It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An Interview with Syed B. Soharwardy by Peter J. Sanford

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 10:56 PM
Great work Odium.

Thank you, and thanks to your guest as well. I have heard religious Muslims speak, and always thought that in some ways, they were more Christian than Christians. But there are good and wise people in every group - and also the other kind. Not to mention the in-betweens.

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:41 AM
zappafan1, just like the date the rest of your information is wrong.

You seem to lack the basic knowledge of what happened between, Mecca and Medina. It wasn't Muhammad who attacked first - in fact, you forget to point out the attempted assassination attempts against Muhammad in 622 which sparked the rest of the problems.

The "Jewel of the Middle East" and the "Golden Land" was actually a region which they have had control over since roughly the 700's. They didn't take it through conquest but through conversion. However, some lands they did invade and take - just like the Christian's and Jew's did. These were wars between two religious groups and none of us were alive in the C.700-1000 to tell who really was in the wrong.

The Muslim's had also been attacked in parts of Europe long before the Crusades, however you just refuse to accept this as does that 'book'.

Europe won't be "Islamic" by the End of the twenty-first century. However, if it was this would be no different to what Christian's have already done all over the World. :-)

And where in the Qu'Ran does it say that?

If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people - Quran 5:32

You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive. - Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. - Quran 2:190

Do not desire an encounter with the enemy; but when you encounter them, be firm. - Muslim Book 019, Number 4313

I can go on all day, where it clearly states in the Qu'Ran to not attack people but to defend. That is what the religion is based around and it is through the ignorance of people like yourself that we have such religious intolerance and we force muslims out of main-stream society. There is an old thing known as a 'self fulfilling prophecy' and that is what we are causing these days with such proliferation of ignorance which the books you read, spread.

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 04:25 AM
Excellent Work Odium!

Very Informational Interview and a Great reading!

You have voted Odium for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I see mister Syed uses the Same Comparison between "Freedom Fighters" and "Terrorists" as I do. Looks like Great Minds think Alike!

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:02 AM
Excellent work Odium

It was very fascinating reading the perspective of notable Islamic scholar. I especially enjoyed his answer to questions 3 and 8 and while the Professor cannot speak for every Muslim in the world, he does an excellent job of putting into perspective what the majority of average Muslims, especially those living in the west feel.

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 10:50 AM
I have to say...
I was following this and feeling good about my new understandings of islam...

when i heard a news report last night on NPR of all places , that talked about the main problem with islam being accepted in the world, is the issue of
honor killings
I had thought these incidents were rare and not supported by modern muslims. I was wrong.

Honor killings are reprehensible murders done by devout muslims against their wives or unmarried women, and almost all islamic countries (even turkey) still support the murders.

If a newly married or single woman is not a virgin, then murdering her is considered the punishment... even though some of the more progressive islamic countries have restricted this practice, if anyone is convicted, they rarely get a sentence. It is largely ignored as "harsh, but acceptable" treatment of these "vile impure" women...

If a husband thinks his future bride might be impure, he sends her to a council of 4 morticians to check the hymen... if found intact, they give a thumbs up, if found broken, a death sentence is issued... and the girl doesn't leave the morgue... (i know... if i wasn't hearing it on NPR, i wouldn't have beleived it either).

My muslim friends said that they had not personally seen it, but know it happened several times in the village they are from (they personally dont agree with it, but wouldn't stop one in progress)

talk about killing innocents... this goes true for raped females also...
apparently if a women is raped, she is expected to kill herself for her actions... if she doesn't, others will help her along... (GASP)

also... i guess they dont use tampons? and I am sure that a childhood accident never occurs that could damage the hymen... ahhhh sure...

In short: while I see Islam as a very good and devout faith... I think it still has some remnants of barbarism that would make the prophet role in his grave... (or weep from on high)

THIS isn't a PR problem... it is a very dispicable fact that is inhumane to the extreme.
I refuse to be "peaceful" with ANYONE who would kill a women for lack of virginity. If they want to excommunicate her, then fine and dandy... I am sure she would convert to a less murderous religion and be happy that she was still alive...
but how can you love a religion that openly supports murder of "innocent, but unvirginal" women?
I understand that they have their beleifs, and that we must respect them, but there is a limit... and that is murder...

BTW- in the same post... I also think fundamentalist Christians that prevent life saving medicine from being administered to sick children is murderous.
same thing...

also, Christians have many of the same admonisments against impure women... so why don't we kill nonvirgins also? because we saw that it was very inconsistant with the teachings of Jesus (eventually).
I hope Islam realizes this also (regarding the prophets teachings). I know in their hearts they have to see the problems this practice causes...

Religion should never be used as a reason to kill someone. as that defies the very nature of religion

[edit on 8-12-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Odium

Many of the Holy Lands don't belong to the Jewish people till the time their "Spiritual Leader" is sent back down to Earth.

That is wrong.

First, the land belongs to the Jews not only from religious view - there is even a Jewish State.

Secondly, Jews do not wait for someone to be send back down to Earth.

The Christians do so, but Jews do not believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Massiach.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Riwka]

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:39 AM

Most "honour" killings of women occur in Muslim countries, the focus of this case study; but it is worth noting that no sanction for such murders is granted in Islamic religion or law. And the phenomenon is in any case a global one. According to Stephanie Nebehay, such killings "have been reported in Bangladesh, Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey and Uganda." Afghanistan, where the practice is condoned under the rule of the fundamentalist Taliban movement, can be added to the list, along with Iraq and Iran. (Nebehay, "'Honor Killings' of Women Said on Rise Worldwide," Reuters dispatch, April 7, 2000.)

Actually, honour killings are not something that is allowed under Islamic law. It comes from Jewish and Christian tradition which never was removed from these areas - however, like over in Europe, it is being removed with time but it isn't easy. It is something which is seen as socially accepted through the norms of the society.

The problem is, that even Christian's are involved in Honour Killings in Africa, in India [non Islamic parts] it is also common place and it is something that needs to be removed from all of society but this can't happen over-night.

While Huda's story is only one example of the phenomenon, it has sparked a vocal campaign in Syria, aimed at abolishing honour killings and making perpetrators accountable.

So far, a number of local intellectuals, religious figures and activists have joined the cause, publicly condemning the custom.

[edit on 8/12/2005 by Odium]

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by Odium

Many of the Holy Lands don't belong to the Jewish people till the time their "Spiritual Leader" is sent back down to Earth.

That is wrong.

First, the land belongs to the Jews not only from religious view - there is even a Jewish State.

Secondly, Jews do not wait for someone to be send back down to Earth.

The Christians do so, but Jews do not believe Jesus from Nazareth is the Massiach.

Oh, my mistake then. I just guess the Mashiach doesn't exist anymore in Jewish Tradition.

Source: Maimonides
The Messianic age is when the Jews will regain their independence and all return to the land of Israel. The Messiah will be a very great king, he will achieve great fame, and his reputation among the gentile nations will be even greater than that of King Solomon. His great righteousness and the wonders that he will bring about will cause all peoples to make peace with him and all lands to serve him.... Nothing will change in the Messianic age, however, except that Jews will regain their independence. Rich and poor, strong and weak, will still exist. However it will be very easy for people to make a living, and with very little effort they will be able to accomplish very much.... it will be a time when the number of wise men will increase...war shall not exist, and nation shall no longer lift up sword against nation.... The Messianic age will be highlighted by a community of the righteous and dominated by goodness and wisdom. It will be ruled by the Messiah, a righteous and honest king, outstanding in wisdom, and close to God. Do not think that the ways of the world or the laws of nature will change, this is not true. The world will continue as it is. The prophet Isaiah predicted "The wolf shall live with the sheep, the leopard shall lie down with the kid." This, however, is merely allegory, meaning that the Jews will live safely, even with the formerly wicked nations. All nations will return to the true religion [monotheism, although not necessarily Judaism] and will no longer steal or oppress. Note that all prophecies regarding the Messiah are allegorical - Only in the Messianic age will we know the meaning of each allegory and what it comes to teach us. Our sages and prophets did not long for the Messianic age in order that they might rule the world and dominate the gentiles....the only thing they wanted was to be free for Jews to involve themselves with the Torah and its wisdom."

I am sure you know, that Orthodox Jews accepted that a messiah will one day come.

Source: Emet ve-Emunah
We do not know when the Messiah will come or whether he will be a charismatic human figure or is a symbol of the redemption of humankind from the evils of the world. Through the doctrine of a Messianic figure, Judaism teaches us that every individual human being must live as if he or she, individually, has the responsibility to bring about the messianic age. Beyond that, we echo the words of Maimonides based on the prophet Habakkuk (2:3) that though he may tarry, yet do we wait for him each day...

Sorry, my mistake they don't believe such things. [Sarcasm off.]

[edit on 8/12/2005 by Odium]

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by Odium

Many of the Holy Lands don't belong to the Jewish people till the time their "Spiritual Leader" is sent back down to Earth.

Sorry, my mistake they don't believe such things. [Sarcasm off.]

[edit on 8/12/2005 by Odium]

No need for sarcasm, Odium.

You simply could say: Oh Sorry, I did not know the Jews don't believe in their "Spiritual Leader" to be sent BACK to earth.

Jews are still waiting for the Massiach to come the first time.

Furthermore, according to Jewish sources, the Massiach will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. And the Massiach must be descended on his father's side from King David.
(see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Riwka]

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:04 PM
I use the term "Sent Back Down" because god will pick when and where. Even though he will come from human parents, it will still be picked when by God so in reality he isn't "human" and is sent down from "heaven".

It's personnal opinion and just a term.

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Odium

in reality he isn't "human" and is sent down from heaven.

If you give explanations who are nothing more than your personnal opinion as a Non-Jew, then you should say this very unequivocalclear and not say "The Jews are waiting for...."

What you said above is not what Jews are waiting for, but what Christians are waiting for.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Riwka]

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:04 PM

Presently the concept of separation of church and state is being abused and misused by the secular and atheist individuals, organizations and governments. They want to takeaway the religious freedom of an individual or community. Some of them are fundamentalist and extremist in their secular and atheistic beliefs. They are now doing the same thing that the Christian clergy did four centuries ago. They are imposing themselves and their atheistic / secular beliefs on everyone.

Absolutely false!! Secularists want religion out of government—period. They are not trying to take religious people’s rights away as they still have the right to celebrate their religion in their church, homes, mosques, temples, parochial schools etc. In fact, some could argue that having “In God we trust” as the national motto and “Under God” in the pledge shows that religious people are foisting their beliefs on others.

First he says:

Therefore, it was the right thing to separate the clergy from the affairs of the government.

Then he says:

A Muslim student in the USA must be allowed to pray the required five prayers in day. In addition, the government should also provide prayer facilities in public schools. Similarly, students of other faiths should be allowed to practice their daily religious rites and the government should provide facilities for them to do so.

In other words: MY TAX DOLLARS should pay for these facilities!! Tell me how this isn’t a violation of separation of church/state? Why should I, as an agnostic, pay for his religious facilities?? Where exactly is this clown coming from?

From the start, the unity of American society was established on xenophobia or an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers.. They had to have a fear of something in order to unite against that fear. If the fear is gone, the reason of unity would be gone too.

Wrong!! We are united by freedom and liberty—not fear. And we fight in the name of freedom and liberty; for ourselves, and others.

When these settlers found their identity as Americans they feared the British monarchy and fought against it.

We didn’t “FEAR” them; we fought them because we didn’t want to be oppressed by them. AND WE WON!!

They fought against France, Mexico and other nations on land claims.

The Franco-American war was based on trade issues—not land. As far as Mexico is concerned: REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!

They hated blacks and kept them in slavery for centuries.

And, of course, slavery never existed in Islam!!

The Americans feared from the increasing power of Germany and fought against it.

And if it weren’t for us, all of Europe today might be speaking German and wearing swastikas.

World War II added the Italians and Japanese to the ‘feared peoples' for the Americans.

The Japanese attacked US!! Just like Muslims did on 9/11 2001—in a cowardly murderous way.

As far as the Italians: What the hell is he talking about?? I wonder how Italians feel about the invading German army in WWII?

This was followed by the Red Scare and subsequent wars in Korea and Vietnam. In the coming years the Communists served as convenient targets through the end of the Cold War. The Gulf war provided the Middle Easterners, and so the legacy of American xenophobia continued.

Yep—we don’t like oppressive regimes; and we therefore don’t like Islamofascism. Maybe this guy ought to go to Saudi Arabia and preach his peaceful, loving, tolerant, and accepting of other reigions; form of Islam and see what happens.

As far as the Gulf war is concerned: We went to war initially to defend a middle east nation (Kuwait) from murdering rapists operating under the authority of a brutal dictator. The current war in Iraq is a legal continuation of that war.

Today, Jews and Muslims live side by side in Canada, USA, Europe, etc. Why can’t they live in peace in the holy land?

Qur’an asks Muslims to establish dialogue with Christians and Jews on common ground; the monotheistic belief in one common God (Allah).

Islam will never treat Jews and Christians as equals because of this and others like this (From the Quran): 5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

The proof? Israel returned the Gaza to the Palestinians as a measure of good faith. What did they get in return? More attacks!! The Palestinians don’t want any kind of Israeli state because Islam doesn’t recognize Jews as anything but filthy pigs. Islam is an intolerant ideology that can never resolve itself to co-exist with Christians and Jews in religious harmony.

The reason they live "side by side" in Canada and America is because our legal systems are based on Constitutional law--not Islamic law (Sharia). If Sharia was the law of the land, Christians and Jews would be forced to live in the happless existence of Dhimitude; just as they do in Islamic nations. Sharia law will never be recognised in the US.

You guys want to roll over and believe the “feel good” crap this guy is preaching—go ahead!! Instead of trying to convince me and others, what he should be doing is trying to convince those so called “extremists” in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, Iran (and other areas/groups) that THEIR practice/interpretation of Islam is wrong.

Odium; posting crap like this is a waste of time and only serves as subterfuge to the following fact: Most of the problems in the world today have one common thread: ISLAM!!

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:30 PM
Freedom_for_sum, until you can be bothered to read the article it would be wise not to post on it. If you did pay attention and checked the link I placed up there, with the background information you would have found he does preach in Saudi Arabia.

However, that doesn't seem to be your style - instead you throw around insults and swear to further your cause of spreading hate.

To be honest, don't bother posting until you bother to read the information provided because it is a waste of everyones time - mine, yours and those wanting to read it. If you think the interview is pointless, I would advise you unsubscribe from the thread - it'll save us both a lot of hassle.

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Odium
Freedom_for_sum, until you can be bothered to read the article it would be wise not to post on it. If you did pay attention and checked the link I placed up there, with the background information you would have found he does preach in Saudi Arabia.

Nope. It says he has lectured at a university in Saudi Arabi--not preached there. I would be interested to know the context and the content of his lecture in SA. I bet it wasn't critical of the "extremists" view of Islam.

Originally posted by Odium
However, that doesn't seem to be your style - instead you throw around insults and swear to further your cause of spreading hate.

I despise those who distort the truth or attempt to revise history--such as this man does in the Q&A article you posted. The fact that you present this article indicates your wish to do the same.

Originally posted by Odium
To be honest, don't bother posting until you bother to read the information provided because it is a waste of everyones time - mine, yours and those wanting to read it. If you think the interview is pointless, I would advise you unsubscribe from the thread - it'll save us both a lot of hassle.

There's no doubt in my mind that's exactly what you'd like me to do. I'm sure there's nothing you'd like more than to have free reign to post your inane lies and half-truths without the fear of being exposed.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you answer the issues I raise. Because you can't; can you?!? This man's opinions are skewed and false!! He is clearly ignorant on American history which makes me question his ignorance of other issues as well.

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 03:40 PM
Odium and Freedom for sum:

you both present good points.
Odium: as much as i would like to believe the side that your source has presented, he does make some incorrect comments... all of which Freedom for sum has pointed out. (rather harshly, but correctly)

To truly educate, your source will have to be able to answer for these incorrect statements, or else he will be seen as a brainwashed stooge, that is merely reciting the "treaty with the west" requirements. Some of his comments were harmless, but freedom for sum does point out some elements that exhibit signs of lipservice.

I wont repeat the statements again, but suffice it to say, I think he was asking for clarification on what many of us wondered, but weren't ballsy enough to ask.

Freedom for sum: realize that islam is a BIG religion... and there are good and bad. Most of islams problem is separating the political from the religious...
(sound familiar) and is why IMO that any country that does not keep a distinction between the two, will have problems.

I think you both can debate this fairly and honestly, as long as you dont get personal... we all want to be educated here, and open and honest questions regarding assumptions is the logical first step...

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 04:40 PM
Regarding Syed Soharwardy, I thought it appropriate here to post his response to Christian aid for child victims of the tsunami last year:

From The American Muslim Association of North America he is quoted as saying:

This is a time of test and if Muslim governments do not take care of these orphans, Allah will punish them in this world and the Hereafter, the release said, attributing the comments to the group's president Syed Soharwardy. "It is the responsibility of Muslims to take care of Muslims and it is un-Islamic to receive aid from non-Muslim sources." Syed said. "It is well known that these Christians aren't there to help; but rather, they want to convert these children to an un-Islamic and vile way of life. Islamic law compells us to do everything we can to stop this from happening."

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:12 PM
this is sounding more and more like an isolation cult...
which means they dont want to mix and mingle, and enjoy the diversity that is the world... but rather homogenize it into a islamic empire...

there is nothing more scary than a religion that wants to make everyone beleive the same thing...

I am starting to see that this another of the major issues.

What would have happened if Martin luther had never posted a list on the churches door, questioning the churches practices? Would the catholic inquisition be the mainstay of the world?
That era is what modern Islam seems to be going thru...

Maybe we really are very close in beliefs, but since they started about 600 yrs after, they still have 600 years of evolution until they come into there own...

it would make sense... because the formation of religions does follow the same basic format... and these are basically the same origins, and would have the same challenges of faith vs reality eventually...

just 600 years later, the Christians have shrugged off things such as witch burnings, and honour killings (mostly)... while the muslims are just now dealing with these challenges to belief and respect.

I will keep saying the mantra "there is hope, there is hope" and i will pray to my kind peace loving Jesus that they open their hearts to understanding and compassion.

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:29 PM
First, thanks to Odium for providing us with this interview for our discussing pleasure.

Question 2
Mr. Soharwardy, what is your take on the separation of church and state in the US?

I really wish this question had used Canada instead of the US as an example. Syed B. Soharwardy was one of the founders of the Judicial Tribunal for Muslims in Canada, the group who tried to institute sharia law in Canada. I noticed that organization was not on the bio page that the interview was linked to.

edited because I had forgotten how to spell and use proper grammer. I hate having messy posts. :shk:

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Duzey]

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:44 PM
I have a great idea for a compromise: (using the Canada point earlier)

if all countries agree to allow independant sharia law courts and police forces for muslims only, will they be happy?

ohh yeah... of course, due to most countries laws, they would have to allow muslims to convert to other religions without punishment if they wanted to
(rule of the land)

so whenever someone wanted, they could stop being muslim without threat to life.
we would see the end to islam within a century... how can you breed without women? how can you fight without young people? how can you survive without compromise?

it would already have ended if they had womens lib...
maybe if the women understood that there are other ways to heaven... (ones where there husbands weren't with 72 virgins) they would have pulled a "closed leg" rebellion long ago...
oh yeah... rape isn't punished over there, so that wouldn't work... maybe it would cause all the wifes to kill husbands/rapists in there sleep...

I apologize for the harshness... but violence to females is vile to me... and i can't beleive that a whole population of women have been so beat down, that they can't stand up and say "no more pu***"

Odium: please help me here... why oh why would a woman want to be muslim? I know there has got to be a reason, but in my anger... i ain't seeing it...

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Thanks for getting this together, Odium.

Informative, enlightening, and educational.

Please relay my thanks to Mr. Syed Soharwardy for his time and in answering the questions put forth. He missed some interesting ones, but certainly understandable.

Again, thank you both for the time investment made.


I'm perplexed at the level of appreciation your delivering to Odium for this Q&A session. Unless Odium is Peter J. Sanford, the only "credit" he deserves is the cutting and pasting of this article.

I am also astounded by the number of ATS members in this thread who haven't questioned the obvious lies and anti-American hate-speak spewed forth by Syed Soharwardy. I thought this site's purpose was to deny ignorance? This individual has 0 credibility

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in