Whitewashing Jihad.

[varian]

October 8, 2006
Fitzgerald: A tribute to Reza Aslan

Reza Aslan’s book No God But God continues to reassure and obfuscate. Some editor at Random House obviously thought this book would be just the ticket -- the thrusting young academic, a "good Muslim" eager for Reform, and fitting right in with the dreamy belief of some that

1) "democracy is on the march" in the Middle East

and that

2) "democracy will necessarily bring with it all sorts of wonderful things, so that Infidels can sit back, relax, and not worry about the islamization of Europe and silly things like that."

That editor was someone who knew nothing about Islam.

There is no end to this.

A commenter here at Jihad Watch once asserted that “it is pluralism, not secularism, that defines democracy. A democratic state can be established upon any normative moral framework as long as pluralism remains the source of its legitimacy.”

Really? Is that what defines the liberal democracies in the modern world -- "pluralism"? And not, rather, extreme solicitousness for the autonomy of the individual, the kind of solicitousness that can be found in the Bill of Rights?

One wonders if Reza Aslan has permitted himself to read another, more sober and piercing Reza, that is Reza Afshari, who has written intelligently on the incompatibility of the Sharia with modern ideas of human rights. This incompatibility is expressed, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One wonders if he has given thought to "freedom of conscience" and why, when non-Muslims under Muslim rule were permitted to stay alive and even to practice their religion, their numbers inevitably dwindled as individuals could no longer endure the various disabilities, beginning with the jizyah but hardly ending there, that constituted that system of deliberate humiliation and degradation that we now know call, from the word "dhimmi," dhimmitude.

"Pluralism" is not enough. If the population were to be parceled out among various "beliefs," this would still not necessarily imply freedom of conscience. (And what happens to those who are resolutely without belief? Are they tolerated, or accepted as full equals, as well?) In other religions, apostasy is not now punished. In Islam, it can lead to a death sentence. And even the most seemingly up-to-date, tolerant, relaxed Muslims get extremely defensive when one raises this issue. I discovered this years ago when, among a group of advanced Kuwaitis, the kind who send their children to the American school and spend much of the year outside of Kuwait, there was a real chill and then a series of amazing lies when I raised the issue of Mr. Hussein Qambar Ali, the Kuwaiti apostate, about whom a great deal was written 6 or 7 years ago.

Reza Aslan’s book is essentially transparently inane. This has not kept it from being praised by, inter alia, John Esposito, about whom the less said in polite company the better (except by James Schall or Habib Malik); Noah Feldman (whose claim to temporary fame -- and lasting tenure -- is that of being the Yeshiva-Bokher-who-Practically-Wrote-the-Constitution-Of-the-New-Iraq); and by Tom Reiss, whose spent five years tracking down the identity of Kurban Said, or Lev Nissenbaum, the author of the well-known "Ali and Nino," which takes place in old Baku, with starcrossed Muslim boy and Christian girl. Reiss’s research may have given him a William-Dalrymplish delight in the mysteries of the Muslim-East-and-its-encounters-with-the-West. But that is not the same thing as taking the trouble, through late lucubrations, of being versed in the theory and practice of Islam.

Aslan says that “there are few scriptures in the great religions of the world that can match the reverence with which the Quran speaks of other religious traditions.” There are several things about this statement that are worth noting. The first is that there is no reverence -- none -- in the Qur'an about how other "religious traditions" -- whatever that may mean -- are spoken about. None. Not a single passage. And then, of course, there are the Hadith and the Sira -- one hopes that somewhere, sometime Reza Aslan, who was born in Iran and raised in easygoing America far from the Islamic Republic of Iran, will deal with them with some honesty and depth. (Had he had the misfortune to have been raised in the Islamic Republic of Iran, one suspects he would not be writing the nonsense he has written). For the Qur'an, the only "religious tradition" is that of Islam; Judaism and Christianity are not part of another "religious tradition" but are simply wrongly-received (by their benighted followers) versions of the one and only true belief -- Islam itself. Judaism and Christianity are not even permitted to be rendered with any accuracy: the Muslim Jesus is far from the Christian Jesus, and Judaism is also a parody of itself in the incondite hodge-podge of the Qur'an.

But the second thing to note is the absurdity of his claim that "few scriptures in the great religions of the world that can match the reverence with which the Qur'an speaks of other religious traditions." Well, how could Judaism speak of "other religious traditions"? Its sacred books certainly could not contain any commentary on Christianity or Islam -- can Reza Aslan guess why? And Christianity could not show "reverence for other religious traditions" except Judaism, and there, like IBM wishing to seize market share from Apple, of course some of the early Christians (who were all Jews) had to say something not quite nice about Judaism or those who followed it. After all, would IBM go around and say how wonderful Apple was, in order to take away its customers? Yet, is it not true that there has always been a recognition of a connection between Old and New Testaments, between Judaism and Christianity? And this is true even if some Christians have not exactly demonstrated in their behavior an awareness of this, or done anything to prevent that quest-for-market-share that helps explain some parts of the Gospel of John or the use to which the description of Christ's death, to metastasize first from anti-Judaism into antisemitism, and then from antisemitism into the full-blown pathological mass-murder within living memory. This should have made, but did not, the slightest exhibition of antisemitism into something that would be met with the fiercest condemnation, ostracism, and punishment.

And how, conceivably, could the sacred texts of such ancient religions as Buddhism and Hinduism, long predating any of the monotheistic ones and conceived in distant India, conceivably have made any mention at all of other religions, much less shown that "reverence" for other "religious traditions" that Reza Aslan blandly claims as characteristic of Islam?

He really has to think a little bit more about how when B comes after A, we should not fault A for failing to mention B. It is called chronology. Learned historians know all about it. And so do schoolchildren.

But not Reza Aslan.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013492.php

Emphasis added by poster. //v

[ShimonG]

October 8, 2006
Fitzgerald: A tribute to Reza Aslan

Aslan says that “there are few scriptures in the great religions of the world that can match the reverence with which the Quran speaks of other religious traditions.” There are several things about this statement that are worth noting. The first is that there is no reverence -- none -- in the Qur'an about how other "religious traditions" -- whatever that may mean -- are spoken about. None. Not a single passage.

The cognitive dissonance in this article is astounding. Even moslems cant be that stupid. This is taqqiya, pure and simple.

[andak01]

There are several things about this statement that are worth noting. The first is that there is no reverence -- none -- in the Qur'an about how other "religious traditions" -- whatever that may mean -- are spoken about. None. Not a single passage.


2 passages that say just that.

5:69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

2:62
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[Achihud]

2 passages that say just that.

5:69 (...) 2:62

Only a complete fool would come to think that gives any guarantees for their safety in an islamic dominated environment.
What if I'm peaceful and the mob knocks on my door demanding that I recognize the god of the islamic prophet right now or else...oh I know what you are going to say; "those muslims are sinners blablabla" and that'll be that but in real life no one is going to stop them and in the islamic countries no one does so indeed more islam-means-peace taqqiya!!!

[andak01]

In other words, it doesn't matter that what the blogger on dhimmi watch said was factually wrong, it "feels" right.

This is the second post by varian I've shown to be in error in the past week. The first one said that Islam was a one prophet religion. I posted ten examples of Muslims having high regard for many prophets. For that display of accuracy, posters became inflamed. How dare a Muslim point to what Muslim are saying about what Muslims believe and interrupt this stream of misinformation?! Horrors!

[Achihud]

(...) How dare a Muslim point to what Muslim are saying about what Muslims believe and interrupt this stream of misinformation?! Horrors! Save it for varian, my post still stands.

[varian]

Your examples carry the condition "any who believe in allah" which makes your premise false. We don't believe that the entity allah is in any manner related to the G-D of Israel or any god of any other religion for that matter. This entity allah is Islam's deity, in reality a relic condensed from the prior Arabian pantheon of deities. Just as you don't agree with what many on this forum have to say about Islam; many on this forum don't agree that Islam has any real linkage to any of the prophets of prior religions. In other words we see your interpretations to be as false as you claim ours to be. Like I said before, I don't care what your beliefs happen to be, but some of Islam's claims imo are blatantly false. Ha Shem is not allah, no matter how many billions of deluded Muslims claim it to be so. We don't believe in allah, therefore, many of the verses that you quote have no meaning or force.

[andak01]

Like I said before, I don't care what your beliefs happen to be, ...

Obviously not, even when you describe my beliefs to others. I don't have a term for that- malicious ignorance?

[Achihud]

So you give up? That was a quickie..

[andak01]

Your examples carry the condition "any who believe in allah" which makes your premise false.

It's translated from the original Arabic. Tell me, in an Arabic Bible, what word do they use for God? Oh yeah, Allah!

[Genesis 1:1 - English Bible - King James Version]

"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth . . . "
[Genesis 1:1 - Arabic transliteration]
"Fee al-badi' khalaqa Allahu as-Samaawaat wa al-Ard . . . "
[Genesis 1:1 - Arabic Bible]
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/ABIB-01.GIF


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/BibAllah.html

[varian]

If Ha Shem were allah, then allah would realize that he made unconditional promises to Israel, and that Muhammad would be a prophet sent to reaffirm such to Israel. The special place of homage would never be changed to a structure that was pagan, the Kaaba. Jerusalem would still be the holiest site, and Muhammad would have reassured Israel that they would be restored to their previous home land as promised. The claim by Ha Shem that he would bless those that blessed Israel and curse those that curse Israel seems to be missing or lacking in practice in Islam. An heir of David would once again sit upon the throne of Israel according to Ha Shem, and in the last days Ha Shem would save and restore a remnant of Israel, making them one nation in the former land and no longer two nations as they were in the days of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. Where are any of these wonderful promises given to the nation of Israel echoed in the writings of Islam? Where are the promises of the restoration of Israel given to Muhammad by allah? If allah has annulled these promises then he is a liar!!! That is why I do not accept many Islamic premises; they are made on false claims. Ha Shem cannot lie, therefore His promises remain in effect as long as He exists for His honor, glory, and name sake. That is why allah and Ha Shem can never be the same entity, there are too many contradictions. Also, this is why many Islamic claims will always remain spurious to this poster. They don't line up with previously revealed events given to Hebrew prophets. Israel was told of various ways to detect a false prophet. Varying from what was previously revealed was one of them. In summary, Islam's allah is not Israel's Ha Shem just because both words may be translated as some form of word meaning deity. Do what the two entities "say" agree with each other? In this case, not even close.

[andak01]

Now you're talking politics, not religion.

[varian]

Now I see that you really don't understand. How sad. Have it your way!!!

[andak01]

Now I see that you really don't understand. How sad. Have it your way!!!

I do understand. The Muslims have no right to claim property in Jerusalem based on what the Quran says. I happen to agree. And the Jews have no right to demand that Hindus and Buddhists and religions that don't recognize their scripture honor their rights to a nation based on what it says in that scripture.

I can think of plenty of other reasons to honor Israel's rights to be a nation, but for a non-Jew, Jewish scripture isn't one.

I do understand you don't want me to dictate your views in one single way. You don't even want to be remotely connected to my beliefs. But you demand of me any number of concessions before I can reside in society with you. I do understand that it would be wrong of me to demand any concessions of you.

[Achihud]

I can think of plenty of other reasons to honor Israel's rights to be a nation, but for a non-Jew, Jewish scripture isn't one. ...say again?

Concerning the "non-jews" here you can find everything summarized in a nutshell: Zach 14:9

I'll even put it in islamic blather for you; "...on that day, those who still give credence to Allah and not to haShem will be the losers"...:lol:

[ShimonG]

...We don't believe that the entity allah is in any manner related to the G-D of Israel or any god of any other religion for that matter. This entity allah is Islam's deity, in reality a relic condensed from the prior Arabian pantheon of deities. Just as you don't agree with what many on this forum have to say about Islam; many on this forum don't agree that Islam has any real linkage to any of the prophets of prior religions. In other words we see your interpretations to be as false as you claim ours to be. Like I said before, I don't care what your beliefs happen to be, but some of Islam's claims imo are blatantly false. Ha Shem is not allah, no matter how many billions of deluded Muslims claim it to be so. We don't believe in allah, therefore, many of the verses that you quote have no meaning or force.


Finally, i am glad that people on this forum realize how utterly repugnant the association that islam forces up us jews really is. More folks need to be vocal about this.

[andak01]

...say again?

Concerning the "non-jews" here you can find everything summarized in a nutshell: Zach 14:9

I'll even put it in islamic blather for you; "...on that day, those who still give credence to Allah and not to haShem will be the losers"...:lol:

Go read the New Testament. Everybody who doesn't take Jesus as God is a loser! You got any problems with that??? I didn't think so.

[andak01]

Finally, i am glad that people on this forum realize how utterly repugnant the association that islam forces up us jews really is. More folks need to be vocal about this.

What's utterly repugnant is that you can claim that I celebrate the murder of Daniel Pearl when I've said no such thing and in fact said the opposite. It's nauseating.

[Achihud]

Go read the New Testament. Everybody who doesn't take Jesus as God is a loser! You got any problems with that??? I didn't think so. You always start on the wrong foot with me.

I've 700+ posts minus the 100+ posts that you've previously deleted/erased/whatever, find me 1 quote where I've ever said that "Jesus is God" ...or find me something in NT -despite the overall christian hesitation- and use it against me...:tdown:


(no I'm not gonna wait)

[Achihud]

Next time I'm gonna keep my hands in my pocket and try to type with my nose. See if you have an answer then...

[andak01]

You always start on the wrong foot with me.

I've 700+ posts minus the 100+ posts that you've previously deleted/erased/whatever, find me 1 quote where I've ever said that "Jesus is God" ...or find me something in NT -despite the overall christian hesitation- and use it against me...
(no I'm not gonna wait)

You use the Bible to prove things about the Quran and then turn around and behave as if Christianity and Islam have nothing to do with each other. When I say you have no problem with ONE religion that says all Jews are going to hell for not worshipping Jesus and a big problem with a religion that states in its scripture that Jews that follow the Torah should have no grief.

Matthew
10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Surah Maidah 5:69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[Achihud]

You use the Bible to prove things about the Quran and then turn around and behave as if Christianity and Islam have nothing to do with each other. When I say you have no problem with ONE religion that says all Jews are going to hell for not worshipping Jesus (...)

10:33 isn’t about jews going to hell but about christians who should fear hell more than persecution! 10:28
And besides, Peter denied Jesus three times in a row, yet he wasn’t rejected in the days after the crucifixion, not even Thomas so according to the same gospel, Jesus can be very mercyful. Furthermore, Jesus brought indeed strife within the jewish community, between those who accepted him as their saviour and those who didn’t but the sword is a natural consequence of that, not only between jews and the new jewish sect but sadly also between the latter erroneous christendom (if Paul is taken seriously) and remaining judaism for entirely other consequences; the mixture of christianity with pagan beliefs.
The new jewish sect would never have survived for very long in a strict jewish environment, the down side of spreading itself among the goyim is natural degradation, the upside is expanding and in the end times, re-discovery of what it once was about.

Still it doesn’t say that every jew goes to hell by default, nor a muslim nor a pagan!

(…) and a big problem with a religion that states in its scripture that Jews that follow the Torah should have no grief.

...empty promises, my #4 still stands.

[ShimonG]

What's utterly repugnant is that you can claim that I celebrate the murder of Daniel Pearl when I've said no such thing and in fact said the opposite. It's nauseating.

Nice try. Its your islam and its inherent intolerance that is truly nauseating. But, setting that aside for a moment.

The only reason you have not gloated the beheading of Danny Pearl is because you'd get kicked out of the forum in a heartbeat.

Your approval of Danny Pearls' beheading is implicit in that YOU DEFEND THE BEHEADING OF A HINDU "ENEMY" SOLDIER AT THE HAND OF AN ISLAM'S TERRORIST. ERGO, AND LOGICALLY, YOU'D ALSO DEFEND THE BEHEADING OF A JEWISH ENEMY, "DANNY PEARL."

May be you go an other islamic forums and gloat over Danny's beheading just like you do here over the beheading of a hindu soldier.

QED, you nauseating moslem.

[Mediocrates]

none of the things you just stated are actually true, so cut it out.

[ShimonG]

none of the things you just stated are actually true, so cut it out.

Oh, really??????????

When the news was cited about a hindu soldier getting his throat slit by a mujahideen, andak said, "that's war?"

If that aint justification for terrorism, i dont know what is. Of course, that may not be enough for you.

And is it that much of a stretch to state that a moslem who justifies the beheading of one infidel will NOT justify the beheading of another? Pray tell, what is the difference between an "ape and swine" jew getting his throat slit and an "idol-worshipping infidel" getting his throat slit? The fact that he actually does not justify Danny Pearl's beheading is a tribute to his sense of self-preservation (on IF). If you wanna buy the bridge he is selling, so be it. Dont tell me to swallow his taqqiya.

All above with due respect, of course.

PS. Since you are acting as the arbiter of truth here, pray tell, what do you think when andak calls our prophets as prophets of islam? A simple I agree or i do NOT agree will suffice. Let us all know where you stand.

[Steven]

I agree, since andak said it is war when a Hindu had his throat slit when Muslims were on a jihad, what is the difference of killing Pearl the same way by Muslims also on a jihad against the non-Muslims? Andak has one goal on the net and that is to downplay the problems that Muslims are causing across the world. He has been doing this for years, and if he really wanted to make a difference he would start protests against Iran or Hezbollah. But he doesn't, he just wants to try and shut the critics of Islam up while the Islamic agenda moves forward. I also find him very insulting with all his "they did not kill "all" the Jews or they did not kill "all" the Christians. He makes it like Muslims have done Christians and Jews a favor by not killing them all.


But Med you are not stupid and probably already know this.:)

[Steven]

Obviously not, even when you describe my beliefs to others. I don't have a term for that- malicious ignorance?


No, people just don't care what you believe, we have our own beliefs and will not be forced by you to change our beliefs in your religion. The truth is that you constantly trying to shove Islam down our throats, just turns more people off towards your religion. You just come off as another imposing Muslim.

[andak01]

All above with due respect, of course.

You have no respect for anyone but yourself and people who think exactly like you do. That's the most disgusting charge I've ever seen and anyone like Mediocrates or any of the other mods will know it for the lie that it is.

I forgot that in your mind, Muslims don't commit murder or rape or war crimes or anything else that people on the planet have committed since the dawn of time. We don't have ordinary human failings like greed and lust and pride. Everything is just a simplistic stereotype.

I've got more respect for Daniel Pearl and the Pearl family than you ever will.

[ShimonG]

You have no respect..........

Just to clarify. When i said, with due respect, i was talking to Med, not you. You are a despicable anti-semitic liar, who may have succeeded in fooling a few on this forum, but not the majority.

Your views, as well as islam, are disgusting and inhumane, covetous and rapine. You and your ilk deserve to be quarantined away from civilization. There, you can indulge in your orgy of rape and murder, where the victims will be your own fellow moslems, thus sparing the civilized world.

So, still no takers for your islamic lies here.

[ShimonG]

.............I've got more respect for Daniel Pearl and the Pearl family than you ever will.

Yeah, right. Keep telling yourself that. What you and your ilk did to Danny Pearl is proof enough.

[Steven]

Just to clarify. When i said, with due respect, i was talking to Med, not you. You are a despicable anti-semitic liar, who may have succeeded in fooling a few on this forum, but not the majority.

Your views, as well as islam, are disgusting and inhumane, covetous and rapine. You and your ilk deserve to be quarantined away from civilization. There, you can indulge in your orgy of rape and murder, where the victims will be your own fellow moslems, thus sparing the civilized world.

So, still no takers for your islamic lies here.


If Muslims took over the world, that is exactly what would happen. They would turn on each other.

[andak01]

Just to clarify. When i said, with due respect, i was talking to Med, not you.

And when he said:
"none of the things you just stated are actually true, so cut it out."


He was addressing you. Please cut it out. You're not helping your case by going so far over the top.

[varian]

I think that the picture is quite clear. There are approximately 6.5 +/- million citizens of Israel. The antagonistic Muslim countries that surround Israel, some of which are launching rockets/missiles into Israel on a daily basis, dwarf Israel's Jewish population, and perhaps the total population of Jews worldwide. I am truly astounded at how many Muslims on various web sites try to "remind" Jews just how great they had it under Muslim rule compared to with anyone else. If this was true in the past, it certainly isn't true in todays world. Somehow the "ancient" history doesn't follow current history. Muslims in the ME talk about exterminating Israel as if it were some kind of disease. Even baby seals and polar bears appear to have more advocates in the world than "Jews" in general, and Israel in specific. So when someone attempts to make arguements that a movement is essentially peace loving, and yet, a large number of nations controlled by that movement have not showed a tendency towards peace, the arguements in effect have no weight or substance. Islam has been successful in making itself appear to be the victim when it is in fact the bully. It is really the multitude versus the few.

Another thing that one notices about a bully is that they want a short battle; a one punch knockout like in the movies. They don't want to be engaged in a protracted battle where they may have to roll around kicking, biting and scratching in the "mud and the blood and the beer." The surrounding Muslim nations have not been able to effct that knockout as of this date, but not for the lack of trying. If the surrounding Muslim nations feel "entitled" to bully Israel, then I support Israel in defending itself from this bully. If Iran feels compelled to use the "big stick" when they get it, then Israel will most likely defend itself by any means necessary. Much of the world knows who the real miscreants in this situation really are, and will feel little remorse when the oppressors of Israel are neutralized. I continue to remain hopeful for the future peace and continued prosperity of Israel. This "whitewash" just doesn't wash with me.

[ShimonG]

And when he said:
"none of the things you just stated are actually true, so cut it out."


He was addressing you. Please cut it out. You're not helping your case by going so far over the top.

Med, as the mod can request/order me to do so.

You are a lying filthy apologist for islamic rape and terror. I have made my case umpteen times. And if my posts show filth, it is simply because they reflect the evil, depravity and filth in islam itself. I can certainly see why you'd want to shut folks like me and Scattergood off.

Looks like your friendly mods did a good job of kicking Scatter off IF. Or at the very least frustrating him (and others like Gilgamesh etc) to the point where they no longer wanna post here.

[andak01]

Flattery will get you nowhere!

[bararallu]

In other words, it doesn't matter that what the blogger on dhimmi watch said was factually wrong, it "feels" right.

This is the second post by varian I've shown to be in error in the past week. The first one said that Islam was a one prophet religion. I posted ten examples of Muslims having high regard for many prophets. For that display of accuracy, posters became inflamed. How dare a Muslim point to what Muslim are saying about what Muslims believe and interrupt this stream of misinformation?! Horrors!

Actually Andak, with all due diligence you haven't done that. Muslim POV is fine by me, unlike most here, it's just I don't accept it as a universal message, since there isn't any. Even your interpretation of the history of prophecy contradicts the Jewish tradition, you see prophets where Jews don't. You emphasize qualities, that Jews wouldn't. And as far as respect goes... it's seems to be a one way street. We have by all accounts the right to destroy al Aqsa and the other supersessionist structure on OUR Temple mount; it hasn't been done. Even when we had complete control over our enemies in the region. It should have been done, since every Synagogue was torched by the Jordanians and latter day Paleostinians. Furthermore, how many Prophet worshiping sites have Muslims torched in the last 10 years, Cave of the Patriarchs perhaps? Joseph's Tomb? You see thats just it, Islam has cloned our Prophets. Most [but not all] in Palistine and the Arabs of the ME generally, do not give a hoot about our notions about our own Prophets.

[varian]

... This is the second post by varian I've shown to be in error in the past week. The first one said that Islam was a one prophet religion. I posted ten examples of Muslims having high regard for many prophets. ...

Now you are really getting delusional.

[andak01]

Actually Andak, with all due diligence you haven't done that. Muslim POV is fine by me, unlike most here, it's just I don't accept it as a universal message, since there isn't any. Even your interpretation of the history of prophecy contradicts the Jewish tradition, you see prophets where Jews don't.

I'd have to be Jewish for that to matter to me and you'd have to care a lot more than you do about Islam to get bent out of shape over descrapancies.

You emphasize qualities, that Jews wouldn't.

Of course we do. It's a different relgion. But there are some similarities.

And as far as respect goes... it's seems to be a one way street. We have by all accounts the right to destroy al Aqsa and the other supersessionist structure on OUR Temple mount; it hasn't been done.

That would I'd think put you on the moral high ground. That's something to be proud of rather than be ashamed you couldn't force yourselves to sink to the same level.

Even when we had complete control over our enemies in the region. It should have been done, since every Synagogue was torched by the Jordanians and latter day Paleostinians. Furthermore, how many Prophet worshiping sites have Muslims torched in the last 10 years, Cave of the Patriarchs perhaps? Joseph's Tomb?

They will receive justice for that for God knows what they did.

[varian]

... OBEY GOD AND OBEY THE MESSENGER

Satan succeeded in duping millions of Muslims into believing that obeying God means obeying the Quran, while obeying the messenger means obeying Hadith.

What helped in popularizing this Satanic trick was the general ignorance of Quran among the Muslim masses, and their failure to heed the divine commandments that Quran shall be the ONLY SOURCE of jurisprudence and/or religious guidance. Only a little thinking leads us to realize that Quran came to us through Muhammad's mouth, and DID NOT COME TO US FROM GOD DIRECTLY. Hence the commandment that we shall obey the messenger...for he utters the words of God.

All previous scriptures have stated the same Quranic truth that: "Whoever obeys the messenger is obeying God." Since the messenger obviously is not God, the commandment clearly means obeying the words of God uttered by the messenger.

The knowledgeable and fortunate believers, therefore, realize that Hadith & Sunna are Satanic fabrications aimed at diverting people from the path of God. ...

http://www.submission.org/islam/defeat.html

The above reference to "the messenger" is singular, one prophet, not many, and Muhammad as the last and foremost. One Quran and one messenger: no other writings are of any force, therefore lip service about any other prophets (esp. Hebrew prophets) is disingenuous.

[bararallu]

Varian,

I think that's pretty close to proselytizing, which is against the rules here. Andak can and should have his choice of belief systems, even though you disagree with him and that belief system. People believe in all sorts of things...

[varian]

The author is a Muslim speaking about Muslims on a Muslim web site. Andak is a Muslim, and I am not, therefore, I wouldn't be trying to convert a Muslim to Islam. Check the web site.

[andak01]

The all Quran and no Sunna is a creed that runs contrary to my own. I don't know of anyone that is all Sunna and no Quran, but there is a wide range. Funny, I did think that sounded like proselytizing too even if you don't believe it..

If you hunt a bit you'll find everything from almost Hindu versions of Islam to versions that look almost like aescetic Christianity to the so-called drunken Sufis. There are people that class themselves as Muslim that accept prophets after Muhammad (SAW).

[Steven]

Varian,

I think that's pretty close to proselytizing, which is against the rules here. Andak can and should have his choice of belief systems, even though you disagree with him and that belief system. People believe in all sorts of things...

You actually think a non-Muslim is trying to people to convert to Islam?

[bararallu]

You actually think a non-Muslim is trying to people to convert to Islam?

No. Obviously not. I think you need to understand what particularly I'm replying to, before jumping to conclusions. To state to someone that "Satan" has corrupted their religion from an outset is, in my book, tantamount to religious proselytism. The mods here may agree or disagree with that. Also this is a purely theological debate outside the religion sub-forum. I dont knock anyone in believing in any religion, even though I believe in none and find it generally silly. But it does bother most Jews when there are words about Satan and corruption, bandied about.... If Andak said the same about Christianity, I'd react likewise. just sayin....

[Steven]

No. Obviously not. I think you need to understand what particularly I'm replying to, before jumping to conclusions. To state to someone that "Satan" has corrupted their religion from an outset is, in my book, tantamount to religious proselytism. The mods here may agree or disagree with that. Also this is a purely theological debate outside the religion sub-forum. I dont knock anyone in believing in any religion, even though I believe in none and find it generally silly. But it does bother most Jews when there are words about Satan and corruption, bandied about.... If Andak said the same about Christianity, I'd react likewise. just sayin....

I do not agree at all.:)

[bararallu]

You are free to disagree. And I personally like Varian's posts here, so it's not really personal. Just means and ways of approaching debate.

[varian]

... To state to someone that "Satan" has corrupted their religion from an outset is, in my book, tantamount to religious proselytism. The mods here may agree or disagree with that. Also this is a purely theological debate outside the religion sub-forum. I dont knock anyone in believing in any religion, even though I believe in none and find it generally silly. But it does bother most Jews when there are words about Satan and corruption, bandied about.... If Andak said the same about Christianity, I'd react likewise. just sayin....

The account was given because another Muslim on a pro-Muslim web site was "preaching" this to other Muslims. He appears to be anti-jihad, anti-sunna, and anti-hadith. He is a Muhammad only, Quran only Muslim. In a like manner Karaite Jews are Torah/Tanach only and shun the Talmud and other rabbinical writings. This Muslim expressed an alternate view of hadiths and sunna that he termed satanic in attempting to get Muslims to shun all hadiths and sunna and use only the Quran and Muhammad as a sources of inspiration. He defended his position very well and described why none of the works (other than the Quran) should be held in high esteem.

I really don't give a damn what anyone believes, but exceptions can be taken with some of Andak's presentations on a number of levels, and this Muslim in particular shows a different take on Islamic topics. Many arguments presented by Andak about what Muslims really believe and what hadiths or sunna are valid would be disputed by this Muslim, and yet the author shows a similar anti-Semitism to the jihad movement, which he seems to be against. The post was meant to show what we already knew; Muslims are not a monolithic group and Andak is only presenting his views, not an officially sanctioned (Ex Cathedra style) tenets. No conversions to anything were intended. I really don't see how anything close to that conclusion could be considered. If the post appeared to be a little harsh on some Islamic thought presented on this forum, then please try to remember that this was presented by a pro-Islam Muslim. To me, this abstract is as easy to follow as an article in "National Geographic."

[bararallu]

I'm sorry then, I didn't follow the thread closely enough then.

[varian]

Whew; you had me going there for a while. For a minute I thought I was being brainwashed from reading certain posts on this forum and morphing into a closet submissionist, or even worse, a submissionist missionary. :cool:

[bararallu]

:p . I need to start reading threads from the beginning I guess.

[ShimonG]

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/04/04/whitewashing_jihad_in_the_schools

Whitewashing Jihad in the Schools
by Michelle Malkin

Three years ago, I wrote about a mock terrorism drill at a public school district in Muskegon County, Mich. Instead of Islamic terrorists, educators substituted Christian homeschoolers. Yes, Christian homeschoolers. Here was the description of the school drill plan:

"The exercise will simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled. Under the scenario, a bomb is placed on the bus and is detonated while the bus is traveling on Durham, causing the bus to land on its side and fill with smoke."

Flabbergasting, but true. In the wake of 9/11 and the jihadists' carnage against schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia, the school chose to prepare their students for an attack by Christian homeschooling "wackos," not Muslim suicide bombers.

Unfortunately, little has changed. Last month, New Jersey's Burlington Township High School held its own mock terrorism drill. "You perform as you practice," Superintendent Chris Manno told the Burlington County Times. "We need to practice under conditions as real as possible in order to evaluate our procedures and plans so that they're as effective as possible."

But the "real as possible" conditions included no bomb-vest-donning jihadists shouting "Allahu Akbar." No red bandana-wearing martyrs with visions of 72 virgins dancing in their evil heads. No America-hating plotters enraged by the existence of Israel or driven to establish a worldwide caliphate. Nope.

According to the paper, two local police detectives took on the role of hostage-taking Christian gunmen.

"Investigators described them as members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the 'New Crusaders' who don't believe in separation of church and state. The mock gunmen went to the school seeking justice because the daughter of one had been expelled for praying before class." Upset Christian students reported on the drill to their parents.

How many other jihad-whitewashing mock terrorism drills have been conducted using tax dollars? How long before we mimic the British schools, where the Holocaust is being dropped from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils?

American educators have been bending to the will of the grievance-mongers ever since the 9/11 attacks. Remember the jihad-sympathizing admonition included in the NEA's touchy-feely, post-9/11 curriculum: "Do not suggest that any group is responsible" for the terrorist attacks, parents and teachers were advised.

But feel free to conjure up homeschooling "wackos" and Christian "New Crusaders" to avoid offending the Muslim lobby.

Here is a "real as possible" scenario. Last month, you'll recall, counterterrorism officials sent cautionary bulletins to police departments nationwide warning that suspected members of extremist groups have signed up as school bus drivers in the United States. The "extremists" being investigated by the FBI and other agencies are foreigners who have been able to "purchase buses and acquire licenses."

Who are these "extremists"? Hint: They are not Presbyterian or Lutheran or Catholic homeschooling wackos.

In Indonesia last month, a theological school was reportedly attacked by religious terrorists in Jakarta. The school was evangelical Christian. The terrorists were Muslim. In southern Thailand, attackers hurled explosives and opened fire on an Islamic school, killing three students. According to reports, police believe that Muslim insurgents staged the attack in an attempt to convince villagers that authorities were responsible -- a ploy to win villagers over to the insurgents' cause.

And in the name of winning Iraqis over to their blood-stained cause this week, a suicide truck bomber carrying food supplies killed eight Iraqi schoolgirls and a baby in the northern oil city of Kirkuk. The truck bomber was a crusader, all right. But not the kind American students are being taught to drill against in their make-believe bubbles.

In our government institutions of perpetual ignorance maintenance, "D" is for dhimmitude. They are teaching our children all too well.

[ShimonG]

Pakistan constitution: Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;(http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/co.../preamble.html)

Iraq constitution: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101201450.html)

Afghan constitution: Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.....The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/af00000_.html)

Iran constitution: In creating, on the basis of ideological outlook, the political infrastructures and institutions that are the foundation of society, the righteous will assume the responsibility of governing and adMinistering the country (in accordance with the Koranic verse "Verily My righteous servants shall inherit the earth" [21:105]). Legislation setting forth regulations for the administration of society will revolve around the Koran and the Sunnah. (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00000_.html)

KSA constitution: he Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.(http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/sa00000_.html)

[ShimonG]

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/12/cair_instructs.php

CAIR Instructs Media On How To Whitewash Islam

In its continuing effort to impede freedom of the press in the United States, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a new media guide -- available only to “media professionals” -- that purports to “educate the media and disabuse journalists of misinformation” about Islam. The notorious Islamic advocacy group, which has seen several of its officials convicted on various terrorism-related charges, and which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case, asserts that “common misperceptions in the media include the notion that Islam is not compatible with democracy or modern culture, that the Quran teaches violence, that Muslims around the world hate the US, that Islam does not respect women’s rights, and that all Muslims are Arab.”

The media guide itself purports to correct other “misperceptions” also, including the idea that Islam doesn’t value religious freedom (which will come as a surprise to Abdul Rahman, the Afghani who was arrested in 2005 for converting from Islam to Christianity) and that Islam was spread by the sword.

Where could such misperceptions have come from? Could the media have gotten the idea that Islam is not compatible with democracy from the Ansar al-Sunnah Army in Iraq, which stated that democracy “is considered apostasy and defies the belief in one God -- Muslims’ doctrine,” because it means “the rule of the people, which means that the people do what they see fit”? Or maybe from Iran’s Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, who said in 2006 that the devil uses concepts “such as liberty and democracy to achieve his plans”? Or was it from Usman Badar, president of the Muslim Students Association at the University of New South Wales in Australia, who in April 2006 declared: “Democracy sounds nice enough, (but) not to a Muslim”?

Of course not all Muslims think such things. But when CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper explains that the organization developed this guide because “that’s one of the hot-button issues for American Muslims and Muslims worldwide -- the portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the media,” he gives the impression that the idea that Islam and democracy are incompatible is media-generated. And the new CAIR media guide blames misuse of the Qur’an on non-Muslims:

“There is a common misperception among Westerners,” says the guide, “that the Quran teaches violence. Critics of Islam will often take verses out of context, or quote selectively to fuel this false idea.”

Was the Ayatollah Khomeini, then, a “critic of Islam” when he thundered: “Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!...There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of Muhammad] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

But CAIR, instead of spitting back at Khomeini and other Muslims who think like him today, pretends in this guide that violent understandings of the Qur’an come from non-Muslims -- while Muslims appeal to the Qur’an to justify acts of violence around the world today.

It is hard to see how CAIR can prevent Muslims from falling prey to such “misconceptions” by blaming non-Muslims for them instead of working for genuine reform among Muslims in America. Unless, of course, the organization has other things in mind besides reform. (Does this sound familiar??)

Which is almost certainly the case. CAIR is currently leading a fight to get corporations to stop advertising on outspoken radio host Michael Savage’s show, and that is just the latest in a series of campaigns to silence critics of Islam. It doesn’t even matter if what these critics say is true: a few years ago CAIR successfully pressured National Review magazine to stop advertising a biography of Muhammad, even though what the book said about Muhammad’s violent actions were all derived from Islamic sources. It appears that all that CAIR wishes to allow non-Muslims to know about Islam is contained in this whitewashed and deceptive media guide.

CAIR passes itself off as a “civil rights” organization, though no informed observer will mistake it for the NAACP. CAIR’s agenda is not civil rights but a fight against free speech and freedom of the press. They seek, by intimidation, to marginalize and then end discussion of the dangers inherent in Islam, the Islamic community’s tolerance of terrorism, and anything that stands in the way of Islamic hegemony. (Does this sound familiar??)
Free speech is a foundational freedom. “Media guides” such as CAIR’s are the means by which totalitarians seek to end it.

[ShimonG]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021031.php

A major victory for truth and common sense. "Police apologise over mosque show," from the BBC, May 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):

West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have apologised for accusing the makers of a Channel 4 documentary of distortion.
The apology and the promise of £100,000 were made at the High Court on Thursday.

It follows comments made about a Dispatches programme, Undercover Mosque, which tackled claims of Islamic extremism in the West Midlands.

The police statement said the force was wrong to make the allegations.

A press release issued by the police and the CPS in August 2007 claimed the Dispatches programme, broadcast in January of that year, misrepresented the views of Muslim preachers and clerics with misleading editing.

One preacher was shown saying a homosexual should be thrown off a mountain, another that women were born deficient.

Police also reported Channel 4 to television watchdog Ofcom for "heavily editing" the words of Islamic imams.

But in November, Ofcom rejected the police and CPS claims, and Channel 4 said it was going to sue the CPS and police for libel.

'Damage and distress'

The statement, released to the media after the High Court hearing by West Midlands Police, said they accepted there had been no evidence that Channel 4 or the documentary makers had "misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity".

It added that the Ofcom report showed the documentary had "accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context".

The police statement concluded: "We accept, without reservation, the conclusions of Ofcom and apologise to the programme makers for the damage and distress caused by our original press release."...