The Myth of Moderate Islam

[Calanen]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4334&print=1

The Myth of Moderate Islam

By Steven A. Cook

Page 1 of 1
Posted June 2008

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/spacer.gifSupporting moderation in all things Islamic may seem like a no-brainer, but woe betide the policymaker who tries to turn a plausible idea into a workable strategy.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/080616_qaradawi_73730349.jpg
FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP/***** Images
Categorize this: Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi wants Egyptians to pray less, but he also supports suicide bombings against Israelis.



Of all the cures commonly proposed for the many ailments afflicting the Middle East, there is one tonic nearly everyone seems to agree on: boosting moderate Islam.

It sounds eminently reasonable. If Islamic extremism is the problem, moderate Islam must be the solution.

It follows that Western governments should therefore find ways to make the moderates more powerful and encourage the extremists to become more moderate.

Allow Islamists to compete and accumulate power, the argument goes, and they will have little incentive to radicalize. Furthermore, assuming the mundane tasks of day-to-day governance will compel even the most extreme groups to focus more on filling potholes than on destroying the Great Satan.

But this belief is dead wrong. Not only is it impossible to agree on a working definition of the word “moderate,” but there is scant evidence that extremists really do moderate once they assume power.

Consider, for example, Hezbollah. The Shiite organization provides state-like services such as education and healthcare for the people of south Beirut and southern Lebanon.

The organization, which has had representatives in the Lebanese Parliament since 1992, has often demonstrated a surprising degree of pragmatism. It took part in a May 2005 electoral alliance with several of its adversaries in order to maximize electoral returns in crucial districts. Just a few months earlier, during Lebanon’s “independence uprising,” which pushed Hezbollah’s ally, Syria, out of Lebanon, the organization struck a tone of national unity.

But this spring, Hezbollah revealed the extent to which it remains a militant group. Its cadres took over west Beirut in a powerful display of force intended to show that it has no intention of giving up its guns. Much of Hezbollah’s political power is based on the potent idea of “national resistance” to Israeli aggression. If Hezbollah disarmed, it would be no different from Lebanon’s myriad political factions jockeying for advantage.

It is precisely the organization’s militancy that provides Hezbollah with a significant political advantage over its rivals. Why give that up?

The same can be said of Hamas. Two years after its electoral victory, a year after its forcible takeover of Gaza, and despite reported strains and splits within the organization, there are few signs that the Palestinian Islamist group has moderated.

The clearest sign that Hamas had altered its worldview would be to accept the international community’s conditions. But why would it? If Hamas were to accept Israel’s right to exist, renounce armed struggle, and honor previously signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it would cease being Hamas and effectively become a shadow of its rival, Fatah. The Islamists have not only beaten Fatah on the battlefield, but have also, and more importantly, sold a winning narrative about the ineffectiveness of dialogue with Israel. In Palestinian politics, bowing to international demands is hardly rational.

The other common, but misleading argument about moderate Islam asserts that if only the voices of moderation were given broader exposure, the extremist ideologies of al Qaeda and other groups would find fewer adherents.

Although this seems sensible, good luck trying to define “moderate Islam.”

Take Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential TV star in the Arab world. His weekly Al Jazeera show, Sharia and Life, attracts millions of viewers. Qaradawi holds progressive positions on family law, the status of women, and political reform.

He recently told Egyptian government employees to “pray less” to improve their productivity. Many Arabs regard him as staunchly moderate. Yet the sheikh has also placed his theological imprimatur on suicide bombings against Israelis, arguing that since all Israelis serve in the military at one time or another, they are all legitimate targets. For those analysts who call for support of moderate Islam, it is hard to believe Qaradawi is whom they have in mind.

Or take Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Inside the Beltway, many Middle East hands are quietly rooting for the ayatollah and former president to win the next Iranian presidential election. Sure, he seems like a moderate in comparison to the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Rafsanjani is the guy who once implored Iranians to kill Westerners wherever they could find them, declaring, “It is not difficult to kill Americans or Frenchmen. It is a bit difficult to kill . But there are so many [Americans and Frenchmen] everywhere in the world.”

If there was ever a problem in defining moderate Islam, however, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) epitomizes it. The party seems to be the paragon of moderate Islamism, undertaking a wide range of reforms and staking its political legacy on Ankara’s entry into the European Union.

Yet, Turkey’s archsecularists and a fair number of analysts in the West regard the party with deep suspicion. Citing the AKP’s recent effort to lift the ban on women wearing head scarves at publicly funded universities as only the most egregious example, they argue that the party’s real agenda is to Islamize Turkish society. Whose side should the United States take here?

Given the wildly different criteria for what constitutes “a moderate,” policymakers will run in circles trying to determine who is a moderate and worthy of support, and who is not.

One person’s moderate is another person’s radical, and another person’s moderate is little more than a patsy of the West. A policy built on support for moderate Islam is only asking for trouble.

A smarter position is to avoid theological discussions altogether. As with all faiths, there will be heated debates between competing groups within Islam over the proper interpretation of sacred texts and the relationship between religion and politics. Yet because these arguments are so opaque to outsiders, policymakers should resist the urge to jump in.

Given that moderation is in the eye of the beholder, Washington should not have an ideological litmus test for whom it wishes to engage. Rather, policymakers should focus on identifying those who can contribute pragmatic solutions to the many problems we confront in the region, “moderate” or not.

[I]Steven A. Cook is the Douglas Dillon fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria, and Turkey (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007).

[Russian_dude]

Moderate Islam is just like moderate Trotskyism or moderate Maoism. It's a rubbish concept. You are either practicing or non practicing.

Take the Catholics for example. There is very little difference between the "liberal" and the "fundamentalist" schools of thought that are not completely arcane and understandable to the public.

As an individual you simply choose to disregard certain tenets but there is no choosing a "more liberal" Bible or a more "doctrinal" one.

Same with quaran. Both the "moderates" and the "fundamentalists" use the same book.

Separation of Church and State and better secular education is what's needed to combat obscurantism and religion.

[Calanen]

Moderate Islam is just like moderate Trotskyism or moderate Maoism. It's a rubbish concept. You are either practicing or non practicing.

Take the Catholics for example. There is very little difference between the "liberal" and the "fundamentalist" schools of thought that are not completely arcane and understandable to the public.


My view is that there is no moderate islam, just moderate muslims.

[Bushranger]

Lets see how long it takes for people to gang up on you Cal for posting this.

Interesting read, why cant they all use the secular system like turkey has it seems to work,if they islamize the army steps in great decision by Atta turk.

[Calanen]

Lets see how long it takes for people to gang up on you Cal for posting this.

And hurt my internetz feelings? oh noes!

This source is a credible and mainstream one.


Interesting read, why cant they all use the secular system like turkey has it seems to work,if they islamize the army steps in great decision by Atta turk

That's exactly what they should do. Commitment to securalism, disavow jihad and confront the extremists within their community about why they are wrong and to stop.

[Heinemann]

Calanen, the main issue here is would Muslims be willing to discredit or ignore certain verses within the Quran which support Jihad and Islamic superiority over non-Muslims? I highly doubt they would.

Lite low fat, Islam = 25% Quran 15% Sahih Hadiths
Moderate Islam = 50% Quran 25% Sahih Hadiths
REAL Islam = 100% Quran 100% Sahih Hadiths

[Calanen]

Calanen, the main issue here is would Muslims be willing to discredit or ignore certain verses within the Quran which support Jihad and Islamic superiority over non-Muslims? I highly doubt they would.

Lite low fat, Islam = 25% Quran 15% Sahih Hadiths
Moderate Islam = 50% Quran 25% Sahih Hadiths
REAL Islam = 100% Quran 100% Sahih Hadiths

That's exactly the point. Although like all things, some muslims would rather watch TV on the couch than have a jihad. Some dont understand their religion very well. And others may just not care, or, feel yeah its kind of BS, but I dont want to get beaten, shot stab, killed or have to live like Salman Rushdie for criticising it. That's fair enough.

Have you ever noticed, how the only group that consistently threatens death and violence in response to criticism in the modern world, is the islamic world? Without a doubt, if you say anything public that is critical of muslims or islam, you can guarantee that you will get serious death threats.

But given that within Islam, there IS a doctrine of jihad. There IS a doctrine which says slay the infidel wherever you find him, and that the ONLY law that they can live under is Islam, you have to wonder how compatible people with such beliefs are for living in the west.

Most muslims when you speak with them will say, 'Oh no stupid westerner, you dont understand..you take it out of context!' When I debate them line for line in the Koran, and the Hadith, the reliable Hadith, they become very defensive and aggressive. No one has been able to show me where I am wrong or misunderstanding something, they just resort to insults. Most of the time, they are able to dazzle the westerner with BS, and never get down to the real issues to debate.

Islam is a religion of peace when there are only muslims around the place. If there is no one of any other religion there, AND the government is sharia, and those of other religions are prepared to live as dhimmis - yes things are peaceful.

It is a religion of war and jihad wherever muslims are in sufficient numbers to threaten the people of other religions around them. That is demonstrated both with many, many examples going back more than 1000 years. It is also demonstrated both by the texts of the Koran and the Hadith, and islamic articles about jihad.

It is further demonstrated by the 'misunderstanders' like the Islamic State of Iraq, Al Quada, the Taliban, Jamiah Islamiah, Hizbollah, Hamas...to name but a few. These guys know their Koran and THEY say it is about Jihad.

What does having a large segment of the population being members of a religion which has at its core, jihad against unbelievers, say for the future of the unbelievers? Have the unbelievers considered this? Are they even allowed to?

Someone on here was saying that if muslims were really interested in jihad, Australia etc would all be dead..or words to that effect. In Australia, there are sporadic outbreaks of violence from members of the islamic community, but they are still too small in number to be much of a threat. If they did declare full blown jihad, we'd wipe them out. And they know it.

In Islam, you can have peace with the infidels while you build up into sufficient numbers to get ready for jihad. This is called 'houdna'. In the mean time, you hide your true intentions. This is called Al Taqiyya.

It is only once muslims become in sufficient numbers to have a go at other religions that the situation becomes dangerous. And then - watch out.

[Heinemann]

O the political incorrectness! Beware of the moderators whacking stick!

But seriously tho, your points are valid but I doubt anyone cares... one day they will but it'll be too late.

[khukuri]

Ah... calanens daily anti islamic post, let me comment the stupid article.


The author takes two political islamist organisations, Hamas & Hezbollah to prove that the concept of moderate islam is not existent. What the hell has two political organisations policies to do with wether there are moderatism in islam or not?

His third example is qadrawi. So basically by using two political organisations and one individual the author is telling us there is no moderate islam. Nevermind that the author doesnt refer to anything that has to do with theology or the religion itself.


I could just as well argue that the wahhabis are the ones who are not 100% koran or 100% hadith either.



Moderate Islam is just like moderate Trotskyism or moderate Maoism. It's a rubbish concept. You are either practicing or non practicing.


What a rubbish post. What do you know about Islam to make this statement?

What you say would mean that there is one version of Islam. Which there obviously isnt!

I can take a very religious wahhabi and a very religious sufi and come out with two very different views.

[Calanen]

I could just as well argue that the wahhabis are the ones who are not 100% koran or 100% hadith either.


Please tell us about the moderate version of islam your subscribe to, and why your interpretation of islam requires:

(a) that you live in peace amongst people of other religions indefinitely;

(b) that sharia law not be imposed;

(c) that there is no requirement for jihad against unbelievers to spread the faith, even when there are sufficient numbers of muslims available to competently do so;

and what parts of the hadith, koran, or islamic scholars you rely on to provide this interpretation for you.

This would be important information to know. And here is why. Because, if we can say to the 'extremists' here is where you are wrong, please stop. That would be very useful.

[Berk]

My view is that there is no moderate islam, just moderate muslims.

what's your religion ? you don't really sound a moderate guy to me...

[Calanen]

what's your religion ? you don't really sound a moderate guy to me...

I'm an atheist, but was brought up a Catholic.

Not that it matters..........

[Berk]

I'm an atheist, but was brought up a Catholic.

Not that it matters..........

Ok, do you consider yourself moderate ?

[perdurabo]

i wonder if our muslim Tatars are just not good muslims or maybe they follow some other book? cause they live in Poland for areound 400 years and we hadn't had a single problem with them since 300 years.

[V.I.D.]

My view is that there is no moderate islam, just moderate muslims.

I would agree with this statement. However, as a fellow atheist (or even better, a non-believer in the organized religion) I think you would agree that the most so-called Christians today have nothing to do with the original idea anymore. For example, I have yet to witness the "turn the other cheek" kind of thing in practice (both on individual and state level).

[Sanat-e-naft]

This whole topic in many ways has a very weak foundation. To say that a cetain religion cannot be moderate is misleading.

A religion is what it is, a book says what it says. The moderates in the Islamic faith are people who can look at a document written hundreds of years ago and glean from it that for instance.. drugs are bad, so is booze. They read jihad for that is it, a religious struggle. It is the interpretation of that individual of the text that makes them moderate or fanatical. For instance my daily jihad is against eating Pepperoni Pizza (which I used to love). I am a moderate muslim, since my interpretations are genrally progressive and reformist (read moderate) with regard to not only jihad but many things (including havin a Christian fiance).

To say that there are no Moderates in Islam is a falsehood. Islam is what it is, it is the interpretation which allows for variations. Many moderate muslims go about their daily lives all around the world...we exist... i promise.

[Paya]

Islam, like any other religion, is mostly interpreted by the state. For instance, we have Saudi Wahabi Islam, which sees other religions as deseases, and is very strict in upholding Sharia law. Women, however, are treated badly not because of those laws, but because of ancient Arab customs (women not going anywhere without male escort, and even then about five steps behind a man).

Then we have the Turks who are so serious about secularism, that the state will, if necessary, stomp out any extremism with force, sooner than let it spread. It goes so far as to ban the wearing of headscarves in Government buildings. Some might call this breaching of basic human rights, some may call it preemptive... whatever.

And then we have Bosnian Muslims, most of whom, under the influence of Communism, became only nominally Muslim. They drink, they gamble, they eat pork, and their women are not above casual ***. There is, however, a number of them who are under the influence of Saudi imams, but that's a small minority. Again, the influence of the state, albeit an ex-state, is visible.

[Mat_fr]

this thread wasn't necessary..


mat

[Laworkerbee]

Ok, do you consider yourself moderate ?

A moderate atheist? thats an oxymoron.

[Skutatos]

Although I somewhat agree with Cal, there are many other factors when it comes to extremism. Extremism is not restricted to religion. Throughout history you have had extremists of every sort: religious, political, etc...virtually any ideology can lead to violent extremism.

What usually allows for violent extremism though is lack of, or heavily slanted education as well as poor economic and working conditions.

Without a job, or a with a very tough one(its theorized, for example, that many crusaders went just to escape the back breaking work facing the medieval peasant of the time) and a person will be willing to do just about anything else, and without a good education you will not have the knowledge required for an informed judgement. If the education has been slanted towards an extremist viewpoint, then the person doesn't really know any alternative.

[Eokboy]

A Chinese Woman in PAS Country
Jed Yoong
27 May 2008

Our correspondent moves to Malaysia’s fundamentalist Islamic heartland to seek to understand its dynamics.

It's 4 am in Kota Bahru. The streets are empty in the capital of Kelantan, the northern state bordering Thailand on Malaysia’s east coast. Here in the heart of the old town, which is mostly populated by shops owned by ethnic Chinese, also lies the headquarters of the Parti se-Islam Malaysia, or PAS, the fundamentalist party that has ruled the state for 18 years in defiance of all electoral attempts by the ruling national coalition to root it out. Further down the street are the state mosque and the sultan’s palace.

Just around the corner, a young ethnic Malay woman walks down the stairs of a budget hostelry located above the shop. Wearing a pair of tight-fitting capris and a tight short-sleeved tee-shirt, she looks at me and smiles. Moments later, a young man with short, streaked curly hair comes down, tucking in his shirt. He smiles too.

As I walk up, I meet a regular at the motel where I've been staying at for the past week. He is probably in his late teens or early twenties. Scrawny, but handsome with big doleful eyes and smooth olive skin, he waits around the lobby for his girlfriend, who is usually up in a room.

Life in Kota Bahru is strikingly similar to that in Brunei, another strict Islamic state, where entertainment and the public sale and consumption of alcohol are illegal. Beneath a prim and proper exterior are all the carnal undercurrents. As in Brunei, illegal drinking holes exist, but they are strictly for non-Muslims, and tapai -- alcoholic fermented rice — is a popular tipple. Youthful rebellion against medieval Islamic laws simmers, but quietly, and many leave the state, either in search of better employment opportunities or a more liberal lifestyle.

Khalwat — close proximity between unmarried people of the opposite *** -- is policed by the religious authorities as in every other state throughout the country, but considerably more assiduously. In extreme cases, sitting side by side with a member of the opposite *** to whom you are not married is forbidden. More common are couples hauled up for premarital or extramarital ***. Ominously, pencil scribbles on my room wall warn that fornicators will burn in hell for eternity.

On my first few days here, the khalwat police knocked on my door to check if I was sinning or had sinned. The first time they were polite and asked whether I was Muslim. The second time, they were insistent enough that I became worried that they would break down the door if I didn't open it. Both times, they asked if I was alone. I thought that was really none of their business as I am a non-Muslim, and they left after I asserted my exempt status from moral policing.

All of this Big Brother style surveillance does little, if anything at all, to prevent hot-blooded young Muslims from keeping the beds bouncing. After all, there are 24 hours in a day and so many young people and so few khalwat police. In Kota Bahru, however, to a some extent, PAS's focus on family values has kept the frolicking at bay compared to other states like neighbouring Terengganu, where getting laid is probably easier than finding a clean toilet.

The PAS headquarters is a pale green building with a geometric-patterned facade in the center of town, facing the old market and surrounded by shophouses with shaded walkways. The party inside it seems to offer few practical solutions for curbing social ills apart from religion. In a political rally organized by the party recently, I spoke to a grassroots woman leader, a penghulu tanpa mukim (roughly translated as a village leader without a district). Asked about PAS's approach in tackling social ills like Muslim women throwing away their newborn babies, which is common in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, she meekly said: "Such things don't happen as much here. We try to solve such problems amicably in Kelantan."

"What if the boy runs away and leaves the girl?" I asked. She replied: "Usually in Kelantan, the boy won't run away and will marry the girl."

Beyond that, Kota Bahru is a surprisingly pleasant and very safe place to live, unlike Kuala Lumpur, where street crime is becoming all too common. For all the restrictions on Muslims, non-Muslims here are free to sin as they wish. Beer is available in Chinatown and at a smattering of illegal pubs that offer tacky music. Non-Muslims practice their religion freely. The state boasts the largest reclining Buddha in the country and the racial tension that sometimes pervades the urban areas on Malaysia’s west coast is largely absent here. Local Chinese have assimilated more those in other states, probably because they make up a fraction of a population in which 94 per cent are ethnic Malays. Most speak the local dialect and mingle with Malays in restaurants and cafes.

"I love my PAS," said a middle-aged Chinese businessman at the political rally as he got into his chauffeured four-wheel-drive with his wife. "PAS is good." When I pointed out the lack of entertainment, he quipped, "So what if there is no entertainment? It's not everything. You want a beer? I'll take you for a beer now."

But PAS's greatest challenge is not winning the non-Malay vote, for it has done well in being fair to all the races in the state. Its main hurdle in becoming a true political force is the Malays' acceptance of the party's fundamentalist and rigid moral policing. Speak about PAS to an urban Malay who likes drinking and clubbing – and there are lots of them in Kuala Lumpur and other urban areas -- chances are that he or she will cringe and indicate a preference for the People's Justice Party (PKR), the multiracial but Malay-dominated party led by former deputy prime minister and finance minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Despite the fact that it has become an integral part of the opposition coalition in the parliament in Kuala Lumpur, federal power, however may not be the party's goal as its leaders appear quite content running their own little Islamic kingdom in this secluded and almost magical part of Malaysia, which has a distinct cultural identity. Many Kelantanese are proud of their state and their chief minister, Nik Aziz Nik Mat. The PAS spiritual advisor, fondly refered to by many as "Tok Guru" (teacher), has ruled since 1990 and has built a cult-like following with his spartan lifestyle and messianic mannerisms.

For all its Islamic leanings, the party's administrative performance is commendable compared to states under the National Front, or Barisan Nasional (BN), which is led by the largest ethnic party, the United Malays National Organisation. For instance, Sabah and Sarawak are among those richest in resources but with the highest poverty rates. Kelantan has inched up the poverty rankings through prudent financial management despite funding restrictions from the Barisan-controlled federal government.

For an urban Chinese like me, or rather a non-Muslim, the Kota Bahru experience so far is like that in many other small towns. The thing that sets it apart is the town is almost as Chinese as it is Malay. Next to Chinese textile stores are Malay ones, whereas in Kuala Lumpur racial segregation is starker. with almost clearly defined Malay and Chinese areas. Malays own newspaper stands here, which are traditionally dominated by ethnic Indians on the other side of the mountains. But these are early days and there is much more to explore and learn about this Islamic 'paradise'. Perhaps to even to learn to shed my racial lenses.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1224&Itemid=34


Surely the Kelantanese will burn in Islamic hell.

[Calanen]

Ok, do you consider yourself moderate ?

My commitment to jihad against unbelievers, would I'd have to say, appear to lack enthusiasm. p-)

But speculation is a wonderful thing. It does not make any difference.

[Calanen]

Although I somewhat agree with Cal, there are many other factors when it comes to extremism. Extremism is not restricted to religion. Throughout history you have had extremists of every sort: religious, political, etc...virtually any ideology can lead to violent extremism.

The moral relativist argument doesnt really sit well with me. I find that it doesnt address the problem at all, and is part of the 'true for me, might not be true for you' post modernist 'everythings relative' intellectual dishonesty that pervades most academic thought today.


What usually allows for violent extremism though is lack of, or heavily slanted education as well as poor economic and working conditions.

I dont agree with that. OBL was worth 100s of milions. His right hand man was a specialist doctor. The guys who crashed planes into the WTC were all students and graduates. They weren't just people hand picked from a slum. They guys attacking the Glasgow airport were doctors. These are not just jobless people with nothing better to do. They are committed to the idea of jihad in islam.


Without a job, or a with a very tough one(its theorized, for example, that many crusaders went just to escape the back breaking work facing the medieval peasant of the time) and a person will be willing to do just about anything else, and without a good education you will not have the knowledge required for an informed judgement.

The Crusades is always a bad example. While that might have been true, it was not like peasants had a choice of either staying around and working on the farm or going to war. Their Lords would just herd them where they needed to be.

Also, the Crusades is often wrongly portrayed as some colonial expedition against the peaceloving members of islam. But what is forgotten, is that those same peace loving muslims had taken over Spain, half of France, and the Byzantine Empire before the Crusades pushed back.


If the education has been slanted towards an extremist viewpoint, then the person doesn't really know any alternative.

The last part I agree with.

[Calanen]

Islam, like any other religion, is mostly interpreted by the state. For instance, we have Saudi Wahabi Islam, which sees other religions as deseases, and is very strict in upholding Sharia law. Women, however, are treated badly not because of those laws, but because of ancient Arab customs (women not going anywhere without male escort, and even then about five steps behind a man).

It's not just the Saudis. Iran, Yemen, Pakistan. Also very strict in sharia law.

The discrimination against women in Islam also is far more pervasive than just Saudi Arabia.



Then we have the Turks who are so serious about secularism, that the state will, if necessary, stomp out any extremism with force, sooner than let it spread.


The Turks are an anomolous example. With Saudi money paying for mosques and schools, there is a greater push for the Wahhabi strain of Islam than there is for Turk secularism. It would be great if this were reversed.


It goes so far as to ban the wearing of headscarves in Government buildings. Some might call this breaching of basic human rights, some may call it preemptive... whatever.

I think anyone can wear whatever they like, unless it interferes with the administration of justice or public order. Recently a judge was wrapped over the knuckles for asking an islamic lawyer in a british court to remove her head covering because he could not hear what she was saying.


And then we have Bosnian Muslims, most of whom, under the influence of Communism, became only nominally Muslim. They drink, they gamble, they eat pork, and their women are not above casual ***. There is, however, a number of them who are under the influence of Saudi imams, but that's a small minority. Again, the influence of the state, albeit an ex-state, is visible.

Ok we have lots of moderate muslims. I agree with that. But what are we doing to fight the war of ideas? Pretty much our best shot is to say, just ignore the extremism and think that its about joblessness.

[Russian_dude]

Ah... calanens daily anti islamic post, let me comment the stupid article.


The author takes two political islamist organisations, Hamas & Hezbollah to prove that the concept of moderate islam is not existent. What the hell has two political organisations policies to do with wether there are moderatism in islam or not?

His third example is qadrawi. So basically by using two political organisations and one individual the author is telling us there is no moderate islam. Nevermind that the author doesnt refer to anything that has to do with theology or the religion itself.


I could just as well argue that the wahhabis are the ones who are not 100% koran or 100% hadith either.





What a rubbish post. What do you know about Islam to make this statement?

What you say would mean that there is one version of Islam. Which there obviously isnt!

I can take a very religious wahhabi and a very religious sufi and come out with two very different views.

I've studied advanced Islam in University.

There is SUPPOSED to be only one Islam, since there is only one quaran. However, since the quaran was badly written (like 99% of all religious books). Two reasonable adults can have opposing views after reading the same passage.

However I think we should not try to make Islam more moderate, but to make muslims less practising, less religious.

In the West, our religion did not get more liberal, people started to believe less in it.

[Russian_dude]

Moderate Muslims are a myth. There are simply non-practising or little practising Muslims.

[dava]

In the West, our religion did not get more liberal, people started to believe less in it.

Thats only for a part of Europe.
Those american evangelists make me scratch my head as much as those muslims.

[Calanen]

Thats only for a part of Europe.
Those american evangelists make me scratch my head as much as those muslims.

Their jihad is far less successful however.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5917/tropas3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[graureiter]

Snip, snip.
Those american evangelists make me scratch my head as much as those muslims.

As of last count, how many massmurders are they guilty of ?

And if they where planning and executing terror attacks, what would happen to them ?

[Bombtrack]

Calanen with an anti-Islam thread? Well I never!

[ggk]

look guys...stop this anti ilsm stuff..its just wrong.

the MAIN problem is US...yes us human...we are lustfull, un dicipline and bad...we like destruction...it is the main traits of human....to blaime all muslim just because of the action of small retarded minority is plain wrong.

[Adux]

look guys...stop this anti ilsm stuff..its just wrong.

the MAIN problem is US...yes us human...we are lustfull, un dicipline and bad...we like destruction...it is the main traits of human....to blaime all muslim just because of the action of small retarded minority is plain wrong.

lustful?, discipline? OK... the standards of these are the Islamic one's right which automatically and as usual makes the western concept of life "Infidel". Oh, Great.

Marrying 4 wives isnt lustful?

[dava]

As of last count, how many massmurders are they guilty of ?

So i can only be amazed at the stupidity of religion when some extremist side makes casualties? I scratch my head when there are evangelic schools that teach children that the world isnt older than 6000 years and that evolution believers are sinners.
That counter is hilarious btw
"Since 9/11". Yeah, the world stopped turning from that point on. :roll:

[Karaahmetoglu]

This whole topic in many ways has a very weak foundation. To say that a cetain religion cannot be moderate is misleading.

A religion is what it is, a book says what it says. The moderates in the Islamic faith are people who can look at a document written hundreds of years ago and glean from it that for instance.. drugs are bad, so is booze. They read jihad for that is it, a religious struggle. It is the interpretation of that individual of the text that makes them moderate or fanatical. For instance my daily jihad is against eating Pepperoni Pizza (which I used to love). I am a moderate muslim, since my interpretations are genrally progressive and reformist (read moderate) lywith regard to not on jihad but many things (including havin a Christian fiance).

To say that there are no Moderates in Islam is a falsehood. Islam is what it is, it is the interpretation which allows for variations. Many moderate muslims go about their daily lives all around the world...we exist... i promise.


Thank you this should be what Calanen posts. My daily Jihad is Trying to make *@$&@*$& like Calanen not get to young Muslim children and brain wash them as well. Trying to make my Religion keep a good name, which sadly gets harder every day.

[Calanen]

My daily Jihad is Trying to make *@$&@*$& like Calanen not get to young Muslim children and brain wash them as well.


My madrassa and funding for islamic interpretation is a lot less than that of Saudi Arabia. I think the 'misunderstanders' are far more numerous, well funded, and visible, than anything I have to say. It is not me who provides the bad image of islam, it is them. I'm just someone who points out the problem. Instead of telling the people who ring for the fire brigade to ignore the fire, how about - trying to put out the fire?

[Karaahmetoglu]

My madrassa and funding for islamic interpretation is a lot less than that of Saudi Arabia. I think the 'misunderstanders' are far more numerous, well funded, and visible, than anything I have to say. It is not me who provides the bad image of islam, it is them. I'm just someone who points out the problem. Instead of telling the people who ring for the fire brigade to ignore the fire, how about - trying to put out the fire?


Not as easy as just saying it. Considering, millions of Muslims have been trying, but getting no where. We first have to go to the government, and you do know that only one person runs Saudi Arabia, and I guess his goons. Secondly we have to get rid of the bad clerics, and other high figures. Goes on and on.

[Calanen]

1. Calanen, you are trying to prove that Islam is evil and a threat to western civilisation. How do you think we should address this threat?

No. People like speaking for me, and I am quite capable of speaking for myself. I have even cited the Turkish interpretation of islam, separate from the state as something to aim for.

It is easier though to use hyperbole to silence critics of the great PC mantras operating in this day and age. Once knowledge was important. Now it seems there is only the 'right' kind of knowledge. Right according to who? Did I vote for you to speak for me or say what I can speak about?

I am saying that there is a big whitewash of the doctrine of jihad in the west, and that the doctrine of jihad is a central tenet of islam. Plenty of muslims might think that is a bit of a yawn. But what is anyone, from a doctrinal basis, doing to combat this as an idea? Pretty much, nothing.

There is only muted, 'we dont believe in killing innocents' whenever there is a terror attack. But jihad, is not killing innocents, the unbelievers must be slain wherever you find them. So they are to some, fair game. That is what needs to be combatted through islamic theology internally, if it can be.

For our part in the West, we need to stop running around like chicken little saying 'Oh if we only stopped giving aid to Israel' or 'Oh if we only provided me aid to Hamas' they would all stop terrorism. We have to understand, and know, that it does not matter what we do on that score - the real reason, is that as unbelievers, islam says, we have to die or live as dhimmis under islamic rule.

And that is the thing as westerners, we need to understand and say, well, what do we do now? At the moment, all of this religion of peace stuff - just ignores the problem. And it is a problem, a big one, that no one even wants to discuss.


2. Not everything we conceive as Islam, is actually a part of Islam as a religion. Burkhas are not a part of Islam as a religion, but a arab/middle-eastern tradition.

That is not correct. Islam says that women must dress modestly, and that is part of the interpretation of it. Not all muslims agree on the extent of that interpretation.

What is far more worrying is, women dont really get to 'decide' what they wear in islam, because the penalties for not doing so are unusually severe and women have few rights in the majority of islamic countries. With the exception of Turkey.



3. This is a passage from the Bible, the book that christians believe is literally the word of god:

Deuteronomy 17:12
The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel.


Whatever the Bible says, doesnt matter at all when confronting the global islamic jihad. There are not preachers anywhere (that I know of) preaching death to the unbelievers in the christian world. However, if you watch any Arabic television station, you will have a muslim preacher talking about jihad and slay the infidels. Go to MEMRI and watch some TV there.


(I have read neither the Bible nor the Quran, but i believe it would do all of us good to actually read the books to actually find out what they do, and dont say.)

I've read them both, and a lot more besides.


4.Ask yourself why, and what kind of people are drawn to extremist movements. Why were so many people drawn to extremist movements (NSDAP, communist etc..) in post WWI Germany?

That's the problem isnt it? Are these views about jihad really 'extreme' within islam?

What might be seen as extreme, is the methods employed by some, re suicide bombing. However, the goal doesnt change, only the methods. While some in islam might see terror as the wrong way to go about it, others see the soft jihad, moving into Western countries and taking over our institutions and stacking them with muslims. The goal is still jihad, and taking over the unbelievers.

As I say to people, if you truly believe that the majority of muslims see islam as the religion of peace - go to Saudi Arabia, grab a religious policeman who speaks English and say to him:

'I hear that your religion is the religion of peace and that you dont believe in jihad. I hear that you should live under the infidels and not try to impose sharia, or make jihad agains the infidels in a western country? Is that true?'

or, alternatively, get on a soapbox in Pakistan on a street corner and start preaching similar things. You will be dead in about 5 minutes.

[Karaahmetoglu]

No. People like speaking for me, and I am quite capable of speaking for myself. I have even cited the Turkish interpretation of islam, separate from the state as something to aim for.


That is not correct. Islam says that women must dress modestly, and that is part of the interpretation of it. Not all muslims agree on the extent of that interpretation.

What is far more worrying is, women dont really get to 'decide' what they wear in islam, because the penalties for not doing so are unusually severe and women have few rights in the majority of islamic countries. With the exception of Turkey.



That's the problem isnt it? Are these views about jihad really 'extreme' within islam?

What might be seen as extreme, is the methods employed by some, re suicide bombing. However, the goal doesnt change, only the methods. While some in islam might see terror as the wrong way to go about it, others see the soft jihad, moving into Western countries and taking over our institutions and stacking them with muslims. The goal is still jihad, and taking over the unbelievers.

As I say to people, if you truly believe that the majority of muslims see islam as the religion of peace - go to Saudi Arabia, grab a religious policeman who speaks English and say to him:

'I hear that your religion is the religion of peace and that you dont believe in jihad. I hear that you should live under the infidels and not try to impose sharia, or make jihad agains the infidels in a western country? Is that true?'

or, alternatively, get on a soapbox in Pakistan on a street corner and start preaching similar things. You will be dead in about 5 minutes.


Ok for the first bolded, what do you mean? My English skills are not up to par, so I do not understand, can you empathize more please?

While yes women do not get to decide what to wear in most Islamic countries, it does not say in the Koran that they (the women of course) should not decide what to wear. Just cover your self appropriately. For the last paragraph why don't you say the same thing except use a Turkish policeman, would that get your point across still?

[Calanen]

Ok for the first bolded, what do you mean? My English skills are not up to par, so I do not understand, can you empathize more please?

It means that I support the Turkish view that religion and government should be separate. It is in the minority in the islamic world however.


While yes women do not get to decide what to wear in most Islamic countries, it does not say in the Koran that they (the women of course) should not decide what to wear. Just cover your self appropriately.

This is true, but, as they dont get to decide what to wear in most places, that is wrong. I think Turkey agrees it is wrong.


For the last paragraph why don't you say the same thing except use a Turkish policeman, would that get your point across still?

The Turkish policeman would agree with me. But the Turks, are in the minority in the islamic world.

[Eztyga]

Opressing women is not a part of Islam. That has happened in the western world too, and not so long ago. The middle-east is just generally backward.


Yeah...sure.

[Calanen]

Extreme Islamists are a real problem, but the religion itself is not the main cause of the problem.

They say its the reason why they do it. They say. Not me.


There are mulitiple reasons for Islamic terrorism, like arab nationalism.

Except the Pakistanis and Taliban are not Arabs. Neither are the Asian muslims in Thailand, or the Africans, or or..we could go on and on.


We can ask ourselves why these people hate the United States. Because of jihad or something else?

Does it matter? Jihad has been going for 1300 years. A long time before the United States.


Why don't they attack the Chinese? They are infidels too.

The Chinese have significant problems with their muslim minority. Unlike the west, they crush them ruthlessly whenever they get out of line. The Chinese also, have far less presence overseas. Islamic terrorists were arrested in China just recently, wanting to blow something up during the Olympics.

I think that China is left alone because it is seen as far more willing to strike back, whereas the west is seen as a soft touch. Also, the west has people like yourself willing to go into bat for the other side. There is no such thing in China.



The jihad is a way for people that feel mistreated to take revenge on the people they think is the cause of their problems.


This ignores the 1300 years of conquest of the unbelievers by islam in the name of jihad. Its not a recent invention.

And also, how do you know what these guys believe, other than what they say they do? Is this just supposition? And, at the end of the day, does it matter?

If no one combats the idea of jihad, then it can be applied for all sorts of things, can't it? What we are trying to do is constant appeasement. The jihadis must hate us..because of Israel. Or Iraq. Or, or or..but the truth is that jihadis have been attacking the United States, in the name of jihad since the time of Thomas Jefferson. In all that time, you'd think that the USA would have learnt to tailor their foreign policy to prevent such attacks...

Or perhaps, it was jihad that was the constant. Not US foreign policy.


What people do in the name of jihad is not the religions fault. It's just a way for them to channel their hate agains western civilisation.

It is the religion's fault if the religion does not stomp on them for using religion to behave as they do. And, the opposition to the jihadis on a theological basis is very very quiet. Now why is that?

Very little theological debate about what jihadis do in the name of islam. Just that it is the wests fault for upsetting them. But if there was no west, wouldnt their book still say, jihad?



Some jihadist might not be religious, but instead muslim nationalists, and religion is a part of the culture that they feel they must fight for.


You have to be kidding. Some jihadists might be religious...lord have mercy with what stupidity are we expected to fight the global jihad.


When russian neo-nazis beat up Azeris and shout "sieg heil", its not because of mein-kampf and the nazi ideology that considers them üntermenschen.

I have no idea why Russian neonazis do anything. I suspect neither do you. And it doesnt matter. The constant cry to find ridiculous examples of other types of morons doesnt detract from the need to focus squarely on the problem of jihad.


Opressing women is not a part of Islam. That has happened in the western world too, and not so long ago. The middle-east is just generally backward.

If the middle east is just backwards as the reason, why are muslim women similarly oppressed in the west by their own people? Genital mutilation, honor killings, arranged marriages, second class status.

It certainly is BELIEVED to be part of Islam. You might say its not. But the people who do it, believe that islam commands that it be so. The Koran does say it is acceptable to beat your wife. That sounds oppressive to me. Arab TV is full of preachers talking about how men can beat their wives.



I hope you can understand what i am trying to say, because I'm really tired writing this.


The conceptual ideas behind any of your posts, are I assure you, not beyond me. I just don't agree with them

[ggk]

lol calanen be rational... islam doesnt promote extrimism,,,human do.


lustful?, discipline? OK... the standards of these are the Islamic one's right which automatically and as usual makes the western concept of life "Infidel". Oh, Great.

Marrying 4 wives isnt lustful?

and adux, when i said 'US' i meant literally us, we, i, you , all of us, human, homosapien and monkey...i did not mean United State.

and marying 4 wives are better than cheating with 20 woman.

[Calanen]

lol calanen be rational... islam doesnt promote extrimism,,,human do.

A religion cannot act except through its followers, that goes without saying. But the idea of jihad is not extreme in islam. What might be seen as extreme, is suicide bombing. But Jihad itself is mainstream islamic teaching.



and adux, when i said 'US' i meant literally us, we, i, you , all of us, human, homosapien and monkey...i did not mean United State.


The US gets the blame though. The worse the jihadis behave, the more its the US's fault. As if the US could just do something and that would control the jihadis.


and marying 4 wives are better than cheating with 20 woman.

Doing both is reasonably common. But I could care less whether people have 4 wives or 50 wives, or cheat with 100 women. Just don't expect me to pay for it.

[ggk]

A religion cannot act except through its followers, that goes without saying. But the idea of jihad is not extreme in islam. What might be seen as extreme, is suicide bombing. But Jihad itself is mainstream islamic teaching.



yes yes but its not part of the teaching...for example in middle east some retarded Imam preached that it is ok to do suicide bombing. What a crock of bleep is that? In Islam suicide is the biggest sin ever...muslim goes straight to hell if suicide (sort of like the catholic teaching)...yet some people believe this teaching even if its wrong.

[Calanen]

yes yes but its not part of the teaching...for example in middle east some retarded Imam preached that it is ok to do suicide bombing. What a crock of bleep is that? In Islam suicide is the biggest sin ever...muslim goes straight to hell if suicide (sort of like the catholic teaching)...yet some people believe this teaching even if its wrong.

The problem is however, some, and I say some say that charging into battle knowing you are going to die is jihad, not suicide.

So blowing people up, if you yourself die, is being a jihad martyr shahid, not committing suicide. Committing suicide by yourself at home, now thats suicide.

Muslims disagree on this aspect. But the requirement for jihad against the unbelievers is there as part of mainstream islam.

[ggk]

The problem is however, some, and I say some say that charging into battle knowing you are going to die is jihad, not suicide.

thats where you wrong..if you mean sacrificing own life in battle..or doing a suicidal mission...every army do that. But in islam there is a strict rules of engagement as preached by the Prophet Muhammand himself.

1. No killing of woman and children and old people
2. Do not attacked people who seek protection in religious building
3. Do not kill farm animal and destroying agriculture.
4. Do not destroy house with people in it.





you see the prophet teach the right thing...but evil people do the opposite. In essence Islam never teach confrontation , only tolerance.... jihad war can be use only as a defensive measure not offensive.


So blowing people up, if you yourself die, is being a jihad martyr shahid, not committing suicide. Committing suicide by yourself at home, now thats suicide.


and if you blow your self in a civillian area and kill civillian instead of military....that doesnt count as syahid.


Muslims disagree on this aspect. But the requirement for jihad against the unbelievers is there as part of mainstream islam.

not...for example my imam never told me to jihad against every unbelievers..he only told me ...to defend my self.

[Heinemann]

1. No killing of woman and children and old people
2. Do not attacked people who seek protection in religious building
3. Do not kill farm animal and destroying agriculture.
4. Do not destroy house with people in it.


Im sorry but youve been told a bucket load of lies. Muhammad went on numerous offensive raids against people who had never heard of Islam. He ordered the assassination of countless poets and personally viewed the beheading of 600-800 Jewish men and BOYS. In one instance he tied up the hands and legs of a female Jewish poet to two camels and ordered them to run full pace until the poor lady was in two pieces.

[Adux]

I have insulted Mohammed, when do I get my beheading?

[Mr.Flint]

I have insulted Mohammed, when do I get my beheading?
You will get one soon enough and it would be handled by the UN p-)

[PeterRJG]

You will get one soon enough and it would be handled by the UN p-)

In other words, come back in 2039 when the sub-committee has handed down its preliminary findings of the working group to the overseeing directorate.

[Fiber]

yes yes but its not part of the teaching...for example in middle east some retarded Imam preached that it is ok to do suicide bombing. What a crock of bleep is that? In Islam suicide is the biggest sin ever...muslim goes straight to hell if suicide (sort of like the catholic teaching)...yet some people believe this teaching even if its wrong.
To say it is not part of the teaching is flat out wrong. It might not be what you are taught, but there are some people out there teaching it to other people.

Who are you to say what is true or not in Islam? Why is your interpretation more correct then the "extremist" Imam's? If I beat my wife in the name of my god, who are you to tell me I am wrong? Who are you to question the will of my god?

That is why religion is a problem. As it is not based on fact but believes - anything goes. No believe is more correct then the other. "Moderates" might go about their lives not bothering anyone, but "moderate" religion harbours "extreme" believes. The default legitimacy religion enjoy by virtue of being religion also applies to "extreme" religious believes. "Don't question my action's - it is my religion" works just as well for "moderates" as they do for "extremists".

As far as I can see there is no distinction between "moderate" and "extreme" religion. It's not any less extreme to believe you can't work on Sunday because a god told you then it is to believe you should blow yourself up. To let a god guide your life to any degree is, in my view, extreme!

[Calanen]

thats where you wrong..if you mean sacrificing own life in battle..or doing a suicidal mission...every army do that. But in islam there is a strict rules of engagement as preached by the Prophet Muhammand himself.



1. No killing of woman and children and old people

2. Do not attacked people who seek protection in religious building

3. Do not kill farm animal and destroying agriculture.

4. Do not destroy house with people in it.


Bit flexible on that count. Certainly if any of the above were muslims, then yes, you should not touch them as another muslim.

They say, slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, so, unbelievers civilians as well as soldiers have to die. They believe, that dying in jihad through suicide missions, is not suicide, but jihad.


you see the prophet teach the right thing...but evil people do the opposite. In essence Islam never teach confrontation , only tolerance.... jihad war can be use only as a defensive measure not offensive.

That is how you may personally see it. But it is not how many in the islamic world see it. And the scholars are not with you on that one. Jihad is designed to spread the word of allah through conquering the unbelievers. So that is not a defensive measure, otherwise there would only be spreading of the word of allah while waiting around for the infidels to attack.

There is a long history of islam attacking people of other religions to spread the word, both from the Prophet all the way up to the present day. And not just in self defence.



It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. (Sahih Muslim, 19:4366)


Not much self-defence inherent in the above.

The following quote, has been taken to mean, that the property and lives of unbelievers, is ONLY safe, when they convert to Islam. If they dont, then they are fair game.



Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."




and if you blow your self in a civillian area and kill civillian instead of military....that doesnt count as syahid.

Well, but it does, because, the Koran says:



Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. (8:38-39)


So killing Islamic women and children, baddy bad bad....infidel women and children, not so bad.




not...for example my imam never told me to jihad against every unbelievers..he only told me ...to defend my self.


Maybe so. But jihad against the infidels is mainstream islamic teaching. And if there are a group of people who say I have to die, as one of their core beliefs - shouldnt that be a worry for me?

[Zathras]

not...for example my imam never told me to jihad against every unbelievers..he only told me ...to defend my self.

There you go another muslim who was never told that it was his duty to do jihad against the infidel, I would place a good wager that most muslims were never told of this so called "6th" pillar of islam as some call it..

[Calanen]

There you go another muslim who was never told that it was his duty to do jihad against the infidel, I would place a good wager that most muslims were never told of this so called "6th" pillar of islam as some call it..

Ok that's two now. If we can make it five, I might forget that there is a global jihad.

[Zathras]

Ok that's two now. If we can make it five, I might forget that there is a global jihad.

Funny man, you see most muslims simply weren't told of this mystical 6th pillar people like you somehow claim is part of our religion.

Really amazing too, all the time we thought there were 5 pillars now come along the western experts on our religion who claim we have a 6th.

Something so crucial that most of us were never taught about it, geez it must be really important..

[ggk]

Im sorry but youve been told a bucket load of lies. Muhammad went on numerous offensive raids against people who had never heard of Islam. He ordered the assassination of countless poets and personally viewed the beheading of 600-800 Jewish men and BOYS. In one instance he tied up the hands and legs of a female Jewish poet to two camels and ordered them to run full pace until the poor lady was in two pieces.

nope..you are wrong.

[ggk]

I have insulted Mohammed, when do I get my beheading?

oh come on...do we have resolve into this?...and i thought you say all muslim are extrimist? how do you define what you just wrote?

[ggk]

Ok that's two now. If we can make it five, I might forget that there is a global jihad.

jihad is not the sixth pillar of islam....never was and never will.

[Calanen]

jihad is not the sixth pillar of islam....never was and never will.

I didnt say it was the sixth pillar of islam.

It is certainly very important however:



Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Sahih Bukhari, 1:2:24)





Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah:

"...in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."

[Calanen]

nope..you are wrong.

Nope, he is right...but I suspect you knew that.

On poets being killed:


Sira, p367: Then he {Kab bin al-Ashraf} composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The Apostle said: "Who will rid me of Ibnul-Ashraf?" Muhammad bin Maslama, brother of the Bani Abdu'l-Ashhal, said, "I will deal with him for you, O Apostle of God, I will kill him." He said, "Do so if you can." "All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try" {said the Prophet to Muhammad bin Maslama}. He said, "O Apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies." He {the Prophet} answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."


On Jews being massacred:



Sira, p463-4: Then they {the tribe of Quraiza} surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of Bani al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy bin Akhtab and Kab bin Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, "Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!" This went on until the Apostle made an end of them.

[ggk]

Nope, he is right...but I suspect you knew that.

On poets being killed:




On Jews being massacred:

wrong history...not what i learned.

[ggk]

I didnt say it was the sixth pillar of islam.

It is certainly very important however:

you only take part of the hadith....please post the entire lengh of it.

[12oclock]

Try to convert me to islam and see what happens....

[Calanen]

wrong history...not what i learned.

Do you think I made it up? It is from the Sirat Rasul Allah, by Ibn Ishaq. Surely you would not say that the Sira is a lie.....

[ggk]

Do you think I made it up? It is from the Sirat Rasul Allah, by Ibn Ishaq. Surely you would not say that the Sira is a lie.....

please post the entire sirah...what you did is just take one part of the sirah and then smack the islam as extreme streotype just like that. Ibn Ishaq wrote that for a reason...please post it. I dare you.

[Heinemann]

nope..you are wrong.

Lets see who do I believe, a non-Arab Muslim on a internet forum or the greatest scholar of Islam? :)

[ggk]

Try to convert me to islam and see what happens....

:| these day nobody will force anyone to change their religion....

[ggk]

and by the way...i think theres something wrong with your version of the sirah.



Sira, p463-4: Then they {the tribe of Quraiza} surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of Bani al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy bin Akhtab and Kab bin Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, "Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!" This went on until the Apostle made an end of them.

[Calanen]

you only take part of the hadith....please post the entire lengh of it.

I'm not sure what you are asking me. I would need my own website to post the entire length of the hadith.

[ggk]

ok,,,fair enough...please show us the reason that led to the execution.

[Calanen]

please post the entire sirah...what you did is just take one part of the sirah and then smack the islam as extreme streotype just like that. Ibn Ishaq wrote that for a reason...please post it. I dare you.

Its interesting that at first you say, nope didnt happen. Then when I post the hadith, you knew quite well what we were talking about, and went on to say it was out of context. Al Taqiyya habibi? Not all of us infidels are as stupid as we may at first appear.

Posting *Everything* would spam up the board, but here is some more of it, just for you. Dont think it makes any difference, however:

And there are always going to be slight differences in versions. Arabic and English do not translate perfectly.



When Sad appeared the apostle said to the Muslims, 'Arise in honour of your chief!" Then Sad asked, 'Do you covenant with Allah to abide by my decision?' and they said, 'We do!’ The apostle of Allah also replied, 'Yes.' And Sad ****ounced the following sentence, 'I decree that the men be killed, the property be divided, and the women with their children be made captives.' The apostle of Allah said, 'Thou hast decided according to the will of Allah, above the seven firmaments.'

The apostle of Allah imprisoned the Qurayza in Medina while trenches were dug in the market-place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads struck off so that they fell in the trenches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was Kab, the chief of the tribe. In number, they amounted to six or seven hundred, although some state it to have been eight or nine hundred. All were executed. One man turned to his people and said, 'It matters not! By God's will, the children of Israel were destined for this massacre!’ Then he seated himself and his head was struck off.

Aisha, the wife of the apostle, said, 'Only one of their women was killed.

By Allah! She was with me, talking and laughing, while the apostle slaughtered her countrymen in the marketplace; and when her name was called, I asked, "What is this for?" and she replied, "I am going to be slain!" I asked why and she answered, "For something I have done!" Then she was taken away, and her head was struck off. But I shall never cease to marvel at her good humour and laughter, although she knew that she was to die." She was the woman who threw a millstone down from the Qurayza fort and killed a Believer.

Now the apostle distributed the property of the Banu Qurayza, as well as their women and children, to the Muslims, reserving one-fifth for himself. Every horseman received three shares, one for himself and two for his steed, and every foot soldier one share. There were thirty-six horses present on the day of the Qurayza. The apostle dispatched an emissary to Najd with the prisoners, to barter them as slaves in exchange for horses and camels.

The apostle of Allah selected one of the Jewish women, Rayhana, for himself, and she remained with him as his slave until she died. He had suggested marriage to her, that she should wear the veil (to separate her from all other persons, as his wives did), but she replied, 'Rather allow me to remain thy slave; it will be more easy for me, and for thee.' At the time of her capture she was an enemy of Islam, and desired to remain a Jewess; so the apostle was sad and stayed aloof from her. Then one day, while he was sitting with his companions, he heard the sound of sandals behind him, and said, 'This is one who comes to inform me that Rayhana has made profession of Islam.' It was indeed so, which pleased him greatly.

After the Qurayza had been slain, and their possessions dispersed, the wound of Sad opened again and he died a martyr. In the middle of the night Gabriel, wearing a turban of gold brocade, came to the apostle, and asked, 'Who is this dead man for whom the gates of heaven stand ajar and for whom the throne quivers with joy?' At this, the apostle rose in haste and went to Sad, but he found him dead.

[ggk]

infact dont bother...ive read it...THE ACTUAL BOOK ...now before i go futher do you have anything to say?..or do you want to confess you copy all that from some website?

[Calanen]

infact dont bother...ive read it...THE ACTUAL BOOK ...now before i go futher do you have anything to say?..or do you want to confess you copy all that from some website?

Confess? Oh dear - am I on trial under sharia now?

Of course I'm copying it from websites. I'm not going to copytype from original like a word processing operator.

Can you tell me the difference between reading the actual book, and reading it on the web?

I've also read, many of the original books. Not for a while though. But I will be getting the lot of them, again, shortly, to complete my book.

[Pars]

There are plenty of moderates muslims, I know them personally. I myself however, do not believe in the teachings of islam even though I was born 'muslim'. I find islam to be on a collision course with western values and that moderate muslims are infact, non musliums, they just wont realize it.

[ggk]

well for one the so called sirah you copy from the website were diferent from what i read...which come to only one conclusion...someone lied. or rather someone alter the translation.

oh so you are writing a book? what is the final conclusion on islam? line us up and banish all of us to pluto?

[Calanen]

well for one the so called sirah you copy from the website were diferent from what i read...which come to only one conclusion...someone lied. or rather someone alter the translation.

I can post about 5 different versions that say slightly different things because of the imperfections in translating arabic into English. But the differences are nothing of significance.

The substance, that people who had surrendered were being beheaded, doesnt change.


wrong history...not what i learned.

I think you've changed your view on that, once taken to the hadith that you must have, 'overlooked' in your desire to correct the unbelievers as to their understanding of islamic history.



oh so you are writing a book? what is the final conclusion on islam? line us up and banish all of us to pluto?


You'll have to buy the book and find out.

[ggk]

may be i will...so how about my request? please post the reason of the execution.

[ggk]

Its interesting that at first you say, nope didnt happen. Then when I post the hadith, you knew quite well what we were talking about, and went on to say it was out of context. Al Taqiyya habibi? Not all of us infidels are as stupid as we may at first appear.

i didnt say it didnt happen...i meant it didnt happen the way you potrayed it. so where is the post regarding the reason of the execution?

[Zathras]

ggk theres no point talking to him. let him rot in his hatred.

[ggk]

sigh... maybe you are right. This is my last post here.

While calanen have been posting half of the sirah and hadith regarding the massacre he is reluctant to post the reason. So here goes.

by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi :



fact 1
the Banu Qurayzah prior to the incident of their so-called “massacre” attempted to betray the Muslims by openly aligning themselves with the Confederate armies (consisting of the pagan (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/myths-facts-about-the-banu-qurayzah/#) Quraysh and their allies) during the beseiging of the city of Madinah, known in history as the “War of the Confederates” (al-Harb al-Adzhaab). This is a significant act of treason, because they had earlier pledged to uphold the Madinan Covenent with the Muslims, which stipulates cooperation and an alliance if the Muslims in Madinah were attacked by a foreign force.



fact 2
the prophet did not order the execution. It was a Companion of the Prophet(P) by the name Saad ibn Muaz(R), an Ansar and the ally of the Banu Quraizah, who did that after the Banu Qurayzah leaders met with him and agreed to submit to whatever his judgement would be for their crimes against the Muslims.


It is clear that Saad ibn Muaz(R) have administered the punishment in accordance with Jewish (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/myths-facts-about-the-banu-qurayzah/#) law as found in the Torah (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/myths-facts-about-the-banu-qurayzah/#). The law is:

“When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, thou shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.” (Deuteronomy 20:12)

It is therefore clear that Muslims are not to be blamed for administering a Law that is found within the Jewish scripture itself upon the Jews who had earlier agreed to submit to Saad ibn Muaz’s judgement.




fact 3 WHY using the Jewish law from the Torah?

The reason why the Prophet (P) allowed judgement according to Jewish law was because the Banu Qurayzah were Jews, and in their initial agreement with the Prophet(P), they were allowed their own system of law according to the Torah. The Prophet(P) neither influenced the decision nor was he involved in any stage of the decision-making, as the representatives of Banu Qurayzah did not seek his judgement.

[Calanen]

While calanen have been posting half of the sirah and hadith regarding the massacre he is reluctant to post the reason. So here goes.


I actually went to bed. I wasnt reluctant to post anything. The only reason I posted anything about this to begin with was because you wrongly tried to convince us it didnt happen, when it appears from your future postings you know about this matter in detail. So, I posted because you tried to tell another poster that he was wrong. He wasnt.

But now you view is, when confronted with the facts, 'Yes it happened, BUT was for a really, really good reason.'

I dont much care who Muhammed killed or why. He was a middle ages warlord, and the middle ages were a violent dangerous place. Loads of people killed each other, for good and bad reasons. Why this fact becomes important, is that many muslims see emulating Mohammed's life as important, which includes, carrying on like a medieval warlord in the 21st century.

Whatever you want to say about Jesus, he wasnt much of a warlord.

Rot in my hatred..more hyperbole. Let's just stick to the facts can we people.

[Mr.Flint]

GGK thank you for once again proving us that Islam is deeply anti-semitic in its core.
Employs a classic case of blood libel, excessively brutal punishment brought forth by an agent, employs a biased "arbitrator", and finaly attempts to clear itself by suggesting a use of the victim's law...

This is as ridiculous as Presidential Airways (Blackwater) claiming that the crash lawsuit should be goverened by Shariah....