Ask a Muslim

[Salah-Al-Din]

This is truly priceless. My name is Aneesh, and I'm male.

Sorry, brother! It was a sincere mistake. I was for some odd reason reading your name as "Aneesha." Apologies.

I'm an agnostic, actually, within a larger Hindu framework. If I start describing my religious affiliation in detail, this thread will be completely hijacked.

I've always understood atheism, and that makes sense to me. But agnosticism is one thing that I totally could never understand! But I guess that is for another thread.

Let's not start a flamefest, because I'm quite conversant with the Hindu scriptures, and scriptural debates tend to be never-ending Google-fights.

lol @ Google-fights. You are so right about that!

But just for your information, caste is outlawed under the Indian constitution, and unanimous resolutions have been passed at the World Hindu Conferenes which condemn caste discrimination.

If, however, you still want to try to find quotes relating to caste in the Hindu scriptures (the Vedas), then I extend to you a personal invitation to do your worst.

I will not comment on this, since I don't want a flame war! I think I should get a positive diplo point for not responding to this.

Having said that, the next part of your post is very inflammatory and indicative of your Hindu background. It is no secret that Hindus hate Muslims. Admittedly, the Muslims and Hindus of India/Pakistan fight like cats and dogs, and it is a two-sided stupidity.

I had posted in detail before about the situation of Muslims in India...

...This creates a clash. On the one hand, the average Muslim is told that he is superior, he is better than the people of the country he is living in, but on the other hand, he sees that he is among the poorest in the country, and his subculture is among the most backward.

This clash creates anger, and it is this anger which is threatening to engulf the Muslims of India today, and which has been responsible for all the Islamic terrorism in the world. It is this idea that even though we are superior, we are still behind others, so others must somehow be at fault, that is the driving force behind this hatred.

First of all, Indian Muslims are at the bottom of the Indian food chain due to the rampant discrimination, persecution, and even religious pogroms that take place in Hindu India. Just recently, the BJP--a fundamentalist Hindu organization with aims to destroy Islam--was in power. Mosques were torn down. And entire religious pogroms were carried out in Gujarat, with the help of the Indian police and authorities.

The United Nations reported that thousands of Muslim women were raped by Hindus in Gujarat, which many Hindus said was over their anger over not being able to marry their women, whereas so many Hindu women would convert to Islam and marry Muslim men.

Houses were burned down, property was looted, businesses were burned down to the ground, and virtually every woman on the street who was Muslim was raped, oftentimes in front of their husbands and sons. My friend worked for an NGO in Gujarat during this time, and he described the carnage.

So when you ask such ridicolous questions and wonder why the Muslims of India are the most backward, there is your answer. Not because of the inherent inferiority of the Indian Muslims. When you talk about Indian Muslim anger, *that* is your reason...the oppression in Gujarat, the subjugation in Kashmir, and the overall persection of Indian Muslims who are considered second-class citizens in India.

Furthermore, the bulk of Indian Muslims come from families that were Untouchables. When Islam reached the Indian sub-continent, the Untouchables (the lowest caste) were under the foot of the Brahmins (highest caste). They weren't even allowed to be seen by Brahmins, and their shadows could not pass over a Brahmin. The Untouchables had to wear bells on their feet, so that a Brahmin could hear him coming and leave. Not only this, but only Brahmins were allowed to be priests, and Untouchables were not allowed to even engage in normal religious rites.

When Islam came to India, these millions of Untouchables were attracted to the egalatarian call of Islam. They realized that if they converted, their status would rise immediately from an Untouchable in Hinduism to equality in Islam. In fact, whereas Untouchables were forbidden from religious rites in Hinduism, these same Untouchables were allowed to pray shoulder-to-shoulder with Muslims of all ranks, including kings and princes.

In any case, to my point: the fact is that most of the converts were from the low castes and lower segments of society. So it is no surprise that now their descendants are in the same shoes, since obviously it is hard for families to rise in social class, especially in such a place as India in which caste means everything.

And this is not all. Even today, there are two social divisions among the Muslims in India, like castes. The Ashraf Muslims are the ones who claim descent from the Arab and Mughal invaders of India. The Ajlaf Muslims are the people who were locals and converted. The Ashraf consider themselves superior to the Ajlaf, and treat them badly.

The Ashraf do not intermarry with the Ajlaf, they do not move in the same social circles, they even sometimes have separate mosques.

The reality is that among Indian Muslims, there is a caste system at work, where the people who claim to be of foreign descent are superior to the indigenous converts.

This has no basis in Islam, and is in fact strictly forbidden as mentioned by the numerous Prophetic sayings I mentioned.

In fact, many Indian and Pakistani Muslim scholars complain of the fact that Hinduism has seeped into the faith of Muslims in that region. Indeed, many Indian and Pakistani parents will engage in Assabiyyah (tribalism/racism) when they marry their children off, refusing to allow them to marry non-Pakistanis, non-Indians, and even people of a different caste than them!

This is no doubt an effect of the Hindu caste system which has seeped into the practise and culture of the Muslims of the region.

Suffice to say that such beliefs have no basis in Islam, and therefore it is un-necessary to discuss this. Many Indians and Pakistanis (both Hindu and Muslim) think that having light skin is a sign of superiority and they will bleach their skins to get that! If you meet a Pakistani or Indian girl, she will try to say that she has some Persian/Arab/Afghani blood in her, because in her mind that raises her status. This is an unfortunate inferiority complex, no doubt a reflection of hundreds of years of colonial occupation by the British.

The Ashraf/Aljaf split you talk about is another such idiotic inferiority complex of Indians and Pakistanis, who desperately want to be seen as anything than what they really are: brown.

So the bestowing of the Prophet is what gives a people pre-eminece? Then what wrong have the Native Americans or the Indians (like me) done, for instance, that they never received a Prophet at all?

This is not true. The Quran says that every people have been given a Prophet/Messenger. This includes Native Americans and Indians. In all, there were about 125,000 Prophets/Messengers, who were bestowed to different people at different times.

That's fine, but what happens to those of us who are descendants of neither Ishmael nor Isaac?

It doesn't matter. We are all progeny of Prophet Adam (as) and of Prophet Noah (as). The Prophetic sayings are clear on the matter, and I have stated it before:

The Prophet (s) said: “Undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of Jahiliyah (ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. Now people are of two kinds. Either believers who are aware or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam and Adam was made of clay… If they do not give this up (i.e. pride in ancestors) Allah will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through Khara (dung).”

The fact that the Prophet (s) says that we are all from Prophet Adam (as) means to say that we cannot differentiate based on lineage since we all come from Prophet Adam (as) in the first place.

Of that is your opinion, then I'd defer to it. The clerics in India are not so forgiving as you are, however, and they interpret it to mean much worse things.

If this is your sincere belief, and this is the belief of whoever you are here to represent, then that's great.

But the problem is, theory does not translate well into practice.

Like I said, it is the Hindu caste system affecting Muslims and the way they practise their faith. A similar thing happens with other religious customs of Hinduism which some Muslims ignorantly copy. For example, the Hindu kite-flying religious festival of "Basant" is copied by Muslims in Punjab, even though in reality this is considered a blasphemy in the Islamic faith. Also, Muslims watch Indian movies, listen to their songs, etc...all of which are not allowed in the faith.

However, to cogitate that this is part of the faith is just wrong. It is due to the ignorance of people who don't know their faith. As for me, I only speak of what the classical Ulema and Fuqaha of Islam have said on matters, and that which is known from the Quran and Sunnah alone.

So basically it says what I said it says. You're just using another translation. I'm using Palmer.

Yes, it says exactly the same thing...I just don't like old English, which I find unbelievably tiresome to read. I was reproducing it so that it could become clearer to read in case others would not understand it.

It preaches superioritism by implying that the believer is superior to the non-believer, irrespective of their respective individual merits.

We believe that the greatest sign of a person's merits is his Taqwa (piety). The more piety a person has, the more of a believer he is, and the better person he is.

By necessity, this implies that EVERY believer is superior to EVERY non-believer.

Yes, of course. A believer is better than a disbeliever. Allah says that. Of course, Allah would say that. Would it even make sense for Allah to say otherwise??

Remember: this is Allah talking. Allah decides who is and who is not a believer. The word used in that verse is "Mu'min" and not "Muslim". Mu'min translates to believer or good-doer or righteous person. So whoever is a pious and righteous person is better than one who is impious or unrighteous, or "wrong-doer" as the word is used in that verse.

A Muslim doesn't have to be a Mu'min and in fact a Muslim can even enter the Hell-Fire if he is not a Mu'min.

Throughout Indian history, this has been the justification for all sorts of unspeakable atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on non-Muslim subjects. It justified the worst sort of imperialism. And my worry is that that attitude is alive and well.

This is simply Hindu and Indian rhetoric. The Muslim rule in India varied, but for the most part it was a relatively liberal empire for the times. In general, the rights of minorities were protected, at least in relation to other empires at the time. Admittedly, there were bad times, but this was no different than other empires at the time, and you cannot blame Islam for that.

Let us examine that quote:

What does it say? It says "Do not marry disbelieving women until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than a disbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry your girls to disbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than a dis-believer, even though he allures you. Disbelievers do but beckon you to the Fire."

Let us analyse it a bit. First, there is the commandment, which says that the believer is not to marry a non-believer. Then there is the justification for that, which states that the commandment is necessitated due to the fact that the believer is superior in every way to the non-believer. It goes further, to state that the non-believer is a temptation to the believer, and leads to hellfire.

How precisely is that not a negative view of the rest of the world? How is this not discriminatory against non-believers? I do not consider Muslims inferior people, but if we go by what you have said, about judgement or superiority being based on religosity, then I am to be treated as inferior by Muslims.

Again, the verse in question uses the word "Mu'min" and *not* "Muslim." Mu'min translates to "good-doer/believer/righteous". A person can definitely be a Muslim and NOT be a Mu'min but rather be a Dhaalim (oppressor).

But did you know that Muslims in India discriminate more than the others?

I find that statement ludicrous. In fact, when Islam first spread in the subcontinent, so many Untouchables and low caste Hindus converted to Islam (to distance themselves from the Brahmin oppression) that the Brahmins preached that Muslims were actually below Untouchables and prostitutes in the hierarchy.

In the first instance, they do not intermarry with Hindus, because they consider Hindus inferior (which fits in perfectly with the vision of Islam which you have put out, by the way),

Wrong. Muslims do not marry Hindus because it is forbidden in our faith to marry people from another faith (with a couple exceptions). The reason is given explicitly in the religious rulings on the matter, which is that there is a risk that your children won't be Muslim if you marry a non-Muslim. This is the reason it is forbidden. Furthermore, as Muslims, we believe that you should marry someone compatible with yourself and religious ideology is the most important aspect of compatibility (in our opinion and estimation).

If some Muslim Indians feel superior to Hindus, then there are many Hindus who also feel superior to Muslims. This was evidenced by the fundamentalist BJP party which swept into power just a few years ago. They were well-known for preaching Hindu superiority.

Your insinuation that only Muslims are to be blamed for violence...this goes against the facts on the ground. The violence perpetuated by the Indian government against Muslims in Kashmir, Gujarat, and other such places would beg to differ.

The truth is that the Hindus and Muslims--the Indians and Pakistanis--have turned into the Hatfields and McCoys. It's time for Hindus and Muslims to build bridges, to end the cycle of violence and hatred that separates the two. I believe that it is two-sided, and I will be the first admit that Muslims have been at fault as well. It is time to bury the hatchet, like in Civ. At least for 10 turns!!!

Get your own house in order before criticising others.

Again, it is *you* who attacked my faith first. I simply responded. Having said that, I think we should both be kind towards each other, since our debate is intellectual and nothing else. We can agree to disagree, and we should disagree in a manner befitting our status as human beings.

"Belief" does not equal merit.

We believe that action is a manifestation of belief. A person who had belief would act on this belief; otherwise, he really doesn't believe. In fact, this is one of the differences between Christianity and Islam. Christianity preaches that Paradise is granted strictly on belief and not on actions. Islam, on the other hand, preaches that belief and action are identical twin sisters. You cannot have belief without action. Action is the inexorable result of belief. A person who claims to have belief but does not act on it does not have belief.

To give an example of this: if I told you that a raging bull is about to charge you from behind if you don't move...you could *say* that you believe what I say to you, but if you don't move, then that means you didn't really believe me. Only a fool wouldn't move out of the way of a raging bull. So it meant that you didn't really believe in that.

Likewise, we believe that actions (good deeds and bad deeds) are a consequence of true belief. Allah threatens us with Hell-Fire if we sin; so therefore someone who sins doesn't truly believe, otherwise he would never sin. (Of course, there are levels of belief, and the more pious are better believers.) Allah promises us Paradise if we do certain things...if someone doesn't *do* these things, then this means he doesn't really believe, because nobody except a lunatic wouldn't want what Allah has promised in Paradise.

Who is the better of the two:

A pious Hindu, who is an ardent idolater and believes totally in the Raja Yogic path to freedom, and is a great saint and influences millions of people's lives positively,

OR

A pious Muslim, who does no acts of exceptional merit, but simply carries Allah in his heart.

The answer of this question will reveal a lot about how you view Islam.

Again, Islam says that you cannot label a specific person as being superior or inferior. Nobody knows who will get Paradise and who will get Hell-Fire. So when you ask me such questions, I cannot answer you! Allah commands the Prophet (s) in the Quran to tell people that not even he is sure if he will get Paradise or not!

Allah commands the Prophet (s) in the Quran:

“Say (O Muhammed), ‘I am not different from other messengers. I have no idea what will happen to me or to you (in the next life). I only follow what is revealed to me. I am no more than a profound warner.’” (Quran, 46:9)

If the Prophet (s) didn't even know about himself and his own fate and his own status in the eyes of Allah, then what right do we have to say that we are superior to anyone else? What right would *I* have to say that I am superior to you??? In fact, I do *not* have this right.

You say that many Muslims have an arrogant attitude and they think that they are superior to non-Muslims. I think that this attitude is more prevalent amongst Indian Muslims, and it is due to the fact of the Hindu-Muslim anger and incessant rivalry that has been brewing for hundreds of years...Hindus think they are superior, and Muslims think they are superior...an endless Hatfield-McCoy feud.

But such an attitude of superiority has no basis in the Islamic religion. One of the Sahabah (pious Companions of the Prophet) would repeatedly say to people that he was sinful, even though he was the most pious! Nur Al-Din (r), the teacher of Salah Al-Din (r), used to refer to himself as a dog! He is quoted as saying: "May Allah grant victory to Islam and not to Mehmood. Who is this dog Mehmood to merit victory?" (Mehmood was Nur Al-Din's first name.)

This attitude is what Islam preaches. In fact, arrogance is considered completely Haram (forbidden). The feeling of superiority over others is forbidden. In Arabic, the word for arrogance or feelings of superiority is Kibr.

The Prophet (s): "The one who possesses an iota of Kibr (arrogance) in his heart shall not enter Paradise."

And he (s) repeated this on another occassion:

“The one who possesses half of a mustard seed of Kibr (arrogance) in his heart shall not be granted admission to Paradise; and the one who possesses half of a mustard seed of Iman (faith) shall not enter the Fire.”

The Prophet (s) was asked to specify what he meant by this, to which he (s) replied:

"Kibr is...being condescending to others (wa 'ghamttun-Nas)."

In fact, the Prophetic sayings tell us that we should be modest and soft, never thinking highly of ourselves. There are many Hadith (Prophetic sayings) to this effect, but I am not posting them due to the length of this post. Therefore, Islam does not condone a sense of superiority over others. A Muslim cannot say that he is superior to a non-Muslim, because he does not even know the fate of himself or the other person. Nobody knows who is a Mu'min (good-doer) and who is not, aside from Allah Who is the Judge.

So it is not just the act of having faith, but also the entity to which that faith is directed, which counts?

Yes.

But just a bit of friendly advice - I've come across much harsher things before, and I can be extremely harsh in turn, so I'd request we keep this friendly.

I agree, brother. I will not lie: some of the things you said did indeed offend me and I may have responded with clenched teeth. I apologize for this and I kindly ask that we do indeed keep this friendly, as this is better.

Thank you for your posts, and I realize that I must work on myself to improve my manner of debating and discussing things. I must not resort to bickering and vengefulness, and I apologize if I did this.

Allah says in the Quran to discuss in the best possible manner when you call to Islam, because not even you yourself know who will get Paradise and who will not:

"You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones." (Quran, 16:125)

I should not retaliate to aggressive posts because Allah says:

"But if you resort to patience (instead of revenge), it would be better" (Quran, 16:126)

"You shall resort to patience--and your patience is attainable only with Allah's help. Do not grieve over them, and do not be annoyed..." (Quran, 16:127)

And even if someone insults my religion, I should remember Allah's injunction in the Quran:

"And remain steadfast in the face of their utterances, and disregard them in a nice manner." (Quran, 73:10)

Even those who reject Islam, Allah says to just give them time:

"And let Me deal with those...who reject (the Call); just give them a little time." (Quran, 73:11)

I do not wish to drive a wedge between myself and you, my friend and brother in humanity. Allah says in the Quran:

"Tell My servants to treat each other in the best possible manner, for the devil will always try to drive a wedge among them. Surely, the devil is man's most ardent enemy." (Quran, 17:53)

Sincere apologies for anything that I said offensive!

In the Care of the Lord,
Salah Al-Din.

 

[ironduck]

Well, what makes something a medical disorder? If it has a genetic cause, how does one determine if it is a "disorder" or no?

Not taking sides, just arguing semantics.

I don't have DSM-IV handy, but something cannot be said to be a medical disorder if it causes no harm to self nor others.

 

[ironduck]

Firstly, I'd like to say that I completely oppose and protest the Danish cartoons. It was done with the intent purpose of galvanizing the Muslims, and it did just that. It was done to offend for the sake of offending. It was not only a picture of the Prophet (s) but a very insulting one with an offensive message.

That can be debated, but it is of course unfortunate if people are hurt.

And all these false cries of "freedom of speech" do not apply. That same Danish newspaper scrapped the idea of making a cartoon with Jesus (as)...this just weeks earlier. They axed this cartoon because they didn't want to insult Christians.

That could be a criticism against that particular newspaper. But there have been countless pictures published in Denmark of Jesus, including ones that some christians found highly offensive. For instance, Jesus portrayed as homosexual, Jesus portrayed with a huge erection, and so on. You are completely free to publish images in which you make fun of Jesus in this country. So you have been misinformed. Where do you get your information from?

And this is a country in which whoever says that the Holocaust didn't happen is thrown in jail.

Again, this is completely false. We have nazis here who routinely claim that the holocaust is a lie. They are free to say that. We have no laws against holocaust denial. Maybe you confuse Denmark with Germany, a country which has very strong reasons for fighting nazism.

Would a mainstream newspaper publish a KKK article in the name of freedom of speech? Would the N-word become OK to use for freedom of speech? Obviously, there is a limit...but it seems that nobody wants to include Muslims since they do not think that they have feelings?

Again, your level of information is highly lacking. Did you know that people in Denmark who have made derogatory remarks against muslims (as a group) have been sentenced to prison? So you see, the law is not slanted against muslims.

Therefore, I support all peaceful means of protest against the Danish newspaper. However, I do *not* agree with nor do I support any violent means. The Muslims who resorted to violence are violating the Quran, and all such violence is strictly Haram (forbidden) in Islam. Allah says in the Quran:

"Believers, never let the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice." (Quran, 5:8)

I think the manner in which the Muslim masses reacted had a lot to do with breaking the camel's back (a very fitting analogy since Muslims love camels lol)...With the war on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Muslim world in general...and especially the condition of the Muslims in Denmark...The Muslim masses are poor and uneducated, so they reacted in such a manner, without even knowing what their religious faith says against such violence.

The situation can be likened to the black riots in the 1980s and even those that occurred earlier. The reason they were rioting was no doubt justified, but the manner in which they did (i.e. the violence) was incorrect.

I partially agree with this analysis, however, I'm sure you can see that reacting violently only confirms the suspicion of people who are already wary of muslims? It's the worst possible reaction. The fact that many people died due to some silly cartoons is horrendous. The fact that muftis have issued bounties for the assasination of the cartoonists is horrendous (they have to live under police protection even though they did nothing illegal).

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I don't have DSM-IV handy, but something cannot be said to be a medical disorder if it causes no harm to self nor others.

Or any harm to the species in general. Anything that inhibits procreation is considered a medical disorder.

That could be a criticism against that particular newspaper. But there have been countless pictures published in Denmark of Jesus, including ones that some christians found highly offensive. For instance, Jesus portrayed as homosexual, Jesus portrayed with a huge erection, and so on. You are completely free to publish images in which you make fun of Jesus in this country. So you have been misinformed. Where do you get your information from?

You just said I am misinformed for stating that the newspaper refused to publish offensive cartoons of Prophet Jesus (as). This is 100% correct. I did *not* say that this is true of other newspapers, but rather for that particular newspaper. Had I said that this was true for all Danish newspapers, then you would be justified to say that I was misinformed. However, I did not say anything of the sort.

Again, this is completely false. We have nazis here who routinely claim that the holocaust is a lie. They are free to say that. We have no laws against holocaust denial. Maybe you confuse Denmark with Germany, a country which has very strong reasons for fighting nazism.

Well, I am mistaken on this issue...however, there are many countries in the EU in which it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, including Germany, Austria, and France. (I had erroneously heard that Denmark was one of them.) Nonetheless, the point remains the same: you don't see people getting in a hissy-fit over the fact that this freedom of speech is curtailed.

Again, your level of information is highly lacking.

Because I made one error, mentioned above? I think your assumption of my level of information is presumptious.

Did you know that people in Denmark who have made derogatory remarks against muslims (as a group) have been sentenced to prison? So you see, the law is not slanted against muslims.

I did not say the law. I said that Muslims in Denmark are a marginalized minority that are discriminated against.

I partially agree with this analysis, however, I'm sure you can see that reacting violently only confirms the suspicion of people who are already wary of muslims? It's the worst possible reaction.

Ditto.

There were many Muslims who told their fellow Muslims that this was indeed the worst possible reaction, and a great irony. It reminds me of the time I used to call my little sister a cry baby, and then she would start crying when I said that and say in tears "I am not a cry baby!"

Anyways, the reaction of those Muslims was against the injunction of the Quran:


"Believers, never let the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice." (Quran, 5:8)

 

[ironduck]

Or any harm to the species in general. Anything that inhibits procreation is considered a medical disorder.

Are you serious? If that was the case menopause would be a medical disorder. Heck, condoms would be a medical disorder.

Lesbians (as an example) in general are not unable to procreate. They do not wish to have sex with men.

You just said I am misinformed for stating that the newspaper refused to publish offensive cartoons of Prophet Jesus (as). This is 100% correct. I did *not* say that this is true of other newspapers, but rather for that particular newspaper. Had I said that this was true for all Danish newspapers, then you would be justified to say that I was misinformed. However, I did not say anything of the sort.

You said that the 'cries of freedom of speech' were false. I assumed you meant in the larger picture - because I sure as heck will cry for freedom of speech - and the freedom to publish those Muhammad cartoons. And the freedom to publish Jesus cartoons. These cries are not false.

Well, I am mistaken on this issue...however, there are many countries in the EU in which it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, including Germany, Austria, and France. (I had erroneously heard that Denmark was one of them.) Nonetheless, the point remains the same: you don't see people getting in a hissy-fit over the fact that this freedom of speech is curtailed.

As long as you keep your facts straight and separate. There are valid arguments for and against anti-nazi laws. The image you portray is one of hypocrisy, in which apparently you think it's ok in this country to insult islam, but not other religions. That's not the case in any European country I know of - and if it is the case then it's obviously wrong.

I did not say the law. I said that Muslims in Denmark are a marginalized minority that are discriminated against.

What you said was this:

Would a mainstream newspaper publish a KKK article in the name of freedom of speech? Would the N-word become OK to use for freedom of speech? Obviously, there is a limit...but it seems that nobody wants to include Muslims since they do not think that they have feelings?

You claim above that muslims are not protected from freedom of speech. I gave you a specific example that shows the opposite. So you are mistaken.

If you don't think it's the law that discriminates, but only individuals, perhaps your anger should be focused on those individuals instead? Oh, and btw, a mainstream newspaper may very well publish a KKK article in order to show who the KKK is (there have been articles with interviews of KKK members as well as nazis many times in the past). The n-word is ok to use in general, but not against a specific individual (although I don't know of any cases involving the n-word, so it's only a qualified guess). Muslims are very much included, which is why people go to prison for inciting hatred against them, just like they would go to prison for inciting hatred against jews. Sounds fair, no?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Are you serious? If that was the case menopause would be a medical disorder.

No, what I meant to say was that anything that prevented a creature of a certain species from procreating in the normal reproductive age.

Heck, condoms would be a medical disorder.

How? Condoms are a physical barrier. Impotence (even psychogenic impotence) or infertility are both considered medical conditions, whereas nobody would liken this to coitus interruptus. Wearing a condom or engaging in coitus interruptus is not the inability to engage in the sexual act but rather not engaging in the sexual act.

A true homosexual man would be unable to have sexual relations with a female. It is a biological or psychogenic cause, much like psychogenic impotence.

In any case, a definition of "health" and "diseaese" which I copy from a medical text is as follows:

Health is the absence of disease. Health is defined as:

1. Health as normality

2. Health as biological function

3. Health as homeostasis

4. Health as physical and psychological well-being

5. Health as productivity including reproduction

Homosexuality would be a violation of all five of these categories!!!

Lesbians (as an example) in general are not unable to procreate. They do not wish to have sex with men.

This would therefore qualify as a psychogenic disorder.

You said that the 'cries of freedom of speech' were false. I assumed you meant in the larger picture - because I sure as heck will cry for freedom of speech - and the freedom to publish those Muhammad cartoons. And the freedom to publish Jesus cartoons. These cries are not false.

Would you sure as heck cry for freedom of speech for Nazis in Germany? You yourself said that Germany has very good reasons to prohibit that. I don't understand who gets to describe freedom of speech. Is it you?

I've already asked this question: would you be OK with a major newspaper like the Times or Newsweek publishing a cartoon depicting Jews as evil crooked nose villains who are money-lenders that exploit people? Would you support a newspaper in publishing a cartoon depicting blacks as apes and monkeys?

I seriously doubt you would say 'yes' to any of these things. And I seriously doubt that you would sure as heck cry for freedom of speech on these things...this is proven by the fact that you aren't sure as heck crying for the lack of freedom of speech in Germany in regards to the Holocaust.

I do not understand your double-standard. It is not OK to draw Jews as crooked nose evil people, but it is OK to draw crooked nose evil Muslims who are terrorists?

As long as you keep your facts straight and separate. There are valid arguments for and against anti-nazi laws. The image you portray is one of hypocrisy, in which apparently you think it's ok in this country to insult islam, but not other religions. That's not the case in any European country I know of - and if it is the case then it's obviously wrong.

Actually, this is 100% incorrect. The Hijab was banned in a couple EU countries. And the legislators who enacted these laws *specifically* said that it was done to curb Islamic "fundamentalism." Yes, they banned *big* crosses, but they still allowed "small" crosses lol. Loophole for the Christians...but no loophole for the Muslims available. And in any case, I don't need to prove anything since legislators in those countries said that this law was specifically targetted for Muslims.

What happened to freedom of expression????? Where, sir, is your indignation?

You claim above that muslims are not protected from freedom of speech. I gave you a specific example that shows the opposite. So you are mistaken.

Your statement is relative. I was expressing my consternation over the fact that a mainstream newspaper would never publish a cartoon with crooked nosed Jews, but somehow it's ok to have crooked nosed Muslims.

If you don't think it's the law that discriminates, but only individuals, perhaps your anger should be focused on those individuals instead? Oh, and btw, a mainstream newspaper may very well publish a KKK article in order to show who the KKK is (there have been articles with interviews of KKK members as well as nazis many times in the past). The n-word is ok to use in general, but not against a specific individual (although I don't know of any cases involving the n-word, so it's only a qualified guess). Muslims are very much included, which is why people go to prison for inciting hatred against them, just like they would go to prison for inciting hatred against jews. Sounds fair, no?

You are mistaken about my position. I am not angry at the country of Denmark, nor at the people in general. I am simply angry at the newspaper, and actually just the editor who chose to publish that. I do not support violence and I condemn the actions of some misguided Muslims who did those things.

I believe that the proper reaction would be to call for peaceful protest against the newspaper. This, I believe, is also protected freedom of speech.

I actually think that you and I are arguing over semantics, and overall I do not think our positions on this matter are that far apart.

 

[silver 2039]

What is your view on nations such as Qatar, and UAE,which have genereally moved away from conservative Islam to be less religous. For instnace when I was at Qatar during the past few days I saw a shop selling burkas, right next to a shop selling skimpy clothing. At the beach therer were both women in burkas and women in bikinis.

When I was at Dubai today I noticed a call to prayer from issued from a nearby mosque, most people ignored it and carried on with their shopping. What do you think of this? Do you think Qatar and UAE are true Islamic countries or have they "sinned" or something?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

What is your view on nations such as Qatar, and UAE,which have genereally moved away from conservative Islam to be less religous. For instnace when I was at Qatar during the past few days I saw a shop selling burkas, right next to a shop selling skimpy clothing. At the beach therer were both women in burkas and women in bikinis.

When I was at Dubai today I noticed a call to prayer from issued from a nearby mosque, most people ignored it and carried on with their shopping. What do you think of this? Do you think Qatar and UAE are true Islamic countries or have they "sinned" or something?

Currently, there are no Islamic countries in existence. They are simply Muslim countries, but they are not Islamic countries. Qatar and UAE are two of the countries which have led the charge in abandoning Islam and embracing Western values instead.

All of the leaders of the Muslim countries are hypocrites and puppets, including first and foremost the Saudi government, and all the other so-called princes and kings of Arabia. The Prophet (s) told us that Allah will collect all the kings on the Day of Judgment in His Hands, and ask them: "Who is your King?" Verily, Allah is the King of Kings, and no human has a right to kingship. The Caliph is a slave and nothing else. Allah asked the Prophet (s) if he wished to be the king of humans or the slave of Allah, and the Prophet (s) responded that he would rather be a slave of Allah, which is superior to a king of humans.

The Muslim leader is a slave, and he is but a treasurer of the Muslims; he cannot indulge in the wealth of the Muslims, like the modern day leaders of the Arab world do. They will pay for their luxurious, extravagant, and sinful lifestyles.

Having said that, every single day more and more Muslims are waking up and returning to the Call of Islam, especially those in the Western world. And especially the youth, many of whom abandon a life of sin to answer the Call of Islam, who accept the true and unadulterated teachings of Islam as opposed to the former generation which is lax in matters of faith.

The Muslim world is awaiting the rise of the new Nur Al-Din (r) or the new Salah Al-Din (r), who will unify the Muslims, remove the puppet governments backed by the Crusaders, free Palestine, establish social justice, bring the Muslims back to Islam, bring honor and dignity back to the Muslims, show kindness to the non-Muslims, and re-establish the Caliphate which is the vanguard of Islam.

 

[knigh+]

I did not say Turks. I said Turkish people (i.e. those living in Anatolia). Although yes, those terms are used interchangeably a lot and used differently by different people. In any case, Turks moved around a lot of places in Central Asia, so my point stands. A Turk living in one part of Central Asia cannot claim those places that were left behind thousands of years ago.

Nonetheless, my *point* was that the country of Turkey could not claim the land in Central Asia that they lived on thousands of years ago.

As a Turk from Turkey, I am unaware of such a claim. We acknowledge Central Asia is the historical homeland, and wouldn't mind more cooperation with the Turkic states, but we don't have a claim on any land there. Your comparison of Turkey to Israel was quite invalid (but that does not invalidate your statement about them). Israelites say Israel (or parts of it) belongs to them. Turks say we have some cousins in Central Asia...Why would we want to claim their land?

I know it is not relevant here, but understand my position as well: Whenever I search the forums for Turk or Turkey, I encounter and feel obliged to intervene such incorrect statements about my country. And one of the biggest misconceptions is the belief that modern Turkey is expansionist, it is not at all so. Still I won't press this matter further in orther not to hijack a thread that I really appreciate.

So I shut up now and you can go back to bridgeing the gap between muslims and non-muslims my friend

 

[warpus]

In all, there were about 125,000 Prophets/Messengers, who were bestowed to different people at different times.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Care to elaborate?

Sure.

In Islam, we believe that Allah (God) sent Messengers to every nation (or group) of people in history. Allah says in the Quran:

"And verily, We have sent every nation a Messenger saying 'Serve God and eschew evil.'" (Quran, 16:36)*

*The actual Arabic term used in the Quran is "Ummah" which translates to "people, group of people, nation, or community". It is more inclusive than all of these in fact.

Some of these Messengers are mentioned in the Quran by Allah and some of them are not, as Allah says:

"And We have certainly sent Messengers before you (O Muhammad). Among them are those whose stories We have mentioned to you, and some of whom We have not mentioned to you" (Quran, 40:78)

The Quran in fact mentions 25 of these Prophets and Messengers; Prophet Muhammad (s) told us that there were around 125,000 Prophets and Messengers in all, who were sent to various nations and peoples.

Allah says:

"Every people were sent a Messenger" (Quran, 10:47)

Like the poster "Aneesh" said, it would be unjust for one nation *not* to have been sent a Messenger whereas other nations had been. In fact, the Islamic belief is that *no* nation was *not* sent a Messenger. Allah says:

"Verily, We have sent you (O Muhammad) in truth, as a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and as a Warner: and there never was a people, without a Warner having lived amongst them in the past." (Quran, 35:24)

"You (O Muhammad) are a Warner only, and there is a Guide for every people" (Quran, 13:7)

----------

Every Messenger was sent to a specific group of people, except the final seal of the Prophets who was Prophet Muhammad (s) who was sent for all of humankind. Indeed, history attests to his finality, as there has been no new major religion after Islam. (Just look at Civ 4!)

The reason that Allah sent the Message in stages or steps through various Messengers, instead of simply revealing it all at once, is that humanity had not matured yet to the point that it was ready for Islam. Therefore, to prepare them for the seal of the Prophets, humanity had to be sent many other Prophets in stages, until humanity had matured enough.

Every Ummah (nation, or group of people) was sent a different Divine Law (Shariah) that was specific to the situation of that group of people. The People of Moses (as) were sent a very strict Divine Law as a punishment for their sins. But then the people lost the Spirit of the Faith--following only the Law of the Faith--so Allah sent the People of Jesus (as) a more lenient and forgiving Divine Law. But then the People of Jesus (as)--although they were strong in the Spirit of the Faith--became too lax in the Laws. Therefore, Allah finally sent to the People of Muhammad (s) a faith that was the right combination of Law and Spirit, making the Muslims not as harsh as the People of Moses (as) and not as lax as the People of Jesus (as).

Allah says:

“By stages shall We teach you to declare the Message.” (Quran, 87:6)

The People of Moses (as) were sent a Divine Scripture, the Old Testament. The People of Jesus (as) were sent another Scripture, the New Testament. Then, finally Allah sent the Final Testament, the Quran.

Allah says:

"...We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals in stages!" (Quran, 16:101)

Allah sent Messengers to every nation and various Divine Scriptures...but then the people of those nations began to forget the Message and even began corrupting it. For example, the People of Jesus (as) forgot the Message of Jesus (as) which was to pray to God alone and never to associate anything else as equal to God...to shun polythiesm and idolatery, and to be monotheists in the strictest sense of the word. Whereas the initial followers of Prophet Jesus (as) were pious, the successive generations became forgetful of the Message and there were even those elements who willfully changed the Scriptures in order to benefit financially and politically.

Allah says about this:

“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (Quran 2:79)

Allah mentions how only a few (of the early followers) would be guided by the Prophets, but then the people would soon go astray. Allah says:

"And verily, We have sent every nation a Messenger saying 'Serve God and eschew evil.' Of the people were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom Error become inevitably established. So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied the Truth." (Quran, 16:36)

Because the people would forget the Message and go astray from it, Allah would then renew the Message by bestowing a new Messenger with another Scripture to call people back to the true faith. Allah says:

"We sent Noah and Abraham, and we granted their descendants Prophethood and the Scriptures. Some of them were guided, while many were wicked." (Quran, 57:26)

And:

"Those were the ones to whom We had given the Scripture, Wisdom, and Prophethood. If these people (then) disbelieve, We will (merely) substitute others in their place, and these new people will not be disbelievers." (Quran, 6:89)

The New Testament replaced the Old Testament (i.e. abrogated it). The Final Testament (i.e. the Quran) replaced and abrogated all the previous Scriptures. Allah says:

“None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar.” (Quran, 2:106)

Of the 125,000 Prophets and Messengers sent to humankind, five of them are given special mention in the Quran, and they are known as the Ulul Azmi, or Arch-Prophets. These five are:

1. Prophet Noah (as)
2. Prophet Abraham (as)
3. Prophet Moses (as)
4. Prophet Jesus (as)
5. Prophet Muhammad (s)

Twenty other Prophets and Messengers are also mentioned in the Quran, including Prophet Adam (as), Lot (as), Isaac (as), Ismaeel (as), Jacob (as), Joseph (as), Aaron (as), David (as), Solomon (as), Elijah (as), Elisha (as), Jonah (as), Zacharias (as), and John (as)...as well as a few others who are not mentioned (or are not well-known) in the Judeo-Christian traditions.

Some Muslims also believe that many other famous religious figures were also Prophets such as Zoroaster, Buddha, Ram, etc. However, there is no way to know for sure as Allah did not mention them in the Quran nor did the Prophet (s) mention them. Suffice to say, all that is important is to know that *every* nation and people were sent a Messenger. Regardless, none of these previous Messengers ever preached what their followers follow today.

Allah says in the Quran:

"Never would a human being--whom Allah blessed with the Scripture and the Office of Prophethood--say to the people, 'Be worshippers of me instead of Allah's.' On the contrary, he would say: 'Devote yourselves to your Lord alone' according to the Scripture you preach and the teachings you learn." (Quran, 3:79)

To illustrate this verse, we remember the example of the People of Jesus (as): Jesus (as) repeatedly called people to worship God alone, but eventually people began ascribing other things to him that he never said, such as associating Jesus (as) with God or calling him the Son of God.

As Muslims, we find it offensive that others would claim that Prophets and Messengers would ever to call to anything other than the True Message of Allah. *All* of the Messengers preached Islam and were Muslims. The word "Islam" is just an Arabic word for "submission", referring to submission to God. And the word "Muslim" is just an Arabic word for "submittors" (i.e. submittors to God). We believe that all of the past Prophets and Messengers simply preached submission to God, and they were thus all submittors.

Allah says that the true followers were Submittors (Muslims) even before the Prophet Muhammad (s)...previous Prophets and Scriptures all taught Islam (submission to God):

"It is He (Allah) Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation)" (Quran, 22:78)

And we believe that the Prophets and their early followers were never Jews and were never Christains. Allah says:

"Abraham was neither Jewish , nor Christian; he was a monotheist, a Muslim; he never was an idol-worshiper. The people most worthy of following Abraham are those who follow him and this Prophet (Muhammad), and those who believed. Allah is the Lord of the believers." (Quran, 3:67-68)

"And strive in the way of Allah, as you ought to strive, with sincerity and discipline. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you any hardship in religion, the (same) faith of your father Abraham" (Quran, 22:78)

Every nation and people were sent a Messenger. It is believed that the true messages of these Prophets was corrupted and lost by the people, until it became incumbent upon Allah to send a new Messenger to revive the Message.

Allah says in the Quran:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the final Seal of the Prophets, Allah is ever Aware of all things." (Quran, 33:40)

Whereas other Prophets and Messengers were sent to specific and individual nations and peoples, Prophet Muhammad (s) was sent to all of humanity and he was the universal Prophet for the rest of time. Allah says:

"We have not sent you (O Muhammad) but as a Universal Messenger to men, as a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and a Warner unto all of mankind, but most men know not." (Quran, 34:28)

This is perhaps one of the many appeals of Islam, namely that it ties all religions together under one universal message. It explains why there are so many religious faiths on this earth which share the same spirit but vary so greatly in practise. Islam calls to One Unified Religion for all people, the Final Testament in a long chain of Prophets and Messengers...returning to the True Call of the Lord, which was taught from Prophet Adam (as) all the way to the final Prophet (s).

We believe in all of the Prophets and Messengers that were sent down to all of the nations. Rejection of even *one* of these Prophets is rejection of *all* of the Prophets, since they preached the same thing. We believe that they all preached the same message and therefore there is no distinction between the many Prophets. Allah says that there is "no difference between any of His Messengers" (Quran, 2:285) and they all preached the same thing.

Rejection of any of the Prophets is rejection of them all. Rejection of any of the Prophets, including Prophet Muhammad (s), is rejection of all the previous Prophets, meaning rejecting Prophets Noah (as), Abraham (as), Moses (as), and Jesus (as)...because they all preached the same thing. Allah says:

"Say (O Muslims): 'We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismaeel, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to all Prophets from their Lord: we make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him (Allah) have we have surrendered." (Quran, 2:136)

---------

Wow, I think that took me an entire half hour to type this. I hope it helps understand the Muslim perspective. I understand that it would go against other peoples' beliefs, and I hope I did not offend anyone.

In the Care of the Lord,
Salah Al-Din.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

This is in response to a post by SSRT who stated that Jews were expelled from Muslim lands. Because I fear that he might call me anti-Semitic if I say anything to that myself, I would like simply to quote an article written by a Jew who is part of the organization called "Jews Against Zionism" (www.JewsAgainstZionism.com).

The entire article can be found here: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/impact/iraqijews.cfm

The article was written by Naeim Giladi, an Iraqi Jew, and it was approved by the Jewish Rabbis in charge of the Jews Against Zionism website.

The Jews of Iraq

Article by Naeim Giladi

An Iraqi Jew tells his story of Zionist activities that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.

I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called "cruel Zionism." I write about it because I was part of it.

Spoiler :

My Story

Of course I thought I knew it all back then. I was young, idealistic, and more than willing to put my life at risk for my convictions. It was 1947 and I wasn't quite 18 when the Iraqi authorities caught me for smuggling young Iraqi Jews like myself out of Iraq, into Iran, and then on to the Promised Land of the soon-to-be established Israel.

I was an Iraqi Jew in the Zionist underground. My Iraqi jailers did everything they could to extract the names of my co-conspirators. Fifty years later, pain still throbs in my right toe-a reminder of the day my captors used pliers to remove my toenails. On another occasion, they hauled me to the flat roof of the prison, stripped me bare on a frigid January day, then threw a bucket of cold water over me. I was left there, chained to the railing, for hours. But I never once considered giving them the information they wanted. I was a true believer.

My preoccupation during what I refer to as my "two years in hell" was with survival and escape. I had no interest then in the broad sweep of Jewish history in Iraq even though my family had been part of it right from the beginning. We were originally Haroons, a large and important family of the "Babylonian Diaspora." My ancestors had settled in Iraq more than 2,600 years ago-600 years before Christianity, and 1,200 years before Islam. I am descended from Jews who built the tomb of Yehezkel, a Jewish prophet of pre-biblical times. My town, where I was born in 1929, is Hillah, not far from the ancient site of Babylon.

The original Jews found Babylon, with its nourishing Tigris and Euphrates rivers, to be truly a land of milk, honey, abundance-and opportunity. Although Jews, like other minorities in what became Iraq, experienced periods of oppression and discrimination depending on the rulers of the period, their general trajectory over two and one-half millennia was upward. Under the late Ottoman rule, for example, Jewish social and religious institutions, schools, and medical facilities flourished without outside interference, and Jews were prominent in government and business.

As I sat there in my cell, unaware that a death sentence soon would be handed down against me, I could not have recounted any personal grievances that my family members would have lodged against the government or the Muslim majority. Our family had been treated well and had prospered, first as farmers with some 50,000 acres devoted to rice, dates and Arab horses. Then, with the Ottomans, we bought and purified gold that was shipped to Istanbul and turned into coinage. The Turks were responsible in fact for changing our name to reflect our occupation-we became Khalaschi, meaning "Makers of Pure."

I did not volunteer the information to my father that I had joined the Zionist underground. He found out several months before I was arrested when he saw me writing Hebrew and using words and expressions unfamiliar to him. He was even more surprised to learn that, yes, I had decided I would soon move to Israel myself. He was scornful. "You'll come back with your tail between your legs," he predicted.

About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs. But my mother and father were among the 6,000 who did not go to Israel. Although physically I never did return to Iraq-that bridge had been burned in any event-my heart has made the journey there many, many times. My father had it right.

I was imprisoned at the military camp of Abu-Greib, about 7 miles from Baghdad. When the military court handed down my sentence of death by hanging, I had nothing to lose by attempting the escape I had been planning for many months.

It was a strange recipe for an escape: a dab of butter, an orange peel, and some army clothing that I had asked a friend to buy for me at a flea market. I deliberately ate as much bread as I could to put on fat in anticipation of the day I became 18, when they could formally charge me with a crime and attach the 50-pound ball and chain that was standard prisoner issue.

Later, after my leg had been shackled, I went on a starvation diet that often left me weak-kneed. The pat of butter was to lubricate my leg in preparation for extricating it from the metal band. The orange peel I surreptitiously stuck into the lock on the night of my planned escape, having studied how it could be placed in such a way as to keep the lock from closing.

As the jailers turned to go after locking up, I put on the old army issue that was indistinguishable from what they were wearing-a long, green coat and a stocking cap that I pulled down over much of my face (it was winter). Then I just quietly opened the door and joined the departing group of soldiers as they strode down the hall and outside, and I offered a "good night" to the shift guard as I left. A friend with a car was waiting to speed me away.

Later I made my way to the new state of Israel, arriving in May, 1950. My passport had my name in Arabic and English, but the English couldn't capture the "kh" sound, so it was rendered simply as Klaski. At the border, the immigration people applied the English version, which had an Eastern European, Ashkenazi ring to it. In one way, this "mistake" was my key to discovering very soon just how the Israeli caste system worked.

They asked me where I wanted to go and what I wanted to do. I was the son of a farmer; I knew all the problems of the farm, so I volunteered to go to Dafnah, a farming kibbutz in the high Galilee. I only lasted a few weeks. The new immigrants were given the worst of everything. The food was the same, but that was the only thing that everyone had in common. For the immigrants, bad cigarettes, even bad toothpaste. Everything. I left.

Then, through the Jewish Agency, I was advised to go to al-Majdal (later renamed Ashkelon), an Arab town about 9 miles from Gaza, very close to the Mediterranean. The Israeli government planned to turn it into a farmers' city, so my farm background would be an asset there.

When I reported to the Labor Office in al-Majdal, they saw that I could read and write Arabic and Hebrew and they said that I could find a good-paying job with the Military Governor's office. The Arabs were under the authority of these Israeli Military Governors. A clerk handed me a bunch of forms in Arabic and Hebrew. Now it dawned on me. Before Israel could establish its farmers' city, it had to rid al-Majdal of its indigenous Palestinians. The forms were petitions to the United Nations Inspectors asking for transfer out of Israel to Gaza, which was under Egyptian control.

I read over the petition. In signing, the Palestinian would be saying that he was of sound mind and body and was making the request for transfer free of pressure or duress. Of course, there was no way that they would leave without being pressured to do so. These families had been there hundreds of years, as farmers, primitive artisans, weavers. The Military Governor prohibited them from pursuing their livelihoods, just penned them up until they lost hope of resuming their normal lives. That's when they signed to leave.

I was there and heard their grief. "Our hearts are in pain when we look at the orange trees that we planted with our own hands. Please let us go, let us give water to those trees. God will not be pleased with us if we leave His trees untended." I asked the Military Governor to give them relief, but he said, "No, we want them to leave."

I could no longer be part of this oppression and I left. Those Palestinians who didn't sign up for transfers were taken by force-just put in trucks and dumped in Gaza. About four thousand people were driven from al-Majdal in one way or another. The few who remained were collaborators with the Israeli authorities.

Subsequently, I wrote letters trying to get a government job elsewhere and I got many immediate responses asking me to come for an interview. Then they would discover that my face didn't match my Polish/Ashkenazi name. They would ask if I spoke Yiddish or Polish, and when I said I didn't, they would ask where I came by a Polish name. Desperate for a good job, I would usually say that I thought my great-grandfather was from Poland. I was advised time and again that "we'll give you a call."

Eventually, three to four years after coming to Israel, I changed my name to Giladi, which is close to the code name, Gilad, that I had in the Zionist underground. Klaski wasn't doing me any good anyway, and my Eastern friends were always chiding me about the name they knew didn't go with my origins as an Iraqi Jew.

I was disillusioned at what I found in the Promised Land, disillusioned personally, disillusioned at the institutionalized racism, disillusioned at what I was beginning to learn about Zionism's cruelties. The principal interest Israel had in Jews from Islamic countries was as a supply of cheap labor, especially for the farm work that was beneath the urbanized Eastern European Jews. Ben Gurion needed the "Oriental" Jews to farm the thousands of acres of land left by Palestinians who were driven out by Israeli forces in 1948.

And I began to find out about the barbaric methods used to rid the fledgling state of as many Palestinians as possible. The world recoils today at the thought of bacteriological warfare, but Israel was probably the first to actually use it in the Middle East. In the 1948 war, Jewish forces would empty Arab villages of their populations, often by threats, sometimes by just gunning down a half-dozen unarmed Arabs as examples to the rest. To make sure the Arabs couldn't return to make a fresh life for themselves in these villages, the Israelis put typhus and dysentery bacteria into the water wells.

Uri Mileshtin, an official historian for the Israeli Defense Force, has written and spoken about the use of bacteriological agents. According to Mileshtin, Moshe Dayan, a division commander at the time, gave orders in 1948 to remove Arabs from their villages, bulldoze their homes, and render water wells unusable with typhus and dysentery bacteria.

Acre was so situated that it could practically defend itself with one big gun, so the Haganah put bacteria into the spring that fed the town. The spring was called Capri and it ran from the north near a kibbutz. The Haganah put typhus bacteria into the water going to Acre, the people got sick, and the Jewish forces occupied Acre. This worked so well that they sent a Haganah division dressed as Arabs into Gaza, where there were Egyptian forces, and the Egyptians caught them putting two cans of bacteria, typhus and dysentery, into the water supply in wanton disregard of the civilian population. "In war, there is no sentiment," one of the captured Haganah men was quoted as saying.

My activism in Israel began shortly after I received a letter from the Socialist/Zionist Party asking me to help with their Arabic newspaper. When I showed up at their offices at Central House in Tel Aviv, I asked around to see just where I should report. I showed the letter to a couple of people there and, without even looking at it, they would motion me away with the words, "Room No. 8." When I saw that they weren't even reading the letter, I inquired of several others. But the response was the same, "Room No. 8," with not a glance at the paper I put in front of them.

So I went to Room 8 and saw that it was the Department of Jews from Islamic Countries. I was disgusted and angry. Either I am a member of the party or I'm not. Do I have a different ideology or different politics because I am an Arab Jew? It's segregation, I thought, just like a Negroes' Department. I turned around and walked out. That was the start of my open protests. That same year I organized a demonstration in Ashkelon against Ben Gurion's racist policies and 10,000 people turned out.

There wasn't much opportunity for those of us who were second class citizens to do much about it when Israel was on a war footing with outside enemies. After the 1967 war, I was in the Army myself and served in the Sinai when there was continued fighting along the Suez Canal. But the cease-fire with Egypt in 1970 gave us our opening. We took to the streets and organized politically to demand equal rights. If it's our country, if we were expected to risk our lives in a border war, then we expected equal treatment.

We mounted the struggle so tenaciously and received so much publicity that the Israeli government tried to discredit our movement by calling us "Israel's Black Panthers." They were thinking in racist terms, really, in assuming the Israeli public would reject an organization whose ideology was being compared to that of radical blacks in the United States. But we saw that what we were doing was no different than what blacks in the United States were fighting against-segregation, discrimination, unequal treatment. Rather than reject the label, we adopted it proudly. I had posters of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela and other civil rights activists plastered all over my office.

With the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the Israeli-condoned Sabra and Shatilla massacres, I had had enough of Israel. I became a United States citizen and made certain to revoke my Israeli citizenship. I could never have written and published my book in Israel, not with the censorship they would impose.

Even in America, I had great difficulty finding a publisher because many are subject to pressures of one kind or another from Israel and its friends. I ended up paying $60,000 from my own pocket to publish Ben Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews, virtually the entire proceeds from having sold my house in Israel.

I still was afraid that the printer would back out or that legal proceedings would be initiated to stop its publication, like the Israeli government did in an attempt to prevent former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky from publishing his first book. Ben Gurion's Scandals had to be translated into English from two languages. I wrote in Hebrew when I was in Israel and hoped to publish the book there, and I wrote in Arabic when I was completing the book after coming to the U.S. But I was so worried that something would stop publication that I told the printer not to wait for the translations to be thoroughly checked and proofread. Now I realize that the publicity of a lawsuit would just have created a controversial interest in the book.

I am using bank vault storage for the valuable documents that back up what I have written. These documents, including some that I illegally copied from the archives at Yad Vashem, confirm what I saw myself, what I was told by other witnesses, and what reputable historians and others have written concerning the Zionist bombings in Iraq, Arab peace overtures that were rebuffed, and incidents of violence and death inflicted by Jews on Jews in the cause of creating Israel.

The Riots of 1941

If, as I have said, my family in Iraq was not persecuted personally and I knew no deprivation as a member of the Jewish minority, what led me to the steps of the gallows as a member of the Zionist underground? To answer that question, it is necessary to establish the context of the massacre that occurred in Baghdad on June 1, 1941, when several hundred Iraqi Jews were killed in riots involving junior officers of the Iraqi army. I was 12 years of age and many of those killed were my friends. I was angry, and very confused.

What I didn't know at the time was that the riots most likely were stirred up by the British, in collusion with a pro-British Iraqi leadership.

With the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following WW I, Iraq came under British "tutelage." Amir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein who had led the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman sultan, was brought in from Mecca by the British to become King of Iraq in 1921. Many Jews were appointed to key administrative posts, including that of economics minister. Britain retained final authority over domestic and external affairs. Britain's pro-Zionist attitude in Palestine, however, triggered a growing anti-Zionist backlash in Iraq, as it did in all Arab countries. Writing at the end of 1934, Sir Francis Humphreys, Britain's Ambassador in Baghdad, noted that, while before WW I Iraqi Jews had enjoyed a more favorable position than any other minority in the country, since then "Zionism has sown dissension between Jews and Arabs, and a bitterness has grown up between the two peoples which did not previously exist."

King Faisal died in 1933. He was succeeded by his son Ghazi, who died in a motor car accident in 1939. The crown then passed to Ghazi's 4-year-old son, Faisal II, whose uncle, Abd al-Ilah, was named regent. Abd al-Ilah selected Nouri el-Said as prime minister. El-Said supported the British and, as hatred of the British grew, he was forced from office in March 1940 by four senior army officers who advocated Iraq's independence from Britain. Calling themselves the Golden Square, the officers compelled the regent to name as prime minister Rashid Ali al-Kilani, leader of the National Brotherhood party.

The time was 1940 and Britain was reeling from a strong German offensive. Al-Kilani and the Golden Square saw this as their opportunity to rid themselves of the British once and for all. Cautiously they began to negotiate for German support, which led the pro-British regent Abd al-Ilah to dismiss al-Kilani in January 1941. By April, however, the Golden Square officers had reinstated the prime minister.

This provoked the British to send a military force into Basra on April 12, 1941. Basra, Iraq's second largest city, had a Jewish population of 30,000. Most of these Jews made their livings from import/export, money changing, retailing, as workers in the airports, railways, and ports, or as senior government employees.

On the same day, April 12, supporters of the pro-British regent notified the Jewish leaders that the regent wanted to meet with them. As was their custom, the leaders brought flowers for the regent. Contrary to custom, however, the cars that drove them to the meeting place dropped them off at the site where the British soldiers were concentrated.

Photographs of the Jews appeared in the following day's newspapers with the banner "Basra Jews Receive British Troops with Flowers." That same day, April 13, groups of angry Arab youths set about to take revenge against the Jews. Several Muslim notables in Basra heard of the plan and calmed things down. Later, it was learned that the regent was not in Basra at all and that the matter was a provocation by his pro-British supporters to bring about an ethnic war in order to give the British army a pretext to intervene.

The British continued to land more forces in and around Basra. On May 7, 1941, their Gurkha unit, composed of Indian soldiers from that ethnic group, occupied Basra's el-Oshar quarter, a neighborhood with a large Jewish population. The soldiers, led by British officers, began looting. Many shops in the commercial district were plundered. Private homes were broken into. Cases of attempted rape were reported. Local residents, Jews and Muslims, responded with pistols and old rifles, but their bullets were no match for the soldiers' Tommy Guns.

Afterwards, it was learned that the soldiers acted with the acquiescence, if not the blessing, of their British commanders. (It should be remembered that the Indian soldiers, especially those of the Gurkha unit, were known for their discipline, and it is highly unlikely they would have acted so riotously without orders.) The British goal clearly was to create chaos and to blacken the image of the pro-nationalist regime in Baghdad, thereby giving the British forces reason to proceed to the capital and to overthrow the al-Kilani government.

Baghdad fell on May 30. Al-Kilani fled to Iran, along with the Golden Square officers. Radio stations run by the British reported that Regent Abd al-Ilah would be returning to the city and that thousands of Jews and others were planning to welcome him. What inflamed young Iraqis against the Jews most, however, was the radio announcer Yunas Bahri on the German station "Berlin," who reported in Arabic that Jews from Palestine were fighting alongside the British against Iraqi soldiers near the city of Faluja. The report was false.

On Sunday, June 1, unarmed fighting broke out in Baghdad between Jews who were still celebrating their Shabuoth holiday and young Iraqis who thought the Jews were celebrating the return of the pro-British regent. That evening, a group of Iraqis stopped a bus, removed the Jewish passengers, murdered one and fatally wounded a second.

About 8:30 the following morning, some 30 individuals in military and police uniforms opened fire along el-Amin street, a small downtown street whose jewelry, tailor and grocery shops were Jewish-owned. By 11 a.m., mobs of Iraqis with knives, switchblades and clubs were attacking Jewish homes in the area.

The riots continued throughout Monday, June 2. During this time, many Muslims rose to defend their Jewish neighbors, while some Jews successfully defended themselves. There were 124 killed and 400 injured, according to a report written by a Jewish Agency messenger who was in Iraq at the time. Other estimates, possibly less reliable, put the death toll higher, as many as 500, with from 650 to 2,000 injured. From 500 to 1,300 stores and more than 1,000 homes and apartments were looted.

Who was behind the rioting in the Jewish quarter?

Yosef Meir, one of the most prominent activists in the Zionist underground movement in Iraq, known then as Yehoshafat, claims it was the British. Meir, who now works for the Israeli Defense Ministry, argues that, in order to make it appear that the regent was returning as the savior who would reestablish law and order, the British stirred up the riots against the most vulnerable and visible segment in the city, the Jews. And, not surprisingly, the riots ended as soon as the regent's loyal soldiers entered the capital.

My own investigations as a journalist lead me to believe Meir is correct. Furthermore, I think his claims should be seen as based on documents in the archives of the Israeli Defense Ministry, the agency that published his book. Yet, even before his book came out, I had independent confirmation from a man I met in Iran in the late Forties.

His name was Michael Timosian, an Iraqi Armenian. When I met him he was working as a male nurse at the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Abadan in the south of Iran. On June 2, 1941, however, he was working at the Baghdad hospital where many of the riot victims were brought. Most of these victims were Jews.

Timosian said he was particularly interested in two patients whose conduct did not follow local custom. One had been hit by a bullet in his shoulder, the other by a bullet in his right knee. After the doctor removed the bullets, the staff tried to change their blood-soaked cloths. But the two men fought off their efforts, pretending to be speechless, although tests showed they could hear. To pacify them, the doctor injected them with anesthetics and, as they were sleeping, Timosian changed their cloths. He discovered that one of them had around his neck an identification tag of the type used by British troops, while the other had tattoos with Indian script on his right arm along with the familiar sword of the Gurkha.

The next day when Timosian showed up for work, he was told that a British officer, his sergeant and two Indian Gurkha soldiers had come to the hospital early that morning. Staff members overheard the Gurkha soldiers talking with the wounded patients, who were not as dumb as they had pretended. The patients saluted the visitors, covered themselves with sheets and, without signing the required release forms, left the hospital with their visitors.

Today there is no doubt in my mind that the anti-Jewish riots of 1941 were orchestrated by the British for geopolitical ends. David Kimche is certainly a man who was in a position to know the truth, and he has spoken publicly about British culpability. Kimche had been with British Intelligence during WW II and with the Mossad after the war. Later he became Director General of Israel's Foreign Ministry, the position he held in 1982 when he addressed a forum at the British Institute for International Affairs in London.

In responding to hostile questions about Israel's invasion of Lebanon and the refugee camp massacres in Beirut, Kimche went on the attack, reminding the audience that there was scant concern in the British Foreign Office when British Gurkha units participated in the murder of 500 Jews in the streets of Baghdad in 1941.

(continued...)
To read the full article, go here: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/impact/iraqijews.cfm

Conclusion

Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth. Certainly it has been easier for the world to accept the Zionist lie that Jews were evicted from Muslim lands because of anti-Semitism, and that Israelis, never the Arabs, were the pursuers of peace. The truth is far more discerning: bigger players on the world stage were pulling the strings.

These players, I believe, should be held accountable for their crimes, particularly when they willfully terrorized, dispossessed and killed innocent people on the altar of some ideological imperative.

Spoiler :

I believe, too, that the descendants of these leaders have a moral responsibility to compensate the victims and their descendants, and to do so not just with reparations, but by setting the historical record straight.

That is why I established a panel of inquiry in Israel to seek reparations for Iraqi Jews who had been forced to leave behind their property and possessions in Iraq. That is why I joined the Black Panthers in confronting the Israeli government with the grievances of the Jews in Israel who came from Islamic lands. And that is why I have written my book and this article: to set the historical record straight.

We Jews from Islamic lands did not leave our ancestral homes because of any natural enmity between Jews and Muslims.

Spoiler :

And we Arabs-I say Arab because that is the language my wife and I still speak at home-we Arabs on numerous occasions have sought peace with the State of the Jews. And finally, as a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, let me say that we Americans need to stop supporting racial discrimination in Israel and the cruel expropriation of lands in the West Bank, Gaza, South Lebanon and the Golan Heights.

End of Article.

 

[Mott1]

So, any examples of violence by Muhammad between 610-632 in Arabia, with which muslim-bashers would like to illuminate me?

623 - Battle of Waddan 623 - Battle of Safwan 623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir 624 - Muhammad (ansar and muj) begin raids on caravans to fund the movement. Battle of Badr 624 - Battle of Bani Salim 624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr 624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa' 624 - Battle of Sawiq 624 - Battle of Ghatfan 624 - Battle of Bahran 625 - Battle of Uhud 625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad 625 - Battle of Banu Nudair 625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa 626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra 626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal 626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah 627 - Battle of Al-Khandaq 627 - Battle of Ahzab 627 - Battle of Banu Qurayzah 627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan 627 - Battle of Ghaiba 627 - Battle of Khaibar 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca. 630 - Battle of Hunsin. 630 - Battle of Tabuk

Which do you want to talk about? Lets briefly examine the Battle of Banu Qurayzah.
After the successful outcome of the Battle of al-Khandaq were the Quraysh abandoned the siege and departed, Muhammad and his army approached the fortifications of the Banu Qurayzah at the command of the angel Gabriel.


When Allah's Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, "you have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet." Allah's Apostle said, "Where (to go now)?" Gabriel said, "This way," pointing towards the tribe of Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Apostle went out towards them . (Book #52, Hadith #68)


Muhammad laid siege to the Qurayza strongholds for twenty five days until they surrendered. After some deliberations Muhammad decided to put the fate of the Jewsih tribe into the hands of Sad bin Mua'adh. When the Banu Qurayzah were ready to accept judgment for their crime (breaking the treaty with the Muslims), Muhammad sent for Sad. When Sad rode up riding a donkey he replied "I give the judgement that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken captives."
Muhammad was pleased to hear this. "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah." (Book #52, Hadith #280)

The sentence was carried with Muhammad himself actively participating. According to Ibn Ishaq, "The apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Qurayzah] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches." One of the captives, Attiyah al-Quarazi, explained how Muhammad determined who was a man and who was a child, "I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubic) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair." Ibn Ishaq, 468-469. The number of the men and pubescent boys massacred: "600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900" Ibn Ishaq, 464.

"And those of the people of the Book who aided them-Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (so that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners" (Quran 33:26).

So I shut up now and you can go back to bridgeing the gap between muslims and non-muslims my friend

What gap is there to bridge? No one here believes that all Muslims are terrorists. No one here dislikes people just because they identify themselves as Muslim. Nothing Salah-Al-Din posted had expounded my understanding of Islam. I just scanned through the thread and as a self proclaimed "true representative of Islam" he has basically confirmed what I already know, only he is not being challenged or attacked for saying the samething I have (The ascendancy of a caliphate and the reestablishment of the Islamic state governed by Islamic Common Law, the duty encumbent upon the ummah to advance Islam, ideological superiority etc.). The difference is that I hold these imperatives in disapproval.
It is appearent that his view of Islam is based on strict adherence to the Islamic doctrine were incantrix is more liberal. I related a couple of questions to incantrix that have been left unanswered, the decision to answer is up to her and if she does not wish to reply then its fine by me, however it appears that she has been silenced on this thread as is often the case when their is persepective conflict between the dominant fundamentalist Muslm and the moderate Muslim.

 

[HannibalBarka]

"A fundamuntalist Muslim" was all what was missing on OT, now we have one. Welcome on board Salah Addine.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Question: Why is Slavery not forbidden in Islam?

 

[ironduck]

How? Condoms are a physical barrier. Impotence (even psychogenic impotence) or infertility are both considered medical conditions, whereas nobody would liken this to coitus interruptus. Wearing a condom or engaging in coitus interruptus is not the inability to engage in the sexual act but rather not engaging in the sexual act.

I used the condom and menopause examples to show how your argument was flawed, you subsequently adjusted it.

A true homosexual man would be unable to have sexual relations with a female. It is a biological or psychogenic cause, much like psychogenic impotence.

No, the definition of homosexuality is not the inability to have sexual relations with the opposite sex. The definition is the trait of being sexually and/or romantically attracted to one's own sex.

In any case, a definition of "health" and "diseaese" which I copy from a medical text is as follows:

Health is the absence of disease. Health is defined as:

1. Health as normality

2. Health as biological function

3. Health as homeostasis

4. Health as physical and psychological well-being

5. Health as productivity including reproduction

Which textbook? There are a number of definitions of what constitutes 'health'. They are continually revised because it's one of those concepts that are simply not neat and tidy enough to be boxed up. Likewise, the definition of various states as diseases or non-diseases is also changing as our knowledge increases (and unfortunately there's also a sub-trend to classify a growing number of states as 'diseases', but that's another discussion).

The classic WHO definition of 'health' is:

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity

And for a critique of that definition: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7091/1409

Homosexuality would be a violation of all five of these categories!!!

Really? Let's take a look at your chosen criteria.

1. Health as normality

Oooh, that's a toughie, don't you think? What is normality? A chosen average? White skin? Black skin? Big nose? Small nose? Freckles? Red hair? If one has to be 'normal' to be healthy not a single human being on this planet is normal. The definition of normality can be bent and abused to kingdom come. That has got to be the worst criteria you can possibly produce if you're looking for a definition of 'health'.

2. Health as biological function

It may be assumed that was is meant here is the metabolic efficiency of an organism. No problem here.

3. Health as homeostasis

Once again, the problem would be? You think a person cannot maintain homeostasis if he/she is attracted to the same sex? What are you suggesting, that the salinity balance is disrupted? That a stable body temperature cannot be maintained? If so, you must know something no one else does.

4. Health as physical and psychological well-being

Homosexuals feel just as happy as anyone else, especially when they are not treated like 'sinners' and what have you.

5. Health as productivity including reproduction

Homosexuals are in fact able to have children as they are not infertile. There are plenty of examples of this.

You failed on all five points. Not only that, homosexuality was removed from DSM 20 years ago and is no longer regarded as a mental illness.

Lesbians (as an example) in general are not unable to procreate. They do not wish to have sex with men.

This would therefore qualify as a psychogenic disorder.

Wrong again. Not only for the reasons of what I just explained, but more importantly because not wishing to have sex with the opposite gender - or anyone at all - is not a psychological disorder. Being asexual, for instance, is not a psychological disorder.

Would you sure as heck cry for freedom of speech for Nazis in Germany? You yourself said that Germany has very good reasons to prohibit that. I don't understand who gets to describe freedom of speech. Is it you?

All people who live in a democratic society get to weigh in on the laws of that society, including freedom of speech. So yes, that includes me. I already stated that the nazis here are allowed to voice their views, as long as they do not directly attack individuals or groups of people. I think that is probably a reasonable compromise. The reasons for outlawing nazi propaganda are valid, since we have seen the horrors associated with letting nazism run free. The reasons for allowing them to speak freely are equally valid, since censorship is problematic in a democracy. Essentially it comes down to balancing a democracy's abilities to defend itself and its minorities vs a democracy's fundamental values of allowing freedom of speech.

I've already asked this question: would you be OK with a major newspaper like the Times or Newsweek publishing a cartoon depicting Jews as evil crooked nose villains who are money-lenders that exploit people? Would you support a newspaper in publishing a cartoon depicting blacks as apes and monkeys?

Actually you are re-wording your question (you have a tendency to move the goalposts every time someone pins down your arguments, I'm sure you're aware of that. What we discussed earlier in terms of cartoons were religious figures, not making fun of jews and muslims). If someone attacks a specific group of people or a specific person, that person can be prosecuted under Danish law, and has been so in the past. Remember the prison sentences I mentioned? That was for attacking muslims.

I seriously doubt you would say 'yes' to any of these things. And I seriously doubt that you would sure as heck cry for freedom of speech on these things...this is proven by the fact that you aren't sure as heck crying for the lack of freedom of speech in Germany in regards to the Holocaust.

You have a peculiar idea of the term 'proven'. If you read my posts you would see that I do ask for freedom of speech on equal terms. Something that you clearly do not. Once again, I have explained my position on freedom of speech above, including the holocaust.

Now, may I ask you a question? How come you have brought up the holocaust so many times in these posts? Perhaps you know the reasoning for Ahmadinejad's holocaust 'conference'? Why do you base your hypocrisy argument viz a viz freedom of speech on the anti-nazi legislation? The anti-nazi legislation at its very heart is created to protect against hate speech. As already explained, hate speech is also illegal when it comes to muslims, romas, aboriginals, etc. You are not doing yourself a favour by constantly dragging up the holocaust legislation because you seem to have no idea of the reasoning behind it.

I do not understand your double-standard. It is not OK to draw Jews as crooked nose evil people, but it is OK to draw crooked nose evil Muslims who are terrorists?

Once again you make false claims. Please show me where I have expressed double standards in this thread. It is not ok to attack and incite hatred against any group in this country. Surely you must understand that by now. It is ok and fully legal to attack a religion and its symbols as well as its abstract concepts. Be they the trinity or Jesus, Mohammad or Allah. Be they passover or Visnuh or Thor or Valhalla. This is a secular country.

Actually, this is 100% incorrect. The Hijab was banned in a couple EU countries. And the legislators who enacted these laws *specifically* said that it was done to curb Islamic "fundamentalism." Yes, they banned *big* crosses, but they still allowed "small" crosses lol. Loophole for the Christians...but no loophole for the Muslims available. And in any case, I don't need to prove anything since legislators in those countries said that this law was specifically targetted for Muslims.

I assume you are speaking of France. The law bans all large, visible religious symbols, including jewish skullcaps, sikh turbans, large crosses and veils. In state schools. In case you are unaware, France is the most secular country in Europe. Also, in case you are unaware, the ban on religious symbols in state schools in France has not lead to any real problems unlike what was predicted by certain religious groups.

What happened to freedom of expression????? Where, sir, is your indignation?

Why should I be indignant? A secular country has the right to separate religion from state affairs, including education. Students are fully able to express themselves in the streets, should they so desire. Their indignation has been quite less marked than yours, however.

Your statement is relative. I was expressing my consternation over the fact that a mainstream newspaper would never publish a cartoon with crooked nosed Jews, but somehow it's ok to have crooked nosed Muslims.

This doesn't even make any sense. Plenty of Arabs have crooked noses, be they jews or muslims. Plenty of Italians have crooked noses too, be they jews or muslims or christian or buddhists or atheists or whatever. It's perfectly legal to publish cartoons with crooked noses, it happens every single day. Once again, it's fully legal to make fun of people and to criticize, but it's not allowed to incite hatred against specific groups or specific people. Thus, people have been sentenced in court of law for inciting hatred against muslims.

You are mistaken about my position. I am not angry at the country of Denmark, nor at the people in general. I am simply angry at the newspaper, and actually just the editor who chose to publish that. I do not support violence and I condemn the actions of some misguided Muslims who did those things.

I believe that the proper reaction would be to call for peaceful protest against the newspaper. This, I believe, is also protected freedom of speech.

That, I have no problem with. In case you are unaware, the newspaper and its editors has also been sued for libel under various circumstances, there have been court cases, and they were exonerated.

May I ask another question? Do you support the boycott that was enacted against Denmark in a variety of muslim countries? Because that hurt Denmark in general and people in Denmark in general (including the 270,000 muslims in Denmark).

I actually think that you and I are arguing over semantics, and overall I do not think our positions on this matter are that far apart.

I'm not so sure I agree, sadly.

 

[knigh+]

623 - Battle of Waddan 623 - Battle of Safwan 623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir 624 - Muhammad (ansar and muj) begin raids on caravans to fund the movement. Battle of Badr 624 - Battle of Bani Salim 624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr 624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa' 624 - Battle of Sawiq 624 - Battle of Ghatfan 624 - Battle of Bahran 625 - Battle of Uhud 625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad 625 - Battle of Banu Nudair 625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa 626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra 626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal 626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah 627 - Battle of Al-Khandaq 627 - Battle of Ahzab 627 - Battle of Banu Qurayzah 627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan 627 - Battle of Ghaiba 627 - Battle of Khaibar 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca. 630 - Battle of Hunsin. 630 - Battle of Tabuk

That was pathetic actually...

These aren't battles to spread islam, they are battles within a war between two cities. Quite a number of them are defensive, as through most of the war Mecca had the upper hand against muslims. I don't know from the top of my head about every battle in the list, but such a blind listing was my exact intention, when I asked info from a "muslim-basher". There are stuff in there that aren't even initiated by muslims (such as Meccans attacking muslims, or siegeing Madina). Conquest of Mecca being there in the list is plain funny. Just shows that there are people who have nothing better to do than gathering info that can be stretched into muslim-bashing.

I didn't say early muslims did not see any fighing at all. My question was about people's remarks on violence of early muslims as if it is somehow greater than the human norms. But I still don't see how they can be viewed as more warlike than David or Salomon.

 

[ironduck]

I didn't say early muslims did not see any fighing at all. My question was about people's remarks on violence of early muslims as if it is somehow greater than the human norms. But I still don't see how they can be viewed as more warlike than David or Salomon.

There were a lot of wars between various tribes at the time. What I personally have a problem with is attributing divine significance to any particular tribe's shenanigans as if they were on some sort of mission from god.

Assuming that a deity wants humans to murder each other is a very dangerous path to tread.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

"A fundamuntalist Muslim" was all what was missing on OT, now we have one. Welcome on board Salah Addine.

I do not understand how a person can be a follower of *any* religion and not be a fundamentalist. Following the fundamentals of a religion, is, well, fundamental to that religion!

But yes, I am a fundamentalist Muslim. I am "Wahabi" as the Neo-Conservatives like to say. Or rather, I am a follower of the Salaf (the early generation of Muslims). I am very conservative.

I will respond to the two posts--one on the battles and one on slavery--after I finish eating my Pizza, Allah Willing.

 

[Trajan12]

I do not understand how a person can be a follower of *any* religion and not be a fundamentalist. Following the fundamentals of a religion, is, well, fundamental to that religion!

But yes, I am a fundamentalist Muslim. I am "Wahabi" as the Neo-Conservatives like to say. Or rather, I am a follower of the Salaf (the early generation of Muslims). I am very conservative.

I will respond to the two posts--one on the battles and one on slavery--after I finish eating my Pizza, Allah Willing.

As long as you don't follow that Sharia or extremism that's pretty much my same thinking.

And that pizza better not have pepperonis or ham.