Yassir: "How was it that they these society from virtually out of nothing started producing all these spectacular geniuses??"

They did not start from nothing. Much of arabic science turns out to be translations of earlier non-muslim work and the translator never credited the Kafir author. Probably because it was dangerous to give credit to a Kafir, someone from the "Jahaliya" period.
Example: Now it is agreed that Al-jabr did not start algebra but most of his work is a translation of earlier works.
Here is a muslim author trying to understand Arabic science writes:

"As Islam spread northward into Syria, Egypt, and the Persian empire, it came face to face with the sciences of antiquity whose heritage had been preserved in centers which now became a part of the Islamic world. Alexandria had been a major center of sciences and learning for centuries. The tradition of Alexandrian learning did not die, however. It was transferred to Antioch and from there farther east to such cities as Edessa by eastern Christians who stood in sharp opposition to Byzantium and wished to have their own independent centers of learning. Moreover, the Persian king, Shapur I, had established Jundishapur in Persia as a second great center of learning matching Antioch. He even invited Indian physicians and mathematicians to teach in this major seat of learning, in addition to the Christian scholars who taught in Syriac as well as the Persians whose medium of instruction was Pahlavi. Once Muslims established the new Islamic order during the Umayyad period, they turned their attention to these centers of learning which had been preserved and sought to acquaint themselves with the knowledge taught and cultivated in them. They therefore set about with a concerted effort to translate the philosophical and scientific works which were available to them from not only Greek and Syriac (which was the language of eastern Christian scholars) but also from Pahlavi, the scholarly language of pre-Islamic Persia, and even from Sanskrit. Many of the accomplished translators were Christian Arabs such as Hunayn ibn Ishaq, who was also an outstanding physician, and others Persians such as Ibn Muqaffa', who played a major role in the creation of the new Arabic prose style conducive to the expression of philosophical and scientific writings. The great movement of translation lasted from the beginning of the 8th to the end of the 9th century, reaching its peak with the establishment of the House of Wisdom (Bayt alhikmah) by the caliph al-Ma'mun at the beginning of the 9th century. The result of this extensive effort of the Islamic community to confront the challenge of the presence of the various philosophies and sciences of antiquity and to understand and digest them in its own terms and according to its own world view was the translation of a vast corpus of writings into Arabic. .....

For a detailed and unbiased view of Islamic science see
http://www.globalpolitician.com/23768-islamism

http://ancientiran.blogspot.com/2006/01/status-of-science-in-ancient-iran.html

"Arabs alone did serious damage to our Scientific heritage and that is one of the reasons why Persian philosophers like Estans-e- Razi are unknown to the world while an undergraduate student like myself can borow Arsitotle's gatherings at the university library. It has been documanted that when the Arabs invaded Persia they massacred Iranians and confiscated their belongings. All Persian cities were looted repeatedly. They destroyed everything in order to implant their ideas in peoples minds. For example in "kharazm" they asked for 4000 educated people among the population and beheaded all of them. In "kerman", they asked people to bring their ancient books as a form of tax or else they would be deeply punished. The citizen presented their mathematics and philosophy books in order to save their lives. The same fate repeated with the Mongols attacks. The truth is that there were both scientists and scientific books in ancient Iran, many volumes of which were looted and burnt."
****************************
To see the wide range of science and technology in Pre-Islamic Iran see:

http://www.cais-soas.com/articles/science_technology_articles.htm

Arrghh! Apparently more than two links and the system refuses to post and discards the post.

Yassir, First you claim all were arabs and now you want to know about Afghan before Farabi. I already mentioned Panini to you. Then there was the Taxila University. Look those two up and see.

Consider the Bamiyan Buddhas that the Islamic Warriors recently blew up. Do you think the Afghanis who made them had any engineering skills? Then if you have been to Lahore Museum, you must have seen the world famous Black Buddha from Taxila. http://www.livius.org/a/pakistan/taxila/skinny_buddha.JPG
Do you think those Afghans had any skills?

Gandahara is now Kandahar and you can compare the culture of the people who used to be there and who are there now. I doubt your Islam drowned brain can appreciate the irony, buy I am sure others can.

You mentioned Al-Beruni. He was an arab and he is famous for writing about his travels through Afghanistan and India. Have you ever bothered reading what he says about the mathematicians of Afghanistan and India? Take a look. Al-Beruni called them "masters".

Kafir,

Read my post again. I have already said, its too much to expect from idiots of your ilk to understand the evolution of all those people who accepted Islam. Can you name me one scientist who came from Afghanistan before Farabi, or any one of the caliber of Averros from Spain? How was it that they these society from virtually out of nothing started producing all these spectacular geniuses?? Are you denying that none of the scientists in the early ages of Islam were actually of Arab origin?

If you have not read an ex-muslims research on women in Islam, you really must. It is a four part essay. The link to the first part is
************
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/Younus_Sheikh/IslamWoman.htm

Before the advent of Islam, the pagan Arab women generally enjoyed a respectable status in society; many of them Khadija- the first wife of the prophet of Islam, had the right to engage in business and choose or dismiss their husbands in a matrilineal fashion; they took part in most activities of war and peace including public worship. In female oriented Arab paganism, goddesses had special status; in Mecca, the female goddess Al-Uzza, in Taif the goddess Al-Lat and in Medina the goddess Manat were the most popular deities, and their statues were most revered while the statue of the stern Allah was almost neglected.

Arab pagan poetry was mostly concerned with the beauty and grace of their women, and the glory of their tribal values in peace and war. And it was only in one predator tribe of Mecca that the evil custom of burying alive of the daughters prevailed. It was highly unusual for a man of pre-Islamic Arab society to have more than one wife in his house; and it is quite certain that polygamy was introduced and encouraged by the prophet after the revelation of Islam.

Women were to produce as many Muslims as possible. This Ultimately resulted in the degradation in the status of the married woman in the Islamic society. Whereas the pre-Islamic Arab custom allowed many looser forms of marriage on the matrilineal and matri-local tradition that gave the woman freedom and liberty as full human being, however the artificial rules of Islamic nikah reduced marriage to mere sexual and social slavery.

The prophet of Islam, before prophet-hood, opposed the burying alive of the newborn daughters; he was eager to work for a woman and gladly married a divorced woman. The early Islam continued with most of the pre-Islam tribal traditions; there were for examples no hijabs or veils for women of Madina; and at a later date only the nine wives of prophets were restricted in their social intercourse as their home was constantly full of visitors, however the prophet’s women sex-slaves were not restricted in any such manners.

Read the rest at the link above. ....

YasserYousufi:

Why do you insist on making a jackass of yourself?

Khar cha har chaire hum lar she, bia hum hagha khar we
Da khali daig ghag lor de

Averroes was born in the 14 century in Córdoba, Al Andalus, modern-day Spain, and died in Marrakech, modern-day Morocco. Conquerors impose their language. Arabic had become the language of the court even in Iran till Farsi was revived in the Shia empire. So what language do you want the spanish converts to do be doing their work? Al Mansur banished Averreos who was being called an apostate (a Kafir) by his contemporaries. In the west he is considered a great thinker as he is called by some as the founder of secular thinking. In the Islamic world his ideas are still not accepted. You are citing him because muslims have gone and collected names to reassure themselves as you are doing right now. Go ahead, I challenge you to show a single idea of Averroes that has influence a single law or single significant thought in the Islamic world.

Al-Farbi was born in afghanistan, and as I said you would rather kiss arabic ass and make an Afghani an arab. That is the disease of the conquered people of arab invasions. That is why islam is better understood as arab imperialism. Read V.S. Naipaul to understand the disease that infects you, but then he is a brahmin that you hate and cannot read.

As the pashto saying above says; so stop making so much noise.

Kafir,

Its beyond the mental capacity of idiots like you to understand the history and evolution of mankind during the early stages of Islam. Your heart and mind has been blackened by the indoctrination of islam hatred since childhood (like a typical racist hindu). Go and do some research, those people I named were all Arabs. Their research was in Arabic. They wrote their theses-es in Arabic. What was the name of greatest mathematician of Persia before Islam came along, or the best Optician in Egypt or the best Alchemist in Spain? This whole explosion of knowledge only came about after the revelation of the Quran. But......you're probably senile old fellow without any sense of shame of being caught lying and spreading misinformation countless times. So I dont have the slightest of worry what a Hindu Pandit thinks and believes about Islam. You are welcome to say whatever you like. Other educated people can ponder over my points and try and think what else could it be other than the Quran that transformed the Arabs of that time into such superior people.

As a confirmation to AKafir thesis I quote
Mohammad Abdul Samad, the son of a Muslim imam who wrote below concerning Quran and civilization.
“True. It was between the 7th and the 11th centuries that the Islamic world was still self-confident, and open to the world. Many Muslims believe that it was Islam that had given them a high culture. I doubt this thesis, it was not Islam, rather the openness of the Muslims, the mixture of many peoples bringing something from their old high cultures. Persians, Aramaeans, Berbers, Jews and Christians, who ended up under Islamic rule They had worked together in fertile ways and created this culture, not only the Muslims. The proof of this is that the first important cities of knowledge in Islam were not Mecca or Medina, but rather Baghdad, Cairo and Córdoba. All originally non-Arabic cities.”
http://bigpeace.com/nmay/2010/09/22/is-islam-about-to-collapse-egyptian-scholar-says-yes/

YasserYousufi:
"It was nothing but the Holy Quran that transformed the uneducated, warring, tribalistic Arabs into the biggest super power of their time not just militarily but also in the field of Physics, Chemistry, mathematics, Medicine, Optics, Agriculture you name it."

Baloney. Those interested in a detailed look at science under Islam and the contribution of the various scientist of that time please read Fjordman's analysis. Here is start: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/06/fjordman-to-president-obama-regarding.html

If it was the Quran, then why were the centers of learning in the Arab empire not mecca or medina? How come the scholars were in Baghdad,Iran, Afghanistan,Spain, etc? It was the scholars of the conquered people who were brought into contact with each other and pillaged books from the various libraries that had been rescued from the madness of the Caliphas.
In time the statism of Islam worked and even those places sank into darkness.

Afghanistan, your "people" are a prime example. They were great engineers, mathematicians, and linguists. It is hard to believe that the very famous Sanskrit Language Grammarian Panini was from Gandhara and very likely a "Pushtoon"!!! And then the tragedy of Islam struck and in time they no longer knew how to repair and maintain the vast aquifer system their ancestors had built, and they went looting and pillaging and "scattering the hindus like so many particles of dust" (muslim historian's words) and lost a civilisation to be reduced to near savages that exist as Talibans now with stoning, beheadings and lashing of women to demonstrate their obedience to Allah.

The result is that even amongst the pakistani the pushtoons are now considered the most illiterate and backwards. Islam on their brain, as you demonstrate, is so severe that they cannot think or contemplate of anything else. Education, research, arts, philosphy, etc. are so remote for them that it will take centuries for them to recover even if they were able to throw the yoke of Islam today.

It was nothing but the Holy Quran that transformed the uneducated, warring, tribalistic Arabs into the biggest super power of their time not just militarily but also in the field of Physics, Chemistry, mathematics, Medicine, Optics, Agriculture you name it. For 500 years after the revelation of Quran, Arabs were miles ahead in all these and many other fields more than any other race of that time. Can the anti-Islamic bigots explain any other reason for the explosion of inventions and developments the Arabs made right after they converted to Islam. The Quran advised mankind to seek knowledge more than anything else. Quran was the inspiration of Farabi, Al-Beruni, Averros, Ibn-AlHaitham and hundreds of other muslim Scientist to whom the world is indebted today.

W. Montgomery Watt allegedly said:
“…but I believe that embedded in the Quran and other expressions of the Islamic vision are vast stores of divine truth…”

Below is a short summary of those” divine truths” found in the Quran.
A book with no chronology of events or a sustained theme other than a supremacist diatribe, exaltation of Islam’s founder, sedition and incitement against the “other”and dehumanizing of women. It is riddled with inconsistencies and outright contradictions. It lists legends from Arab and Persian pagans as the literal words of the Creator along with embellished stories from the Old and New Testaments. It is full of scientific heresies, geographical myths, historical blunders, mathematical mistakes, grammatical errors and logical fallacies. The book talks of flying horses, talking donkeys, speaking ants and arguing birds. It describes an afterlife gardens with rivers of wine and honey and brimming with young black eyed receptive beauties placed there simply to service the male followers of Mohammed in an everlasting celestial orgy. Such are its"divine truths."

KoK1:

All the nonsense in the Quran does not change the fact that Muhammad was a very nasty human. He was a slaver. He enslaved other humans and he sold them and he traded in them. It was fine by him that his followers raped women prisoners, he had people assassinated, he had thousands beheaded, and so on. Muslims have been brainwashed to justify all of that with the simple pretext that "Islam" had to spread. Why? Why could it not spread peacefully? Why did Muhammad had to have an arabic empire? The arabs were not able to digest the ancient civilization of Iran and the world is still facing with the split between Shia and Sunni, and the split between the persians and arabs is still rankling that part of the world and perhaps soon the whole world.

Just tell yourself how the Creator of the entire Universe and perhaps universes got the simple physiology wrong of where the fluid comes from that "makes" man. So one more time, your Allah says:
quran 086.005-007
YUSUFALI: Now let man but think from what he is created!
He is created from a drop emitted-
Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

Which drop emitted proceeds between the backbone and the ribs? The explanation the moron Zakir Naik could come up with was that in the embryo the testes are between the ribs and the backbone. And that he was pushing as the science in Quran and his muslim audience was going nuts with alhamdulillahs all over the place. LoL! So how come your Allah did not know any more than what was in Galens books on physiology of that time? Allow a bit of rationality to sneak in. It just may do wonders. Obviously you are a very intelligent person other than when it comes to Islam.

No amount of persuasion will do for one whose heart is fettered.
This will be my last posting on this board.
We end with this summary:

> .. For any to whom God giveth not light, there is no light!
(24:40)

> When you see men(people) engaged in vain discourse about Our signs, turn away from them until they turn to a different theme. If satan makes you forget, then after recollection, sit not in the company of those who do wrong.
(6: 68)

>And when they (believers) hear Al-laghw (dirty, false, and useless talk), they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you your deeds; peace be to you - we seek not the way of the ignorant."
(28: 55)

>They intend to put out the Light of God (i.e. the religion of Islam, the quran, and prophet Muhammad) with their mouth. But God will bring His Light to perfection, even though the disbelievers hate (it).
(61:8)

KoK1,
There is a list of former Imams who have left Islam and have their testimonies on the web. Here is one of them:
http://www.drmarkgabriel.com/about.html
Dr. Mark Gabriel was born and raised in Egypt in an Islamic family. By the age of12, Dr. Gabriel had the entire Quran memorized. He graduated from Al-Azhar University in Cairo and then became a professor of Islamic history at that university. He also served as the Imam (spiritual leader) of a mosque in Giza, where the pyramids are located.

In short, Dr. Gabriel was a highly prestigious figure in the Islamic world when one day he dared to question the authenticity of the Quran. That evening he was kidnapped by the Egyptian secret police and thrown in prison where he was tortured unmercifully for days due to questioning his religion. Miraculously, just as he was about to be executed, he was delivered from the prison by a relative with political connections.
.....
****************
Then there is Dr. Muhammad Rahoumy, former Dean at Al Azhar University in Cairo.
Instead of my listing them just
go to Father Zakaria Boutrous' site (unfortunately it is in arabic) you will find many links to youtube and web pages. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyufZQkUaYA&feature=player_embedded#!

The link is the first of nine parts of Ibn Warraq on testimonies of those leaving Islam. It is one and half hour long and so if you are interested in testimonies of those rejecting the evil of Islam, please listen and enjoy.

conversion testamonies is the last resort of the Muslims. This is the corner when arguments for Islam can no longer stand on their own, and the muslims devolve into ... look look who is accepting Islam. The reason of course as I mentioned earlier is that success of Islam as religion in Muslims mind is always in numbers. Muhammad has to have the maximum number of followers on doomsday. There are hadiaths about that. Imams mention that in their sermons. The whole world can believe that the world is flat and it will not make it flat. Showing the testamonies of a few people who in their good hearts or for whatever reason fell for the evil of Islam means just that. There are 1.2 to 1.5 billion muslims passionate and true believers in Islam. If their faith is not enough to fix the nasty character of Muhammad, how will a few more make a difference? If you are the type that makes a decision about what your belief should be based on who and which famous person has converted then by all means go ahead and be impressed. But, if you want to examine the tenets and the history and the underlying assumption of a belief system then these testimonies are a distraction.

Do a quick search and you will find many testimonies for christianity and Islam. And hardly any for other religions. Listen to testimonies and one starts getting a feel for what the pushers behind the scenes feel is important to win over more converts.

Here is video snippet showing the ethics of Muslim Imams when dealing with conversion to Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNkZVsLIwQo&feature=player_embedded
Please watch it. It is funny. It is Mahmoud Al-Masri on Egyptian TV in 2009. See the ethics of Dua in Islam in action.

There are others where people have dropped out and wanted their testimonies removed and find it nearly impossible to get that done. So their conversion stories take a life of their own. Then there are conversion reports of people who did not even know they had ever converted in the first place. Do a search on Neil Armstrong, the astronaut who supposedly converted to Islam as soon as he landed on the moom, and that baloney have been circulating on the Islamic forums forever. I can give many more examples, but hey if someone is happy following a nasty character like Muhammad then more power to them!!

One can even find testimonies of people converting to Scientology. My goodness, there are quite a few Scientologists in Hollywood. Perhaps that is the way to go. Right?

" The First Jewish Rabbi Convert to Islam "
It is the story of first Jewish person who converted to Islam.

(Cont’d)

"What is the status of Al-Husayn ibn Salam among you?"
"He is our sayyid (leader) and the son of our sayyid. He is our rabbi and our alim (scholar), the son of our rabbi and alim."
"If you come to know that he has accepted Islam, would you accept Islam also?" asked the Prophet.
"God forbid! He would not accept Islam. May God protect him from accepting Islam," they said, horrified.
At this point I came out in full view of them and announced: "O assembly of Jews! Be conscious of God and accept what Muhammad has brought. By God, you certainly know that he is the Messenger of God and you can find prophecies about him and mention of his name and characteristics in your Torah. I for my part declare that he is the Messenger of God. I have faith in him and believe that he is true. I know him."
"You are a liar," they shouted. "By God, you are evil and ignorant, the son of an evil and ignorant person." And they continued to heap every conceivable abuse on me.
Here ends his own narration.
Abdullah ibn Salam approached Islam with a soul thirsty for knowledge. He was passionately devoted to the Quran and spent much time reciting and studying its beautiful and sublime verses. He was deeply attached to the noble Prophet and was constantly in his company.
He spent much of his time in the masjid (mosque) , engaged in worship, in learning and in teaching. He was known for his sweet, moving and effective way of teaching study circles of Sahabah (companions) who assembled regularly in the Prophet's mosque.
Abdullah ibn Salam was known among the Sahabah (companions) as a man from the people of Paradise. This was because of his determination on the advice of the Prophet to hold steadfastly to the 'most trustworthy handhold' that is belief in and total submission to God.

" The First Jewish Rabbi Convert to Islam "
It is the story of first Jewish person who converted to Islam.

(Cont’d)

When my aunt heard me, she remonstrated with me: "May God frustrate you... By God, if you had heard that Moses was coming you would not have been more enthusiastic."
"Auntie, he is really, by God, the 'brother' of Moses and follows his religion. He was sent with the same mission as Moses." She was silent for a while and then said: "Is he the Prophet about whom you spoke to us who would be sent to confirm the truth preached by previous (Prophets) and complete the message of his Lord?"

"Yes," I replied.
Without any delay or hesitation, I went out to meet the Prophet. I saw crowds of people at his door. I moved about in the crowds until I reached close to him.
The first words I heard him say were: "O people! Spread peace... Share food... Pray during the night while people (normally) sleep... and you will enter Paradise in peace."
I looked at him closely. I scrutinized him and was convinced that his face was not that of an imposter. I went closer to him and made the declaration of faith that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
The Prophet turned to me and asked: "What is your name?" "Al-Husayn ibn Salam," I replied. "Instead, it is now Abdullah ibn Salam," he said (giving me a new name). "Yes" I agreed. "Abdullah ibn Salam it shall be. By Him who has sent you with the Truth, I do not wish to have another name after this day."
I returned home and introduced Islam to my wife, my children and the rest of my household. They all accepted Islam including my aunt Khalidah who was then an old lady. However, I advised them then to conceal our acceptance of Islam from the Jews until I gave them permission. They agreed.
Subsequently, I went back to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and said: "O Messenger of God! The Jews are a people (inclined to) slander and falsehood. I want you to invite their most prominent men to meet you. (During the meeting however), you should keep me concealed from them in one of your rooms. Ask them then about my status among them before they find out of my acceptance of Islam. Then invite them to Islam. If they were to know that I have become a Muslim, they would denounce me and accuse me of everything base and slander me."
The Prophet kept me in one of his rooms and invited the prominent Jewish personalities to visit him. He introduced Islam to them and urged them to have faith in God.
They began to dispute and argue with him about the Truth. When he realized that they were not inclined to accept Islam, he put the question to them:

(Cont'd)

" The First Jewish Rabbi Convert to Islam "
It is the story of first Jewish person who converted to Islam.

Al-Husayn ibn Salam was a Jewish rabbi in Yathrib [Madinah] who was widely respected and honored by the people of the city, even by those who were not Jewish.
He was known for his piety and goodness, his upright conduct, and his truthfulness.Al-Husayn lived a peaceful and gentle life but he was serious, purposeful and organized in the way he spent his time. For a fixed period each day, he would worship, teach and preach in the temple.
Then he would spend some time in his orchard, looking after date palms, pruning and pollinating. Thereafter, to increase his understanding and knowledge of his religion, he would devote himself to the study of the Torah.
In this study, it is said he was particularly struck by some verses of the Torah which dealt with the coming of a Prophet who would complete the message of previous Prophets. Al-Husayn therefore took an immediate and keen interest when he heard reports of the appearance of a Prophet in Makkah.

What follows is his story, in his own words:

When I heard of the appearance of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) I began to make enquiries about his name, his genealogy, his characteristics, his time and place and I began to compare this information with what is contained in our books.
From these enquiries, I became convinced about the authenticity of his prophet hood and I affirmed the truth of his mission. However, I concealed my conclusions from the Jews. I held my tongue.
Then came the day when the Prophet, peace be upon him, left Makkah and headed for Yathrib. When he reached Yathrib and stopped at Quba, a man came rushing into the city, calling out to people and announcing the arrival of the Prophet.

At that moment, I was at the top of a palm tree doing some work. My aunt, Khalidah bint Al-Harith, was sitting under the tree. On hearing the news, I shouted: "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!" (God is Great! God is Great!)

(Cont'd)

A Christian Minister's Conversion to Islam

(Cont'd)

There are sacrifices to be made in being a Muslim in America. For that matter, there are sacrifices to be made in being a Muslim anywhere. However, those sacrifices may be more acutely felt in America, especially among American converts. Some of those sacrifices are very predictable, and include altered dress and abstinence from alcohol, pork, and the taking of interest on one’s money. Some of those sacrifices are less predictable. For example, one Christian family, with whom we were close friends, informed us that they could no longer associate with us, as they could not associate with anyone “who does not take Jesus Christ as his personal savior”. In addition, quite a few of my professional colleagues altered their manner of relating to me. Whether it was coincidence or not, my professional referral base dwindled, and there was almost a 30% drop in income as a result. Some of these less predictable sacrifices were hard to accept, although the sacrifices were a small price to pay for what was received in return.
For those contemplating the acceptance of Islam and the surrendering of oneself to Allah—glorified and exalted is He, there may well be sacrifices along the way. Many of these sacrifices are easily predicted, while others may be rather surprising and unexpected. There is no denying the existence of these sacrifices, and I don’t intend to sugar coat that pill for you. Nonetheless, don’t be overly troubled by these sacrifices. In the final analysis, these sacrifices are less important than you presently think. Allah willing, you will find these sacrifices a very cheap coin to pay for the “goods” you are purchasing.
© 2002 (Abu Yahya) Jerald F. Dirks, M. Div, Psy. D. (Harvard)

Not too many months after our return to America from the Middle East, a neighbor invited us over to his house, saying that he wanted to talk with us about our conversion to Islam. He was a retired Methodist minister, with whom I had had several conversations in the past. Although we had occasionally talked superficially about such issues as the artificial construction of the Bible from various, earlier, independent sources, we had never had any in-depth conversation about religion. I knew only that he appeared to have acquired a solid seminary education, and that he sang in the local church choir every Sunday.

My initial reaction was, “Oh, oh, here it comes”. Nonetheless, it is a Muslim’s duty to be a good neighbor, and it is a Muslim’s duty to be willing to discuss Islam with others. As such, I accepted the invitation for the following evening, and spent most of the waking part of the next 24 hours contemplating how best to approach this gentleman in his requested topic of conversation. The appointed time came, and we drove over to our neighbor’s. After a few moments of small talk, he finally asked why I had decided to become a Muslim. I had waited for this question, and had my answer carefully prepared. “As you know with your seminary education, there were a lot of non-religious considerations which led up to and shaped the decisions of the Council of Nicaea.” He immediately cut me off with a simple statement: “You finally couldn’t stomach the polytheism anymore, could you?” He knew exactly why I was a Muslim, and he didn’t disagree with my decision! For himself, at his age and at his place in life, he was electing to be “an atypical Christian”. Allah willing, he has by now completed his journey from cross to crescent.

(Cont'd)

My Journey To Islam

Maryam Jameelah, formerly Ms. Margaret Marcus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American, formerly Jewish, Essayist and journalist. Author of many books. Embraced Islam in 1962.

The authority of Islaamic Morals and Laws proceeds from Almighty God. Pleasure and Happiness in Islaam are but the natural byproducts of emotional satisfaction in one's duties conscientiously performed for the pleasure of God to achieve salvation. In Islaam duties are always stressed above rights. Only in Islaam was my quest for absolute values satisfied. Only in Islaam did I at last find all that was true, good, beautiful and which gives meaning and direction to human life and death.

The simplicity of Islam, the powerful appeal and the compelling atmosphere of its mosques, the earnestness of its faithful adherents, the confidence inspiring realization of the millions throughout the world who answer the five daily calls to prayer - these factors attracted me from the first. But after I had determined to become a follower of Islam, I found many deeper reasons for confirming my decision. The mellow concept of life - the fruit of the Prophet’s combined course of action and contemplation - the wise counsel, the admonitions to charity and mercy, the broad humanitarianism, the pioneer declaration of woman’s property rights - these and other factors of the teachings of the man of Mecca were to me among the most obvious evidence of a practical religion so tersely and so aptly epitomized in the cryptic words of Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, “Trust in God and tie your camel.” He gave us a religious system of normal action, not blind faith in the protection of an unseen force in spite of our own neglect, but confidence that if we do all things rightly and to the best of our ability, we may trust in what comes as the Will of God.
The broadminded tolerance of Islam for other religions recommends it to all lovers of liberty. Muhammad admonished his followers to treat well the believers in the Old and New Testaments; Abraham, Moses and Jesus are acknowledged as co-prophets of the One God. Surely this is generous and far in advance of the attitude of other religions.
The total freedom from idolatry ... is a sign of the salubrious strength and purity of the Muslim faith.
The original teachings of the Prophet of God have not been engulfed in the maze of changes and additions of doctrinarians. The Quran remains as it came to the corrupt polytheistic people of Muhammad’s time, changeless as the holy heart of Islam itself.

Moderation and temperance in all things, the keynotes of Islam, won my unqualified approbation. The health of his people was cherished by the Prophet, who enjoined them to observe strict cleanliness and specified fasts and to subordinate carnal appetites ...

The democracy of Islam has always appealed to me. Potentate and pauper have the same rights on the floor of the mosque, on their [foreheads] in humble worship. There are no rented pews nor special reserved seats.

The Muslim accepts no man as a mediator between himself and his God. He goes direct to the invisible source of creation and life, God, without reliance on saving formula of repentance of sins and belief in the power of a teacher to afford him salvation.

The universal brotherhood of Islam, regardless of race, politics, color or country, has been brought home to me most keenly many times in my life and this is another feature which drew me towards the Faith.
Colonel Donald S. Rockwell (USA)

Muslims always pull these quotes out by various Non-muslims as an argument in favor of Islam. It demonstrates the general lack of logic and rationality of the Islamic mind. Why would one expect Sarjoni Naidu to know much about Islam? Why would one not expect a person like Sarojni Naidu to fall into the pitfall most leftist and liberals in the west find themselves. All religions are the same; Islam is a great religion; Founders of religions are usually very very good, kind and admirable people; Many nice muslims have beyond belief dedication and love for Muhammad, they love Muhammad more than they love their own life; So Muhammad must be a very good and admirable person. What the heck would Sarjoni know about Islam? Zilch?

Now what happens to those who disagree with this general good feeling towards all prophets and founders? Is there any famous Kafir out there who said anything negative about Muhammad? The last one was who the present Pope quoted incidentally, and then had to grovel to get out of flaring up muslim violence world wide. Can you imagine a knowledgeable historian laying it out about Muhammad these days and surviving the wrath of the dedicated muslims? Think about it. People have been killed for drawing a harmless cartoons of Muhammad.

How many bought Bush's Islam is a religion of peace? How many think Bush really believed that? Gandhi was a politician who was trying desperately to prevent British India being split into Pakistan and India. He was kissing Islamic ass as hard as he could but he failed miserably anyway. Watt was a scottish priest and he viewed Muhammad as an old testament prophet. And as a christian priest he was used to the violent ways of the prophets and so ordinary people were killed, women raped, children sold as slaves, etc. really did not bother his world view (Read Martin Forward to get a in depth analysis of Watt on Islam).

Muslims like to quote Westerners praising Islam and the prophet of Islam, as if that gives a universal legitimacy to the supremacy claim that Islam bestows on its followers.

1. For every Westerner who praised Islam there are millions who criticize it.
2. If Islam was such a wonderful religion why none of those quoted by kingkong had converted to it.
There was a time when people in the West who had a bone to pick with their denomination believed that the surest way to get back at their clerics is by praising Islam.
All that talk about Mohammad was a Pope without an institution and a King without an army could not be farthest from the truth. Mohammad was a warlord who achieved his goal of wealth and power by the “Messenger of Allah” gimmick. The greatest miracle of all times is how so many people believed him despite all the evidence.

Timeline of Spread of Islam by peace and love:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_7th_century_Muslim_history
# 630: Conquest of Mecca. Battle of Hunayn. Battle of Autas. Siege of Ta'if.
# 631: Expedition to Tabouk, Ghassanids.
# 631 or 632, tribe of Thaqif adopts Islam.
# 632: Farewell pilgrimage at Mecca.
# 632: Death of Muhammad. Death of Fatimah, his daughter. Abu Bakr is chosen by consensus of the majority of the prophet's companions as caliph. Battles of Zu Qissa. Battles of Zu Abraq. Battle of Buzakha. Battle of Zafar. Battle of Naqra. Campaigns against Bani Tamim and Mosailima.
# 633: Campaigns in Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and Hadramaut. Raids in Iraq.Battle of Kazima, Battle of Mazar, Battle of Walaja, Battle of Ullais, Battle of Hira, Battle of Al-Anbar, Battle of Ayn al-Tamr, Battle of Dawmat al-Jandal, Battle of Firaz.
# 634: Battle of Bosra, Battle of Damascus, Battle of Ajnadin. Death of Abu Bakr. Umar ibn al-Khattab assumes power as the second caliph. Battle of Namaraq, Battle of Saqatia.
# 635: Battle of Bridge, Battle of Buwaib, Conquest of Damascus, Battle of Fahl.
# 636: Battle of Yarmuk, Battle of al-Qādisiyyah, Conquest of Madain.
# 637: Conquest of Syria, Conquest of Jerusalem, Battle of Jalula.
# 638: Conquest of Jazirah.
# 639: Conquest of Khuzistan. Advance into Egypt. Plague of Emmaus.
# 640: Battle of Babylon in Egypt.
# 641: Battle of Nihawand; Conquest of Alexandria in Egypt.
# 642: Conquest of Egypt.
# 643: Conquest of Azarbaijan and Tabaristan (Mazandaran).
# 644: Conquest of Fars, Kerman, Sistan, Mekran and Kharan. Assassination of Umar. Uthman ibn Affan becomes the caliph.
# 646: Campaigns in Khurasan, Armenia and Asia Minor.
# 647: Campaigns in North Africa. Conquest of the island of Cyprus.
# 648: Campaigns against the Byzantines.
# 650: First conflict between Arabs and Turks. Khazars defeated an Arab force led by Abd ar-Rahman ibn Rabiah outside the Khazar town of Balanjar.

Do take a look at the link and get an idea of how peaceful it was, and how Islam never used the sword. Now combine the laws of Dhimma
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html
with these conquests and you start getting an idea of the real face of Islam in history.

Here is a very intelligent lady who was was highly educated, when it was unusual to have higher formal education for women:

"Sense of justice is one of the most wonderful ideals of Islam, because as I read in the Qur'an I find those dynamic principles of life, not mystic but practical ethics for the daily conduct of life suited to the whole world."

Lectures on "The Ideals of Islam;" SPEECHES AND WRITINGS OF SAROJINI NAIDU, Madras, 1918, p. 167.

Here is another reason why prophet Mohammed is my role model:

"He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue;
if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports." Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND
MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.

Here is an intersting analysis of the relative standing of prophet Muhammad among the great individuals. He never claimed he was beyond human. And that is why he is the role model for me and many people, i.e. a human is easier to emulate than a divine figure:

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level."
Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. 33.

Here is an interesting analysis that puts the issue of Islam in west in a better perspective and possibly explains the growing pains we are seeing:
"I am not a Muslim in the usual sense, though I hope I am a "Muslim" as "one surrendered to God," but I believe that embedded in the Quran and other expressions of the Islamic vision are vast stores of divine truth from which I and other occidentals have still much to learn, and 'Islam is certainly a strong contender for the supplying of the basic framework of the one religion of the future.'"
W. Montgomery Watt, ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY TODAY, London, 1983, p.ix.

Here is what George Bernard Shaw had to say about prophet Muhammad and Islam:

"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of
existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."
George Bernard Shaw, THE GENUINE ISLAM.

Here is what our modern-day hero Gandhi had to say his hero, and from whom I imagine he obtained the concept of simplicity and self-sacrifice:

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his
fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted
every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924:

Karen's statement: "a religion and cultural tradition that was not based on the sword but whose name - "Islam"- signified peace and reconciliation." says a lot.

Notice she does not say "means peace" but is careful to say "signified peace". Islam does not mean peace and unfortunately it does not signify peace either. It mean "submission", it requires total submission to Allah, ie. Muhammad and his quran, and in practical terms it has come to signify for the muslims a total inability to question or use their personal rational faculties. If you dare to question seriously, you are declared a Kafir faster than the blink of an eye. All one has to do is to see how Islam has unfolded across all muslim lands. 1400 years of history should be sufficient to see what Islam brings to the people. Her statement, "not based on the sword" is an insult to the millions who have been killed by the sword of Islam. Why is their a sword on the flag of Saudi Arabia and why is there a sword on the flag of Al-Qaeda?

Karen Armstrong did not become a Muslim. She is not a Muslim. After writing such a beautiful book on Islam that made lots of money for her, and which Muslims love to quote, she still rejected the Message of Islam and Mohammed as the final prophet, and did not become a Muslim. What does that say about what she really thinks of Islam?

What ever she writes of the Mecca Pagans should be taken with a huge pinch of salt because she is writing for her customers, the Muslims, and she is using their myths about Muhammed in Mecca. There is not the slightest attempt to analyse those myths to judge their reliability or believability. A unbiased reading of Muhammad in Mecca before his moving to Yathrib reveals a very different view than what the muslims tell each other.

KoK1 writes: Nobody was able to understand what I meant by: " A cow grazes on the side that is greener". This refers to individuals who have beliefs or principles that are so weak, that they are willing to change their beliefs based on the option of immediate gratification, such as how a cow decides where to graze.

I understood exactly what you meant.
That is why I wrote "Why is the issue framed as either a sell out or die for a principle cause?".
What are you referring to when you think of "weak beliefs"?
Do you think giving up on Islam is as easy as going over to greener pastures? Do you think giving up on indoctrination since childhood is easy? You or Yasser cannot even begin to think that Quran is a lie without breaking out into astaghfirullahs and naoozabillahs galore.
Do you think Abu Hamza came up with kafir as a cow out of thin air or do you think it has basis in Sharia, the law that Hamza claims is written down? I could have elected to be a quiet munafiq that Islam prefers, but I chose to be a fitri murtid. Do you grasp that? Do you think that is equivalent to going over to green pastures?
You bring up Patrick Henry. Do you have clue which liberty was he talking about when he said "Give me liberty or give me death"? Would you include the freedom to give up being a Muslim, a freedom that is denied to all Muslims around the globe by Islam, as part of that freedom? I suggest you think again what it means to be free and to honor Patrick Henry.

I would like to not address individuals, particularly, hostile ones,but the following seems appropriate, as explained by
Ms Karen Armstrong:

Kafir derives from the (Arabic) root
(KFR "ingratitude"), which implies a discourteous refusal of something that is offered with great kindness and generosity. When God had revealed Himself to the people of Mecca, some of them had, as it were, spat contempuously in his face. The Quran does not berate the kafirun for their lack of religious conviction, but for their arrogance. They are haughty and supercilious; they imagine that they are superior to the poorer, humbler people of Mecca, whom they consider second-class citizens and therefore, worthy of contempt.Instead of realizing their utter dependence upon God, they still regard themselves as istighna' - self-reliant- and refuse to bow to God or anyone else. The kafirun are bursting with self-importance; they strut around haughtily, addressing others in an offensive, braying manner, and fly into a rage if they think that their honor has been impugned. They are so convinced that their life is better than anybody else's that they are particularly incensed by any criticism of their traditional lifestyle. They sneer at God's revelation, perversely distorting the sense of the Quran simply to display their cleverness. They were unable even to consider anything new: their hearts were "veiled", "rusted over", "sealed" and "locked".

Ms Armstrong closes the very beautifully written book title "Muhammad: A Prophet for our Time") with the following:

The brief history of twenty-first century shows that neither side has mastered these lessons. If we are to avoid catastrophe, the Muslim and Western worlds must learn not merely to tolerate but appreciate one another. A good place to start is with the figure of Muhammad: a complex man, who resists facile, ideologically driven categorization, who sometimes did things that were difficult or impossible for us to accept, but who had profound genius and founded a religion and cultural tradition that was not based on the sword but whose name - "Islam"- signified peace and reconciliation.

Peace

Nobody was able to understand what I meant by: " A cow grazes on the side that is greener". This refers to individuals who have beliefs or principles that are so weak, that they are willing to change their beliefs based on the option of immediate gratification, such as how a cow decides where to graze. A man (or a principled man rather) is not so willing to change his beliefs based on immediate pleasures, but is willing to suffer the consequences to stand for his conviction and forego immediate gratification, sometimes even having been killed or tortured. This has a lot to do with state interference and persecution. I'm not sure where Benedict Arnold would stand, given France's dabbling in persecution of minority citizens/resident, but I know what Patrick Henry would say.

YasserYousufi says: "If they[women] were not asked by Prophet Muhammad to lead mixed congregations inspite of their high stature, how come these westernized muslim women elevate themselves to a position they dont belong? These false prophets are just as much a fitna as the Salfi's and Wahabi's who sanction terrorism to further their goals."

Jihadist states: "Any contemporary Muslim men who think he is more pious, more knowledgable on Islam than the Prophet has got to be over-reaching too. "

Here is the reason why Islam is stuck in the 7th century and there is little hope that it will not whither away over time in the modern age. Two intelligent, well educated muslim are basing their arguments on how to practise Islam in the modern age, and the sole criteria of change is what a warlord of 7th century backwaters of arabia did or thought. No new knowledge or understanding of humans that mankind has gained since then can even be considered. The exemplary human, Muhammad, is the final evolution of everything for mankind as far as Islam is concerned. The logic of Muslims comes to a halt when talking about Muhammad or the Quran. The problem is as Wafa Sultan points out: "it is impossible - impossible! - for any human being to read the biography of Muhammad and believe in it, and yet emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbnwBli_ZMI

The exemplary human had enslaved thousands of humans, gifted and sold slaves, had thousands beheaded, had married a child and encouraged others to marry children, had allowed raping of female prisoners, had opponents assasinated, among other great and marverllous deeds. This is presented by his Muslim biographers and not by Kafirs, and these acts are all justified and explained within the ethos of Islamic supremacy. And now the muslims have no way of changing their ethics or morality beyond that of 7th century barbaric arabia. An entire civilisation has been built on a personality such as Muhammad, and they have no tools, none so far, at disposable to get out of the dead end they have busily painted themselves into.

I was told Daniel Pipes is looking for an assistant to help his cause. I thought at least one individual would be highly suited for the opening. When you love your job, you will produce stellar results

Jihadist,

It seems you are saying if terrorism is OK than changing the basic tenets of Islam are also OK. I am against both. Pamela Taylor was also one of the founding members of Muslim Progressive Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Muslim_Union) They advocate among other things, replacing some chapters of the Quran, supporting Israeli occupation of Israel and not resisting US occupation of Islamic countries. These fake muslims were the brainchilds of Neocons (led by Daniel Pipes) to spread the kind of Islam that suits US hegemony. Do you also believe Quran needs to be re-written?

The mixed congregations at Hajj are as non-controversial today as they were in the times of Prophet Muhammad. But are women like Pamela Taylor and Asra Nomani more pious and knowledgeable than Ayesha (RA) and Fatima (RA)?? If they were not asked by Prophet Muhammad to lead mixed congregations inspite of their high stature, how come these westernized muslim women elevate themselves to a position they dont belong? These false prophets are just as much a fitna as the Salfi's and Wahabi's who sanction terrorism to further their goals.

Posted by: yasseryousufi

******************************************

There is no such thing, and yet there is such a thing as Iranianised Islam, Malaynised Islam, and now we have "westernised Islam".

Islam is supposed to be "universal" in principles and yet there are those who commit honour killings and terrorism in the name of Islamic values, principles and what have you.

If a specific congregation, community or society in the States or the Muslim world allow for and invite a woman to led them in prayers and/or give a khutbah, let them so for it was done by consensus. Better to lead in prayers than to lead in terrorism.

The issue of female kadis is controversial too, for there were no kadis nor Shariah court system during the Prophet's time, but there are now, and the there are female kadis too.

Any contemporary Muslim men who think he is more pious, more knowledgable on Islam than the Prophet has got to be over-reaching too.

And what of the so-called "westernised" Muslim men? One only have to look at Muslim tourists to see that Muslim men wear "western" clothing, but their women are in traditional garbs mostly. Including the niqab, hijab, burqas...

The fitna started when some Muslims insisted that their understanding of Islam is the right one. This right after the Prophet died, and the discord over who to lead the nascent Muslim community.

"Why don't you or your Imam tell the good folks here where I am not telling it straight about Islam? Why don't you tell why my statements are misleading and why?"

---------------------------

LOL Kafir, you pathetic buffoon! How much more lies need to be picked up in your posts to shame you? You dont even know what you're talking about. No one's paying attention to your jokes. Is there anyone who takes you seriously?

KoK1: "Some of the postings purporting to educate one another on this board about Islam (FarnazMansouri excluded) are as appropriate as the following:"

A classical fallacy:

"Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."

Why don't you or your Imam tell the good folks here where I am not telling it straight about Islam? Why don't you tell why my statements are misleading and why?
Why do you think by merely saying that because A Kafir is saying it, the information is wrong? Why not show that A Kafir does not know Islam? It should be easy, shouldn't it be? After all Islam means peace we are continuously told. Islam has a 1400 years history. You should be able to easily show that Islam is and has been very good to its minorities and non-muslims. I really really would love to be shown wrong. So do me a favor and take a bit of your time and show where I have gotten islam wrong.

"The Hajj was, for a long, long time "mixed prayer" congregations, even at the Great Mosque of Mecca it includes female and male Sunnis and Shiites of all ilks and everyone in between."

--- Jihadist

*************************************

The mixed congregations at Hajj are as non-controversial today as they were in the times of Prophet Muhammad. But are women like Pamela Taylor and Asra Nomani more pious and knowledgeable than Ayesha (RA) and Fatima (RA)?? If they were not asked by Prophet Muhammad to lead mixed congregations inspite of their high stature, how come these westernized muslim women elevate themselves to a position they dont belong? These false prophets are just as much a fitna as the Salfi's and Wahabi's who sanction terrorism to further their goals.

Some of the postings purporting to educate one another on this board about Islam (FarnazMansouri excluded) are as appropriate as the following:
1. King George III writing about George Washington
2. Lee Harvey Oswald writing about John F Kennedy
3. Josef Mengele writing about bioethics
4. Lenin writing about the US constitution
5. Avigdo Lieberman of Israel writing about human right concerns regarding palestinians in Israel
6. John Wayne Gacy writing about the ban on same sex marriages
7. Jefferson Davis writing about Abraham Lincoln
The onus is on the knowledgable individual to consider where the information is coming from before he considers what to do with the information

cont'd:
"Moderate Muslims" find themselves helpless when the Muslims states have hateful laws against kafirs. Have they ever voiced their dissent openly? If they do, they know how quickly the violent true believers will come after them. They know this from examples of those who had tried in the past. A muslim who understands and wants to fix muslim society finds himself at the receiving end of violent threats will and does go silent in Muslim communities. It is the violent Minority that has the Quran and the hadees on their side, and the silent moderate are labeled hypocrites by the Quran. The hypocrites behave as they behaved in the time of Muhammad. They want the Kafirs to fix the problem while they hide and keep quite among the muslims and they tell the kafirs how peaceful they are and they are muslims. Understanding this psychology of the "Hypocrites" goes far in understanding the words of the moderate muslims.

Jihadist writes: "Better the Taylor and Patel kinds than Muslim mirrors of Pat Robertson, Billy Graham son's etc.

Robertson or Graham has ever advocated murder or beheadings as many imams across the islamic world are doing. I and jihadist can ignore Robertson or Graham but can we ignore the Muslims who want to kill the kafirs? No, and that is the problem. Isn't it?

www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/valet2010/article7846439.ab

Issa, a syrian Christian who was standing for Swedish Democrat was knifed and beaten by 40 "youths" of 15 to 20 year olds who were yelling "fu*king Christian" and this is in sweden and the paper does not tell who these youths were. Why would an immigrant be against immigration? Why could the paper not identify the youth as muslims?

test

Those who preach acceptance of Gays and lesbians and Mixed prayer congregations in the name of their brand of Islam are wrong as well~!

******************************************

The Hajj was, for a long, long time "mixed prayer" congregations, even at the Great Mosque of Mecca it includes female and male Sunnis and Shiites of all ilks and everyone in between.

Gays and lesbians are less problematic than those into honour killings, undertaking terrorism, practicing corruption and bad governance in the Muslim world.

No one is stopping any Muslim from discussing what is "evil" or "out of the norm", including gays/lesbians in itself, and the evil of terrorists, blinded and biased religious fanaticism.

I'm like most Indonesian and Malaysian Muslims - more bothered by political, religious and racial extremists and lunatics in our midst than with gays. Anwar Ibrahim being accused and charged in civil court for alleged "unseemly sexual practices" is reprehensible when there are more important public issues to deal with, including crimes such as rape, murder, income disparity, unbalanced development, access to opportunities....

"No said you have to agree with what other Muslims said, but one certainly don't agree when they said they speak for all Muslims, are acting for Islam when they murder."

---- Jihadist

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Agreed, those who kill with impunity in the name of Islam are wrong. Those who preach acceptance of Gays and lesbians and Mixed prayer congregations in the name of their brand of Islam are wrong as well~!

Wow.........is WaPo deliberately trying to prop up Pamela Taylor kind of muslims? This article has been on the main page for more than a week while Eboo's articles disappear in a couple of days! Hmmm......

- Yasseryousufi

*******************************************

There are all kinds of Muslims as you well know - gender, ethnicity, country of origin, schools of thought etc.

Better the Taylor and Patel kinds than Muslim mirrors of Pat Robertson, Billy Graham son's etc.

No said you have to agree with what other Muslims said, but one certainly don't agree when they said they speak for all Muslims, are acting for Islam when they murder.

Wow.........is WaPo deliberately trying to prop up Pamela Taylor kind of muslims? This article has been on the main page for more than a week while Eboo's articles disappear in a couple of days! Hmmm......

KoK1:"A cow will graze on whichever side is green. A man is willing to die for his principles.

To think that the postings below are any reasonable reflection of the topic of this article and from which someone could learn from, it's equivalent to Martin Luther King Jr. being educated about civil rights history and applications by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh"
*************************

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/bridge_terror_tZ0hhGHb8g8Q37EoLcfxNM

Adis Medunjanin, 25, called 911 as he sped erratically away from federal agents through Queens streets at up to 90 mph.

"We love death more than you love life!" he exclaimed in Arabic.

Medunjanin also praised Allah moments before he rear-ended another vehicle, sources said.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/19-11-2002/1563-hamza-0/

Abu Hamza Al Masri:

"If a kafir person (non-believer) goes in a Muslim country, he is like a cow," explains Hamza. "Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law."

"If a kafir is walking by and you catch him, he's booty," he says on one tape. "You can sell him in the market. Most of them are spies. And even if they don't do anything, if Muslims cannot take them and sell them in the market, you just kill them. It's OK."
...
He said he can't be accused of inciting people to commit violent acts because he's a cleric who only preaches Muslim law. "I say the reality that's in the Muslim books anyway. Whether I say it or not, it's in the books."
******************************

KoK1: Would you like to see which books is Abu Hamza talking about when he says a Kafir is like a cow and killing a non-dhimmi kafir in muslim land is Ok? Why is it that you bring up such iconic images from Islam? Why is the issue framed as either a sell out or die for a principle cause?
Why not tell exactly what and where have I misquoted the quran or any tafsir or any hadith. I give you the words of the Muslim Scholars themselves. That is why I am providing links and references. Look at them with open eyes.

It is very easy to die fi sabil Allah to attain jannat and the promised hurs. Do you think it is easy to live and make this world a better place for everyone?

Secret (opposite REVEALation):

The Reason for "Sodom n Gomorrah" is, ironicaly True (opposite MYTH). WHY?

Because, "Non-Straight"s, aka Gays (Sorry Parents) is that they are an "ARMY"! An Army Of Vile Human(s)! NOt like US straight HUUMATE(s)! Hence Why They Must Be STOPED! Not Destroyed in These AquariUS times, Zero from Pisces-age Times of Lores! How Luck they [non-Straights] have Come. So, Throw Them All out of The Military & Federal, State & Local Systems NOW, NOW! Not Later!

IT is TiME!

If ye/Yo Believe in Scripture, or some of the Truths therein, Then Ye/Yo Will Believe US EKLAH-t-iON's (zero OFF's), whom com'th to Save Ye/Yo's, justly fo a time via Holyi TiME! Behold: The REFRESHING!

Soo, If Ye/Yo con't see what WE[i] See'th or Warn'th, Then Death to yo/YE all [Pre-Apocalyptic-OFFs] MEMETiCs (Posterity)! Not US (Apocalyptic On's) on/of S.pace-S.hip Earth!!

KingofKings:

"Perhaps the following will better explain how a believer disengages from situations dealing with hateful rhetoric:"

I don't know which hateful rhetoric you're referring to, not your own, I suspect, but I assure you "Ozymandias" is not hate speech; it is, rather, a sonnet. Muy famoso en las estadas unidas and the rest of the English speaking world.

If you don't care for the association, you could change your moniker. Not everyone will agree with you on everything, as you know. There are strong views in opposition to niqab. Perhaps, we can ALL confine the discussion to that.

Holyi correction!

DO NOt, NO Fix what is NOt-NO-Broken!

A cow will graze on whichever side is green. A man is willing to die for his principles.

To think that the postings below are any reasonable reflection of the topic of this article and from which someone could learn from, it's equivalent to Martin Luther King Jr. being educated about civil rights history and applications by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh

The MANiAK's r coming! The 'Maniak's [Queeeerrrs] are coming! Not British! Not Tea Party!
___

TO: Daniel HEiMBACH {Blocker of Posts] ; On; "WHY DADT must Stay" (09.27.10):

Dear Bredren, Brother, Bright.. (Note: Huggs n a Kiss's To allk da Sistrens, Sisters, SisStars.. too):

AMAZiNG, NO GRACE! iNteresting.

A little bit of a tangent. "DADT" intent/purpose is fo Non-Straights NOt to Advertise 'openly' their Sexual Preferences or Sexual Orientations [Similar] in Military or else where, aye!?

So, Earlier on On 'onfaith' {the Greatest Blog On Earth, ya ya] that Mr. Gustav Niebuhr wrote, entitled,; "DADT [Gays] & Church [of England], r Ahead of the Politico/a [U.S.] (similar said.Soo

i[WE] Eklaht-i-ON's or Apocalyptic-ON's (not Apocalyptic-Offs), or simply HUUMATE(s) of S.S. Earth argue THAT

WE[i] Huumates (NOt Humans) or APOCALYPTARiANS (Not PRE-Apocalyptarians) If it becomes O.K. to Openly for None-Straights Advertise ones SEXual Desires, on a Same Sex Basis: that, THEN The Military should make a special Rule/Provision for OPENLY ANTi-Xristians, Anti-Ju's, Anyi-Mormons, Anti-Ishlami's, Anti-Hindus/Seiks/Jains & Anti Buddhist folk in da Military! Note: SEX IS NOt LOVE: KLiFE IS! Soo then,

Think of a Don't Ask Don't Speak-out Against Pre-Apocalyptic Human's and their Religio-Preferences or Religious-Orientations question, aye!!??

Example: If I told Me Captain, Adjadent, Seargant, Generla etc.. that "i Dislike JU's, or Dislike Xrstians, or Hate Muslims. or any raggggg-hheads..lala O-P-E-N-L-Y, then what will ye yo Do to i[WE] US????

So, under the "EQUAL PROTECTiON" of our Holyi U.S. CONSTITUTION (born/made via Miracle: a Holy Holy Truth) that if Ye Yo's allow da Gay to Be OPEN about SEX (prefrences/Orientation) THEN WE[i] Eklahtions, aka Apocalyptarian Nationals sahould be Able to Be Open about OUR "Religious" Prefrences/ or Orientaions. aye Boss!????

Bottom Line: VOTE: Do-Not, i[WE[ repeat, NO-Repeal DADT et al!!!!!

Secret (opposite Revealation): Foreign Agents can Compromise and infiltrate the Pentagon et al institutions;

2nd Secret: Fact: Those folks behind Exposing The Classified Military Documents/pages recently of the U.S. War Effort (a great Embarrassment & Danger to our Coalitions straught-Guys & straight Gals [Bless them] was and is spread'd via GAYS! GAYS! within da Military!!!! via Non-Straights!@ aka Commy Finkle Fagarino's!! O' QUEEEERS! TROUBLE MAKERS! Pleazza, Better Suckk on Lolli-Poppis! Oye! Oye!

So: GAY to GAY "HONEY-TRAPS" {for Espionage Activities etc.. via none-Straights is a THREAT To U.S. (includes Other Nations) NATIiONAL SECURITY+!}

VOTE: NO Repeal "DADT". DO Not Fix What is Broken Generals, Congress, Mr. Prez et al!!! Else Shoot oneself w/out shooting a Shot" [Similar].! So, Gay-Scare + Ishlami-Scare Spread is REAL! And GAY-PHOBIA & ISHLAMi PHOBIA; is O.K. to Experience. aka Right Thinking!!!

KoK1:"There is nothing mentioned in that period like Guantamo, renditions, or targeted killings, with acceptable civilian damage/fallout and risk,"

What do we have though is beheading of 900 jews at one time. We have tying people up to camels and ripping them apart while they were alive. We have political assassinations of people who did not weild a sword but a pen. We have thousands taken slaves and sold and marketed as cattle by Muhammad. We have kafirs treated as open game to be hunted and killed.
How many millions of humans did bringing Islam to mankind require? Have you ever bothered counting? The 3000 Americans incinerated on 9/11 were merely a drop in the bucket of the blood that Islam has required over the years.

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3505/26/
As Mark Styen puts it about Gitmo:
"Too many people in the free world have internalized Islam’s view of them. A couple of years ago, I visited Guantanamo and subsequently wrote that, if I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new copy of the Koran in each cell: To reassure incoming prisoners that the filthy infidels haven't touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Korans are hung from the walls in pristine, sterilized surgical masks. It's one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it's hard to see why it's in the interests of us infidels to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry. What does that degree of prostration before their prejudices tell them about us? It’s a problem that Muslims think we’re unclean. It’s a far worse problem that we go along with it. "

Kafirs are going to have to learn to stop apologizing for our civilization. It is a million times better than the barbaric and cruel 7th century arabia that Muhammad inhabited and shed blood to satisfy his lust for power.

KoK1 says: "If the state forces her neighbor to wear a jean and t-shirt, that is unacceptable state intrusion in personal matters, as we are seeing in France"

France's law is merely geared towards that no one should be hiding their faces, and no one should be pushing religious agenda via stealth means. Islam has perfected Stealth Jihad over the years. There is no intrusion into personal matters when a state for security reasons dictates that the individual be recognizable.

KoK1 says: "Therefore, the topics are complex and the quranic verses intertwine from personal to state matters. That's why wise individuals rely on the opinions of people who have studied these matters."

So which Mullah or Imam do you want to rely upon? I have studied these matters. Why don't you directly address where and what I am saying that is false? Why don't you tell your favorite Mullah to address them for you? This really is not rocket science, as they say. It is merely rehashing of useless and contradictory verses.

KoK1 conflates a prophet, a founder of a state, and a ruler all into one. Muslims do that all the time because for them Muhammad the exemplary human was all of these. There is absolutely no notion of separation of state, religion and politics. It cannot exist in Islam and KoK1's argument highlights that. For the Kafirs to expect that Islam can co-exist peacefully as a religion without its Sharia coming into eventual conflict with the constitution of the state do not understand Islam at all. So please read KoK1 letter carefully and see how seamlessly he moves between religion and politics and matters of state when discussing Islam as does the Quran as he tells us. Grasp that carefully,for that is something we as Kafirs will have to deal with for a long long time to come. Hijab was being used as a political symbol of Islam in France. It was used as political symbol of Islam in Turkey, and that is why it was banned in Turkey and that is why as the Islamist part of Erdogan wins it is making a comeback there. And that is why the girl in India is being threatened ... not because she flouts their religious sensibilites but she is flouting their political control of the muslim community.

KoK1 says: "From my understanding, conversions of women was practiced in both directions, i.e from muslim to non-muslem, and vice versa, with written references to this scenario. Conversions of men, from my understanding was similar, except in times of warfare; the term for that is desertion, and the US army has a strict punishment for that."

Is that your justification that Muhammad allowed raping of women prisoners? Is that your justification for killing apostates? Why cannot the Muslims stop killing the apostates in the present then, if it was simply a matter of war "back then"?

I am not a scholar of the Islamic religion either in theological or historical sense. However, slandering the Islamic religion, sometimes by turncoats has become profitable in today's Islamophobic west. No names are necessary, there are plenty of them as we speak (or write).

The Islamic Faith did take on as it progressed from a theoretical concept in Mecca to a reality in Medina over a decade later, and its destruction sought by many at the time, which almost happened, and I can see that many here would have been pleased with that scenario.

As a political reality in Medina, the early muslims had different things to deal with i than in Mecca; notably enemies at all fronts, including sedition - some of the verses taken out of context refers to these matters. There is nothing mentioned in that period like Guantamo, renditions, or targeted killings, with acceptable civilian damage/fallout and risk, all terms of the most enlightened society. And oh my, the most provocative of all: reference to fighting and self-protection.
How could the founding fathers (and mothers) insert any mention of fighting in our enlightened society, including one of the first rights mentioned: the right to bear arms?

From my understanding, conversions of women was practiced in both directions, i.e from muslim to non-muslem, and vice versa, with written references to this scenario. Conversions of men, from my understanding was similar, except in times of warfare; the term for that is desertion, and the US army has a strict punishment for that.

Therefore, the topics are complex and the quranic verses intertwine from personal to state matters. That's why wise individuals rely on the opinions of people who have studied these matters. Under the eyes of the enemy, any verse of any scripture could be made to look like the worst thing in existence, including the US constitution.

Finally, the quran provides recommendations for modest dressing for both males and females. The later political entities/cultural expectations have taken different scenarios in different communities.
For example, a man who is expected to show his buttocks in one primitive village would have been the odd man out and targeted for abuse.
Anyways, we have progressed beyond uniform behavior in "enlightened" societies - and if one woman find comfort in covering her hair and breasts, I see nothing wrong with that. A society that restricts personal behavior is a restrictive society.

The lady cited in messages below who needs protection for wearing jeans and T-shirt in an Indian village may be acting out of her conviction, which is not necesarily evil if she understands the consequences. However, she should either educate the villagers , who probably do not have a firm grasp on why they object to jeans and T-shirt, or she should move to the city. If the state forces her neighbor to wear a jean and t-shirt, that is unacceptable state intrusion in personal matters, as we are seeing in France

Consider Quran 6:68
When you see men(people) engaged in vain discourse about Our signs, turn away from them until they turn to a different theme. If satan makes you forget, then after recollection, sit not in the company of those who do wrong.

that KoK1 cites. This Verse is used in conjuction with verse 4.140 which reads:

PICKTHAL: He hath already revealed unto you in the Scripture that, when ye hear the revelations of Allah rejected and derided, (ye) sit not with them (who disbelieve and mock) until they engage in some other conversation. Lo! in that case (if ye stayed) ye would be like unto them. Lo! Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers, all together, into hell;

These two verses are very effectively used by Muslims to prevent any real and genuinine interfaith dialog. Any muslim who is willing to participate in an honest and truthful examination of the Quran is immideately branded a hypocrite and a disbeliever on the strength of 4.140 and then his life is at risk. So 6.68 is usually cited to kafirs to tell them that the Muslim really does not have any arguments and he does not want to participate in a dialog. Verse 4.140 is used by Muslims to another muslim who is not cutting off the dialog when they are demanding that he should.

Neat isn't it?

I can go on with the other verses that KOK1 brings but you get the idea. If he insists, I will comment on the other as well.

Let's consider Verse 3.64:
Ibn Kathir says in his commentary:
***
We should mention that the letter that the Prophet sent to Heraclius reads, "In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Heraclius, Leader of the Romans: peace be upon those who follow the true guidance. Embrace Islam and you will acquire safety, embrace Islam and Allah will grant you a double reward. However, if you turn away from it, then you will carry the burden of the peasants, and,"O people of the Scripture: Come to a word that is the same between us and you, that we worship none but Allah (Alone), and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah.'' Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims.'
Muhammad bin Ishaq and other scholars said that the beginning of Surah Al `Imran, and more than eighty verses thereafter; were revealed about the delegation of Najran. Az-Zuhri stated that the people of Najran were the first people to pay the Jizyah (tax money paid to the Muslim State). However, there is no disagreement that the Ayah that ordained the Jizyah [9:29] was revealed after the Fath (conquering Makkah, and therefore, after the delegation of Najran came to Al-Madinah). So, how can this Ayah [3:64] be contained in the Prophet's letter to Heraclius before the victory of Makkah, and how can we harmonize between the statements of Muhammad bin Ishaq and Az-Zuhri The answer is that the delegation of Najran came before Al-Hudaybiyyah (before the victory of Makkah), and what they paid was in lieu of the Mubahalah; not as Jizyah. The Ayah about the Jizyah was later revealed, and its ruling supported what occurred with the Najran people. In support of this opinion, we should mention that in another instance, the ruling on dividing the booty into one - fifth (for the Prophet ) and four-fifths (for the fighters) agreed with the practice of `Abdullah bin Jahsh during the raid that he led before Badr. An Ayah later on upheld the way `Abdullah divided the booty. Therefore, it is possible that the Prophet wrote this statement (Say, "O People of the Scripture. ..'') in his letter to Heraclius before the Ayah was revealed. Later on, the Qur'an agreed with the Prophet's statement, word by word. It is also a fact that the Qur'an was revealed in agreement with what `Umar said regarding the captured disbelievers at Badr, the Hijab (Muslim woman code of dress), refraining from performing prayer for the hypocrites, and regarding his statements:
***

In effect this verse was used by Muhammad to demand that the Christian Heraclius either submit or pay Jiziya. For Mubahalah read verse 3.61.

This verse since then has been used as a pre-amble to the demand from Christians or jews to submit or to convert.

KOK1: The verses you post are not as peaceful as you may think. I will discuss those separately later. The point is that you as an American are pushing that covering of face should fall under freedom of choice and not be circuscribed by security needs. To push that line, you did not hesitate for a second to assume the Islamophobia victim stance. That really does not work anymore since the Kafirs are aware of that ruse. Why don't you honestly deal with whether you believe the misogynist requirement of treating women hair as shameful and to be covered up, or all the other idiotic "awrah" requirement that are imposed by mullahs of the 9th century? Do you personally think that woman's hair is "nakedness" as the Hanafi jurists have written and should be completely covered? By that ruling the hijab that Pamela Taylor has in her picture at the top of her column is indecent. She is exposing her hair.

Last week a muslim woman in India finds herself under police protection because she does not want to wear the burkha and that is unacceptable to the muslims around her.
********************************
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/97499/girl-defies-burqa-diktat-denim.html
Rayana R Khasi is a 23-year-old engineering graduate preparing for civil services main exams.

However, she has an even tougher task than preparing for the competitive tests, for she has been facing threats from religious fundamentalists. And the two policemen posted outside her house at Vidyanagar in Kasargod show the enormity of the threat.

Rayana’s “crime” was that she began wearing jeans and top instead of the burqa. “It is not that I am exposing myself. I don’t do it. But they want me to cover my entire body, including the face, with burqa as other Muslim women do it here, which I don’t want to,’’ the girl told Deccan Herald over the phone.
*******************************

The use of violence and threat of violence is an old technique that the Muslims have mastered over the centuries. They really think they can get away with it. Why shouldn't they? They have been getting away with it for centuries.

How many women do you think under Islam are threatened and beaten to wear the niqab, hijab, burkha, jiljab, etc.? And here in good ole USA no one but no one even considers that hijab should be banned but for security reasons the face of the person should be visible in public places, and you are misrepresenting verses of the Quran to make the point that your religion is being unfairly examined?

KingKong quotes few Quran verses to” prove” the “tolerance” of Islam. He failed though, to mention a minor detail: those early verses written in Mecca were abrogated (cancelled) by later verses written in Medina. Such as Quran 9:29 “…fight those who believe not in the prophet hood of Mohammad….” Or Quran 9:5 “...kill the infidels wherever you find them….”and the many similar jewels that adorn the pages of that book. That same book, furthermore, permits the Muslims to lie in a number of situations foremost amongst them is “the furthering of the cause of Islam.” It is called Taqqiya.

Failing to do what one knows is right simply because it might upset some fanatics is not the path that leads to progress. Sometimes, even if it could lead to danger, we must take a stand on what is right and struggle on through the consequences so that injustices can be overcome. I am not a Muslim, by any stretch, but I am a progressive and I really do not care if enacting laws which enhance the value of gender equality happen to enrage some religious people, whether fanatical or not. As history has proven, progress quite often, if not always, occurs in spite of religion opposition. That said, if you oppose the ban, then oppose it. If you support it, support it. Fear of the reactions of your opponents should not prevent you from standing up for what you believe, no matter how crazy your adversaries may be.

Perhaps the following will better explain how a believer disengages from situations dealing with hateful rhetoric:

>Say: "O people of the Book(referring to jews and christians)! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God." If they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we are muslims (bowing to God's will)."
(3: 64)

> When you see men(people) engaged in vain discourse about Our signs, turn away from them until they turn to a different theme. If satan makes you forget, then after recollection, sit not in the company of those who do wrong.
(6: 68)

> Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best - because satan sows a state of conflict and disagreement among them. Truly satan is to man an avowed enemy.
(17: 53)

>And when they (believers) hear Al-laghw (dirty, false, and useless talk), they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you your deeds; peace be to you - we seek not the way of the ignorant."
(28: 55)

>And dispute not with the people of the Book except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury), but say: "We believe in the revelation that has come down to us and that which came down to you; our God and your God is One - and it is to Him we have submitted (in Islam).
29: 46

Peace

Oooppsa. My-god(s) is Great?

Note: NO ABRAHAMiC nor NO VEDiC Systems {Zero G_D or Eklah made} of so-called, competing for a name for "My god(s, man-made or Angel-made Religions, inheretited by Pre-Apocalyptic parents or friends or relatives are in All Reality, aka in All TRANS{FiNity all in fact "MONO"theo' Jealous gods worshipping SYSTEMs! Zero "IT" made!!

Fact: So, ALL//EVERY & ANY of the Jealous MOSES's & Copy Cats (off springs and all) & Jealous VYASA's & copy cats (offsprings and all) Systems are simply "POLY"theo? There is Zero MONO-G_D about Them, only Poly-gods! Pleazza, Do Not be in Denial to selves nor others. O' Ye "Psychic Driving" Zombies [victims of Pre-Apocalyptic-Offs, aka Jealousy]!

i[WE] dare ye/Yo try US? Debate Us Eklah-t-iON's! IT will be fatal to your Psych if ye/yo Do! Hint: Ye/Yo's can never Modernize nor Futurize ye WAR-BLESING PISCES-AGE religions for a PEACE BLESING "AQUARiUS-AGE Rapture" or "Refreshing"!

Note: This has zero/NOthing to do with any Horror-Scopes wishfull thinking stuff nor or any Astrology thinking. Just Pure Corrections via Science, Not Religion or SuperStupidSstitiousness. No Jinns, No Satans, No Kali's, No Devils, No zalzells etc..... O' Equonox's![Precession's of their Holyi-Cosmic Allignment; like clocks]!

Allah Akbar?

KingofKings,

Someone wrote a poem about you, Ramesses II, although I daresay he was your etymological superior. Woe to man?

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

--Percy Bysshe Shelley

KoK1 says:"As for the origin of the word for female, or woman - the liberated English word refers to "woe to man". The word needs to be transitioned out of the vocabulary."

Rubbish. I really would like to see your source. I am sure you got it from somewhere.

woman
late O.E. wimman (pl. wimmen ), lit. "woman-man," alteration of wifman (pl. wifmen ), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in O.E. used in ref. to both sexes; see man). Cf. Du. vrouwmens "wife," lit. "woman-man." The formation is peculiar to Eng. and Du. Replaced older O.E. wif, quean as the word for "female human being." The pronunciation of the singular altered in M.E. by the rounding influence of -w- ; the plural retains the original vowel. Meaning "wife," now largely restricted to U.S. dial. use, is attested from c.1450. Women's liberation is attested from 1966; women's rights is from 1840, with an isolated example in 1632. Verb womanize originally (1593) meant "to make effeminate;" sense of "to chase women, to go wenching" is attested from 1893.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

From Webster:
Origin of WOMAN
Middle English, from Old English wīfman, from wīf woman, wife + man human being, man
First Known Use: before 12th century

A very common Indo-European root for woman, *gwen-, is the source of English queen (Old English cwēn primarily meant woman, highborn or not; this is still the case in Danish, with the modern spelling kvinde, as well as in Swedish kvinna), as well as gynaecology (from Greek gynē), banshee fairy woman (from Irish bean woman, sí fairy) and zenana (from Persian zan). The Latin fēmina, whence female, is likely from the root in fellāre (to suck), referring to breastfeeding.[2][3]

KoK1: "To me my religion, and to you yours. Peace."

What does that really mean? This comes from the Quran from the Sura Al-Kafiroon (or THE KAFIRS). Allah says:
Quran 109.001 - 006.
PICKTHAL: Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

Maududi, commenting on this states:
If the Surah is read with this background in mind, one finds that it was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them ...
********************************

KoK1: This is the reason why Muslims are instructed by their Ulema not to go to the lands of the Kafirs. Now you are born in the land of the Kafirs. Are you expressing your total disgust and unconcern with the non-Muslims of America, if you are an American? Is if fine by you that in the 21st century, muslim countries have laws that deeply discriminate and hate the non-muslims? You live among the non-muslims who give you and the other muslims total freedom to pray as you wish, but your Deen is not simply a mere religion but requires a total realignment of social laws to be in accord with Sharia. Niqab is only one of the requirements of that Sharia. How much of that Sharia would you like to see imposed upon the Kafirs?

This discourse is now getting tasteless, especially when believers of one faith call the others' sacred scriptures vile, and going back and forth. In this kind of situation, the scriptures of this believer recommends him to excuse himself from the discussion, saying: I am one who has submitted himself to God. To me my religion, and to you yours. Peace.

If men, Muslim or other, have a problem with the way western women dress in public, said men should wear blindfolds. As for women, they know that there are customs, norms, in every culture whose violation is not acceptable.

In the US, despite the fact that certain Native American religions require nudity, the practitioners are aware that public nudity is not tolerated in the United States, and they refrain.

Every freedom has limits.

KoK1 you wrote, "There is no problem if that decision is left up to the individual." Exactly, there wouldn't be any problem if individuals were deciding, it generally is the Neanderthal husband or some semi-literate mullah who has no clue about anything except rote memorization of that vile book admonishes them to wear that bee-keeper suit.

Then you went on to say, "The state has no business getting involved in this matter. The French need to fid something better than worrying about muslim women's dressing and personal rights." Have you taken leave of your senses all together? Here in the west the state has a compelling interest in all its citizens rights. May be the paradise that your parents came from, the state has compelling interest in depriving the citizens of their rights. Since you claimed a few days back that you were born in this country get with the program and dump the notions of the paradise your parents come from.

Comparing different levels of modesty, i.e. exposing one's beauty either through feminine facial/bodily beauty is at one spectrum, and exposing one's breasts and vagina is at the other spectrum. So where do you draw the line and who has the authority to draw that line? There is no problem if that decision is left up to the individual. The state has no business getting involved in this matter. The French need to fid something better than worrying about muslim women's dressing and personal rights.

As for the origin of the word for female, or woman - the liberated English word refers to "woe to man". The word needs to be transitioned out of the vocabulary.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/meaning_of_nikah.htm

This is a site by an arab answering charges against Islam. So you can be sure that he is giving the best on Islam that you can get.
Nikah is marriage in Islam.
Nikah is also sexual penetration by male in arabic.
Does that tell you something about the mindset towards women?

DILD: "Comparing Muslim women showing their faces to showing their vaginas is rude, ugly, and foul. "

I laugh because you touch upon a core bias built into Islam.

http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2010/09/19/a-detailed-exposition-of-the-fiqh-of-covering-ones-nakedness-awra/

The word for woman in persian and urda is awrat (or essentially nakedness that needs to be covered). Etymologically woman is derived from a-w-r and that means blemish, deficient, etc. So KoK1 is merely reflecting the bias built into Islam. Misogyny is part of Islam's DNA.

Kingofkings1

Comparing Muslim women showing their faces to showing their vaginas is rude, ugly, and foul. It shows a basic and profound disprespect for women, to discuss them in the rudest possible way, in their very presence, as though they are bugs under a glass, without feelings or opinions.

The problem with Islam: too much testosterone and not enough estrogen.

Kingofkings1

You posted that requiring Muslim women to show their faces in public is comparable to requiring a woman to show her vagina in puclic.

This is a screw-ball comment. The question here is not about America but about France. But as far as I am concerned, as long as required female Muslim attire does not include a face mask in public public places, then the argument over what to wear is silly and ridiculous.

In the West at least, I am sure that as time passes, and Muslim women get out from under the idea of comple male domination, they will wear what they want.

ukba

"The Christian tradition and its long checkered history are full of gross indecency and violence towards the other: non-Christians; maybe DLTD can explain why that is."

This is because the political authorities of Europe used religon to promote their lust for power and wealth. The American solution was the total separation of church and state. The European solution was abandonment of religion, altogether.

To fulfull its destiny in the world, Islam will undergo a secular reformation, which I believe, has already begun.

http://bigpeace.com/nmay/2010/09/22/is-islam-about-to-collapse-egyptian-scholar-says-yes/

Hamed Abdel Samad gets it right!! Once you think about it, It is obvious.

*Ban may agitate extremists*

Any reason/cause may be always found to agitate extremists if they are ready to be agitated.
State,if state is state,provides Law and Order.
State,if state is state,provides and should provide Woman-Man Equality.
State,if state is state,should ban Slavery,Sugjugation and Second Class Citizenship.

Muslims always have to reassure themselves that their personal faith is valid by looking at numbers. That is built into the fibre of Islam. Success was defined by that Muhammad will have more followers on doomsday than any other prophet. Success is all numerical strength. The figures pointed out earlier from some Imam and not manufactured by any Kafir. Getting hard and real data is nearly impossible. It was difficult for pew research to estimate the numbers of muslims in USA and their study details the difficulties involved. But it is very important to muslims to have large numbers.

Truth, helping mankind in general, or any "normal" criteria that people of other religion use as success is never under considertion in Islam. Reassurance is always sought in numbers. The idea that one day you could have nearly everyone believing that earth is flat and still being totally wrong never sinks in. Muhammad has to have the largest number of followers.

If ex-muslims were counted as a "religion" then there is little doubt that although our total numbers are small at the moment, our rate of growth beats that of any other religion hands down.

Dear Panelist,

It is a good article.

Some confusion has been sowed as noted in posts below, regarding conversions from one religion to another. The following is provided to shed some light on this issue:

Neutral non-Muslim Sources confirming Islam to be the fastest growing religion:

“Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion. In 1990, 935 million people were Muslims and this figure had escalated to around 1.2 billion by 2000, meaning that around one in five people follow Islam. Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million MORE people CONVERTED to Islam than to Christianity” (Guinness World Records 2003, pg 102)

People raised another pathetic argument INCLUDING HERE IN YAHOO ANSWER. They claims that Islam is the fastest growing religion because of high birth rate in third world countries. This is the point that Islamophobists really raise to “prove” that Islam is not the fastest growing religion. Much to their misfortune, Guinness World Records debunks this lie. As I quoted above. I’ll quote the last part of it.

“In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million MORE people CONVERTED to Islam than to Christianity” (Guinness World Records 2003, pg 102)

What does this mean in your language? Does it mean that 12.5 million MORE Muslims in third world countries were BORN in this time period?!

According to Reader’s digest Almanic year book Islam grew by 235% in 50 years between 1934-1984

According to CNN:

“The second-largest religion in the world after Christianity, Islam is also the fastest-growing religion. In the United States, for example, nearly 80 percent of the more than 1,200 mosques have been built in the past 12 years.

Some scholars see an emerging Muslim renaissance as Islam takes root in many traditionally Christian communities.

Islam has drawn converts from all walks of life, most notably African-Americans. Former NAACP President Benjamin Chavis, who joined the Nation of Islam recently, personifies the trend.

“Today Islam is the fastest growing religion” (Is Organized religion a Sham by Ed Sepernik, pg 166)

“Islam is the fastest growing religion all over the world” (Allah and Elohim - Are they the Same God? , Preface)

There are over a billion Muslims in the world today, including 3 to 5 million in the U.S., making it the second most populous religion on earth after Christianity. According to some estimates, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. (The Joy of Sects, Peter Occhigrosso, 1996, p394-397)

Yasseryousufi:

You have my sympathy. Mullahs killed and threatened to kill to keep the hollowness and evil of Islam from being exposed. I know your identity is wrapped in Islam, and there is nothing to replace it easily. The word of Allah and not one error and all that nonsense you are told from the time you are born.
Well the technology has made that impossible. No mullah can silence all the vioces on the web. I don't think you are really as stupid or moronic as you are trying to portray yourself. You were human enough to tell that your prophet really did not marry a six year old and cited your Tayaji. No one in the muslims world believes your Tayaji or you. You talk about Hadiath being written 300 years after Muhammad. But that fact tells you that you then know next to nothing about Muhammad. All you know about Muhammad is then 300 years after he was supposed to be. How do you know that Quran is the word of Allah? How do you know that Muhammad even existed? There is nothing you or any other muslim can do to stop the examination of Islam. You have Saudi Sheikh telling the world that it is Islamic to marry a 1 year old, that Muhammad did marry a six year old. You have the Iranians stoning women to death. You have the horror of honor killing in the muslim world on display. You think all of this is not affecting the young in the Islamic world?
Your Quran says:
086.005-007
YUSUFALI: Now let man but think from what he is created!
He is created from a drop emitted-
Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

Do you really think young muslims studying modern science are going to buy into nonsense like that when man now knows about DNA? Which drop proceeds from between the backbone and ribs?

There are muslims who will defend that is consistent with known physiology of humans now, and they make themselves look stupid. You probably are muslim like that because you cannot even contempalate that even a single dot in the quran could be in error.

Quran is filled with barbaric stuff from the 7 century and clearly is wrong, but muslims are unable to accept that. Time is not going to stop. Whether the muslims accept it or not, Islam as an idea is dead. There is no intellectual support for it at all.

So, yes you do have my sympathy for you will have to deal with the dying corpse of Islam especially in Pakistan.

Kafir,

You're both hilarious and shameless. Do you expect to turn away educated people from Islam by citing such anonymous and discredited sites. anticair.org! Gimme a break! How many more lies do I need to pick up in your posts to shut you up? Are you for real or are you a whole organization of anti-islamic bigots getting paid to post 100 anti-muslim posts a day?

Posted by: yasseryousufi | September 24, 2010 11:54 AM
___________________________________________

Kafir,

The PDF proves nothing. Its still a quack source. No wonder you're such a bumblimg idiot. All you've done in your life is read these discredited sources.

Posted by: yasseryousufi | September 24, 2010 12:14 PM
___________________________________________

Europe was once inhabited by Pagans before Christianity took over. Whats the big deal? Pakhtun or whatever, my intelligence is enough to lay bare Hindu Bigots who go around lying "Madrassa educate, Former Muslim Pakistanis" lies and think no one would notice. You're out of luck on this forum dude~!

Posted by: yasseryousufi | September 24, 2010 5:16 PM
___________________________________________

Kafir, do you think even for a moment before type away? That PDF Akafir sent was a scan of newspaper. Are you suggesting that the paper printed something that turkey Omar M Ahmed had not said? Are you saying that paper is a the quack source? On what basis do you say that? Have you done extensive research on that paper from your Shariat court in Vullu-bagh in Sindh? All you do is when going gets tough that the other person is a liar or he is a Hindu Bigot, etc, etc. Grow up Yousufi1, introspect there are 56 OICs, how many of them do you think have high literacy? How many of them even have modicum of democracy, where all people are treated as equal? How many foreigners like to come to these countries for higher scientific education? Lastly how many young men & women from these countries go abroad for higher education? You answer these questions for your self and then ask what is the common denominator for all these countries the the answer will be obvious to you. At least I hope. get back to us with results of your introspection.

"Taxila was the location of one of the greatest learning centres of the world, and now that place has "Pakhtuns" with intelligence that you exhibit ... Exhibit A ... what Islam does to a people. Best of luck to you."

Europe was once inhabited by Pagans before Christianity took over. Whats the big deal? Pakhtun or whatever, my intelligence is enough to lay bare Hindu Bigots who go around lying "Madrassa educate, Former Muslim Pakistanis" lies and think no one would notice. You're out of luck on this forum dude~!

Pakistani Talibani retorts:
"Do you expect to turn away educated people from Islam by citing such anonymous and discredited sites?"

Educated people turn away from Islam as soon as they become educated. AKafir and Arif are two such examples Others include Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Hirsi Ali, Rasheed alMaghribi, Ali Sina,Ibn Warraq, Abdullah Al Araby etc.Peruse the following report by Sheikh Ahmed alQataani al Libi who has Muslim missionary centers throughout Africa. He gave his statistics on AlJazeera TV program “Sharia and Life’ on 12-12-2002 and repeated two years later on 12-12-2004. The statistics he quoted were obtained in 2000.
Every year 6 million people in Africa alone convert from Islam to Christianity. Of which
1. In Algeria 10,000 convert per year
2. In Morocco 54,000 convert per year
Outside Africa:
1. Three million Cambodian Muslims dwindled to fourth of a million.
2. Russia had at one time over 24,000 mosques, but now has only 200, most of which are museums.
3. Burma’s 4 million Muslims dwindled to 0.3 millions.
4. In Pakistan there were 80,000 in 1947. In 2000 there were 6 million.
5. In Girgistan tens of thousands convert annually.
6. Bangladesh has now (2000) 10 million.
7. Saudi Arabia has now (2000) over 50 thousand Christians (and not a single church).

This does not account for converts from other religions.

Kingofkings you wrote, "I hate to disappoint, but I was born in USA;
so where would you like me to go?" But then earlier you also said "If history is any guide, any non-caucasian individuals in Europe should seriously think about relocating to a more hospitable locale. Europe has been the source of the worst forms of ethnic repression historically...." You need to make up your mind. I don't think like you, bu I do wish that muslims or non-muslims do show some courtesy to the host society in which they reside, instead of playing the victim card all the time. I was endorsing your earlier idea to call your bluff. Most of the immigrants are in the west because either they do not have economic opportunities in their native countries or because they face persecution. In either case just as when a person helps the other, teh second person feels and show his gratitude. In the same way teh immigrants should show have a sense of gratitude and try to assimilate and be less demanding. That somehow is perceived to be lacking amongst muslims, apparently.

YassirYousufi:

"Kafir,
The PDF proves nothing. Its still a quack source. No wonder you're such a bumblimg idiot. All you've done in your life is read these discredited sources."

Taxila was the location of one of the greatest learning centres of the world, and now that place has "Pakhtuns" with intelligence that you exhibit ... Exhibit A ... what Islam does to a people. Best of luck to you.

UKBA,

Good heavens! Is it really you? And I was just thinking you would be great on this thread!

How have you been? Good sources on the NT (sic) and anti-semitism. There are also good Catholic (Rosemary Ruether, eg.) and Protestant sources on NT (sic) antisemitism, hate, Jew-killing. Perhaps, Geenyoss Seuclah took note.

Regards,
Farnaz

Kafir,

The PDF proves nothing. Its still a quack source. No wonder you're such a bumblimg idiot. All you've done in your life is read these discredited sources.

Yassir,

I knew you were going to make some lame excuse like that and hence I have posted the actual scan of the original news report that the site provides.

Kafir,

You're both hilarious and shameless. Do you expect to turn away educated people from Islam by citing such anonymous and discredited sites. anticair.org! Gimme a break! How many more lies do I need to pick up in your posts to shut you up? Are you for real or are you a whole organization of anti-islamic bigots getting paid to post 100 anti-muslim posts a day?

YasserYousufi:

In case you complain and can't find the material on that page. Here is the direct link to that statement:
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/AhmadStateScanned.pdf

YasserYousfui:

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to
any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book
of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the
only accepted religion on Earth."

************************

Your point on Malaysia is infantile at best. Anyone reading can judge for themselves.

YassirYousufi: "Again the word "Kafir" does not exist in legal lexicon in my country."

True, Yassir, perhaps in the legal lexicon it does not exist in pakistan, but it certainly exists in Pakistan. The brutal ethnic cleansing of the Kafirs of Kafirastan is just another people destroyed by Islam, and this happened in your backyard if you are a Pakhtun:
http://www.gowanusbooks.com/kafirs.htm
"I felt forced to write this piece after reading "The Islamization of the Kalash Kafirs" by Akbar S. Ahmed in his book Pakistan Society (Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1986). I was appalled to read that the author, "the Margaret Mead of Islam" did not even once touch upon the destruction of the Kafirs."

"If you care to read my original post, it was addressed to Jihadist and not to you. I am referring to Malaysia and not to Pakistan. Every post is not directed at you."

No worries! Replace Malaysia for Pakistan, does their highest Court refers to non-muslims as Kafirs?

Abrahamhab1 has provided a link to your point #4. Do a little search for other sources as well.

You cute little wimp! Why should I do the research for your claims. Show me the exact source where the CAIR representative has said "Quran MUST be the supreme law of the land and Islam the ONLY acceptable religion" as you claimed. The link your fellow crackpot Islamophobe cites proves does no such thing. You're arguing with the wrong guy kiddo! I know you quite well by now. Your treachery wont pass any longer here~!

Yasseryousufi:

If you care to read my original post, it was addressed to Jihadist and not to you. I am referring to Malaysia and not to Pakistan. Every post is not directed at you.

Abrahamhab1 has provided a link to your point #4. Do a little search for other sources as well.

And yes, I do like "A. Kafir", and it suits me fine.

Thank you.

The Pakistani Taliban asks for documentation of the plans Omar Ahmed has for the USA.
“As CAIR's Omar Ahmed said Quran must be the supreme law of the land and Islam the only acceptable religion.
Lets have the exact source of your claim.”
Below is just one .
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/DN-dreher_09edi.ART.State.Edition1.4235f88.html

Oh and I forgot to mention the biggest of all lies. "I am a Madrassa Educated former Muslim from Pakistan"

The name Kafir absolutely suits you.

Lie # 1 Obviously, non-muslims in your country are Kafirs to the highest court of the land

There is no such ruling calling Non-Muslims Kafirs in my country

Lie # 2 They are even kafirs to the lowly marriage registrar.

Again the word "Kafir" does not exist in legal lexicon in my country.

Lie # 3 The state in the muslim countries treats the non-muslims as barely human, and the state in the Kafir countries cannot figure out how to deal with the supremacist demands of the Muslims who do not want to integrate let alone assilimate but want to have Sharia dominate

proof?

Lie # 4

As CAIR's Omar Ahmed said Quran must be the supreme law of the land and Islam the only acceptable religion.

Lets have the exact source of your claim.

YassirYousufi: "I have literally lost count how many lies I have picked up in this fake former muslims post."

What lies?

YassirYousufi: "As I have pointed out earlier, I have been muslim all my life and I have only heard Islamophobic bigots calling non-muslims kafirs."

Now Mohammad Salih is much senior to yassir and he writes:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/09/a_muslim_goes_to_temple_for_his_first_rosh_hashanah.html

"was born and grew up until I went to the city for high school (Wadi Haj, near the town of Argo, on the Nile River in northern Sudan, south of the borders with Egypt), I went to a "madrassa" (Koranic school, "khalwa" in Arabic) where I was taught that anyone who was not a Muslim was a "kafir" "

Yassir may not be aware of the Fatwa by a very famous Imam of Islam:
Shaykh Al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullah) v27 p264: “Whosoever does not forbid people from the deen of the Jews and Christians after the prophethood of the messenger Muhammad (saw) nor declares them kafir nor hates them, he is not a Muslim by the consensus of ALL Muslims, their scholars and the general public.”

Please google Lina Joy case in Malaysia and see the ruling by the Supreme Court of Malaysia at denying her request to change her religion from Islam. Please do a search on Sgt. Maniam Murthy of Malaysia and see the rulings and decisions by the Malaysian Courts for yourself.

So one more time, What lies?

Kafir writes,

" True. BUT is an American muslim an infidel to the supreme court of the United States? Obviously, non-muslims in your country are Kafirs to the highest court of the land. They are even kafirs to the lowly marriage registrar. The state in the muslim countries treats the non-muslims as barely human, and the state in the Kafir countries cannot figure out how to deal with the supremacist demands of the Muslims who do not want to integrate let alone assilimate but want to have Sharia dominate. As CAIR's Omar Ahmed said Quran must be the supreme law of the land and Islam the only acceptable religion. "

I have literally lost count how many lies I have picked up in this fake former muslims post. Yet this idiot brags about seeking answers to his stupid questions. As I have pointed out earlier, I have been muslim all my life and I have only heard Islamophobic bigots calling non-muslims kafirs. Talking of the highest Courts, does this schmuck even know that a Hindu was the Chief Justice of Supreme Court only recently in Pakistan? Name just one country where random acts of violence hasn't occurred against minorities. If Muslim countries treat so-called Kafirs as "barely Human" why are your fellow Hindus dying to flock to muslim countries to earn salaries they cannot even dream of in their dirt poor country? How does India treats its minorities???

Continuation of Negative Love:
002.006
YUSUFALI: As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.

002.007
YUSUFALI: Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).

To appreciate the import of the Nature of Allah being described here, lets rely on the Imams of Islam. Tafsir al-Jalalayn (a very heavily relied upon Sunni Tafsir) says for 2-7:

"God has set a seal on their hearts, impressing on them and making certain that no good enters them; and on their hearing, [in which He has] deposited something so that they cannot profit from the truth they hear; and on their eyes is a covering, that is, a veil so that they do not see the truth; and for them there will be a mighty chastisement, that is, intense and everlasting."

So Allah who creates many jinns and humans for hell, tells here that it is immaterial whether people who reject Islam are warned or not, because Allah has set a seal on their hearts "making certain no good enters them".
Marvellous rationalisation, isn't it? How do you explain that many will not accept Islam? Simple, Allah makes these Kafirs so he can burn and torture them in the most horrible way for eternity, and since he seals their hearts no good can enter them and their ears are stuffed so they cannot hear any good, and their eyes are covered and so they cannot see any good. They are doomed from the get go.

What kind of God is this?

Explanations that Muslims will normally give ends up tying them into knots over predestination and freewill. Freewill is something that Islamic imams just could not reconcile with the Allah of the Quran. I am hoping someone who knows better will be able to set me straight. In the meantime here is Allah showing Negative love to the Kafirs of all shades and stripes by creating them specifically to burn them in hell for eternity, and there is nothing they can do about it and no good muslim should not feel even slight bad for them.

Jihadist: "I have no problems with "kafir/infidel", being one myself to the likes of Pat Robertson and the son of Billy Graham."

True. BUT is an American muslim an infidel to the supreme court of the United States? Obviously, non-muslims in your country are Kafirs to the highest court of the land. They are even kafirs to the lowly marriage registrar. The state in the muslim countries treats the non-muslims as barely human, and the state in the Kafir countries cannot figure out how to deal with the supremacist demands of the Muslims who do not want to integrate let alone assilimate but want to have Sharia dominate. As CAIR's Omar Ahmed said Quran must be the supreme law of the land and Islam the only acceptable religion.

SECULAR WROTE:

Kingofkings1, you wrote. "If history is any guide, any non-caucasian individuals in Europe should seriously think about relocating to a more hospitable locale. Europe has been the source of the worst forms of ethnic repression historically....". Speak for yourself and you co-religionists. Don't play the colonial and oppression cards, etc, etc. Most non-muslims find western Europe very warm & welcoming societies. In fact I would recommend to all non-muslim Asians and Africans to flee from Middle East, as well as such moderate Paradises as Malaysia, & Indonesia too. And I think KingofKings should set an example to all his fellow muslims by leading the mass Exodus out of the west back to their own paradises, where they came from.

-------------------------------------------

I hate to disappoint, but I was born in USA;
so where would you like me to go?

A bit more of Negative Love:

007.179
YUSUFALI: Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle,- nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning).

Read it a couple of times and let the meaning sink in. Remember this is not a man speaking but Allah, the creator of infinite number of Universes each of unimaginably large size. This is the Creator who is All Knowing, All powerful, etc. etc. And what does this Creator say?

"I HAVE MADE MANY MENS AND JINNS FOR HELL"!!!!

Here is a God that creates beings for hell, a hell that is described as horrendous torture. This is the place where Allah burns off the skin and makes it grow again and burns it again and repeats that torture again and again. This is the place where souls are made to drink molten metal. And he actually creates beings to do that to them? Imagine a little boy horribly torturing his toys and being proud of doing that. What do you think people around that boy think of him? Negative Love?

The explanations that Muslims give to explain this are a marvel to behold. They demonstrate how easily the logic centres of a human can totally shut down.

welcome back Jihadist. I am still waiting to hear from you why are the laws of Malaysia so discriminatory and hateful towards the non-muslims? Why don't you answer? You are obviously so so intelligent and so well educated and so modern, that you really should have no problem answering the few simple questions.

You may think of me as YasserYousufi of however you like. He thinks of me as a hateful hindu. You may think of me as a filthy hindu or a filthy christian, it is fine by me. Jews are special for hate in Islam, so I will be honored if you will accept me as a filthy jew. If you and YasserYousufi are more at ease answering questions if I am not an ex-muslim but a filthy hindu,christian, or a jew, then let me be a filthy jew.

Now will you kindly tell us why Malaya laws discriminate against the non-muslims?

UKBA, you will never find me defending any religion. If you haven't heard me before my constant refrain is all religion is decrypt vile in-group morality touting and fermenting out-group hostility memes. Their so called sacred text, be it be OT, NT, Koran or Bhagavatham, or Manu are factually false morally vile musty tomes that should be cast away on the dust heap of history. Indeed NT and the Christian Churches of all varieties bear responsibility for the the antisemitism culminating in Hitler. I don't think there would be many on this forum and the majority of the population at large who would challenge that. That said that is not the topic of the thread. I threw you the bone, now are you satisfied. So what is your point. You still haven't answered the questions posed by me and Akafir. You are still running away from us.

cont'd

The following is from a Andrew Bostom's 2004 article

Professor Laurence Loeb’s seminal analysis of dhimmi Jews under Muslim suzerainty in Iran (“Outcaste- Jewish Life in Southern Iran,” 1977), documents the social impact of Shi’ite najas regulations, beginning with the implementation of a “badge of shame [as] an identifying symbol which marked someone as a najas Jew and thus to be avoided. From the reign of Abbas I [1587-1629] until the 1920s, all Jews were required to display the badge.”

Loeb emphasizes, “Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behavior by Muslims.” For example, they refused to walk near Jews in the rain, for fear of becoming polluted by touching something that once touched a Jew. Professor Loeb provides the example of water as medium of impurity, and includes a bizarre, striking account by a Jew from Shiraz:

“Water was considered the most common agent of pollution, therefore Jews were not permitted to use the public baths…The possibility that rain-water might splash off a Jew onto a Muslim led to the prohibition of Jews walking in public during the rain. One informant from Shiraz told the following anecdote:

‘When I was a boy, I went with my father to the house of a non-Jew on business. When we were on our way, it started to rain. We stopped near a man who had apparently fallen and was bleeding. As we started to help him, a Muslim akhond (theologian) stopped and asked me who I was and what I was doing. Upon discovering that I was a Jew, he reached for a stick to hit me for defiling him by being near him in the rain. My father ran to him and begged the akhond to hit him instead.’”

************************
So I don't get charged with just one verse, I will take a look at others in a bit.

So "AKafir" was trying to "help". More useful if still teaching at the famous Pakistani madrassah in Karachi.

Too bad there are many "bright" and "caring" self-declared former Muslims in the "west" wanting, trying to help the Muslim masses in countries they left behind.

And using handles like "kafir" too, or "Infidel" as book titles, purportedly, to lead Muslims towards the right path, the path of enlightenment.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali can't do much in Somalia even. Likewise, "Ibn Warraq" in Pakistan. Once "out" of country, out of faith group, nothing to do but shout and scream from outside.

I have no problems with "kafir/infidel", being one myself to the likes of Pat Robertson and the son of Billy Graham.

And of course, some chose to call themself "kafir/infidel" to hightlight the "kafir vs kafir", and which side of the "kafir/infidel" they are on.

I also have no problems with bona fide infidels. Only a wee dubious with claims by alleged former Muslims born of Muslim parents calling themself "kafirs" when they very well know the "proper" term is murtad fitri. Munafik means a different thing altogether.

That is why, like "Yousseryousufi", I have reservations that "AKafir" was a Muslim educated in a "famous" madrassah in Karachi, Pakistan.

And of course, Martin Luther, a Christian reformer, was still a Christian and not a self-declared "infidel" or atheist, agnostic reforming Christians and Christianity. He did so among Christian believers in Europe and not from Baghdad or Istanbul.

Europe was in an interesting time then, with accusations of religious heresy, persecutions, burning at the stakes etc. And still, Martin Luther did not lose his faith, his nerve, no have fears, even for his life, and to take off to "Infideldom" -more "civilised" and "liberal" than "Christendom" then.

All in a very long way to say, if one wants to help the masses, one got to be with them to lead them on as genuinely one of them - to live and die with them.

cont'd

To this day the Kafirs are not allowed into Mecca because of 9:28. Because they are filthy. So when Eboo or Pamela sing praises of Hajj when the Ummah gets together to stone the Satan and kiss a stone, they are in essence telling their fellow Kafir citizens that they are filthy, as filthy as feces and urine. I am sure they never think about it that way, but you see it never occurs to them to lodge a protest anywhere. Why? Does this remind anyone of all the excuses that the racists white of the past as they made excuses why the blacks were unfit to sit in the front of the bus because they were filthy? The whites were being generous that the blacks could ride in the same bus!! But sharing the water fountain was not good enough. Listen to the Muslims explaining why the Kafirs cannot go to Mecca, and why American Muslims who insist on equality and rights have never ever found the time or the urge to register a protest that it is patently unfair to discriminate and hate, yes hate, 80% of humanity as Najasun. But then it is Allah's negative love, and mankind better get used to it, and the apologetics will tell us in force that I am being a terrible Islamophobe.

UKBA: Negative love?

Let's take a look at examples of some of "negative love" that UKBA refers to and let us see how the Muslims interpreted that negative love of Allah.

Dr. Muhsin translates 9.28
O you who believe (in Allah's Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad SAW) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Notice couple of words: Mushrikun (that is anyone who takes a partner to Allah and that is why it cover practically all non-muslims since the jews and christians claim sons of Allah in Ezra and Jesus according to the Quran; And the second is Najasun, which is the arabic used in the Quran, that Muhsin translates as impure and others have translated as filthy). The negative love of Allah has him calling the overwhelming majority of mankind filthy, dirty, impure, unclean, etc. And the punishment is that they are not to be allowed near Mecca. So they lose their ancestral temples, have their representation of their deities destroyed, get called filthy and banished from ever getting to go to their temple again. This is negative love?
Now let's take a look at how the followers of Muhammad interpreted this negative love and "Najasun".

See what Ayatolla Sistani the moderate bigwig Ayatolla in Iraq has to say:
http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=nav&nid=2&bid=59&pid=2863
107. An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis. Similarly, Ghulat who believe in any of the holy twelve Imams as God, or that they are incarnations of God, and Khawarij and Nawasib who express enmity towards th e holy Imams, are also najis. And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like, namaz and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such.
As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak. However, it is better to avoid them.

So what else does he consider Najis?
http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=nav&nid=2&bid=59&pid=2858
85. Urine and faeces of the following living beings are najis:

* Human beings
* Animals whose meat is haraam to eat, and whose blood gushes out forcefully when its large vein (jugular) is ..

Result: Zorastrians in their own land of Persia were not allowed for a majority part of the last 1200 years to be in public places when it rained in case the "najasat" of them runs off and pollutes the pure Muslims.

Close to exceeding the word limit and so I stop here.

Kingofkings1, you wrote. "If history is any guide, any non-caucasian individuals in Europe should seriously think about relocating to a more hospitable locale. Europe has been the source of the worst forms of ethnic repression historically....". Speak for yourself and you co-religionists. Don't play the colonial and oppression cards, etc, etc. Most non-muslims find western Europe very warm & welcoming societies. In fact I would recommend to all non-muslim Asians and Africans to flee from Middle East, as well as such moderate Paradises as Malaysia, & Indonesia too. And I think KingofKings should set an example to all his fellow muslims by leading the mass Exodus out of the west back to their own paradises, where they came from.

UKBA

I haven't seen you on this forum before. But you look like you went to the same school of obfuscation, conflation and prevarication as our resident defender-of-faith Caliph Yasser Yousufi. You must have learnt this fine art of conflation obfuscation from the same teacher Dr. Janthar-Manthar Khan.

Secular, I think your comments are misdirected; the tradition you, akafir and abhab belong to is full of what you are trying to paint the others with. Maybe you should look around you and ask why. I’ll leave you with this comment by Clifford Goldstein:

“Sounds like the New Testament, long indicted as the Perian Spring of Western anti-Semitism. Some believe the hands that signed the "final solution" simply finished the script begun by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Hitler, others claim, was the logical, inevitable result of Paul. Christian historian James Parkes writes that "more than 6 million deliberate murders are the consequences of the teaching about the Jews for which the Christian church is ultimately responsible, and our attitude to Judaism which is not only maintained by all Christian churches but has its ultimate resting place in the teaching of the New Testament itself."

"The New Testament," writes Harry Kimball, "is the primary source of anti-Semitism. "The authors of the Gospels," wrote Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz, "by putting these words of violent hatred against the preservers of Judaism into the mouth of Jesus Himself, stamped Him thereby as a relentless foe of the members of His own race who did not believe in Him by clung to their original faith." end of quote.

The Christian tradition and its long checkered history are full of gross indecency and violence towards the other: non-Christians; maybe DLTD can explain why that is.

This really shouldn't be as complicated as people have made it out to be - but the intent in the French law over the past few years dealing with the attire of muslim women has more to do with Milosevic's type of activities where he made himself out to be the guardian of the majority's faith, while in reality led the country down the path of destruction. Everywhere you find extreme right wing nuts (not very different from left wing nuts), you will see that their ulterior motive is primarily self-serving in nature, while appearing to fight for a "broader" cause.

Now in regards to the topic of the attire of the dress of the muslim women, we have on one extreme, a lady who dresses in a particular way due to societal norms and on another extreme, one who does so out of personal conviction. If France wants to "liberate" the muslim woman from her confined dressing habits, it should expend effort in societies of North Africa and Asia where a woman is more likely to dress in a particular way to satisfy societal norms. Being in "liberated" France, a muslim woman has no reason to dress in a confined way to fit societal norms, unless she has a strong personal conviction that leads her to do so.

Finally, to make it easier to understand this issue, let's suppose that Kathy Smith is a granddaughter of folks who migrated to China from Kansas City, USA, in 2075 due to severe economic hardship and severe right wing/neoconsevative policies in effect in US for 30 years, and she finds herself in an environment in where the society is so "advanced" that the societal norms dictate that all women between the ages of 11 to 79, when they are out in public, should have their vagina exposed, so the most popular type of clothing is one that has a 6cm circle in the front opening of the lower garment. Kathy Smith finds herself in a dilemma in that she has to either dress according to the societal norms/state law, or act against her personal conviction.

The politicians in France need to expend their energies in a more useful way than spend so much energy in finding ways to tell its muslim population that they are not welcome in France, as their leader, Sarkozy recently verbalized.

If history is any guide, any non-caucasian individuals in Europe should seriously think about relocating to a more hospitable locale. Europe has been the source of the worst forms of ethnic repression historically, with the Serbian Christian massacres of muslims in the 19900's being the most recent example.

DLTD, I see you are still in the den. commenting on what I wrote: “You said: "No one is forcing you to accept it." And you continue talking about dressing habits of Muslim women.

What I wrote was that no one is forcing anyone to accept the tenants of Islam. It is a free choice; that has nothing to do with how one should dress. The rest of your comment is just fluff while ignoring my comment why would God punish me and every non-Christian for eternity for rejecting your trinity doctrine and Jesus’ death as payment for Adam’s sin. Enlighten us please.

Regarding your comment all I know is that the Muslims, men and women, at the time of Muhammad were advised to dress modestly. If some people want to make a do or die situation out of it that’s their problem; it is not supposed to be that way and that’s not how I view things nor the way I grew up with. Granted some parts of the Muslim world are in transition after years of colonial rule and political turmoil, social progress is slow. There are more important things to worry about than enforcing some stupid dress code.

To Secular:

Your comments are confused and full of rage. Why don’t you calm down and discuss what is really bothering you. We can discuss specific cases if you would like. I’ll leave it at that.

A hundred years ago, Western women were required and expected to wear layers and layers of textiles. Those clothes were impractical and uncomfortable, and over a fairly short period of time, women simply stopped dressing that way. Modern women in a modern world should have the choice to dress in modern clothes, instead of like Queen Victoria. Is that so wrong?

ukba

You said,

"No one is forcing you to accept it."

Well, there sort of is an element of force in some streams of Islam, which does not sit well with a lot people.

Consider for example, the subject of this thread, the required costumes that Muslim women are apparently expected to wear. Why aren't Muslim men expected to wear costumes too? Muslim men easily adapt to Western clothes and nobody bothers about it. But maybe that is because in Islam all of the rules are made by men.

Lots of Muslim men say that Musim women like the clothes that they are required to wear. And many Muslim women, under the watchful eye of their men, agree.

But it is not believable. I am sorry; it just is not. That is not my problem, that is Islam's problem.

And also, I am not aware of any such thing as Christian clothes, just clothes: pants, jackets, shirts, skirts, dresses, in a WIDE variety of styles and fashions. So what if Muslim woman suddenly started to dress as they pleased? Would the sky fall in? What is the point of arguing over something that is so silly?

Why are Muslim women required to cover their heads, but Muslim men are not? Because the men make the rules? and they don't want to?

UKBA, are you for real. You slice and dice the every word critics of Islam use. Yet when we read that stupid tome of yours, you come up with all kinds of rationalizations. What Akafir had said in his post was that the Koran is so full of hateful passages about non-muslims. Your Own Sudanese reporter Mohammed Salih, had himself written euphemistically that about half of Koran was devoted to Jews and all of it in negative light. So let me ask you if, someone were to wish ill will to you and curses you and predicts that you would be tormented for rest of your life, what would be your conclusion of that person's disposition towards you. Would you term that this person a) Loves you, b) Indifferent towards you, or c) Hates you. Mind you he never uses the word hate in any sentence when he is taking about you.

That book of yous is despicable period. full of hate, and totally falsities when it comes to anything associated with facts of nature.

Akafir wrote: “Your Allah hates the non-muslims and curses the jews, the christians, the pagans, and the "idolators" like the hindus and the buddhists.”

I don’t know about you but I don’t recall ever reading in the Quran where God hates anyone. There is not a single place where God and the active verb hate exist in the same sentence in the sense that you want us to believe. On the other hand there are about twenty two ‘negative love’ verses mentioned in the Quran such as:

"As to those who believe and work righteousness, God will pay them (in full) their reward; but God loves not those who do wrong." (3: 57)

Not liking someone and hating them are two different things. You may not like someone but that does not necessarily mean you hate him or her.

I think you the problem is you are having trouble understanding one of the basic concepts in the Quran and that is the idea of reward and punishment in the hereafter. According to the Quran this life is transient and a test and after that each person is rewarded according to his/her deeds. This concept can be summarized in these verses:

Verily, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians -all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve. (2:62)

Continue…

Continued…

Muhammad Assad comments: “The above passage - which recurs in the Qur'an several times - lays down a fundamental doctrine of Islam. With a breadth of vision unparalleled in any other religious faith, the idea of "salvation" is here made conditional upon three elements only: belief in God, belief in the Day of Judgment, and righteous action in life.”

This according to the Quran is the measuring stick by which everyone will be judged. I don’t need to be given the reasons why. It would like asking why gravity works and why time is not absolute; this is the Muslim world view among many in the word. No one is forcing you to accept it. So your argument of why people should suffer and tormented in the life to come for their misdeeds here in this life is irrelevant.

The Muslims are not alone in this regard; the Christians have their own doctrine of “salvation.” According the Trinitarian Christians in order to be in good standing with God one has to believe that Jesus is some sort of a god, son of god and one of the three persons of the holy trinity. And also one has to confess with his/her lips that Jesus died for everyone’s sins. Those two conditions are the foundation for salvation of today’s Christianity. In other words, if you do not believe in Jesus in this singular way, you are already condemned and you will surely go to hell to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire.

Why don’t you ask the Christians here on this board why God would hate non Christians including Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheist among others, and torment them for eternity for rejecting these specific teachings? It goes without saying: that’s their world view and they can believe what they want to; it does not make it so no matter how much they insist. You can also say the same thing about the Muslims.

DailyTimes Pakistani Newspaper:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\04\25\story_25-4-2006_pg7_26

Pakistan Studies textbooks in Pakistan have been used to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy-makers have attempted to inculcate towards the Hindus. “Vituperative animosities legitimise military and autocratic rule, nurturing a siege mentality,” the report said.

Government-issued textbooks teach students that Hindus are backward and superstitious, and given a chance, they would assert their power over the weak, especially, Muslims, depriving them of education by pouring molten lead in their ears. “Pakistan Studies textbooks are an active site to represent India as a hostile neighbour,” the report stated. “The story of Pakistan’s past is intentionally written to be distinct from, and often in direct contrast with, interpretations of history found in India. From the government-issued textbooks, students are taught that Hindus are backward and superstitious.”

The report added that students were taught that Islam brought peace, equality, and justice to the subcontinent, to check the sinister ways of Hindus.

“In Pakistani textbooks “Hindus” rarely appears in a sentence without adjective such as politically astute, sly, or manipulative,” the report says.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/pakistan-textbooks-religious-extremism
Guardian UK:
Article by Afnan Khan
***************************

There are other links but apparently WAPO kicks the post out if it has more than two links.

**********************************
YassirYousafi:
Kafir,
Exactly who died and made you the headmaster to ask all the question?? What is the intent of your Islamophobic hate mongering posts? What are your motivations for these incessant anti-islamic posts.
*********************************
Are things that bad in Pakistan these days? Someone has to die to become a headmaster? My intent is not Islamophobia. That word was coined by Muslim Brotherhood to shut the critical examination of Islam down. Kafirs should know that whenever anyone uses that word, the intent is to start the discussion with the assumption that everything is OK with Islam and there is nothing to examine or criticise. Built in Misogyny, hatred for the non-muslim, etc. in Islam are to be accepted as the norm. No thank you, I don't buy into that. My intent is to get the Kafir posters aware of the true nature of Islam and the way the followers of Muhammad will lie and deceive to defend and advance Islam. For the muslims, I hope my words provide enough of an irritation that it challenges them to prove my assertions about Islam wrong so they can show that I am lying or totally wrong about Islam. If they do that, they may find that I am not wrong, and that may prove to be the first step for them out of their 7th to 9th century mindset and join the rest of mankind in the 21st century.
*******************************
YssirYousufi:
Is there any muslim poster who comes close to spreading hatred for another religion as you do? Those are all relevant questions that I don't expect a pu$$y who hides behind fake identities can answer.
****************************************

Have you ever listened to Friday Khutbas around the world? Your Allah hates the non-muslims and curses the jews, the christians, the pagans, and the "idolators" like the hindus and the buddhists. If you want examples, just log into MEMRI TV and see how little kids are being taught to curse and hate jews and other non-muslims. What do the elementary and middle school books say about hindus in Pakistan? Why do you think you hate the hindus to the extent you do? So tell someone else that Islam and Muslims don't say and spread hate the kafirs. Mohammad Salih as a guest voice wrote that half the Quran is about jews and mostly negative about jews. Is there another God beside Allah who hates his own creation as much as Allah, who curses and thunders at the non-muslims as much as Allah? 75% to 80% of humanity is non-muslims and another 10 to 15% who are in muslim lands but are who muslims call "munafiqs" or hypocrites because they don't buy into Islam but keep their mouths shut to keep alive. Which other Deity hate 90% of humanity? Try reading Wafa Sultan's book: A God that hates, and see where the hate really lies.

I am trying to help and not spread hate.

Kingofkings1

Arguing over women's clothes is absurd, as are your remarks about Christianland and Jewishland, as though Muslimland is somehow superior.

It's not.

"But surely.........if you worry about women getting raped in Muslim countries (as if it doesn't happen anywhere else) don't you think 50 Million murdered women is a huge number? Why doesn't your Aseem Shukla speak on these topics."

Of course it is big issue for sure, I am appalled by it. That still does not mean I need to talk about it on this thread. This thread is as Pamela Taylor chose to be about Burqa. Besides I am not Aseem Shukla nor Secular is his pseudonym. You need to take it up with him. In fact he has on occasion wrote about Casteism in India and such topic. Yasser when that topic comes up you can mouth eloquence on it. For right now lets stick to Burqa. Don't refer to the so called holy texts. In your mind does that seem right? This is just a question on secular level. You can still say "whatever be the logical answer may be, I am still going to follow the dictates of the good book". Like Kurt Weiss did, that would be, being honest with yourself. Come on be honest to your slelf, as Polonious told his son, Just this one time.

"The topic is infact about face veils. There are plenty of Hindus on this site trying to hide their identities with false veils."

Why just Hindus, do you really think everyone posting here is using their real names? Who would name their child KingofKings1, or DaneilinTheLionsDen, etc, etc. So what is your gripe about pseudonyms. You claim your name is Yasser Yousufi, how do I know that is not a pseudonym. Would it help if I called myself Srinivas Murthy. It still could be a pseudonym. You are chasing your own tail there. Whatever the name one uses is irrelevant. In the discussion what matters is the claims and statements made are correct or incorrect do they have evidence to support or not. Are they logical or illogical. Would Newton's laws be any less true if Cauchy had postulated them. Come on leave the religion aside and think on you own.

But surely.........if you worry about women getting raped in Muslim countries (as if it doesn't happen anywhere else) don't you think 50 Million murdered women is a huge number? Why doesn't your Aseem Shukla speak on these topics.

PS: The topic is infact about face veils. There are plenty of Hindus on this site trying to hide their identities with false veils.

Well why dont you hindu identical twins answer my questions? What about the 50 million Indian women who have disappeared in your country? Is Hinduism responsible for that just as Islam is responsible for rape in muslim countries?

Posted by: yasseryousufi1 | September 23, 2010 7:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Can you get it thru your thick skinneither of us is a Hindu. We do not hold a brief for hinduism. It is just as silly as the next religion. Besides Hinduism is not the topic of the thread. Why is that so difficult for you and your and Farnaz to comprehend. When the topic of the thread is Hinduism then you can point all the faults of hinduism.

The point here is the happenings in your paradises are rooted in the crap that is written in the Koran & Hadith. Throw away the vile passages and keep the rest and live by them. Although there ain't going to be much left.

"Ah, well, I tried my best to sink to your level, but, despite your insane accusations, I'm not Winnie, and I leave the tires to you."

Of course not, you only called me Adolf. You level of discourse in the stratosphere or better still elevates everyone to mount Everest. I only compared you to Winnie because anytime an inidan poster posts anything even a bit critical of Israel you bring up Dalit stuff. Can you not discuss the topic on hand without muddying the waters.

"I actually am an atheist, which you cannot understand, because you have no idea of the cultural and political implications of my discourse."

Oh! my my pardon me. I was not aware that I was jousting with high mistress of philosophy and the custodian of culture and politics. Give us all a break and yourself a break. Get off that high horse, lest you fall break your neck. Really there is no lacking in your inflated ego of yourself.

"Foolish me, that I thought I could communicate with your august self. Ah, well, don't wish to keep you from your BJP meeting."

Another of your charmer. I cannot figure out who takes a page of whose book, between you and Yasser, when I see such innuendo.

"Also, I'm getting bored with this, inexplicable though that may be to Vous."

Really? That is why you goaded me in this thread about your another non-sequitur response from David Wolpe's thread. You looked so silly and grabbing attention for yourself. Th speaks volumes

"Ladies jes' ain't what they usetabe, seculah."

Go tell that to your fan club of Yasser and KingofKings1.

Well why dont you hindu identical twins answer my questions? What about the 50 million Indian women who have disappeared in your country? Is Hinduism responsible for that just as Islam is responsible for rape in muslim countries?

Yasser, what is your problem> why can't you answer Akafir's questions. What has his Madrassa got to do with it. Does your answer depend on the Madrassa he attended. Simple question, will denounce with your really identity any of the vile passages in your beloved Koran? To be specific will you make a statement that a sura like sura Al Masad has no place in holy book like Koran? Will you? That is the problem with you muslims.

Kafir,

Exactly who died and made you the headmaster to ask all the question?? What is the intent of your Islamophobic hate mongering posts? What are your motivations for these incessant anti-islamic posts. Is there any muslim poster who comes close to spreading hatred for another religion as you do? Those are all relevant questions that I don't expect a pu$$y who hides behind fake identities can answer.

Hello, KingofKings,

Re: Your post

Sorry if you took offense at something in my post. "Unlike you," was meant merely to distinguish our experiences. Sometimes, it's difficult to get the right tone across in posts.

I did not mean to imply that the majority of women who wear niqab are coerced into doing so. However, I do think that for many who do so voluntarily, it is a political act. I've worn a star of David on occasion, although I'm not observant--my motive was political. I was trying to say that(though brown) I am Jewish, and,if you have a problem with that, passers-by, other folks in the world, that is too bad, and I hope you get over it.

As for me and toplessness, personally, I neither go around topless in the street or anywhere else, except for the shower. I do not wear bikinis either at the beach or on the street; however, occasionally, I do wear a two piece bathing suit. It all depends on my mood, whether I wear a two-piece or a one piece, I mean. As for my spouse, thank G-d he has never worn a speedo or even expressed interest in same, notwithstanding the fact that he could certainly pull it off (no pun intended).

Farnaz

PS. Relax :) (smiley)

Yassir,

I have been down that road. No matter what I write and say to you, it will not be enough. You will make something else up, and all this hassle for what? To satisfy you?
You don't want to answer my sissy questions? The other kafirs can read those questions as well. What can you possibly say? Those are facts. The laws of the muslim countries are there for anyone to look up. The rape cases video that I posted shows the treatment of women under the laws of Islam in Pakistan. The links to Robert Fisks articles in the Independent UK paper that I gave showing the honor killings in Pakistan with the Islamic Qisas laws allowing the murderers to get off scott free are there on the web for anyone to see and judge for themselves the barbaric nature of the Sharia laws of Islam. What can you possibly say? Nothing.

In the meantime, thank you for sending the following youtube video of yourself and some of your friends. I leave it to the readers to guess which one is you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJzjAG8VCtE&NR=1

Thank you for the laughter. It really and truly is funny.

"To convince you, you want me to give you personal information that may end up endangering my family in Pakistan?"

O really?? Giving out the name of your Madrassa puts your family in danger? I guess you have to speak another 100 lies to hide 1 lie. There are thousands of students in every madrassa. Does giving out the name of your science book also endangers your "family in pakistan"???

So you're right, I WILL be stuck on that unless you admit you were being cute with your "Madrassa Educated, Karachi Born, former muslim" lies. I've taken on many similar bigots like you and exposed them for what they truly are. Your sissy questions dont worry me. But you do not deserve to be responded to unless you shed your evil farcical cloak.

Yassir,
Why are you stuck on that? You call me a hindu or what ever you like. Feel free. To convince you, you want me to give you personal information that may end up endangering my family in Pakistan? Why would I ever think of doing that? Instead look at what I have been saying about your Islam and your Muhammad, and you have not contradicted anything. Because you cannot. Did Jihadist ever show that non-muslims are not being treated like third class citizens in Malaysia? No. S/he did not even try. How about you? Why don't you show me up and show that non-muslims are not hated and detested in the laws of Pakistan?

In the meantime enjoy the Electric Molvi from Pakistan. It is funny, and maybe it may even remind you of your deeniyat teacher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl4npobji4c

I am sure if I make a statement that can shown to be false or wrong, Yasser or your kind self will forgo that persona non grata sheet and pointing it out high and low.

***************************

Kafir,

The name of your Madrassa???

KoK1:"Based on your recent very unacceptable comments on a different topic, AKafir, you have earned my first persona non grata designation on the internet."

LoL! I have been an unwelcome person for a long time. I have couple of fractured limbs courtesy of my "muslim brothers" to show for that.

I do not post for any individual. When you will post your traditional how Muslims are such victims in the west, I will examine that assertion. If you want to ignore it, be my guest. Hopefully, others who are not as familiar with Islam and the techniques used by the followers of Muhammad may find them useful. If not, then so be it. I am sure if I make a statement that can shown to be false or wrong, Yasser or your kind self will forgo that persona non grata sheet and pointing it out high and low.

Cheers.

KingofKings1, Yasser, & Jihadist, what is wrong with you guys? We have come here (including me, Akafir, abrahamhab1, etc, etc) voluntarily, motivations aside. Given that why is it so difficult for you guys to accept the norms here and change your ways, at least while you are in public. What is so onerous about it. we have come here to take advantage of opportunities or something else that attracted you to here. If following your ways is that important and changing is so onerous then no one is compelling us to stay here. No one compels us to celebrate Christmas or Thanksgiving, or even Labor day, if we dont want to. You don't have to put up a x'mas tree or make a turkey or have a BBQ. On the other hand the places you come from impose lots of restrictions on the natives and ex-pats. Even in a place like Dubai during Ramadan even non-muslims are discouraged to bring lunch to work, and of course the paradise of paradises force non-muslims to wear a burqa so on and so forth. When you do not object to such draconian mandates why is it so difficult for you to accommodate to the norms here, in the west. With muslims trying to be so litigious have brought this upon themselves and others. In fact in France if the muslim women were not insisting in such a massive scale to wear burqa this law would not even been enacted. Then the older immigrants who are set in their ways would have been accommodated. Now with muslims overplaying their cards have brought it upon themselves and others.

Posted by: AKafir
Three cheers for France!!
-----------------------------------------

The French have not been known for their ingenuity for quite some time now.

Based on your recent very unacceptable comments on a different topic, AKafir, you have earned my first persona non grata designation on the internet.

"Catholic nuns wear an attire that is very similar to what the muslim hijab attire (except the face covering or niqab), and I don't see in France or anywhere else a call to restrict the nuns' attire - this is called discrimination."

What rot!! KOK1, if you want to play the victim, at least get your facts right.
*********************************
In an attempt to head off any legal challenges over arguments it tramples on religious and other freedoms, the leaders of both parliamentary houses said they had asked a special body to ensure it passes constitutional muster. The Constitutional Council has one month to rule.

The bill is worded to trip safely through legal minefields. For instance, the words "women," "Muslim" and "veil" are not even mentioned in any of its seven articles.

"This law was the object of long and complex debates," the Senate president, Gerard Larcher, and National Assembly head Bernard Accoyer said in a joint statement announcing their move. They said they want to be certain there is "no uncertainty" about its conforming to the constitution.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/15/1693239/french-bill-would-ban-veils.html#ixzz10JVn0qxL
*******************************

The bill covers that a person in public cannot hide their face. It does not distinguish between women or men, and certainly not on the basis of religion of the wearer. It is a shame that the French have been forced into this because those wanting to settle in do not want to accommodate to the prevailing culture but want to impose their Sharia.
The head of CAIR in USA in 1998 is known to have said:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

"but there is no legal basis to punish an individual in bikini or underwear in the airport."

Nonsense. There are a whole lot of lewd public conduct laws. Ever heard of indecent exposure? Last year there was a case in Seattle of a auto coffee shop with car hops wearing bikinis and they were charged.
Personally, I would rather have the society go nudist rather than the "eeewwww we can't have men shake hands with a woman" or "We don't mind marrying infants and thighing them till they have the first drop of menstrual blood and then we can penetrate and physiologically damage about 1 out of 5 girls for life".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F13gtjjDEgE

Danielinthelionsden:
"if a woman were to wear a bikini on the street, in church, at the mall, in school, on a bus, on a train, at an airport, or on a plane, there would be a wild uproar; the police would probably be called."

----------------------------------------

The police may be called in the above situation, but there is no legal basis to punish an individual in bikini or underwear in the airport.

It's the arbitrary nature of singling out one group that is a problem. Catholic nuns wear an attire that is very similar to what the muslim hijab attire (except the face covering or niqab), and I don't see in France or anywhere else a call to restrict the nuns' attire - this is called discrimination.

Finally, I don't know about you, but I am in USA, where we don't have a state religion or a preferred state religion, although the majority may try to impose its will on others, sometimes by not so subtle ways.
If I was living in Christianland, or Jewishland, perhaps the complaint about free will in type of dress or practice of religion could be questioned, but the right to live and worship in peace is something that is guaranteed in the constitution, and it was a hard-earned right attained 230 yrs ago. When we have a new amendment that repeals the right to free exercise of religion, you will likely find me living elsewhere.

Kingofkings1

In Western societies, young women wear bikinis swimming in a pool, or at the beach. There is no requirement to wear a bikini at the beach, and if you don't want to look at women in bikinis, you are free to skip visits to the pool or the beach.

However, if a woman were to wear a bikini on the street, in church, at the mall, in school, on a bus, on a train, at an airport, or on a plane, there would be a wild uproar; the police would probably be called.

Why is this so? I do not know; that is the custom of Western people. Are you so naive, dense, and opaque that you do not comprehend that cultures different from your own have customs different from your own? And that you cannot merely snap your fingers and make everyone suddenly aware and respectful of your strange and foregin cutsoms?

Respect is a two way street. You are so wrapped up in yourself, that you cannot even imagine that you might seem foreign to anyone; it is everyone else living in their own societies and their own homes who are foreigners to you.

WMarkW cited the following: "According to the article, this continued well into the twentieth century, since Saudi Arabia didn't officially outlaw slavery until 1962". I have verified it on Wikipedia url

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1900-today

This poses the following:

1) If slavery is sanctioned by Koran then why was it abolished in 1962.

2) If it was not sanctioned in Koran why did they wait till 1962.

As WMW observes that societies generally do not compelled to be bound by their religious texts. When there is adequate consensus or the ruling clique decides or the ruling ruling juntas are forced by the internal or external dynamics. I suppose we all know in case of Saudi Arabia why they changed. I speculate that the that good-for-nothing-family-of-vultures the house of saud did it under external pressure.

That said the point is these vile scriptures are generally used to arrest the progressive march of the societies only. The only other purpose that these scriptures serve is to make the the leeches of the society - the PRIEST class to fleece the laity to part with its purses. So the progressive world should aggressively force the neanderthals to get out of the way. Be that be the Burqa in the islamic Paradises or our own religious bigots who prevent gays and lesbians serving in the armed forces openly, etc, etc.

"There is no mention of this in the Quran."

There's an interesting column on SecularRight.com that introduces the general theme that holy scriptures rarely bind a religious society that doesn't prefer to follow any specific text.

The specific example described in the article is that African Muslim on Hajj to Mecca would be kidnapped by the Saudis and enslaved, despite the general principle that one Muslim cannot enslave another. According to the article, this continued well into the twentieth century, since Saudi Arabia didn't officially outlaw slavery until 1962.

http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/?p=4779&cpage=1#comment-18767

"(Ladies)I know don the niqab out of personal convction, and would be extrememly upset if told that they must give up their personal conviction to satisfy the state requirements. Logically that is like saying that since some young black men commit violent crimes, we should commit all young black men to prison in order to make the society safer."

That analogy makes absolutely no sense. How is a society's agreed rules being in conflict with one's personal conviction even remotely equivalent to "all black men being locked up because a few committed violent crimes".

Kingofkings1:

So you agree that no particular credentials are required to comment on Islam.

Pamela quotes two "scholars":
Abdel Muti al-Bayyumi, a member of an influential council of clerics at al-Azhar, and
"Gamal al-Banna.

What study are you proposing that someone should have to express one's beliefs or opinions to comment on the words of two "muslim scholars"? Is anything more than average common sense required? Why would a computer programmer's beliefs on the comments of these scholars have any less worth?

Kingofkings1

Theology is what a group of men tell everyone else to believe; it is men saying what God wants; it is men saying how women want to dress. It is speculative, and without clear reason. So, therefore, anyone's claim to religious authority is as good as anyone else's, without some political authority to enforece what is the "true" belief, and to force the "true" belief upon people who do not believe it.

This is why Islam is imperiled in a free and pluralistic society in which everyone is encouraged to think for themselves; without authority to enforce belief, how will people know what to believe, since, without political coercian, it is not obvious?

Islamic theology, like all theology, is capricious and arbitrary; whatever uniformity it may have does not come from its innate truth, but from political authority which it appeals to.

Kingofkings1

If Muslim women want to wear the "Naquib" or any other kind of required Islamic dress, then why don't you let them say so with their own voices, instead of you telling us what they want?

Farnazmansouri:
"unlike you, I do know a couple in which the burqua is an issue for the husband."
And unlike you, madam, the ladies I know don the niqab out of personal convction, and would be extrememly upset if told that they must give up their personal conviction to satisfy the state requirements. Logically that is like saying that since some young black men commit violent crimes, we should commit all young black men to prison in order to make the society safer.
That means our president may never had had a chance to prove himself in society. Although some people would have been happier with that scenario, that still does not make it fair. And that is not an environment I would like to live in. Next the state may require that all women between 16-42 years age should appear topless on streets since our fertility rate is going down to unacceptable levels. I don't know about you, but I know many non-muslim women who would feel uncomfortable appearing topless in public.

A Kafir: "Muslims pride themselves on not having a theocracy and so any muslim can talk in the name of Islam. Do you know of any hadith, any ayet, any consensus that states that a particular credential is required?"

------------------------------------------

Partly correct, i.e there is no theocracy in islam. And there is no priestly class by birth. However, a muslim who seeks advice on religious matters from another has a duty to seek one who is more educated than himself in that aspect. Therefore, if Abdullah is not sure about a particular legal issue, he would be wise to consult a lawyer instead of the garbage collector. And if Abdullah has a concern about an issue that is questionable in regards to his faith and is not clearly answered by the quran or prophet Muhammad's recommendations, he would be wise to ask someone who has studied these issues rather than a computer programmer.

Ms Taylor may very well be an educated lady who can comment on these issues with authority. Or she may be commenting based on her personal opinion and experience. It helps to know where she stands on these matters and how much weight to give her opinion.

Kafir why don't you also apprise the readers of the remarkable achievement your native country India has done in bringing down the ratio of girl child to around 800 per 1000 boys (perhaps the lowest in the world). According to UNICEF up to 50 million women are missing owing to Abortion, Female Infanticide, Foeticide, Son preference in India. Determining the sex of the child inside a mother's womb is $100 million industry in India. Hindus believe the newborn girl will bring shame to their parents who would also not be able to pay the dowry when she gets to marrying age. In villages where people dont have access to Ultrasound machines, newborn girls are often strangulated to death or fed mashed glass to cause natural death. Aren't these facts also well documented?

Farnaz,

Shahnaz is an example of why Muslims and Islam should not be confused. There are many Muslims who are extremely good, kind, gentle, and empathetic humans. However even among many of these there is often a bias against the non-Muslims. Regardless, Islam and its laws are downright evil towards the kafirs (non-Muslims).

Akafir,

Re: Your post

The founder of the Pakistani Progressive Women's Association is Shahnaz Bukhari, a heroic figure, in Susan Jacoby's sense. I believe the number of documented cases exceeds 7800.

http://www.pwaisbd.org/

cont'd
******************
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/kashmir-women-face-threat-of-acid-attacks-from-militants-667520.html

The Muslim women of Indian Kashmir are bracing themselves for fresh horrors on Saturday. A militant Islamic organisation has threatened to begin punishing women who appear in public in outfits other than the all-enveloping burqa.

The Muslim women of Indian Kashmir are bracing themselves for fresh horrors on Saturday. A militant Islamic organisation has threatened to begin punishing women who appear in public in outfits other than the all-enveloping burqa.

They were given a taste of what could lie ahead two weeks ago when two young women were admitted to a hospital in Srinagar, the state's summer capital, suffering from burns to the face after acid was thrown at them because they were not totally covered up.

Kingofkings1:"Finally, please apprise me of your credentials that allow you to speak in the name of islam"

What credentials are required to speak in the name of Islam? Muslims pride themselves on not having a theocracy and so any muslim can talk in the name of Islam. Do you know of any hadith, any ayet, any consensus that states that a particular credential is required?

A few items from the news suggesting that Muslims can and do coerce muslimahs to don veils:

http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html
Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times op-ed columnist who traveled to Pakistan last year to write about acid attacks, put it this way in an essay at the time: “I’ve been investigating such acid attacks, which are commonly used to terrorize and subjugate women and girls in a swath of Asia from Afghanistan through Cambodia (men are almost never attacked with acid). Because women usually don’t matter in this part of the world, their attackers are rarely prosecuted and acid sales are usually not controlled. It’s a kind of terrorism that becomes accepted as part of the background noise in the region.
a Pakistani activist who founded the Progressive Women’s Association to help such women “has documented 7,800 cases of women who were deliberately burned, scalded or subjected to acid attacks, just in the Islamabad area. In only 2 percent of those cases was anyone convicted.”
.....
[[Many of these Acid Attacks are for women not wearing the Burqa, rejecting some Muslims hand in marriage,]]
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/35-forced-veiling-debate-divides-bangladeshi-women-ak-03

DHAKA: When a Bangladeshi government official told Sultana Arjuman Banu she was an “uncultured prostitute” for not wearing a burqa, the outraged headmistress took him to court.
... A woman's right not to wear the Islamic veil has become a hot topic in Bangladesh, with three high court rulings in less than six months banning “forced veiling” in the Muslim-majority country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7651231.stm
A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye.
....

Hello, KingofKings,

Re: Your post

I don't know what local laws are regarding women wearing bikinis or men wearing speedos on public streets. I've spent time in a number of American cities, however, have lived mostly in New York and have yet to see it.

Public nudity and religion do have relevance in this discussion, and on that matter, please see my earlier post to Pamela Taylor. Also, unlike you, I do know a couple in which the burqua is an issue for the husband. The wife wore it for a few weeks when they first came here, but has refused to wear one for the past two years. He anguishes about it, and they argue. His friends have warned him that he will lose her, that his fears (and that is what they are) are unfounded, that burquas do not prevent infidelity, but, thus far, there has been no progress. She does love him and would like to remain married to him, but will not get pregnant until this matter is resolved. He refuses to go for counseling.

This isn't the best marital situation I've ever seen, but thus far, there has been no violence. Both my spouse and the husband's other friends fear it will come to that, however.

The fellow owns up to jealousy, possessiveness, but, at the same time, relies on "Islamic" arguments, which his friends dispute. This does not appear all that different to me from jealousy in men and women from other cultures, but it is complicated by religio-cultural factors.

Ironically(?), the first time I met the wife, I was wearing a beautiful shalwar qameez, a gift from my closest friend....

Secular,

Ah, well, I tried my best to sink to your level, but, despite your insane accusations, I'm not Winnie, and I leave the tires to you.

I actually am an atheist, which you cannot understand, because you have no idea of the cultural and political implications of my discourse. That I guessed a while ago, but erred thinking you could or would. You've cherry-picked my posts, as usual.

Foolish me, that I thought I could communicate with your august self. Ah, well, don't wish to keep you from your BJP meeting.

Also, I'm getting bored with this, inexplicable though that may be to Vous.
Ladies jes' ain't what they usetabe, seculah.

KingofKings writes, "When one feels he/she knows what is good for another individual, one treads down a dangerous path - " of course he/she does. It does not matter if it is packaged as skydaddy;s will, either.

secular:

I have replied to your last post on R. Wolpe's thread, doing my best to match the level of your discourse. Didn't succeed.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/david_wolpe/2010/09/religion_is_not_the_cause_of_conflict.html

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | September 21, 2010 8:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
___________________________________________

Oh! My, My. Thank you Ms. Faranaz how did I, the dumb closet saffron bigot, ever survive muddling my way through the Washington Post "On Faith" blog until this evening. It must have been the grace of mother Godess Kali - the one with 10 heads not to be mistaken for single headed Saraswathi. Now that I have been enlightened about the magic of hyperlinks who needs mother Godesses and deities. Thank you, thank you, thank you very much now I can truly become an atheist, hyperlinks were my last GAP that I needed to be taught to leave my skymommy behind.

You also wrote, "...doing my best to match the level of your discourse. Didn't succeed". Of course not, how can you? You don't have vindictive bone in you. When an atheist disagrees with you that SOB has to be vile monster, but all you could muster was call him Adolf, So magnanimous of you. When you invited him to discuss non-sequitur topic and he refused you called him a coward and a card carrying BJPer. Again so generous of you, it boggles my mind. Sorry I forgot, I still got to grow gray cells for a mind. Then how can my mind be boggled, when I ain't got one. Right! My Bad.

Ms Taylor,
While I agree with you that the niqab is probably not a requirement per Islamic commandments, the problem with the niqab ban is this:
1. When you cherry pick what you will allow and what you will forbid, you fall into the trap of discrimination. For example, why would you forbid a niqab, while you would not forbid a bikini-clad woman? To me, those two things are opposite sides of the same coin.
2. I know personally women who don the niqab, and all of the ladies I know do it out of personal conviction. None does so as a result of coercion from her male relatives, as one is led to believe from popular culture/reading. When one feels he/she knows what is good for another individual, one treads down a dangerous path - similar to the atrocities committed by the europeans in the name of the "white man's burden".
3.Finally, please apprise me of your credentials that allow you to speak in the name of islam

Pamela,

Thank you for your thoughtful essay. I have given the matter of the niqab a great deal of thought through the years, and I'm afraid I don't think it has any place in this country. Let me explain.

There are norms, basic behaviors common in most cultures. Freedom of religion is more than a norm in the US. As you say, it is a right. However, there are both secular and religious naturists, the latter being indigenous persons whose religion requires nudity. This group recognizes that public nudity is not acceptable in the US.

At certain services, for them, there is no choice. They, therefore, travel to their temples and undress when they are within them.

Freedom of everything has limits. It is of interest to me that both my Muslim relatives and female friends who live in Pakistan oppose the Niqab in America.

I hope your fear concerning the ban in France is groundless. Violence begets violence. And in France, things are volatile now all the way around, as you know. Frankly, I'm more than a little disgusted by it all. I sincerely doubt that we can be good with religion.

Farnaz

secular:

I have replied to your last post on R. Wolpe's thread, doing my best to match the level of your discourse. Didn't succeed.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/david_wolpe/2010/09/religion_is_not_the_cause_of_conflict.html

cont'd:
********************************
'Allama Abu Bakr al-Jassas says: "This verse points out that the young woman has been commanded to conceal her face from the other men; when moving out of the house she should cover herself up well to express chastity and purity of character so that people of doubtful character do not cherish any false hope when they see her. " (Ahkam al-Qur'an, vol. III, p. 458).

'Allama Zamakhshari says: "It means that they should let down a part of their sheet over themselves, and should cover their faces and wrap up their sides well." (AI-Kashshaf, vol. II, p. 221). 'Allama Nizamuddin Nishapuri says: "That is, they should let down a part of the sheet over them: in this verse, the women have been commanded to cover the head and face. " (Ghara'ib al-Qur an, vol. XXII, p. 32).

Imam Razi says: "What is mean is that the people may know that they are not promiscuous women. For the woman who covers her face, though the face is not included in the satar, cannot be expected to uncover her satar, which is obligatory to cover before the other man. Thus, everyone will know that they are modest and virtuous women who cannot be expected to do anything indecent." (Tafsir Kabir. vol. VI, p 591)

Commentary on Quran 33:59 from Tafim ul quran:
********************************
Jilbab is a large sheet and idna' is to draw close and wrap up, but when this word is used with the associating particle ala, it gives the meaning of letting something down from above. Some modern translators, under the influence of the West, have translated this word "to wrap up" so as to avoid somehow the Command about covering of the face. But if Allah had meant what these gentlemen want to construe, He would have said: yudnina ilai-hinna and not yudnina alai-hinna. Anyone who knows Arabic knows that yudnina 'alai-hinna cannot merely mean "wrapping up. " Moreover, the words min jalabib-i hinna also do not permit of this meaning. It is obvious that the preposition min here signifies a part of the sheet, and also that wrapping up is done by means of a whole sheet and not merely by a part of it. The verse, therefore, clearly means : The women should wrap themselves up well in their sheets, and should draw and let down a part of the sheet in front of the face.

This same meaning was understood by the major commentators who lived close to the time of the Holy Prophet. Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir have related that Muhammad bin Sirin asked Hadrat `Ubaidah as-Salmani the meaning of this verse. (This Hadrat `Ubaidah had become a Muslim in the time of the Holy Prophet but had not been able to visit him. He came to Madinah in the time of Hadrat 'Umar and settled down there. He was recognized as equal in rank with Qadi Shuraih in jurisprudence and judicial matters). Instead of giving a verbal reply Hadrat 'Ubaidah put on his sheet and gave a practical demonstration by covering his head and forehead and face and an eye, leaving only the other eye uncovered. Ibn 'Abbas also has made almost the same commentary. In his statements which have been reported by Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Marduyah, he says: "Allah has commanded the women that when they move .out of their houses for an outdoor duty, they should conceal their faces by drawing and letting down aver themselves a part of their sheets, keeping only the eyes uncovered. " The same explanation of this verse has been given by Qatadah and Suddi.

All the great commentators who have passed after the period of the Companions and their immediate followers have given the same meaning of this verse. Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari, in his commentary of this verse, says: "The respectable women should not look like the slave-girls from their dress when they move out of their houses, with uncovered faces and loose hair; they should rather draw and Iet down over them a part of their sheets or outer-garments so that no evil person may dare molest them." (Jami'al Bayan, vol. XXII, p. 33).

"It is from an era before Islam, when both men and women wore it in the desert."

Muslims cannot decide whether the Pagans before Islam ran around naked or totally covered up. You are citing couple of egyptian imams who are saying niqab has no basis in Islam. There are a whole lot of Muslims on the other side which support the niqab and find support in the Quran.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18996155/09-AlHijab-Purdah-and-Status-of-Women-by-Maududi
Maududi wrote a book on women status in Islam. Look at pages 191 through 193 and he gives references to many scholars that find justification of Niqab in the Quran.
The operative word that the quran uses is jalabibihinna in Verse 33:59. No one really know what the heck that was in the 7th century. And the muslim scholars have been arguing about it for the longest time. I don't think they have settled that issue and they are unlikely to settle it.

Unfortunately, those who support the hijab and if they trace why they think Islam supports the hijab will then end up having to support the niqab. Those who do wear the hijab and not the niqab are really ignoring the Islamic hadiths and verses which lend support to the hijab. If one covers the head, then jalabbibihinna ends up meaning "lowering the outer garment" from the head which results in it becoming a niqab.

Yes, yes Yassersoufi, it is well known that Islam is famous for promoting women's rights.

Hurrah for Islam and all that is has done for woman-kind ! ! !

Ms. Taylor, I congratulate you for addressing this topic in such a positive way. Wearing ones traditional dress on occasion or once in a while is all right and welcome but to go about it all the time is making a statement that you do not comport with the dominant culture. When whole sections of immigrant groups wish to stay apart from the majority then they are showing much disdain for the host country. I can understand an older person chooses to wear their usual dresses. But to force their children who are young and are not burdened with the baggage is indeed, teaching the child disdain. This does not serve any purpose other than creating schisms and placing extra-ordinary burden on the host society to endure.

If I understand Ms. Taylor's basic argument, it is that we must comport ourselves in the West to the most conservative forms of Islam to keep the violence down.

Good advice to total cowards.

In Western culture, going around in public wearing a robe and face-veil attracts about as musch attention as walking around naked.

The YOU in the phrase"those like....in the West is missing in my previous post.

Ms.Taylor:
Even the headdress you are wearing belongs to different era and different place. A cap and turtle neck sweater would be compliant with your Sharia, if that is the intent, and is much more elegant and practical. Unless, off course, those who dress like in the West wish to send a message that they reject the dominant culture.

It isn't just the face veils, France bans young muslim girls from going to school if they cover their heads. They are the Secular version of Talibans~! About the face veils, don't agree with them eager but does anyone really believe its just about the face veils and not kicking French Muslims in the teeth?