Why Muslims should be treated with more respect

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by Ersatz

 

1. i am a Male, so stop freaking calling me sister (Bloody pain on ATS when people cant tell genders apart)

so i request that you edit your posts and take sister out

2. i am not a missionairy

3. defending ones faith isnt converting others despite how you like to paint it.

lastly phoenix/babloyi have explained things pretty well.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by bodrul]

Asala the moderator will edit soon.

When you first began posting here your avatar was a that of a girl.

What happened?

reply to post by Ersatz


i change my avatars alot

Politics,Films and so forth
never keep the same avatars

also i see your bringing in sharia law with babloyi , read my signiture for that
about the hadith

anyhow have fun

reply to posts by babloyi and _Phoenix_



Hi. Thanks for bringing your perspectives to this discussion. I've read through what you said but don't have time at present to mull over all the detail. I hope to do that a little later. I prefer to base my views on first-hand information and serious reflection.

Would either of you be prepared to address directly the following thorny issues that have been raised? It seems to me important as unless they are addressed all that is being achieved is that differences of opinion are being expressed with little possibility of anyone reconsidering their positions: -

Would you be prepared to address Ersatz' point about radicals increasingly gaining the upper hand, while moderates are sometimes seen as not prepared to speak out against violence? Is it perhaps, as some allege, the result of intimidation and threats from within the community?..

...Are the moderate voices speaking out in the UK [or the US, for that matter]? Do you have specific evidence of this?

I ask because I have been taken aback by how many UK-based ATS-ers believe what Ersatz has said: that the radicals have taken over to such an extent that the indigenous population is losing respect for the entire Muslim community.

(taken from my comments on the previous page)


reply to post by drevill

the muslim popluation in general have, in my opinion, an almighty arrogance.

That really sounds like tarring a lot of people with the same brush. Don't you think Muslim communities could say the same about the West with respect to its actions in the middle East? - Whereas in reality it is the actions of certain people in power and some people who support them, rather than all of us 'westerners'. Surely we need to get beyond stereotypes?

they know they are untouchable and can shout abuse whenever someone disagrees

Same answer as above.

It doesn't help when you see money being spent on muslim suburbs by the council and not elsewhere also.

Ouch! To my ears that sounds like a somewhat oversimplified analysis. At a guess I'd say that there could be several other interpretations, such as that the areas you have in mind were in greater need of regeneration. If that was the case I'd be quite happy to see tax-payers money spent on those areas, whatever creed the inhabitants hold to.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Ersatz I gave you the link explaining that verse. Let me show you the MANY verses in the quran that goes against what you believe, PLEASE DO READ, because this took quite some time. Thank you

Dear Phoenix,

I am not going to read all that, it suffices me to see that Muslims are unwilling or unable to integrate in western society.
They do not take westerners for friends and neighbours.

I am sorry you spent time copy/pasting.

Some of the verses are addressed to Muslim only, some just apologetics and some others are abrogated by other verses.

How many thousand of Hadiths and Fatwas are there...do you know?

I thought the Quran was supposed to be "mubeen" (clear).

What kind of God gives a message to mankind which is so ambiguous.

Many Muslims have different interpretation from yours.

Salaams

Originally posted by pause4thought

Would you be prepared to address Ersatz' point about radicals increasingly gaining the upper hand, while moderates are sometimes seen as not prepared to speak out against violence? Is it perhaps, as some allege, the result of intimidation and threats from within the community?..

...Are the moderate voices speaking out in the UK [or the US, for that matter]? Do you have specific evidence of this?

I ask because I have been taken aback by how many UK-based ATS-ers believe what Ersatz has said: that the radicals have taken over to such an extent that the indigenous population is losing respect for the entire Muslim community.

The radicals are successful at doing what they do best, create confusion, hatred and violence. If people hate muslims because of the few radicals, then these radicals have won, because they WANT people to hate muslims. They DON'T CARE about other muslims, I mean muslims are mostly the ones getting KILLED by them! They only care about their political agendas and gains.

Moderates SEEM to not speak against terrorists, because the media doesn't care about the average muslim, they only show the world a 1 sided view, that is usually always the bad side. Ask most average family muslims and they will condem the terrorists, ask the families of all those muslims killed in terrorists attacks, and I'm pretty sure you will get the same reply.

Of course some views do get through media, here's some for you. Enjoy

Muslims and non muslims must work together against these terrorists etc. In my opinion proper education and healthy relationships with one another is a start.

More videos like this should be made. Most famous pakistani singers come together to sing to the world, that they are not like terrorists they are not them, extremists and terroists are bad.
Watch it if you want. It's a great idea, we just need more like this.
This is not us.



THIS IS PROOF. Please read these.


THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.
We need groups like this in the UK, and more around the world.
The Movement Against Terrorism, in India Imans educate people in mosques that terrorism is wrong. I think that is great.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
muslimmedianetwork.com...

www.freemuslims.org...
This is a website for muslims against terrorism, there's a part where it asks:
"Tell us about individuals, organizations, student associations, religious leaders, mosques or any other group or individual of influence that advocates Muslim extremist ideology, engage in apologetic support for terrorist organizations or advocates "Jihad."
You can report this anonymously.
Great website. Please check it out, it's great.


A report on how western media is unfair towards muslims.
www.islamicsupremecouncil.com...

This is a website that has a list of all leaders etc that condem terrorism. GREAT
www.muhajabah.com...


More websites.
www.islamfortoday.com...
www.islamagainstterrorism.com...
I really think we need more of those. That is the answer.

Peace.



[edit on 17-8-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by Ersatz

Dear Phoenix,

I am not going to read all that,

Then goodbye.

Salam

By the way pause4thought check out that video on the freemuslims.org website, pretty good video

I think that muslims need to start acting like ATS, and start saying, "deny ignorance" to each other all the time haha, because the main problem with muslims, is the amount of ignorance spreading around.



[edit on 17-8-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by Ersatz
If you live in this world you must know that Kafir is insulting and that Allah has told you to hate the Kafirs.

In cultural terms, Kafir is seen as a derogatory term used to describe an unbeliever.

The islamic law (sharia) distinguishes three types of kafirs:

1. kafir dhimmi, a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia law
2. kafir harbi, a non-Muslim living in a non-Muslim country, and
3. kafir musta'min, a harbi visiting a Muslim country for less than a year.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sure you know how awesomely reliable wikipedia is . The section you quoted gives no references to the 'sharia' that is talked about, so I don't know what to say. Dhimmi, harbi and musta'min are terms in their own right... Using them with 'kafir' in front silly, and I can't find any backing for their use.

Originally posted by Ersatz
What follows comes from a well known Muslim forum, unlike you they do not seem confused about the word Kafir.

The forum has: Threads: 170,881, Posts: 2,651,565, Members: 37,063.

Section: > Learning Area > Learn about Islam > Disbelievers-Their Characteristics & Status In The Hereafter.

.....

There is more but that should be enough.

It is disappointing that you do not provide WHICH oh-so-famous forum you got this from. I could not find an exact match in ANY forum at all (except perhaps faithfreedom.org, but I wouldn't call that a muslim forum ). I did find it in an article, though, from a Saudi (wahabi) website, authored by a guy who was found to be linked to Al-Qaeda. Not sure I'd trust that too much. But still, seeing the part you quoted, the guy doesn't show any verses explaining WHAT a 'kafir' is, only some things that they do. Anyhow...once again, the guy is picking and choosing his verses, not showing the complete verse, and in some cases quoting a verse that doesn't mention kafir's at all (but lets us assume that 'they' and 'their' is referring to kafirs).


To pause4thought: It's been a long time since I've been to the UK, so I really wouldn't know. You could check out what Phoenix offered if you like. Bodrul here also has an entire list (perhaps even posted on the forum) that he can provide you.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi

I'm sure you know how awesomely reliable wikipedia is

. The section you quoted gives no references to the 'sharia' that is talked about, so I don't know what to say. Dhimmi, harbi and musta'min are terms in their own right... Using them with 'kafir' in front silly, and I can't find any backing for their use.

It is funny how wikipedia is is reliable when Muslims quote from it but not when others do.

Originally posted by babloyi

It is disappointing that you do not provide WHICH oh-so-famous forum you got this from. I could not find an exact match in ANY forum at all (except perhaps faithfreedom.org, but I wouldn't call that a muslim forum

).

Here is the page in question in the archive of the website Ummah.com

www.ummah.com...

Sorry you were disappointed, you still have not addressed the issue, you are just digressing.

reply to post by pause4thought


pause

you asked a question and gave an answer, i also said IMHO and i also said
muslims in general.

secondly you are not here in the UK so you do not have first hand experiences, you do not have first hand experiences of muslim areas getting new walls pathways etc only to stop at the next street along that is not muslim.

I can give you a quote of the mentality of a muslim area

i was on a bus going to work a muslim youth was creating trouble and squaring up to the bus driver, the bus driver asked him to leave and the youth got off and verbally abused the driver. within seconds many muslim men had come out of their houses and threatened the drivers life and that he had better watch himself in that area.

now i know this is one incident but its just an example.

secondly, back in early 2000 my wifes uncle let it be known that even back then some mosques had firearms in the UK. This was let slip by a Muslim friend of his. Heathers uncle is a Christian preacher so i trust his word. i remember the way he spoke of this so i believe it happened.

whilst i have nothing against any individuals and i agree ALL people should be treated with respect, courtesy and in the manner Jesus told us to, I think, with respect, that you are being a little naive as to the mentality of how muslims can be.

we have muslims in the uk openly declaring their aim is to make England a muslim country

That said i am not talking about Islam as i really know little about it

David

Originally posted by _Phoenix_


Moderates SEEM to not speak against terrorists, because the media doesn't care about the average muslim, they only show the world a 1 sided view, that is usually always the bad side. Ask most average family muslims and they will condem the terrorists, ask the families of all those muslims killed in terrorists attacks, and I'm pretty sure you will get the same reply.

It is indeed meritorious that there should be Muslims who complain and are embarrassed about terrorism, Islam is the cause of it after all.

But there is still no high level indignation and repulsion, the presence of Islamic terrorism is much louder than the protest against it.

Jihad Watch reports and documents 11671 deadly terror attacks since 9/11.

jihadwatch.org...

This is because Islam is the origin of hate towards the unbelievers.

The Quran is full of violent verses like :

"Quran 9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

The Quran is the ultimate guidance of mankind hence all of its components are relevant.

The Quran states clearly that Islam is a "reform movement for the world." This means that they must convert everyone.

A person who claims to be a muslim and does not believe in the concept offensive jihad is not a muslim.

reply to post by Ersatz

Anytime I want to provides some information from wikipedia, I usually check the REFERENCES, and give it from there, because the wiki itself can (and has, on occasion), be too easily changed in favour of the person arguing. I search for kafir harbi or kafir musta'min in google, I either get the wiki article, or an something that is quoting the wiki article.

About the qutba, I believe I DID address it, even despite the suspicious nature of the author. You want me to go into even further detail? Sure, but I get the feeling you'll just ignore it. Anyhow, here:

The guy quoted part of Surah Al-Mulk verse 20, showing only "disbelievers (al-kafiroon) are in nothing but delusion". To get the meaning in the full context, I'd suggest you started reading from verse 14. It explains how God made the earth manageable for humans, providing it with sustinance, and even gives examples of beauty from nature such as birds flying. Then in verse 20 it says "what force could help you except God. Those who reject the truth are in illusion".

The other verse quoted (Al-Baqarah 105) actually proves my point that Jews and Christians are not necessarily 'rejectors', because it speaks of them as 2 seperate groups. And the verse from Al-Imran does not even mention the word kafir.

Also, your use of 'offensive jihad' also shows misunderstanding of the word. There is no such thing as 'defensive jihad' and 'offensive jihad'. Jihad means 'struggle'. In Islamic terms, it means struggling in the path of God. To say that the mission of Islam is to spread over the entire world is not really correct, considering that the Quran itself says that God Himself made us all of different tribes and religions, and we are meant to preach with words and discussion, and forced conversion is not accepted.

Fighting for conversion is definitely NOT allowed. The conditions for fighting are outlined in the Quran- if one is aggressed against, or one is driven away from one's home, etc. The conditions to stop fighting are also clear: if they offer peace, if they make a treaty with you, if they join a group that has a treaty with you, etc.

If you desire to hate muslims for the sake of it, nothing can stop you, but I think this is what the OP was trying to bridge in his discussion. Also, drevil, there are lots of irritating and nasty youths everywhere.... I wouldn't blame designers of checkered pattern clothes for the trouble chavs cause.

Babloyi,

Please stop pretending to be naive, if I know these things you know them as well. Half truths and Taqyyia all the time.

In juristic language, kufr signifies the rejection and denial of Allah and His messages, according to the following Qur'anic verse: “Anyone who denies Allah, His angels, His books, His Apostles, and the Day of judgment has gone far, far astray.” (An-Nisaa’: 136)

Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Shinqiti, director of the Islamic Center of South Plains, Lubbock, Texas, recently explained the matter this way at an Islamic website where learned sheikhs answer questions. To the inquiry, "Are we allowed to call a Christian person kafir?" he replied:

Kafir in Arabic has two meanings: 1) a non-Muslim, a person who denies Allah or Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him); 2) ungrateful, a person who is not thankful to the favors of Allah.
Kafir in this meaning is the opposite of "shakir" (thankful). Christians and Jews are kuffar because they rejected the Prophethood of Muhammad....

However, kafir is now a derogatory term, and that is why I would encourage Muslims to use the term "non-Muslims" when referring to people of different faiths.

www.islamonline.net...

What Al-Shinqiti writes is correct: Christians are technically speaking kafirs and it is, to put it mildly, an impolite term.

Originally posted by babloyi

Fighting for conversion is definitely NOT allowed. The conditions for fighting are outlined in the Quran- if one is aggressed against, or one is driven away from one's home, etc. The conditions to stop fighting are also clear: if they offer peace, if they make a treaty with you, if they join a group that has a treaty with you, etc.

Here is a Muslim site that says offensive Jihad is a duty for every Muslim and that it is the sixth pillar of Islam.

" 1 – Taking the initiative in fighting.

This means pursuing the kaafirs in their lands and calling them to Islam and fighting them if they do not agree to submit to the rule of Islam.

This kind of jihad is fard kifaayah (a communal obligation) upon the Muslims. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they do”
[al-Anfaal 8:39]

www.islam-qa.com...

Originally posted by babloyi
If you desire to hate Muslims for the sake of it, nothing can stop you, but I think this is what the OP was trying to bridge in his discussion.

You are displaying a twisted logic, I do not desire to hate Muslims for the sake of it, I am nevertheless surprised that you have a God that tells you to hate me.

I do not have a derogatory name for Muslims but I find that Muslims have a derogatory name for me.

A little look under the Islamic carpet and you discover a religion of hate.

This is the saddest part of Islam. Islam rejects the bond of love between humans and substitutes submission, retaliation and other forms of dominance by the "best of people".
The Quran, Sira and Hadith say that Muslims are better than Kafirs in every way, and that they are an enemy of all Muslims. It also says that Islam must submit other cultures over time.

reply to post by Ersatz

Hey Ersatz!
Sorry, I don't use any Taqyyia, but I'm known to wear a trilby once in a while.

Or perhaps you meant taqiya, the practice of lying about ones faith when one's life is in danger? I'm sorry, I can't use taqiya right now, because you don't have a gun to my head.

Originally posted by Ersatz
Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Shinqiti, director of the Islamic Center of South Plains, Lubbock, Texas, recently explained the matter this way at an Islamic website where learned sheikhs answer questions. To the inquiry, "Are we allowed to call a Christian person kafir?" he replied:
....

I don't know anyone called Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Shinqiti, and neither do you. If we were playing the game of my link-your link, I could quote the reference just under this reference in the wikipedia article you got it from, (by a certain Moiz Amjad, who's name is unfortunately not as fancy as the one you provided) which says the exact opposite. However, I'm somewhat surprised that you'd bring this point up, considering that it was you yourself who posted the verse clarifying this issue. I even mentioned this in my previous post, but you chose to ignore that, perhaps. Here, I shall go into even more detail:

Those who reject [the truth] (kafaroo) from among the followers of the Book do not like, nor do the polytheists, that the good should be sent down to you from your Lord, and Allah chooses especially whom He pleases for His mercy, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.
I'm sure even you can see the distinction- just because a person is a Christian or a Jew, does not necessarily make them a kafir.

Originally posted by Ersatz
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they do”
[al-Anfaal 8:39]

It is interesting that whenever someone wants to warp the meaning of a word in the quran, they leave it as it is (like you did with your ominous taqyyia), or perhaps add a translation of it in brackets. I'm sorry, fitnah does not in the slightest way, in any sense mean 'disbelief and polytheism". One can insert any number of meanings and interpretations by stuffing things into brackets. Lets see what it sounds like if you remove all that stuff:

And fight them until there is no more persecution, and religion is all for God. But if they cease, then lo! God is Seer of what they do.

Originally posted by Ersatz
This is the saddest part of Islam. Islam rejects the bond of love between humans and substitutes submission, retaliation and other forms of dominance by the "best of people".

Not sure what you are talking about. The Quran says us that as long as anyone is not practising (preventing them from worshipping God, or driving them from their homes, or fighting with them), it is better to be just and kind with them. Retaliation yes, I suppose so: the Quran allows one to be recompensed if a wrong is committed against them, but it also mentions that it is better if they forgive.

PS: I'm sorry if this seems to be going in a direction contrary to the intent of the original poster. I'd like to clarify that I mean absolutely no disrespect, and am only attempting to clarify some issues that I see as having been misunderstood.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi

Hey Ersatz!
Sorry, I don't use any Taqyyia, but I'm known to wear a trilby once in a while.

You have found a spelling mistake! And you decided it would be a good idea to ridicule the event.
I am glad these things make you feel bigger, English is not my first language, so be warned I will make more spelling mistakes.

I meant Taqiyya and kitman or 'holy hypocrisy' a practice that has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years.

Taqiyya:
the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, of deliberate dissimulation and deception about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers.
Or
Concealing, disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.

Taqiyya is with the tongue only, NOT the heart.
Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue, while the heart is comfortable with faith. (Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same people)."

Kitman:
Being modest with the truth, avoiding a damaging argument. A related term of "taqiyya" with broader application, which is defined as "mental reservation."

Exactly what you are doing at the moment.

According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.

Quoting from Muslim sources (Your brothers spelling and words in parenthesis) I have given you clear and reasonable evidence that:
A) Muslims call Christians and Unbelievers Kafir scum.

B) Muslims believe in offensive physical Jihad until "all" are submitted to the will of Allah.

C) "Casting terror" is very much part of the Quranic philosophy.

You do not address these issues or the fact that other Muslims have these contradictory beliefs.

Instead you are interested in pointing out spelling mistakes; you choose to analyse and dissect endlessly the significance of the word Kafir; you query the translation of the word Fitnah.

You accuse me of warping the meaning of the Quran even though the source is a Muslim one. I cannot help it if your religion is chaotic.

You tell me that Wikipedia is unreliable and later you yourself use Wikipedia,
You declare yourself disappointed that I have not included a link and when I do you are not keen to play "the game my link - your link".

Anything, it seems, to steer the discussion away from important issues.

It appears to me that you are a very capricious and studiedly superficial debater, if you were a Christian or Unbeliever I would say that you lack intellectual honesty but since you are a Muslim I don't know how far your integrity stretches.

So, my reply to the original poster is that whilst individual Muslims may be pleasant and decent people, Islam certainly does not deserve more respect.

reply to post by drevill



Sorry if my replies sounded harsh. I really want to try and get beyond stereotypes, as that is what I see governments using to devastate Muslim countries with less of a humanitarian backlash of than would otherwise be the case.

I think you were a little more measured in your last replies, but do you really believe that the type of instances you use as illustrations mean that Muslims all around the world are generally like that?

you are not here in the UK so you do not have first hand experiences

Not only do I live in the UK, but when I was at University I lived for a couple of years in houses where I and my fellow lodgers were the only indigenous people in the whole street; in fact in the entire neighborhood. Some were Muslim, some were Sikh.

I would say that there are problems in Muslim areas just as there are in other areas. Vandalism, violent crime, drugs, prostitution, gangs. It's all there - in every community.

As for unjust council decisions, that's what they are: unjust council decisions. Surely they occur in other contexts.

But none of the above facts lead me to believe that 'Muslim people' as a whole should be disparaged. I have seen first-hand the excellent work done by doctors and consultants from a Muslim background, for example.

A friend of mine is a hospital consultant. He worked alongside a Muslim trainee consultant for an extended period, and was quite satisfied with his contributions. Some time later the man was arrested on terrorist offences. However this does not lead me to look at other medical staff from the same background with suspicion. This is not naivety, it is a refusal to allow myself to become prejudiced on the basis of particular examples.

I had a history teacher who used to drum this maxim into our minds ad nauseum: 'beware of generalizing the particular, and of particularizing the general'.

I believe masses of Muslim people are as disgusted by terrorist acts as I am, whether performed in the name of their religion or not.

Having said that I do have concerns that their are indications that a significant percentage of the younger generation of Muslims in the UK go along with radical statements. I would therefore argue that it behoves those who are respected and influential within that community to reason persuasively and speak out in favour of peaceful coexistence. This is probably happening already, but if it were done more loudly on public platforms and in the media it might go some way towards relieving some of the concerns that many indigenous British people have.

The video put forward above shows some input in that direction originating in Pakistan, for example, and other evidence was also offered in the same post. Those of us who live in the UK need to recognise that there is a battle going on within the Muslim community itself.

In any case, at the end of the day those who seek to spread the Islamic way of life deserve respect as people. They have the same Maker as the rest of us, and I for one will not look down on them for having different beliefs, appearance, language or culture.

reply to post by Ersatz

Taqiyya is not an english word, I don't see what having english as a first language has to do with it. When you first talked of it, I had no idea what you meant, so I searched it. Realising that you couldn't possibly be talking about a hat, I looked around for anything 'bad' about islam that you could be talking about, and realised you were speaking of taqiyya. Are you admonishing me for using wikipedia about an article about a hat?


Thank you, I know what taqiyya means, I explained it to you, even, although it seems you ignored it. I explained the cases (I can provided Quranic and Hadith backing if you so wish) where it is applicable. In the sense of the word that you mean, it is only allowed when one is in mortal danger if they speak the truth- for example if a person was going around asking people their religion, and then shooting muslims. In this case, a muslim would be permitted to say they are non-muslim.
Yes, perhaps this is not allowed by Christianity ethics, but I'd consider it pretty unfair to assume that every person in the world has the strength to stand up in the face of death if they speak the truth. If they do, and they are killed, I'm sure it's a very noble thing, but the Quran makes allowances for those who are not so strong.


You seem to be mixing up terms again. Taqiyya literally means to fear, or guard against. I explained it's use in Islam when in mortal danger. Kitman comes from the verb katama, which means to hide or conceal. In the sense you are speaking of, it is what one would do for taqiyya- when one is in danger because of their faith. I am going into detailed analysis of these words because you seem to have the incorrect understanding of them. When I point this out, if I didn't provide the analysis, you would just say "You are wrong". As it is, you seem to be ignoring them.

I have no need to protect myself because of my faith at the moment, and have nothing to hide. I'm sorry, I'm talking in plain and simple EXACT words. No deception here.

PS: When you quote from an external source, according to the T&C of this site, you have to give credit- or at least show that it is from somewhere else, and not your own word (as some people may think from reading the post you just made).


Now, about the issues that you claim I am not addressing. First off, just because a person is by birth muslim, or has a muslim name, does not make them an authority on Islam. You'll notice, I use the Quran and authentic Hadith, not any so-called 'muslim sources'. According to the sources I use (the ONLY authoritative sources on islam):
* Christians and non-muslims are not necessarily 'kafir'
* There is no such thing as 'offensive physical jihad' (at least not in the way I perceive you to mean it), and the criteria for fighting is definitely not 'until "all" are submitted to the will of Allah'.
* 'Casting terror' is what God does to who God does it to... nothing to do with people doing it.


Also, I didn't accuse you of warping the Quran...I was talking about the verse you quoted. It seems to be from the Hilali-Khan translation, which has been universally reviled (by muslim and non-muslim scholars) and is considered to be the worst available one, because of such problems as the additions (in brackets) that have been made by the translator. However, since it puts muslims in a bad light, I'm sure you'd want to use it....

The reason I am going on and on with this is because you seem to be under the impression, and are promoting the idea (which is probably worse) that Islam by definition is evil, immoral, abhorred, etc, and thus, by extension, muslims should not be trusted, and the rest of the world should be 'against' them- something which is completely wrong, as well as not being conducive to the betterment of humanity, and seems to be what the OP is talking about.

Originally posted by babloyi


Thank you, I know what taqiyya means, I explained it to you, even, although it seems you ignored it. I explained the cases (I can provided Quranic and Hadith backing if you so wish) where it is applicable. In the sense of the word that you mean, it is only allowed when one is in mortal danger if they speak the truth- for example if a person was going around asking people their religion, and then shooting muslims. In this case, a muslim would be permitted to say they are non-muslim.

According to your logic all those Muslims who are intent on killing innocents and spend years plotting, lying and deceiving do so under duress because someone is pointing a gun at their heads.

www.geocities.com...

Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries

According to Al-Taqiyah, Muslims were granted the Shar'iyee right (legitimacy) to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy's cities and forums and plant the seeds of discord and sedition. These agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at war, and therefore were not considered as lying against or denouncing the tenants of Islam.

They were "legitimate" mujahedeen, whose mission was to undermine the enemy's resistance and level of mobilization. One of their major objectives was to cause a split among the enemy's camp while downplaying the issues related to Islam ("Oh, I am not religious." "Oh, that is not Islam, you are mistaken, there is so much misinformation." "Oh, it is in the interpretation." "Brother, Islam is all about peace and love and music just like in the 60s.") In many instances, they convinced their targeted audiences that Jihad is not aimed at them, that indigenous people are not targeted. Meanwhile the (allegedly) "un Islamic" Muslims continued their attacks on the target's property and life (e.g. Lashkar-e Toyiba, Mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden's
declaration of war against innocent American civilians).


www.studytoanswer.net...-7

These are examples of a practice known as taqiyya, which essentially means to lie for the sake of Islam. The intention is to deceive unbelievers about Islam, for the explicit purpose of assuaging doubts and concerns about Islam, and encouraging conversion. Taqiyya underlies the whole gamut of Muslim propaganda which is disseminated in the West, from the claim that Islam promotes equal rights for women, to the attempts at inflating the perceived number of Muslims. All are designed to draw people to Islam, by hook or by crook. The example given before of the Durham imam who went so far as to claim that he would be compelled by his religion to prevent a vandal from destroying the property of a church or synagogue is a typical example of taqiyya. It was said in a public forum for the express purpose of giving an appearance to the Islamic religion which does not reflect reality. Certainly, as has been seen, the historical attitudes of Muslims toward churches and synagogues has NOT been to protect them from vandalism, just the opposite is in fact the case. But, the lie must be told in the public forum so as to present Islam in a positive and tolerant light which will appeal to Westerners, which will cause them to believe that the image of Islam as an intolerant and violent religion are just myths created by Islam's enemies to defame the True Faith.

This sort of sanctified dishonesty is also justified in the minds of many Muslims on the basis that everyone else who opposes Islam is lying. For many Muslims, it is absolutely inconceivable that anyone could ever reject Islam on logical or rational grounds, therefore to claim to do so indicates a failing in intelligence or morality on the part of the infidel. Schuon quite insightfully illuminates us to the attitude of the Muslim mind,


"The intellectual - and thereby the rational - foundation of Islam results in the average Muslim having a curious tendency to believe that non-Muslims either know that Islam is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a good conscience quite exceeds the Muslim's imagination, precisely because Islam coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things."27
This insight elucidates many things which those who deal with Muslims on a regular basis can readily observe. It explains why Muslim apologetic defense of Islam is so often very elementary, even childish, in its presentation, and often quickly breaks down into name-calling against the infidel who has refuted Islamic arguments. It enlightens us as to why Muslims will loudly trumpet the "logic" and "rationality" of Islam while simultaneously defending their faith with circular reasoning and other errors of logic. This is why Muslims can, without any apparent irony, claim that Islam is a "religion of peace", even when the testimony of both history and current events bellows the opposite. For most Muslims, the idea that an infidel could reject Islam because of a sincere concern for knowing the truth is absolutely inconceivable. Hence, the infidel must be lying when he or she present facts and arguments against Islam, and the infidel must be an especially tricky liar when the facts and arguments cannot be answered by the Muslim. Hence, the resort to taqiyya to turn aside infidel lies so that the logic of truth, a priori defined as anything Islamic, will stand firm.

Taqiyya goes beyond mere lying for propaganda purposes. The word comes from a root meaning "to guard against, to keep (oneself)". It thus also includes dissimulation by the Muslim to give the appearance of not being religious, so as not to arouse suspicion. In this vein, a Muslim, if necessary, may eat pork, drink alcohol, and even verbally deny the Islamic faith, as long as he does not "mean it in his heart". If the end result of the lie is perceived by the Muslim to be good for Islam or useful to bringing someone to "submission" to Allah, then the lie can be sanctioned through taqiyya. As al-Tabbarah writes,


"Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."28
The taqiyya concept is also found in the Qur'an,


"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." (Surah 3:2
Here, the Muslims are warned against taking unbelievers as friends, except if it will be beneficial to the Muslims as a way of defending Islam against its perceived enemies or preventing loss or danger from coming upon the Muslim because of his faith. In other words, the end justifies the means. If a Muslim must give the outward appearance of not being a Muslim, or must go against the general principle of not befriending infidels, then this is acceptable under the taqiyya doctrine. Keep in mind also that what is defined as "good" by the serious Muslim will be anything that aids the spread and eventual triumph of Islam over competing religions and ideologies. As such, this would tend to encourage infiltration of non-Muslim countries and institutions by Muslims who might pretend to support the organisations they join, but who are really working to undermine these for the greater goal of establishing Islam as supreme. Obvious recent examples of this sort of activity would be the misuse of their positions and access to information by Muslim members of America's armed forces, several of whom have been caught and arrested while attempting to pass information along to al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic terrorist organisations.

Perhaps related to its false presentation of itself is the Islamic tendency towards discouraging open inquiry about itself, by which is meant inquiry that is not shepherded by some sort of Muslim religious authority or a Muslim already well-versed in Islamic dogma. This is most plainly seen in the Islamic teaching that the Qur'an cannot be translated out of Arabic. Per strict Islamic traditional teaching, when the Qur'an is translated into some other language, it instantly ceases to be the true Qur'an, becoming instead a document which has had the admixture of man's thoughts and words interjected into it (presumably as a result of the translation process). Only the Qur'an in Arabic, according to Islam, is the true word of Allah. As a result, there are millions of Muslims all over the world who do not know Arabic, and who, when they respond to the muezzin call and hear the Qur'an chanted in Arabic, have not the slightest idea what is really being said. These people have to rely upon an imam or other religious leader to tell them what the Qur'an says, and what it means. Through this means, Islam maintains and enforces the submission of millions of non-Arab Muslims who have to rely upon the Arabic-speakers for knowledge of what their religion teaches and what their holy book says. Because of this teaching, Islam can be said to take on a role as a knowledge control cult much like the Jehovah's Witnesses (who are "encouraged" to read only what the Watchtower Society publishes) or other cults where independent examination of the religion's doctrines are discouraged or prohibited.

This sort of attitude is exactly what is presented in the Muslim traditions, too. In the Qur'an, we find that Muslims are encouraged not to ask hard questions about their own religion, and the reason is because they might lose their faith in Islam if they do,


"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Surah 5:102-103)
This discouragement to open questioning is also seen in the ahadith, one of which records that Mohammed was asked about some matters which he did not want to have to answer, and got so angry when the questioner persisted that he grew enraged, red in the face29. Other statements in the ahadith also record Mohammed's adverse reaction to being challenged on the things he taught30. Maududi, one of the most prominent theologians of Islam in the modern age, likewise encourages Muslims to leave off asking the difficult to answer questions about their faith31. The tendency against open questioning and willingness to examine the beliefs of Islam suggests to us that Islam is not really interested in people investigating Islam for the truth's sake (despite what many a Muslim making dawah might say). Rather, it tells us that Islam seeks to suppress its internal inconsistencies and embarrassing teachings, things which might cause the Muslim to doubt his faith and even apostasise if he were to dwell on them.

I will deal with your other points later on.