One Land, One Law

ISLAM Vs THE WEST

It seems that there are certain “Domestic Dogs” who are barking from within their master’s house. They talk high of their “rotten” Democracy & speak against Islam by describing it as a “Terrorist” cult. That is exactly what cheap people do. I am asking them to come out of their mother’s lap & be men enough to speak on the stage. Not like hiding behind their computer screens & taking advantage of not being seen. This sickness is very common in America. Well ofcourse it is a “Land of Gays.” We Muslims have challenged the whole world to come have open dialogues with us. Anybody who has dared, we have made for him his life a misery because when we roar on the stage, they leak in their pants. Take an example of Jimmy Swaggart, the greatest evangelist of America. Our beloved, Sheikh Ahmad Deedat, busted him open from the back in the greatest debate of the century in his own America. Not to mention that few years later that Swaggart was caught in the act of adultery. Now nobody has enough sperm to come & have debate with us on the stage in front of the whole world. Sorry, I forgot. How can timid puppies compete with roaring lions.

As for those, gutless, spermless cowards (especially Americans) who think & speak against Islam, let me tell you that Islam is the best thing that has ever happened to this world. We are ready to lay down our life for it. We are not hypocrites like you. What you say, We are terrorists? I say yes, we are terrorists. And our enemy is not a Christian or Jew or a Hindu or America or Israel. But our enemy is anyone who spreads evil in this world whether muslim or non-muslim e.g. George Bush, the Satan. If somehow he comes in our hands, we are going to tear him apart. We know what his evil intentions are. That he is after our natural resources, e.g. the Oil. And we also know that it was he who did the September 11 attack and killed 3000 innocent Americans. We also know that his motive behind September 11 attacks was to capture the middle east territories and justify his hooliganism in the name of fight against terrorism. He is the one who makes us terrorists & then use sophisticated weapons against us. But we Muslims we are ready for any challenge. He will never succeed even if he uses nuclear bombs against us. And I say the real terrorism is in America where the gang wars are a normal routine. People are being murdered and mutilated for property & money & women. Son is killing the father, daughter is killing the mother. Racism - Blacks are still the underprivileged class. They are being harassed. America is actually a racist nation and is boasting about democracy. We know what democracy is all about. We see it. It is nothing but a beautiful carpet to cover up your filth. Instead of caring for our problems Bush should rather ponder about his own America where problems are unsurmountable. Americans shut their eyes and say it is too dark for anybody to see anything. But baby, we know everything. Listen everybody, despite being the most advanced country in the world, America is nothing but a stinking pile of steaming garbage. According to your UN statistics, America is the No.1 rapist country in the world. More than 90,000 cases of reported rapes take place in America. And experts say that this is only 50 % of the actual toll. This is the respect they give to their mothers & sisters & daughters. I wonder whether there are any virgins in America. And they say that we Muslims subjugate our women. They show a Taliban man beating his wife with a stick on TV with poor video quality. I sneer at them. We put our women on the highest throne of honour. Then they laugh at us by saying Why are we allowed to have four wives? I say we are allowed but not compelled. But it is your compulsion. You Americans, you are compelled to follow Islam because your statistics by American division of population say that there are about 5 million women more than men in America. If every man in America gets married, there will be 5 million women who can’t get husbands. And we know every man does not get married because your manpower is not upto mark. You have more than 50 million sodomites in your country. You call them gays. Another 50 million women can’t get husbands. And men are dying of smoking, drinking, accidents etc. And your prison population, 98% are men. Your problems are getting compounded. You say One man One wife? Now I see why your poor women are becoming Lesbians and prostitutes. And this problem is universal in all the Christian dominated countries. There are more than 40 million women in Christian countries more than men. Islam is their compulsion. More than 20 % of Americans commit incest with their mothers & sisters & daughters. I spit at such a country & such democracy. And the men have become freaks, mental freaks. Everytime I hear in the news, such n such woman was raped & ripped apart, such n such woman was raped & ripped apart in America. And the illegitimate children. You call them “b**tards”. By the way “b**tard” is not a vulgar term. It is used three times in the Bible – “The book of God”. Some experts say that “more than 60 % Americans are “b**tards” – i.e. the result of either pre marital sex or adultery or incest.” Woooh, I almost lost my senses. And drug addiction – that’s your passion. And alcoholism – beyond all limits. We muslims, I can boast, is the biggest community of teetotalers in the world. And your AIDS. Its like an epidemic in America. I suggest to all the people, when you go to America, keep your noses covered. Your pornography, adultery, discos & dances, fornication …. I can go on & on. And finally, the love that you shower upon your unripe children by molesting then - One of the biggest sins. The heart of a child is like a butter paper – it quivers very fast. Their soul is very pure & their mind is very innocent. And you play with their innocence? How can you do that?

I used America as a prototype to describe a typical democracy. Individual freedom is there, but this freedom very often makes the weak a social & political slave. Democracy is only for those who understand it & play games with it. If democracy cannot save the chastity of its people, then hell with such a democracy. We muslims may not be economically advanced or have a great infrastructure, but Islam gives us a system where we can enjoy social & political freedom & protection at the cost of a small amount of individual freedom. Our moral values are still intact & that is our criteria of development which makes America the most under-developed country in the world.

I say, Come, Talk to us. Talk to us. If you have the guts talk to us – ON THE STAGE. Talk to us in front of the whole world. Not from your mother’s lap, Talk to us. Debate with us and I will tell you what destruction democracy has brought to you. You have tried things. What are you? Look at you. You say democracy, I say you have failed. What you say – Communism. He destruction that Communism brought to Soviet Union, to China. You say Christianism, Hinduism, Judiaism, Marxism, Atheism …. What have you got? you haven’t got a thing. Shshshhsh.. everything brought destruction to the world and I will tell you how. Talk to me on the stage in front of the whole world.

Imraan Sheykh
Kashmir

So-called *islamic bank* is a manipulation.
Islam forbids *Reeba*,not interest of Bank.What *Muamalat Bank* gives as *Profit share* is not so much different from the interest/premium of Citibank.

Besides,there are not Human Rights and Contemporary Values in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Indonesia is not Australia,but the land of cannibals(Borneo,New Guinea).
Pancasila is the empty word.
1-Belief in the one and only God(not God,but Allah)
2-Just and Civilised humanity(?),in which islamic country ??
Internationalism doesnt mean Cosmopolitanism.What does it mean ?
Islam rejects Internationalism.Islamic *justice* means Sharia Law and it strongly refuses Human Rights.

!
>))))2)0)0)8))))) "NO-SHARIA!"
!
!
!
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

VOTE:
NO' Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Caste System(s)!
NO Rule By BiBLE, GiTA, QURAN!
NO Putting Down Woman Anywhere!

THANK YOU!

I believe that you are being dishonest about quoting a few hand-picked excerpts from the website, muslimmatters, while not mentioning the disclaimer on the article that op-eds don't represent the opinions of all writers. I agree the article was poorly written as well (the one you quoted, seems they were guest-writers), but other staff writers(so it seems) disagreed quite strongly in the comments.

And what does this have to do with THIS post in question? Mr. Amad merely suggested that these opinions do not represent majority of Muslims, and you have not refuted that point, have you? The organization Ms. Pamela represents is disliked and completely abandoned by mainstream Muslims. This is fact, not fiction.

Amad-

Thanks for pointing me to-

http://muslimmatters.org/

Interesting reading and very informative to the western reader, ie:

Conversation with a Jinn-
I started of with the adhaan and some recitation from Qur’an until it, or she to be precise, agreed to talk to me. She was a female Jinnee named Seeta who had possessed a Muslim girl for almost 6-7 years. It wasn’t a voluntary possession rather a case of black magic. As advised, I tried to invite her to Islam first. Apparently it was the first time anyone had ever invited her to Islam so she was a little shocked.

And

The Muslim Woman’s Achilles Heel-the Second Wife-
But even after years of reflection and consideration, I still haven’t been able to put a finger on why the vast majority of Muslim wives cannot stand to even discuss the topic without losing their cool. How do I view the situation? First of all if Allah has permitted it, how can one oppose it or be ‘totally against it’? I just cannot see the logic in it. Secondly, since women tend to view the situation extremely personally, if you can’t keep an animal tied up in your yard forcibly, how can you keep a human being? If a husband wants to marry again, why should he be stopped? Of course he should be able to support two wives and be willing to keep equality between them. But that is not for the women to worry about. That is between him and Allah. Islam has said that he should attempt multiple marriages only if he is able to keep equality. But that would be a discussion for the men. My argument is that Muslim women first need to get the ‘hang of the idea’ that if their husband wants to get married, he should be allowed to do so without the usual excessive fuss and ruckus associated with the event.

Amad,

The key word is "civil-ization". When Muslims like yourself finally admit to and correct the many flaws in Islam, then and only then will Islam become a civil religion worthy of becoming a member of the civilized world.

Unfortunately, Newsweek and other media outlets continue to seek fringe opinions from the fringe group of "progressives", while ignoring the 99% of Muslims that represent mainstream. How many members do people think the Progressive group have? I can tell you, having been involved in community activism for over a decade, that this fringe element has not gotten any significant footing, despite MSM's attempts to shove Progressives down the mainstream's throats.

Pamela, while I respect her right to express her opinions, does not represent the majority of Muslims. And it is dishonest for Newsweek to continue to serve us with sugar pills that precludes a truly honest dialogue.

This is a post I wrote directed to media professionals:

http://muslimmatters.org/2008/01/09/tarek-fatah-and-does-not-represent-me-muslims-101-for-media/

What Muslims are thinking is represented more by the links in this post:
http://muslimmatters.org/2008/02/12/foxs-struggle-war-against-terrorism-shariah-in-uk/

Is this phony actually a real Muslim? "Taylor" isn't exactly a Muslim surname and she doesn't look Muslim. Is she an infiltrator, the same as "Christians" such as John Shelby Spong are infiltrators, seeking to destroy the religions they dishonestly profess?

Thank you, thank you, Ms. Taylor for writing an eloquent and throughtful riposte, based on empirical evidence and rational analysis, to the touch-feely, anti-intellectual poppycock that advocates incorporating the Sharia into our Western legal systems.

Ms. Taylor,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. A couple days ago a friend and I were discussing this issue. His point was that western jurispurdence captures and codifies christian thought, though we call it civil law. I can see his point, and to some degree it is ture. However, like you, I pointed out that the basis for a republican democratic government was equal rights under the law and share the same concerns as you for what happen to women under the law. In addition, laws mean nothing unless they are enforcable. Are we going to have the police enforcing Shari'ah?

Again, thank you for your intelligent comments.

It is sad to see that people in the west are still living in dark age, when it comes to knowing Islam and Christian past.

It is sad to see that people in the west are still living in dark age, when it comes to knowing Islam and Christian past.

It would be an extremely bad idea to modify American Jurispudence to accomodate any form of Shariah law. The application of a just and fair justice system is difficult enough without requiring religious intrepretations that are foreign to Western culture.

Frankly I fail to see the need to have this discussion and wonder about the origins of the dialogue.

Sure, I think every american woman should be forced to wear a rag over her face. And be sure not to show a bit of your calf!!!
Or you will get whacked with a stick by a man, who knows how you should live!
any man, who would watch his wife get beaten or would allow these laws to be enforced upon their wives are not men.

then you have better establish another education system for virtues of children, other than religionsoftheworld approach, and make sure it is real.

Don't hold your breath anytime soon. That is the most rediculous question I have ever heard. That religion is nothing but another word for terror.

Jim Miller,

It is obvious that you suffer from the Three B's, i.e. you were Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Christianity as many of us were. See the Five Step Program for Cleansing/"Deflawing" Catholicism/Christianity as listed below:

1. There were no physical Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption since Heaven is a spirit state, i.e. no physical bodies plus the stories fail historic attestation and stratum reviews. e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus

2. Angels/devils do not exist. These 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.

3. Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons/parts and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider.

4. The Holy Eucharist/Communion is a nice spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there. This 24/7 blood sacrifice is simply more theological mumbo jumbo to keep the "pew sitters" agape in atonement.

5. There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise that Jesus is the son of god. He was made into this offspring to compete with the Roman and Greek gods. e.g.

Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

Jim, peruse these five steps and your neurons will slowly be cleansed of 2000 years of lies and distortions.

I can't believe the filth I have just read about my Lord Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you are you mentally ill and if so or even if you are just evil I will pray for you.Jesus was not some one made up or a person tripping, are you nuts!!!
Into vampirism, you speak of the Symbolic blood of My Lord in the Grail, I feel sorry for you and will pray for your soul.

I agree completely with Pamela Taylor's opinion that the goverment needs to stay out of religon and religon out of goverment. I believe starting down that road would only end in sorrow for many of us, myself a Roman Catholic,would not want this goverment setting rules for my practice of faith. All anyone has to do is read the history of europe in this last century to see what can happen if people stand aside and be quiet just a little while, remember that Hitler was only in power twelve years.The fact that Islam doesn't for the most part support women growing in society shows that it hasn't broke out of the egg into the modern day and that is scary and needs to be watched. I say bravo to Ms. Taylor for having the strenght to fight the 8th century.
Thank You,
Jim Miller

WHAT?:

There is but one deadly sin, blasphemy. All who worship any God based upon the being in the burning bush blaspheme. That includes all three great faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

God punishes blasphemy. Will the punishment, 9/11 for example or Archbishop of Canterbury making the law of the land conform to Islam, etc ever end? Only when no significant political group uses any God derived from the being in the burning bush.

The being in the burning bush was Lucifer a devil and not God at all. God punishes now attempting to bring the human race to it's senses.

Look about you. Where did all this chaos come from? There must be a hell. Do you know who is the Lord God of hell? It's the same God that is the Lord God of Israel and Islam and Rome, a would-be God named Lucifer.

I am secular agnostic. The apathetic kind, which in my personal opinion the only way to go. I believe in secularism and recognize the many wars and sacrifices the West has made to get here.

My points:

- First of all, to claim the religion is the root of ALL evil is simply wrong. The history of the 20th century if packed full with atheist governments that committed atrocities just as bad (and in some cases worst) than prior religious societies. Neither the Church nor the Atheists have any valid stance when claiming moral superiority over each other. (Nor examples to back it up )

- There are places were Muslim faith seems to do ok within the West ( I am from the Canary Islands Spain, and the Muslim population there lives in probably one of the most ultra-liberal, least religious societies of all Europe and seem to have no problems...for now). But the truth is that the Muslim faith annoys most of us who are not religious, basically because it negates freedoms, rights and reason we hold so dear. It requires from us to give concessions for "free" to estrangers who not only had no stake on the fight, but want to change the very same freedoms they claim for themselves.

- However, all the disagreement with Islam does not entitle me or anyone else to talk about these human beings as if they were garbage. I see lots of racism and "reversed religious" hate from some of the commenter, who I gather are probably the flip side of this coin...conservative Christians, who in my opinion as are fanatical and wrong as their muslim counterparts.

- For Muslims to use the story of the Crusades as an excuse or point in an argument about modern societies is flawed beyond logic. Aside form the fact this happened centuries ago, that we cannot judge history with today' eyes (same argument why some of the Koran's Suras listed above have to be read within the historical context according to Muslims), it only reinforces the idea that we need to fold back to Medieval values in order to justify modern values.

- And for my fellow secularists: Tone down a bit. A dogma is a dogma, religious or secular. There are plenty of good, decent religious people who have never hurt a soul. I may never visit their churches, pray to their Gods or believe the same as they do, but does not mean I can enjoy their friendship, be able to help each other and carve a niche in my life for them. Moral arrogance and intolerance without reason and temperance only leads to the same violent non-sense.

>> Abraham is viewed as the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

>>That's punishment right there.

Punishment to whom? 'Punishment' in the eyes of an unbeliever only. A senseless commentary that you expect Christians, for example, to say 'Oh yeah...hes right' Not going to happen, my friend

>>Did God punish Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, and Joseph for their actions?

These reaped the consequences of their actions....just as you and I do. Doesnt mean God doesnt have a purpose to work thru them...or any others. You really dont understand what man has done and God's role in it all, do you?

>>As for the New Testament... until the Old Testament is no longer considered part of Christianity, one cannot say that God is only in the New Testament and not in the Old.

??????????????????????????????? (not sure where youre going with that one)

All the best

Assalamu Alaikum
Imam Pamela Taylor

Been a week, I look in and what a question for Americans to ponder:)

The Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that English law must accommodate some aspects of Islamic law, or shariah?

Should U.S. law make room for shariah?

It has been a quite a while since I heard the collective loosening of the stiff upper lips by the British. Thanks to Dr. Rowan Williams' speech on the Shariah.

The Muslim community in UK, like in the US, are of many ethnic origins and cultures. But a high percentage of British Muslims are from the Indian sub-continent (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis) called "Asians" by the British. So, imagine the different interpretations of Islam and Shariah then among British Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia.

The Shariah is not quite as fixed as many assume and presume. Many Muslim states revise or update the Shariah, including Islamic Family Law governing marraige, divorce, alimony, child support. In some Muslim states, the Shariah governs everything from crime to marraige.

In other Muslim states, only specific aspects of Shariah are applied while the rest are by civil laws. So, application of "classical" Shariah varies in Muslim states from full extent as in Afghanistan, to none as in Turkey.

As for the reaction of the British, one would have thought that Britain is one of the countries acting in compliance with and a facilitator of certain aspects of Shariah. After all, Britain is actively promoting and positioning itself as a global centre for a certain Shariah-compliant activitity, namely Islamic banking. So, it is also a global Shariah promotion centre no?

When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he made an interesting keynote speech on Islamic banking that only one in such business would be interested in as part of a collection on what governments around the world, Muslim and non-Muslim, are saying as their stance on Islamic banking and financial services for professional reasons of course.

So, on 13 June 2006, Chancellor Brown, in a speech at the Seventh Annual Islamic Finance and Trade Conference (at the Royal Lancaster Hotel in London) organised by the Muslim Council of Britain, said among other things, the intention to make Britain the "gateway" to Islamic trade, as "global centre" for Islamic finance, and Britain "pioneering" Islamic banking, London having more banks supplying "services under Islamic principles" than any western financial centre.

Well, then, the British government did put in place tax and regulatory reform to support the development of Shariah compliant finance - Islamic mortgages, sukuk, etc.

Mr. Brown in this speech, also stated:

"...and all these steps are not about us- the Government - or you - the Muslim community - doing the expedient thing. It is about us together doing the right thing : recognising that we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent - what Martin Luther King Jr. called our inescapable network of mutuality - and recognising also not just the interests we share in ommon, but the values we share in common."

Let me see. Some Islamic banks in UK have forms for mortgages and loans which among others, under list of spouses, have four lines for applicants to fill in - to accomodate any Muslim men who many have up to four wives or course.

Well, then, I have no further comment on the British fuss over what Dr. Rowan Williams said in his speech. He is only the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the Prime Minister, not the British Parliament. He has no power to enact and implement laws.

It is for the British and their government to consider Shariah compliant aspects being promoted by the British government:

- on the social aspects (marraige, divorce, alimony, child support) for the British Muslims,

- on the trade and finance aspects (Islamic banking and finance) for the British Muslims who wishes so.

One can only assume that the British goverment is only acting in the best interest of who is anyone's guess. But I did enjoy reading Mr. Brown throwing around words like "sukuk" and quoting Hadiths in his speech of 13 June 2006 at the Islamic Finance and Trade Conference. Makes him sound like an esteemed Muslim scholar or ulema in London/UK as the new global centre for certain Shariah compliant activities:).

Thank you and best regards

"J"

Can you all just render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto your gods the things which are your gods', and all just get along?

Confused:

You wrote

The Qu'ran states in Sura 9:5-6, "fight and slay Jews and Christians wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war..."

While this is a lovely example of truthiness, it is not in fact true. The Sura refers explicitly to Pagans, which at that time meant those who were NOT Christians or Jews. Moreover, this Sura is followed by, "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."

This is certainly more leeway than Christians gave Jews or Muslims during the sack of Jerusalem, and during the Inquisition Jews fled Christian Europe for Islamic regions because they were more tolerant.

This is not to say that there were (or are) no violent tendencies in Islam. Just that to characterize any of the major religions as either peaceful or violent is to display a remarkable ignorance of history.

Visit www.politicalislam.org (Political Islam Online) for translation and analysis of Arab/Muslim articles on the issues of women, politics and Islam

The Archbishop of Canterbury cannot think of anything constructive to say about Christianity. He has run out of ideas.

With all due respect, we disagree. You have taken the definition of "shariah" as defined by the "orientalists" and then defended yourself and your rights from their definition. Amazing.

We are one human civilization. Knowledge was transferred back and forth. British common law did not grow on the leaves of Sherwood Forest. Socrates could not have been an intelelctual without Egyptian knowledge. Thomas Acquinas would have been nothing without the research of Ibn Rushd and the Arab translations of Plato.

Imam Faisal says that "America is the most shariah compliant country in the world". We agree!

The Magna carta has Islamic origins. See research of John Maksudi. Trial by jury, "Qanoon" (cannon), judges, and many aspects of common law is based on the Quran. Many aspects of common law is based on the ten commandments of the Bible and hence also on the Quran.
http://www.Rupeenews.com
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing sister. Read up and God Bless you!

Rungus:

Perhaps the archbishop is just open minded.

Reconciling disparate factions means thinking outside of the box.

I agree with Rob. All religions that have come down the pike so far, in general as a belief system, foster fanaticism, intolerance and dominance. Religion is a bad thing for us humans. This time, in which we are all currently living, is most interesting and will be seen one hundred or two hundred or three hundred years from now as a time of second enlightenment and great debate and teeth gnashing and wailing as we all, in humankind, eventually get this religion concept out of our lives. Our noses are so close to wall, as they should be in real life, we can't see clearly. But that is what is happening. I do know one thing right now- most of the evil and poor human behavior we have suffered, experienced and observed, from the beginning, is rooted in religious motivation. And, I know one other thing, a meteor flashes at its brightest just before it flames out. Religion, hallelujah, is flaming out!

A rarely mentioned book of the Old Testament called Judges is relevant to this discussion.

Early in their history just after they crossed into the promised land the Israelites were ruled by "judges." Initially, God told them not to have a king. These judges were religious leaders who had the ability to prophesy.

Significantly,one of the first chief judges was a woman; her name was Deborah.

I always cite her as an example to conservative evangelicals who say that God doesn't want female leaders.

Moses' father-in-law had previously helped him create a judicial system. Initially, Moses heard all disputes himself. His father-in-law convinced him to only hear important matters. Remember there were at least 1 1/2 million Hebrews coming out of Egypt

This practice continued in the early Christian church (1Corinthians chapter 6). One wonders whether the Archbishop has a hidden agenda.

The brutalities and extremism of the Spanish Inquisition are well known, but the world used to look to religious leaders for major decisions. The pope's ruling regarding the disposition of the lands in the new world were final and led to the avoidance of war between Spain, England and France over the issue.

As messed up as our nation's leadership is, truly holy religious leadership might be an improvement.

One would hope we in the West would resist just as violently the imposition of Shari'ah law, as the people of Iraq are resisting the imposition of, for them, an equally alien concept--democracy.

Within the last couple years, there was a proposal in Ontario to do essentially what Archnishop Rowan discussed. That is, Shari'a tribunals would be established to which Muslims could choose to use to adjudicate family, business etc. disputes among themselves. The proposal appeared to be unclear about the deference, if any, that Provincial courts were expected to give to decisions of the Shari'ah courts.

Women's groups and secularists of all persuasions opposed the proposal, saying that it was inappropriate to have a parallel legal authority and that Muslim women -- epecially from the large South Asian immigrant communities in the Toronto area -- could easily be unaware of their rights under Canadian law and be coerced by their male relatives and religions leaders into accepting decisions from the Shari'ah courts that were inconsistent with the Charter (Canda's equivalent of the U.S. Bill of Rights). These objections were persuasive to the Provincial government, which rejected the proposal.

The Provincial government's response was the right one, in my view. The fundamental premises of a religiously-based system like Shari'a and the law of a secular, Western, constitutional democracy are radically different. It is not possible to give decisionmaking authority to the former without diminishing the strength of the latter.

It is ironic that Archbishop Rowan, who seems so willing to accommodate a system of law so deeply at odds with Anglo-American legal thought, is the same person who cooperates with the reactionary African bishops who would read the U.S. Episcopal Church out of the Anglican communion for ordaining a gay bishop. For the good archbishop, it appears a system of law that relegates women to 4th-class status is acceptable, but treating gay Christians as equal human beings is offensive.

The founding father's commitment to Christian faith was varied, and its impact on the constitution has been overstated.

Since that time we've advanced far enough to have two world wars that resulted in an accumulated death toll of over 60 million.

These modern wars had nothing to with religion.

The civil war, by way of contrast did, to an extent. Here, the abolitionists and their effect on Lincoln was positive.

Anyway, the archbishop's suggestion was limited and only included situations where BOTH parties agreed.

This hardly equates with establishing a specific religion.

Archbishop RW's comments portray his naive, PC, blow-with-the-wind values. I doubt RW even fully believes in the correctness of his own Christian faith.

You correctly point out that Sharia itself has vastly different interpretations across the Muslim World. What the "thoughtful" RW sees is a very narrow slice - mainly the culture and Sharia of certain groups from Pakistan. Even within this, a large share of these immigrants to Britain tend to come from just a few Provinces. Therefore, it is as though someone in the East were to say - "we should consider accepting into our body of law the religious code of the Reformed Pentecostalist Church of Uganda" ie) representing only the narrowist slice of the Christian religion.

This is just one of many examples to show that regardless of his "learning" or the number of languages he may speak (one of which may be "nonsense") the Archbishop has proven himself to be completely incompetent at holding together the Anglican Church.

Rob:

You might be guilty of slight exaggeration.

What's wrong with people having differing views?

We already tried incorporating religious codes into the law in the West. It led to the bloodiest wars you can imagine. "Those who forget the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them" (slightly adapted from Santayana).

The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with the maiming and killing for centuries that result from the state siding with or standing for one religious faction. That's why they designed the new Nation as accepting all religious faith and favoring none. Those who don't understand why that means the Nation's laws cannot be based on specific religious faith, just don't get it.

PS.

Jeff:

I forgot to add that laws concerning holiday displays on public property, and the administration of federal grants to faith groups that deliver social services like drug counseling seem to be doing a good job of accomodating most major faiths.

If you are not a believer in any religion that is fine, but why all the anger?

I think that Pamela has written a very nice article, but it seems to be hard for some to understand the difference between religion and religious power within government. I beleive that is why most people don't anyways support large religious institutions such as the Catholic Church - a corruption is exposed when power is introduced into the religious structures that takes away from the faith. It happens the other way around and for our society in the US to thrive towards those ideals of a fair society, we must keep religion out of the laws. We will seem the INFLUENCE of religion in laws by those lawmakers who write them and the voters who vote for them, but remaining secular keeps the extremists out. And, I think we all agree that extremists in any religion is not a good thing for minority groups, but also more often than not corrupts the religion for ulterior motives.

Jeff:

I appreciate your comment. I was really focused just on the option of mediation of disputes with the religious rules "of your choice" as they apparently already have in England. You couldn't allow it for Muslims and then disallow it for Jews, for example.

Moreover, The typical "culture war" battlegrounds are virtually meaningless to me. For one, the pledge of allegiance isn't really about God at all, but pledging allegiance to the FLAG. I'm only interested in faith that transforms in positive spiritual ways to create a more loving and peaceful world.

Issues such as "intelligent design" (equally dishonest I agree) seek to introduce biblical info into science class. Faith isn't science. The real issue is allowing more religious study in high school as electives; of all faiths. Then we would see how much we have in common.

Regarding prayer at school. I just don't see the grave harm in having to silently listen to a prayer. You hear worse on the subway, walking down the street, or turning on the wrong station.

I promote being more compassionate, but sometimes we all need tougher skins in order to learn to be forgiving.

Think about it, all the people suffering and dying and being tortured in the world and you want me to feel sorry for some "kid" (really nearly an adult) who chose that it was beyond the pale to have to listen to a prayer?

When he's 50 he probably won't even care what happened at high school graduation.

I think the time for religion is over.

Anyone reading any of the previous posts can conclude that religion is the root cause for ALL of our real problems.

Each group thinks they are right and ALL others are wrong.

You're ALL wrong. Long live secularism.

I love you all.

Having two judiciary systems can create a mess especially when it involves a Muslim and a non-Muslim. Just look at Malaysia. There was a husband who wanted custody of his son. He converted from Hinduism to Islam and converted his young son as well without his wife's permission. His wife who is still Hindu cannot be protected under the Shariah court since she is not Muslim.

Then there is another case involving an elderly disabled Buddhist man who died. His oldest son, who had converted to Islam several years earlier, claimed that his father had converted to Islam in the hospital room. The mother, who was Buddhist, had been taking care of her disabled father for the past several years, stated that her husband was not capable of making that kind of decision. The oldest son produced a document with his father's "thumb print" to prove his conversion. The wife lost her right to bury her husband of 40+ years.

The third case involved a young Hindu widow, who's husband converted to Islam (to fit in at work) without her knowledge. Upon his death, his coworkers said that he had converted to Islam. She lost her right to bury him since she was not Muslim. This and the previous case have become cases of "body snatching."

Also, in cases where the one spouse who dies was Muslim, the surviving spouse who is non-Muslim will also lose all right to the deceased's estate according to Shariah Law.

Also, in rape cases, for a woman to prove that she was raped, she has to produce four Muslim men of good standing as witnesses. The only way these four good Muslim men could have witnessed this is to actually have been there while the raped occured. Now I ask you, how could these four Muslim men be considered good if they just stood by and watched such an incident without stopping it at the first place?? And if they did, there would not have been a raped victim, wouldn't you say?

The Malaysian Civil Courts would not intervene with the Shariah Courts even though it is the Supreme Law of the land. After knowing all of these and seeing what other's go through, I think Shariah Law is just a bad idea. It's archaic, and plain discriminatory.

Anonymous,

I don't see where I disrespected her. I just repeated what I have been told in many other blogs by the Imam as well as other Muslims.

It just appears that if non-Muslims criticize the religion, they are up in arms and cite the Koran as a beneficial faith particularly to women in regards to divorce, property holding, etc.

Now that someone wants to include sharia law into the secular process, we hear a different story.

Don't you find that peculiar as well?

"here I was always told by you and others that Islam holds women in such high esteem."

gaby- please respect imam pamela and allow her to develop her thoughts and opinion. the push for islamic global dominance will not go away. as extreme fundamental islamic thought seeks to suppress criticism, she (as many other progressive, moderate muslims) risks falling under condemnation. she will need support.

I agree with what you say, keep government out of religion. Now we need to work on the reverse, keep religion out of government. That can only be done if religious leaders are kept away from, not just out of government.

In democracy the people must decide. They cannot make an informed decision when all the facts are not presented. The way things now stand, we have let religion get into the government which is like a beach head in an amphibious invasion.

The people let them in and only the people can throw them back into the sea. The weapon of mass destruction is in order.

Truth is mass destroyer of the lie. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul combined with the enforcement of existing law, "truth in advertising" and "anti terrorist" laws already on the books should do the trick. Tell the whole 'sacred scriptures' story or none at all. And stop threatening the children with hell before their little minds mature. The partial story is the lie while hell is terror max.

Small wonder Lucifer's representatives want control of earth. After all, Lucifer tried to take over heaven, throw God out and seat Himself on God's throne. His representatives, all ministers of all faiths can hardly be expected to allow the free worship of God now can they? "Write our faith into the law of they land" they cry. Time to inform the public their ministers are selling them faith in Devil.

Hell is pure chaos. Hell's Lord, Lucifer creates chaos here on earth through His representatives. Religion in government is chaos on the silver platter. Your view is from a distance. Perhaps you will find a closer look enlightening. What do sacred scriptures really say? Is God or Devil their spiritual author?

Brambleton:

I'm not Garak, though I play one on TV.

They are not laws. They are lessons to be taken by God's reaction to these actions. Is it not appropriate to say that where God, who according to Genesis was very much a part of micromanaging life then, did not punish the perpetrator of the action he is saying that what that person did was good, and where a person was punished, that the action which caused the punishment is bad?

And what part of the New Testament do you believe refutes the story of Genesis as being the word of God?

Did God punish Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, and Joseph for their actions?

How can you say God does not condone or embrace these actions when they are right there, in the first book of the Torah/Old Testament?

The answer, you cannot. Abraham is viewed as the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That's punishment right there.

To say that it is a chronology is to say that what is written is a factual history. There is no evidence of such a thing, and the idea of people living 100+ years in 1000 BC and back is not an easy idea to swallow. No, when taken in context of it being a story, you see that God considers it a much worse sin to not impregnate your brother's widow than he does to do the things mentioned before. Tell me, when you read it as a way of understanding God (for if it were not, it would not be a religious text) how can you come to another conclusion?

And I ask you, "What?", how do you interpret the celebration of these lessons? Jacob's punishment for betraying his brother and deceiving his father? The father of the 12 tribes of Israel. Sarah's punishment for casting away her stepson, borne from the woman she told her husband to conceive with? Nothing. Abraham's punishment for the obfuscation of Sarah as sister and wife? Founding 3 religions. Joseph's punishment for his arrogance? Ministry in Egypt. Hagar's reward for doing as her mistress said? Cast away. Esau's reward for being true to his father? Not receiving his father's blessing.

Please, if the text does not reflect this, please show me where, so I may be corrected.

As for the New Testament... until the Old Testament is no longer considered part of Christianity, one cannot say that God is only in the New Testament and not in the Old.

"As a Christian I am all for faith manifesting itself in our society. This doesn't violate the establishment clause as long as other faiths can have equal treatment."
--------------------------
In practice, "equal treatment" of all religions in the public sphere is impossible. This has been shown time and again. For example, there isn't room for displays from all religions on the grounds of government buildings. Those who insist repeatedly in putting up displays representing their beliefs are undeniably precluding other faiths, or agnostics and atheists, from being represented.

Another example: if you allow the pledge of allegiance to be required of all school children, or a prayer, then you get into the quagmire of adding the beliefs of all of the children's value systems or religions into the pledge or prayer-- you can't simply force all children to say: "...under God..." without prejudicing their exposure and adoption of certain religious beliefs at the expense of others. Can't be done without bias-- and you admit that bias is not allowed.

We know from experience, in addition, that bias will not only be allowed in such a system, as it is already in this country, but such bias will be pushed down the throats of those with minority beliefs at every opportunity. How about the high school student who was locked out of his own graduation ceremony, just because he excused himself during the imposed group prayer?

The only fair solution that is in accord with the 1st amendment is, therefore, a solid wall of separation between religion and the state-- as Jefferson and Madison recognized.

"The communities that push for religious law, generally speaking, offer far fewer protections and rights to women than we enjoy under secular American law. Are we willing to accept second class status for some American women? And how will we deal with community, family, and spousal pressure on women to use religious laws that may not offer them the same benefits rather than avail themselves of secular law?"

Isn't that interesting! And here I was always told by you and others that Islam holds women in such high esteem. That the Koran gives Muslim women more freedom than the Bible to Christian women. (Not that I'm a christian either.)

Brava, Ms. Taylor!

When will more women realize that their rights will be cut short by politicians who even let a whiff of religious law enter the public sphere?

The rising tide of what is called by the print and electronic media as ‘fundamentalism’ in the Islamic world from Indonesia in the East to Algeria in the West has created many problems in the world at large. The attack on the WTC in New York on 11th September 2001 has further aggravated the matter and people have come to believe that Islam really is against modernity and stands for jihad. This view is being spread by various comments and articles appearing in the media. It must be said that due to these happenings Islam has evoked tremendous interest among the people.

What is relation between Islam and modernity? Is Islam really against modernity? First let us see what modernity is. According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Delhi, 1993) modern means 1) “of the present and recent times” and 2) “in current fashion; not antiquated.” Keeping this definition in view the question arises can there be any relationship between religion and modernity?

The next question then arises what is religion. What constitutes religion. Is religion of permanent nature and what is that in religion which ensures its permanence? These are important questions to be dealt with if we have to grapple with the problem of Islam and modernity.

Religion is not only set of rituals but also set of beliefs, values and institutions. A religion also gives a thought system to its people. Any religion, despite its eternity carries the birth-marks of its historical circumstances. This social and historical contextuality is as important in understanding religion as its eternity. Since followers of religion have strong emotional bonds with their religion they accept whatever reaches them as permanent lock, stock and barrel. They often refuse to take notice of changes in historical contextuality.

Here arises the question whether everything inherited by a faithful by way of religious rituals, institutions, values and thought system as permanent and immutable? The religious leaders and faithfuls would say yes. The reformers, on the other hand, would advocate changes in certain practices and traditions. Modernity, as pointed out above, relates to what is recent as opposed to what is ancient or old. Thus there is bound to be some kind of incongruity between religion and religious traditions and what is construed as modernity.

All religions, not only Islam, face this problem earlier or later depending as when modernity dawns in the area where that religion has its sway. Christianity in the West faced it much earlier than other religions in the East. Here we should keep in mind that modernity cannot be defined only something temporal or related to time. It is to be dealt with also as something to do with mental approach and way of accepting or rejecting a proposition. In other words we have to speak of modernity as value.

Also, it would be wrong to think that modernity was accepted by other religions without struggle whereas Muslims resisted it. All religions went through crisis of modernity though the degree of crisis might have varied. It would also be wrong to think that any religious community accepts or rejects modernity uniformly. The intellectual elite of the community as well as other beneficiaries accept it more readily than others.

It is also true that the Islamic world in general has been very late in accepting modernity. Other religions or other peoples did it earlier or with less resistance. But nowhere it was accepted without struggle or resistance. We would like to discuss, later in this paper, the reasons why Islamic world has been late comer in the modern era.

Of all the religions, Christianity in the west was first to accept modernity but not without struggle. In fact there was fierce struggle and great deal of bloodshed before western Christianity embraced modernity. Still sections of Christians in the western world continue to reject it. In fact Christianity went through throes of great crisis due to complete domination the Catholic Church had over the Christian community during the medieval ages. The dogmas evolved by the Church could not be questioned by anyone and no one had right to interpret Bible except the Church hierarchy. And it was not easy to challenge the authority of the Church, neither for religious persons like Martin Luther nor for scientists like Galileo.

Galileo was severely persecuted for his proposition that earth goes round the sun rather than otherwise. He was blinded by the Church so that he could no more observe natural phenomenon and come forward with ‘heresies’. However, scientific truths not only prevailed but were found of immense benefits for the emerging ruling classes in the west. Their acceptability became possible not only because of their demonstrable truth but also because of immense benefits accruing to the emerging European business and political leaders. The discovery of steam engine ultimately led to inventions of steam ships and this in turn made colonisation possible for Western European powers. Gun- powder was also invention of modern science leading to political domination of the west.

Colonisation of the eastern countries included large number of Islamic countries from Indonesia to Algeria. For them the experience of colonisation was most humiliating one as the Muslims suddenly from rulers became the ruled and modern science, an important parameter for modernity, was found by them to be a powerful instrument of subjugation. The Catholic Church had rejected modern science as it challenged its dogmas and Muslims rejected modernity as it brought to them colonial humiliation and complete loss of their hegemonic control.

While the European people left their poverty behind and began to become prosperous as the wealth plundered from the colonies was transferred to the metropolitan countries, the peoples in colonial countries began to be impoverished. And impoverishment made them more insecure and insecurity made them cling to their traditions and customs more tenaciously. It really became very difficult to break this viscous circle. Though there is no church in Islam and no priestly hierarchy, the theologians lost out power and influence they wielded during the Muslim rule and thus they became hostile to modern science and modern rationality.

Another thing we have to keep in mind while discussing Islam and modernity is that apart from colonial plunder and transfer of wealth from colonial to colonising countries Islam was generally embraced by poorer and weaker sections of peoples in various countries. Most of them happened to be either poor peasants or artisans. They constituted the overwhelming number of Muslims all over the Islamic world and it is so even today. These poorer and weaker sections embraced Islam as it laid great emphasis on social justice, equality and dignity of all human beings.

For these poorer and weaker sections of society religion means more as an inner solace and spiritual balm than rationality and modernity. They find this inner solace more by clinging to age-old traditions and customs than by indulging in intellectual quest. In fact intellectual quest leads to more uncertainties and tensions. The clergy also basically came from these poorer sections as after colonisation clergy was downgraded and ceased to wield political influence.

The clergy’s intellectual universe was very traditional one and it wielded tremendous influence on poorer and illiterate masses. On top of it colonial experience which led to more impoverishment particularly of the artisan classes led to fear of modern sciences. As initially the workers in Europe had launched attacks on machines, which they thought were the cause of their woes the artisans in the colonised Muslim countries developed fear of modern scientific inventions and the Muslim clergy further reinforced their fears and legitimised it through use of religious traditions. It is important to understand this social and intellectual universe prevailing in the colonised Muslim world for understanding the causes of crisis of modernity.

But we find both revivalist as well as modern movements during nineteenth century in almost all the Islamic countries. In Egypt number of modern reformers like Mohammad Abduh, Ahmad Amin and others launched movements for spreading modern ideas and modern reforms in Egyptian Islamic traditions. In Iran and Afghanistan and also Turkey Jamal al-Din Afghani worked tirelessly for promoting modernity. Mohammad Abduh was his disciple. While Jamal al-Din Afghani was political activist emphasising pan-Islamic movement to fight against western colonialism Abduh concentrated on educational and religious reforms in Egypt. He had spent number of years in France as an exile and he imbibed many modern ideas from there.

In India Sir Syed’s contribution to modernisation of Islamic society was very seminal. He also reached conclusion that rejection of modernity will lead Muslims nowhere. He founded scientific society and began translating into Urdu books on modern sciences. He was of course pioneer in promoting modern education among Muslims. He was followed by many illustrious modern reformers like Nawwab Mohsinul Mulk, Maulavi Chiragh Ali, Justice Amir Ali and several others who advocated modern reforms. However, they had impact more on intellectual elite, which was coming into existence through colonial education system and western ideas of science and rationality.

It is another important fact to be born in mind that in Islamic countries due to widespread poverty and illiteracy accentuated by colonisation emergence of educated middle class was painfully slow and this further impeded growth of modernity and rationality. Existence of strong middle class is highly necessary for modern reforms. Throughout Islamic world there was widespread poverty and illiteracy. Due to oil revolution in early seventies prosperity was experienced only in some Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and some other Gulf countries. Also except in Egypt there was no democratic tradition anywhere and no concept of civil society.

The colonial legacy still persists in Islamic countries and after colonial powers withdrew they set up either dictators or kings of their choice. It was so specially because Middle East was particularly very sensitive area in view of its oil wealth. The USA assumed political role in the area and never allowed any genuine democracy to flower. The State of Israel was also created to keep the Arab countries under tight leash. When Mosaddeq took over in Iran in early fifties through genuine democratic revolution and nationalised the oil- company the CIA plotted to overthrow him by mobilising lumpen elements and the Shah’s rule was re-established. The Shah throttled democracy and continued to rule and serve American interests until the Islamic revolution in 1979.

In the entire Islamic world there is poverty and backwardness on one hand, and absence of democracy, on the other. A study conducted by the US based Freedom House circulated on network muslimindians@yahoogroups.com dated December 16, 2001makes interesting revelation. The survey called “Freedom in the World 2001-2002” concludes that there is a dramatic expanding gap in the levels of freedom and democracy between Islamic countries and rest of the world. The study found that “a non-Islamic country is more than three times is likely to be democratic than an Islamic state.”

The survey shows that “Of the 192 countries in the world today, 121 are electoral democracies, but in countries with an Islamic majority, only 11 of 47 have democratically elected governments, or 23 per cent.” In the non-Islamic world there are 110 electoral democracies out of 145 states, over 76 per cent, the report said. The report also said, “within the Islamic world there are nine countries with authoritarian presidencies, there are seven with dominant party states in which opposition parties are nominal, there are six with presidential-parliamentary systems with features of authoritarian rule, there are nine traditional monarchies, there are three one party states, there is one military ruled state, and, until November there was one fundamentalist theocracy, Afghanistan under the rule of Taliban.” It is of course no more.

Thus it will be seen that Islamic world cannot boast of free democracy which is one of the criteria for modernity. The lack of people-oriented polity in the Islamic world has again serious social, economic and educational consequences. The authoritarian regimes do not permit free inquiry, which is necessary for growth of science, technology and rationality. Social sciences also can flower only if political freedom is guaranteed. Also, education is strictly controlled and has heavy dose of medieval theology.

The lack of freedom and absence of democracy is sought to be compensated by declaring the state as Islamic. And then under the garb of Islamic state and in the name of Islam medieval theology is imposed, freedom of thinking even on Islamic issues severely curtailed and Shari`ah law is applied mechanically. It has happened in several countries in last few decades. Because of this Islamic theocracy becomes all- powerful and all state institutions slip under their control.

It has already been pointed out that the Muslim theologians come from poorer and backward strata of society and their intellectual universe is severely limited to medieval theology. This medieval theology becomes their power and anyone opposing it is declared heretic. The finest minds that questioned validity of these medieval theological formulations and stressed the need for creative rethinking on these issues had to flee their countries to some or the other western countries. They could write their much- appreciated works only in free environs of those countries. Thus from Egypt, from Algeria, from Pakistan and from several other Muslim countries finest minds had to migrate to western countries.

However, the blame does not go to Islam per se as is often thought. There is absolutely nothing in the Qur’an, which puts restriction on freedom of thought. On the contrary the Qur’an encourages knowledge equating it with light (and equating ignorance – jahl - with darkness. Knowledge - `ilm – is key word in the Qur’an. Also, knowledge is not possible without free inquiry. It is a creative process and free intellect is sin qua non for it. Also, knowledge has not been used in the Qur’an only for matters of religion and Shari`ah as the theologians began to argue later. The Prophet also made acquisition of knowledge obligatory on all believers, men and women (see Sahih Bukhari). And according to yet another tradition the Prophet said “acquire knowledge, even if it be in China..” Naturally no religious knowledge, as far as Islam was concerned, was available in China as there was not a single Muslim then there.

In fact the Qur’an does not hit for religious knowledge but knowledge in general, including secular and scientific knowledge. It is interesting to note that in those days the most advanced knowledge was available in Greece. The Greek philosophers, however, stressed deductive rather than inductive knowledge. Deductive knowledge leads to speculative knowledge as deduction depends on the basic premise and basic premise may or may not be based on empirical observation.

However, inductive knowledge is based on observation of empirical facts and is the very basis of modern science. The Qur’an repeatedly stresses observations of nature and reflection on nature and thus encourages scientific observations. It was Bacon who stressed inductive knowledge and he is considered as the father of modern science. But the Qur’an, as pointed out, had already led emphasis on inductive knowledge much before Bacon. We find in the Qur’an verses like this: “Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, so We rent them. And we made from water everything living. Will they not then believe?” (21:30). Many more such verses could be quoted from the Qur’an.

Here in this verse also there is stress on seeing and observing. The statement that every thing living was made from water which also is in keeping with modern theories of origin of life. The Qur’an also denies existence of miracles which again is in keeping with the rational attitude.

As Islam spread into different cultures and different societies at different levels of knowledge – from superstitious to advanced stages of knowledge – Islam acquired different hues and different meanings in these different cultural settings. Thus Bassam Tibi, a Syrian Arab scholar teaching in Germany, rightly observes in his book The Crisis of Modern Islam (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 1988), “There is no unified Islam in reality or in religious doctrine. What was initially an Arab Islam was assimilated into the cultures of Islamized non-Arab populations and thus de-Arabized. West African Islam, for example, has been fully integrated into the West African animistic cultures, even though in its original Arab version it was vigorously monotheistic.” (p-56)

It is not all. Islam was also thoroughly feudalised when it spread to old feudal empires like the Sassanid and Roman empires. All the traditions of these empires and subsequently other empires like the Moghul Empire in India were integrated into Roman, Iranian or Indian Islam. In feudal cultures dominated by monarchy and feudal lords free inquiry was not permitted. Submission to the authority was the rule. This became part of feudal Islam and free inquiry so pervasive in Prophet’s time and subsequently during the early period of Islam until complete feudalisation of Islam with the Umayyad period (later part of 7th Century A.D.) came to an end.

Be it Shari`ah law or other theological formulation early history has recorded many free debates but after feudalisation of Islam these debates became rarer and submission to earlier theological authorities became the rule as submission to religious authorities was the rule. The feudal culture so stuck to Islam that it has not been able to shake it off even in post-modern period. The Islamic countries are still in feudal or semi-feudal era and have failed to imbibe democratic culture. The Islamic thought is deeply sunk in autocracy and theocracy and there is absolutely no place for creative re-thinking or re-formulations.

What is needed is thorough democratic revolution in the Islamic world for which there is no immediate prospect. Modernism imposed from above as we saw in case of Iran (The Shah imposed modernism through his authoritarian edicts) does not succeed. A thorough going and pervasive modernisation is possible only with equally thoroughgoing democratic revolution and industrial revolution. Without such thorough-going democratic revolution mere acceptance of modernisation for infra-structural purposes (providing roads, flyovers, skyscrapers, computers, and printing technology) will not bring about intellectual modernisation. Through democratisation culture of submission must be done away with. Culture of dissent cannot prosper in authoritarian polities.

Lastly, I would also like to point out another important dimension of this problem. The ruling classes of the Islamic countries are still dependent on support of Western colonial masters, particularly, the USA politico-economic interests. They support authoritarian rulers and are interested in perpetrating highly authoritarian power structures and culture of submission. Free democracies in oil rich Islamic world will hurt their economic interests. This is preventing thoroughgoing democratic revolution in most of the Muslim countries. Also, countries like Iran are stuck with theocracy punishing freedom of thought.

Also, the Iranian Islamic revolution and earlier oil revolution in the Islamic world gave an new sense of pride in Islamic identity which was also hijacked by the ruling classes and what could have led to renaissance was turned into sheer revivalism by these rulers. The process of globalisation is also not very helpful in this direction. It is further strengthening western economic domination and is making western American culture hegemonic culture buldozing all other identities in the process. This has led to strengthening of Islamic identities and symbols of Islamic identities like hijab. By itself there is nothing wrong with these symbols of Islamic identities but it is leading to other less desirable consequences namely revival of feudal traditions and theocratic structures. This will hardly help flowering of modern Islamic

Defenstrator:

You misinterpret a cronology of mankinds mistakes
and present it as advocating the vices listed....

...that is not the case. Sometimes mankind has to learn the hard way. They did then...We still do, today.

Consider: The circmustances of David and Bathsheeba. God allowed to happen what happened. He wasnt happy. Neither was David. And, yet, there was still a penalty.

Sometimes there are those who intervene in other peoples lives to pull them out of the fire. At other times, those people may be left alone to learn the lesson at hand. Its no different with human beings. Its no different with God. Man chose his own ways. Still does. But the believer knows that God does what He does to 1) fulfill His purpose and 2) allow the lessons to be learned the way He wants us to learn.

Those who study scripture and believe in a creator God look at the things you mentioned not in a light of God's vice, but rather, mans.

The only question I have is, why did Pamela K. Taylor convert to a religion which she feels degrades women and non-muslims?

The Qu'ran advocates beating and killing one's wife. The Qu'ran requires "good" muslims to kill Christians and Jews.

The Qu'ran states in Sura 9:5-6, "fight and slay Jews and Christians wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war..."

Sura 8:12 says "cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

These quotes are a small sample of the language of the Qu'ran.

Additionally, the Hadith written by Muhammed indicates "only those who kill and are killed shall see Paradise". The use of the conjunction "and" in this verse is interpreted in Islam to mean that only suicide bombers will be welcomed into Paradise (i.e. heaven).

When will Jews and Christians wake up and realize the danger of this hateful religion which seeks to overtake America by "waging war until Islam dominates the world" (Qu'ran).

Defenestrator,

Is this really Garak? C'mon, fess up. LOL.

My questions to you are these:

Why were those "laws" written as part of God's commands in the Old Testament?

Second, what effect did the New Testament and the death/resurrection of Christ have on these "laws"?

Thanks!

Pamela:

This is a tempest in a teacup that betrays the West's bigotry and secularist failings.

Separation of church and state theory puts man's law above God's law and is the root of many of our problems.

First, what the Archbishop suggested was only for those who opt-in. Apparently, this track is already available in th UK's alternative dispute resolution legal framework! Therefore it's not really new.

Second. From my own experience as an attorney I can say that, as is, the American legal system (and probably the British one) is already unequal in fact. Those with wealth and connections get a better brand of justice.

It is not unusual, presently, for judges to make rulings in areas where they have little or no expertise based upon the legal arguments presented to them orally and in writing. The same could be done under the scenario hypthesized by the Archbishop.

Thirdly, I imagine that some of this is already going on. If it hasn't spilled into the court system, that means it's probably working. Is this really any different than creating financial instruments that take Islam into account?

As a Christian I am all for faith manifesting itself in our society. This doesn't violate the establishment clause as long as other faiths can have equal treatment.

Current laws often have undesired and unfair repercussions that have to be litigated. Many of these cases are difficult, close calls; far from offering stability or predictability. Hence, all of the Supreme Court 5-4 decisions.

All of the problems you mentioned are already at play in society. Judges decisions often are arbitrary.

The goal is fairness; this path may work better for those who want it.

Any problems; that's what an appeal is for.

Overall; don't put your faith in laws, put your faith in God!

-Carl, www.carlrollinsblog.com

Interesting article on the net this morning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080211/sc_livescience/thescienceoffairytales

Could be those 'wingy-thingys' some refer to with regard to religion, which some also equate to 'fairy tales'...well, may just be endorsed, of sorts, by the wonderful world of the scientists among us.

A good day to all.

Current secular law almost automatically assigns custody of children to the mother.

The bible advocates polygamy, deception, incest, obfuscation, arrogance, murder in the name of God, ignorance, ostracizing stepchildren, and even supports not getting help for alcoholics. All this without even leaving the book of Genesis.

Polygamy: Genesis 29:21-35
Deception: Genesis 27
Incest: Genesis 20:12
Obfuscation: Genesis 20:2-12
Arrogance: Genesis 37:5-10
Murder in the name of God: Genesis 22
Ostracizing: Genesis 21:9-21
Alcoholism: Genesis 9:21-29

Unlike countries such as India, Russia and Canada, we are not a nation of nationalities. From the inception of this country the goal has been to produce a uniquely homogenized American identity. This has been the guiding principle of public education in this country; beginni9ng in the late 19th century the focus of much of public education was to create good Americans from the myriad groups of "unwashed" immigrants flooding (no pun intended, or maybe so)onto our shores. The greatest domestic tragedy of our nation, the Civil War, was largely brought about by growing sectionalism and the consequent fracturing of the national identity. While this strategy of melding divergent peoples into a homogeneous mix may have created a banal and a hedonistic culture, it has also led to a fair degree of civility and positive action. I will take bland over spicy any day; if you come here to stay then expect to shed your old world ties, and, most definitely, leave your petty vendettas and dark age passions behind.

Garak:

You missed a few flaws in orthodox Christianity:

To wit:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Garak,

I can't believe you wasted time posting that nonsense. I am intrigued though to find out where in the Bible it talks about conversion through force.

Thanks,

Excellent article, Ms. Taylor. The same issue apply to attempts to force "Christian" law on us. Catholic? Protestant? Orthodox? And look at Israel. They can't even agree on who is a Jew. If the Palestinians went away, there'd be civil war in Israel over Jewish religious matters.

Ibrahim Mahfouz.: Christian law also demands it apply to the entire world, and by force if necessary. Just look at what the Christians did in Massachussetts--witch burning, killing members of other Christian denominations, suppressing science, suppressing women, preaching the genocide of the Native Americans...pretty Christian behavior, wouldn't you say? And now Huckabee wants to turn back the clock

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated & FunTravelAdventure: Jesus preached vampirism and his Bible advocates child molestation and genocide. And Christians have practiced this things whenever they have a chance. Look at all those fine Baptists in the KKK. And all those fine Catholic priests with their NAMBL agenda. Yup, Christianity is great--for the perverted.

There is only one thing worse than having Henry VIII as the founder of your religion and that is having Mohammed that illiterate, warmongering, greed/lust driven, hallucinating Arab as your founder.

And "his" Shari'ah laws would be classified as the Dark Age "visions" of a bunch of "Sun poisoned" males from various sides of the sand dunes.

The juriprudence of the four schools of Muslim Religious thought differ in many aspects but all agree that Sharia law must be established throughout the world. This, according to them, should be attempted first by persuasion, and if not by subjugation and if not by Jihad or Holy War. This is built into their belief system whether they publicly admit it or not. The believing Muslims are not impressed by secular laws because they are "man made" while according to them the Sharia is Allah's law. Since they are issued by the Creator, the Sharia Law , according to them,is superior to any other law and, furthermore, good for anytime and any place.
Ms. Taylor need not worry about the people of the US to choose the 7th Century Nomadic nonesense of Arabia over the constitution of the most advanced country that this planet had ever witnessed. Who in his right mind would want to change America to make it look like Saudi Arabia, Somalia or Sudan?