Making Amends More than Lip Service

It seems incredible that it is not obvious to everyone reading the quotes above from the various scriptures that ALL scripture was written by human politicians. Politicians have always been psychological manipulators. Only the gullible fall for it. A paedophile duped 1.4 billion gullible people! If you're not smart enought to see through the scam, at least make an effort.

frank- islamic is an adjective used to describe a noun
we can be islamic thinkers- but not islamics
we are muslikms, adherents to islam

progressive muslims (and i speak only for myself)
are those who read the quran with an open and understanding heart- and intentions for finding the highest ideals contained within, and aspiring to integrate those ideals into our consciousness-

we look to read the qur'am in our own lifetime-
for and by ourselves- and not what some man in the 10th century decided it should mean for us-

unfortunately, many who have no real knowledge of islam, look with jaunduced eyes filled with bad intentions- as soon as they find some comment they shout AHA! i am provng my own ugly suspicions!
not realizing that if they read one more line, they would find exhortations to peace- high calibers of behavior, and forgiveness.

their hearts will not be ligted up by the verses they find- it is not the fault of the book, but the state of mind of the interpreter

you are finding what you want to jutify your own bias because that is all you are looking for-

it is sad, but we all have our own lessons to learn.

there are mean spirited little hearts across the world looking to justify their own hateful agendas- i have no more relation to them than to the haters here-

and i can forgive your sad state until you try to attack me, or incite others to do so.

violence can also be verbal-

and is no more justified than the physical

peace

amusing- concerned the liberated is instructing on how to be a good muslim.

"pretty wingy thingies"

The ad infinitum use of that implies you find it terribly clever.

IDIOT!

Pamela,

So you do not believe or do not really care what one of the major tenets of Islam is? i.e. A good Muslim must believe in angels aka "pretty wingy thingies".

Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially

Part II on heterosexual marriage:

http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

Concerned -- perhaps I should have been clearer: all of the people who have contributed to the organization are on that list. For obvious reasons, I am not going to list their names here as that would be an invasion of privacy (and perhaps illegal even -- I am not a legal or financial person, but it seems to me that records like that may be priviledged information.) If you would like more detail information, I suggest you write to the other founder Ani Zonneveld (www.a-n-i.net) who has been handling financial matters.

As for angels... I really don't think about them very much. I can't see them, they don't really impact my life. Either they are real or they are a metaphor for how the Divine interfaces with this temporal plane. Allahu Alim (God knows.) I'm much more concerned with living my life, raising my kids, doing my work, trying to be a good person, trying to make things around me better and so on.

When Islam was reformed by the Sufis many of them were killed! Although Sufis have their roots in Islam, they are not accepted by mainstream Islam. Although Sufism has its origin in Islam, it is too spiritual for the mainstream Islamics because it does not bother with politics, and bypasses Mohammad on their way to God, whom they prefer to call Al-haqq (one of the names for God in the Quran), not Allah. It is Sufis who can offer the best Islam for inter-religious dialogue.

Pamela,

Hmmm, being a subscriber of Yahoo group site does not make you a member of an organization. Bottom line, you do not have an official list of contributors or benefactors. So again, where do you get your funding?

Jihadist,

So you also believe in angels aka "pretty wingie thingies, tinker bells, guardians of the flyby nighties" or "ugly wingy thingies" aka devils, satans, demons of the demented, as per the tenets of Islam?

Oy vey Concerned,

Foreign funding of US religious entities is not acceptable but okay for religious entities and NGOs outside the US to get funds from the US?

Tinker bell? Why not Peter Pan too? Fortune teller? Still can be found in US carnival sites and newspaper astrology page everyday, prophesising.

This Islamic heart is charmed, but the mind remain unconvinced by your requirements and arguments for reform in Islam.

At least you recent posts are getting more interesting.

Pamela,

Your response about financing is greatly appreciated.

Now how about addressing the first ten qualities of the Islamic heart? e.g. do you believe in angels aka "pretty wingy thingies" as required in the third quality? I find it amazing how religions are so dependent on these mythical "tinker bells". And who came up with the names?

Joe Smith's private "tinker bell", Moroni must have been a real charmer!!!!

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages.

Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

How much of the progressive Muslim values comes from the Quran, Hadiths and Sira alone, and how much of it is simply taken from the UN Charter of Basic Human Rights?

HH,
Surah 9, particularly 9:5 and 9:29 was revealed after Hunain and Taif, thus your explanation is erroneous.

By then Muhammad had defeated his foes - there would be no more battles or opposition to him for the rest of his life.

Except for a few battles where the Meccans were retaliating against Muslim aggression - e.g. raiding their caravans, the Muslims were the aggressors.

Muhammad even broke the Treaty of Hudaibiyya under flimsy excuse.

But most tellingly, it was the timing of the revelation of surah 9 that betrays Muslim aggression.

After he conquered Mecca unprovoked and in violation of the Treaty, he attacked Hunain, a tribe that was defending themselves in their own territory. Then he attacked Taif, the allies of the Hunain.

Then he revealed Surah 9 - to unilaterally cancel all the treaties he had made to other tribes and to prepare the Muslims for GLOBAL DOMINATION.

Thus, your own history betrays you.

Qasim Omar

Janet, thank you for bringing this to my attention. We will be sending a letter of protest to this imam, and I will try to get other Islamic orgs here in the US to do the same.

Concerned -- at present we have no external funding. We are operating on a shoestring budget of donations made by our members. (The members list is available at our yahoogroups site.) Further, we are very much against foreign funding of American Muslims groups, as it does indeed tie hands, even if there are supposedly no strings attached.

Frank -- please note point 2 -- regardless of creed, ie faith (or lack thereof).

The framework underlying fighting in Islam is self-defense, and all verses which call on the believers to "fight the unbelievers" must be understood in this framework.

Time and again, over and over and over again, I either read or hear from people that Islam calls for the murder of "infidels," or all those who are not Muslim. This perception is so pervasive, so entrenched, and I really do not know from where it comes. Yes, there are Muslims who do believe this: 19 of them crashed three planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 of my innocent American brothers and sisters. But, I don't know from where they got this idea.

"It is the Qur'an, you idiot!!!" I am quite sure some of you just screamed that to your computer screen. Really? Where? I do not know of one verse which directs the believers to kill all "infidels." Yet, I am constantly reminded of the contrary, such as this verse:

"Now when you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overcome them fully..." (47:4).

Or this one:

"O you who have attained to faith! Fight against those unbelievers who are near you and let them find you adamant, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him" (9:123).

Or this one:

"O Prophet! Strive hard (lit., make "jihad") against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be adamant with them... " (66:73).

Yet, perhaps the "poster child" of all the verses in the Qur'an which are cited as evidence that Islam calls for the murder of infidels is this one, the so-called "Verse of the Sword":

"Slay the pagans wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place..." (9:5).

Case closed? Wrong. These verses have a context, and when understood in their proper context, it will become quite clear that the verses cited above are not a carte blanche for Muslims to kill all non-Muslims.

Before I address specific verses, however, a few general principles of the Qur'an when it comes to fighting must be explained. Also, I rely almost exclusively upon Muhammad Asad's explanation of the Qur'an as my source material. Let us begin, then.

In the Qur'an, the principle of fighting is purely self-defensive. According to all available Traditions, the earliest verses revealed with regards to fighting are these:

"Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged and, verily, God has indeed the power to succour them; those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, 'Our sustainer is God!'" (22:39-40).

Along with this verse is 2:190, which says:

"And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you..."

Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is to be done in self-defense. Now, anyone can commit acts of terror and aggression and say, "it's in self-defense." In fact, that is precisely what Al Qaeda is doing: they claim by killing 3,000 people in New York City and Washington, D.C., they are "defending" the Muslim nation against "Zionist and Crusader" aggression against the Muslims. What sheer rubbish.

The Qur'an clearly states, in the remainder of 2:190 it says:

"...but do not commit aggression, for verily, God does not love aggressors."

"Committing aggression" includes killing innocent civilians in Tel Aviv, Beslan, New York, Baghdad, or wherever. Furthermore, when the enemy ceases its hostility, fighting must cease:

"...but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong" (2:193).

Another verse repeats this insistence that hostility must cease when the enemy stops its aggression against you:

"But if they [the enemy] incline to peace, incline thou to it as well, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing! And should they seek but to deceive thee [by their show of peace] - behold, God is enough for thee! He it is who has strengthened thee with His succour, and by giving thee believing followers" (8:61-62).

Thus, even if the enemy is feigning a peaceful posture, the Muslims are still commanded to cease hostility and "place their trust in God." Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is in self-defense, and aggression is not allowed. Now, Muslims have waged wars of aggression in the past, for sure, and they even called them "jihad against the infidels" in order to justify their desire for territorial expansion. In fact, one of the most pertinent examples of this was the Ummayad Dynasty, which enacted a policy of "jihad" as perpetual warfare. But, such a policy is not Islamically correct, and as the collapse of the Ummayad Dynasty showed, not sustainable.

Still, the point of the matter is, the framework underlying fighting in Islam is self-defense, and all other verses which deal with fighting or call on the believers to "fight the unbelievers" must be understood in this framework. Yet, this begs the question: why are these verses even in the Qur'an at all? Why fight at all? What was the historical context of these verses of the Qur'an which tell the believers to "fight the unbelievers"? It was a very violent one.

From the very beginnings of his ministry, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was opposed by his people. In fact, on the first day he openly called his people to Islam, his own uncle cursed him by saying, "May you perish!" And why? Because he called his people to abandon their worship of idols and worship instead the One God of Abraham. This was unacceptable, however, to the Meccan oligarchy.

At first, the Meccans simply ignored the Prophet's call. Yet, he would not relent, and Islam began to gain a growing, yet still small, number of followers. This began to alarm the Meccan oligarchy, because fundamentally, the message of Islam was a direct challenge to the status quo, one which greatly benefited those in power in Mecca. The Quraysh, the Prophet's main tribe, were the guardians of the Ka'ba, or the main shrine in Mecca. This shrine was originally built by Abraham and his son Ishmael for the worship of the One God. Over time, it was defiled by 360 pagan idols, gods worshiped as intermediaries between man and the Creator.

Prophet Abraham (pbuh) began the practice of an annual pilgrimage to this shrine, and the Arabs followed in this tradition. Quraysh, being guardians of the Ka'ba, would host the pilgrims, but also sell their goods to the pilgrims. In fact, they made rules that entrenched this economic monopoly. One of the prime examples of this is that pilgrims can only circumambulate the Ka'ba with clothes made by Quraysh. If they could not afford such clothes, they must circumambulate naked. Thus, the idolatrous system in Mecca had a direct economic benefit for the Meccan oligarchy. Moreover, their occupation as guardians of the Holy Shrine made their stature among the Arabs even more elevated.

The Prophet's message of "there is none worthy of worship except God" was a direct challenge to this power structure. If the Arabs abandon their worship of the pagan gods, the Quraysh's logic went, Quraysh's economic monopoly vanishes. Moreover, "there is none worthy of worship besides God" also challenged their non-chalant attitude toward the enormous injustice of Arab society in the Seventh Century. When someone pledges that there is none worthy of worship except God, they necessarily accept God's way of doing things and running their lives. Preventing injustice and having concern for the poor and less fortunate is an essential aspect of Islamic ethics, and this was a challenge the Meccan oligarchs were not willing to take up. Thus, they opposed the Prophet's message.

When ignoring the Prophet did not work, they began to actively oppose it. The Prophet, however, enjoyed the protection of his uncle Abu Talib and the clan of Bani Hashim, thus they could not harm him physically. There are some who claim that the only reason the Meccans opposed the Prophet was because he reviled their gods. This is not exactly true. Indeed, the Prophet did revile their gods. Yet, the Qur'an directed him to stop, when the pagans threatened to revile God in revenge:

"But do not revile those [beings] whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of spite and in ignorance: for goodly indeed have We made their own doings appear unto every community. In time, [however], unto their Sustainer they must return: and then He will make them [truly] understand all that they were doing" (6:108).

Thus, the Prophet stopped, but the Meccans did not stop their opposition. In fact, it only increased. Seeing that they could not harm the Prophet physically, they resorted to physical torture of anyone who converted to Islam. In fact, they killed two people, Sumaya and Yasser, when they refused to give up Islam. The situation became so bad that the Prophet sent away around 70 of his companions, including his own cousin Ja'afar ibn Abi Talib, to Abyssinia for asylum.

Even physical torture did not stop the flow of converts to Islam. Thus, the Meccans boycotted the Prophet, his clan Bani Hashim, and all those who followed Islam. The Meccan oligarchy prevented anyone from buying from or selling to anyone associated with the Prophet. They could not marry to or from Bani Hashim. They were banished to some mountain tracts just outside of Mecca, and there they stayed for three years. When the Sacred Months would come, during which all hostilities must cease, the Meccans would raise the prices of their goods to such an extent that the Muslims could not buy anything. Many Muslims, including the Prophet, went hungry, and his uncle Abu Talib and wife Khadija died as a result of this boycott.

After the boycott ended - and with his main source of support, Abu Talib, now dead - the persecution of the Prophet increased exponentially. Now, not just the elite of Mecca attacked the Prophet, but even young children hurled dust and insults at the Prophet. The Prophet soon realized that there was no hope left for the Meccans to accept his message, and he thus looked to the South, to the sister city of Ta'if, for aid and support. He was immediately rejected, and the leaders of Ta'if sent the street children after him to pelt his legs with stones, bloodying them severely. The situation was so dangerous for the Prophet that he could not return to Mecca except under the protection of Mut'im ibn 'Adi, one of Mecca's most powerful leaders, who pitied the Prophet.

When the Meccans learned of Mut'im's pact of protection, they came to him and asked, "Protector or follower?" He replied, "Only a protector." They said to him, "If you would have said 'follower,' we would have fought you." This to one of the most powerful men of Mecca, showing the deep enmity the Meccans had for the Prophet. When all hope was lost, an unexpected boost came from the North. The people of Yathrib, a city more than 250 miles away, had accepted Islam and now asked for the Prophet to come to them. He took an oath of allegiance from them, and he ordered his followers to emigrate to Yathrib, soon to be called Madinat-un-Nabi, or City of the Prophet. After the Prophet made sure all of his followers left Mecca safely, along with returning the property his enemies had entrusted to him (because of his impeccable honesty), the Prophet himself emigrated to Medina along with his trusted friend Abu Bakr.

Yet, the hostilities did not cease with the Prophet now expelled from Mecca. After he left, the Meccans seized all the property of the Muslims which was left behind in Mecca, including that of the Prophet, and enriched their caravans with it. This was a blatant act of war, and thus the Prophet raided the caravans of Quraysh to get their property back. This led to the first major battle between the Muslims and the Meccans, the Battle of Badr. The Meccans were handle defeated by the Muslims. This enraged the Meccans, and they returned less than two years later with a larger, more powerful army to crush the Muslims at foot of Mount Uhud.

At first, the Muslims easily defeated the Meccans, but when 50 archers disobeyed the direct order of the Prophet, the Meccans regrouped, and the Muslims were defeated. The Prophet himself was severely wounded in the ensuing chaos, and he was nearly killed. Yet, this small victory did not satisfy the Meccans. They returned once more with the largest army ever assembled in the history of the Arabs - 10,000 strong - composed of all the hostile tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. The pagans marched directly for Medina, seeking to wipe out Islam once and for all. This effort also did not succeed, and the pagan Arab army was sent back in defeat.

On top of the relentless attacks and hostility toward the Muslims from the direction of Mecca, many surrounding Arab and Bedouin tribes were also hostile to the Muslims, and they joined in the fight against the Prophet. In fact, these Arab tribes sought to assassinate the Prophet on many occasions. The hostility did not cease until the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628 C.E., and it was only after the Meccans broke the treaty (contrary to some modern accusations) that the Prophet finally marched on Mecca and conquered it in 630.

It was in this terribly hostile environment that the verses commanding the Muslims to "fight the unbelievers" were revealed. This was the historical context of verse 9:5 and others like it. Quite clearly, the verses are commanding the Muslims to defend themselves against the aggression of their enemies, and they are not commands for the Muslims to "kill all infidels."

HH

Pam,

There is typically an economic/financial part of any agenda/group. Could you tell us who supports your Progressive Values Group?? For example, John L. Esposito is supported by a large grant from Prince Al-Waleed, who is a member of the Saudi Royal Family, and a entrepreneur and international investor. He has amassed his fortune through investments in properties and stocks. As of 2007, his net worth is estimated at US $20.3 billion and he is ranked by Forbes as the 13th richest person in the world, and the second richest Arab. He has been nicknamed by Time magazine as the Arabian Warren Buffett.

I doubt if Mr. Esposito ever criticizes Sunnis or Islam considering his major benefactor.

Dear Ms Taylor

I applaud the work you have done in working out the principles progressive Muslims stand for. With 1.5 billion Muslims around the world, most of whom live as good citizens and in peace and harmony with people of other faiths, it is vital to have a set of guiding principles for the whole Muslim community worldwide, that is in keeping with the best Islam has to offer, and not what can be interpreted in ways that does not do the image of any religious system any good.

Dom Bede Griffiths had deep respect for the work done by the Sufi mystic, Ibn al Arabi. It is important for non-Muslims to know more and more about the spirituality of Islam, and to seek common ground based on it. Thank you for the work you do as a Muslim in trying to provide common ground.

Turkey is a model for Muslim countries. Turkey was FOUNDED as a secular state by a military general. Hence when their military protects secularism, and Turks take to the streets in defence of secularism, they are merely DEFENDING THEIR CONSTITUTION.

‘Defending the secular faith’ by Stephine Irvine (BBC)

WHY IS THE TURKISH ARMY SO DETERMINED TO DEFEND SECULARISM, THE SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE?

SECULARISM IS FUNDAMENTAL TO TURKEY'S IDENTITY AS A NATION.

TURKEY WAS FOUNDED IN 1923 BY MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATURK, A MILITARY GENERAL, in what had been the Ottoman Sultanate.

ATATURK WAS DETERMINED THAT THIS MAINLY MUSLIM NATION would be a modern, SECULAR COUNTRY, and he introduced wide-ranging reforms, including the emancipation of women, the introduction of western dress, legal code and alphabet, and the ABOLITION OF ISLAMIC INSTITUTION.

Turkey's ruling elite and the powerful military have seen it as their job to protect what Ataturk set up.

The army has not been afraid to intervene militarily whenever it sees fit - it has led three direct coups against elected governments in Ankara.

When, 10 years ago, Turkey elected its first pro-Islamic party to government - the Welfare Party - the military campaigned to force it out of office. The following year the party was banned by the courts.

But despite the efforts of the establishment, it seems that Islamic parties are popular in Turkey, and in 2002 the Justice and Development (AK) party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan won a landslide victory.

The party has its roots in political Islam, but insists it respects the secular principles of the constitution.

The army has tolerated its position in government, but the prospect of one of its members taking up the highest post in the land is causing it great concern.

The staunchly secular elite of Turkey believes a president whose wife wears an Islamic headscarf would have Ataturk turning in his grave.

(Anonymous: The headscarf is viewed as a sign of fundamentalist Islam in Turkey.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6603141.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1023189.stm

Janet:

Interesting link. Here is another current piece on Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the media.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042500387.html

Imam in Johnstown, Pennsylvania calls for death of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/
news/rss/print_503977.html

Either Americans cut this type of behavior off in its infancy or it will spread, and we will all be gagged. Please write your representatives about this.

Pam,

What did you leave out of your progressive agenda?

"We denounce and renounce the Koran's militaristic and anti-female agendas!!!!" Get back to us when you are able to make that statement.

And you also need to address what steps you are taking to cleanse the Koran of other Dark Age concepts.

To get you started:

"30 qualities are connected to the heart"
(ten at a time) from the 77 Branches of Faith (Islam) is a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true faith (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings."

"1. Belief in Allah"

No problem but "aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

No problem but evolution and the Big Bang cannot be ignored and the "akas" for Allah should be included.

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item to delete. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in Heaven just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

"6. To believe that Allah Most High has knowledge of everything from before-hand and that only that which He sanctions or wishes will occur."

This is invalidated by the natural/inherent/God-given gifts/attributes of the human race i.e. Free Will and Future.
As per the theologian Edward Schillebeeckx,
Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)
We must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman
doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God/Allah the great scapegoat of history.”

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human
activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the
historical future is not known even to God/Allah; otherwise we
and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

"7. To believe that Resurrection will definitely occur."

The spiritual resurrection occurs at each death. There will be no physical resurrection from common sense considerations i.e. Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include those of Jesus, Mary, Moses etc.

"8. To believe in the existence of Heaven."

Acceptable but it exists only as a spirit state.

"9. To believe in the existence of Hell."

Maybe, maybe not. Some say if one dies is significant sin, that person’s soul will simply no longer exist since God/Allah does not tolerate imperfection in the Kingdom.

"10. To have love for Allah Most High."

Of course, just like there is love of all creatures, spiritual and living. Again there has to be an all-inclusive statement for Allah, i..e. aka God, Yahweh, Mother Nature, Jehovah

did you quit the board or are the question to difficult becasue you cant lie your way through them?

well pam that was one big load of crap! i asked for it in practical terms. you accept all live which is islam speak all islamic life. so when did you or your bothers march in oppisition to those jews being murdered? i read al jiz and not one word. why dont you really be progressive and just say that those parts of the koran i noted are evil and if you are a good islamic you must never accept them? you wont do that will you? here are a few, not all, but a few. disavow them here and now. and dont tell me that i am vile for reciting them, as other islamics have said, they are the words of the islamic god passed down from the islamic prophet. if you dont like what your god said, take it up with moho.
The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and pratice them as such.
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

Here are a few things you can say you are sorry for and return what islam stole. they are the horrible acts committed by islam which caused the west to have to stop you. they are the blessed crusades, and what you did to have them happen.
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
GIVE WHAT YOU TOOK BACK, BUT SAY YOU ARE SORRY FIRST.
that is the first step to show you are more than just words and double speak. you and i both know that your assertion of peace for all means all innocent and that the only innocent under islam are islamics. so an islamic baby is innocent, but a jew baby in an ice cream parlor in israel is evil and the islamic that blows that baby up is an islamic hero.
so tell us your koran is wrong when it says hate and murder and convert by the sword, and then we have a starting point for a real dialogue.

On adultery --

Several points to be made on this subject.

1) adultery in an of itself is not a punishable crime according to the Qur'an. The crime is public lewdness -- and the requirement is four eye witnesses to the act. The other means of "proof" is confession. The classical scholars ruled that pregnancy does not count as a sufficient proof of adultery (obviously, as it could have been non-consensual, the child could be the husband's, and so on). If the person does not make a public show of their adultery they may be committing a sin, but they are not committing a crime. The situations in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, and Pakistan are ahistorical, and a travesty of justice by any definition. To me this is one of the most critical issues for the West to apply pressure on so-called Islamic states. (Un-Islamic states is more accurate.)

2) the punishment of stoning for adultery is non-Qur'anic. Either the hadith about the prophet stoning adulterers are fake, or he went beyond what the Qur'an teaches. I haven't really examined those hadith in depth, and can't comment on whether they are sound or not.

Personally, I find the hudud (the punishments mentioned in the Qur'an) to be outmoded and agree with Tariq Ramadan that they should not be implemented in this day and age. (Note, that is not saying I agree with everything Tariq Ramadan has ever said, or even all his reasoning on this particular point, but I do agree that the Hudud are no longer appropriate.)

3)And this is the most important from my point of view. Since the Qur'an says quite clearly there shall be no compulsion in religion, I believe that any punishment for sins can only be voluntary, not mandated by the state. Since adultery is a sin, that means it is an issue of morality and conscience, and should be left to the individual's conscience.

In the case of public indecency, as I said above I believe that the hudud punishments are no longer appropriate or applicable.

For those who think this is is position held by only Western Muslims... witness the millions of demonstrators supporting secularism in Turkey this past weekend. Obviously, there is a battle in the Muslim world over the role religion should have in the state. The example of those countries that have tried to mix their understandings of shariah in with the governance of the people ought to be sufficient to convince anyone that secularism is essential.

Until such time as that is achieved, I believe moderate, liberal, and progressive Muslims would be well advised to try and ameliorate the situation by providing alternative interpretations that are humane.

Sorry for being awol for those seeking responses --

Muslims for Progressive Values has been refining the statement of principles, which should now be posted on our website. For your ease, here they are:

1) We accept as Muslim anyone who identifies as such. The veracity and integrity of that claim is between the individual and God, not a matter for the state, nor an issue which other individuals can or should judge.

2) We affirm the equal worth of all human beings, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, creed, sexual orientation, or ability. We are committed to work towards societies that ensure equality of social, political, educational, and economic opportunity for all.

3) We believe that freedom of conscience is not only essential to all human societies but integral to the Qur’anic view of humanity. As such, we resist the legislation of morality and endorse the separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy. We believe that secular government is the only way to achieve the Islamic ideal of freedom from compulsion in matters of faith.

4) We support freedom of expression and freedom of dissent, even when that expression may be offensive and that dissent may be blasphemous. In particular, we believe that concepts of patriotism, orthodoxy, or loyalty to one’s faith group must not be used to silence dissenting voices in the political, artistic, or religious spheres.

5) We support women's agency and self-determination in every aspect of their lives. We believe women’s full participation in society at every level and equality among genders is enshrined in the Quran.

6) We endorse the human rights, civil rights and civil liberties of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-sexual individuals.

7) We affirm that justice and compassion should be the guiding principles for all aspects of human conduct. We repudiate militarism and violence, whether on an individual, organizational, or national level; we support efforts for universal health care, universal public education, the protection of our environment, and the eradication of poverty around the world.

8) We call for critical inquiry and dynamic engagement with Islamic scripture, traditional jurisprudence, and current Muslim discourses. We promote interpretations and rulings that reflect basic Qur’anic principles of tolerance, inclusivity, mercy, compassion, and fairness.

9) We recognize the danger of religious extremism in all faith groups. We view the politicization of religion and the intrusion of religion into politics as twin threats to civil society and humane civilization. We will resist the intrusion of religion into politics and the exploitation of religion for political ends.

10) We affirm the diversity of inspirations that motivate people to embrace a commitment to justice and compassion, including a profound faith rooted in religious traditions, ethical imperatives developed throughout the centuries, and secular and humanist values shared by many Muslims today. As such, we will to engage with and contribute to other philosophical and spiritual traditions and progressive movements in pursuit of the aforementioned goals and principles.

What is it about the ideology of Islam that makes young men do what this one did?

Why is it that Pamela is trying to explain to Americans how to be tolerant, instead of spending her time and energy countering the violent part of Islam? Is this what she means by calling herself a "progressive"?

I personally don't want to hear another word from her, and I fail to understand why the Washington Post has given her a platform for all her misinformation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/
article1725993.ece

If you want to see how Islam is actually practiced in places like Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and among immigrant communities in Europe and Africa, then read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If you have some vague postmodernist idea that all cultures are of equal value, read this book. The book is Ayaan's autobiography. You will understand the destructive role of Islam in the lives of Muslim women, and why people get hooked into this particular ideology. The book provides balance to Pamela Taylor's fairy tale version of Islam. Would that the WashingtonPost would run articles by Hirsi Ali and others, to balance out their articles by Taylor, Armstrong and Ramadan. Perhaps the Post is too afraid to run such articles.

Jacob:

their mothers' names were "MOM", and "MA'AM".

And "That woman who said I'd never do anything with my life"

Peace MON!

Jesus Christ says in John 3:19,20 - And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

will one of you islamics tell us what a progressive islamic really is? what makes you progressive? do you still follow the koran's commands to force conversions, or murder or torture? what makes you more progressive than other islamics that think its great to murder jews because they are jews?
and will one of you put those quoted parts of the koran into context so they dont meand murder and torture non islamics?
and when will hyou apologize for your conduct leading up to the crusades and give the lands you stole back?
and why can islamics live in israel but you ban jews from islamic countries?
islam has a lot to answer for.
and other than a smiling bug eyes liar pretending to be progressive - what the heck is an islamic progressive.

Please read the article on "Myth of Proverbial Wedding" at the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo web site. The author rejects this story of Ayesha' marriage with Muhammad at 7 0r 9 years. He gives references to his argument that anybody can look up. http://www.icgt.org/SpecialArticles/Main.htm

Frank:

I'm sorry, how exactly am I being the victim here?

you are not going to like the answer glen. one requires living up to a higher standard as is required by jesus, and the other allows the base nature of man as an animal to allow them to hate, murder and even rape. 1 billion islamics pick lack of control, hate for those who are not islamic and sex with 9 year old girls.

This is a good discussion because it centers on the character of the person one is following. We have the character of Mohamed vs. the character of Jesus Christ. Who do you want to follow? Do you want to follow Jesus Christ the only man to live a sinless life who said things like "he who is without sin throw the first stone" or a man having sex with 9 year old girls and advocating torture and Jihad? Come on this should be a no brainier.

i never said any of them was inspired by anyone. i just think that each religion has the right to say what is part of its own holy books and if anyone does not like it, too darn bad. as a result each religion is judged by the books it says are holy.
hey were is that context for islam on the quotes that i was asked to provide?
and what is a progressive islamic. do they still believe him holding parades for those that murder women and children?

It is all about attestations.

“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=Frank Collins

who cares what contemporary anyone thinks - it was accepted by the church a lot closer in time than anyone alive today can claim. the bible is what the bible is. want to change it, start your own religion and write one yourself.

Soja,

As per many contemporary NT scholars, Matthew 4: 1-11 was a later addition to the gospels, an embellishment, or as Professor Crossan would say, "prophecy turned into history rather than history remembered". See his book, The Historical Jesus for added details. Also see:

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/139_Jesus_Tempted_Thrice

And since "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" do not exist, the temptation of Jesus by Satan followed by attention by angels are sufficient to put this story in proper perspective i.e. an embellishment to make OT fortune telling fit the NT story.

soja - you are right on. but you will not get anywhere here. islamics are the eternal victims, crying about how they are hated as the hate and murder themselves into spreading islam.

HL

According to the Bible, this is how Jesus dealt with temptation:

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting for forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple, “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ “

Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ “

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ “

Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

(Matthew 4:1-11)

looks like even pam cant handle real questions with real facts.
so pam what is a progressive islamic?
do progressive islamics still march in parades for murders who blow up a bus full of jewish children? do those progressive islamics still consider hero's those who kill children and their grand parents in ice cream parlors? so pam, what is it a progressive islamic does?

jacob - i have no idea what you are saying so you will understand if i cant answer you now or ever. now take your meds and tune that tin foil hat.

hey what is a progressive islamic? do they reject the hate in the koran? what makes them progressive? do they reject conversions by force? do they stand up and say killing jews is wrong - not just all people but to say it specifically about the bombing of jews in israel? will they do that? wnat what good works will they couple with that.
and its funny that islamics will not say that. here is what they will say - taking all innocent life is wrong. sound good? sure it does. but you have to understand islam speak. it does not apply to jews or christians - they are not innocent - they reject islam - that is why they are not innocent.
so tell us what a progressive islamic is IN PRACTICAL TERMS.

and hl - how dare you say that quoting the koran is sick. if you are islamic then you know that every command in the koran must be followed, including those dealing with hate and murder.
and you appear to act like im the only one who thinks these commands mean what they say. there are hundreds of millions of islamics that marched in the streets and demanded the death of the pope because he quoted another pope who called the command to spread islam with the sword as evil. they marched with hate and death to demand that the pope accept that islam had a right given to them by allah to kill those who would not convert to islam. and here are some peaceful times of islam.
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
SO WHEN DO WE NOT GET JUST AN APOLOGY BUT YOU GET THE F OUT OF THOSE LANDS YOU TOOK BY FORCE?
i cant wait for an answer to this one. and when you cant answer it we will move onto the koran saying the punishment for saying any man born of woman is god [that would be christians who follow jesus] are the worst sort and must be killed for that belief.
you see you cant win. i can show where the prophet demanded vile conduct, and you cant say its vile and no one should follow it anymore becasue to do so you would be subject to death for violating the koran.
this is far to easy.

hl - you get a F on your assignment. yes i have done enough research to be able to intelligently discuss the issue. and you said i took quotes from the koran out of context. so when you cant answer you just ignore it. that means I WIN AND YOU LOSE! there is no context for the words of hate and death that are contained in the koran as a perpetual command to islamics. nothing will justtify that evil.
and im not letting you just change the topic boy.

Frank,

It seems to me that you had the luxury of having accusations and attacks ready to post; however, I have to do the research and come up with answers to you allegations; and that takes time. Besides, I don’t have the time to be sitting in front of the computer responding to all the ignorant comments made by people like you when the verses in the Quran are clear and self explanatory if you just read them objectively instead of relying exclusively on polemic materials.

Your first objection to Islam was about friendships with non-Muslims.

I tried to gather some verses where the word ‘waly’ is mentioned in the Quran. Here are some examples.

(4:139) As for those who take the deniers of the truth for their allies in preference to the believers - do they hope to be honored by them when, behold, all honor belongs to God [alone]?

(4:144) O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the deniers of the truth for your allies in preference to the believers! Do you want to place before God a manifest proof of your guilt?

(5:51) O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.

5:57. O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye God, if ye have faith (indeed).

5:58. When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding.

5:59. Say: "O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in God, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"

The Arabic term used in these verses is awliya', which has several meanings in the Arabic, including "friend," "helper," "protector," "ally."The meaning differs depending on the context of the verse. Now, it is very interesting that those who are bent on claiming that Muslims should hate non-Muslims almost always translate awliya' as "friends." The truth of the matter, however, is quite different.

Muhammad Asad has explained the meaning of these verses the best. He wrote:

More than anything else, it obviously alludes to a "moral alliance" with the deniers of the truth: that is to say, to an adoption of their way of life in preference to the way of life of the believers, in the hope of being "honored", or accepted as equals, by the former. Since an imitation of the way of life of confirmed unbelievers must obviously conflict with the moral principles demanded by true faith, it unavoidably leads to a gradual abandonment of those principles.

Also, as mentioned in 5:58, some of the people of the book at the time were hostile to the Muslims and they were mocking their call to prayer. They had nothing but contempt and disrespect for them and they were actively trying to do away the new Muslim community.

To extrapolate those verses and others mentioned elsewhere in the Quran, however, to mean that: Muslims are not to have friendly relations with anyone who is not Muslim, but not only that, Muslims are supposed to hate them is terribly incorrect. There is no basis for this reading at all.

In Chapter 60, the subject of friendship or lack thereof with non-Muslims is again discussed and said:

60:61 O you who have attained to faith! Do not take My enemies - who are your enemies as well - for your friends, showing them affection even though they are bent on denying whatever truth has come unto you. [and even though] they have driven the messenger and yourselves away, [only] because you believe in God, your Sustainer! If [it be true that] you have gone forth [from your homes] to strive in My cause, and out of a longing for My goodly acceptance, [do not take them for your friends,] inclining towards them in secret affection: for I am fully aware of all that you may conceal as well as of all that you do openly. And any of you who does this has already strayed from the right path.

60:2-3 If they could but overcome you, they would [still] remain your foes, and would stretch forth their hands and tongues against you with evil intent: for they desire that you [too] should deny the truth. But [bear in mind that] neither your kinsfolk nor [even] your own children will be of any benefit to you on Resurrection Day, [for then] He will decide between you [on your merit alone]: and God sees all that you do.

60:8 As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably.

60:9 God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship, it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers!

There is a command from God to avoid ‘friendships’ with some people; However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60:7-9 (and implied in verse 5:57), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. There is nothing to preclude normal, friendly relations with non-Muslims who are good to Muslims.

The guiding principle when it comes to friendship with non-Muslim should be verse 60:8.

Furthermore, if Muslims are supposed to hate all those who are not Muslim (such as Jews and Christians), how could it be that God would allow Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women? The verse does not say that the Muslim husband has to convert his wife, and it is quite conceivable that many Jewish or Christian wives of Muslims will stay that way. So, a Muslim can take a Jewish or Christian wife, but he has to hate his lover, his life-partner, the mother of his children? Does this make any sort of sense?

Now, as far as Christians and Jews are concerned, the judgment is to God and God only. He tells us in chapter two and other places that:

2.62 Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

I think that’s a very universal and generous statement, don’t you agree. Compare that with the exclusionary statement in your bible where it says ‘no one should come to the father except through me.’ What about the people before Jesus and those who never heard about him. God instructs the Muslims to say:

3.64 Say: "O People of the Book! 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 then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God’s Will)

5:46. And in their footsteps(the other prophets) We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.

3.113 Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. 3.114 They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. 3.115 Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those that do right.

If you are familiar with these with and other verses about people of the book in the Quran, you would not come to the conclusions that you have in your posts, unless you have a sick mind and bent on distorting the obvious.

Dear HL,
You're a little hot under the collar, making all sorts of accusations you cannot support. Please take a breather and calm yourself down.

Your prophet was a horrible person. No good person makes innocent women and children into SLAVES. Not force captive women into becoming SEX SLAVES. Nor have sex with a 9 YEAR OLD CHILD. Nor rob caravans like a common bandit. Nor kill people who happen to disagree with him.

Those acts are INCOMPATIBLE with a moral person - no matter the time and place.

And to Asim: No, I'm not Jonathan Pollard the Spy.

Qasim Omar

Genuine steps by the Pope to enter into dialogue with Muslims based on mutual respect:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5376556.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6192770.stm

well i guess hl cant find a context for those.

hl - you have the topic and the words - but you seem to have a problem with actually reply other than asking if i want to. YES that is what i keep asking. give us the context of this one:
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).

What death threats? Are you out of your mind? All I said was if you are a Christian you would do what Jesus said about handling snakes, drinking poison and nothing should happen to you; please, read it again...

That is EXACTLY the point non-Muslims are trying to make HL!!! You wrote, "We will have a bottle of poison ready for you and see what happens dear faithful missionary when you take a swig."

Did Mohammad say he met up with Moses and Jesus or not? Did Mohammad read the Ten Commandments, one of which is THOU SHALT NOT KILL?

If you were following the commands of Jesus, you would give YOUR life, not want to take somebody else's life!

Does God need a killing sqad to spread His message of love? Be serious HL, don't do disservice to the message you intend to convey that Islam is a religion of peace! Religion of peace and issuing veiled death threats to those who don't agree with you - now, now that is not logical at all, don't you agree?

Now, for me not to be on the defense all the time,I will have to use the bible too. By the way, that poison test of faith goes for you too, Frank.

How about we take them one at time, Frank, and look at the context of everyone of them and not just snippets. Are you ready to do that.

the real islam: and none a lie. please say that you will no longer follow them, that in these respects the koran is wrong and evil and that by denouncing them you lift islam and not raise it low.
The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and pratice them as such.
more?
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
more?
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
more?
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
more?
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
more?
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
more?
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.

"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.
more later!
and please tell me what context these declarations of hate and murder are not reprehensible.

Qasim Omar, or whoever you are,

I know by the words you use that you are a missionary, a lying, slandering and dishonest missionary at that. But then again, most of you are of that kind of character: lowly and debase. You are a disgrace to your religion which says "do not bear false witness" which you do plenty of in here. The prophet Muhammad was of great character and I am glad and proud to be a Muslim and that I am not member of that primitive religion you subscibe to. By the way, shouldn't you be somewehere in Africa or something? And you get back, we will have a test of faith for you to take.

Jesus said: "And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them"

We will have a bottle of poison ready for you and see what happens dear faithful missionary when you take a swig. Afetr all, Jesus commands it. What do you say?

Quran 68: Thou art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed. Nay, verily for thee is a Reward unfailing:

And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character.

Soon wilt thou see, and they will see, Which of you is afflicted with madness. Verily it is thy Lord that knoweth best, which (among men) hath strayed from His Path: and He knoweth best those who receive (true) Guidance.

So hearken not to those who deny (the Truth).

Their desire is that thou shouldst be pliant: so would they be pliant. Heed not the type of despicable men,- ready with oaths,

A slanderer, going about with calumnies,(Habitually) hindering (all)good, transgressing beyond bounds, deep in sin.

Ross,

you wrote:

“Why should I have to explain his evil deed ? What I have is a hadith where Mo commands a woman to be put to death. It you believe it is incorrect or inaccurate please explain to me why ?”

So according to you, and you claim to be a Christian, any law that condones the adulterer to be stoned is evil and whoever makes such a law is also evil. I don’t think you know your own bible to go around claiming to know Islam when you don’t even know your own bible. According to the bible, stoning is not just condoned but it should be the law of the land.

Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel.

Leviticus 20:10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 21:9 The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 “If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

And Jesus said:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Therefore, the law of stoning the adulterer is condoned by Jesus and it should not be abolished for it is the law of the land.

The story about the woman caught in adultery that appears in chapter eight of the book of John is of the doubtful type. In the NRSV, that passage is bracketed with a note that said that:

“the most ancient authorities lack 7:53-8:11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7:36 or after 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.”

I think some scribes have trouble with stoning adulterers, so they invented a plausible story and added it to the bible. If Jesus did not condemn someone who committed adultery to be stoned, who are we to have such a law? At least that’s what might have some scribe to cook the books so to speak. And that’s not the only instance where the scribes added to the manuscripts they had. Another good example of that would be verse 5:7 of 1John.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (NKJV)

Again this verse is thrown out of most of the bibles as an interpolation and a forgery but it still shows up in the KJV.

The same thing goes for the ending of Mark. The most ancient manuscripts end at

16:8. 8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

The most ancient texts don’t have the appearance of Jesus to anyone, the great commission, nor the ascension.

There were some scribes who were not satisfied with that ending and felt the need to add to the Gospel of Mark and make it harmonize with the other Gospels.

Now, why would somebody feel the need to add and manipulate what they consider to be scriptures? I guess if you don’t like what you have in the bible, just go ahead and add your own theology because no one would know about it. After all, only the priests were allowed to read the bible and anyone from the laity caught reading the bible would be burnt with the green wood to add to the suffering and agony of the transgressor of this most great offense.

I think the same thing happened to the sayings of the prophet Muhammad. Some people with different agendas felt the need to fabricate sayings and attribute them to the prophet in order to further their own goals. Who would argue with you if you have the backing of the prophet? And that’s exactly what happened after the prophet’s death; hundreds of thousands of sayings were collected and most of them were of doubtful authority.

The stoning to the death of the adulteress is a good example of that. There were some Jews, also, in that area who judged the prophet hood of Muhammad by how much the laws in the Quran match their own mitzvahs. Probably someone fabricated those sayings for that purpose.

Another example is the age of Aisha, the prophet’s wife. Some say she was young but she was not that young. I think her marriage to the prophet at the age of nine is ludicrous. Aisha was involved in a conflict with other Muslims and was the leader of an army. To discredit her and her followers, her opponents later on made up the story about her age to emphasize that Aisha was a young lady who is a fool and over head. Countless other examples could be listed as proof that the sayings were forgeries.

On the other hand, the Quran is the same as it was revealed and written down; nothing added or subtracted. After all, God guaranteed its authenticity and its protection as it is said in the Quran:

15.9 We have, without a doubt, sent down the Message (the Quran); and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

So let us look at the Quran and consider the verses which mention the word adultery(zina). The word is used both for men and women. There are two chapters in which the concept is discussed by use of the word zina. The first is chapter 17:

17.31 Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.

17.32 Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).

17.33 Nor take life - which God has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed the bounds in the matter.

The second reference is in chapter 24:

24.2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

The final authority on the matter is to God and he spoke clearly and without confusion. I, for one, cannot read anything in this verse which can be understood as stoning the adulterer to death. If the prophet passed judgment that the adulterers must be stoned, he is clearly against the command of god; and that is totally unacceptable and impossible for the prophet to do. Therefore, what is attributed to the prophet as a law for adultery is definitely a forgery.

As far as the loss of life is concerned we read that:

6.151: Say(O Muhammad): "Come, I will rehearse what God has (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that you may learn wisdom.

25.068 Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment.

Adultery is not a justifiable cause to snuff out the life of a person which God considers as sacred.

Concerned The Christian-the not so liberated:why did the romans forgot to throw you to the lions?

Qasim Omar,you are Jonathan Pollard the Spy,why hide your name?

what is a muzzie for progressive values? i have gone to the site and i dont see one mission statement about waht it actually means? does it mean that they dont want to force conversions? does it mean that they dont believe in hate for jews, christiand and hindu's? exactly what does it mean, in practical day to day living.

russell d:
if it was a priest posting the responses would be anti catholic.
quit being the victim.

Volume 3, Book 49, Number 860:
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:

A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So, Unais went and stoned her to death.

The line
"O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws."
certainly proves Mohammed was the lawmaker and enforcer and he is evil because this law is evil.

Danny wrote:
So why can't I comment on that post too? We wouldn't even be talking if you had not butted into my conversation with your unfounded claims in the first place. I've certainly given you much more deference than I truly believe you deserve, considering.

You can comment on any posts of mine, but in that post I did not make that any of allegations or arguments that you accuse me of.

Ross,

I have no way of knowing whether the Jews in fact did practice stoning to death women caught in adultery (according to the book of Deuteronomy) in the time of Jesus. I'm not sure if the incident mentioned in the Bible was merely an example of how the Pharisees challenged Jesus as they often did.

One thing is clear though, although Jesus did not approve of stoning to death, He did acknowledge adultery as grounds for divorce.

To highlight Mohammad's remorse at FROWNING and turning away from a man as a great act of virtue, while completing ignoring his acts which need real remorse (like ordering the killings, taking a child bride etc, etc), belittles the concept of sin and morality as other religions understand them.

Did Mohammad feel remorse about any of the actions that have been listed by those who have problems understanding the prophethood of Mohammad?

The question: considering Jesus Christ lived six hundred years before the birth of Mohammad, and Mohammad accepts all the Prophets of the Old Testament, and Jesus Himself at least as a Prophet, what exactly was unique about Mohammad's teaching that the Prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus did not teach? Christianity was well established long before Mohammad was born; the Bible had been written and the teachings of Jesus were available.

Comparing the weapons Mohammad used in his day and the weapons used today by secular governments in war does not make logical sense. Mohammad used the weapons that were available in his time. Whether it was right for a man who was known as a prophet to order killing is the question, not what weapons were used to carry out his orders.

Ross,

Re death as punishment for adultery: Before the time of Mohammad, punishment by death for adultery was part of Jewish Scripture and was probably practised, as the incident when a woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus proves. The reaction of Jesus proves that He neither approved of killing the adulteress by stoning nor the sin of adultery itself.

Death as punishment for adultery comes from the Old Testament, book of Deuteronomy, chapter 22, 13-25.

Verse 22: If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Of the whole moral code summed up in only Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17), two of them deal with adultery!

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not covet your neighbour’s wife.

From the New Testament:

You have heard that it was said, “Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

(Matthew 5:27-30)

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.” “Why then, “ they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. And if the woman divorces her husband and marries another man she commits adultery.”
(Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-12)

Advice to men in the Old Testament, Book of Proverbs:

Wisdom will save you also from the adulteress,
from the wayward wife with her seductive words,
who has left the partner of her youth
and ignored the covenant shw made before God.
For her house leads down to death
And her paths to the spirits of the dead.
None who go to her return
Or attain the paths of life.

(Proverbs 2:16-19)

My son, pay attention to my wisdom,
Listen well to my words of insight,
That you may maintain discretion
And your lips may preserve knowledge.
For the lips of an adulteress drip honey,
And her speech is smoother than oil;
But in the end she is bitter as gall
Sharp as a double-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
Her steps lead straight to the grave.
She gives no thought to the way of life;
Her paths are crooked, but she knows it not.
Keep to a path far from her,
Do not give your best strength to others
And your years to one who is cruel,
Lest strangers feast on your wealth
And your toil enrich another man’s house.
At the end of your life you will groan
When your flesh and body are spent.
And you will say, “How I hated discipline!
How my heart spurned correction!”
Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
For a man’s ways are in full view of the Lord,
And he examines all his paths,
The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him;
The cords of his sin hold him fast.
He will die for lack of discipline,
Led astray by his own great folly.

(Proverbs 5:1-12, 20-23)

My son, keep your father’s commands
And do not forsake your mother’s teaching.
Bind them upon your heart forever;
Fasten them around your neck.
When you walk, they will guide you;
When you sleep, they will watch over you;
When you awake they will speak to you.
For these commands are a lamp,
This teaching is a light,
And the corrections of discipline
Are the way to life,
Keeping you from the immoral woman,
From the smooth tongue of the wayward wife.
Do not lust in your heart after her beauty
Or let her captivate you with her eyes,
For the prostitute reduces you to a load of bread,
And the adulteress preys upon your very life.
Can a man scoop fire into his lap
Without his clothes being burned?
Can a man walk on hot coals
Without his feet being scorched?
So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife;
No one who touches her will go unpunished.

A man who commits adultery lacks judgement;
Whoever does so destroys himself.
Blows and disgrace are his lot,
And his shame will never be wiped away;
For jealousy arouses a husband’s fury,
And he will show no mercy when takes revenge.
He will not accept any compensation;
He will refuse the bribe, however great it is.

(Proverbs 6:20-35)

Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
And call understanding your kinsman;
They will keep you from the adulteress,
From the wayward wife with her seductive words.

I noticed among the young men,
A youth who lacked judgement…
Then out came a woman to meet him
Dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent.
She is loud and defiant,
Her feet never stay at home;
Now in the street, now in the squares,
At every corner she lurks…
My husband is not at home;
He has gone on a long journey.
He took his purse filled with money
And will not be home till full moon.

With persuasive words she led him astray;
She seduced him with her smooth talk.
All at once he followed her
Like an ox going to the slaughter,
Like a deer stepping into a noose
Till an arrow pierces his liver.
Like a bird darting into a snare,
Little knowing it will cost him his life.

Now then my sons, listen to me;
Pay attention to what I say.
Do not let your heart turn to her ways
Or stray into her paths.
Many are the victims she has brought down;
Her slain are a mighty throng.
Her house is a highway to the grave,
Leading down to the chambers of death.

(Proverbs chapter 7)

Participation in this sort of discussion makes it clearer and clearer to me that Islam is a medieval set of beliefs incompatible with modern times. There're too much medieval in Mahammad's conduct and teachings, unlike the sheer universality of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I hope people can see that. Nothing in the behavior and teachings of My Lord is incompatible with our time and place. He said Love thy Neighbor, Turn the Other Cheek, He who is without Sin Cast the First Stone.

Mahammad said, Kill your enemies. Marry multiple wives. Take slaves.

Very medieval.

I'd like to amend my statement above:

If the woman knows the law and breaks it anyway, she should not be surprised at the outcome...whether the law is right or wrong.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing that he was right, just that the lone fact that a punishment is ordered based on the breaking of an existing law does not, by itself, make the enforcer evil. This does not say that the woman was otherwise a saint who made a slight mistake either. And simply saying he was evil with no other facts is not really proving anything at all.

With full context, it may seem to be the case that the punisment did fit the crime based on the time and place.

It's just a piece of a story.

Ross,

"Islam is much more than the 5 pillars and stoning is part of the sharia law based on the quran."

Again...your excerpt does not say this. It ONLY says he ordered the stoning of an adultress. You demand that I take your word for everything else.

I found this:

"There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws pertaining to Sharia. It is more like a system of devising laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent."

So if it is not a "rule book" where I can look and find "Adulterers will be stoned to death", and have it date to the time of the story you quote...how do you know this for sure?

"Why should I have to explain his evil deed ? What I have is a hadith where Mo commands a woman to be put to death. It you believe it is incorrect or inaccurate please explain to me why ?"

If the woman knows the law and breaks it anyway, she should not be surprised at the outcome. Wouldn't that be true of anyone breaking the law today? Why is this different? The story does not say, and you don't say why he is evil when she broke a law and he enforced the punishent. I'm not saying he wasn't because you provide nothing to determine that either. I never said I thought it was incorrect or inaccurate, I said I won't just take YOUR word for it.

I know Pamela responds to your posts directly, and I certainly would not want to seem like I wouldn't want her to, or that she shouldn't. This is a public board though.

So why can't I comment on that post too? We wouldn't even be talking if you had not butted into my conversation with your unfounded claims in the first place. I've certainly given you much more deference than I truly believe you deserve, considering.

Danny wrote:
It doesn't say that, you do.

Mo did not follow any other God but Allah, all the stoning was done in accordance to islamic laws. Following any other law but the law of Allah was considered blasphemy.

Islam is much more than the 5 pillars and stoning is part of the sharia law based on the quran.

Danny wrote:
You don't provide any of the story explaining his reasoning.
But I asked YOU, did he make an error or regret this? You don't provide any more of the story, or insight.

Why should I have to explain his evil deed ? What I have is a hadith where Mo commands a woman to be put to death. It you believe it is incorrect or inaccurate please explain to me why ?

Danny wrote:
It IS a way of avoiding having to explain your claims. Why should she debate him when you make the lame claims?

The post is clear, all the allegations are made by Ali Sina (I agree with him) the point was to invite Pamela to debate Ali whose knowledge about islam is far greater than mine and who has debated famous muslims.
If Pamela wishes to respond to my claims she is welcome to do so (she often does).

Ross,

"She was stoned according to the rules of islam and not by the laws of the ancient world. "

It doesn't say that, you do.

"Mohammad was not following any ancient law but the law created by himself. Are you even aware he was the absolute ruler of his tribe ?"

It doesn't say that, and no I didn't know that (but admit that, and am not making the claims).
Furthermore, hundreds of years earlier, I think it was JESUS who saved an adultress from stoning. So it was a once every five hundred years occurrence?

"why must a prophet with a 24/7 access to the Almighty Allah have to sentence people to death ?"

I don't know. You don't provide any of the story explaining his reasoning. Nor do you explain why his reasoning was wrong because you don't say or show what it was.

"The religion this man created orders apostates and those who commit adultery to be put to death."

Another claim you don't back up. I am familiar with the Five Pillars of Islam, and that is not one of them. If I am wrong, which I am comfortable with, please explain to me how those "orders" factor in...apart from those quotes referring to warfare in an ACTUAL war.

"Why must a man receiving continous revelations and advice from Allah make such a grave error ?"

Good question. Why doesn't God make prophets divine on Earth? But I asked YOU, did he make an error or regret this? You don't provide any more of the story, or insight.

"Many others like Deb have commented about that post."

Ha, that's the most REVEALING thing you've said so far. What, you think I don't know who Deb is? That makes the whole "disappearing post" comment sound a lot better, though.

"Please reread that post, it was addressed to Pamela and no way related to the post addressed to you. "

Yes, I know. But since I am not the only one you don't explain yourself to (I did read Pamela's posts in the other threads), the comment is relevant. It IS a way of avoiding having to explain your claims. Why should she debate him when you make the lame claims?

I know you didn't actually blame Pamela for your post disappearing...just having fun at your expense there...but, "I do not know who was responsible for having it removed but the did have an affect on Pamel" was you. I didn't see her post anything about being affected, and you don't really have a post to show.

Just a claim...(where have I heard that before?)

Assalam mualaikum Imam Pamela Taylor,

Always a pleasure to read your articles.

We should personally seek forgiveness from those we have offended, transgressed and trespassed. Whether we are sincere in asking for forgiveness and in repenting for our acts, whether they accept the apology or not is another matter. But God the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful, forgive us all if we are true in our intent, even if our fellow men would not.

Peace be with you

Danny wrote:
Was it uncommon to stone women for committing adultry in the ancient world? Is this the only time it ever happened?

She was stoned according to the rules of islam and not by the laws of the ancient world. Even if it happened in other cultures it does mean it is the right thing.

Danny wrote:
According to this, the prophet ordered the execution, but did not perform it. Governors today do the same thing when they decline to sign a stay of execution. He did not tell anyone that they should judge and execute an adultress on their own.

What further explanation does one need, The verse is clear: the so called messenger of Allah sentenced a woman to death. Governers do not receive revelations from Allah. Governers do not create their own religions.

Mohammad was not following any ancient law but the law created by himself. Are you even aware he was the absolute ruler of his tribe ?
why must a prophet with a 24/7 access to the Almighty Allah have to sentence people to death ?
What was the crime of this woman ?
Why could'nt he forgive this woman ?

The religion this man created orders apostates and those who commit adultery to be put to death.

Just because he did not carry it out personally does not mean he is not responsible.

Danny wrote:
The prophet was not a Messiah, was he not capable of error? Did he regret this later? There is nothing to explain his decision or action here, so why did he do it?

Why must a man receiving continous revelations and advice from Allah make such a grave error ?

Danny wrote:
C'mon Ross, I didn't come here to laugh (I have chapped lips, and it hurts).

If you read the send post (made by pamela) you will notice references to my original post, that should be sufficient evidence. Many others like Deb have commented about that post.

---------------------------------------
Deb Chatterjee:
I was too quick my adulations. The Sayyid Qutb stuff which aroused my admiration was from Ross and not Pamela. Ross, a wonderful job ! Keep it up buddy !

However, Pamela has truly been busted by Ross. Anyway, Pamela is still honest with her quotes by as Ansar points out she maybe guilty of "bidaah" in that she is choosy on what makes her happy and comfortable with Islam. That, again is deception as we know.

But, still Pamela congratulations. Maybe you will realize that all on faithfreedom are not fools.

Good luck to you.

Posted April 24, 2007 12:39 PM
---------------------------------------

Danny wrote:
STILL having not explained yourself, you post:
"The challenge is:
Disprove my accusations against Muhammad."
And you attempt to divert the attention from yourself, and onto someone else.

Please reread that post, it was addressed to Pamela and no way related to the post addressed to you. The sentence
"The challenge is: Disprove my accusations against Muhammad."
Is not mine, I was quoting Ali Sina. If you follow the link to the FFI page you will find it there.

Danny wrote:
blame Pamela and her "Post Erasing Conspiracy" against ONLY YOU

Where in post did I blame Pamela ???

Ross,

There you go again...sound bites.

I Googled your excerpt as you cited it (Book 38, Number 4426)and it takes me to a website that does just what you do. Presents a bunch of sensational quotes, removed from their contexts.

What is before and after that excerpt?

That's the whole, stand-alone story, beginning, middle and end?

Was it uncommon to stone women for committing adultry in the ancient world? Is this the only time it ever happened? It's still illegal in some States today (although not punishable by death).

According to this, the prophet ordered the execution, but did not perform it. Governors today do the same thing when they decline to sign a stay of execution. He did not tell anyone that they should judge and execute an adultress on their own.

Did the prophet have political power too?

Why is that not metaporical, a parable, creative imagery using images ancient people would recognize?

The prophet was not a Messiah, was he not capable of error? Did he regret this later? There is nothing to explain his decision or action here, so why did he do it?

That's what I mean when I ask if you can explain your claims in context. I'm fully aware that you can copy parts of books. Why you don't get it is beyond me.

You also wrote:

"Pamela explanations have been rubbished by many in all her articles."

If that were true, I'd have more to work with. There has never been a back-and-forth on the subject of Islam since I came to these threads. Pamela responds, and everyone digs up more excerpts. Not a response.

Why you are so defensive when asked to explain your allegations?

Then:

In fact one of my posts to her articles was removed by washington post. I do not know who was responsible for having it removed but the did have an affect on Pamela.

C'mon Ross, I didn't come here to laugh (I have chapped lips, and it hurts).

I guess it's soooo good, you can't even SEE it! Unless you channelled it, couldn't you re-post it, if it's THAT good? Are you serious? Maybe the dog ate it.

Why even bother to say that?

I followed your link and did an "F search" on your name. Almost all instances of it are when Pamela tells you that you are doing just what I am calling you out on here.

THEEEEEEEN....

STILL having not explained yourself, you post:

"The challenge is:
Disprove my accusations against Muhammad."

And you attempt to divert the attention from yourself, and onto someone else.

OK, guilty until proven innocent is the mode of the day is it? So you make allegations that you are parroting from others, can't explain them, blame Pamela and her "Post Erasing Conspiracy" against ONLY YOU, and then demand to be proven wrong with someone else arguing your side...just to avoid having to prove yourself right?

What's up Ross?

Victoria and Like Thinkers,

How goes the cleansing/atonement of/for your "prophet" (dtub i.e. death to unbelievers)? You should start your own religion. Pray x times a day and skip over all the militant and anti-female passages of the Koran(asfa i.e as stolen from the ancients). What should you call it? Ostrichism!!

Debate with Ali Sina
---------------------

Ms. Taylor,

Ali Sina has said the following on his website:
---------------------------------------------
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

The challenge is:
Disprove my accusations against Muhammad.

I accuse Muhammad of being:
a rapist
a pedophile (had sex with a child)
an assassin
a mass murderer
a ruthless torturer
a terrorist (I have been made victorious through terror)
a lecher
a misogynist
a narcissist
a thief and plunderer
a cult leader
a mentally deranged (was paranoid, heard voices, hallucinated of seeing jinns, Satan and angels, used to think he had sex with his wives when he did not, suffered from depression and had suicidal tendencies).
------------------------------------------

Will you agree to a debate with Ali Sina (or certain other members of FFI) to disprove any of these accusations ?

You can make the posts right here.

I have asked you because unlike Esposito or Karen Armstrong you atleast have tried to respond to every allegation made by the posters.

Will you accept the challenge ?

Danny wrote:
But answering a question with a question doesn't say anything about YOUR claims. That is what is in question. I can listen, and am not making ANY claims about Islam. You are the one who implies that you know what you are talking about.

I answered your question first by providing you with two examples, one of them is was

1.Stoning to death for adultery.

Narrated Imran ibn Husayn: Book 38, Number 4426:

A woman belonging to the tribe of Juhaynah (according to the version of Aban) came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said that she had committed fornication and that she was pregnant. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) called her guardian. Then the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said to him: Be good to her, and when she bears a child, bring her (to me). When she gave birth to the child, he brought her (to him). The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) gave orders regarding her, and her clothes were tied to her. He then commanded regarding her and she was s t o n e d to d e a t h.

I have used islamic sources and all I can see is an evil man condemning a MOTHER to death. Has Pamela got any explanation for this ?

Danny wrote:
You know as well as I do that scholars and politicians are rarely, if ever, the same people.

Stoning in Saudi was instituted by Mohammad.

Danny wrote:
People under the governments you allude to are not free, like us.

That is because they are based on this evil ideology called islam, the same cult that Pamela belongs to and defends.

Danny wrote:
As far as you snidely quoting my use of "proper context", I am asking YOU to use one, since you never do. I never stated what the proper context was (since I don't claim to know), and am asking YOU, since you seem to think you know what you are talking about in making the empty claims you do. And I say "empty", because you refuse...even up to your very last post....to explain yourself, only accuse.

Again coming back to the previous example (stoning), my claim that Mo was evil is based on the verse provided I believe I have enough knowledge to distinguish good from evil. Common sense is all that is required to see the truth here.

Danny wrote:
I'd be more inclined to hear what you have to say in response to what Pamela answers when these claims are made. Strangely that's where everyone goes back to the first thing they said again. Instead of repeating the same old thing over and over, with no more evidence than clippings of scripture, why not show us what you claim to actually know. I have never read a claim from you that is not, by definition, an opinion.

Pamela explanations have been rubbished by many in all her articles. In fact one of my posts to her articles was removed by washington post. I do not know who was responsible for having it removed but the did have an affect on Pamela.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/pamela_k_taylor/2007/04/words_for_the_week_on_jihad.html#comments

Ross,

You know as well as I do that scholars and politicians are rarely, if ever, the same people.

People under the governments you allude to are not free, like us.

The scholars you talk about are not the government.

I'd be more inclined to hear what you have to say in response to what Pamela answers when these claims are made. Strangely that's where everyone goes back to the first thing they said again. Instead of repeating the same old thing over and over, with no more evidence than clippings of scripture, why not show us what you claim to actually know. I have never read a claim from you that is not, by definition, an opinion.

As far as you snidely quoting my use of "proper context", I am asking YOU to use one, since you never do. I never stated what the proper context was (since I don't claim to know), and am asking YOU, since you seem to think you know what you are talking about in making the empty claims you do. And I say "empty", because you refuse...even up to your very last post....to explain yourself, only accuse.

I would summarize Islam, as one who knows little (and won't flatter myself to think I know more than I do) in the following way:

Islam is a non-christian, monotheistic religion founded by Mohammed, who is believed to be a prophet by the faithful.

But answering a question with a question doesn't say anything about YOUR claims. That is what is in question. I can listen, and am not making ANY claims about Islam. You are the one who implies that you know what you are talking about.

Nice try.

Danny wrote:
I also won't reduce Islam to "So says Ross".

Could you please explain those claims, in the proper context? I emphasize context because you bring nothing new to the table, nothing that hasn't been said repeatedly.

Pamela replies with context to some of the sound bites provided in these posts, and the only response is dismissive.
--------------------------------------

Since you claim to have read and understood Pamela posts about islam and the prophet in the "proper context" how would you summarize islam and the character of the prophet ?

Danny,

PLEASE IGNORE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT, THERE IS SOME AWFUL GRAMMER IN IT, here is what is should read.

Stoning to death for adultery has always been the punishment in Saudi where the sharia (quran based) law is practiced ever since Mo founded islam.

What does Pamela have to say about it ?

If she thinks it is unislamic then why should we accept her argument over the hundreds of islamic scholars over centuries who believe it is right ?

Danny,

Stoning is to death for adultery has always been the punishment is Saudi where the sharia (quran based) law is practiced ever since Mo founded islam.

What does Pamela have to say about it ?

If she thinks it is unislamic then why should we accept her argument over the hundreds of islamic scholars over centuries who believe it is right ?

Strangely people are accused of cherry picking only when the evil verses are quoted, why are the so called good verses never out of context ?
and what makes Pamela sure sure that she has the right context ?

It is Pamela who buries her head in the sand when these allegations are made against the prophet. Mainstream islamic preachers do not deny the concept of jihad or the actios of Mo, infact they a proud of it !!! These include Ayatollah's in Iran. Only recently people like Pamela have emerged to become the Islamic PR team in the west. Sufficient allegations along with the relevant verses have proving the evil acts of this prohet have already been discussed in the preceding articles, but if you want more than here are two:

1.Stoning to death for adultery.

Narrated Imran ibn Husayn: Book 38, Number 4426:

A woman belonging to the tribe of Juhaynah (according to the version of Aban) came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said that she had committed fornication and that she was pregnant. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) called her guardian. Then the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said to him: Be good to her, and when she bears a child, bring her (to me). When she gave birth to the child, he brought her (to him). The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) gave orders regarding her, and her clothes were tied to her. He then commanded regarding her and she was s t o n e d to d e a t h.

2. Killing of Critics.

This lady troubled Muhammad and he wanted her silenced:

Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him Umayr "Basir" (the seeing).

I also won't reduce Islam to "So says Ross".

Could you please explain those claims, in the proper context? I emphasize context because you bring nothing new to the table, nothing that hasn't been said repeatedly.

Pamela replies with context to some of the sound bites provided in these posts, and the only response is dismissive.

Could you back up claims like yours with some kind of evidence (besides the typical cherry-picked quotes from scripture), please.

Danny B. wrote:
I certainly don't think old men sould marry children, but will not reduce all of Islam to the ridiculous statement; It is a religion founded by a pedophile.

It is a religion founded by a pedophile.
AND
A man who murdered his critics.
AND
A man who married the wives of men he beheaded.
AND
A man who destroyed the jewish tribes of arabia.
AND
A man who coveted their wealth.
AND
A man who made slaves of their children.
AND
A man who ordered those who rejected his cult to be put to death.
AND
A man who ordered those who committed adultery be put to death.
AND
A man who ordered his followers to treat people of other religions as dhimmis.
AND
A man who had different set of rules for himself and his followers.
AND
A man who commanded his follower to wage jihad till all the unbelievers were subjugated by islam.

Anonymous,

I appreciate your response.

I was more trying to emphasize the different time and place aspect of judging Mohammed and Aisha's marriage. I agree with what your are saying, but don't feel that it is used correctly in assesing the value of the whole of Islam, as many posters attempt to do.

I don't think any 15 year-old girl should be married, ever! But in the time and place my grandmother came from, a girl at home has to supported. A single adult man needs a wife to take care of the household. By marrying her he assumes the financial responsibilty for her, and she, with no real education or career prospects still has a means of support and provides some finacial reief to her family.

That was the 1920's in a very, very rural town with a population of 500 or so, and nothing else for miles.

It was what it was.

I can't accurately judge that by the standards of the time and place I was raised in, thus it is not sufficient in summing up Islam by saying it was founded by a pedophile.

I believe Qasim Omar misses my point too. I am not equating Coca-cola to the prophet, I am pointing out that what we call things today does not accurately describe what they were in another time and place.

A pharmacist from the turn of the 20th century would have dispensed things like heroine, and today we would call that same man a "pusher", or a criminal.

I certainly don't think old men sould marry children, but will not reduce all of Islam to the ridiculous statement; It is a religion founded by a pedophile.

You also stated: From what I understand, this is how the Muslims come to terms with uncomfortable details of the life of their prophet. He was the prophet, so everything he did was unquestioningly right. A prophet can never be wrong and can never be questioned, so they don't. So they don't face a moral conflict. Only non-Muslims have a problem with that.

With ALL due respect, and I have taken some criticism for this, what I understand (let alone know) is so little that I will not jump to conclusions. Please look at Pamela's post further above yours (and mine for that matter).

If I were to go by her explanation, your understanding is mistaken.

The prophet was human and capable of error and sin. Muslims do not believe the Mohammed was a Messiah, he was a prophet. Just as they acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, not a Messiah.

Another argument I see here frequently is that the pedohile founder could do no wrong in the eyes of the faithful. According to what I have gathered from Pamela, not only is that not true, it seems that value is found in learning from the mistakes of this HUMAN prophet.

Dear Ms Taylor

Since the Pope’s apology or the non-apology as some prefer to call it, is part of this week’s question, I am doing a cut and paste job of the part of his speech which caused the great upset around the world. I hope that Muslims and non-Muslims alike will have an opportunity to examine his speech critically and voice their opinion on your thread. And maybe you have a thought or two to add as well.

Pope Benedict XVI in his ‘Meeting with the representatives of science,’ Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006, gave the lecture titled, “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections.”

From that speech:

“It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn… The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

“I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

“In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.” …

“The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

“At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry…

“The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”

The whole speech can be read here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

An invitation to Muslims and non-Muslims to express critical comments:

Points to note:

Please read the lecture in its entirety before making comments, so as not to miss the context.
Please read the Pope's statements which caused furore in the context of the whole speech. The topic was ‘faith and reason’, not Islam.

The Pope was NOT issuing a papal statement or delivering an official papal speech.

The Pope was visiting his university where he had been a professor for several years and the talk was privately addressed to the faculty at the university.

The German Muslims it seems had very little problem understanding the context of the Pope’s statements. They agreed that it was a diplomatic blunder to have forgotten that as a Pope even a private lecture at a university at which he had taught for many years, had political ramifications. But they did not hold it against the Pope for having given a lecture as any university lecturer would.

Would a Muslim university lecturer or any Muslim be held to account for mentioning the crusades in relation to Christianity, in the context of any lecture, discussion, whether private or public?

Pamela wrote,
PS. I know much is made of the "smite them in the necks" line -- but we are talking about battle with swords, there are limited targets... And really, is smiting someone in the neck much worse than, say, cluster bombing them to smithereens? Or dropping depleted plutonium warhead on them, seeding their lands with radioactive waste, causing cancers and birth defects for hundreds of years to follow?

How is comparing a prophet of God to moral humans fair? As I understand it, a prophet of God should teach exemplary morality, not conduct himself just like any garden variety warlord. But then Islam is quite an unusual religion in that regard, having been borne of violence and hatred in an age of barbarity.

How about forgiveness (to your enemies, not just to your supporters), peace and goodwill (to all mankind, not after you've killed your enemies), and justice (to everyone, not just for your favorite cause)?

That a prophet of God should smite anyone on the neck seems rather violent, but then that cannot be true since we're told ad nauseum that Islam is the religion of peace. Smiting someone over the neck = peace? I don't think so.

Parts four and five of the basic tenets of the Koran and the cleansing thereof:

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

A major item to delete. There are no books written in Heaven just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Danny B

From what I understand, this is how the Muslims come to terms with uncomfortable details of the life of their prophet. He was the prophet, so everything he did was unquestioningly right. A prophet can never be wrong and can never be questioned, so they don't. So they don't face a moral conflict. Only non-Muslims have a problem with that.

My grandmother and aunt were both fourteen when they married their nineteen year old partners. My mother was sixteen when she was forced to marry my father who was eleven years older than her. She always thought of him as an old man! (The age difference remained because my mother always looked extremely young and people were always asking her if her husband was her father!) The fact that my father was very handsome and came from a very prestigious family didn't help (which is why her parents wanted their only daughter to marry him in the first place!). To a sixteen year old girl, a twenty seven year old man was old, at least to my mother he seemed old!!!

How does a six year old child feel about being married to a fifty year old man, and having the marriage consummated when she is only nine years old? That is the question! Does it matter to a six year old child that the man is known as a prophet? That is the question!

Danny B

Your attempt at trying to understand the Muslim standpoint is laudable. But in trying to do that don't take leave of your reasoning and common sense. There are many of us out there genuinely interested in good relations with Muslims, respect their right to choose any way to God, call God by any other name, and who are convinced that there are millions of good Muslims.

But the issues raised and problems lie in a different area.

Human physiology: Girls usually reach menarche between the ages of 12.5 to 14.5. Onset of puberty (with development of secondary sexual characteristics), which is only the beginning of sexual maturation, starts two to four years prior to that. It is only when the girl has reached menarche is she sexually mature to bear a child. Onset of puberty and reaching menarche varies with the climate, but the difference is not that large. In the Middle East the age has been set between 12-13, and it is higher in colder climates. The point to note is that in earlier times, these ages were higher, NOT lower. The lowering of the age in modern times is due to better diet, better health, and possibly use of hormones in animal feed. When puberty occurs earlier, it is called precocious puberty. But that is not a natural state.

In cultures where child marriages was the norm: 1. BOTH the partners were children. 2. Even though the children might have been bethrothed or an actual marriage ceremony conducted when they were children, they did NOT live together as couples until after the girl had reached menarche, in other words was sexually mature to bear a child. The child bride lived with her parents until she had reached menarche.

Considering the age of reaching menarche was between 12 and 14.5 years of age in those days, it was normal for many girls between the ages of 14 and 15 to be mothers. Their partners it should be emphasised were not much older. The young couples were part of joint families, and did not fend for themselves.

It is inconceivable that your grandmother had not reached menarche when she married your grandfather (she could not have borne a child if she had not). It is also inconceivable that your grandfather was old enough to be your grandmother's grandfather when he married her.

It is up to you to come to terms with the fact that the issue being discussed here is completely different from the case of your grandparents.

Pamela,
In the very early days the Muslims ransomed their captives. But later on the captives were made into slaves.

Russell D,
It's like saying 'make Nazism' into a tolerant socially-responsive, lovey-dovey, liberal philosophy.

It ain't gonna happen, bro.

Islam has had 14 centuries to turn itself into a modern liberal philosophy and not one straight out of the 7th century.

How much more time does it need? Our lives are not that long that we can afford to wait any longer.

---

Danny B,
Good to know that your grandmother's husband who was 11 years her senior was not a prophet of God and the guide to humanity.

Good to know that we don't invoke his name and memory every day.

Good to know that you can't avoid bringing in red herrings like Coca Cola which also isn't a moral guide to humanity.

Coca Cola, hallowed be thy name.

Apparently a 53 year old man having sex with a nine year old child is not disgusting to you.

Taking your relativist argument let us consign Muhammad and his teachings to history since his behavior and consequently his teachings were only suitable for the barbaric 7th century.

But you won't do that: on the one hand Muhammad was the perfect human being, the moral guide to humanity for ever. On the other hand his behavior and teachings were suitable for his time and place.

Hey, they sure are not suitable for my time and place.

---

Pamela and Danny B,

So you think it is okay for a prophet, a moral guide to humanity, to take captives after he has made slaughter in the land?

Of course, I see... Islam is the religion of peace. There is peace when the enemies of Islam are defeated, killed or enslaved.

Hmmm... very peaceful.

No thank you.

Pam,

Ok, at least now you admit that the "prophet" was human better than us though? Right? Wrong!!!!

The guy was a hallucinating illiterate with a militaristic agenda to plunder and loot the lands of the unbelievers. His Koranic scribes simply plagiarized passages from the OT, NT and the books of the ancients. You should use quotes/parables from these books not the Koran.

Better we are the Big Brothers vs. having the Third Reich and/or the USSR as our rulers. God bless America and her foundations!!!!

Right on LKT!

I haven't been proud of my country in a looooong time. Namely for the decisions made in the last few years. And how uptight we all are.

Seems Americans don't know how to live. Everything is so controlled, and guided by rules. Let loose everyone! Have some fun!

When I married, my parents cautioned me "never go to sleep without having settled an argument." That was something that I took to heart as my parents rarely made such an absolute statement about conduct that I should observe, in my marriage. Sometimes it was difficult to accomplish that goal. My husband tended to want to forgive and forget so he could go to sleep, but when he had angered and upset me, I needed to talk it through before I could "kiss and make up." Sometimes discussion lead to more arguing before we could really listen and hear each other's viewpoints and then we might be talking for a couple hours and covering a lot of old history as well.

After 42 years of marriage, I still find that I am following that principle. Is it necessary? Now, it has become somewhat automatic. I know I cannot sleep if I do not try to solve the problem, whether he is angry with me or vise versa. Sometimes it is not anger so much as hurt feelings or diappointment that needs to be addressed.

How does that extrapolate into the discussion here? It is not easy to apologize, to forgive, to accept love when you feel unloved, but... discussion of the differences between us has led to peace and the ability to weather many storms. DISCUSSION! Isn't that a lot of what is missing in the world? People who make stupid statements in a public setting are revealing a lot about themselves that allows a discerning public to withhold a vote for a certain candidate, turn off the radio on a talk show host,or refuse to read a certain blogger or respondee to a blog (such as this one.) I'm not saying that a normal person does not once in awhile resort to a cutting comment in a blog reply, but there is a difference between being a bit caustic and really revealing prejudice, hatred, intolerance, ignorance, and unwillingness to sit at the table for discussion. How can we learn from others if we do not meet them halfway with a willingness to believe that they sincerly think that what they say is true for themselves. IF they are trying to ram their views down my throat, I turn off very quickly.

Back to my marriage.... we could learn from the lesson my parents taught me. Don't leave an argument unresolved. Have a discussion. Have a debate. Agree to respect each other's views and maybe some solutions might be the end result. 42 years of marriage by two people who are very different is an accomplishment which we are both proud of. Think how it must have felt when the forefathers of our country wrote the constitution of the United States. How proud and pleased they must have been with their accomplishment, even though at that point there was only one side -- independence. How did out political system get so distorted that it is a war to get agreement on what is best for our country? Is it so unclear what is best for the people of the United States? Can we not reach a "gentlemen's agreement" on the most basic issues? Peace and harmony should be the goals not name calling and polarization.

I was not ashamed of my country until I began to travel in Europe at age 35, but I have learned a lot from over 30 years of observing how the rest of the world views us. We have become the Big Brother trying to run the rest of the world and force them to fit into our mold. Of course we profit ourselves, the whole while portraying the US as the savior of the world. Not what I love our country for! Not what I am proud of!

Thank you Wiccan and Danny (and others). Some days it feels like a pointless attempt.

Did the Prophet ever atone for sins?

First, did the Prophet sin? Devout Muslims would agree that he did not commit major sins (faithlessness to God, murder, theft, adultery, and so on.) Rather, The Prophet was an example of a human being striving to fulfill the commands of his God, who from time to time made mistakes. Indeed, by design, prophets are not perfect. (despite the feeling on the part of both many Muslims and non-Muslims that they should be).

This makes sense. After all, no human being is perfect, and to send a perfect person as an example would rather doom everyone afterwards to disillusionment with their own capabilities. And it would deprive us all of examples of how to deal with one's own shortcomings.

So what did the Prophet do in response to his missteps? A famous and oft-quoted example is the case of Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum.

The story goes that the Prophet was sitting with some influential men of Mecca, when Abdullah, who was blind, came seeking an explanation about a part of the Qur'an. The Prophet turned away, frowned, and ignored him. Subsequently, he was rebuked by the following revelation:

80:1-11 (1)HE FROWNED and turned away, (2)because the blind man approached him!(3) Yet for all you know, he might perhaps have grown in purity,(4) or taken heed and been helped by this reminder. (5) But as for him who believes himself to be self-sufficient(6) to him you gave your full attention,(7) although you are not accountable for his failure to attain to purity; (8) but as for him who came to you full of eagerness (9) and in awe(10) him you disregarded! (11) Nay! Verily, these messages are but a reminder!

Thereafter, the Prophet acknowledged his error and was accustomed to greeting Abdullah with, "Welcome unto him on whose account my Sustainer has rebuked me."

He went on to honor Abdullah by appointing him as one of two muezzins (the person who calls the faithful to prayer) of the community. And when the Prophet was away from Medina, he appointed Abdullah to lead the prayers, and manage the affairs of the city, in his stead.

"Danny B.:
Russell D,

"Pamela makes good points, and yet you find a way to renounce her faith and claim she has no right to say what she says. That's bull. Get over yourselves."

I couldn't agree more. It's really tiresome, and juvenile."

Gentlemen,

Count me in. It's getting so that if I see certain names I just skip over the post, because there will be no substance there, only a rant.

Pamela,

I really appreciate it when you make other posts on the thread to explain or clarify what has been misunderstood. I have learned so much from you, and knowledge is one of the greatest gifts anyone can receive.

The verses about taking captives in war are clarified by 47:4:

"When you meet the disbelievers in battle, smite their necks, and when they are defeated, secure their bonds -- later, release them by grace or by ransom so that the burdens of war are laid down."

Clearly the Qur'an is talking about prisoners of war, not permanent slaves -- and the command is after the war to release them by grace, or to ransom them (in a prisoner swap, for instance). Does that mean every Muslim general has followed this command, heck no. But the book stands clear on what should be done.

PS. I know much is made of the "smite them in the necks" line -- but we are talking about battle with swords, there are limited targets... And really, is smiting someone in the neck much worse than, say, cluster bombing them to smithereens? Or dropping depleted plutonium warhead on them, seeding their lands with radioactive waste, causing cancers and birth defects for hundreds of years to follow?

That's me there above...sorry.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

"Did Mohammed ever atone for his sins?"

If you were typically more prolific, I would credit you with asking this rhetorically (It takes more than typing a schwa).

Since you are definitely not; You know so darned much about Islam, you tell me smarty-pants.

Qasim Omar,

"Of course I blame the religion. After all the message of this religion is pretty horrendous. Want an example?

8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise."

The problem I have is that when people, like Pamela, provide the context that these "sound bites" are taken from the only response...EVERY TIME...is, "Nu-uh".

No one EVER, I mean NEVER, follows up with a different "take" on the context. It is ALWAYS, "That doesn't make a difference".

If I considered a T-shirt and Bumpersticker boutique to be on a level with say...A LIBRARY...one might be able to trick me into some sort of agreement.

Atonement is part of apology and repentance.

The definition:

a·tone·ment (ə-tōn'mənt)
n.
Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.

Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.
Atonement Christianity. The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.

Professor Crossan's take on the Christian theology of atonement:

From his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Did Mohammed ever atone for his sins?

Russell D,

"Pamela makes good points, and yet you find a way to renounce her faith and claim she has no right to say what she says. That's bull. Get over yourselves."

I couldn't agree more. It's really tiresome, and juvenile.

Qasim Omar,

Her husband was not my grandfather. She divorced her first husband, and married my grandfather second.

Both were much older than her though. My grandfather was 11 years her senior.

Prophet or not, my point is that different cultures and millenia cannot be acurately judged necessarily by the standards of our own.

Someone selling heroin today is a drug dealer and felon. A hundred years ago, they were pharmacists. Coca-Cola with cocaine in it was considered a health tonic, and a temperance drink. Today it would be contraband.

Marriage, for centuries, was primarily a business arrangement where the husband had all the power. Let's be frank about it. Now it is a consentual partnership, but in the history of marriage that is a relatively new concept. So, when assessing the marital relationship of a couple from 500 years ago, we cannot use the mindset of today and expect any accurate conclusions.

To use this as an argument against Islam is just not sound.

I would sooner err on the side of generosity in giving the benefit of the doubt that Islam is valid in inspiring millions of faithful. ESPECIALLY with people like Pamela claiming it to be so. She can speak intelligently on the subject, and I will continue to afford her respect in her views until (and I doubt this will ever happen) she gives me a clear reason not to.

"Mohammed was a pedophile" is such a petty claim, that it has no room in intelligent discourse on the subject.

I have seen a lot of anti-Islam talk in these pages, and I have seen doubts about Islam expressed much more intelligently than having to throw that trash in at all. If (phenominally big IF)I agreed with every point someone argued against Islam, the second they throw in that pedophile argument, they have lost ALL credibility with me.

I am not saying that Mo was a good guy. He probably did create Islam to fit his situation.

What I am saying is, turn it around. Make it a viable and good religion.

As for the verse.........like I said, it is about the people.

Russell D,
Islam is an emotive subject. One either hates it or loves it. It is a bit of a pity Pamela posts on the subject of Islam - which stirs up great emotions. So it is to be expected that there is great polarization of opinions on the subject of Islam.

However, I believe the validity of a religion has much to do with the sanctity of its founder. Why should anyone believe an absolute scoundrel is capable of transmitting the word of God? Would you believe that God would choose a mass murderer to be his prophet? Would you believe that God would choose a rapist as his prophet? Would you believe that God would choose a robber to be his prophet?

If you do then you have to conclude that God is okay with mass murder, rape and robbery. I for one refuse to believe that God is capable to condoning immoral acts, much less send an immoral person to teach us morality.

Oh, by the way, bringing up President Bush is a red herring. Bringing up Christianity is a tu quoque.

Of course I blame the religion. After all the message of this religion is pretty horrendous. Want an example?

8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

I think this verse is very nice, don't you?

Just wondering, why is it that everytime Pamela posts, her responses are filled with people who turn the conversation into hate for Islam?

Pamela makes good points, and yet you find a way to renounce her faith and claim she has no right to say what she says. That's bull. Get over yourselves. Christianity isn't perfect. Most religions aren't perfect. Wanna know why? Because of the people who practice them. All religions are diverse, mainly because of the people who choose to practice that religion. Don't blaim the faith for the actions of the followers.
As Pamela has pointed out time and time again, It's not so much the religion that is bad as is it's followers.

Next time you are in Church, or Mosque, or wherever it is you practice your faith, look around at the people there. What do you know about them? Do they sit quietly and wait for the service to start? Do they gossip about what The Robinson's did last weekend? Or what Sara is wearing to Church? Religion is fickle. People are fickle. The path a religion takes depends on the leaders of that faith. Same with government.

Yes, I blaim Bush for basically turning the rest of the world on us and having them call us morons. But I know that I am not a moron. Yet because of that man's actions, and the fact that he got re-elected, the rest of the world considers the U.S. a joke.

Sorry to go off topic like that, but I am just trying to make a point. Don't blaim the religion. Blaim the people. Not all people are bad. Not all people are good.

Danny B,
Was your grandfather a prophet of god and the moral guide to humanity for all time? If he wasn't then it is irrelevant whether he married a 15 year old or not.

Besides, 15 is not 9. There's a whole lot of difference.

BTW: what age was your grandfather when he married your grandmother?

You have just used a very Muslim excuse.

Forgiveness in islam for only 'true believer muslims',subjugated ones.
Christians,jews,all non-muslims and ever secular muslims,that means over ninety per cent of world population,have no right to be forgiven.

Cow chapter,those who reject Faith(only islam) and die rejecting,on them is the curse of Allah.verse 161
Spider chapter,is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith(only islam).verse 68
Islam curses non-muslims,unsubjugated ones.

If you are subjugated one,if you worship in arabic language 150 times in a month and if you leave your freedom such as written in verse 33.36,you might be forgiven.
Allah has no mercy for non-muslims,unsubjugated ones.

Besides,seems to me,translation and interpretation of Allah as God of christians is not correct.
They do blaspheme who say Allah is Christ.5.72.
Is it God of Christians??
I dont write much more about that which has no correlation with topic.

Pamela,

Regarding the story you tell of your children fighting, it reminds me of the single time my mother made my sister and I hug after a fight.

I think she also recognized the hollowness of the act. I remember still being so angry with my sister at the time that I would have sooner died than hug her, and it certainly did not make me "sorry".

Throughout subsequent years my mother did teach us in other ways (a lot by example), that working through our disagreements was imperative. She also taught us that holding a grudge was wrong, hurts everyone involved, and impacts innocent bystanders.

Thanks for your post. As always, very interesting.

To those using that perposterous "Mohammed was pedophile because of Aisha" argument to denounce Islam:

Besides being thorougly irrelevant in this thread, this is really just absurd! To denounce a whole faith with little more than that in your arsenal is a waste of bandwidth.

My Grandmother, in 1920's Missouri, was married with a child by the age of 15. By today's standard that would be considered pedophilia on the part of her husband. Parents today, allowing their daughter to be married that way, would be considered unfit.

That was less than a century ago. With hindsight and a 21st century sensibility, to judge a situation a millenium and a half old, and then apply it to the followers of that faith today is ridiculous.

Quasim Omar

Don't blame God, blame people who believe that evil done in the name of Islam are God's instructions. Mohammad probably had tomatoes in his ear when God was really speaking to him. Maybe sometimes Mohammad didn't have the tomatoes in his ear, that is where some of the good things he did or said comes from. Remember how he sometimes cried for forgiveness after he had sex with Aisha? He knew it was wrong!

Qasim Omar:

Don't be so hard on yourself. None of us is perfect.

I've always found that the apology only held up if the person genuinely tried not to re-offend. We shouldn't have to forgive the same person over and over again for doing the same thing, unless there is some reason that changing is beyond their control.
Too many seem to feel that a well-phrased apology frees them to go out and keep doing what they were doing in the first place

Will God apologize for foisting Muhammad onto us? We could do without a murderous, genocidal, ethnic-cleansing, sex-slaving pedophilic bandit to spread his religion on us.