Candidates Must Govern Americans of All Traditions

Daisy Khan's misplaced diatribes and fears are actually a charade for her emphasizing her pan-Islamic agenda. Emphasizing religious diversity in a secular governance is a characteristic of Muslims, when the need for the same is really irrelevant in secular settings. It is Islam (and Muslims) that are to know that a secular country treats all religions equally. Its the 1st Amendment stupid ! Ah, well ! Quran (005:033) opposes any free speech and hence acknowledges its hostility with the 1st Amendment. Should the candidates reject their Constitutional loyalty in favor of minority appeasement ?

Steven- as predicted- it happens every time-

"You will also come to notice there are a great many islamophobic and vehement haters of islam and muslims also-"

See you in the funny papers.

Halozcel-
You've revealed just a bt more of your misogynist (AND racist) mentality.

So- because I have called you on your historical misrepresntations of Turkey- (and you are a Turk) and exhibited more than a passing knowledge of turkish history and politcs-
I must necessarily be, both a turk, AND a MAN????

In your world, it is not possible for an american, a woman, and non-turk to be able to read books, papers and respond intelligently to events in turkey?

Besides that- what possible difference would it make anyway?
If I were an Indian(is that an Asian Indian or Native American Indian?) ok- I choose Native American man- would it change the logic or reason behind the words?

Stop being goofy Halo.

Dear Readers,

-Quran 33.35 doesnt extoll the equality of man and woman.
What Victoria(She is not American Victoria,probably written by Turkish or Indian ones and this Victoria may be male as well) writes is not realistic.
Reality:Women is Iran(islamic republic) can not go to Stadium.
Reality:Women in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
Correct question;If man and woman equals in Submission,could you show any islamic country where man and woman equals ?
Was there man-woman equality in Ottoman Empire ?(To Merve K. or N.Bezirgan)
33.35 never extoll man-woman equality.
33.33 says *women stay at your house*
2.282 says *two women equals one man*
4.34 says *man excells woman* Indisputable !
Man can take(not marriage) 4 women and whenever he likes he can kick out them,but woman has no right to divorce her master.
What kind of Equality is this ?

-4000 years-old Jewish Legends can not be an excuse for Submission Cult.

-Viking warriors were one thousand years ago.Lets have a look today.Norway and Sweden are the most presperous and improved countries.Submission Cult followers can not critisize Norway.

Halozcel

I'm not really that childish- but PP- when are you going to learn in your dealings with me?
I simply will never reward unmannerly demands upon my behavior by modifying it.
All you have to do is ask.
Any gracious request I will comply with if it is in my power to do so.

Mutual respect, that is what it is all about.
I'm off to watch the pundits after the debate.
cnn-c-span-msnbc-fox-cnn-c-span-etcetc

o yeah- there is t boone pickens- i went to his site and guess what-
he is trying to sell me stock!
i sensed a snake oil salesman the first time i saw his ad on tv- and wondered out loud what he was up to- and knew it would reveal itself in time-

Hi PP-
"And celts ARE maniacs.
You just lost your 'Moral High ground' privileges.
And,
Capital C, thanks very much. That's me and my ancestors you just called maniacs with a capital ARE"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn't realize I had a previous moral high ground in your estimation to lose!
And you know I have only recently begun to use capital letters at ALL in any situation- (like e.e. cummings- actualy don marquis- but no one knows who he is)
(since Steven doesn't know- i've posted lowercase all the time, and only started using caps out of consideration for those who complained)

i don't even cap my own ego driven self- or religion- let alone others-

" That's me and my ancestors you just called maniacs with a capital ARE"

So, what? Big whup!
I'm a blue eyed irishwoman- thise blue eyes didn't come from the original inhabitants of that island- they came from some of those raiders we hear tell about :)

Since i have promised to never disparage oter faiths and races and etc etc etc -
all i have left is my own race and faith to deprecate-

the celts WERE and ARE MANIACS!
Im allowed to have my own opinion about my own ancestors.

Steven,
wel it is what it is-
non-binding opinions- we all have them-
I don't respect Khomeini's opinion on Rushdie- his writng diminished in quality over time but I don't propose killing for mediocre art.

I never heard Sala'adin called a kurd before- he offered his doctor to richard iii, as well as his best horse- his behavior was examplar for warship-
actually- the whole topic of wasr and statecraft is one of personal interest for me-

yes indeed- the ideals are often lofty and their practice not always mirrong that loftiness-

i'm off capitals now- and going back to my former annoying style of sans caps communication.

when are you going to learn paganlace?
i do what i want!- (eric cartman)

Paganplace: "He's. A. Civil. Rights. Lawyer."

Steve: So. What.

No, I don't trust him. Don't trust McCain either. As for holding these guys to their promises, we get to do that once every four years. And a lot of the promises they make would require them to be one of your Imperial Presidents, so (we can hope) they're just gas in the propwash anyway.

I mean,, you know, vote or don't vote for who you please. Vote for Mickey Mouse if you have to, but I'll tell you this. Every time conservative policies start blowing up in our faces, what the GOP and their supporters do is try and make the crap fly around and say, 'Aaaah, we're all a buncha bums, let the single-issue voters decide.'

And then they keep getting to go on doing what they been doing.

Paganplace: I thought you were referring to the candidates, not the signing statements. Anyway, we're way off topic.

" StevenTAbell Author Profile Page:

"I'm all for the review, but I don't trust Obama to know which end is up, either."

He's. A. Civil. Rights. Lawyer.

"Don't trust?"

McCain's gone back on all his 'maverick' positions, anyway.

That's the thing about American democracy. You choose the best candidate, and you *hold them to stuff.*

We're not electing a King, here.

Though some may have given a different impression just lately.

I'm all for the review, but I don't trust Obama to know which end is up, either. And all the things he's promised to "give" us make me shudder. The Roosevelts were awful, and LBJ was awful, and Bush might be even worse than LBJ, but Obama is over the edge. Maybe not as bad as Hillary, but that's not saying much.

Don't get me started on McCain. The Green candidate is certifiably nuts. I can't even vote for the Libertarian this time. As far as I'm concerned, there is *no* usable choice this time, and I can't even hope for lesser evils.

Btw:

"Regarding a Bush "signing statement", never heard the term before." (5:48 PM)

"Paganplace: I have read up on it. They're all simply dismal." (6:37 PM, responding to something from 6:18 PM.)

Quick bit of reading, I must say, Steven.

Well, Steven. I'm sure you don't like the notion of an 'Imperial presidency.' One *big* difference between Obama and McCain is, Obama's promised in the first hundred days to suspend and review for Constitutionality all those Bush signing statements, of which he's done more than all of previous history, from 'I don't think I'll enforce this legislation,' to 'I think I'll redefine fundamental American rights to suit my policies.'

Big difference.

Maybe Clinton got some. Get over it. This is serious.

Paganplace: I have read up on it. They're all simply dismal.

"Regarding a Bush "signing statement", never heard the term before. Is it anything like Gore's "no controlling legal authority"? Or Clinton's behavior in front of a grand jury?"

No, it's more like, Congress passes a law and he scrawls in the margins, "I feel like suspending habeas corpus and posse comitatus when I feel like it. OK? Good."

"As for Bush himself, I'll be glad when he's gone, but neither of his possible successors is anything I can think will be an improvement."

Might wanna read up on that.

Paganplace: Cut her some slack: she's playing, and that's just fine with me.

Regarding a Bush "signing statement", never heard the term before. Is it anything like Gore's "no controlling legal authority"? Or Clinton's behavior in front of a grand jury? Or Sandy Berger with important documents in his shorts? As for Bush himself, I'll be glad when he's gone, but neither of his possible successors is anything I can think will be an improvement. Probably anything but.

"still find it alarming that someone in Khomeini's position would make such a statement, backing it up with money, and still maintain any respect at all from anyone anywhere."

Hey, Steven, it's like a Bush 'Signing statement,' ...it must be followed, but of course no one's actually accountable, thus... Legal! Yay!

And, the horned helmets were never worn by Vikings, anyway. It's OK if you'd like to posture with a short blade, not so good for how the Vikings fought. But it's Hollywood.

Also, he doesn't call himself a 'Viking' anywhere on the linked page.

Paganplace: Yes, I started this. Thought I would ask some questions of people who seemed like they might give useful answers.

As for being a Viking, I'll smile at that. Heathen, yes, I am. But I don't own a horned helmet. <}:-)

As for those who were Vikings, I'll disagree that that was just for those without good prospects at home. It was a prominent part of the culture of the time, and men were respected for doing that. There is something in the attitude that I can honor, just as there is something in the attitude of my Comanche forebears that I can honor, but I don't buy into the practice and would have to call it criminal today.

Victoria: To be blunt, the theory reads well. What seems to happen very often in practice is not so agreeable. And while I'm glad to learn that fatwas are not binding, I still find it alarming that someone in Khomeini's position would make such a statement, backing it up with money, and still maintain any respect at all from anyone anywhere. I wonder if it is something like what happened in Iceland a long time ago: a system arose that worked very well in some regards, but was missing some vital elements that were needed to keep the peace adequately.

Regarding your earlier explanation: I have read similar claims elsewhere about the behavior of Muslims in war, including one very persuasive piece claiming that we in the West can thank Saladin the Kurd for some noteworthy bits of what we call civilized behavior today. Thanks again for providing some context.

Ah, Victoria. I see the link.

"And celts ARE maniacs."

You just lost your 'Moral High ground' privileges.

And,

Capital C, thanks very much. That's me and my ancestors you just called maniacs with a capital ARE.

Hi Paganplace- wegot on it because Steven here IS a viking- and has published a book on the subject-

http://www.stevenabell.com/

And celts ARE maniacs. And vikings are certainly more than simple raiders.

Hi Steve, well- for one thing- peoples is crazy- and for another-

But more importantly- the misconception that fatwas are binding on muslims is false.
First- There is no Islamic government on the planet- a necessary prerequisite to consensus of the ummah (community).
Without consensus- there can be no obligation on muslims.

Fatwas are opinions by religious scholars- I emphasize opinions-
and are ONLY BINDING on the givers of the opinion.
So, if I'm sitting next to the mufti(learned scholar), and he issues one, I can accept or reject it as I choose.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fatwa

Here are some other fatwas that can be ignored-

"In 2005, the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons."

"An important fatwā was issued in July 2007 by Islamic scholars from Al-Azhar University at the Shari'a Court of the Islamic Cultural Centre and London Central Mosque, supporting interfaith dialogue with Christians and Jews through the shared study of the Quran, hadith and Jewish and Christian sacred texts, in the practice of Scriptural Reasoning."

I can choose to respect and regard the Al-Azhar fatwa as a valuable legal opinion- but it is my choice.

The same goes for Shari'a law- which means basically social justice-

Muslims are compelled to follow the laws in whatever country they live in.
Unless it is in directcontradiction to a distinct prohibition.
For instance- citizen mandated mead drinking. :)

Shari'a law in non-muslim countries deals with sensitive civil and social issues, such as marriage and divorce- or business dealings-

And NOT criminal cases. Like the Jews in Britian hve their Beth Din,(same as shari'a) which has been in palce for some time.

The british muslims have their own issues- ones that go back to english rule in India- abd there is definitely a reactionary element there that the muslim community laments about among ourselves.

So, did these help?
What did you thik of the previous question?
Maybe you can show this to a muslim friend and see if there is agreement. It would substantiate the validity of it for you perhaps.

I didn't include wikipedia, becuase I really really hate wikipedia- but it also has a confirming opinion.
peace!

Victoria: Perhaps you can comment on this. Ruhollah Khomeini puts a hit on Salman Rushdie... for writing a book. Lots and lots of Muslims take this seriously. British Muslims parade in the streets, making no subtleties about being willing to carry this out. Rushdie spends years in hiding as a result. Khomeini is (presumably) not a marginal scholar of your religion, and people who grow up in Britain or have lived there for a long time are (presumably) rather civilized. From your standpoint, what's going on here?

Thanks for your input,

Steve

stephanemot : "Back then, Palin already used canned answers to dodge the key issues : "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum"

If you look at the core of the proposition, it means : stop making this teaching illegal, leave it up to the teacher.

Palin is not a closet evolutionist : she is a hardcore theocon, but a careful one. After the publication of the Discovery Institute's Wedge document, no politician can promote ID without risking his/her career.

Palin perfectly illustrate the new creationist agenda : we have taken into account the failure of our Intelligent Design imposture, and we understand that we cannot be too pushy these days, but our priority is to make sure some door is somewhat opened for the next waves.

The only evolution Palin will ever accept is from democracy to theocracy." October 4, 2008 8:23 PM

Brakes tapered with, statetrooper report completed, keep building my case, thanks

I dunno how we got to having to defend Heathenry, or Islam, here, Victoria, for that matter, but I assure you, they aren't 'Vikings,' per se. They don't have an easy time of their PR cause some very different folks in recent history that you might have heard of decided to appropriate some of the symbology, and there are some imitators out there that probably could do to hear more from the decent folks.

That Viking image is often tinged with impressions of a whole culture that neighbors got from *raiders,* ....and raiders don't tend to be those who are contented or have many prospects at home. Kind of like how the Romans got and promoted the idea that Celts are all maniacs, cause they mostly saw said ancestors when they were at war and had their backs against the wall. For what that's worth.

As for justifing things by books, that's always tricky. Maybe it gives some a *sense* of control, but it's in fact handing people an *instrument* of control to use and abuse and obfuscate about.

As much of a mess as an administration supported unquestioningly by 'Values Voters' has made of things, I think it's something to be concerned about, not even really so much about scary minorities, but what most people *don't* question, cause it's done in the name of their holy book, ...which holy book and its more zealous adherents can make a lot of voters and other people *intimidated religiously* when they should be looking at what effects one might expect from a *policy.*

adopting to pluralism or adopting to americanism?

despite the fact that america is a pluralistic society but in fact the governing system and machine is not,it is a monoralistic society .

just look at the recent monetary crisis ,who messed it up ?christianity?judaism?islam?or the mono mega buck heads ?

in a pluralistic society ,if the religion and the way of life of the creator god is not applied then at least take advantage and the best of each culture and apply it toward the governing system ,only then you can call it pluralistic democratistic.

i,m sure the pluralistic society of america can bring better than obama and mc donald!!!!!!!!

Victoria: Thanks for your explanation.

WRT Tyr-oaths: such an oath is not something I ask for lightly, and I assure you I *do* know the significance of something like this. I appreciate your words, and I hope you understand why I ask for them.

I also know about crazies getting all the press. Unfortunately, we have our share of those, too.

(May ALLAH forgive me if I, through my on ignorance- mislead or misrepresent Islam in any way)

Here are the ayat(verses) in question.

[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers who ENTER INTO A TREATY WITH YOU.

[9:2] Therefore, roam the earth freely for FOUR MONTHS, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers.

[9:3] A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.

[9:4] If the idol worshipers SIGN A PEACE TREATY with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and THEY refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then SEND HIM BACK to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.
___________________________

OK, that's enough for now. This is the continuation of a story about idol worshippers whom the Prophet(pbuh)had made a treay with-
He was big on treaties-

You see in the 2nd ayat- a time frame of 4 months- also in the 4th instructions to honor thetreaty if it is not violated- (many treaties were viiolated in the past- in Islam- it is very clear- we may only defend ourselves if attacked- and no more.

Then the 5th- which you referred to- is AFTER peace has been refused, and war is inevitable- and attack imminent (but you'd have to have read the preceding material to know this) THEN- the enemy may be pursued and killed-
and also- if they choose to embrace Islam-teach them prayers and make them pay zakat- the same charity all muslims are required to pay-
we pay it at least once a year, after Ramadan- which ended last week actually!

Now this is very important-
Another ayat(sorry I don't remeber the number right now) states that "There is no compulsion in religion."

These are not idle pretty words-

in the last ayat-

[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then SEND HIM BACK to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.

it elaborates on an already known precept in engagement of enemies-

If an enemy throws down his weapon and yells Peace! a muslim MUST stop aggressing, and not only that- a Muslim then becomes the PROTECTOR of that enemy- and must escort them to safety within the bounds of their own homeland.

Prisoners of Islamic war in such a situation must be fed before their captor- and treated with kindness- and let go with kindness.

This is important for this reason- it is already understood at the revelation of Tauba- (it was one of the last suras (chapters) revealed-

All that is necessary to secure freedom is the declaration of peace and intent to harm the Muslim no more- just the word-

One does not have to convert to Islam- it is offered, certainly.But the captive is not compelled to embrace Isalm to secure their freedom and ensured safety.

It says they are a people who do not know- so one cannot expect them to behave with the higher ethic that is expected of Muslims.

The other division of the Qur'an is exhortations and instructions for all time.

such as-

4:124 Whereas anyone - be it man or woman - who does [whatever he can] of good deeds and is a believer withal, shall enter paradise, and shall not be wronged by as much as [would fill] the groove of a date-stone.

or

3:195 And thus does their Sustainer answer their prayer: "I shall not lose sight of the labour of any of you who labours [in My way], be it man or woman: each of you is an issue of the other.

or

33:35: "For men and women who are devoted to God - believing men and believing women, law abiding men and law abiding women, men who speak truth and women who speak truth, men who are steadfast and women who are steadfast, men who are humble and women who are humble, men who give charity and women who give charity, men who fast and women who fast, men who keep chaste and women who keep chaste, men and women who remember God often - God has prepared for them forgiveness and a rich reward").

Which extolls the equality of men and women-

etc etc etc

As you can see- these are ayats for all Muslims for all times.

Because you expressed a need for a type of Tyr-Oath - we have one.
I do not believe I have ever given it in print- and it is not something I do very often at all-
I actually have a great aversion to using it for a light purpose-
But, since you requested kindly, and did not know the deepmeaning behind the request- it is no problem.
Wallahi,(In the name of the god) the words I have written and their meanings are true.

I hope my poor explanation was semi-sufficent.
It is by no means comprehensive nor scholarly-

So, the principles I described, mercy and patience and forebearance towards one enemies- the equality of men and women, are known to myself as valuable and viable-

I do not feel it necessary to disclaim thein amy way-as they are sufficient today as they were wehn writtne 1470 some years ago.

It is the people who abuse the religious precepts- or simply disregard or distort them past recognition-
Unfortunately- it is the crazy people who get all the press- if it bleeds, it leads-
and in the current atmosphere of islamophobia in America (and if you stick around- you will be shocked to see how openly racist and xenophobic people feel free to be right now- if it is against muslims, that is- no other group, of course)

So, peace and let me know your thoughts. :)

Hi Steven- 9:5? It seems to be the most popular one line taken out of context- I will trust your good intentions and desire to learn and remark a tiny bit on it-

I'll start with an analogous scripture-

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.

Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.

Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.

I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

2 Kings 8:12 Their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword; and you will dash their children, and rip open their women with child.”

2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.

Isaiah 13:18 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.

16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.

18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.

Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.

Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Well, we have some pretty horrible verses here-

If we were psychotic fundamentalist literalists- with a murderous hatred festering inside, we might try to tell ourselves that since the Israelites were commanded by G-d to rip open the enemies pregnant women's bellies and dash babies heads against stones- that such a command is a warranted and timeless command.

But, if we have half of a brain and a heart that is reasonably peaceful and logical- (and it helps to be sitting comfortably and securely in a house in a place unmolested) we investigate and realize that such commands(horrific as they are) were related to a specific battle and time and situation and people.
And are not instructions or permission for all Jewish people for all time.

I frame this for a particular reason-
Historical and spiritual context.

Very very simply put-

The Qur'an is not chronologically written- and does not tell a continuous story like the Old and New Testaments do.
It is not linear.

And it is divided into 2 parts-
One is strictly historical, and refers to particular events, and specific peoples- and is telling a story of a time and place in history.

Al-Tauba or the Repentance or Dispensation, is written about a definite time in the life of the Prophet(peace be upon him), and the peoples who were at war with him.
They were idol worshippers. So are referred to as such.

I think the candidates will be so busy concerning themselves with other important matters, that religion will not be their main focus. After the election, business priorities will be economic, social, and environmental. Religion will just their escape from the stress of running a nation.

Dear Joe and Sarah,

What "sayest" thou about Islam after reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, Infidel????

Some excerpts:

p. 47 paperback issue:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

p.68:

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."

p.309

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."

p. 347

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

well, coming from a religion that nearly had our founding father as it were sacrifice his own sun, I'm all for religions that use tea leaves and tarot cards. But whichever one of you said it is the "actors" had it right.

One thing that always seems to be overlooked is that the world has changed since the Bible and the Koran, and other religious texts were written. And we ourselves haven't yet learned to look at the universals which must continue, as opposed to the details which do need to change over time. The rules and laws made then were appropriate for the world as it was then. When we cling to tightly to those laws of historical detail, we get too caught up them, and not in what our faith really means.

Ms. Kahn asks very important questions, and unless we have politicians who have to courage to say, I do this because I follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and not the dictates of my own religion, we will never have a President or a Vice President who truly represents all Americans. And on our side, the peoples' side, unless we are willing to live as Jefferson so succinctly put it, without worrying will have a pocket picked or a leg broken because our neighbor believes in 1 g-d or 20, we won't get the President or Veep this country really needs.

Victoria: We are all of us warriors when we have to be, but not all of us are on that path.

WRT polytheists: "Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush." (Surat At-Taubah 9:5).

I have read some of the surrounding context. It is not very reassuring.

Steve

Steven, not impyling that you are a violent or warlike creature- all of the Vikings I have ever known had an interest in the warrior path.

Hi Steven- I believe you have confused that particular verse-
"Suffer not a polytheist to live."
with the biblical verses-

"Suffer not a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

"There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch."
Deuteronomy 18:10

Now it is interesting that you bring up the jizyah- or tax - as I just had this conversation last night.

And I apologize right now- as I just peeked in and really have other things I'm supposed to be doing right now.:)

But I promise to come back and discuss it.

You may be interested in the Rules of War in Islam- they are very precise and to date, actually a great deal more comprehensive and merciful than our Geneva Convention.

Here is an EXTREMELY small bit of the total- sorry - I cannot stay and googled quickly-
http://www.jamaat.org/islam/HumanRightsEnemies.html

That is one of my absolute favorite quotes by Jefferson, and I have used it extensively on these boards-
Welcome and I'll be back.
peace

Hello Victoria.

Our religious forebears left no written records. What we have was written, or written down, by Christians, long after the Conversion of Iceland in 1000, a landmark date for us. The closest thing we have to "doctrine" is the Havamal, the words of Odin, which is mostly advice on sensible conduct and the right behavior of hosts and guests. We have *nothing*, no myth, no legend, no poem, in which our gods tell us to kill people. Apart from Havamal, we have very little in which our gods tell us to do anything at all. We mostly have only their example in our myths, and those sometimes serve as examples of things gone wrong. As we revive Asatru, we have no requirement or desire to revive practices that have no place in our modern world.

Since you ask about specifics, here are two. I do not have chapter:verse references, but will get them if you ask.

1) I believe the translation from the Koran is "Suffer not a polytheist to live." That's pretty clear. If this is anything close to an accurate translation, and Muslims take it seriously, then the concern to the Asatru community is obvious and justified. It would be helpful to hear a whole lot of Muslims say "We don't do that, and won't do that, regardless of what our book says." Backing that up with the Muslim equivalent of a Tyr-oath would be helpful.

2) The "head tax" on non-Muslims is a lesser but no less interesting issue.

Thomas Jefferson said: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The two points raised here concern issues that do both.

I am glad to hear that you can carry out this discussion openly. Thank you for responding. I look forward to talking with you.

Hail!

Steve

VICTORIA IN ASTORIA

Hi Steven-
Were human sacrifices part of the doctrine, or were they a cultural practice?
Am I correct in my scant knowledge that the Viking traditions are orally transmitted and no written scripture (doctrine) exists?

Such a practice was not encoded into law, so, it's practice is not prohibited, nor encouraged except by it's adherents.

you requested this statement from Muslims-

"There are aspects of our religion that will never change, but there are other parts that we prefer to let slip quietly into the past, as they are not appropriate for the world we live in now."

Let me reword it, and define myself-

Our religion will not change- but it's adherents are changing.
There are practices that we will loudly and vociferously oppose, based on political agendas, misogyny, and cultural traditions, and personal hatreds that are diametrically opposed to our tenets and beliefs.

When great injustices are enacted- we already know that our religion promotes justice and social harmony at it's core, and that we must vigorously and agressively redirect, or some are saying- expunge the actors.

Since you gave no specifics- I can only answer in general.

But that conversation has been going on for some time-
You can click on Daisy's link and see.

You need have no fear that any dialogue will endanger us from our co-religionists.

I post under Victoria- but there is a new signing in system we are adjusting to here- you can read many of my posts from previous questions-

You will also come to notice there are a great many islamophobic and vehement haters of islam and muslims also-
(Halozcel is one- he won't deny it- he's proud of it- Hi Halozee)

Also, you are not all that far from Santa Clara, which has one of the most enlightened Islamic Institutes and surrounding communities anywhere- at the Zaytuna Institute.
http://www.zaytuna.org/index.asp

peace and Insha'alla(godwilling) we can discuss more.

Steven T Abell,

You wait soooooooo long time.

Halozcel

Hi Daisy.

I have a question for you. I wish it were a simple question, but it's not.

I am a heathen. Yes, a card-carrying polytheist. Hail Thor, and that's just for starters.

There is adequate reason to believe that people of my religion used to carry out human sacrifices a very long time ago. We don't do that anymore. If anyone in my religious community were to try that today, the rest of us would promptly deliver him, bound, probably uncomfortably so, to the nearest authorities and happily testify against him. Have our beliefs changed? Yes and no. There are aspects that will never change, but there are practices that simply have no place in this world, if they ever did. We have no book telling us to do such things, and our relationships with our gods are familial and personal.

A careful reading of the Bible appears to require both Christians and Jews to do things that hardly any of them seem willing to do anymore. Have their beliefs changed? Yes and no. There are aspects that will never change, but there are practices that simply have no place in this world, if they ever did, regardless of what some book says. They seem content to let such things slip quietly into the past, and the rest of us are happy to have it so.

What about Muslims? I live in Fremont CA and work in Silicon Valley. Many of my co-workers are quietly Muslim and obviously fine people. What I and the rest of America are waiting to hear from Muslims is something like "There are aspects of our religion that will never change, but there are other parts that we prefer to let slip quietly into the past, as they are not appropriate for the world we live in now." And then we'd like to hear what those different aspects are.

Coloring the concern that I have to hear such a statement and have such a discussion is my perception that, for you to make such a statement would put your life at serious risk from some of your co-religionists. Nevertheless, we still wait, and need, for this discussion to happen, explicitly and right out loud.

I hope you understand that I ask this question in good faith, as someone who believes that America is for lots of kinds of people with many different beliefs.

Best regards,

Steve
--
Steven T Abell
Author of DAYS IN MIDGARD: A THOUSAND YEARS ON