I haven't been on ATS in a few months, and frankly I'm surprised that this thread is still rolling along [struggling along?] from last November.
My perspective, from many years as a student of comparative religions, is that it is much easier to distort [both mistakenly, and when you choose to]
when looking from the outside than it is to really put some time and effort into learning first
and judging afterwards.
agree with "Ibn Iblis's" hatred of Islaam or not should depend on the real content of the religion as it is understood and practised by most of
its adherents, not errors or half-truths about it.
For example, "Ibn Iblis" is mostly accurate when he says:
[posted on 14-11-2004 at 04:20 AM Post Number: 953241]
OK, first of all you are utterly clueless if you think there is one correct, conclusive translation of Qur'anic verses. My Qur'an is translated by
Muslims, and it is not watered down for Western eyes. I provided the links to the Qur'an along with info on who the translators are. They are
authoratative and the translations are authentic. Just because the wording you found differs from mine does not mean I'm rewording the
However, where he errs [both logically and factually]is that there can be NO translation that is "authoratative" [sic]. All Muslim scholars, from
all legal schools of interpretation, agree that only the Arabic Qur'an
that has been handed down both in written and in oral transmission is
actually "Qur'an." Any attempts at translation, whether made by a Muslim or not, are at best partial commentaries on one layer of meaning of the
'Ayat [the verse] being translated.
The AlHilali-Khan translation that "Ibn Iblis" uses is exactly as he represents it, written by and for Muslims. But again, there is a bit more to
the story he left out. It is primarily an English version written by, and for the purposes of, the Wahhabi cult. It is put out by "Darussalam
Publishers and Distributors" in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Wahabis are an extremist minority sect that was nearly extinct until the British supported them in the intrigues leading up to, during, and following
the destruction of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. The current "Royal Family" in Saudi Arabia was basically a street gang in Riyadh that
caused so much trouble to legitimate Muslim authorities during the Ottoman years that they became prime flunkies for the Brits to use as a wedge into
the Middle East.
Wahhabis have persecuted and killed tens of thousands of Muslims, perhaps more, belonging to the traditional schools of interpretation, especially
since they seized the Holy Cities and proclaimed "Saudi Arabia" in the years following WW I.
Ther are many Muslims who still refuse to refer to the region as "Saudi Arabia" unless they are referring to the regime, as opposed to the land
which is "Arabistan." It is similar in some ways to what we might see if Al Capone was a rabid Fundamentalist and conquered the USA with the backing
of Stalin, and then set up the Kingdom of "Capone's America." That is what "Saudi" means: "belonging to the Saud family."
To conclude this point, the US government has followed in the footsteps of the British Empire in this respect, too. Hence the bizarre alliance you see
between the USA & Saudi Arabia on the one hand, while there is an ever tighter arrangement between the US and Israel, Saudi Arabia's enemy!
Anyway, the geostrategic point is "divide & conquer." The theological point is that Wahhabism, and it's export version "Salafism," is not
endorsed by anthing resembling a significant percentage of today's 1.2 billion Muslims, and has no generally recognized place in Islamic tradition
either. Books and websites that represent otherwise are almost always subsidised by the Saudis, or else covertly by the British or American