Then I pick the one that suites me most and post it. I do not speak Arabic, but neither do the 1.25 billion muslims, so there is no need to bring that up.

I will end this by simply saying, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali Islamic law all state that rape is a crime of Hiraba. ONLY the Wahhabi view it as a crime of Zina. And as I mentioned in another post in this thread, the Wahhabi are not recognized by the muslim community as being Islamic

there is nothing that the wahhabi movement teaches, that does not conform with the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali, schools of Islamic jurisprudence. It is in fact a return, to the principals,and teachings of said schools, that they wish.

Mr Rabbit,

"Did you just use the words interpretation and Quran in the same sentence? This is nothing short of blasphemy. Quran is not to be interpreted (although imams do it all the time), it is to be taken literally and followed literally."

This is COMPLETELY and totally untrue. EVERY translation of the Qur'an into any language other than it's original is an INTERPRETATION of the Qur'an. Every english copy of the Qur'an I've read states that on the first page. It then also goes onto say something to the effect of "Everything that can be deemed good in this interpretation is from Allah (swt), anything that can be deemed bad in this interpretation is from me and my error and may Allah forgive me for any wrong-doing or any mis-interpretations".

It is one of the foundations of Islam that GOD is perfect and the Qur'an is perfect, BUT!!! our interpretation of it can be flawed. Therefore we must always be constantly questioning and studying our interpretation to make sure that it never contradicts itself, or any of the other messengers of Allah (From Adam through Jesus). God never contradicts himself, but we as humans with our limited intellect (compared to God) may not understand all that he is saying sometimes.

I'll give you an example... Back in the early 600's AD, Muhammad (pbuh) received this revelation from God,

"He created you from one being, then from that he made its mate; and he hath provided for you of cattle eight kinds. He creates you in the wombs' of your mothers, creation after creation, in a threefold gloom, such is Allah, your lord. He is the Sovereignty. There is no Allah save him. How then are you turned away?" Qur'an 39:6

"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth, then placed him as a drop of seed in a safe lodging, then We fashioned the drop a clot , and of the clot We fashioned a lump of flesh (other interpretations say "chewed meat" instead of lump of flesh), and of the lump We fashioned bones, and We clothed the bones (with) meat. Then We produced it as another creation." Qur'an 23:12-14

"O mankind! If you are in doubt concerning the Resurrection, then lo! we have created you from dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot, then from a little lump of flesh shapely and shapeless, that we may make it clear for you. And we cause what we will to remain in the wombs for an appointed time, and aferward we bring you forth as infants..." Qur'an 22:5

So... all of us now reading this, we understand that there are 3 trimesters of embryo development. What the Quran calls "threefold gloom". You can see them here...

http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overview-fetal-development

But... when did science finally discover the development embryotic development and the trimesters? It wasn't until the 19th century when microscopy had progressed far enough that we could see the stages of development of an embryo, that the "trimester" of development for humans was discovered.

So, what would all this have meant to uneducated, unscientific people of the early 7th century? They either accept it at face value or they try to "interpret" it based on their current knowledge. And this is why muslims say, the Qur'an is perfect in every way, only our interpretation of it can be flawed/mis-interpreted.

This is why most of our sciences today we owe to muslims around the 10th and 11th century. The Scientific Method that our scientists use today was created by muslims searching for "truth". Modern chemistry as we know it today was created by muslims. Algebra and calculus were created by muslims. All of them were searching for knowledge and truth. And NOTHING they have discovered so far disagrees with the Qur'an itself. So we must always look at how we interpret teh Qur'an, it is what the Qur'an tells us to do. Any muslim that DOES NOT question the current interpretations of the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunni isn't really following them. All muslims should individually be striving to obtain a better understanding of the Qur'an instead of taking someone else's "word" for it.

there is nothing that the wahhabi movement teaches, that does not conform with the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali, schools of Islamic jurisprudence. It is in fact a return, to the principals,and teachings of said schools, that they wish.

That is the problems though, you can't just look at the PRINCIPLES. You have to look at everything. The Torah, the Bible, The Qur'an, the Hadith and Sunnah of Rasulallah.

For example, Wahhabism is strickly against music of any kind and the playing of musical instruments of any kind. It wasn't until Wahhabism started taking over arabia around the late 1800's that muslims started calling music Haram. Wahhabis say that God's decree is infallible (which it is). He never makes a mistake, he never makes something halal and then makes it haram. He never gives a gift to one of his messengers and then forbids it for his creations. So, if Wahhabi clerics say music is haram, then why did the prophet Dawud have the GIFT of music and the pslams from Allah (swt)? That would be like Allah (swt) giving Isa the gift of healing (which he did) and then telling all of us that healing and using medicine is haram.

There is not ONE SINGLE MENTION of music being haram in the Qur'an itself. The only mention of it comes from Hadith. And, as muslims we all know that Hadith is only valid as a decree from Allah (swt) when it doesn't contradict the Qur'an or any of the other messengers of Allah.

Music, like movies, are not haram. Only their subject/words can be haram. Playing an instrument brings you closer to Allah (swt), it does not "harden your heart" like some scholars have interpreted.

And this is just one of the MANY, MANY, MANY fallacies of Wahhabism. It is hypocritical by nature because it cherry picks certain words from hadith and the Qur'an while dismissing others.

The basis of islam is that it is neither fundamental nor extreme. It is ALWAYS a balance in the middle. So how can someone claim that returning they are returning to the "principles" of Islam, when you have to acknowledge the system as a whole and not just some of its basic principles!?!?!

This is why most of our sciences today we owe to muslims around the 10th and 11th century. The Scientific Method that our scientists use today was created by muslims searching for "truth". Modern chemistry as we know it today was created by muslims. Algebra and calculus were created by muslims.

you were doing so good,and then reality reared it's ugly head

Chemistry is a branch of science that has been around for a long time. In fact, chemistry is known to date back to as far as the prehistoric times. Due to the amount of time chemistry takes up on the timeline

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/chemistry/chem-c2507/navbar/chemhist.html

Algebra and calculus were created by muslims.

In the first century there were in fact NO MUSLIMS, as the prophet Mohammad was not to be born until 570 AD

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmathmatics.htm

Algebra
According to http://www.museums.reading.ac.uk: The first treatise on algebra was written by Diophantus of Alexandria in the 3rd century AD.

Algebra comes from the Arabic word al-jabr an ancient medical term meaning "the reunion of broken parts.''

Algebra, is an Arabic word for a Greek invention

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Diophantus.html

Diophantus was a Greek mathematician sometimes known as 'the father of algebra' who is best known for his Arithmetica. This had an enormous influence on the development of number theory.

While were on that subject , calculus was devised by Issac Newton
and not "by muslims" . The only other possible influence in that
subject was Leibnitz . This makes it a decidedly western European subject .

That is the problems though, you can't just look at the PRINCIPLES. You have to look at everything

but I am considering it all. Islamic dissimulation, in Arabic is called al taqyyia,is it not ?

you are a master at it, in my opinion.well done

"Any person of integrity who familiarizes himself with the letters and books of Sheikh Muhammad ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab will discover that this preaching contains nothing new that is contrary to the Koran and the Sunna or that opposes the practices of our ancestors. [Ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab's preaching] is nothing but preaching to return to the correct roots of the pure Islamic faith, which are its foundation and its starting point. It is a mistake to claim that calling it Wahhabism is natural, because [this term is used] primarily to slander and tarnish [Saudi Arabia]...

"It is also a mistake to claim that the term Wahhabi resembles [the names of] the four schools [of Sunni Islam, namely Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Shafi'i, all named after their founders], because this implies that the sheikh founded a new school, when in fact he relied on fatwas and religious opinions given by all four schools [of Islam].

an unfortunate,reality for Islamic theology I will say.

Even the claim that Wahhabism has become another facet of Salafism is wrong, because the correct Salafism is the way of life of our righteous ancestors, who were committed to the Koran and the Sunna.

http://kpr37.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/13/4279120-saudi-prince-salman-the-term-wahhabi-was-coined-by-saudi-arabias-enemies

www.Qtafsir.com

Tafsir is an arabic word تفسير which is derived from the root'fassara' which means to "explain" or to "expound". It is best understood as explanation or interpretation of the Qur'an.

Tafsir in the language of the scholars means: explanation and clarification.

It aims at knowledge and understanding concerning the book of Allah, to explain its meanings, extract its legal rulings and grasp its underlying reasons. Tafsir explains the 'outer' (zahir) meanings of the Qur'an

is an Islamic site. the .Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence is generally considered moderate.What do they say about non Muslims, and their proper place in the world.if you prefer not to search it yourself, just thank your Lucky stars, that a fellow newsvine member did the work for you. all you have to do is look here if you dare !!!!

Muslims created modern chemistry as we know it.

http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=224

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/chemistry.shtml

And my apologies about my mistake. Muslims invented Trigonometry, not calculus. But, muslims Did in fact create the algebra that we teach in school today.

http://scienceislam.com/muslims_science.php

The first great Muslim mathematician, Al-Khawarizmi, invented the subject of algebra (al-Jabr), which was further developed by others, most notably Umar Khayyam. Al-Khawarizmi's work, in Latin translation, brought the Arabic numerals along with the mathematics to Europe, through Spain. The word "algorithm" is derived from his name.

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=4116

Muslims created modern chemistry as we know it.

Do you realize how long the list would be of western accomplishments ? It would fill encyclopedias .

BTW what Muslims discovered about chemistry , although important
and useful , is hardly "modern chemistry" . Without the periodic table
and the concept of atomic weights there is neither modernity nor
sophistication in what they did .

Muslims invented Trigonometry

I'm not confident in that statement either . Pythagoras of ancient Greece would probably get that credit .

Not quite...

"Jabir modified and corrected the Aristotelian theory of the constituents of metal, which remained unchanged until the beginning of modern European chemistry in the 18th century."

"He discovered as many as 19 elements and is credited with correct measurements of specific weights. He perfected chemical processes such as distillation, crystallization and sublimation."

"Ibn Hayyan was the first to distill vinegar into acetic acid. He introduced the relative solubility or insolubility of substance in solutions."

"Along with al-Jaber, they were regarded the founders of Chemistry as an exact science."

"According to Max Meyerhof: "His influence may be traced throughout the whole historic course of European alchemy and chemistry.""

"He is credited, with the writing of 100 chemical works. "Nevertheless, the works to which his name was attached" says Hitti, "were after the 14th century, the most influential chemical treatises in both Europe and Asia." "He explained scientifically the two principal operations of chemistry, calcination and reduction, and registered a marked improvement in the methods of evaporation, sublimation, filtration, distillation and crystallization."

"In his writing in the ""Making of Humanity,"" Briffault stated, ""It was under their successors at the Oxford School that Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic science.

Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method.

Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of Muslim science and method to Christian Europe; Discussions as to who was the originator of the experimental method are part of the colossal misrepresentation of the origins of European civilization.""

"Chemistry as a science is unquestionably the invention of the Muslims. It is one of the sciences in which Muslims have made the greatest contribution and developed it to such a high degree of perfection that they were considered authorities in this science until the end of the 17th century A. D. Jabir and Zakariya Razi have the distinction of being the greatest chemists the mediaeval times produced.

Writing in his illuminating History of the Arabs, Philip K. Hitti acknowledges the greatness of Arabs in this branch of science when he says, "After materia medica, astronomy and mathematics, the Arabs made their greatest scientific contribution in chemistry. In the study of chemistry and other physical sciences, the Arabs introduced the objective experiment, a decided improvement over the hazy speculation of Greeks"

"What is Taught: The concept of the finite nature of matter was first introduced by Antoine Lavoisier during the 18th century. He discovered that, although matter may change its form or shape, its mass always remains the same. Thus, for instance, if water is heated to steam, if salt is dissolved in water or if a piece of wood is burned to ashes, the total mass remains unchanged.

What Should be Taught: The principles of this discovery were elaborated centuries before by Islamic Persia's great scholar, al-Biruni (d. 1050). Lavoisier was a disciple of the Muslim chemists and physicists and referred to their books frequently."

Also it's interesting to point out that everything we use today that is derived from oil we owe to muslim chemists. Gasoline, Kerosine, Asphalt, Mineral oil, cosmetics, plastic, etc all comes from the teachings of Islamic chemists.

We also wouldn't have alcoholic "spirits" like Whiskey, Vodka and Rum if it were not for muslim chemists.

And, lastly, we owe thanks to a muslim named Khalid, who discovered qahwa. As Qahwa made it's way from Ethiopia up to Turkey, the Turks translated the name into Kahve, then as it made its way across to Italy, the pronounciation changes to Caffe... and when it finally made it's way to England the pronounciation changed to Coffee. Yes, that's right, coffee was a muslim discovery.

Pythagoras of ancient Greece would probably get that credit

Nope. Pythagoras has his theorem, which is one part of Geometry, not trigonometry. Pythagoras is also famous for coming up with the equal tempered tuning system we use music today.

"Ancient Greek mathematicians such as Euclid and Archimedes studied the properties of the chord of an angle and proved theorems that are equivalent to modern trigonometric formulae, although they presented them geometrically rather than algebraically. Claudius Ptolemy expanded upon Hipparchus' Chords in a Circle in his Almagest. The modern sine function was first defined in the Surya Siddhanta, and its properties were further documented by the 5th century Indian mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata. These Greek and Indian works were translated and expanded by medieval Islamic mathematicians. By the 10th century, Islamic mathematicians were using all six trigonometric functions, had tabulated their values, and were applying them to problems in spherical geometry. At about the same time, Chinese mathematicians developed trigonometry independently, although it was not a major field of study for them. Knowledge of trigonometric functions and methods reached Europe via Latin translations of the works of Persian and Arabic astronomers such as Al Battani and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi."

Also the word Algebra comes from the arabic form of the word, "Al-jabr". We use the arabic base 10 numeral system today for counting (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc). So you can thank muslims every time you count anything. Otherwise you'd be using Roman numerals...

Here's some ineresting websites for you...

http://metaexistence.org/timeline1.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Al-Khwarizmi-Inventor-Algebra-Philosophers-Scientists/dp/1404205136

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1426202806/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_i3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0MX1QBARAP6RWTTWK7J9&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1404205128/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0MX1QBARAP6RWTTWK7J9&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1404205098/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_i5?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0MX1QBARAP6RWTTWK7J9&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1404205144/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_i6?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0MX1QBARAP6RWTTWK7J9&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

http://www.amazon.com/House-Wisdom-Transformed-Western-Civilization/dp/1608190587/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://www.amazon.com/How-Islam-Created-Modern-World/dp/1590080432/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Science-European-Renaissance-Transformations/dp/0262195577/ref=pd_sim_b_4

Wake Up, with all these accomplishments, why on earth does much of the Islamic world today still live in the 7th century in the social sense? It's like the dark ages with Islam, honor killings, stonings, jihad, suicide bombers and a myriad of sad and sickening stories from the middle east. What happened to Islam? What happened to the great libraries, great thinking, modern advancements, and women's rights in your world?

Elaine ,

Great question .
My guess is that the problem was the life of Mohammed as an ideal model of
behavior . When you summarize his life , he spent a lot of his time robbing
caravans . There was no appreciation of wealth accumulation nor capital
investment because he thought like a thief . When you are such a parasite on
society rather than a contributor , you should not be called an ideal model .

Wake Up, with all these accomplishments, why on earth does much of the Islamic world today still live in the 7th century in the social sense? It's like the dark ages with Islam, honor killings, stonings, jihad, suicide bombers and a myriad of sad and sickening stories from the middle east. What happened to Islam? What happened to the great libraries, great thinking, modern advancements, and women's rights in your world?

Oil happened. And the tyrants killed the people and took the land for themselves. And they became extremely weathly because of it...

And using money they have slowly been able to push their warped views on the rest of the world. Did you know that Saudi Arabia alone has spent over $87bil to promote it's warped views of Islam around the world? Why do you think 19 out of the 20 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia!!!

There were a few scholars starting in the 1300's through the 1700's that were opposed to scientific advances saying they were taking us away from faith, very similar to the Church's stance from 400 AD all the way through the 1800's! While they [these islamic scholars] were rejected in their own time and some were even kicked out of their own countries for trying to promote this narrowmindedness... over time the ruthless and the wicked got a hold of their teachings and have been promoting it.

Great question .
My guess is that the problem was the life of Mohammed as an ideal model of
behavior . When you summarize his life , he spent a lot of his time robbing
caravans . There was no appreciation of wealth accumulation nor capital
investment because he thought like a thief . When you are such a parasite on
society rather than a contributor , you should not be called an ideal model .

Interesting NonStitiousZealot, I didn't realize you were a muslim scholar and an expert on the life of Rasulallah. Where did you study? The islamic Center of Terry Jones perhaps?

I didn't realize you were a muslim scholar and an expert on the life of Rasulallah.

Are you saying that statement about caravan robbing is inaccurate ?

There were a few scholars starting in the 1300's through the 1700's

Oil happened.

OK , which was it the scholars or the oil ?

Oil happened. And the tyrants killed the people and took the land for themselves. And they became extremely weathly because of it...

I don't know Wake Up. Oil happened everywhere in the world, so that doesn't really explain anything to me about Islam today and the specifics I asked you about. This very article is about a woman murdered because of her incorrect hijab. The 'people' aren't dead, aren't there billions of you?

Are you saying that statement about caravan robbing is inaccurate ?

So are you calling our sanctions we impose on north korea, palestine, Iran, etc caravan robbing?

So are you calling our sanctions we impose on north korea, palestine, Iran, etc caravan robbing?

No . That would be your delusion . Also it has nothing to do with the topic
we were discussing . " Why does much of the Islamic world today still live in the 7th century in the social sense? "

One more thing , you think that by throwing out a different controversy
you can dodge my question . Clearly Mo' did rob caravans and my point
about that as a negative influence for a religion is valid .

I don't know Wake Up. Oil happened everywhere in the world, so that doesn't really explain anything to me about Islam today and the specifics I asked you about. This very article is about a woman murdered because of her incorrect hijab. The 'people' aren't dead, aren't there billions of you?

Oil consumption happened everywhere in the world. Oil production did not. Do a search right now in google for the largest oil reserves in the world.

Here's a link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

The middle east holds 56% of the world's oil supply, with Saudi Arabia being #1, Iran #3, Iraq #4, Kuwait #5. Canada is #2, but it is so expensive to get the oil out of canada it isn't economically viable to drill for most of it right now.

In 2008 Saudia Arabia alone (not including Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, etc) produced an average of 10.8 MILLION barrels of oil per day. Right now in 2010 the price per barrel is $70. In 2008 the average price was about $50/barrel, at some points soaring as high as $100/barrel. Do the math... $50/barrel x $10.8mil barrel every day... That is $540,000,000 PER DAY!!! $16.2 billion per month. $197.1 bil per year. And it is all in cash.

And Since Saudi Arabia is a true monarchy (the only one left on earth), ALL of the money that Saudi Aramco makes (the $197.1bil / year) goes DIRECTLY to the prince and the royal family.

Since the corporation is owned by the country and the country is owned by the prince there is NO oversight. The prince and his family can do what they want with the money, period. They could, for example, quietly give $100mil to terrorists that also follow the Saud family's Wahhabi extremist beliefs, as an example.

So now... Imagine a couple people that are as ruthless as, say, Hitler and Mussolini were, take control of their countries by force (like the saudis did and like the Ayatolla did in Iran, or like Castro did in Cuba). They are not elected representitives of the population. They impose THEIR OWN ideals on the population and the population are helpless to do anything about it. And then they start their witch hunts... searching for anyone who opposes them and trying to find ways publicly to get rid of them. This is why the sharia law is so strict in these countries. They can't exactly kill you for speaking out against the country... oh, but hey, this guy says he saw you steal a loaf of bread, and we just made the punishment for theft murder so now we are going to kill you. And that is also why they do these executions publicly, as a warning to the population to not speak against the regime.

It has NOTHING to do with islam and is completely unislamic. The clerics who stand up against this tyranny in these countries are accused of treason and are executed. the clerics who agree and go along with the tyrants get very wealthy and are encouraged to promote the tyrants extreme views to the population. Which breads more extremist clerics who want to get rich, no different than inner city kids here in the US looking at gangs as a way to get rich. So these young uneducated muslims buy into the propaganda, just like young germans did in Nazi germany.

We have all seen how "crazy" pastor terry jones is. We can also look up people like Railton Loy, Raymond foster, David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, or even David Brian Stone and realize they are american extremists. But now, what if one of them was able to take control of a small country that brought in almost $200bil a year? What do you think they would do with that money? Do you think Jones would resist the urge to use the money to promote his hatred of Islam and turn these 6000 or so Quran burners into Muslim burning terrorists?

Money corrupts people. The version of Islam we hear about on the news IS NOT the same islam the rest of the world follows. People don't realize how diverse Islam is. It's not just "one religion". That would be like saying all christians practice the same religions and that the Mormons are no different than Greek Orthodox Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches

Now, look at the charts. Most of the terrorists proudly claim they are Wahhabi. A few claim to be Hanbali, which Wahhabism is an offshoot of. Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi and the Saud family are the leaders and keepers of the Wahhabi faith.

The NYC mosque is going to be a Sufi Islam mosque. Not Wahhabi, not Hanbali.

Start reading and you'll see just how diverse the sects of islam are. It's no different than christianity or Judaism. And so condemning anyone who follows ANY of the sects of the religion, and not differentiating between them is like condemning all of christianity because of something the Mormons did, or the Jehovah's witnesses did, or the protestants did, etc...

And to those who say that, "well what the terrorists believe is true islam because they want to get back to the fundamentals of the religion..." the same could be said for Martin Luther and the Lutheran church. Luther thought Catholicism was getting too far removed from the core values of christianity so he started the Lutheran Church. But would you consider Lutherans and Catholics the same at all??!? No, they are very different... Just as the Wahhabi terrorists are very different than Hanafi, Sufi, Murjite, and most other muslim sects.

But these other sects don't have one single person or figure-head making $200bil a year to fund and promote their sect of Islam... so you never really hear about them on the news.

No . That would be your delusion . Also it has nothing to do with the topic
we were discussing . " Why does much of the Islamic world today still live in the 7th century in the social sense? "

One more thing , you think that by throwing out a different controversy
you can dodge my question . Clearly Mo' did rob caravans and my point
about that as a negative influence for a religion is valid .

No, I am not dodging the questions. I am merely pointing out that you can't read a book or a webpage written by another non-muslim and then perfectly understand what you are trying to talk about.

If you actually studied Islam, you would realize that the "caravan robbing" you are talking about only took place on Meccan caravans going into or out of Mecca. It was and still is a very common and effective military tactic of imposing sanctions. Except back in 600 AD there were no planes, trucks or trains. Everything went into and out of Mecca by caravan. So, in order to stop supplies and money from going into Mecca, Muhammad (pbuh) setup a blockade adn attacked and stopped trade with Mecca.

The US military and state department does this ALL The time. We are doing it right now to N Korea and Iran as well as others. We've done it to vietnam, cuba, germany, etc, etc.

Muhammad wore many hats. He was Leader/President (called Calipha), General of the Army, Judge, Husband, Father, and Messenger of God.

So to say something he did, or was prescribed to him by god, as a General of his Army in a time of war to be in anyway the same as doing so on a civilian population is hypocritical of you, since the US follows the same guidelines Muhammad did. Muhammad was not enforcing his blockade on countries with which he had peace treaties with. And when he signed a peace treaty with Mecca he stopped the blockade. Eventually the Meccans broke the peace treaty and the blockade went back into effect.

And now of course, you are going to come back and say that I am wrong. And that's why I just cut to the chase and asked you where you were studying Islam.

These conversations are like a professor of history having a conversation with a Professor of English Literature and having the English literature professor tell the History Professor he is wrong about his knowledge of ancient eqyptian history.

You are never going to learn about this stuff unless you go to an Islamic school and study it. Otherwise you are just cherry picking facts that have sometimes been poorly translated into your language, to come up with your own broad assumptions of what happened. Who do you think could explain japanese history better, a Japanese native person or an Italian that has been reading a couple Japanese-to-English-to-Italian translations of Japanese history?

In the end, you can try to come up with all the arguments you want. You are ALWAYS going to be wrong until you actually start studying that which you are trying to talk about FROM the people who understand it, study it, and live around it.

I'm going to order that book. I'd like an answer to the burning question of what happened to Islam, and that book sounds like good information. Thanks Krishna.

Wake Up, I appreciate your answer and you taking the time to write all that down. I can see that there are different Islamic sects like different Christian churches etc, but something in me just doesn't get Islam at all. Even with all the Christian churches, their differences don't vary between murderous branches of the faith and non-murderous branches like Islam. I know that comment will spark all kinds of Jim Jones comparisons and the Crusades etc., but an honest person would know the Chrisitan church as a whole does not include honor killings, stonings, jihad etc., and that is primarily what I am talking about.

I feel sorry for those people like you who are fighting a battle trying to help people understand that your faith, the Islamic faith is peaceful. There may be many like you who are peaceful, Islam may have been meant to be peaceful as you've said over and over.....but that is not what has happened to Islam as a whole. And peaceful is the last word I would use to describe Islam in the modern world.

Here's a book I've been meaning to read for some time-- still haven't gotten around to it. While it probably doesn't have all the answers, it seems that it might provide considerable insights: What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response by Bernard Lewis:

Krishna, Interesting book.

I think something that is understated here though is that he is really talking about the Arab world. Not the Muslim world. While most Arabs are muslims, most muslims are not arab. Out of the 1.5~2 billion muslims in the world, only an estimated 170mil to 200 mil are arabs from the middle east. So that is roughly around 10%. That's an important distinction I think most people in the US fail to make. We always assume Islam=Middle East. But it doesn't.

but an honest person would know the Chrisitan church as a whole does not include honor killings, stonings, jihad etc., and that is primarily what I am talking about.

True... but Christianity has only had this turn of events in the last 150~200 years or so. Even into the 1800s christians burned people alive, hung people, stoned people to death, etc. And even to this day certain religious figures encourage people to kill docters that perform abortions.

The problem is, you have to separate the religion from the people. Being a christian, it is easy for you to do that since you know a lot about the religion. Not being very familiar with Islam it is much harder to do it. I have to admit I was the same way. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic elementary school and everything. I was the one always questioning the nuns and the priests about christianity and getting hit and scolded for it. Islam finally answered those questions for me and agreed with what I had known since I was three years old.

In the last three years, I spent a lot of time learning about Islam, not from Wikipedia or some English guy who learned how to read arabic and then tried to write a book about what he thought the Qur'an says. I've been going to Islamic centers and learning about Islam from Islamic scholars, some of whom have been studying and practicing Islam their whole life. And I must say, just about everything I knew of Islam as a non-muslim was wrong. Sitting down and reading a line here and a line there of the Qur'an doesn't tell you anything. Reading the whole thing in its entirety, then you start to get the picture of the context, but as you read it there are a lot of things reference that you don't know anything about. So then you go to an Islamic school, they explain the backstory and history leading up to and around every Ayat. And then it starts to make sense...

Islam IS NOT just a religion. Yes, one part of it is a religion. But religion alone will not give you a good life in this world. So God gave us instructions on how to live and deal with things in this world. Things like government, economies, wars, civil laws, taxes, loans, trade, etc. Islam is kind of like Buddhism in a small way, in that Islam, just like Buddhism, isn't JUST a religion, it's a way of living.

And so, when you see someone talk about Muhammad as a caravan robber, or that he killed all non-muslims, it isn't true. One only needs to look at the actions of the US military, and then imagine superimposing that on our civil society, to understand how these people contrive this misinformation. What if we, 1500 years from now, read about how George Washington ruthlessly battled the british, and from that we assume that George and the US were trying to wipe out the entire world and that we killed every british civilian on US soil? Do a google search for "Privateer" and see that some of our most notable founding fathers were indeed Pirates of the High Seas robbing british merchant vessels off the coast of the US, NO DIFFERENT than Muhammad seizing Meccan caravans as they passed through his territory.

Context is key to understanding anything you read. Without it, you aren't learning anything useful.

In addition to predominantly Muslim countries, oil also "happened" to Russia, the U.S., China, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Norway, Brazil....(if anyone is interested, here's a table of top oil producers).

True, but it is more accurate to say it is "Happening" now in countries like Russia and Mexico, not "Happened". Russia for example, produced 9mil bbl/day in 2006, but only 3mil bbl/day in 2000. in the last five years they have been ramping up oil product. But that doesn't mean they've been as successful as long as the Saudis and other middle eastern countries have been.

One other thing to note in your post, "Table includes all countries with total oil production exceeding 2 million barrels per day in 2006. Includes crude oil, natural gas liquids, condensate, refinery gain, and other liquids."

So in lieu of that, in 2006 Russia exported 5mil bbl/day of actual light crude, and 3mil bbl/day of natural gas, compared to Saudi Arabia which a little over 9mil bbl/day of actual light crude (Almost twice the production of Russia) and only 1 mil bbl/day of natural gas.

In terms of actual crude oil, the middle east is unrivaled not only in their production but also in their remaining reserves still underground.

W U P ,

OK , I did some homework on the subject and your description appears to be
correct . Mohammed seems to have used caravan raiding as a war tactic against Mecca .

I have not subscribed to the theory that all Moslems are the same .
There seems to be a vast difference between Asian Moslems and Arab Moslems . I think a lot of that difference can be ascribed to geographical factors . Life is very hard in certain geographies , especially desert terrain .
Religions that comes out of such a region tend to reflect the harsh survival conditions that are part of life there . In such conditions it is not surprising that people steal from one another . The Meccans confiscated property from departing Moslems . The Moslems fought back with caravan raids .

In other parts of the world nature is more generous to inhabitants .
To expect that the harsh desert beliefs would apply equally to these
other regions is to be misled .

My interests lie more with studying the harsh desert versions of Islam .
I expect that the book Krishna recommended would be of great interest .

One more thing : Since Islam originated from the desert regions , its scriptures reflect that harsh way of life . There are passages in the koran that espouse all kinds of extremist behavior . It is of no surprise that extremists find scriptural fuel for their fiery thoughts in the koran , etc .
Also , the warlike factors in the formation of early Islam
tend to shape its later development . Perhaps that explains its later problems .

Krish ,

Have you got any info on the terrain in Pakistan ? Apparently it is not
a desert type terrain . [And now with the floods it is anything but dry] .

One more thing : Since Islam originated from the desert regions , its scriptures reflect that harsh way of life . There are passages in the koran that espouse all kinds of extremist behavior . It is of no surprise that extremists find scriptural fuel for their fiery thoughts in the koran , etc .
Also , the warlike factors in the formation of early Islam
tend to shape its later development . Perhaps that explains its later problems .

nonStitiousZealot, thank you. That was a very good post and I really want to thank you for looking deeper into the subject.

In response to the quote above, I agree. When reading some of the parts of the Qur'an it does seem harsh. When I asked about this at the Mosque, I got a very good answer. That answer was in parts, but was basically

1. Allah, while acknowledging certain practices of the time in the Qur'an, never explicitly condones them, he rather uses them as an example.

• For example, the Qur'an acknowledges that slavery existed and that people had slaves. But it also then goes on to say that freeing a slave is one of the most beloved acts a muslim can do in the eyes of Allah. So, in terms of things to do in order to repent for sins, free a slave was number one on the list. The Qur'an and Hadith also talk about how, if you do have slaves, you need to care for them as you do your own family, clothing them with nice clothes, feeding them from the food you eat, etc. But it then also again goes on to say that freeing them would be best for you.
• Another example the Imam gave me was that in this time period of the early 600's, cutting off of the hand was the normal punishment for theft. The qur'an acknowledges this and uses it as an example of how forgiving Allah is. It basically says whoever steals gets their hand cut off, but allah is so forgiving that if the thief gives back what was stolen, or repays for the stolen item and asks for forgiveness, no harm whatsoever shall come to him. So it is NOT saying "if you steal Allah decrees your hand should be cut off", it is using a known punishment at the time to show how forgiving and merciful Allah is and how we all should be towards each other in regards to forgiveness. In most cultures including the US, if you steal something the punishment is inflicted regardless of whether you give the stolen items back. The Qur'an, in it's "bigger"/"broader" message is saying that if someone steals and gives it back, the punishment should not be inflicted. So for our time that would mean no jail time, no fines, etc. It DOES NOT in any way mean that we should start cutting peoples hands off for stealing!

2. The Qur'an was/is acknowledged as a specific message for a specific people at a specific point in time. It does not directly pertain to us now, it was Allah (swt) directly addressing Muhammad (pbuh) and the people of the area in the early 7th century. But, the broader messages and morals of the Qur'an and Hadith apply to all people of all time periods (see above about cutting off hand) just as the message Jesus, Moses, Noah, etc do.

• This means that the overall message of the Qur'an pertains to us while certain specifics mentioned within it may not necessarily pertain to us.

3. The Qur'an is allegorical. It is one big song or poem. When recited in it's original arabic the lines rhyme and have a rhythm and meter to them. It is meant to be sung when recited so that it's allegory can be fully understood.

• That Allegory is lost when translating into other languages.
• Within its allegory, one line in the Qur'an can have up to two or three different meanings, all of which are correct, within given contexts
• The use of Allegory throughout the Qur'an makes taking literal translations and/or interpretations of it incorrect.
• I use modern songs as an example to show allegory. If a song says "The lights are on but your not home, your will is not your own" is this song literally telling us to leave lights on when we aren't home because we are acting under someone else's will? That would be a literal interpretation and what these Muslim Extremists try to do with the Qur'an. Now imagine what would happen if I translated that line from English into Japanese. All assemblence of the allegory would be lost. Another example of allegory in song is the line, "Brown sugar how come you taste so good, now? Brown sugar just like a young girl should, now" So are we to assume that Mick Jagger just likes to eat raw brown sugar out of the box? Or could there possibly be another meaning behind this line and song? In converting the Qur'an to other languages, even modern arabic, the allegory is lost and the inherent meaning is lost as sentance structure is flipped to fit the new language and words are substituted. In arabic, just as in english. some words can have multiple meanings. For example the word "beat". It can mean to cause physical harm, to be victorious (like in sports), or a musical pulse. Worlds in arabic can have similar multiple meanings, and when translating it is very easy to misrepresent words, and with the allegory now gone, nobody can tell what the original word was supposed to mean. Allah (swt) instilled this knowledge in Muhammad (pbuh), and it is why he declared that the recitation of the Qur'an can never be changed. And it is why the Qur'an is still written and recited in its original arabic to this day.

4. Islam has to be taken as a whole. You cannot cherry pick the parts you want. You can't look at how Muhammad fought with his enemies during a declaration of war and then apply that to how the government should govern its people. Muhammad had peace treaties with lots of nations around him. He had lots of Jews and Christians living in Medina and in Mecca (just not IN the Ka'aba) that he was friendly with and would take them gifts often. His actions are also considered to be part of Islam as "sunnah". A way of "do as I do" and it helps to give context to the meaning of passages in the Qur'an and vice versa. It's a way of ensuring the context is maintained. But it is only maintained if someone actually references to them both. Again if a person singles out a specific line or phrase and doesn't cross reference it to any of the other lines in the Qur'an or actions of Muhammad (pbuh), then the meaning could be wrong. And that is really where all the later problems come from.

(IMO, the influence of the Saudis in radicalizing Muslims-- worldwide-- is often underestimated).

I couldn't agree more. It is VERY underestimated. Most of the radicals can usually be traced back to Saudi Arabia in one way or another.

Haven't beautiful golden cities been built in the deserts of the Middle East? Aren't there modern cities all over the Middle East? I realize alot of it is rough terrain, but that hardship factor does't exactly explain my point of 7th century Islamic beliefs and practices in 2010..... namely hating and murdering gays, almost complete subjugation of women, barbaric practices for minor or even non-existent infractions....such as the topic of this article.

but that hardship factor does't exactly explain my point of 7th century Islamic beliefs and practices in 2010..... namely hating and murdering gays, almost complete subjugation of women, barbaric practices for minor or even non-existent infractions....such as the topic of this article.

No it doesn't, you are right. To address your point more specifically, and I'm sorry if this wasn't clear in some of my other posts...

Iran is a dictatorship under the control of the Ayatollah with a facade of a republic. Saudi Arabia is a "true" monarchy, where the king and prince rule supreme and are basically a different form of dictatorship.

Islam as a way of life, does not promote hatred, murdering ANYONE, subjugation of women, or barbaric penalties for minor infractions. BUT!!! If the dictator decides he doesn't want to follow what the "norm" is in Islam, then he country doesn't follow the norm. The people have no say, nor do any other muslims around the world. Because those countries are dictatorships, Shariah is more the opinion of the dictator and less based on scholarly study. So if the dictator WANTS to keep women from having rights, he tells his staff to make it so and then they try to figure out ways to spin the Qur'an to promote the dictators ideals. When in reality it is supposed to be the other way around. And in Islam any time of dictatorship or monarchy is illegal. Muhammad has expressed in hadith that the Ummah (arabic for comminity) should select their leaders, and that blood lines mean nothing when it comes to running a government.

And this is why you see blastphemy in the name of Islam. Dictators who are not adhering to Islamic law themselves, declare their own version of Islam on their people/country. It is unislamic, but they call themselves muslims and Islamic nations anyway and there is nothing the rest of the muslim world can do. What, can we sue them in the UN for claiming to be muslim? Is there some sort of trademark on Islam that we can take them to international court on if they aren't living up to the standards of the trademark? Unfortunately the answer is no. Short of staging a revolution in these countries (which the US tried to do in Iran, and look where that got us), there is nothing outsiders (muslim and non-muslim) can do.

Wake Up, I have to hand it to you, you really do make a huge effort to inform and enlighten those of us who do not understand Islam, and you have done that. I have learned alot from these many posts. The truth for me, is Islam makes me sad. When I see women in this country in burqua's it makes me sad. When men isolate women from places of worship in this country, it makes me sad. When I constantly hear that Islam is a religion of peace but I don't see it anywhere, I just feel sad and I'll admit, a little afraid of them. There is something hidden and dark in Islamic ways. They are not the ways of enlightenment and love and freedom. They are confining and confusing to me. You've mentioned Saudi Arabia and Iran and I've learned alot about them from you. But there are many, many more Islamic countries that practice these ancient ways and I'll never understand them. The freedom of my birth and my life are antithesis to comprehending Islamic beliefs. And that is the truth about how I feel.

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue3/jv7n3a2.html

This is a great paper describing how messed up Saudi Arabia is politically and financially and how their Oligarchy (true monarchy) has created a massive amount of poverty even though the ruling family makes $200 bil a year.

Here's another article

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3412.htm

I've been trying to find information on Saudi's % of poverty. And I can't. They don't publish it!! How convenient for them!!

[[ BUT!!! If the dictator decides he doesn't want to follow what the "norm" is in Islam, then he country doesn't follow the norm. The people have no say, nor do any other muslims around the world. ]]

And therein lies the problem . In Christianity people make a big deal out
of what is a moral choice or an immoral one . We hear about events when
they have a problem with them . This does not seem to be the case with Islam .
If an ayatollah issues a fatwah against the life Salmon Rushdie , no one in Islam objects . The other Imams don't object . The moslem people don't either . You can talk all day about how beautiful Islam and the koran is but that is all theory . In practice it is barbaric and hyper-sensitive .

I've been having troubling finding stats on Iran. It seems they are even more guarded about their financials. I did find an estimate of poverty to be at 18%, although I do not know how accurate that is. It said in 2000 it was over 50%, and has now dropped to 18%. That seems kind of suspect to me.

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2008/09/interesting-iran-development-statistics.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran

And therein lies the problem . In Christianity people make a big deal out
of what is a moral choice or an immoral one . We hear about events when
they have a problem with them . This does not seem to be the case with Islam .
If an ayatollah issues a fatwah against the life Salmon Rushdie , no one in Islam objects . The other Imams don't object . The moslem people don't either . You can talk all day about how beautiful Islam and the koran is but that is all theory . In practice it is barbaric and hyper-sensitive .

OK... I see your point. And although I don't know a lot about the Salmon Rushdie issue, I do know that while certain governments issue fatwas promoting terrorism... some do the opposite.

Everyone always says "why haven't muslims denounced radical islam, or terrorists, etc" And I always say there are muslims that have but we never hear about them.

Here is a fatwa condemning the terrorists from the Fiqh Council of America

http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/FatwaBank/tabid/176/ctl/Detail/mid/600/xmid/25/xmfid/3/Default.aspx

I'm sure if I start looking around I'll find some info about Salmon and I'll find muslims that speak out against Iran condemning him. It's just their voices aren't heard.

Wake Up, I have to hand it to you, you really do make a huge effort to inform and enlighten those of us who do not understand Islam, and you have done that. I have learned alot from these many posts. The truth for me, is Islam makes me sad. When I see women in this country in burqua's it makes me sad. When men isolate women from places of worship in this country, it makes me sad. When I constantly hear that Islam is a religion of peace but I don't see it anywhere, I just feel sad and I'll admit, a little afraid of them. There is something hidden and dark in Islamic ways. They are not the ways of enlightenment and love and freedom. They are confining and confusing to me. You've mentioned Saudi Arabia and Iran and I've learned alot about them from you. But there are many, many more Islamic countries that practice these ancient ways and I'll never understand them. The freedom of my birth and my life are antithesis to comprehending Islamic beliefs. And that is the truth about how I feel.

Thank you, I am glad I have at least help shed some light on the subject for you. Nobody is asking the general public to accept Islam and nobody is expecting them to comprehend all Islamic beliefs. But a certain understanding of "not all muslims follow the same Islam" needs to be broadcast louder than it is.

I wholeheartedly condemn those who do evil deeds in the name of Islam. They are the people who the Qur'an talks about as being hypocrites, who to your face say they are muslim but then go and spread "mischief" (as the Qur'an calls it) throughout the world. They are not muslims, yet they claim to be.

I will say this, there are still some very ancient laws in our own law books that have never been eradicated. For example, in the US, it is illegal to wash your donkey in your bathtub on sunday. It's still on the books, but nobody enforces it. Some of these "old laws" in Islamic Jurisprudence are the same. Some countries revamp them to stay current with the times, others do not.

Some people condemn Islam because the Saudis allow child brides... yet in Pakistan the legal age for marriage is 16 for females and 18 for males, which is the same as the marriage age in most midwestern states in the US. And I'm not saying Pakistan is the role model of an Islamic government either... but people need to realize that just because one state does it, doesn't mean all states do it. Shariah law is not some single universal Islamic code book. It varies from country to country. The Hanafi sharia law in Pakistan is different than the hanafi sharia in India or afganistan. The Wahhabi sharia of Saudi Arabia is VERY different than just about everywhere else.

For example, muslim women in most countries aren't required to wear Jihab all the time. Only when they pray. But women can wear hijab all the time if they want. My wife doesn't, and nobody else in her family does either. One of her cousins just started wearing a Burqa and literally everyone else in the family yells at her for it and tells her to take it off!! Some countries do require hijab in public, but it was never mandated in the religion as required at all times. It was suggested and even preferred. But never required. The Burqa is not required in most countries and some islamic countries have even banned them!! But the Taliban were all for them. But again, in most muslim communities, women CAN wear them if they want.

Women have the right to work in Islam. That it even states in the Qur'an. I don't have time to look up the exact quote. I think it is somewhere in Surah 4, entitled "Women". It basically says women don't have to work if they don't want to. But if they want to, then the husband is truly blessed by Allah (swt). But yet, in some muslims countries women still aren't allowed to work or have an education. It isn't Islam that isn't allowing them, its the uneducated and tyranical leaders of the country that are not.

Like I said, when I started learning about islam and converted. I was amazed at how 90% of what I was told about Islam was wrong. That isn't to say that there aren't people out there who believe this wrong information... but it is wrong nonetheless. Them believing it doesn't make it right.

The freedom of my birth and my life are antithesis to comprehending Islamic beliefs.

I should also point out that all of these "stuff" we are discussing here really isn't at the core of Islamic Belief. The core of Islamic belief is pretty simply. They are,

1. Believe in one God, the creator, and don't associate anyone/anything else with him
2. Establish regular prayer
3. Practice charity regularly

Those are the main principles of Islam. There are two others that are a little more specific. They are

• Fast in the Month of Ramadan
• Take a pilgrimage of Hajj to the Ka'aba (in Mecca) at least once in your lifetime if you can afford it.

That's it. You do these things and you are guaranteed to go to heaven. That is the basic tenants of Islam, also sometimes called "the Pillars of Islam". These aren't that hard to understand. It's all this other stuff that people kind of create around it that can get confusing. And even muslims debate amongst themselves about it just like christians have for centuries.

Oh, and sorry, I was in a hurry last night and left out a few additional additional beliefs along with fasting and Hajj...

• You believe in ALL of the messengers of Allah and their message starting from Adam through to Moses AND Jesus (pbut).
• You believe in Judgement day and that Jesus (pbuh) will return to the earth to save the righteous
• You believe that Muhammad (pbuh) was Allah's servant and last Messenger.
• You believe in the revelation of the Qur'an as well as all the revelation of all previous messengers (The Torah, Bible, Pslams).
• You follow the ways and teachings (called Sunnah in Arabic) of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

OK... that's it. The first three are required to be Muslim. The rest of the bullet points are a part of Islam.

Islam in it of itself means servitude. These people are infected with a mad cow disease, and until the root cause is treated nothing will be done about it.

"Bullies and cowards" to the west = good Muslims to believers. If you are not Islamic and male, you're at the mercy of anyone else follwing sharia law. Remember this when your community starts getting requests to allow Islamic religious courts in your neighborhood. There is a precedent. You probably won't be able to stop it.

I admire the guts of Belgium and others that say, basically "when in Rome..." and won't allow the burka in their society.

There is a precedent. You probably won't be able to stop it.

Is my AK47 still an argument in discussing the shari-ah? Cause if it is - I sure can stop it.

I admire the guts of Belgium and others that say, basically "when in Rome..." and won't allow the burka in their society.

No they are ass holes for banning it, I believe that as long as no one who is hurt and everyone involved is a willing participant its no one elses business what someone does, but then I believe in freedom clearly you don't.

It should be banned, if you can't go to their country and dress the way you want and act the way you want (within reason), then they should not be able to do the same.

It should be banned, if you can't go to their country and dress the way you want and act the way you want (within reason), then they should not be able to do the same.

In your mind they are savages, why should we aspire to be the equivelent of barbarians?

Justin Smith #6.4 ,

I believe in freedom clearly you don't.

Actually you believe in servitude .

Just an fyi...the Burqa is not required or prescribed for women in Islam. It is taken out of context by some of these Islamic nutjobs (namely, Wahhabi clerics).

There is a story in Islam of how Muhammad's (pbuh) wife was trying to escape Mecca. The Meccan army was killing any muslims they came across. So, in order to get out of the city, she covered herself head to toe in a sheet and cut out a spot for her to look through. As soon as she got outside the city, she took it off. And she NEVER wore it again!

In certain areas of the Middle east and south east asian (like Afganistan) men can be pretty mean and nasty. The Burqa keeps them honest. The woman a guy might start sexually harassing as she walks down the street could very well be his mother, sister, aunt, etc. With the Burqa on he has no idea, so it keeps him honest. But it has no basis in Islam as being absolutely "required". It is not. Technically speaking, even the hijab is not "required" to be worn at all times. It is only required to be worn when praying. Yet some countries (usually the ones with a Wahhabi ruling party), try to say that women shoudl wear hijab or burqa anytime they are out in public. They are hypocritical and are not real muslims. PERIOD.

Actually, this action is condoned by sharia law. They committed no crime. Neither did the president of Sudan when 300,000 died of starvation and disease. They weren't Islamic. It doesn't count. In this case, she was a woman, it doesn't count because she wasn't following the dress code.

Yes, it was all her fault and the rape was purposed to ensure she went to heaven. The Basij thugs also were brought in to beat protesters following the mullah/Guard regime "election" that returned Maynard to another term as president.

backroads,

do you refer to "Maynard G. Krebs" (?), when you referred to Mahmoud as Maynard ?!

As in, "You Rang?!".

Pretty funny on first read; but, that Beatnik, Maynard, actually was pretty hip to what was happening, and I really can't say that Same thing about Mahmoud.

Agreed.

"Separation of Church and State".

The Ultra Religious have a place in Society, as do Agnostics,

and also, those that Believe, and worship or love GOD, in their DIFFERENT Ways.

But, NEITHER, Organized Religion, NOR does, Organized Anti-Religion, have any place IN the State,

even though ALL "Bents" are part of the State's constituency.

This *SEPARATION*, should *BE* the U.S., and Should Include, all Western Nations, and all Eastern Nations,

which Would include Israel AND the Remainder M.E. Nations, the Middle East Muslim Nations.

Hey milcon Your simplistic view of religion doesn't bother me. That totally ignorant nature and childish prattle is another thing entirely.

Africa's in worse shape than Iran is.

No thanks to muslims, who as much part of the problem there as they are in Iran.

It's more of a combination of a lack of education, dependence on religion and superstitions and an unwillingness to change, be more accepting and move forward.

Are you sure? Because I believe that Al-Zawahiri and Bin-Laden don't lack any education. As for unwillingness to change - I'd say the problem is our eagerness to accommodate is much larger problems. If we remembered who we are, and what we have accomplished, and were less eager to rush with the "understanding" of these barbarians with their hateful ideology and misogynistic practices - they might be a lot more willing to change.

The wrong kind of education is no education. It's one thing for children to repeat the religious and superstitious BS, it's another for adults to continue to do so.

Only an idiot can look at the news and statistics, and willfuly ignore the fact that adherents of a certain ideology regardless of their color, culture, or economic status seem to be much more hateful, intolerant, economically underdeveloped and bloody violent than the people of same background who do not adhere to the incoherent babblings of a sociopathicpaedophile with a damaged brain. Islam produces terrorism by a much wider margin that any other ideology including communism. It is not that other ideologies don't, it is that this particular one does so much more efficiently and in far greater numbers per capita. Not to mention that they are the only ones who by and large condone such actions.

thats true.. islam practically has an exclusive on suicide bombings.. theres a new bombing by islamic terrorists almost every week if not more than a few a week killing tens and hundreds of people each and every time. if one part of the population is the origin for such enormous murder rape terrorism yes its fair to be suspicious of there pop over all. sucks for the good muslims but better safe than sorry..

And by the way, the punishment for rape in Islam is death.

Yeah, and how often is that enforced? Never. Quit making excuses and grow a backbone.

Mr Rabbit... There are many different "sects" within Islam. Unfortunately news casters never really differentiate.

The first two BIG divisions are Sunni and Shia. They are as different as Catholic and Lutheran (i.e. very different). Within Sunni you have 4 different schools of law (i.e. Sharia). They are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali. These are like Protestant, Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, etc.

These are the only recognized schools of law (called Fiqh) in Islam. Now do a google search for "Wahhabism". Wahhabism was created in the 18th century as a way to get back to the "fundamentals" of Islam. But, Islam in and of itself is a balanced system. It cannot be "fundemental" nor can it be "Extreme". Basically, Islam is can only be shades of grey, but Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism) felt it should be black and white. There are other religious and political movements that call themselves Islamic, but they are not recognized by the Islamic community as being Islamic. Wahhbism is one that is not recognized, nor is the "Nation of Islam" that was started here in Detroit.

Wahhab was kicked out of his native Islamic country Uyayna for his un-Islamic actions and beliefs. He moved to a state called Diriyah on the arabian peninsula and befriended it's ruler, Muhammad Ibn Saud. Saud eventually made a pact with Wahhab, pledging to implement and enforce Wahhab's teachings. After Wahhab's death, the Saud family became the "leaders" of this movement.

The Saud family eventually attacked and destroyed most of the Arabian peninsula over a 140 year period. Finally declaring the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" in 1932. Nevermind the fact that Monarchies are a direct violation of Sharia and go against everything Muhammand and Islam stands for... the Saud family implemented a true monarchy for their kingdom and decided to, yet again, go against islam and use the Qur'an as their constitution, instead of using the Constitution of Medina, drafted by Muhammad (pbuh) himself back in the early 600's A.D. The Constitution of Medina, among other things, grants freedom of religion to all people and allows non-muslims to openly practice their religion within the state. It also protects their places of worship. Wahhabism is strongly against these practices, and since the Constitution of Medina is from Muhammad (pbuh) directly it is part of the Sunnah (teachings and ways) of the Prophet. The Wahhabis denouncing the use of this as their Constitution is them going against the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad, and therefore, against Islam as a whole.

Wahhabism is not only against non-muslims, but also against ANY other muslim sect that isn't Wahhabi. This is also a direct violation of Islam. Although there are different "schools" of Islam, all of them are allowed to pray together and worship in their own way.

The Wahhabism movement started to become front page news in the 1970's when the prices of oil soared. It is no coincidence. Wahhabism is sometimes called by other muslims "petrol-islam".

Al Qaeda, Taliban, Al Shabab, Hamas, Lakshar, Hezbollah, and as far as I can tell, ALL OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS claim they are Wahhabi in belief.

So... while the news reports shout "Islamic terrorist" or "Islamic Suicide bomber" please try to understand that it isn't ALL of Islam... It is the Wahhabi. And the Wahhabi attack and kill more non-Wahhabi muslims than they do non-muslims. Muslims and non-muslims alike are in this war against Wahhabism.

It's just unfortunate that the news media simply calls it Islam, when it is not.

That is very interesting, I've been waiting and waiting for someone to explain it so non-Muslims can understand. Why don't Muslims do something about this? ie....what you just did except on a grand scale, around the world on tv, radio, internet and issue arrest warrants for the killer wahhabi's? And ban their teachings in Madrassas, ban their terrorist training camps, and issue warnings against Islamic countries who harbor them? And issue warnings against countries who call Wahhabism.....Islam? Because I have to tell you, as it is, Islam is at war with the rest of the world's religions.....as it is currently perceived. And YOU are the first person I have ever heard, who has stated otherwise in a way that can be understood. As it stands today, Islam has been hijacked.....and the hijackers want to kill you, me, every westerner, everyone they feel like......in the name of Islam.

They do, it's just our news agencies don't feel it's news worthy enough. I seeded this story the other day for this very reason. It took me 20 min of browsing through CNN to come across it!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/13/afghanistan.fighting/index.html

Muslims in Afganistan (who are most likely Hanafi) fighting off Insurgents (wahhabi) who were trying to attack and overtake their village. If all muslims were in agreement with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other Wahhabi groups, then why would the villagers repel the insurgents with force? Because, Islam is against terrorism just as much as everyone else.

Here are some other articles I've found. But I've never come across one without searching for it for a while. The problem is two things. First our news media, who care more about ratings than the stories. So all of us in the US know that Lindsey Lohan is going to Jail and Mel Gibson is a complete jerk, because people tune in to hear the gossip. The news media programmers (yes, there are actually people who's job it is to sift through all the news stories out there and purchase the ones they want to air on the news that night) feel the tabloid stories will bring in more Advertising revenue than stories of muslims fighting back against terrorism and extremism. Companies like Reuters and Associated Press sell their news stories to the news channels. NOW, companies like TMZ are also selling their stories and trying to compete against Reuters and the AP. So, we end up with a news program that plays more like the National Enquirer than a factual depiction of what is going on in the world. It's sad, but that is what news has become.

Anyway here are some more articles about muslims speaking out against Wahhabism and terrorism.

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/anti-extremism/7-islamic-radicalism-its-wahhabi-roots-and-current-representation.html

http://www.islamdaily.net/EN/Contents.aspx?AID=3051

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1177/muslims-in-india-taking-back-islam-from-the-wahhabis

http://www.islamicpluralism.org/1367/muslim-anti-wahhabi-protest-washington-dc

http://www.islamicpluralism.org/427/urgent-call-for-protest-against-wahhabi-aggression

http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcivyar.t1arv2lict.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmE9CeEltZg

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/20102117332284608.html

http://www.iran-e-sabz.org/eindex.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/10/opinion/main6568553.shtml

WakeUpPeople, I appreciate you made the effort to find articles and I'll check those out, but a few stories on American media aren't exactly what I'm talking about....and this is 9 years after 9/11. For the longest time after 9/11, I for one, waited and waited for Muslims to speak up and say "these people aren't Islam! these people are murderers!" But just silence. And by the way, Arab Muslims in my town clapped and danced in the street on 9/11 which shocked the hell out of me and everyone else. I don't think they they are Wahhabi's.....or else they probably wouldn't live here.....but, maybe they are.....who knows?

I'm really talking about Muslim countries showing something other than indifference by allowing terrorist camps, allowing radical Islam to be taught in madrassas, and allowing terrorist to hide amongst their citizens, etc., and by not declaring them criminals and arresting them. We in America aren't against Islam, we didn't declare war on Islam, the so called "Islamic terrorist" declared war on us in this country...... a place where Muslim's are free to practice their religion and free to live whatever way they want....and other western style countries too. Suicide bombers have made their way into alot of countries. Those terrorists will say differently, they'll say America backs Israel, and we do (somebody needs to, or they'll be annihilated), and they'll say we are "infidels" on their soil......and all the other reasons they give for hating the west.....which by the way....I say....so what? The whole world is on each other's soil. Why can't the whole world travel wherever they want and be friends?

It seems to me the Muslim world is largely just silent and indifferent. There are those groups within Iran fighting for freedom, there are those in Afghanistan fighting again the Taliban from taking over their villages, etc. And there are pockets of normal Muslims fighting back. But I don't see the larger Muslim world doing much of anything to take back their religion or declare the terrorist wanted murderers. The terrorists are 'wanted' alright....dead or alive by the West, but they aren't 'wanted' dead or alive by the Muslim world as a whole. That is pretty much the point I'm trying to make.

Potato, potato. Iran is shiite, Saudi Arabia is Sunni and citadel of wahhabism, and the keeper of islam. The only school of islam that you didn't mention as a recognised one is Sufism, and indeed from those people no terrorist came forth as of yet. None came from alavits, but you do not seem to recognize that one either. Other than that - you all look the same to me.

Hamas is sunny muslim terrorist arab organization, Hezbollah is shi'a muslim terrorist arab organization - why should I care about little things if the rest looks exactly alike? In the mean time I never hear of Christian arab blowing himself up to kill a few Jews, or killing their neighbors as the case was in Iraq, just because they go to a different mosque?

What about African muslims, what about those Pakistani who shot-up the Indian city. Philippines, ujgurs in China, idiots in Malasya?

Muslims and non-muslims alike are in this war against Wahhabism

Bull@!$%#, 70% muslims support the terrorism against the West. All sunny think shi'a is little more than dogs - I've seen the fliers. I've seen what kind of crap the muslims teach their kids in VA school. They teach 3d and 4th graders to consider themselves "uber alles" and to hate the Jews in the process. And let us not even talk about islamic tolerance for free speech (or lack thereof). Let us not talk about their respect for the laws of the land in which they live, be it Britain, Italy, America, or France. I do not care what they do to each other in their cesspool of Dar-Al-Islam, but I definitely clearly want them out of my Dar-Al-Habr. I willing to befriend only those who drink beer and eat pork, and in the process for one reason or another call themselves a "bad muslim" (nice touch there).

But, Islam in and of itself is a balanced system. It cannot be "fundemental" nor can it be "Extreme".

I agree wholeheartedly. So does Geert Wilders - what you see as "balanced system" to any rational person of the Western Civilization (AKA the Civilized World) is nothing more than an ideology just as full of hate, intolerance and violence as German Nazi-ism, except it is based on a religion, and has been going on for much longer. No wonder Dar-Al-Islam made such a good ally for the Axis in WWII.

Potato, potato. Iran is shiite, Saudi Arabia is Sunni and citadel of wahhabism, and the keeper of islam.

Saudi Arabia IS NOT Sunni. None of the other Sunni schools of law have accepted Wahhabism as being Sunni. So Wahhabism is no different than the Nation of Islam and other rogue political sects who try to claim religion as their basis, but ultimately have a political agenda.

Bull@!$%#, 70% muslims support the terrorism against the West.

Could you show me that polling data please? Otherwise it is just your opinion and not anything closely resembling fact.

what you see as "balanced system" to any rational person of the Western Civilization (AKA the Civilized World) is nothing more than an ideology just as full of hate, intolerance and violence as German Nazi-ism, except it is based on a religion, and has been going on for much longer.

And as for the Nazi party, Hitler used Christianity and the Bible's telling of the Jews persecuting Jesus as his basis and justification for cleansing Germany of jews. But yet, because you are Christian you known that he was full of !@#$ for saying/believing that. Unfortunately you don't know enough about Islam to see the same thing is true of these Wahhabi terrorists.

WakeUpPeople ,

That's all very interesting but aside from the perversions of Shariah law
I am also concerned about the discrimination against and treatment of other
religions by run of the mill Islam .
It seems to be the case that the believers in Islam are not permitted to
change their mind w/o risking death .

Sadly, this is a belief of the Wahhabi. In Islam, changing one's mind and converting to another religion is a mark against you on the day of judgement, NOT while you are alive on this earth. No person on earth has the right to speak for god (this is one of the tenents of Islam). God has mentioned the punishment in hell for converting out of Islam. But that does not mean WE should punish people for it, because Allah (swt) is Oft forgiving and most gracious.

I read a hadith recently that said,

"The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said" Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says, "O son of Adam, as long as you call on Me, I shall forgive you of what you have done, and think nothing of it. O son of Adam, even if your sins were to reach up to the clouds in the sky, adn then you were to ask for My forgiveness, I would forgive you and think nothing of it. O son of Adam, even i fyou were to come to me with sins nearly as great as the earth, and then you were to meet Me after death, not worshipping anything besides Me, I would bring you forgiveness as great as the Earth.""

Well... one could say, since it says "not worshipping anything besides me" then if you leave Islam this Hadith doesn't pertain to you. But only Allah knows best what is in our hearts. If someone converted to Christianity from Islam, not a single person but Allah could stand up and tell us if that person will convert back to Islam before passing away or not. So, in our act of murdering this person for converting, we are sinning against ourselves, because what if this person would have converted back 5 years from now...or 10 years from now... or 20? And then WE are the ones responsible for interfering with Allah's will. Maybe this person needed to leave islam to learn a lesson that he/she could not learn otherwise? Only Allah Knows Best and only Allah should punish for such an act. So long as this person isn't hurting anyone else around them, they should not be punished. Because, as the Hadith says, you could have sins as large as the earth, and so long as you believe in allah and beg forgiveness, you will be forgiven. We cannot force someone's heart to beg forgiveness from Allah, the must do it on their own free will.

Now, if this same person, the day after converting OUT of Islam, gets hit by a car or has a heart attack or some other accident or natural cause of death befalls him... then THAT is Allah sentencing that person, and that person will not receive Mercy when he is judged before Allah.

It is sad that some "extremists" try to be so literal when interpreting certain verse and they completely ignore the rest of the Qur'an and Hadith. This is why Islam can never be extreme. It has to be Just and Moral. All of the balance and counter balance to these arguments are in the Qur'an and Hadith, but if you only look at specific instances that support your argument and you ignore any instance that support the counter of your argument, then you are not really following the laws. This not only holds true for Islam, it holds true for any religion. And any legal system as well. Imagine if we applied this same logic to the US code... You could potentially say that anyone not here in the US legally should be tried for treason. Anyone who jumps the border is a "foreign invader" and should be met with force. And so on and so forth... there are OTHER articles and sections to clearly state when every law can and cannot be applied. But if you don't read and consider ALL of them together, then you can basically claim the US code says anything you want it to say!!!

Well, then please read some of the links. the Islamic Council of America and Muslims in India are two of the links I already provided.

Yemen cracking down on Islamic terrorists I didn't post links to yet, but know that they have been. Here are some links.

"Yemen Arrests 10 suspected Al Qaeda militants", Jully 11th, 2010 - http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/11/yemen.al.qaeda.arrests/index.html

"Yemen arrests 30 terror suspects", Jun 26th, 2010 -http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article73902.ece

"Yemen arrests 50 foreigners with Al Qaeda Links", July 6th, 2010 - http://www.france24.com/en/20100607-yemen-arrests-50-foreigners-with-alleged-links-al-qaeda-us-britain-france

"Yemen arrests masterminds of botched terrorist attack against British Envoy", April 4th, 2010 - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-04/30/c_13272988.htm

WakeUp,

Krishna asked before I asked, But, it is the SAME Question;

and it is obviously ONLY an opinion being asked, BUT, since you ventured your opinion on the UN-Islamic Saudi Wahhabi'ism,

would you tell us YOUR opinion of the Shia beliefs that are different than Sunni beliefs ?!

And, WakeUp, it appears that the Sunni M.E. neighboring Iran,

are as concerned as Israel is, re the Iranian Nuke; Your opinion(?)

I honestly don't know enough about Shi'a to give you a valid and comprehensive comparison. I know the split occured because some muslims wanted Muhammad's (pbuh) cousin Ali to lead the Ummah after Muhammad's death, while others stated that Muhammad had said he was against that and said that the Ummah should select their leaders, and that he selected the first 4 for them as he was nearing his death. I also know that Shi'a is similar to Christianity in some ways as it venerates Saints and appoints certain people as religious leaders, and people try to pray to go through those religious leaders and icons.

I also know that the Ayatollah staged a revolution and took Iran from the Shah. And after doing so he made himself supreme leader of Iran until the day he dies... which sounds more like a dictator to me than anything else, no different really than the Saud family that conquered the Arabian peninsula. If you have the most guns and weapons, it's easy to "claim" victory. But you weren't elected by the people you govern, and so you cannot ultimately be viewed as any type of "official" representing your country and it's people.

I have no animosity towards Shi'ites, in fact my best friend for the past 23 years is Shi'ite and I'm Hanafi. We really don't even talk about it at all. I guess its an implied "agree to disagree" when it comes to that point and we move on with our lives. He looks at what the Iranian government is doing in as much disgust as me looking at what the Wahhabi are doing.

In Islam people have the freedom to believe what they want to believe. The Freedom of religion is granted to every individual.

"Say: 'O Disbelievers! I worship not what you worship; Nor do you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you worship. Nor will you worship that which I worship. Unto you is your religion, and unto me is my religion." Qur'an 109:1-6

So, if you don't believe in the Qur'an, or you don't believe as I believe, that is ok. To you is yours and to me is mine. The only problem that can arrise is if I try to force you to believe as I believe, or you try to force me to believe as you believe. That is against Islam to try and do so. The minor Jihad technically is defending yourself from people who are trying to force you to worship another religion. (Major Jihad is an inner struggle to not commit sin). So I laugh every time I hear one of these terrorist groups declare a jihad against "the west" or "america". We aren't trying to force them to be christian. We are trying to stop them from attacking us! So there is really no justification for them to call it "Jihad". This isn't the crusades, we aren't going around and saying, "are you christian? No? then die, die, die!" But that's how these groups are trying to portray it in order to dupe other muslims to follow their cause. I guess they don't realize that after the threat is gone and we've arrested or killed all of the enemy combatants (who also happen to be the same group who is oppressing the local population), we'll leave them to govern themselves and most likely give them Billions of dollars of aide every year for centuries to come.

"Say: 'O Disbelievers! I worship not what you worship; Nor do you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you worship. Nor will you worship that which I worship. Unto you is your religion, and unto me is my religion." Qur'an 109:1-6

in Ibn Kathir it talks about abrogating and the abrogated

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
Qur'an 2:106

Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.
Qur'an 13:39

And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.
Qur'an 16:101

9;5 the verse of the sword....... was one of the last revealed

أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.''

Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed.

four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20750

Ibn Kathir born in 1302 AD was scholar of History and a mufassir (Qur'an commentator) . He was renowned for his great memory regarding the sayings of Muhammad and the entire Qur'an.

Ibn Kathir wrote a famous commentary of the Qur'an named Tafsir ibn Kathir which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur'an, in explanation.

who is Ibn kathir,you say ?

Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, and is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today.

This site introduces the reader to one of the most Authentic books for explaining the Quran using both arabic and english text to grasp the understanding of the Quran.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TXHalabi related video

"Say: 'O Disbelievers! I worship not what you worship; Nor do you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you worship. Nor will you worship that which I worship. Unto you is your religion, and unto me is my religion." Qur'an 109:1-6

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=109&tid=59361 click next after reading,and find the true meaning

This Surah is the Surah of disavowal from the deeds of the idolators.

It commands a complete disavowal of that.

Allah's statement,

allah changed his mind. how convenient

[قُلْ يأَيُّهَا الْكَـفِرُونَ ]

(Say: "O disbelievers!'')

includes every disbeliever on the face of the earth,

however, this statement is particularly directed towards the disbelievers of the Quraysh. It has been said that in their ignorance they invited the Messenger of Allah to worship their idols for a year and they would (in turn) worship his God for a year. Therefore, Allah revealed this Surah and in it

You should have included the next verse that followed the one you quoted, "And if anyone of the disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah SEEKS your PROTECTION, then GRANT HIM PROTECTION, so that they may hear the Word of Allah and then ESCORT HIM to where he can be SECURE, that is because they are men who know not." Surah 9 (At-Taubah/ Repentance or Immunity) verse 6.

Don't use the same tactics the so called muslims who bomb the innocent use - taking only those part which can benefit your cause. It's a request.

You should have included the next verse that followed the one you quoted,

cant take it out of context,now can we ?

Did not the classical scholars such as Ibn Abbas or Imam Ibn Kathir of the Shafi school, of Islamic jurisprudence have the proper understanding of these.

Ibn Abbas lets it stand alone,while Ibn Kathir felt that the grouping of verses 2 though 6 should be read to grasp it true meaning.

I only used Pickthal as he is the most widely known English translation.

Let's start at the beginning of the linked tafsir of Ibn Kathir verse 2-6 . It starts here

009.002

PICKTHAL: Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).

009.003

PICKTHAL: And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve,

009.004

PICKTHAL: Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

009.005

PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

009.006

PICKTHAL: And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html

and here is the corresponding tasfir of Ibn Kathir

This is the ayah of the sword

[فَسِيحُواْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ]

Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.) Allah said next,

[فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ]

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which

the four months in question passed, about 1400 years ago

We prohibited you from fighting the idolators,

Idolaters.... people who as of yet,are not Muslim

and which is the grace period We gave them,

then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

[فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ]

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,

fight them everywhere on this earth, but Mecca

[وَلاَ تُقَـتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَـتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَـتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ]

(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )[2:191] Allah said here,

but if you must fight in Mecca, it's Ok

[وَخُذُوهُمْ]

(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

[وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ]

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush),

do not wait until you find them.

DON'T SIT AT HOME... go out and look for them

Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them.

search them out,use all means at you disposal

This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

This seems rather unequivocal,and certain in it's intent.

As I am a Goddess worshiping Irish Pagan, and am quite happy in my faith.This, the above verse, may generate great animosity from the remaining members of humanity, who choose to Disbelieve in the prophet-"hood", of a murderous pedophile

I put forth this proposition, that this is in fact, a violation of my human rights, and a hate crime.

[فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ]

(But if they repent and perform the Salah,

if they convert to Islam !!! and only under that particular circumstance, of accepting Mohammad as the prophet of allah, can they LIVE

and give the Zakah,then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah.

These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

One more time, I state clearly.I do not wish to become a Muslim !!!!!

Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

I think this is pretty much self explanatory...is it not ?

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said,

"It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.''

this ABROGATED all peaceful Qur'anic verses that came before. The Qur'an is not chronolgically ordered, so sura 9, verse 5 was revealed well after sura109, abrogating it . Rendering it meaningless.

this video,is about Qur'anic abrogation

Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented:

"No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

now this is what you questioned me about.

[وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ ]

(6. And if anyone of the Mushrikin seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an) and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.)

so that he may hear the Word of Allah and naturally, become a Muslim.

But what if he does not accept Islam ?

After all you have just read. Why would the CLEAR MESSAGE of the grouped verse need to be repeated.

This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20750

truth is often self evident,when placed in it's full and proper context

wow kpr37. What a great twisting of the words. While I don't have time right now to dispute every quote you mentioned, I'll just start with Ayat of the Sword. You need to keep reading and keep quoting PAST 9:5 and 9:6 and continue you will find...

Allah said to His Prophet, peace be upon him, And if anyone of the Mushrikin, whom you were commanded to fight and We allowed you their blood and property, seeks your protection and asked you for safe passage, then accept his request until he hears the Words of Allah, the Qur'an. Recite the Qur'an to him and mention a good part of the religion with which you establish Allah's proof against him, and then escort him to where he can be secure and safe, until he goes back to his land, his home, and area of safety, that is because they are men who know not. The Ayah says, `We legislated giving such people safe passage so that they may learn about the religion of Allah, so that Allah's call will spread among His servants. Ibn Abi Najih narrated that Mujahid said that this Ayah, "Refers to someone who comes to you to hear what you say and what was revealed to you (O Muhammad). Therefore, he is safe until he comes to you, hears Allah's Words and then proceeds to the safe area where he came from.'' The Messenger of Allah used to thereafter grant safe passage to those who came to him for guidance or to deliver a message. On the day of Hudaybiyyah, several emissaries from Quraysh came to him, such as `Urwah bin Mas`ud, Mikraz bin Hafs, Suhayl bin `Amr and several others. They came mediating between him and the Quraysh pagans. They witnessed the great respect the Muslims had for the Prophet , which astonished them, for they never before saw such respect for anyone, kings nor czars. They went back to their people and conveyed this news to them; this, among other reasons, was one reason that most of them accepted the guidance.

In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, to negotiate a peace treaty, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary. If there is no term limit set for their stay, then they have 4 months to say before they have to leave.

So, as you can see. what you, kpr37 are trying to do, is to try and take wartime polices and apply it to general governing of the population and the world!!! This is why you are taking the Ayat of the sword and ibn Kathir's tafseer of it out of context.

It would be like us reading the pentagon's wartime operations manual and then turning around and saying that it is the laws in which we govern our own people with and how we deal with anyone who isn't american. You have to remember the context with which things are being talked about. the Quraysh of Medina officially declared war on Medina and on Muhammad (pbuh) and his followers. They had orders to "kill on site". So this ayat and the ones that follow it are how to deal with an agressive enemy combatant during wartime.

It is not and should not be applied to anything other than that.

wow kpr37. What a great twisting of the words.

no,not one

You need to keep reading and keep quoting PAST 9:5 and 9:6 and continue you will find...

keep reading until you agree with is not a valid argument

So, as you can see. what you, kpr37 are trying to do, is to try and take wartime polices and apply it to general governing of the population and the world!!! This is why you are taking the Ayat of the sword and ibn Kathir's tafseer of it out of context.

I am presenting it in it's full and proper context. allah's commands, are all eternal and valid for all time. ARE you questioning them (HERITIC want me to tell your Imam), and they are also sent to all of mankind.

These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

large parts of Africa, the America's both north and south and Europe as well, have not excepted Mohammad a man inordinately fond of pre-pubescent little girls as a prophet nor "allah" as a God, let alone the one and only "@!$%#ing" GOD.

GIVE ME THE VERSE EXEMPTING ALL OF THEM

was the eating of pork set in a limited time and place ? how about alcohol? wife beating , is still allowed, slavery as well

unfortunately "allah" has made some of the kuffar far more intelligent than the "Ummah" may prefer. sharia law has been exposed as the sick fraud that it is, for all to see.

if this were Sicily a few hundred years later, this "Islam" thing. It would be called something else,cause once you join "this thing" of the prophet's, you can never get out, not alive anyways

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said,

"Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.'

the burning in fire is left to allah

No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said,

'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

and mans duty to send them to that hell fire ?

Islam is nothing more than the word of the imaginary friend of the man, Mohammad

The human "conscience" must submit to Allah's will.Don't worry though, this "Allah Dude" he's smart smarter than the average Bedouin tribesman of the seventh century,you can be sure.

there is not a single thing that you have mentioned that is true of Islam. Not a single one. You can take things out of context all day long. It still doesn't make you right.

As for giving you a verse exempting them all, I already have. You chose to ignore it and say that because it was given as revelation before the ayat of the sword, then it is over-ruled by the ayat of the sword. Which is not true. Nothing in the Qur'an overrules another. There is no "chronology" to the order of the verses on purpose, as a way to show that it wasn't written by man. The order in which the revelations were recieved is no indication of their importants or weight, and cannot be used as a system to judge which ones should be followed and which ones shouldn't.

"And Allah is the Sovereingty of the heavens and the earth. He Forgiveth whom he will, and punish whom he will. And Allah is ever forgiving, merciful." Qur'an 48:14

"A.L.R. This is a book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning), further explained in detail, from One who is wise and well-acquainted with all things (Allah)" Qur'an 11:1

"There is not an animal in the earth, nor a fying creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the Book of our Decrees. Then unto their lord they will be gathered" Qur'an 6:38

"This is the book free of doubt and involution, a guidance for those who preserve themselves from evil and follow the straight path" Qur'an 2:2

"Nothing of our revelations (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten" Qur'an 2:106 (Doesn't this dispell your whole argument about the Ayat of the sword?)

"If you have doubts about what we have sent down to our servant, produce another surah equal to it, and call your witnesses, besides Allah, if you are telling the truth." Qur'an 2:23

"Perfected is the word of thy lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change his words. He is the hearer, the knower" Qur'an 6:115

anyway... We could go back and forth on this day in and day out. You taking things out of context. Me correcting the context and making sense of the verses... you then jumping to quotes from other people who are NOT Muhammad (pbuh) nor from the Qur'an and taking those out of context...and then me correcting the context and correcting you, and then you reverting to name calling like calling Muhammad (pbuh) a pedophile, which he is not. His marriage to Aisha was ARRANGED when she was 9 yrs old. They didn't actually get married until she was somewhere between 16 and 18 years of age.

And by the way, Marie Antoinette WAS actually 10 years old when she was married to King Louis. He was in his late 40's early 50's. And yet you are calling Muhammad a pedophile because he waited to marry until his bride was around 16~18 yrs old? Kind of Hypocritical of you to point fingers at one and not the other, no? And while you might be able to find a website that SAYS Muhammad married Aisha when she was 9, it is not true and the person who is running the article is probably someone like you. ;-)

Anyway... we could go on and on about this... why don't you actually go down to an islamic center near you and sit down with an imam or a scholar and address all your issues with them. If you call ahead, they will gladly make time to talk with you. I can LITERALLY guarantee he/she will dispell any myths you might have heard or read on the internet. and not only verbally, he/she can show you the actually text it comes from so you can understand the CORRECT CONTEXT yourself.

Nothing in the Qur'an is bad, but that doesn't mean satan can't find ways to try and trick the uninformed into thinking it is.

there is not a single thing that you have mentioned that is true of Islam. Not a single one. You can take things out of context all day long. It still doesn't make you right.

bull @!$%# !!!!!!!!!!!

talk abot out of context, please dude.

Allah said to His Prophet, peace be upon him, And if anyone of the Mushrikin, whom you were commanded to fight and We allowed you their blood and property, seeks your protection and asked you for safe passage, then accept his request until he hears the Words of Allah, the Qur'an. Recite the Qur'an to him and mention a good part of the religion with which you establish Allah's proof against him, and then escort him to where he can be secure and safe, until he goes back to his land, his home, and area of safety, that is because they are men who know not. The Ayah says, `We legislated giving such people safe passage so that they may learn about the religion of Allah, so that Allah's call will spread among His servants.

you got this by clicking next http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20750 but left out the @!$%#ing BEHEADING...(LOL) that's funny @!$%# right there I'll tell you.

"Nothing of our revelations (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten" Qur'an 2:106

turns into

002.106
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

Qur'an 2:106

with it's full context

uswa hasana, al-Insan al-Kamil.is an Arabic phrase, thats commonly translated to mean, the "perfect human." The "Prophet" Mohammad.he's the perfect man who's actions ,should be followed ?

and then you reverting to name calling like calling Muhammad (pbuh) a pedophile, which he is not. His marriage to Aisha was ARRANGED when she was 9 yrs old. They didn't actually get married until she was somewhere between 16 and 18 years of age.

do you think, beating a child, who you call your wife, is good moral conduct ?

do you think having sex with a nine year old ,is appropriate conduct for a man claiming a direct line of communication to the Almighty ?

you see Mohammad was given divine guidance, not only for himself, but all of mankind

I feel associating, the name Mohammad, with a Godly message, (or G*d) is fundamentally abhorrent, to all human beings who feel, that God is not an evil pedophile. (SEE WORD NOT )

I of course, will kill, nor injure any living being (see word NOR) , for upsetting me in this way. I'm just like that (LOL) it's a Pagan's perspective

from my linked article.What a long strange trip it's been: an Irish Pagan's search for "true Islam" in the disinformation age

This great victory surely most have brought joy to the prophet, and perhaps nothing more than a smile to the eye, his lovely young "child bride ".

Book 004, Number 2127:

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then

reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this:

said the child bride,in link number one

Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me?

I said: Yes.

He struck me on the chest which caused me pain,

(the prophet struck a child ,who was also his wife, causing her pain.) in reality, what do we call this. (child abuse ?, domestic abuse ?)

If She was your child, how do you react ?

what do YOU want done ? if it's YOUR CHILD ?

link number two

Book 73, Number 151:

Narrated 'Aisha:

in the words of the child bride

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.

(The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)(Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

I will not even comment on this.As it disgusts me

bonus Saturday link, not from the my article. Only in the interests of full discloser and clarity.

in the words of his child bride, Aisha.

I'm sure she must have been, what should we say here ? big for her age ?

Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64

reality is a evil mistress,she is exquisitely cruel, to those who would distort her

read I think it's Qur'an 5;82 and the Jews and pagans will be greatest in animosity to the muslims

(I would have cut off your head, if it was not that emissaries are not killed.) That man, Ibn An-Nawwahah, was later beheaded when

what "religious joy" the beheading of a fellow human being, must bring a true believer. I have seen seen two videos from Pakistan, quite disturbing

"And Allah is the Sovereingty of the heavens and the earth. He Forgiveth whom he will, and punish whom he will. And Allah is ever forgiving, merciful." Qur'an 48:14

this is important for anyone wishing to get smarter here. Read all of chapter 48 it's well worth the read.

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=48&tid=49279 just click next at the bottom of the page to addvance to the next verse.

Again, we can keep going back and forth all day. For every link you find, I can find one that dispells it. Literally every thing you've been saying is wrong and has been twisted.

The point here is that you have NEVER actually gone to a masjid and learned about Islam. You've never even gone and asked questions! Reading "websites only" as a way of gaining knowledge is a slippery slope because there is no validity behind them. For example, did you know that the Arabic used in the Qur'an is not the same as Arabic currently spoken throughout the middle east? Most arabs can't even read the qur'an on their own. It's a combination of Arabic and Syrian Aramaic (called Syriac). So... what happens when a German or an Englishman goes studies arabic in college and becomes fluent in arabic and then he tries to read the Qur'an? It would be like an american trying to read shakespeare for the first time. A lot of it won't make sense. Most of what you have been quoting are misinterpretations.

You have no context to understand what you are reading. You are falling into the same brainwashing that the terrorists use to recruit people. Instead of learning what Islam is really about, you are reading THEIR propaganda and buying into it. And when someone comes along to say, "look, you really don't understand what you are talking about... this isn't correct" You say, "BS!". Well, who's right then? Are you correct because you found a link to support your theory? Or am I correct because I found a link to disprove your theory? Are you correct because you can look at one interpretation of one line in the Qur'an and take it out of context? Or am I correct because I show you the ENTIRE context that the line you are talking about is supposed to be applied?

As for the Age of Aisha. You are wrong. She was NOT 6 years old...she was NOT 9 years old. She was already engaged to someone else before Muhammad (pbuh) so what, she was engaged at age 4 then?

Since you love links so much, you should read this...

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

But, I can already guarantee that you will say that this link is BS because it doesn't support YOUR hatred of Islam. So how about we agree to disagree then, huh? I'm not saying there aren't muslims out there that believe as you believe. We call them terrorists. For all we know you are an Islamic terrorist yourself. You seem to buy into their propaganda wholeheartedly.

What I'm saying is, what you believe is incorrectly interpreted because you don't have all the facts. And so you search for websites that ONLY support your hatred, and dispell any others that might disprove it. So, do you really think God promotes Evil and hatred? Or is that the work of Satan (Shaytan in Arabic)? Do you really think these websites you find that promote violence are God's work or Satan's? Then what about the sites that dispell your websites? Are those then the work of Satan? Are you saying that Satan is the good guy putting out all these false messages about how Islam is peaceful and non-violent? I don't think you even realize how backwards and twisted you really are.

Here's the text to the link above, for anyone who doesn't want to follow the link...

Determination of the true age of Aisha

It appears that Maulana Muhammad Ali was the first Islamic scholar directly to challenge the notion that Aisha was aged six and nine, respectively, at the time of her nikah and consummation of marriage. This he did in, at least, the following writings: his English booklet Prophet of Islam, his larger English book Muhammad, the Prophet, and in the footnotes in his voluminous Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, these three writings being published in the 1920s and 1930s. In the booklet Prophet of Islam, which was later incorporated in 1948 as the first chapter of his book Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, he writes in a lengthy footnote as follows:

“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.” [4] (Bolding is mine.)

To facilitate understanding dates of these events, please note that it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.

Later research

Research subsequent to the time of Maulana Muhammad Ali has shown that she was older than this. An excellent short work presenting such evidence is the Urdu pamphlet Rukhsati kai waqt Sayyida Aisha Siddiqa ki umar (‘The age of Lady Aisha at the time of the start of her married life’) by Abu Tahir Irfani.[4a] Points 1 to 3 below have been brought to light in this pamphlet.

1. The famous classical historian of Islam, Ibn Jarir Tabari, wrote in his ‘History’:

“In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam.” [5]

Being born before Islam means being born before the Call.

2. The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

“She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.” [6]

(Go here to see an image of the full entry in Urdu.)

This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah. It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call.

3. The same statement is made by the famous classical commentator of the Holy Quran, Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-bidayya wal-nihaya:

“Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha.” [7]

Apart from these three evidences, which are presented in the Urdu pamphlet referred to above, we also note that the birth of Aisha being a little before the Call is consistent with the opening words of a statement by her which is recorded four times in Bukhari. Those words are as follows:

“Ever since I can remember (or understand things) my parents were following the religion of Islam.” [8]

This is tantamount to saying that she was born sometime before her parents accepted Islam but she can only remember them practising Islam. No doubt she and her parents knew well whether she was born before or after they accepted Islam, as their acceptance of Islam was such a landmark event in their life which took place just after the Holy Prophet received his mission from God. If she had been born after they accepted Islam it would make no sense for her to say that she always remembered them as following Islam. Only if she was born before they accepted Islam, would it make sense for her to say that she can only remember them being Muslims, as she was too young to remember things before their conversion. This is consistent with her being born before the Call, and being perhaps four or five years old at the time of the Call, which was also almost the time when her parents accepted Islam.

Two further evidences cited by Maulana Muhammad Ali

In the footnotes of his Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari, entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, Maulana Muhammad Ali had pointed out reports of two events which show that Aisha could not have been born later than the year of the Call. These are as follows.

1. The above mentioned statement by Aisha in Bukhari, about her earliest memory of her parents being that they were followers of Islam, begins with the following words in its version in Bukhari’s Kitab-ul-Kafalat. We quote this from the English translation of Bukhari by M. Muhsin Khan:

“Since I reached the age when I could remember things, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah’s Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening. When the Muslims were persecuted, Abu Bakr set out for Ethiopia as an emigrant.” [9]

Commenting on this report, Maulana Muhammad Ali writes:

“This report sheds some light on the question of the age of Aisha. … The mention of the persecution of Muslims along with the emigration to Ethiopia clearly shows that this refers to the fifth or the sixth year of the Call. … At that time Aisha was of an age to discern things, and so her birth could not have been later than the first year of the Call.” [10]

Again, this would make her more than fourteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage.

2. There is a report in Sahih Bukhari as follows:

“On the day (of the battle) of Uhud when (some) people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr and Umm Sulaim, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins (in another narration it is said, ‘carrying the water skins on their backs’). Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people.” [11]

Maulana Muhammad Ali writes in a footnote under this report:

“It should also be noted that Aisha joined the Holy Prophet’s household only one year before the battle of Uhud. According to the common view she would be only ten years of age at this time, which is certainly not a suitable age for the work she did on this occasion. This also shows that she was not so young at this time.” [12]

If, as shown in the previous section above, Aisha was nineteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage, then she would be twenty years old at the time of the battle of Uhud. It may be added that on the earlier occasion of the battle of Badr when some Muslim youths tried, out of eagerness, to go along with the Muslim army to the field of battle, the Holy Prophet Muhammad sent them back on account of their young age (allowing only one such youngster, Umair ibn Abi Waqqas, to accompany his older brother the famous Companion Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas). It seems, therefore, highly unlikely that if Aisha was ten years old the Holy Prophet would have allowed her to accompany the army to the field of battle.

We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H., the nikah or betrothal having taken place five years previously.

It's also worth noting that I'm not LEARNING about Islam from websites (Which is what it seems like kpr37 has done/is doing). I actually go to masjids all the time to learn. The websites I'm posting are the ones that coincide with what I'VE BEEN TAUGHT AT MOSQUES.

And I find it interesting that in looking up your beliefs, you believe in Danu (or Anu). So you believe in a savage woman who devoured humans! And because of this you cannibalize other humans!!! See, isn't the internet great! ;-)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/rac08.htm

"Thus as a goddess of plenty Danu or Anu may have been an early Earth-mother, and what may be a dim memory of Anu in Leicestershire confirms this view. A cave on the Dane Hills is called "Black Annis' Bower," and she is said to have been a savage woman who devoured human victims. Earth-goddessesusually have human victims, and Anu would be no exception."

You also believe in killing your offspring as an offering to Dagda ... interesting... So how often do you ritualistically murder your own children? Being a follower of the religion I'm sure you must practice these rituals faithfully!!!

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/rac08.htm

If Dagda was a god of fertility, he may have been an equivalent of a god whose image was called Cenn or Cromm Cruaich, "Head or Crooked One of the Mound," or "Bloody Head or Crescent." 3 Vallancey, citing a text now lost, says that Crom-eocha was a name of Dagda, and that a motto at the sacrificial place at Tara read, "Let the altar ever blaze to Dagda." 4 These statements may support this identification. The cult of Cromm is preserved in some verses:

"He was their god,
The withered Cromm. with many mists . . .
To him without glory
They would kill their piteous wretched offspring,
With much wailing and peril,
To pour their blood around Cromm Cruaich.
Milk and corn
They would ask from him speedily
In return for a third of their healthy issue,
Great was the horror and fear of him.
To him noble Gaels would prostrate themselves.

Elsewhere we learn that this sacrifice in return for the gifts of corn and milk from the god took place at Samhain, and that on one occasion the violent prostrations of the worshippers caused three-fourths of them to die. Again, "they beat their palms, they pounded their bodies . . . they shed falling showers of tears." 1 These are reminiscences of orgiastic rites in which pain and pleasure melt into one. The god must have been a god of fertility; the blood of the victims was poured on the image, the flesh, as in analogous savage rites and folk-survivals, may have been buried in the fields to promote fertility."

And I find it interesting that in looking up your beliefs, you believe in Danu (or Anu). So you believe in a savage woman who devoured humans!

I don't believe the almighty (Danu) has any human genitals at all. And needs not eat, for substance. and buy the way my favorite (bull@!$%#) site is the space alien connection.

please who is making idols now (LOL) G*d is one

while it is called Paganism, we are strictly monotheistic in our out look

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/irish/lebor.htmlplease quote from the source material, as I do with the quran and hadiths ( and by the way, this was rewritten by Christians in the 1100s, so take it with a grain of salt, as I do)

have fun

the almighty possesses no human emotion, unlike the quite unhinged, Allah who's aways upset and wants blood to be spilled, over his so called honour.

I will be most happy to link any Pagan source, you would like to read, or make fun of

we are such strict monotheists the early Christians called us Jews, as we go to temple on Saturday and circumcise our male children within ten days of birth. that is the only blood spilled in my faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatha_D%C3%A9_Danann

The translation of Tuatha Dé Danannas "peoples of the goddess Danu" is necessarily imprecise. Old Irish tuath (plural tuatha) means "people, tribe, nation"; and dé is the genitive case of día, "god, goddess, supernatural being, object of worship"^[1] (they are often referred to simply as the Tuatha Dé, a phrase also used to refer to the Israelites in early Irish Christian texts).^[2]

^{also liafail or stone destiny Jocob's pillow}

Hey, kpr37, I also appreciate how after loosing the debate on the content of islam the Wake Up Dude began attacking your beliefs with the same attitude of islam being "uber alles". I do not think that his attack, clearly disrepectful of your beliefs, deserves your answer.

Hey Wake Up Dude, please not as almighty as islam is, its founder, you know - the sociopathic paedophile with the damaged brain, who allegedly got it directly from this allah character, basically stole the whole thing from the Jews.

Other than legalising child rape and undiscriminated murder fundamentally speaking islam has absolutely nothing new, nothing that was not already in Judaism. Only ignoramuses who fancy themselves muslim scholars can claim that theirs was THE one and only religion that is about ONE GOD. Your idiot was about 2000 years too late, when Abraham (you may better know this Jew as Ibrahim) gave birth to the truly chosen people, and dedicated all of his children to One God.

I do not think that his attack, clearly disrepectful of your beliefs

I find no insult in it at all.

my beliefs can not be disrespected, it's an important one of the tenants of my faith. I find it funny,and as you may know, any excuse to talk about this is fun for me

No... it has been reported over and over again by historians that Celtic pagans practiced regular human sacrifice.

http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/faqs/sacrific.html

It is the basis of your belief, so as to not upset Dagna, your god of Fertility. I already quoted from the source material! Your belief is sick. How can you murder your own children for your gods? It was the romans that initially outlawed your practice of sacrificing your children.

And then on top of that you promote homosexuality.

http://www.danaanpress.com/dp_danns.htm

Homosexuality is a natural part of the continuum of human sexuality. It bestows evolutionary benefit on those societies in which it exists.

Evolutionary benefit? Nothing can "evolve" from homosexuality. Two men can't make a baby. Two women can't make a baby. The only way for humanity to "evolve" is with a man and a women.

I'm not attacking kpr37's religion after "losing" the debate. I'm using it as an example. In about 60 seconds I was able to find really damning evidence about Tuatha de Danaan on the internet.

Do I really believe it's true? No... but it's out there on the internet. And kpr37 claiming that my links were not "source material" yet they were... taken out of context.

Out of context you could say that they also advocate rape since a lot of their deities raped humans and had children with them. You could also say that they condone jealousy since their god of medicine and healing killed his own son out of jealousy.

The fact that all of this was lost on you Mr Rabbit kind of proves my point even more.

I'm sure if I went to temple with kpr37, I'd actually learn the truth about the religion. But, instead if I try to learn about it on my own, I can come to a completely different conclusion.

For example, the Tuatha de Danaan were cast out of heaven for learning magic and THAT is why they invaded and conquered Ireland, because they needed a new home. How are we to look at that as a good thing? They ruthlessly conquered the Fir Bolg and Formorians and said believe in us and follow us or we will kill you. Yet you are trying to condemn Islam for saying the same thing (when in fact, it doesn't!).

http://www.danaanpress.com/dp_danns.htm great site, I never heard of it . I fully endorse everything on the linked site, THANK YOU

Homosexuality is a natural part of the continuum of human sexuality. It bestows evolutionary benefit on those societies in which it exists.

I do not practice homosexuality personally, but there is noting in my faith ,that says it is wrong.

G*d, The Goddess, makes their children as they should be, for what ever reason.well beyond the understanding on man

It bestows evolutionary benefit on those societies in which it exists.

personal opinion of the blog, not related with the traditions of Danu

the almighty possesses no human emotion, unlike the quite unhinged, Allah who's aways upset and wants blood to be spilled, over his so called honour.

All mankind stands in need of Allah [35:15, 47:38] but Allah does not stand in need of anything from anyone in all the worlds [3:97]. Whatever is in the Heavens and whatever is in the Earth is Allah's [4:232, 10:68, 22:64, 31:26]. He is Self-Sufficient; absolutely free from all wants [2:263, 2:267, 6:133].

If all who live on the earth disbelieve and go against His Laws, He is indeed Independent of what they do [14:8]. Whoever strives hard does so only for his own good [29:6]. Whoever is grateful is grateful for his own self, and whoever is ungrateful, or miser is miser against his own 'self' [47:38, 57:24]; Allah is Self-Sufficient, Supremely Honorable [27:40, 31:12].

Our rejection of Allah's laws brings no harm to Allah. He does not need our obedience. It is entirely up to us to either obey and follow His Laws for our own benefit or to reject them and suffer the consequences. According to His Laws of Requital, everyone has to bear the burden and consequences of one’s own deeds. Accordingly, we are bound to face the result of every action of ours. And this refers not only to those actions which we do openly, but also to the thoughts and intentions which pass through the depths of our hearts [39:7, 60:6, 64:6].

Funny, because in the Qur'an, Allah really has no emotion towards us and do not need us for anything... very similar to what you are trying to say as well.

, Allah really has no emotion towards us

http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-multimedia/134265811-why-allah-angry-us-arabic-khutbah.html

Assalamu Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh,

Why is Allah angry with us?
By Shaykh Yahyaa Ibn 'Alee al-Haajuree

anger is a human emotion

A moving Friday sermon delivered by the student of Imaam Muqbil Ibn Haadee al-Waadi'ee.
The speaker begins by pin-pointing the causes for receiving the wrath of Allaah and shows what the Muslims have done to deserve.

personal opinion of the blog, not related with the traditions of Danu

Ah Ha!!! Exactly my point!!!!! Most of what you quote from for your knowledge of Islam is the same thing.

Look at your whole "Ayat of the Sword" post. While you quote the Qur'an, you then quote the personal opinions of other people TO TRY AND EXPLAIN what the Ayat means. And they are obviously distorting the meaning. So I tell you that what you have posted isn't correct... and instead of saying, "hmmm... maybe that website I was reading is wrong", you immediately come back and say,

"I am presenting it in it's full and proper context. allah's commands, are all eternal and valid for all time. ARE you questioning them (HERITIC want me to tell your Imam), and they are also sent to all of mankind."

But you aren't. You are presenting someone's interpretation of that Ayat OUT OF CONTEXT.

See the point I'm trying to make here?

You then also try to quote one person's opinion that Aisha was 6 years old when she got married. But, I show you that she isn't.

Not all Hadith are to be accepted. When in the Mosque the imam will point out all the time Hadiths which can not be validated and should not be considered Sahih. Hadiths can be skewed by the Author and so they have to be studied and validated. Obviously the timelines for Aisha don't add up when you look at the whole picture. So, islamic scholars widely disregard that hadith.

Also, hadiths cannot contradict the Qur'an. If they do, they are to be discarded or ignored. While some people might try not to in order to push their own agenda... that doesn't make THEM right.

OK, so now you are back to quoting other people and not the Qur'an. What happened to you asking to "please quote the source material as I do with Qur'an and hadith"???

Now you are quoting an islamic newsboard/blogspot and a sermon delivered by a STUDENT?!?! Your hypocricy has no bounds does it? LOL

Out of context you could say that they also advocate rape since a lot of their deities raped humans and had children with them.

Yes, I can say that, and I would be right. Having said that it is difficult for me to honestly compare Zeus and Europa vs. Mo and Aisha. Even in the Shir ha-Shirim (Song of Songs) king Shlomo courts his Shulamite who is a very young, but yet an adult woman of 13. Furthermore, while marriages to the 12-13-14-15-15 year old women and adult men have been considered a norm for quite a while, it is not practiced today in any civilized society. Moreover it is not advocated by the general public in any civilized society, be it Christian or Jewish. The muslim world on the other hand keeps insisting that it is Ok, and it is a good thing, because the original paedophile did it. See - we, the people, have grown out of our barbarism, and consider practice once acceptable of child rape under the guise of marriage abhorring and reprehensible. Muslims do not. They proudly defend the tradition, or begrudginglygive in to the external pressure of the civilized world. It is not about what they did thousands of years ago - it is about what we think about doing it today. From that point of view islam = barbarism. From my point of view it equals a mad cow disease because it actively discourages individualised reasoning and inquisitive questioning. Nothing more than a blind obedience, and parroting of the Sunnah.

The fact that all of this was lost on you Mr Rabbit kind of proves my point even more.

None of this is lost on me. Not that fact, nor the realities of the muslim world, nor the fact you lost the debate on facts, not interpretations (i.e. you lied at what age Mo fu_cked Aisha, which we all know was 9), nor the fact that you omitted answering my accusation of plagiarism on the part of the sociopathic paedophile with the damaged brain. None of these facts are lost on me, Dude.

Ah Ha!!! Exactly my point!!!!! Most of what you quote from for your knowledge of Islam is the same thing.

Look at your whole "Ayat of the Sword" post. While you quote the Qur'an, you then quote the personal opinions of other people TO TRY AND EXPLAIN what the Ayat means

this below is source material from leber gabbla erenn, the Irish Pagan bible. I can not dispute what it says. My ansestors recorded this

"and the slaughter pressed northward, and a hundred thousand of them were slain westward to the strand of Eochaill."

how can I it can be found here.http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/irish/lebor.html. I can not depute it.

The Fir Bolg gave them [the Tuatha De Danann] battle upon Mag Tuired; they were a long time fighting that battle.At last it broke against the Fir Bolg, and the slaughter pressed northward, and a hundred thousand of them were slain westward to the strand of Eochaill. There was the king Eochu overtaken, and he fell at the hands of the three sons of Nemed. Yet the Tuatha De Danann suffered great loss in the battle, and they left the king on the field, with his arm cut from him; the leeches were seven years healing him. The Fir Bolg fell in that battle all but a few, and they went out of Ireland in flight from the Tuatha De Danann, into Ara, and Ile, and Rachra and other islands besides. [it was they who led the Fomoraig to the second battle of Mag Tuired]. And they were in [those islands] till the time of the Provincials over Ireland, till the Cruithne drove them out. They came to Cairbre Nia Fer, and he gave them lands; but they were unable to remain with him for the heaviness of the impost which he put upon them. Thereafter they came in flight before Cairbre under the protection of Meldb and Ailill, and these gave them lands. This is the wandering of the sons of Umor. [Oengus son of Umor was king over them in the east], and from them are named those territories, Loch CIme from Cime Four-Heads son of Umor, the Point of Taman in Medraige from Taman son of Umor, the Fort of Oengus in Ara from Oengus, the Stone-heap of Conall in Aidne from Conall, Mag Adair from Adar, Mag Asail from Asal in Mumu also. Menn son of Umor was the poet. They were in fortresses and in islands of the sea around Ireland in that wise, till Cu Chulaind overwhelmed them.

your Quran and hadiths say what they say as well.

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

the word of allah, from the quran, verse 5 chapter 9 as translated by Ibn Kathir

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

do you dispute this

OK, so now you are back to quoting other people and not the Qur'an. What happened to you asking to "please quote the source material as I do with Qur'an and hadith"???

today's Muslims which are not in the Quran ( they were not yet alive), how to prove that they (today'sMuslims think Allah is angry) go to an Islam website ?

I read sunniforum quite often, I find it fascinating, would you like a link to Pagan forum ?

I read sunniforum quite often, I find it fascinating

have been for a few years #11.9 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:18 AM EDT

Would you rather follow your Nafs over a scholar (anyone who has knowledge would look for one who is pious and not an innovator)? Why re-invent the wheel (eg. Shari'ah)? Who is going to interpret the Qur'an and Sunnah, my Nafs? Did not the classical scholars (may Allah be pleased with them) learn under a Shaykh? Did not the Sahaba learn under Prophet Muhammad ? Did not the Tabein learn under the Sahaba like Ibn Abbas the great master of Qur'an or did not Abu Hurairah have students? Was not the way of the Salaf the way of following a Shaykh till you are capable of Ijitihad?

As for the Madhabs, brother I love you for the sake of Allah, but please don't be so ignorant regarding them. Every single Classical Scholar I can think of followed a Madhab.

Imam Ibn Kathir was later a Shafi,

Imam Ibn Taymimiyah started off as a Hanbali, Imam An-Nawawi was a Shafi, Imam Al-Bukhari was a Shafi, Imam Muslim was a Shafi, Abu Dawud was a Shafi, Ibn Jawzi was a Hanbali, Imam Al-Qurtubi was a Maliki, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani was a Shafi etc etc etc the list goes on and may Allah be pleased with all of them.

So are all these scholars dumb simple shepherds who knew nothing?

on newsvine ?

The point of a Madhab is to start you off, no one can claim to be a Mujitihad unless he has the backing (a Madhab gives that person credibility) and has mastered all the necessary fields from tafsir, usul, arabic, hadith etc.

Otherwise we are following our own dumb blind Nafs.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=294229

• 3

• !

#11.9 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:18 AM EDT

Danu

and, in contemporary pagan thought, this old recorded conflict,is understood. from the linked opinion blog, not a primary source.

he has some Gaelic translation a little wrong, I think this is more of a Hindi, as opposed to a Celtic website, but it is one of my favorites.

India, and Ireland share the Goddess, freely with the rest of the world,don't you know

Danu’s children, upon arrive in Ireland have to struggle against their enemies, the evil Fomorians, whose own “Mother Goddess” is Domnu. Significantly, Domnu not only means “the world” but “the depths” of the earth.

Irish epics contain many episodes of the struggle between the Children of Domnu, representing darkness and chaos, and the Children of Danu, representing light and order Moreover, the “Children of Domnu are never completely overcome or eradicated from the world. Symbolically they are the world. The conflict is between the waters of heaven and the base reality of world.” [Ellis]

he chooses, to represent this as more mystical, as opposed to historical event, as the Lebor Gabala Enenn recorded it.

I believe my ancestors 3200 years, removed from today, killed those people. they wrote it down.

Bloody Foreland, is named that for a reason, many were slaughtered there

Tuath i nGaoth Dobhair is one of the "Mystical" landing spots of the tuatha De' ,as opposed to any historical record, of a landing.

But as it is where ancestors have lived since anyone remembers. So, I like to think it true

kpr37, WakeUpPeople, Mr Roger Rabbit, and Krishna, I would like to recommend a book. You are all very well read, and I'd be very interested in your opinion of this book. It is out of print having been published in 1953, but a treasure if you can find it. I believe it is available on Amazon, and very inexpensive as all are used copies. I would truly be most interested in your opinions.

"Three Magic Words" by U.S. Andersen

wakeUpPeople ,

I wish you would do as your name suggests and become aware of what
is actually going on in the world in the name of Islam instead of what is
in some ancient , hard to interpret manuscripts .

The reality of the religion is the way it is practised day to day .
In Arabic countries it tends to be brutal in practice especially in
regard to other religions . Here is a quite recent story from what is
supposed to be a modern secular country . The story it tells is one
of extreme brutality towards people trying to convert away from Islam to Christianity .

Actions speak louder than words !

Consider the source.

Elaine

I am not sure what would you like me and others to do. I have not read this book, and even if I got it and read it - it would be some time before anyone can return to you with the commentary. So for practical applications I am not sure how you want to structure the communication.

Now from I was able to gather about the book - it is a one of the self-help guides, that refers to God in a non-denominational way, and helps a person to find some inner stability as well as things that follow from it. Sounds great. Not everyone needs God to do that, not all achievement comes from inner balance, other than that - if it works for you, I am happy for you.

P.S. The wisest thing that I have heard about hapiness is a one sentence by a comedian whose even identity was a virtual one, pre-dating internet by about 150 years. He said, and I quote: "If you want to be happy - be happy". Never seen anyone putting it quite so eloquently neither before, nor after. As for how to achieve that - everyone has their own road to travel, and their demons to fight.

Hi Roger, from the back and forth conversation in this article, I thought a different sort of book about metaphysics might be enlightening to all. The book certainly could be described as self help, but it is way more surprising and far reaching than that. Getting past the first page isn't that easy. It might require reading and re-reading each paragraph and page as I found out, but it is well worth it. Mostly, reading it is very freeing and enlightening, and I thought to suggest it because the conversation going on here between the Qu'ran and other writings seem controversial with no resolution in site. I personally think Three Magic Words resolves all these questions but not in a way anyone would expect.

This article will have been long gone by the time anyone might have read the book, but I figured if anyone had any comments for me they could go to my column. I would be interested in anyone's opinions, but no one actually has to respond back to me. That's not my reason for suggesting it.

In Arabic countries it tends to be brutal in practice especially in
regard to other religions . Here is a quite recent story from what is
supposed to be a modern secular country . The story it tells is one
of extreme brutality towards people trying to convert away from Islam to Christianity .
Actions speak louder than words !

The Wahhabi are not muslim. You can believe whatever you want about Islam. I'm telling you that Islam is not the problem. People are the problem. There are those who try to distort whatever religion is around them to support their hatred and their own goals. If kpr37 wants to read islamic terrorist internet forums, then yeah, kpr37 is going to hear the warped view of Islam. The mistake is whole-heartedly believing that THAT is Islam. It's like looking at the KKK or the Crusades or the Inquisition and saying THAT is christianity.

"Muslim leader condemns violence against Christians in Egypt"

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Muslim-leader-condemns-violence-against-Christians-in-Egypt-17882.html

Malaysia: Muslim leaders condemn attacks on Christians in Malaysia

http://www.speroforum.com/a/25598/Malaysia---Muslim-leaders-condemn-attacks-on-Christians-in-Malaysia

"Islamic Statements against Terror"

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, U.S.:
“All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. ... [It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support. They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law and [punished] appropriately. ... [It is] a duty of Muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means.”
Statement of September 27, 2001. The Washington Post, October 11, 2001, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40545-2001Oct10.html
Full text of this fatwa in English and Arabic.

Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition Islamist group in Egypt, said it was “horrified” by the attack and expressed “condolences and sadness”:
“[We] strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. ... [We] condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world.”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 13 - 19 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/551/fo2.htm

Shaikh Saleh Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
"As a human community we must be vigilant and careful to oppose these pernicious and shameless evils, which are not justified by any sane logic, nor by the religion of Islam."
Statement of September 14, 2001, in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf, page 6

Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah al-Sabil, member of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, Saudi Arabia:
“Any attack on innocent people is unlawful and contrary to shari'a (Islamic law). ... Muslims must safeguard the lives, honor and property of Christians and Jews. Attacking them contradicts shari'a.”
Agence France Presse, December 4, 2001

Organization of the Islamic Conference, Summit Conference:
"We are determined to fight terrorism in all its forms. ... Islam is the religion of moderation. It rejects extremism and isolation. There is a need to confront deviant ideology where it appears, including in school curricula. Islam is the religion of diversity and tolerance."
Daily Star (Beirut, Lebanon), December 9, 2005, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=20641

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar), Turkish author:
“Islam does not encourage any kind of terrorism; in fact, it denounces it. Those who use terrorism in the name of Islam, in fact, have no other faculty except ignorance and hatred.”
Harun Yahya, “Islam Denounces Terrorism,” http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi, Pakistani-American Muslim leader:
“The sudden barbaric attack on innocent citizens living in peace is extremely distressing and deplorable. Every gentle human heart goes out to the victims of this attack and as humans we are ashamed at the barbarism perpetrated by a few people. Islam, which is a religion of peace and tolerance, condemns this act and sees this is as a wounding scar on the face of humanity. I appeal to Muslims to strongly condemn this act, express unity with the victims' relatives, donate blood, money and do whatever it takes to help the affected people.”
“Messages From Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi,” http://www.icna.org/wtc_islahi.htm

Abdal-Hakim Murad, British Muslim author:
“Targeting civilians is a negation of every possible school of Sunni Islam. Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Quranic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures.”
“The Hijackers Were Not Muslims After All: Recapturing Islam From the Terrorists,” http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/masud/ISLAM/ahm/recapturing.htm

Nuh Ha Mim Keller, American Muslim author:
“Muslims have nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to hide, and should simply tell people what their scholars and religious leaders have always said: first, that the Wahhabi sect has nothing to do with orthodox Islam, for its lack of tolerance is a perversion of traditional values; and second, that killing civilians is wrong and immoral.”
“Making the World Safe for Terrorism,” September 30, 2001, http://66.34.131.5/ISLAM/nuh/terrorism.htm

Islamic Commission of Spain:
"Muslims, therefore, are not only forbidden from committing crimes against innocent people, but are responsible before God to stop those people who have the intention to do so, since these people 'are planting the seeds of corruption on Earth'.... The perpetration of terrorist acts supposes a rupture of such magnitude with Islamic teaching that it allows to affirm that the individuals or groups who have perpetrated them have stopped being Muslim and have put themselves outside the sphere of Islam."
"Text of the Fatwa Declared Against Osama Bin Laden by the Islamic Commission of Spain," March 17, 2005, http://webislam.com/?idn=537; original Spanish version: "La Comisión Islámica de España emite una fatua condenando el terrorismo y al grupo Al Qaida," March 10, 2005, http://www.webislam.com/?idn=399.

And Elaine, thank's for the book recommendation!!! I'll try to get a copy and read it.

kpr37, here's another link about the Ayat of the sword for you to check out.

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/surah9_5.asp

And I will leave you with this to contemplate in the regards to 9:5...

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you there then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

But if they desist, then lo! allah is forgiving, merciful.

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religioin is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers." Qur'an 2:190-193 (Pickthall Interpretation)

------

"And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors.

And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not in the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, slay them -- such is the recompense of unbelievers --

but if they give over, surely god is all-forgiving, all-compassionate.

Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God's; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for the evildoers." Qur'an 2:190-193 (Arberry Interpretation)

"What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou canst not find a road.

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level. So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or come until you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed he could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them." Qur'an 2:88-90 (Pickthall Interpretation)

----

"How is it with you, that you are two parties touching the hypocrites, and god has overthrown them for what they earned? What, do you desire to guide him whom god has led astray? Whom god leads astray, thou wilt not find for him a way.

They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them whereever you find them; take not yourselves any one of them as friend or helper

except those that betake themselves to a people who are joined with you by a compact, or come to you with breasts (hearts) constricted from fighting with you or fighting their people. Had God Willed, he would have given them authority over you, and then certainly they would have fought you. If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God assigns not any way to you against them." Qur'an 4:88-90 (Arberry Interpretation)

So I ask you, what do you think these mean?

And also remember that the Qur'an also says:

"This is a Scripture that we have revealed unto thee, full of blessings, that they may ponder its revelations, and that men of understanding may reflect." Qur'an 38:29 (Pickthall)

"Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity." Qur'an 4:82 (Pickthall)

"He is it who hath revealed unto thee the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book (Bible and Torah) - and others which are allegorical (http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/allegorical). But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explaination save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord, but only men of understanding really heed." Qur'an 3:7

Whoever said that the Qur'an is not to be questioned and should be followed with blind adherence has never read these ayat! Also, I think it might be important to point out that the muslims understand from these Ayat that the Qur'an never contradicts itself, only our understanding or interpretation of it does. The "men of understanding", by "really heed[ing]" means that they understand that only Allah (swt) knows the true meaning and that we should continually study and question our interpretation of the Qur'an AND this balanced system (the world) he has created for us in order to gain a better understanding of the Qur'an.

So if one person says the Qur'an promotes violence and hatred and here are the verses that support that...while another says no, it promotes peace, understanding, patience, and unity and here are the verses that support that, who is right? Allah knows best, but looking at the context each evil thing quoted, it CAN be explained in another way that IS NOT evil. so then should we disregard the good and only believe in the evil? Or should we realize that there are some bad people out there who are trying to promote an evil interpretation of what is a good message?

In the end you can believe whatever you want. I've stated and shown how some of the ayat that are being construed as evil are being taken out of context in order to look evil. If you don't want to believe me you don't have to... but just know that the majority of muslims don't have these feelings of hatred.

One other thing I noticed in the story of the Muslim in Egypt that converted to christianity. It stated that is usually an imam/cleric in the crowd that eggs the crowd on. My uncle used to work for Jimmy Hoffa (yes, it is true). This was the exact same job he had. Whenever the unions would strike, he would pose as a union worker in the picket line and he would try to incite a riot. Eventually he would get everyone really angry and heated up and then he would be the one to throw the first punch or throw a brick or whatever... once the riot broke out he would quickly walk away and would disappear. Very similar to what I read about in the article. And I think a parallel between organized crime and these terrorists can be drawn.

The "lynch mob" mentality is very brutal. Look at the salem witch trials as an example of the kinds of tryanny and death a lie can cause.

Anyway... please don't try to blame all muslims across the world for the wretched acts of a relatively small group who call themselves muslims but are not recognized by the Islamic world as being muslim. If you still have hatred and anger in your heart and would rather believe that Islam and muslims as a whole are evil, then it really doesn't matter what anyone says. There is no reasoning with you. You are no different than the wahhabi and Shi'a terrorists at that point, because you are saying your interpretation of Islam is the correct one and it is not open to interpretation. And in doing so you become just as polarized as the terrorists.

The Wahhabi are not muslim.
....
please don't try to blame all muslims across the world for the wretched acts of a relatively small group

OK ,

From what you wrote before I got the impression that Wahhabi were restricted to only certain regions . You mentioned Saudi Arabia . But from that news item it appears that Egypt is also Wahhabi .
What other countries have a strong Wahhabi influence ?

The el-Gowharys are having frequent attempts made on their lives while the
government of Egypt is offering no protection and is preventing them from
leaving the country , effectively sealing their doom .

"The Fatwa issued by Sheikh Youssef El-Badri calling for the 'shedding of his blood,' caused them to live in constant danger in the face of the reactionaries and advocates for the enforcement of Islamic apostasy laws, which call for the death of a convert."
....
"In August 2008, he filed the second ever lawsuit of a Muslim-born against the Egyptian Government to officially alter his identification documents to reflect his new Christian identity. He lost the case on June 13, 2009," said Abdelmassih. "According to the Court ruling, the religious conversion of a Muslim is against Islamic law and poses a threat to the 'Public Order' in Egypt. Although the verdict is on appeal, he said this usually takes years before being brought to the courts.

"After losing his court case, Maher and Dina tried to leave Egypt, however, they were barred and their passports were seized at Cairo Airport on September 17, 2009 without any legal reasons. They were told that the order came from a higher authority. Although officially their first destination would have been 'a holiday in China' they planned to travel afterwards and seek asylum in the United States. Maher later filed a lawsuit to gain the right to leave Egypt and have their passports returned."
....
On March 9, 2010, the administrative court refused to return Maher and Dina's passports. During a second hearing on June 29, his lawyers fought with each other leading to the judge adjourning the hearing until November 9.

That is a very good question! It's hard to know for sure... They started in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia has been the main cash machine behind Wahhabi propaganda (around $87bil). I know that there are Wahhabi throughout the middle east, into africa and south east asia. Muslims in India have been trying to oust the Wahhabi from India's government.

It's sad to say, but we've made some of the Wahhabi the most wealthy men in the world. So, with their money comes influence. This gives this small group of people, not associated with any particular government directly, the influence to try and control other governments while remaining private. It could be looked at similarly to our "lobby" here in the US. Why do we feed our livestock corn instead of grass even though it is bad for them and causes E. coli outbreaks in the meat? Why do we feed our chickens growth hormones and stereoids even though it is bad for us to eat the meat tainted with these hormones? It's no different in other parts of the world. There might be oil deals between some of these Wahhabi saudi's and Egypt. Egyptian government officals could be under pressure from these Saudi wahhabist oil tycoons to not help these christian converts? We won't know because it is a private entity threatening a government's income, job growth, industries, etc. Until some of these people start speaking out, we can only speculate. And it's not that easy to spot them. They don't wear a uniform or anything to differentiate them from everyone else. It's like trying to drive through the street of LA and pick out the gang leaders. Or driving through the south and trying to pick out the KKK leaders. Sure, we might identify some of the pawns. But trying to find the people that are pulling the strings is hard.

Here's some other links I've found while searching on the web to try and find where wahhabis are located...

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=19338

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2832

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2832

http://www.yanabi.com/forum/Topic327182.aspx#bm327315

http://www.fpif.org/articles/saudi_arabian-us_relations_at_crossroads

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/saudi-arabia/100714/a-kindom-divided

Thanks WUP ,

Very revealing links . W/o belaboring the issue it seems that
there are unexplained factors in the way Arabic countries treat
the non-Islamic peoples within their borders . You attribute that
to Wahhabi influence . I am not convinced .

There are an huge amount of Madrassas where children are taught
to hate Jews . This does not seem to have Wahhabi influence behind it .
Any Arabic country seems to have restrictions against building a
Christian church . As a result there are no new Christian churchs
being built in the midEast . And those that still exist are
being hounded out of existence [eg. in Turkey the world's oldest Christian
orthodox church is being forced out of of existence ] .

Another thing to point out that not a lot of people realize. The entire Qur'an is to be sung and is poetic. It's like one giant opera. In arabic it actually rhymes and this is why it is allegorical at times and can have mulitple meanings... And another reason why you CANNOT accept a strictly literal translation of it. As an example, Here's the first Chapter of the Qur'an in English

"In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds.
The Beneficent, The Merciful
Master of the Day of Judgement
To you alone we worship and to you alone we ask for help
Guide us to the straight path
The path of those whom you have blessed and no the path of those who've gone astray." Qur'an Surah 1

Now here it is in transliteral arabic (what the arabic would look like spelled in english). I'm going to capitalize the syllables that make it rhyme.

"Bismillah ar Raman ir RahEEM
Alhamdu-lilahi rabeel ala mEEN
e Maliki yeow mahdEEN
E-ya khana budu e-ya ka nustakEEN
Ihdinas sira tal mustakEEM
ah Sira talatheena an ahmta alayhim ghwayreel magdoobi alayhim walad dwah-lEEN" Qur'an Surah 1

So as you can see, it rhymes. And when sung during prayer, you can really hear how it rhymes.

but, when comparing the transliteration to the translated english, you can see how the poetic form is lost in the translation. Now, to use a current english song to further my example. Forgive my choice of this song, it's just that most people probably know it and it is an obvious allegory.

Here are a few lines from a song by Robert Palmer called "Addicted to Love".

"The lights are on, but you're not home
your mind is not your own"
Is this literally talking about the house you live in? Or is it talking about your mind?

"you see the signs, but you can't read
you're running at a different speed"
Is this literally talking about traffic signs? Or is it talking about the signs of addiction?

Here's some lines from John Mayer's "Heartbreak Warfare"

"Lightning strikes
Inside, my chest to keep me up at night
Dream of ways
To make you understand my pain"
Is he literally saying lightening is striking his chest and he wants you to feel that same electrical shock?

"Clouds of sulfur in the air
Bombs are falling everywhere
It's heartbreak warfare
Once you want it to begin,
No one really ever wins
In heartbreak warfare"
Is this really talking about dropping real bombs on people?

"Drop his name
Push it in and twist the knife again
Watch my face
As I pretend to feel no pain"
Is there really a knife being pushed into him?

Now imagine trying to translate these lyrics into a language that isn't remotely based on any of the "romantic" (latin based) languages. Like, for example, Mandarin or Japanese or Hebrew. Or imagine being a native japanese speaker, and trying to learn english AND understand the meaning behind the lyrics.

I have some japanese friends that have to deal with this type of thing all the time. We all got a huge laugh once at the "Mr. Sparkle" Commercial in the Simpsons.

http://www.videovat.com/videos/2407/the-simpsons-japanese-commercial-mr-sparkle.aspx

The subtitles are a LITERAL translation of the Japanese into english, but in japanese it makes perfect sense!!

I use these examples as illustrations of how the Qur'an can very easily be misinterpreted, even from some people who study it faithfully. For example, In Iran they speak Farsi, not Arabic. So Arabic is going to be a second language to them. Same goes for a lot of people on the arabian peninsula. The arabic of today has evolved and changed over time compared to the syriac/arabic of the early 7th century.

In knowing this, it's easy to see why the Qur'an itself warns its readers that there are allegories within it, and to study the Qur'an and Sunnah and all the other messengers of the Book (bible and Torah), AS A WHOLE in order to understand the meaning of any one ayat.

Sorry for the tangent, but I figured it might be worth mentioning all this in relation to how Wahhabi try to take a LITERAL interpretation of the Qur'an and why that is completely un-Islamic.

Thanks WUP ,

Very revealing links . W/o belaboring the issue it seems that
there are unexplained factors in the way Arabic countries treat
the non-Islamic peoples within their borders . You attribute that
to Wahhabi influence . I am not convinced .

There are an huge amount of Madrassas where children are taught
to hate Jews . This does not seem to have Wahhabi influence behind it .
Any Arabic country seems to have restrictions against building a
Christian church . As a result there are no new Christian churchs
being built in the midEast . And those that still exist are
being hounded out of existence [eg. in Turkey the world's oldest Christian
orthodox church is being forced out of of existence ] .

I've tried to figure this out myself. The only thing I've noticed so far is that when you spend $87bil to promote your warped views, they get around. I've seen a couple english Qur'ans that were printed in Saudi Arabia and honestly I was shocked! In printing english Qur'ans, the Saudis start to change the actual words with what the Saudi's believe to be the meaning. The most common substitutions they make is to put the words "jews", "Christians" or "Jews/Christians" anywhere the words "unbeliever", "infidel", "disbeliever", etc appear. When looking at it, within two seconds I went "whoa! This isn't what it really says!!!" and I put it back on the shelf.(This was in a bookstore by the way, not at a Mosque).

So you combine a lot of printed "propaganda" and printed mis-interpretations of the Qur'an into other languages and you can start to spread your influence.

It's also important to note that this is why the Qur'an always has to stay in Arabic. But again, if you don't really know how to read arabic, and then someone teaches you, they can try to teach you their interpretation of the qur'an as they teach you how to read it. so you might look at a word, and pronounce it correctly, but when asked the meaning of the word you say it says "jew" when it really says "disbeliever".

At the mosques I go to they talk about this all the time and mention how Allah (swt) has given us all the instinctual ability to know the difference between right and wrong. And we should trust that instinct if we ever start talking to someone who is trying to push a warped/extreme/fundamental/etc view of Islam onto us. We can all feel when something someone is telling us is wrong or hurtful or evil. People who are frustrated, maybe poor, maybe uneducated, and who hold animosity for the situation they are in and are looking for a scapegoat (because, you know, we as humans can never blame ourselves for our situation, it's always someone else's fault!), find a target for that anger with the warped teachings of these extremists. So then our natural instinct to say, "wait, this doesn't seem right" is overshadowed by the anger that has built up inside us for years or decades.

it's no different than post world war I germany blaming Jews for all their problems. It's no different than KKK blaming blacks for all their problems.

President Obama gave a speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, he said

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions.

For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning

if I look at what Al-Azhar Univerisity teaches, will I find the good Islam ?

the Islam that does not want me dead ?

Also, I think the whole Israel/Palestine situation didn't help things any. After WWI the Turks lost control of the area to the British and French. No big deal for the locals, the area was still following Shariah, and kept the same governmental divisions and layout from the Ottomans.

But then the British thought it might be a good idea to cut out a chunk of this middle eastern area to create a Jewish state for the jews. So the british divided Palestine into Trans-jordan and a Jewish Palestinian nation. Well, the palestinians at the time were ok with jewish people immigrating to their country. But for Britain to all of a sudden divide the land and give a chunk of it to these immigrants without consulting the palestinian authorities there was an outrage.

To give you a parallel example... Here in the US there is a large influx of mexican immigrants (legal and illegal). America (and americans) welcomes those who come here legally and gives them all the rights of every other US citizen... but what if all of a sudden, the Mexican immigrants declare Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California as their own NEW country and the UN sanctions it and approves it without ever talking to ANYONE from the US... Do you think that would start a war down in the southern states? Don't you think that would also make every american weary of the UN? Back when this was happening in Palestine, in comes a couple Wahhabi fanatics and claim it's christianity trying to wipe out islam and put judiasm in its place and bam, now you have a "holy war" brewing.

So, then all the muslim territories try to attack and oust this illegal new country... but the US, Britian and the League of Nations sends tons of weapons to the new Jewish nation to repell the attacks... which now makes us look like the bad guys. So this fuels the anger, which extremists can then try to capitalize on.

Anyway, if you dont' know the history of Israel, you should check it out.

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

And for the Record, I am a muslim and I believe Israel has a right to exist. But I also believe Palestine has a right to exist. Israel should stop trying to evict palestinians and demolish palestinian homes to make way for new Jewish settlements. Until both countries are officially recognized and their borders are agreed upon no construction or development plans for either country should move forward. And I think Palestine needs to stop attacking Israel in retaliation for these expansions, and follow non-violent solutions to solve the problems and make more people aware of what is happening in the area.

Most Palestinians are in agreement with all of this, but then you get Hamas and Hezbollah that come in and like an organized crime syndicate bully their way into politics and demand the complete removal of Israel. Which is just a completely ridiculous demand.

Al Azhar was one of the first colleges of intellectual and academic thinking. Modern Algebra, Calculus, Chemistry, Astronomy, and several other sciences were literally created there.

But, will you find the "good" islam there? I don't know. I've never been there. But truly, the only way to find the "good" islam is to look within yourself, and that's where you'll find it. Islam is supposed to be a personal interpretation and a personal relationship with God. You don't need anyone else to tell you what that relationship is SUPPOSED to be. It is up to you (and God) to decide. THAT is Islam. You submit to God's will. Not some scholar from he 1600's, not some oil tycoon from saudi arabia, and so on. It is you and god, and that's it. And it's ok for you to disagree with other muslims, because as we know, "allah knows best". The Qur'an doesn't say ibn Kathir knows best, nor does it say Imam Bukari knows best, nor does it say the Wahhabi know best. It says, "Allah knows best". And so we should be constantly trying to better understand Allah and realize that all of these people telling us stuff, are just that. People telling us stuff. They can be wrong. They can be right. But it's up to each individual to learn and question for him/herself so that he/she gets a better understanding of their relationship with god.

Anyway, here's a little background on Al Azhar,

http://www.islamfortoday.com/alazhar.htm

Right from the beginning, the seminars held at Al-Azhar were of purely academic nature. They were inherently characterized by free scientific discussions and scholarships. There was also the system of instructors and visiting professors. Such activities worked later as the foundations of the University academic system, which became known later in both East and west. Hence, Al-Azhar has duly come to be known as the oldest religious university all over the world.

Although Al-Azhar ceased to function either as a university or as a mosque for nearly a century, during the Ayyubid reign studies were conducted in the same way as they were during the Fatimid period. However, they were mainly religious and linguistic. During the Mamluks period 648-922 A.H/ 1250-1517 A.D, Al-Azhar assumed new responsibilities towards the Muslim world.

As a result of Mughul attacks on central Asia and the shrinkage of Muslim rule in Andalusia, Al-Azhar became the only shelter for the scholars who were forced out of their homeland. Those scholars helped Al-Azhar to reach the apex of its glory during the eighth and ninth centuries A.H (14th and 15th centuries A.D). It should be mentioned here that Al-Azhar played an important role in the development of natural sciences. Some of Al-Azhar scholars studied medicine, mathematics, Astronomy, geography and history. They put much effort to advance these sciences even in times of political and intellectual deterioration and stagnation.

Under the Ottomans, Al-Azhar was financially independent because of the Waqfs (endowments), the scholars were free to choose their fields of study and the text books. Thus Al-Azhar had its own free identity and became a leading Islamic and Arabic centre.

It attracted many teachers as well as many students from all over the Islamic world. It is worth mentioning that the Ottomans never appointed one of them as Grand Imam of Al-Azhar. This high position entirely left for the Egyptians. When Bonaparte attacked Egypt in (1213 A.H / July 1789 A.D) he looked upon Al-Azhar as the most well-known university in the whole Islamic world. During his exile at Saint. Helena he wrote in his dairy that Al-Azhar was the counterpart of Sorbonne in Paris. He looked highly upon Al-Azhar Ulama as the elite of the educated class and as the leaders of the people. When he first set foot in Cairo he formed a special council (diwan) to govern the capital. That council consisted of nine eminent Sheikhs under the chairmanship of Sheikh Abdullah Al-Sharkawi, the grand Imam of Al-Azhar at that time. The formation of this council stands as an evidences of the importance of Al-Azhar and the high status of its Ulama .

Oh, and kpr37, if I didn't explicitly make it clear early, I was in no way personally trying to attack you, or religion or your belief in your religion. I was merely trying to show how someone who doesn't know anything about a religion could read something and take it out of context.

I have nothing but respect for you and your beliefs. And I apologize if the meaning behind my quoting your religion was not readily apparent.

Sláinte!

P.S. I don't know if you read some of my other threads. But I'm Irish too (and Scottish). Fad saol agat and Slainte chuig na fir, agus go mairfidh na mna go deo!

Wake,

What struck me most, was that one thing that you said,

'I am a Muslim and I believe Israel has a 'Right to Exist'."

SO, I will ask you,

as you are a Muslim,

(1) What do YOU think is Israel's, "Right to Exist" ?

****

AND if Israel has a Right to Exist,

then I must assume that what I've heard is wrong, that, to a Muslim,

(2) "A land once it has become Muslim Land, will ALWAYS be Muslim Land". (?!)

****

ALSO, if Hamas and Hezballah are, as you say, like Organized Crime Families,

THEN I ask YOU, the usual way to rid the area of Organized Crime is either Jail them or Kill them,

So, Do YOU, Wake, as a Muslim agree that,

(3)Hamas or Hezballah, soldiers and "bosses", should either be Jailed OR Killed ?!

#14.46 ,

But truly, the only way to find the "good" islam is to look within yourself, and that's where you'll find it. Islam is supposed to be a personal interpretation and a personal relationship with God. You don't need anyone else to tell you what that relationship is SUPPOSED to be. It is up to you (and God) to decide. THAT is Islam. You submit to God's will. Not some scholar from he 1600's, not some oil tycoon from saudi arabia, and so on. It is you and god, and that's it. And it's ok for you to disagree with other muslims, because as we know, "allah knows best".

Not surprisingly , your views of the religion Islam are like your views of Islamic politics . Both have a decidedly academic individualistic approach . They seem to have little to do with what is going on in the real world .
Every time I point out some monstrous injustice perpetrated by Islamic
people you have feebly tried to explain it away in academic terms .
But the real world exists outside of your scholarly views and keeps on proving the barbarity of day to day Islamic practices [especially in the midEast] .

Your views of Israel's history are likewise academic and not rooted in history .

But for Britain to all of a sudden divide the land and give a chunk of it to these immigrants without consulting the palestinian authorities

What Palestinian authorities ? The Palestinians aren't even a single people . Like Islam itself , there is no single authority to address such concerns . The various tribes or groups are usually refugees from wars fought with other Arabs . The West Bank population are taking refuge where they are to prevent further conflict with Jordan with whom they fought and lost some serious bloody battles .

Fad saol agat and Slainte chuig na fir, agus go mairfidh na mna go deo!

I don't want to live forever,but thank you.

I eat a lot of butter and Irish bacon, so as to prevent that.(LOL)

I'm 45 and pain is creeping in to my knees and ankles all ready.I worked construction all my life. When Danu chooses to take me,I am ready to go. 30 years or so

one life flows into the next,the body is only a vessel your spirit inhabits for a limited time

But, will you find the "good" islam there? I don't know.

you know damn well what I'll find. that's why you wont give a strait answer. The most prestigious,oldest,and well respected Islamic University teaches the four schools of Sunni Islam.namely the Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Shafi'i, schools of Islamic jurisprudence, all named after their founders. They are the traditional,living, breathing, hart of Sunni Islam.The very foundations of the faith.

in the undisputed understanding of Islamic theology, taught there,at Al-Azhar. I am an Infidel, I am unclean, and worthy of death.This is FACT. ( I know what primary source materials are,and I still make this claim )

I'm a nice guy.why do they think I should die.They don't even know me.

is it cause I know of allah.Yet I reject Mohammad and mock him, in an open and provocative way? what did Mohammad do to people who did that to him, you know, Asma bint Marwan or Ka'b al Ashrah ? what fate befell them ?

that is a Pagan's perspective, and not a privilege in a progressive,secular, free society you know.

Wake,

What struck me most, was that one thing that you said,

'I am a Muslim and I believe Israel has a 'Right to Exist'."

SO, I will ask you,

as you are a Muslim,

(1) What do YOU think is Israel's, "Right to Exist" ?

****

AND if Israel has a Right to Exist,

then I must assume that what I've heard is wrong, that, to a Muslim,

(2) "A land once it has become Muslim Land, will ALWAYS be Muslim Land". (?!)

****

ALSO, if Hamas and Hezballah are, as you say, like Organized Crime Families,

THEN I ask YOU, the usual way to rid the area of Organized Crime is either Jail them or Kill them,

So, Do YOU, Wake, as a Muslim agree that,

(3)Hamas or Hezballah, soldiers and "bosses", should either be Jailed OR Killed ?!

------

I think all people have a right to exist. I don't think the British should have done what they did. But they did, and we can't go back and undo it. So moving forward, what should be done? Well, Israel does exist whether some people want to admit it or not. Closing one's eyes and putting fingers in the ears and saying "la la la, you don't exist, I can't hear you, la la la" is a very childish way of dealing with a situation. To me, Israel already exists. To certain other people in the middle east Israel does not exist and they refuse to admit that it does. And they go on to say it has no "right" to exist. The Israelis are there, like it or not, and they aren't going away. So people need to deal with it and move on with their lives. If it were that big a deal to them, they should have fought the turks for independence before the turks lost WWI.

As to your point #2. I'm not sure where that comes from. Maybe someone has said it once, I don't know. It is not something I remember from the Qur'an. The earth is God's and we all live on it with his permission. So who are we to say it is "ours".

Point #3. The Qur'an talks a lot about Hypocrites. People who say they are muslims in public but then do evil deeds that are a direct violation of Islam and "spread mischief across the land". How are these groups NOT the hypocrites? That is my question. How can these people call themselves muslims and say they are for peace, patience and tolerance, then go out and kill innocent people and kill themselves in the process. Suicide is a sin in Islam just like in every other religion. They aren't Martyrs, the are sinners and will spend the rest of eternity in the burning hellfire for what they have done to other people.

They obviously try to find ways to shift the meaning of hypocrites to say Jews or Christians. But in all of the Qur'ans I have read, it clearly states that "hypocrites" are the people who have taken shahada (covenant with Allah (swt) and accepted islam) and then go against the teachings.

"He hath already revealed unto you in the Scripture that, when you hear the revelations of Allah rejected and derided, you sit not with them (who disbelieve and mock) until they engage in some other conversation. Lo! In that case, if you stayed, you would be like unto them. Lo! Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers, all together, into hell." Qur'an 4:140

"Lo! The hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He who beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perfrom it languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but little" Qur'an 4:143

"The hypocrites fear lest a surah should be revealed concerning them, proclaiming what is in their hearts. Say; Scoff! Lo! Allah is disclosing what you fear.

And if thou ask them they will say: We did but talk and jest. Say: Was it at Allah and his revelations and his messenger that you did scoff?

Make no excuse, you have disbelieved after your confession of belief (shahada). If we forgive a party of you, a party of you we shall punish because they have been guilty.

The Hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. they enjoin the wrong, and they forbid the right, and they withhold their hands from spending for the cause of Allah (Charity). They forget Allah, so he hath forgotten them. Lo! They hypocrites, they are the transgressors." Qur'an 9:64-67

"O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.

They swear by Allah that they said nothing wrong, yet they did say the word of disbelief, and did disbelieve after their surrender to Allah. And they purposed that which they chould not attain, and they sought revenge only that Allah by his messenger should enrich them of his bounty. If they repent it will be better for them; and if they turn away, Allah will afflict them with a painful dom in the world and the hereafter, and they have no protecting friend nore helper in the earth.

And of them is he who made a covenant with Allah saying: if He give us of his bounty we will give alms and become of the righteous.

Yet When he gave them of his bounty, they hoarded it and turn away, averse;

So he hath made the consequence to be hypocrisy in their hearts until the day when they shall meet him, and because they broke their word to Allah that they promised him, and because they lied." Qur'an 9:73-77

"And among those around you of the wandering arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah there are some who persist in hypocrisy whom thou knowest not. We, We know them, and we shall chastise them twie; then they will be relegated to a painful doom." Qur'an 9:101

"And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last day, when they believe not.

They think to beguile Allah and those who believe, and they beguile none save themselves, but they perceive not.

In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.

And when it is said unto them; Make not mischief in the earth, they say, we are peacemakers only.

Are not they indeed the mischiefmakers? But they perceive not.

And when it is said unto them: believe as the people believe, they say: shall we believe as the foolish believe? are not they indeed the foolish? But they know not.

And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe; but when they go apart to their devils they declare: Lo! we are with you; verily we did but mock.

Allah himself doth mock them, leaving them to wander blindly on in their contumacy.

These are they who purchase error at the price of guidance, so their commerce doth not prosper, neither are they guided." Qur'an 2:8-16

After looking at all this... how can people not see these terrorists as the Hypocrites who make mischief but say they are the peacemakers and believe in Allah, when their actions prove otherwise!?!?!

Your views of Israel's history are likewise academic and not rooted in history

Can anyone else see this for the oxymoron that it is?! LOL If my views are academic, then by definition they are rooted in history. ;-)

Palestine was a territory under Ottoman/Turk control until after WWI when the French and British took control of it. It had it's own governments, albeit more tribal. But nonetheless there was a system setup there.

The British, seemingly not realizing this, just decided, "hey, we're gonna carve up the territory and make a state somewhere in there."

In reality, it seems very similar to what the early american settlers did to the Native Americans.

And let me give you this thought to ponder for a while.

PEOPLE are barbaric. Period. Not religion.

And just to be clear, I'm not denying the barbaric things that people have done in the name of Islam. I'm well aware of it. But what I'm saying to you is, it is the PEOPLE who are being barbaric and not the religion itself.

Is christianity barbaric? No! Yet the bishops and the pope used to burn people alive in the center of the vatican for even questioning the church. The convents from around 900AD to about 1500 AD were run as brothels at night and nuns for FORCED into prostitution to make money for the church. The priests would charge the men on the way in, to have sex with whichever nun caught their eye. Then there was another priest on the way out that the men would pay an "indulgence" to, so that god would forgive them for the sin they just committed. Is this practice mentioned in the bible and condoned? Absolutely not!! But it still happened. But it wasn't the religion doing it, it was corrupt, hypocritical people within the religion.

What is happening right now in Islam is no different. Corrupt, hypocritical people have been trying to gain control of the territories they live in for a long time now (the Saud family had been waging war on the people of the Arabian peninsula for 140 years before they finally wiped out anyone who was strong willed enough to stand up to them). So you have the bullies and tyrants in control, just like the vatican of the 10th through 16th centuries. The organized crime families of Italy bought their way into the vatican and eventually had one of their own elected as pope!! What is going on in these middle eastern countries is no different. The peaceful people of the region are getting wiped out by the fanatical bullies. how can you stage a peaceful protest, when you get gunned down by the people you are protesting?

It is sick and it is unislamic. The people carrying out these horrible acts are hypocrites as the Qur'an states. They are NOT muslim even though they try to tell the world they are.

Wow! Thank you for that video, it was very eye opening. If were to walk into any Mosque and someone was talking like that I would get up and walk out immediately and then call the FBI. He is one seriously messed up individual.

If he hasn't been arrested, he should be. Not only that, the british authorities should shut down the mosque and it's charity origanizations...

But I think it's worth noting... Where is this organization from? Saudi Arabia. They don't come right out and say it, but it sounds like they are Wahhabi.

Wow! Thank you for that video

here is another one.

we had a controversial Mosque built in Roxbury not long ago.It is now culturally insensitive,if not "Gosh darn it" out right racist ,and Nazi like to ask questions. Like what did the Imam mean, when he said grab a shovel,grab a gun, and grab a sword.

this was said in English, in Boston,in the recently built mosque.Many of the people associated with the Mosque, are in Federal prison on terrorism charges.Three members of the Roxbury Mosque are awaiting trial, for wanting to wage Jihad on the citizens of the state of Massachusetts, it was claimed in a school or a shopping mall. How nice of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUYIHRRaPmA it may take a little while, but America, may well just like dhimmitude ? I don't @!$%#ing, think so, but I've been incorrect in the past and will be, many more times in the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XeNw9YTBnQ&feature=related

Oh, you're from Boston. Small world, so am I. Somerville to be exact, Right near Davis and Ball Sq.

Anyway, about the ISBCC, does that mean all mosques are bad then? I know one of the guys that helps run the Masjid in Burlington, MA and that kind of thing wouldn't happen there.

It's also worth noting that even the video says "boston's historically moderate muslim community..." So you have one bad apple that is trying to bring his buddies in. And that most of the funding for the new ISBCC Mosque is coming from Saudi Arabia (Can you say, Wahhabism!?!). I can't understand why the US is still even allies with the Saudis!?!?! Oh wait, that's right, oil. See what trillions of dollars from Oil can do. It can buy off your local, state and federal government officials.

How about we look at some muslims we all know instead of these foreign faces with names nobody can pronounce.

1. Mohammad Ali
2. Kareen Abdul Jabar
3. Hakeem Abdul Olajuwon
4. Ryan Harris (Denver Broncos)
5. Cat Stevens
6. Ahmad Rashad (sports newscaster)
7. Keith Ellison (First muslim to be elected into US Congress)
8. Andre Carson (Second Muslim to serve in US Congress)
9. C. Jack Ellis (former Mayor of Macon Georgia)
10. David Chappelle
11. John Coltrane
12. Art Blakey
13. A.R. Rahman (Film Composer)
14. Jimmy Cliff
15. Mos Def
16. Everlast (Rapper from House of Pain)
17. Jermaine Jackson
18. Michael Jackson (Yes, he converted to Islam)

So, because some messed up Saudis are trying to spread their hate, you mean to tell me that Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abul Jabar, Jermain and Michael Jackson, and DAVE CHAPELLE are ploting to kill all americans and destroy America's "way of life"? What about Ryan Harris or Cat Stevens? You know, if you play some of Coltrane's songs backwards it says "kill the infidels!" And Chapelle's famous catch line "I'm Rick James, Bitch!" In arabic means Death to the West!!! LOL (obviously I'm joking)

Seriously, condemning Islam because of the bad apples is like condemning everyone from in Somerville as being the Mob because of Whitey Bulger! Or everyone in the North End are Mafia simply because it's little Italy. Islam is not bad, but a few very wealthy individuals want it to be. They are the Hypocrites and they need to be stopped.

WUP ,

[[Your views of Israel's history are likewise academic and not rooted in history]]

Can anyone else see this for the oxymoron that it is?!

OK , you got me there .
In any case what I was trying to say is that the views you are expressing
are more about the past than the present . By studying history
exclusively you are missing the radical changes that are happening to
the main body of middleEast Islam and to some extent even globally .
I think that is what Krishna and kpr were trying to reveal by posting
those videos . The fact is mosques do NOT seem to have a problem with
presenting speakers with very radical viewpoints . Do we hear the local
Imams expressing disagreement with these extremist viewpoints ?
Apparently not . And I have to ask why not ?

You might be someone who would walk out on such speakers but was there a
mass exodus from the mosque in Britain due to that speaker ? No.

OK , you got me there .
In any case what I was trying to say is that the views you are expressing
are more about the past than the present . By studying history
exclusively you are missing the radical changes that are happening to
the main body of middleEast Islam and to some extent even globally .

My point is that what happened in the history of the middle east IS what is shaping the radical changes that are happening over there today. Understanding those is a very important part of the process to stop it from continuing.

The fact is mosques do NOT seem to have a problem with
presenting speakers with very radical viewpoints . Do we hear the local
Imams expressing disagreement with these extremist viewpoints ?
Apparently not . And I have to ask why not ?

I have to agree that it seems strange that a Mosque would allow one of its Imams to preach these kind of things. And I also find it strange that it was only ONE of the Imams and not all of the Imams.

But regardless, it is inexcusable and unexceptable. The FBI should shut them down and relay any info found to Iterpol to try and shut them down world-wide. But it also comes as no surprise that they were funded by Saudis and were most likely Wahhabi. And, it also comes as no surprise to me that politicians might have been in on it. Again, just like any lobbist, you can buy your way into approval for anything. And when you make $1bil PER DAY selling oil, you have a lot of petty cash to throw around.

If we can stop or curtail corruption in our own government, we will also stop this. Did you know, by the way, that the Saudi Arabian ambassadors are the ONLY foreign dignitaries that get Secret Service protection. And not only do they get it, it is on par with the level of protection given to our Vice President. AND!!! We, the taxpayers of the US, PAY FOR IT! Anyway...sorry for the tangent...

Back to why we don't hear Imams expressing disagreement with these extremist viewpoints? This goes back to some of the other links I've posted. It is out there, but the news media here in the US never turns them into headlines...so they pass by on the 30 page of the newspaper or seeded deep within the website's layout. (See my post #12.6). And did you not see a bunch of the "Islamic Statements against terror" made by Sheikhs and Imams that I posted in #14.39?

Muslims even organised a march on washington to Protest the Saudi's and their messed up interpretation of Islam!!! But did we hear about it on the news. NO! Why? Because the news station programmers thought they would get higher ratings if they showed Linsay Lohan going to jail or the latest high speed pursuit down the highway. News unfortunately isn't about getting information to people anymore, it's about ratings, just like any other TV show.

You might find more info about muslims speaking out on Al Jezeera http://english.aljazeera.net/ than on MSNBC, CNN or the networks.

Just looking at Al Jezeera for a minute I found this

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201071731516628999.html

And you wonder why Palistinians are up in arms over Israeli rule? But why didn't this make it to our news shows or our news papers?

And then we have Al Qaeda condemning peaceful muslim negotiations and calling them "Arab Zionists". But aren't they all Muslims? Aren't all muslims in agreement with Al Qaeda?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/2010720132539124519.html

A muslim suicide bomber attacks and kills 43 muslims and wounds another 40

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/20107187948524335.html

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says US is easy to manipulate ON VIDEO!

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/201071834019513292.html

"I know what America is," Netanyahu said. "America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way."

Netanyahu also spoke extensively about undermining the Oslo Accords, the agreement signed in 1993 which set a framework for future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

The Oslo Accords specified that Israel would be allowed to keep "military zones" in the West Bank in any future agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu told the settlers he would use that loophole to retain large portions of Palestinian territory.

"I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders," he said.

This was aired on Channel 10 IN ISRAEL!!!! Why not here? Shouldn't we know the leader of Israel feels our government is nothing more than a puppet for his political will?

Anyway... my point in all this is there is A LOT of news that gets filtered OUT of what we see every day. If you want to hear imams expressing disagreement with these extremist viewpoints then go to a Mosque during friday prayer (usually around 1pm to 2pm). You don't have to be Muslim to go. Sit in the back. You don't have to pray. Just tell them you were interested in seeing what it is all about. some Mosques will even give you tours and have people personally sit down with you and answer questions.

If you are in the Boston area like kpr37 is, check out the Islamic Center of Burlington.

http://www.icburlington.org/visitingICB.php?page=visit

"School/Group Visits

The Islamic Center would be happy to schedule a tour of the Masjid for a class or group. The visit would include a tour of the Masjid, an introduction to Islam lecture, and observing Muslim prayer services. A question and answer session will follow.

Individuals

individuals are also welcome to visit our Masjid. Personalized tours can be arranged at a convenient time to you."

But you can go at any time so long as you follow the "Visiting Etiquette" posted on the site (No really "short" shirts, don't come intoxicated, dress modestly).

Sorry for the typo. I noticed after the time limit to edit expired. Should be

"But regardless, it is inexcusable and unacceptable."

"But regardless, it is inexcusable and unacceptable."

this dude feels the same way

Ironically, honorable Muslims are the worst Muslims, for they give a bad religion a good name and aid in its continuation. The survival of Islam would be a terrible calamity to befall humanity. These harsh statements are hard facts that ‘the good Muslims’ ought to consider deeply. This series of articles will attempt to shed light on this reality.

Those folks who consider themselves to be good Muslims must be troubled witnessing the constant horrors being created by their co-religionists. Muslims are now commonly viewed by non-Muslims as a dangerous segment of the population who hold very strange views of the world and their fellow humans. Those non-Muslims who are well-versed in Islamic theology and the ambitions of the Islamists to institute Sharia law are right to be mistrustful of the Muslim population.

The horrific state of the Islamic world and the dysfunctional behavior of their co-religionists must make ‘the good Muslims’ consider whether there is something intrinsically wrong with Islam. The good Muslims must be asking themselves why their brethren are behaving so violently toward each other and toward non-Muslims. It should make an honest person wonder whether Islam is really what it claims to be. It is worth considering this question rigorously as so many lives are at stake.

We know from Islamic history and by looking around us at the world today, Islam is not a religion of peace. The talk of Islam being the religion of peace is just talk. Islam has long proven itself to be a religion of violence and hatred that commonly inspires its adherents to commit acts of obscene bloodshed and intolerance. In light of all this, it seems that those who proclaim themselves to be Muslims would be wise to re-examine the claims of their religion.

Islam has historically created undemocratic societal structures which are steeped in nepotism and tyranny. Where Islam is the law of the land, Sharia law is devastating the well-being and civility of its citizenry. Without doubt Muhammad has betrayed his followers leaving them an unjust religion (for example women are granted rights inferior to those of men both legally and otherwise) producing an untenable mess. It is useless for Islamic apologists to attempt to deny these statements as the facts speak for themselves.

We know that Islamic terrorism is the result of Muslims acting upon Islamic doctrine.The adherents of no other major religion attempt to settle their real or imagined grievances with such consistent acts of savage violence as do Muslims. Both the Qur'an and the Sunnah state that Muhammad himself was a terrorist, a mass murderer and a thief who urged his followers to conquer the world by any means necessary. He claimed that this is what his god demands be done. This Islamic supremacism is sheer barbarism and insanity. Truth be told, radical Muslims are only following in Muhammad’s footsteps and acting upon his commandments.

Though the good Muslims prefer to acknowledge only the peaceful and sane Islamic traditions,

sound vaguely familiar

the time has come for them to abandon this infantile approach and to stop over-looking the truly dark contents of their religion and what it demands of them and its negative impact upon humanity. The time has come for Muslims to take off their blinders and to embark upon an objective, critical examination of Islam. The evidence will unmistakably lead them to conclude that Muhammad was a full blown madman who will be recorded by history as the most notorious criminal and deceitful human being to have ever lived.

The question at hand is whether decent folks who currently call themselves Muslims are willing to compromise their integrity by continuing to practice and promote Islam while knowing of its many horrors. Many educated Muslims are now beginning to realize that adherence to Islam cannot be justified and are discretely walking away from it. It has become clear to them that the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, was just one more charlatan who fabricated a religion. In this case a religion based primarily on fear, hatred and violence.

Islam should rightly be abhorred by all persons of conscience. ‘The good Muslims’ must decide whether they want to live a lie and go down the dark path of Islam or make the courageous decision to abandon the religion entirely and help in the effort to expose it for what it is. It is time for the good Muslims to come to the realization that Muhammad’s Islam, taken in totality, amounts to a colossal fraud and a terribly harmful ideology

http://www.considerationsofacanadianex-muslim.org/recentArticles.html#GoodMuslims1

WUP ,

Anyway... my point in all this is there is A LOT of news that gets filtered OUT of what we see every day.

I agree that a large amount of important info gets filtered out from the news and does not get broadcast .
However , that article on Netanyahu is not news . It was from 2001 before he became PM . In any case , the devil is in the details of the translation .

To continue the point I was making in my previous comment :
It seems as if any mosque can fall under the "spell" of a radical extremist speaker . Are the local Imams yielding to financial incentives from Wahabbi influences ? Maybe , but if they are , that religion has no moral substance to it if they can be bought for cash .

I think it's important to note that the board of directors of that one particular mosque were Saudi and were Wahhabi. I think that is the connection to be made. So who is responsible for investigating people/groups that want to open a religious place of worship? Can anyone just start a church or a Temple or a Mosque? Or is there some sort of Government agency that investigates and gives oversight?

and regardless of whether netanyahu said it in 2001 or 1991 or 2011, he still said it and in leiu of some of his more recent actions, it is obvious he still wholeheartedly believes it.

And to KPR37, you can do the same thing with any religion.

The Bible condones rape

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

The Bible condones murder and mass murder

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

The Bible Approves of Slavery

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

Does this mean because I found a website to support the claim that it is then absolutely true? I have read the bible. And I know FOR MYSELF that these things were taken out of context to make their point. And just as I have shown you a few times throughout this thread, your examples (and the exmaples you point to) are always taken out of context. When things are supposed to be allegory you take them literally, when things are not authenticated you take them as authenticated, and so on. I feel like a broken record at this point.

#14.64 ,

Re , Netanyahu :

it is obvious he still wholeheartedly believes it.

Actually , it is not even obvious that the translation from 2001
was accurate . You are no longer sounding so academic and
objective when you start throwing around words like "obvious" .

Wake,

since you are a person who came to embrace Islam as your belief, when you became an adult,

your "understanding" of Islamic belief will provide an opportunity for Non-Muslims to question a Muslim(you), who we assume, did NOT learn things by "rote" acceptance;

therefore, allow me, to ask of you, that which YOU truly BELIEVE;

1) the al-Aqsa Mosque; did YOU always KNOW it to be Islam's "third Holiest site"?

2) It sits atop Judaiism's, "First (and ONLY) Holy site"!

3) the Jews will eventually rebuild the Temple on THAT site.

4) Can we assume(?!) that there will be NO peaceful Muslims when that occurs (?)

5) The Temple WILL be Rebuilt, and IF the Muslims cannot accept the MOVING of the Mosque, OFF of the Temple Mount to a different location can we assume that this will bring a War?!

Wake, I have MANY MORE questions, but these will suffice, to allow me an understanding,

of what YOU understand.

Wake,

since you are a person who came to embrace Islam as your belief, when you became an adult,

your "understanding" of Islamic belief will provide an opportunity for Non-Muslims to question a Muslim(you), who we assume, did NOT learn things by "rote" acceptance;

therefore, allow me, to ask of you, that which YOU truly BELIEVE;

1) the al-Aqsa Mosque; did YOU always KNOW it to be Islam's "third Holiest site"?

2) It sits atop Judaiism's, "First (and ONLY) Holy site"!

3) the Jews will eventually rebuild the Temple on THAT site.

4) Can we assume(?!) that there will be NO peaceful Muslims when that occurs (?)

5) The Temple WILL be Rebuilt, and IF the Muslims cannot accept the MOVING of the Mosque, OFF of the Temple Mount to a different location can we assume that this will bring a War?!

Wake, I have MANY MORE questions, but these will suffice, to allow me an understanding,

of what YOU understand.

1) yes. It was actually THE most important site in Islam up until the second year (I think) of Medina. Muslims used to face the direction of the Mount when praying. One day in mid prayer, the Angel Gabriel came to Muhammad (pbuh) and told him to face in the direction of teh Ka'aba when praying. So in mid-prayer he turned around to face the Ka'aba and everyone followed.

Do you know WHY Al Asqa is a holy site in Islam as well as Judiasm? There is something about that hilltop and its position on earth that makes it a gateway to heaven. Have you ever looked at where it is on a map of the entire earth? You should, It is smack dab right in the CENTER! Allah/YHWH/God (swt) told King David (pbuh) to build the the temple on that site.

On the night of Ascention (Night Journey), Muhammad (pbuh) was taken by the angel Gabriel to the hill where the temple once stood, and from there they shot up into the sky and passed through the seven heavens and Muhammad stood before god.

2) It's not the only holy site, but it's the only one that they really recognize. The Ka'aba in Mecca is also techincally a Jewish holy site as well as muslim. The Ka'aba was original built by Adam but was washed away by the Great Flood in Noah's time. God sent Abraham back to rebuild it and it has stood ever since.

Mt Zion on the Southern Part of Jerusalem is the burial ground for King David (pbuh) and is sacred to Jews and Muslims.

Mt Sinai is holy to Jews (and muslims and christians) as well. It is where Moses (pbuh) was given the commandments.

Also, fun fact. Does anyone know how many commandments there are? I'll give you a hint, it isn't 10.

3) Muslims consider themselves a culmination of judaiism and christianity. So while you might look at someone like King Solomon (pbuh) as Jewish or Jesus (pbuh) as Christian, in Islam they are muslim. So to say the "jews" will rebuild that site, it very could be the Jews as you know it. or it could be Muslims. or the Al Asqa mosque could already be considered the rebuilt temple. Only Allah (swt) knows best.

4) Not sure what you are asking or inferring here

5) It's not up to us. It's up to Allah (swt). Maybe it becomes a joint effort between the Jews and the Muslims? Why does everything always have to end in war? In Islam holy sites and places of worship for other religions are not allowed to be destroyed. So, there is a possibility at some point in the future muslim will help build a new temple on the mount with Israelis that everyone can agree upon. But its unfortunately that most people would rather argue and fight. The EXACT opposite of what ALL our religions teach us.

Ask away... I am by no means an expert on Islam, but I will try to answer your questions as best I can, Insha'allah (God Willing).

Also, another great person to read from or even try to talk to is Yusef Estes, he was a christian minister in Texas (born and raised I believe) and converted to Islam, and is now an Islamic Scholar. You can google him. He gives lectures all over the US (and the world, I think).

And, like i had mentioned before, you should feel free to contact, visit or email some mosques to ask some of these questions as well.

Actually , it is not even obvious that the translation from 2001
was accurate . You are no longer sounding so academic and
objective when you start throwing around words like "obvious" .

Why, what word would you use in it's place?

this is the one that's scaring the @!$%# out of me,it's closer to home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XeNw9YTBnQ&feature=related the local papers stopped covering it.I think I read one or two articles. and the connection was dropped.This is the group the helped the New York city bomber.they traced travel up 91, from New York,Mass Pike, west in to Boston, and other trips into New Hampshire. it's @!$%#ing surreal, it's here,now.

I just wish the jihad to end.

this is after all America, and we aren't that nice. (it's true you know, if you read newsvine LOL) it's often forgotten, ask the British, Germans, and the most unfortunate Japanese

At some point, at a certain number of deaths, god forbid, a school.This will change, and America will make Israelis look like, light hearted fairies or Angles of mercy. Remember, we are not really at war now,we are killing people.But not fighting a war.I dont think the Jihadis, fully understand that that.

If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.

Curtis Lemay

old Irish proverb if a man has done something one time, it's much easier to do again.

see above quote

You should seed it!

it's an old video.

I had a thought however.

Now you know me, I ain't about causing no troubles. but if I was in the CIA

I would found these dudes. "if" (see word if) Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, does not call off the Jihad on random infidels.(LOL)

millions will flow into the hands these RELIGIOUSLY INSPIRED DEEPLY PASSIONATE GENTLEMEN http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/about/ Bobo Shanti,(some what supremest in nature) and twelve tribes movement. I don't know if that is Saudi Arabia, it could be a joke.

Now the video is just up there. it may or may not have to do with them groups,but my weed dealer is one (twelve tribes).They are also in Africa, while I dislike Islam, I like Muslims.

all religious movements, have their "radical" or "extremist elements", it is said.

SOME of them (see word some), blame Muslims, for many things.and want repreation not from Islam, but from Muslims.Some of them (see word some) view Africa, like the Jews view Israel.Not the present day Israeli Jews.

NO, Biblical, you know the bad stuff.What G*d told David to do.TAKE WHAT IS YOURS

the religion, from another age. Africa all of it. is for black men. Not the en-slavers of black men.They cant stay.if a Muslim is a black man, he can stay if, he gives up the slave masters religion, that is. AS IT HAS NEVER WORKED OUT WELL FOR THEM

Would Saudi Arabia pay a Jizya tax to prevent this, I wonder ?. (LOL) should we use this threat, to force them to lower the price of oil ? as well as calling off the jihad.

Jimmy Cliff is no longer a Muslim by the way or no longer claims to be one. he wants to live in Jamaica, read a recent article.Not all Rasta is peaceful. see some elements of "Ethiopianism" of the somewhat angry returned "African Diaspora",in Nigeria some not all are quite MAD, Muslims don't like them at all,it seems,and have killed a few

Some thing about "Halie Selassie" being God and Jesus all rolled in one. seems to infuriate the theocratic Islamic community in Nigeria. I cant understand why ?

my weed dealer, would scare the @!$%# out of a jihadi, just looking at him and then toss an AK 47 in his hands, and see what he can do. "jah" may be the answer after all.

good thing I don't (see word don't) work for the CIA, I would be an evil bastard.(LOL)

Jimmy Cliff is no longer a Muslim by the way or no longer claims to be one.

You know, I heard Shaquille O'Neal was muslim but haven't been able to find anything. kpr37, have you heard anything about that in your internet research?

All the mosques in that linked video were in the U.K.

However, that does bring up an interesting point. There are many, many mosques around the world that are politically moderate-- in fact, not even political. But huge sums of Saudi oil money is being spent to radicalize them.

I thought in the first line of the video you linked to it said that the Mosque had its roots in saudi arabia?

Also, the Mosque in boston that kpr37 linked to was funded directly by saudis and the board of directors for the Mosque were saudi wahhabis, some of which had already been arrested in connection to terrorism plots.

Which brings me back to a question I had. Is there a government agency that checks out organizations that want to build religious places of worship or charity organizations to make sure they are on the up and up? I've never tried to start either, so I don't know what the process is. I would hope there is a government agency or some sort of law enforcement agency (maybe FBI) that at least does some background checks before they give the permits and tax ID. If there is no scrutiny there, then what's to stop a mexican drug cartel from opening up a church and using it to sell drugs out of and use it as a way to launder their money. "Hey we didn't make this money from drugs, it was just cash dontations from the congregation!"

There has to be some part of the government that polices this stuff, I HOPE!?!?!?!?!!! If there isn't, there should be! I for one don't want a Saudi/Wahhabi mosque popping up anywhere just as much as kpr37 doesn't!!!

The Boston Cluster and Extended Connections: Case Study on Homegrown Radicalization

By Madeleine Gruen

The NEFA Foundation has released the 26th report in the “Target: America” series; a PowerPoint presentation on a cluster of men originally from the Boston area and their associates. Members of this cluster sought to join al-Qaida forces overseas to kill Americans and also contemplated an attack in a shopping center in the United States. Several participated in jihad by circulating jihadist propaganda to other Americans.

This case study provides insight into how U.S. citizens who sympathize with terrorists make connections with like-minded people on the internet, and through school and community activities. This case also provides insight into how American citizens arrange to access terrorist training camps overseas.

The PowerPoint can be viewed here.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2010/07/the_boston_cluster_and_extende.php

Not all of them are alike: of the people of the book are a portion that stand for the right; they rehearse the signs of Allah all night long and then prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and they practice charity regularly; they are the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right." Qur'an 3:113-115

Funny how most terrorists seem to overlook ayat like this when talking about killing all christians and jews, huh?!

kpr37... that is a very interesting link. Thank you for posting it. In reading it though, you start to see how they are no different from any other organized crime syndicate. The underlying themes are the same. Uneducated school drop out, finds a peaceful group of people to associate with and call "family". One or two bad apples within the group pick out the weak minded, and start befriending them, and then over time recruit them away from their original group and bring them into their nefarious organization.

If you were to substitute Muslim and Mosque throughout that whole slide show with Irish and Catholic Church, and substitute "training camp" with the word "prison", you would basically get the story of my uncle and how he started working for the Winter Hill Gang and eventually went on to working for Jimmy Hoffa.

they are the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right." Qur'an 3:113-115

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=501&Itemid=46#1

While delivering the good news to His believing servants that victory and dominance will be theirs against the disbelieving, atheistic People of the Scriptures, Allah then said,

The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book, is the heading at the top of the page, for it's full and proper context, start at the top of the page and then click next four times.

Again, that Tafseer is incorrect. It's interesting to note that 95% of the text on that page is a person's personal interpretation of the meaning of the Qur'an. Basically it is just rambling without letting you actually read the lines of the Qur'an by themselves. They are trying to paint picture for you, instead of letting you realize the meaning on your own. If you were to read those lines of the Qur'an on your own, you would realize the meaning you posted is not even close to what is actually written.

Look up the battle of Khaybar and who the Banu Nadir were, before you start trying to say that this ayat proves that muslims will dominate the people of the book.

The Battle of Khaybar is no different than our invasion of afganistan. The Banu Nadir were to Medinah, as Al Qaeda is to the US. The jews of Khaybar were in the same position as the Taliban were in afganistan. So to say that from our invasion of afganistan and the reasons behind our invasion of afganistan, Americans want to dominate all muslims around the world is ludicris.

If you are talking about context, then maybe you should check your facts before you post.

It is also interesting to note that in the Battle of Khaydar, after the city was defeated, Muhammad (pbuh) allowed the Jews to continue living there. There was a one time 50% tax on their GDP in the first year. Then after that they were taxed similar to muslims, but instead of calling the tax Zakat (which muslims are required to pay every year) they called it Jizya, to signify that the people are paying the tax as a communal and state obligation, and not as a religious one.

For paying Jizya every year, the jews of Khaybar were considered non-muslim citizens of the state and were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from military service and the Zakat, which is obligatory upon Muslim citizens. It's very similar to our Tax laws (except for the exemption from military service).

Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits and the poor, were all exempt from the tax, unless any of them was independent and wealthy. However, these exemptions were no longer observed during some periods in Muslim history, and discarded entirely by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law. There was no amount permanently fixed for the tax, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.

Though jizya was mandated specifically for other monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism), under the Maliki school of Fiqh jizya was extended to all non-Muslims. Thus some Muslim rulers also collected jizya from Hindus and Sikhs under their rule. The collection of the tax was sometimes the duty of the elders of those communities, but often it was collected directly from individuals, in accordance with specific payment rituals described in the writings of Muslim jurists.
Though it was an annual tax, non-Muslims were allowed to pay it in monthly installments.

In return for the tax, those who paid the jizya were allowed to keep their non-Muslim religion. Their economic and political security was guaranteed (dhimma) by the Islamic state, provided that they followed the Islamic state's laws.

They were not allowed to serve in the military or bear arms, but their community was considered to be under the protection of the Muslim state, subject to their meeting certain conditions. Non-Muslims were also exempt from zakat, or mandatory alms paid by Muslims. If someone refused to pay the jizya, he could be imprisoned, according to Abu Yusuf (just like what the IRS can do to us in the US if we don't pay taxes). The jizya and zakat were kept separate, as it was considered inequitable to spend jizya (collected from non-Muslims) on the welfare of Muslims and vice versa. The jizya was used for paying the salaries of the Islamic state's public servants, pensions and on charities. The change from Byzantine and Persian rule to Arab rule lowered taxes and created greater religious freedom, and was thus welcomed by many Jews and Christians.

Wake,

to kpr you said,

"THAT tafseer is INCORRECT",

and you said,

"It's interesting to note, that 95% of the text on that page,

IS A PERSON'S PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, of the MEANING of the Qur'an".

"Basically....RAMBLING, without letting you ACTUALLY READ the lines of the Qur'an...".

Basically, Wake, YOU criticized the interpretation that kpr brought forward, and YOU continued:

"THEY", are trying to paint a picture for you,

INSTEAD of, realizing the MEANING of the Qur'an on YOUR OWN".

****

Wake, my Question to YOU, is:

WE in the West, WE NON-Muslims, have English and French and German TRANSLATIONS,

BUT, Muslims, INCLUDING NON-Arab Muslims, MUST READ the Qur'an in ARABIC ONLY.

SO, Wake, the ACTUAL QUESTION, IS:

MOST Indonesian and MOST Pakistani Muslims, for example, do NOT read Arabic (!),

and consequently, since THEY, cannot read and UNDERSTAND the Qur'an, THEMSELVES,

They MUST have a PREACHER "interpret" the Qur'an, and THAT would be

THAT Preacher's "PERSONAL interpretation of the Qur'ans MEANING!!!!

Exactly! And it is this very premise that the Saudis and Al Qaeda recruit people.

This is why it is extremely important for all muslims to not only listen to Tafseer (the Explaintion of the meaning of the Qur'an), but also to study Tajweed (How to read, write and pronounce the arabic used in the Qur'an). If you learn Tajweed, you can then listen to a tafseer by someone and say, "wait, that isn't exactly what it says!!!" or "THat's not what it is saying!" But until you do, you are just taking someone else's word for it. As you are trying to learn Tajweed, it can also be really helpful to read as many different interpretations of the Qur'an into your native language as possible. There are 15 that I know of in english. Instead of just reading ONE (like Pickthall), try reading 4 or 5 or 10 different translations/interpretations. You'll really start to see how the meanings can change or vary depending on the interpreter.

Here's an interesting USC project. It is the entire Qur'an with three different translations listed side by side. The three interpretations are Pickthall, Yusuf Ali and Shakir.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

It's also interesting to note that even comtemporary arabic readers/speakers CANNOT read the Qur'an. The Qur'an, just like English, is a living vocabulary that changes over time. Just like we have "old english" which most of us might shake our heads at and say, "uh, what did you just say?" The same is true with Arabic. So there are also contemporary arabic translations of the Qur'an for arabic speaking people.

So for example, nowhere in the Qur'an does it say what kpr quoted,

While delivering the good news to His believing servants that victory and dominance will be theirs against the disbelieving, atheistic People of the Scriptures, Allah then said,

That is someone's personal interpretation of what is being said. And the webpage is trying to present it in such a way that it tricks the reader (as it did kpr) into thinking it is part of the Qur'an.

The person is trying to explain Surah 3, verses 111 through 117. So, without any "editorial" I'll give you the three interpretations of those verse (plus a few before and a few after for context) so you can decide what you think they mean.

003.109
YUSUFALI: To Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: To Him do all questions go back (for decision).
PICKTHAL: Unto Allah belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth; and unto Allah all things are returned.
SHAKIR: And whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's; and to Allah all things return

003.110
YUSUFALI: Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.
SHAKIR: You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and most of them are transgressors.

003.111
YUSUFALI: They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; if they come out to fight you, they will show you their backs, and no help shall they get.
PICKTHAL: They will not harm you save a trifling hurt, and if they fight against you they will turn and flee. And afterward they will not be helped.
SHAKIR: They shall by no means harm you but with a slight evil; and if they fight with you they shall turn (their) backs to you, then shall they not be helped.

003.112
YUSUFALI: Shame is pitched over them (Like a tent) wherever they are found, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah and from men; they draw on themselves wrath from Allah, and pitched over them is (the tent of) destitution. This because they rejected the Signs of Allah, and slew the prophets in defiance of right; this because they rebelled and transgressed beyond bounds.
PICKTHAL: Ignominy shall be their portion wheresoever they are found save (where they grasp) a rope from Allah and a rope from men. They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the prophets wrongfully. That is because they were rebellious and used to transgress.
SHAKIR: Abasement is made to cleave to them wherever they are found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men, and they have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.

003.113
YUSUFALI: Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration.
PICKTHAL: They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of Allah in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him).
SHAKIR: They are not all alike; of the followers of the Book there is an upright party; they recite Allah's communications in the nighttime and they adore (Him).

003.114
YUSUFALI: They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.
PICKTHAL: They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency, and vie one with another in good works. These are of the righteous.
SHAKIR: They believe in Allah and the last day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and they strive with one another in hastening to good deeds, and those are among the good.

003.115
YUSUFALI: Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.
PICKTHAL: And whatever good they do, they will not be denied the meed thereof. Allah is Aware of those who ward off (evil).
SHAKIR: And whatever good they do, they shall not be denied it, and Allah knows those who guard (against evil).

003.116
YUSUFALI: Those who reject Faith,- neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They will be companions of the Fire,-dwelling therein (for ever).
PICKTHAL: Lo! the riches and the progeny of those who disbelieve will not avail them aught against Allah; and such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.
SHAKIR: (As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah; and these are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.

003.117
YUSUFALI: What they spend in the life of this (material) world May be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: It strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls: it is not Allah that hath wronged them, but they wrong themselves.
PICKTHAL: The likeness of that which they spend in this life of the world is as the likeness of a biting, icy wind which smiteth the harvest of a people who have wronged themselves, and devastateth it. Allah wronged them not, but they do wrong themselves.
SHAKIR: The likeness of what they spend in the life of this world is as the likeness of wind in which is intense cold (that) smites the seed produce of a people who haw done injustice to their souls and destroys it; and Allah is not unjust to them, but they are unjust to themselves.

003.118
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.

003.119
YUSUFALI: Ah! ye are those who love them, but they love you not,- though ye believe in the whole of the Book. When they meet you, they say, "We believe": But when they are alone, they bite off the very tips of their fingers at you in their rage. Say: "Perish in you rage; Allah knoweth well all the secrets of the heart."
PICKTHAL: Lo! ye are those who love them though they love you not, and ye believe in all the Scripture. When they fall in with you they say: We believe; but when they go apart they bite their finger-tips at you, for rage. Say: Perish in your rage! Lo! Allah is Aware of what is hidden in (your) breasts.
SHAKIR: Lo! you are they who will love them while they do not love you, and you believe in the Book (in) the whole of it; and when they meet you they say: We believe, and when they are alone, they bite the ends of their fingers in rage against you. Say: Die in your rage; surely Allah knows what is in the breasts.

003.120
YUSUFALI: If aught that is good befalls you, it grieves them; but if some misfortune overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if ye are constant and do right, not the least harm will their cunning do to you; for Allah Compasseth round about all that they do.
PICKTHAL: If a lucky chance befall you, it is evil unto them, and if disaster strike you they rejoice thereat. But if ye persevere and keep from evil their guile will never harm you. Lo! Allah is Surrounding what they do.
SHAKIR: If good befalls you, it grieves them, and if an evil afflicts you, they rejoice at it; and if you are patient and guard yourselves, their scheme will not injure you in any way; surely Allah comprehends what they do.

So, do you get the sense anywhere within these THREE interpretations into english that it is "delivering the good news to His believing servants that victory and dominance will be theirs against the disbelieving, atheistic People of the Scriptures," You decide.

actually, I'll add a little more, since I kind of cut it off in the middle of the story.

003.121
YUSUFALI: Remember that morning Thou didst leave Thy household (early) to post the faithful at their stations for battle: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things:
PICKTHAL: And when thou settedst forth at daybreak from thy housefolk to assign to the believers their positions for the battle, Allah was Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: And when you did go forth early in the morning from your family to lodge the believers in encampments for war and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

003.122
YUSUFALI: Remember two of your parties Meditated cowardice; but Allah was their protector, and in Allah should the faithful (Ever) put their trust.
PICKTHAL: When two parties of you almost fell away, and Allah was their Protecting Friend. In Allah let believers put their trust.
SHAKIR: When two parties from among you had determined that they should show cowardice, and Allah was the guardian of them both, and in Allah should the believers trust.

003.123
YUSUFALI: Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude.
PICKTHAL: Allah had already given you the victory at Badr, when ye were contemptible. So observe your duty to Allah in order that ye may be thankful.
SHAKIR: And Allah did certainly assist you at Badr when you were weak; be careful of (your duty to) Allah then, that you may give thanks.

003.124
YUSUFALI: Remember thou saidst to the Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels (Specially) sent down?
PICKTHAL: When thou didst say unto the believers: Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord should support you with three thousand angels sent down (to your help)?
SHAKIR: When you said to the believers: Does it not suffice you that your Lord should assist you with three thousand of the angels sent down?

003.125
YUSUFALI: "Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught.
PICKTHAL: Nay, but if ye persevere, and keep from evil, and (the enemy) attack you suddenly, your Lord will help you with five thousand angels sweeping on.
SHAKIR: Yea! if you remain patient and are on your guard, and they come upon you in a headlong manner, your Lord will assist you with five thousand of the havoc-making angels.

003.126
YUSUFALI: Allah made it but a message of hope for you, and an assurance to your hearts: (in any case) there is no help except from Allah. The Exalted, the Wise:
PICKTHAL: Allah ordained this only as a message of good cheer for you, and that thereby your hearts might be at rest - Victory cometh only from Allah, the Mighty, the Wise -
SHAKIR: And Allah did not make it but as good news for you, and that your hearts might be at ease thereby, and victory is only from Allah, the Mighty, the Wise.

003.127
YUSUFALI: That He might cut off a fringe of the Unbelievers or expose them to infamy, and they should then be turned back, frustrated of their purpose.
PICKTHAL: That He may cut off a part of those who disbelieve, or overwhelm them so that they retire, frustrated.
SHAKIR: That He may cut off a portion from among those who disbelieve, or abase them so that they should return disappointed of attaining what they desired.

003.128
YUSUFALI: Not for thee, (but for Allah), is the decision: Whether He turn in mercy to them, or punish them; for they are indeed wrong-doers.
PICKTHAL: It is no concern at all of thee (Muhammad) whether He relent toward them or punish them; for they are evil-doers.
SHAKIR: You have no concern in the affair whether He turns to them (mercifully) or chastises them, for surely they are unjust.

003.129
YUSUFALI: To Allah belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth. He forgiveth whom He pleaseth and punisheth whom He pleaseth; but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Unto Allah belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. He forgiveth whom He will, and punisheth whom He will. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: And whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's; He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

So my question to you is, when reading verse 128 and 129 in the context of this whole section, how are we supposed to punish and/or deal with "unbelievers/disbelievers"?

you can then listen to a tafseer by someone and say, "wait, that isn't exactly what it says!!!"

but that is what this tafsir said.

This is from one of the four schools of Sunni Islam.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=501&Itemid=46#1

While delivering the good news to His believing servants that victory and dominance will be theirs against the disbelieving, atheistic People of the Scriptures, Allah then said,

The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book, is the heading at the top of the page, for it's full and proper context, start at the top of the page and then click next four times.

and that is what is said.

sorry but undeniably TRUE

Welcome to Q Tafsir.com

Tafsir is an arabic word تفسير which is derived from the root' fassara' which means to "explain" or to "expound". It is best understood as 'explanation' or 'interpretation'of the Qur'an.

Tafsir in the language of the scholars means: explanation and clarification.

It aims at knowledge and understanding concerning the book of Allah, to explain its meanings, extract its legal rulings and grasp its underlying reasons. Tafsir explains the 'outer' (zahir) meanings of the Qur'an.

Someone who writes tafsir is a 'mufassir' مفسر which comes from the plural مفسرون mufassirūn.

Ibn Kathirborn in 1302 AD was scholar of History and a mufassir (Qur'an commentator) . He was renowned for his great memory regarding the sayings of Muhammad and the entire Qur'an.

Ibn Kathir wrote a famous commentary of the Qur'an named Tafsir ibn Kathir which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur'an, in explanation. Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, and is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today.

This site introduces the reader to one of the most Authentic books for explaining the Quran using both arabic and english text to grasp the understanding of the Quran.

and you still say it's wrong ?

This site introduces the reader to one of the most Authentic books for explaining the Quran using both arabic and english text to grasp the understanding of the Quran.

how about you try using another website than that one? You always seem to go back to that ONE website to support your claims. While ibn Kathir was a Shafi'i scholar, he WAS NOT Muhammad (pbuh), nor was he Allah (swt). As such he is no different than you or I and is prone to making mistakes. Not to mention you are only getting this from ONE website. Also as such his tafseer isn't really accepted by Hanafi and Maliki schools of Islam. Why have you not used any other tafseer site? And why have you not looked at the Tafseer of anyone else other than Ibn Kathir? You do realize that there are hundreds of tafseer by different people right? Kathir is but one of many.

Maybe try poking around some other sites to see if they also support what you are reading on this site you like to frequent?

I'll give you a couple to start with...

http://www.altafsir.com/index.asp

http://www.tafseercomparison.org/

The second link is interesting because it compares your beloved ibn Kathir to two other Tafseer.

And it's also interesting to see that instead of going back to the Qur'an itself to find it's true meaning, you still keep clinging to the words of someone else's interpretation. ibn Kathir's tafseer is just that, HIS interpretation of the Qur'an. It does not mean that it is the ONLY interpretation, nor does it mean it is the correct one. It is just one of the many that are out there.

how about you try using another website than that one?

Ok, not a problem.tafsir Ibn Abbas Quran 3:111 click next 5 times, for full and proper context.

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=111&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

http://www.tafseercomparison.org/

The second link is interesting because it compares your beloved ibn Kathir to two other Tafseer.

do you read your links.

it is in support of, Inb Kathir.

please show otherwise ? (LOL) your funny you are !

I read it before I posted it. Nowhere does it say "While delivering the good news to His believing servants that victory and dominance will be theirs against the disbelieving, atheistic People of the Scriptures, Allah then said," It says

(They will not harm you) the Jews will not harm you (save a trifling hurt) with their tongue by vilifying and defaming you, (and if they fight against you) in Religion (they will turn and flee) defeated. (And afterward they will not be helped) they will not be saved from your swords or from being taken as captives.

It also says, when "clicking next 5 times" this

(Lo! the riches) the abundance of riches (and the progeny) and the abundance of progeny (of those who disbelieve) in Muhammad and in the Qur'an, i.e. Ka'b [Ibn al-Ashraf] and his followers (will not avail them aught against Allah) will not avail them against the punishment of Allah; (and such are rightful owners of the Fire) the dwellers of hell. (They will abide therein) for ever.

Here he specifically mentions ibn Al-Ashraf, not "the Atheistic people of the book". And I'm sure you already know that "ibn Al-Ashraf" was the leader of the Banu Nadir and was like the Osama Bin Laden of his time. So this ayat in this tafseer IS NOT talking about the Atheistic people of the book throughout eternity... it's talking SPECIFICALLY about the Banu Nadir terrorist attacks against Muhammad (pbuh) and his followers.

AND this is the Tafseer of ibn Abbas. I'm sure you already know that ibn Abbas was the paternal cousin of Muhammad (pbuh) and was ALIVE during Muhammad's life. He died between 687~688 AD and had written his tafseers up until his death, which was the 50 or so year period after Muhammad (pbuh) past away until ibn Abbas finally passed away.

So I ask you, of the two Tafseer, would you rather believe one written by the cousin of Muhammad in the Mid 600's AD and who was alive and followed Muhammad (pbuh) or would you rather believe the Tafseer of a man who was born in 1302 AD, had never heard the prophet speak with his own ears and had never had the honor of watching and following the rule of the prophet directly?

And how is the second link in support of ibn Kathir? Have you been reading through it? Does this sound like support for him?

In short, Ibn Kathir has relied heavily on traditions and what is apparent from the verse itself and has left the questions asked in the beginning unanswered!

Ibn Kathir, in his commentary of this verse, does not mention which day does the clause “This day” in the sentence “This day have the disbelievers despaired on your religion…” refers to. The tradition he quotes of Ibn Abbas – “They (the disbelievers) gave up hope that Muslims would revert to their religion” is clearly rejected by the context of the verse. Actually, the disbelievers had the hope that the light of Islam would one day be extinguished and it is not the people they hated but the religion of the people - Islam. As Tabataba’I explains, the reason why the disbelievers wanted to annihilate the Muslims was their intention to put out the light of Allah. As a matter of fact and history proves it, the disbelievers had given up hope of reverting the Muslims to their religion long ago before this sentence was revealed as for example the day when Mecca was conquered or at the time of the revelation of the chapter “Repentence”. As to how the disbelievers hoped that the religion of the Muslims would eventually die is explained clearly in Tabataba’I’s tafseer and we will comment on that at the appropriate place. Ibn Kathir further says that the clause “So fear them not, but fear Me” means “do not fear them (the disbelievers) when you contradict them”. This meaning does not conform to the sentence “This day have the disbelievers despaired on your religion…”

Ibn Kathir then discusses the completion of religion as the biggest favor the Muslims received from Allah but he does not explain when and how the religion of Islam was completed, perfected and chosen for the people. He does mention though that Allah’s favor became complete for Muslims when he completed the religion for them. We honestly don’t know the exact connotation of this statement. There is no doubt from the verse that the despair of the disbelievers has to have connection with the completion of religion and its perfection.

In our conclusion on Maududi’s commentary of this verse, we mentioned and Tabataba’I gave the reasons that the sentences “This day have the disbelievers despaired…” and “This day, I have perfected your religion…” are closely inter-connected and therefore they had to be revealed together. It is quite surprising that Ibn Kathir has not mentioned this relationship in his tafseer work. Any explanation of the sentence “This day, I have perfected your religion…” without any connection with the preceding sentence “This day have the disbelievers despaired…” would be an explanation of an incomplete speech and hence always short of conveying the true meaning. The traditions that Ibn Kathir quotes on the circumstances of the revelation of the sentence “This day, I have perfected your religion…” is not supported by the context of the verse as we have clearly explained in our conclusions on Maududi’s work.

. Nowhere does it say "While delivering the good news to His believing servants that victory and dominance will be theirs against the disbelieving,

what it said is clear

(They will not harm you) the Jews will not harm you (save a trifling hurt) with their tongue by vilifying and defaming you, (and if they fight against you) in Religion (they will turn and flee) defeated. (And afterward they will not be helped) they will not be saved from your swords or from being taken as captives.

when it says they will not be saved from your swords and they will be your captives.

This is the language of domination.

it just is.

no matter how you choose to invert reality

And I'm sure you already know that "ibn Al-Ashraf" was the leader of the Banu Nadir and was like the Osama Bin Laden of his time

he had pious Muslims, fly airplanes into very large buildings ? they did not have either at that time, did they? your just making @!$%# up now ? aren't you ?

why would Bin Laden act like a Jew. This makes no sense as he hates Jews. He wishes to act like his prophet.

and the prophet, what did the prophet of Islam do to these people.Why he murdered them and raped the prettiest woman he could find. What a nice man ? I wonder if Mohammad sung, "kum ba ya" as he raped her, so as to give the rape,deeper religious meaning ?

hadith sahih Bukhari, records the event in some detail. and Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat rasul allah" records the murder, and torture of her husband, before the "marriage"

only in a deeply inverted reality, or such submission,it clings to the razors edge of delusions can any thinking human except that rape is the same as marriage.

for any human being, to think calling the rape of a woman a "marriage" after murdering her husband and all male members of the tribe who had pubic hair, is deeply disturbing for me personally, on many levels.

hadith sahih Bukhari, records the event in some detail. and Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat rasul allah" records the murder, and torture of her husband, before the "marriage"

only in a deeply inverted reality, or such submission,it clings to the razors edge of delusions can any thinking human except that rape is the same as marriage.

Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet .The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'.

Sahih Bukhari 5:59:512

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there early in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.'So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet. So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-Sawiq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8 Number 367)

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Apostle married her. Hais (i.e. an 'Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet said to me, "I invite the people around you." So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522)

if you scroll-down, you will find Hadrat Safia. the Jewish woman, he raped ,after seeing to the murder of her entire family.

kum-ba-ya my lord...kum-ba-ya

Encyclopaedia of Islam

Marriage

in this instance, can properly be called rape or inverted reality

with the Holy Prophet: After the Muslims victory in the battle of Khyber all the prisoners of war were assembled. A companion of the Holy Prophet, Hadrat Dehia Kalbi, requested him for a maid. The Holy Prophet allowed him to select one. Accordingly, he picked up Hadrat Safiyah. But another companion brought to the notice of the Holy Prophet that Dehia had chosen the leading lady of the Bany Nuzair and Quraiza tribes, who should have gone to the lot of the Holy Prophet. He meant that the leading woman of an Arab tribe should not be treated as an ordinary woman.

The Holy Prophet therefore, allotted another woman prisoner to Hadrat Dehia as his maid. He freed Hadrat Safiyah and married her. (Bukhari)

kum-ba-ya my lord...kum-ba-ya

According to another story when Hadrat Safiyah had been assigned to Hadrat Dehia, the Holy Prophet went round the camp inspecting the prisoners. Hadrat Safiyah represented her case to the Holy Prophet stating that she being the daughter of the chief of her tribe, deserved better treatment than accorded to her. The Holy Prophet who was moved by the implorings of Hadrat Safiya, secured her freedom from Hadrat Dehia on consideration of seven heads of cattle. Thereafter was invited to accept the true faith of Islam. Hadrat Safiyah was already inclined towards Islam and hence she readily accepted the same. The Holy Prophet then married her. (Usudul Ghaba)

On his way to Medina the Holy Prophet halted at a place called Sahba where he held the Walima feast. While starting from Sahba, the holy Prophet got Hadrat Safiyah mounted on his own camel and covered her with his robe indicating that she had now become his wife.

kum-ba-ya my lord...kum-ba-ya

In happiness Hadrat Safiya forgot the tragedy that had befallen her family,

instantly, after seeing the murder and or enslavement of everyone she knew,she found true love with the killer ? inverted reality

kum-ba-ya my lord...kum-ba-ya

thinking that now she was the most fortunate lady after marriage with the Holy Prophet of Islam.

can we really call this poor" woman's tragedies fortunate, can any human, ever be "fortunate" to be raped by the killer of your family ?

003.126
YUSUFALI: Allah made it but a message of hope for you, and an assurance to your hearts: (in any case) there is no help except from Allah. The Exalted, the Wise:

003.127
YUSUFALI: That He might cut off a fringe of the Unbelievers or expose them to infamy, and they should then be turned back, frustrated of their purpose.

I was going to use this if he came back.Somewhere in the Qur'an it must say

in the name of allah the merciful the wise : "verily have I created the infidels dumb as @!$%#, tell them what ye wish, and they will eat it up, as if it were the finest dish, placed before them."

this is an example of Islamic tolerance? verse 3;126 and 31;27 as properly understood in a tasfir.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=494&Itemid=46

(Allah made it not but as a message of good news for you and as an assurance to your hearts. And there is no victory except from Allah, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise) ﴿3:126﴾.

This Ayah means, "Allah is the Almighty Whose power can never be undermined, and He has the perfect wisdom in His decrees and in all His decisions.'' Allah said,

﴿لِيَقْطَعَ طَرَفاً مِّنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ﴾

(That He might cut off a part of those who disbelieve,) ﴿3:127﴾ meaning, out of His wisdom, He commands you to perform Jihad and to fight.

Allah then mentions the various consequences of performing Jihad against the disbelievers. For instance, Allah said,

﴿لِيَقْطَعَ طَرَفاً﴾

(That He might cut off a part...) meaning, to cause a part of a nation to perish,

﴿مِّنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ أَوْ يَكْبِتَهُمْ﴾

(of those who disbelieve, or expose them to infamy,) by disgracing them and forcing them to return with only their rage, having failed in their aim to harm you. This is why Allah said next,

﴿أَوْ يَكْبِتَهُمْ فَيَنقَلِبُواْ﴾

(or expose them to infamy, so that they retire) to go back to their land,

﴿خَآئِبِينَ﴾

(frustrated) without achieving their aims.

Allah then mentions a statement that testifies that the decision in this life and the Hereafter is for Him Alone without partners. (3:127)

Nice deflection kpr. I proved you wrong, YET AGAIN... and proved that the interpretation of ibn Kathir that you are reading is WRONG and your come back was simply, "what it said was clear...blah, blah, blah, same-stuff-over-and-over-like-a-broken-record" LOL

So because you had been proven wrong, what do you do...you deflect to another topic. That of Safiya. And again you read a website or two and think you understand the story, when you do not... and so you go on another tirade about that, basically showing your ignorance.

http://answering-christian-claims.com/Juwarriya.html

And since it is obvious that no matter what I say to you it falls on your closed hardened heart, I'll leave you with this.

"As to those who reject faith, it is the same to them wether thou warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.

Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they incur." Qur'an 2:6-7

Rasul Allah (Sal Allahu Alaihi wa sallam) said:

"Whoever avoids arguing when he is in the right will have a home built for him in the middle of paradise." [Tirmidhi]

So take care kpr and have a nice life. I'm done spending my time proving you wrong again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

"As to those who reject faith, it is the same to them wether thou warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.

Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they incur."Qur'an 2:6-7

I'm done spending my time proving you wrong again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

you have been as victorious as all the Arab Armies have been in their attempt to eliminate the "occupying entity" otherwise known as Israel.

looking at my tafsir I find the true meaning of said verse.

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَآءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ ﴾

(6. Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.)

Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ﴾

(Verily, those who disbelieve) meaning, covered the truth and hid it. Since Allah has written that they would do so, it does not matter if you (O Muhammad ) warn them or not, they would still have disbelieved in what you were sent with. Similarly, Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِمْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ - وَلَوْ جَآءَتْهُمْ كُلُّ ءايَةٍ حَتَّى يَرَوُاْ الْعَذَابَ الاٌّلِيمَ ﴾

(Truly, those against whom the Word (wrath) of your Lord has been justified, will not believe. Even if every sign should come to them, until they see the painful torment) (10:96-97).

see the referance too painful torment

About the rebellious People of the Book, Allah said,

﴿وَلَئِنْ أَتَيْتَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ بِكُلِّ ءَايَةٍ مَّا تَبِعُواْ قِبْلَتَكَ﴾

(And even if you were to bring to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) all the Ayat, they would not follow your Qiblah (prayer direction)) (2:5).

These Ayat indicate that whomever Allah has written to be miserable, they shall never find anyone to guide them to happiness, and whomever Allah directs to misguidance, he shall never find anyone to guide him. So do not pity them -

when you show no pity toward your fellow man,it leads down dark roads indeed.

O Muhammad - deliver the Message to them. Certainly, whoever among them accepts the Message, then he shall gain the best rewards. As for those who turn away in rejection, do not feel sad for them or concerned about them, for

﴿فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيْكَ الْبَلَـغُ وَعَلَيْنَا الْحِسَابُ﴾

(Your duty is only to convey (the Message) and on Us is the reckoning) (13: 40), and,

﴿إِنَّمَآ أَنتَ نَذِيرٌ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَىْءٍ وَكِيلٌ﴾

(But you are only a warner. And Allah is a Wakil (Disposer of affairs, Trustee, Guardian) over all things) (11:12).

`Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said about Allah's statement,

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَآءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ ﴾

(Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe) "That the Messenger of Allah was eager for all the people to believe and follow the guidance he was sent with. Allah informed him that none would believe except for those whom He decreed happiness for in the first place, and none would stray except those who Allah has decreed to do so in the first place.''

﴿خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهِمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَـرِهِمْ غِشَـوَةٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عظِيمٌ ﴾

(7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment).

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=444#1

WakeUpPeople-1385514

from the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, a Sunni theologian from the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence, which on one of your posts,you make the claim,that it is standard Islam.

"We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "

The "Tuqyah" is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'' Allah said,

The "lying" is allowed until the day of resurrection as translated by kpr37

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8052

if you don't like my interpretation of the word. look it up in the link

Edward Lane.. noted Orientalist provides this.Edward William Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (Dictionary)

Regarded as the best Arabic-English lexicon in the world, and now available FREE

Online in PDF below

Including OCR, making the English word-searchable (NB: not 100% accurate)

Contents: All 8 volumes, each with its own folder, total 3162 pages. One large word-searchable file for each volume. Arrangement by root, exhaustive meanings including derivatives, comments on grammar, examples of usage in Al Quran/Koran & other sources.

http://www.studyquran.co.uk/LLhome.htm

newsvine get smarter here

So, I question what you are doing contradicting your self, in such a way

Yes, there is a sect of Sunni Islam called "Wahhabism" from Saudi Arabia that believes in the things you mention,

but the MAJORITY of muslims in the other 4 universally accepted schools of Sunni Islam (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i,and Hanbali) do not follow the interpretations that you have heard about.

http://smd12364.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/27/4760722-on-mosque-us-should-stand-on-moral-high-ground?commentId=16475683#c16475683 just scroll up, to find his linked comment