The Place of Tolerance in Islam

[nabraxas]

The Place of Tolerance in Islam By Khaled Abou El Fadl, with Tariq Ali, Milton Viorst, John Esposito, and Others Beacon Press. 117 pp. $15

Review in the Philadelphia Inquirer 12.1.02Posted on Sun, Dec. 01, 2002

"Muslims riot in Nigeria over the Miss World contest, killing more than 200. Muslims bomb a nightclub in Bali, killing nearly 200. Muslims plot to release poison gas in the London underground. Muslims attack a Hindu temple in Kashmir, killing 13 and wounding scores. The stories go on and on.

It would be easy to conclude, President Bush's appeals aside, that a large part of the world's terrorism problem today is the fault of Muslims, and, by extension, their religion: Islam. If you think that - if you even think about thinking that - reading The Place of Tolerance in Islam is a moral and intellectual duty to yourself. Excellently organized, it delivers a startling thesis: Don't blame Islam for today's hateful, violent Muslims, theological illiterates who don't understand their own religion and constantly distort and vulgarize it.

The Place of Tolerance in Islam begins with the taut, scholarly title essay by Khaled Abou El Fadl, a Distinguished Fellow in Islamic law at UCLA and author of "Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law." In it, he argues that the "essential lesson taught by Islamic history is that extremist groups are ejected from the mainstream of Islam." Following his essay, 11 experts comment briefly, then the author replies.

Traditional Islamic jurists, Abou El Fadl writes, "tolerated and even celebrated divergent opinions and schools of thought." But as Muslim states grew centralized and autocratic, Muslim clergy lost their legitimacy, producing "a profound vacuum in religious authority" and "a state of virtual anarchy in modern Islam."

As a result, amateurish interpretations of Islam, exemplified by Osama Bin Laden's murderous hostility toward non-Muslims (which contravenes the entire thrust of the Koran, according to Abou El Fadl), gained sway over theologically illiterate Muslims angry about being losers in today's globalized world, and eager to vent their anger on First-World winners.

Like many Muslim scholars in the wake of Sept. 11, Abou El Fadl especially skewers Wahhabism, the puritanical revision of Islam propagated by the Saudi monarchy. While Wahhabism claims to be the "straight path" of Islam, it is, suggests Abou El Fadl, an irresponsible form of Islam, forged in the 18th-century slaughter of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. To call it fundamentalist is misleading, since it flouts fundamental Islamic truths, distorting Islam by rejecting "any attempt to interpret the divine law historically or contextually."

To demonstrate that, Abou El Fadl helpfully discusses relevant Koranic chapter and verse. The Koran, he shows, declares diversity among peoples to be Allah's divine intent, and explicitly states that Jews and Christians - not just Muslims - may achieve salvation. The Koran opposes forced, Taliban-style conversion of others to Islam. Far from sanctioning "holy war," reports Abou El Fadl, the Koran does not even use the phrase. On the contrary, it entertains the possibility that in a conflict with a non-Muslim, "the Muslim combatant might be the unjust party."

There's more eye-opening Koranic "fact" here. The Koran warns Muslims that the injustice of others does not permit them to be unjust in return. Classical Muslim jurists considered guerrillas who attack innocent civilians "corrupters on the earth and criminals," guilty of "especially heinous crimes."

Alternate interpretations of the Koran that urge violence against innocents, Abou El Fadl argues, require poorly informed, isolationist readings of a line here, a line there. To show that, he cites the ambiguous verses by which murderous Muslims justify their acts, and their deceitful ignoring of everything Koranic that prohibits their acts. All Koranic injunctions, Abou El Fadl insists, must square with the holy book's "general moral imperatives such as mercy, justice, kindness... ." He concludes, "If the reader is intolerant, hateful, or oppressive, so will be the interpretation...."

The 11 reactions to Abou El Fadl's essay range from Milton Viorst's high praise (a "brilliant" explanation of why Muslims are "on the brink of becoming a permanent global underclass") to Abid Ullah Jan's denigration of it as "an attempt to please Islam-bashers."

All the commentaries, however, add juice to the subject. For instance, Sohail Hashmi, who teaches international relations at Mount Holyoke, agrees with Abou El Fadl that politically motivated Koranic interpreters, not the Koran itself, feed the us-against-them mentality of violent Muslims. Tariq Ali, the British culture critic, laments that "There was more dissent and skepticism in Islam during the eleventh and twelfth centuries than there is today." Amina Wadud, professor of Islamic studies at Virginia Commonwealth, judges Muslim women to be just as much victims of misguided Islamic puritanism as non-Muslims.

Not everyone, however, lines up with Abou El Fadl. Abid Ullah Jan, a political analyst in Pakistan, blames all debate about Islam on "efforts by the United States and its allies to achieve economic and cultural hegemony by dominating or destroying all opposition."

Abou El Fadl's 19-page reply to one and all radiates anger at how extremist vulgarization of the once culturally grand and tolerant Islamic tradition threatens to turn Islam into "an idiosyncracy - a moral and social oddity that is incapable of finding common ground with the rest of human society."

He engages in debate against extremists, he says, "to deny such groups their Islamic banner" and declares his "unwavering conviction that I belong to a great moral humanistic tradition" - a reminder of the bravery of Arab intellectuals who refuse to endorse self-promoting falsehoods. In his view, the ultimate issue for all Muslims ought to be "the moral integrity of the Islamic tradition."

If nothing else, this vibrant collection shows how profoundly Islamic terrorists disgrace their holy book and blaspheme against their Prophet."

http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/placoftolini1.html

Edited January 2, 2007 by nabraxas

[nabraxas]

The Muslim malaise

Aug. 20, 2006. 07:03 AM

HAROON SIDDIQU

"He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have me as his accuser on the Day of Judgment.

— Prophet Muhammad

Contrary to the popular belief that the West is under siege from Muslim terrorists, it is Muslims who have become the biggest victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001, as inconceivable as that would have seemed in the aftermath of the murder of 2,900 Americans. Since then, between 34,000 and 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by the Americans or the insurgents. Nobody knows how many have been killed in Afghanistan. In the spots hit by terrorists — from London and Madrid to Amman, Istanbul, Riyadh and Jeddah, through Karachi to Bali and Jakarta — more Muslims have been killed and injured than non-Muslims.

None of this is to say that Muslims do not have problems that they must address. They do. But the problems are not quite what many in the West make them out to be.

One of the strangest aspects of the post-9/11 world is that, despite all the talk about Muslim terrorism, there is hardly any exploration of the complex causes of Muslim rage. Muslims are in a state of crisis, but their most daunting problems are not religious. They are geopolitical, economic and social — problems that have caused widespread Muslim despair and, in some cases, militancy, both of which are expressed in the religious terminology that Muslim masses relate to.

Most Muslims live in the developing world, much of it colonized by Western powers as recently as 50 years ago. Not all Muslim shortcomings emanate from colonialism and neo-imperialism, but several do.

As part of the spoils of the First World War, Britain and France helped themselves to much of the Ottoman Empire, including Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and what is now Israel, Jordan and the Palestine Authority. In later years, they and other European colonial powers created artificial states such as Kuwait and Nigeria. Or they divided peoples and nations along sectarian lines, such as bifurcating India in 1947 into Muslim Pakistan and largely Hindu India. In more recent years, the United States has maintained repressive proxy regimes in the Middle East to stifle public anti-Israeli sentiments, keep control of oil and maintain a captive market for armaments.

While the past casts a long shadow over Muslims, it is the present that haunts them. Hundreds of millions live in zones of conflict, precisely in the areas of European and American meddling, past and present — U.S.-occupied Iraq, U.S.-controlled Afghanistan, the Israeli Occupied Territories, and Kashmir, the disputed Muslim state on the border of India and Pakistan in the foothills of the Himalayas. Only the Russian war on Muslim Chechnya is not related to the history of Western machinations, but even that has had the tacit support of the Bush administration. These conflicts, along with the economic sanctions on Iraq, have killed an estimated 1.3 million Muslims in the last 15 years alone. Why are we surprised that Muslims are up in arms?

In addition, nearly 400 million Muslims live under authoritarian despots, many of them Western puppets, whose corruption and incompetence have left their people in economic and social shambles.

It is against this backdrop that one must look at the current malaise of Muslims and their increasing emotional reliance on their faith.

Economic Woes

The total GDP of the 56 members of the Islamic Conference, representing more than a quarter of the world's population, is less than 5 per cent of the world's economy. Their trade represents 7 per cent of global trade, even though more than two-thirds of the world's oil and gas lie under Muslim lands.

The standard of living in Muslim nations is abysmal even in the oil-rich regions, because of unconscionable gaps between the rulers and the ruled. A quarter of impoverished Pakistan's budget goes to the military. Most of the $2 billion a year of American aid given to Egypt as a reward for peace with Israel goes to the Egyptian military.

The most undemocratic Muslim states, which also happen to be the closest allies of the U.S., are the most economically backward.

The Arab nations, with a combined population of 280 million, muster a total GDP less than that of Spain. The rate of illiteracy among Arabs is 43 per cent, worse than that of much poorer nations. Half of Arab women are illiterate, representing two-thirds of the 65 million Arabs who cannot read or write. About 10 million Arab children are not in school. The most-educated Arabs live abroad, their talents untapped, unlike those of the Chinese and Indian diasporas, who have played significant roles in jump-starting the economies of their native lands.

A disproportionate percentage of the world's youth are Muslim. Half of Saudi Arabia's and a third of Iran's populations are younger than 20. There are few jobs for them. "Young and unemployed" is a phenomenon common to many Muslim nations.

A majority of the world's 12 million to 15 million refugees are Muslims, fleeing poverty and oppression. Europe's 20 million Muslims suffer high unemployment and poverty, especially in Germany and France. It was inevitable that many Muslims would find comfort in Islam.

Islamic Resurgence

Fundamentalism has been on the rise, and not just in Islam. There has been a parallel rise in Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism, with its inevitable political fallout — in the Israeli settler movement in the Occupied Territories, the politicization of the American conservative right (culminating in the election and re-election of that lying war monger that is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives), the rise to power of the Hindu nationalists in India, the Sikh separatist movement in the Punjab in India, and the aggressive nationalism of the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka.

That many Muslims have become "fundamentalist" does not mean that they are all fanatic and militant. Nor is the Muslim condition fully explained by the use of petro-dollars. First, Arab financial support for Islamic institutions around the world is still no match for the resources available for Christian global missionary or Zionist political work. Second, and more to the point, the rise of Islam is not confined to areas of Arab financial influence; it is a worldwide phenomenon.

Mosques are full. The use of the hijab (headscarf ) is on the rise. Madrassahs (religious schools) are packed. Zakat (Islamic charity) is at record levels, especially where governments have failed to provide essential services. In Egypt, much of the health care, emergency care and education are provided by the Muslim Brotherhood, in the Occupied Territories by Hamas, in Pakistan and elsewhere by groups that may be far less political but are no less Islamic.

With state institutions riddled with corruption and nepotism, some of the most talented Muslims, both rich and poor, have abandoned the official arena and retreated into the non-governmental domain of Islamic civil society.

The empty public sphere has been filled with firebrands — ill-tutored and ill-informed clergy or populist politicians who rally the masses with calls for jihad (struggle) for sundry causes. The greater the injustices in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Israeli Occupied Territories, Chechnya or elsewhere, the greater the public support for those calling for jihad. Jihad has also proven to be good business for many a mullah (Muslim priest) who has become rich or influential, or both, preaching it. Meanwhile, unelected governments lack the legitimacy and confidence to challenge the militant clerics, and fluctuate between ruthlessly repressing them and trying to out-Islamize them.

To divert domestic anger abroad, many governments also allow and sometimes encourage the radicals to rant at the U.S. and rave at Israel, or just at Jews. Sometimes even the elected leaders join in, as has Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

In reality, most Muslim states are powerless to address the international crises that their publics want addressed. They have neither the military nor the economic and political clout to matter much to the U.S., the only power that counts these days. Or, as in the case of Egypt, Jordan, and the oil-rich Arab oligarchies, they are themselves dependent on Washington for their own survival.

Feeling abandoned, the Muslim masses find comfort in religion. The Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation was a secular struggle before it became "Islamic." The same was true of the Lebanese resistance to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, and also of the Chechen resistance to Russian repression.

Similarly, domestic critics of authoritarian regimes have found a hospitable home in the mosque. Islam being their last zone of comfort, most Muslims react strongly — sometimes irrationally and violently — when their faith or their Prophet is mocked or criticized, as the world witnessed during the Danish cartoon crisis. They react the way the angry disenfranchised do — hurling themselves into the streets, shouting themselves hoarse and destroying property, without much concern for the consequences, and engendering even more hostility in the West toward Muslims and Islam. But, as the American civil rights leader Martin Luther King famously said, riots are the voice of the voiceless.

Muslims have developed a "siege mentality, which is what the screaming, dogmatic and atavistic clerics" appeal to, says Chandra Muzaffar, Malaysian Muslim human rights activist. As he was telling me this in Kuala Lumpur in 2005, Sharifa Zuriah, a founder of Sisters in Islam, an advocacy group for Malaysian Muslim women, intervened: "Muslims have developed a complex. They think they won't be heard if they don't shout. Every statement is like a war."

Then there is real war, the war of terrorism.

Terrorism's Fallout

"That a majority of Al Qaeda are Muslims is not to say that a majority of Muslims are Al Qaeda, or subscribe to its tenets," Stephen Schulhofer, professor of law at New York University, told me in 2003. But it is also true that most terrorists these days are Muslims. That may only be a function of the times we live in — yesterday's terrorists came from other religions and tomorrow's may hail from some other. Still, terrorism has forced a debate among Muslims, who are divided into two camps. One side says that Muslims should no more have to apologize for their extremists than Christians, Jews or Hindus or anybody else, and that doing so only confirms the collective guilt being placed on Muslims. The other side believes that as long as some Muslims are blowing up civilians in suicide bombings, slitting the throats of hostages and committing other grisly acts, it is the duty of all Muslims to speak out and challenge the murderers' warped theology.

The latter view has prevailed. Terrorism — suicide bombings in particular— has been widely condemned. Just because an overwhelming majority of Muslims condemn Osama bin Laden and other extremists, however, does not mean that they feel any less for Muslims in Iraq or Palestine. Or that the internal debate that he has forced on Muslims is new. Throughout their 1,400-year history, Muslims have argued and quarrelled over various interpretations of the Qur'an and religious traditions.

But it is a sign of the times that the most extreme interpretation of the Qur'an appeals to Muslim masses these days, and that far too many clerics are attacking Christians and Jews and delivering fire-and-brimstone sermons full of the imagery of war and martyrdom. This is contrary to the message of the Qur'an — Do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation other than in the most kindly manner (29:46) — and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad: "Do not consider me better than Moses," and, "I am closest of all people to Jesus, son of Mary."

For all the emphasis that today's clerics put on the Prophet's war record, he spent a total of less than a week in actual battle in the 23 years of his prophethood. He advised his followers to "be moderate in religious matters, for excess caused the destruction of earlier communities." A moderate himself, he smiled often, spoke softly and delivered brief sermons. "The Prophet disliked ranting and raving," wrote Imam Bukhari, the ninth-century Islamic scholar of the Prophet's sayings. Ayesha, the Prophet's wife, reported that "he spoke so few words that you could count them." His most famous speech, during the Haj pilgrimage in AD 632, which laid down an entire covenant, was less than 2,800 words.

Muhammad was respectful of Christians and Jews. Hearing the news that the king of Ethiopia had died, he told his followers, "A righteous man has died today; so stand up and pray for your brother." When a Christian delegation came to Medina, he invited them to conduct their service in the mosque, saying, "This is a place consecrated to God." When Saffiyah, one of his wives, complained that she was taunted for her Jewish origins, he told her, "Say unto them, `my father is Aaron, and my uncle is Moses.'"

Yet angry Muslims, not unlike African Americans not too long ago, pay little heed to voices of moderation. This is partly a reflection of the fact that there is no central religious authority in Islam. Only the minority Shiites have a religious hierarchy of ayatollahs, who instruct followers on religious and sometimes political matters. The majority Sunnis do not have the equivalent of the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. A central tenet of their faith is that there is no intermediary between the believer and God. This makes for great democracy — everyone is free to issue a fatwa (religious ruling) and everyone else is free to ignore it. But the "fatwa chaos" does create confusion — among non-Muslims, who are spooked by the red-hot rhetoric, and also among Muslims, who are left wondering about the "right answers" to some of the most pressing issues of the day.

Muslim Apologetics

There are two kinds of Muslim apologetics. The first is denial: there's little or nothing wrong with Muslims, when there clearly is. The second, seen among some Muslims in the West, takes the form of self-flagellation, of apologizing for their faith or distancing themselves from it. To wit:

"Yes, the problem is Islam, and we must fix it." (Why is Islam any more of a problem than any other faith? And how are they going to fix it?)

"I am a Muslim but I am not a fundamentalist Muslim." (Do Christians say, "I am Christian but not an evangelical Christian?")

"I am a Muslim but ashamed to call myself one." (Do all Hindus have to apologize for those few who, in 1992, went on a mosque-ravaging rampage in India?)

Some of these sentiments may be genuinely held. More likely, they reflect the immigrant pathology of catering to majority mores, a new twist on the past practice of immigrants to North America anglicizing their names.

Such defensiveness aside, Muslims do suffer from deeper problems. Many are preoccupied with the minutiae of rituals (Should one wash the bare feet before prayers or do so symbolically over the socks?) at the expense of the centrality of the faith, which is fostering peace, justice and compassion, not just for Muslims but for everyone. Many Muslims are too judgmental of each other, whereas a central tenet of their faith is that it is up to God to judge — Your Lord knows best who goes astray (53:30) (also, 6:117, 16:125, 17:94, 28:56, 68:7).

Some Muslims have taken to a culture of conspiracy theories. Hence the notion that Princess Diana did not die in an accident but was killed because the British royal family did not want her to marry Dodi Al Fayed, a Muslim. Or the canard that Jews working at the World Trade Center had advance notice of 9/11.

There is too much of a literalist reading of the Qur'an (a trait, ironically, also adopted by anti-Islamists in the West). There is too little ijtehad (religious innovation) as called for by Islam to keep believers in tune with their times. Theological rigidity and narrow-mindedness have led, among other things, to Sunni hostility toward the minority Shiites, as seen in the sectarian killings in Pakistan.

Muslims complain about the West's double standards, yet they have their own. While they often criticize the United States and Europe for mistreating Muslims, they rarely speak up against the persecution of non-Muslims by Muslims. They also show a high tolerance for Muslims killing fellow Muslims. The Sudanese genocide of the non-Arab Muslims of Darfur drew mostly silence. The killing of Shiites by the Sunnis in Iraq was shrugged off as part of the anti-U.S. resistance. The overt and subtle racism of the oil-rich Arab states toward the millions of their guest workers goes unmourned.

Muslims do not have much to be proud of in the contemporary world. So they take comfort in their burgeoning numbers. At the turn of the millennium in 2000, there were many learned papers projecting the rise in Muslim population. But if Muslims have not achieved much at 1.3 billion, they are not likely to at 1.5 billion, either.

To escape the present, many Muslims hark back to their glorious past: how Islam was a reform movement; how Muslims led the world in knowledge, in astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, natural sciences, philosophy and physics; and how the Islamic empires were successful primarily because, with some egregious exceptions, they nurtured the local cultures and respected the religions of their non-Muslim majority populations. This is why Egypt and Syria remained non-Muslim under Muslim rule for 300 years and 600 years, respectively, and India always remained majority Hindu.

As true as all that history is, it is not very helpful today unless Muslims learn something from it — to value human life; accept each other's religious differences; respect other faiths; return to their historic culture of academic excellence, scientific inquiry and economic self-reliance; and learn to live with differences of opinion and the periodic rancorous debates that mark democracies.

It may be unfair to berate ordinary Muslims, given that too many are struggling to survive, that nearly half live under authoritarian regimes where they can speak up only on pain of being incarcerated, tortured or killed, and that they are helpless spectators to the sufferings of fellow Muslims in an unjust world order. Yet Muslims have no choice but to confront their challenges, for Allah never changes a people's state unless they change what's in themselves (13:11).

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

"Being Muslim" is scheduled to be released Sept. 15. For more information, visit http://www.groundwoodbooks.com

the toronto star

[Guest onemind]

I am so sick of "its not my religions fault, its the dum fuks that pratice its".

The simple fact is, the masses are not about to become theologians, religous scholars or intellectuals and they rely on these simple teachings for guidelines which is the inherent problem with religion.

Yes, you can look at the history books and read about the muslim invasions, the muslim terrorism, the muslim evil acts and then say its not islams fault but it is

[Guest onemind]

And before anyone says that i just dont like islam, i equally dont like christianity or judaism.

Its the 21st century for fuk sake. We are out growing this dogmatic bs and it is well and truely time to let the fuk go of it.

[Guest onemind]

And why do muslims never discuss the 167 verses that preach hatred, murder and torture of infidels? If the simple minded masses get a hold of this book there will be trouble, hold on, thats already happened and we need a scholar to tell us why?

As for tolerence, why should i be tolerent of a religion that wants to torture me for not believing in it? The simple fact is, i dont tolerate it and would happily go to war against it just like all my other ancestors who have been killed by this infectious invading violent meme.

Edited January 4, 2007 by onemind

[nabraxas]

Muslims [....]they start out with love hearts and crocodile tears and end it with machine guns.

If that were true the 446500 Muslims in Australia would have caused some serious trouble by now.

Besides which it's semantic nonsense to label any group as all having the same qualities.

intolerance breeds more intolerance. compassion & understanding are what's needed.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Torsten

[gomaos]

one of my top 5 most listened to music pieces the last few days:

"blues for Allah" by Grateful dead

really cool

[Guest onemind]

If that were true the 446500 Muslims in Australia would have caused some serious trouble by now

So naive. They haven't because they are still the minority. Its a different story when they are the majority and we will see how tolerant they are with an infidel like you.

Besides which it's semantic nonsense to label any group as all having the same qualities.

Is this highschool?

intolerance breeds more intolerance. compassion & understanding are what's needed.

Tell that to them. Lot to learn..

[nil]

one of my top 5 most listened to music pieces the last few days:

"blues for Allah" by Grateful dead

really cool

[Torsten]

[this didn't need to be here - T]

Statements like this are not acceptable on this forum. Edit or get out!

[Guest onemind]

edited, you might want to edit your quote too

[nabraxas]

Is this highschool?

obviously not, but educated people are well aware that saying things like "all people w/long hair are pot smokers" means nothing.

They haven't because they are still the minority

if ALL muslims were murderous fanatics dedicated to killing the infidel wherever they find him why wait for the impossible?

Its a different story when they are the majority and we will see how tolerant they are with an infidel like you.

having spent a large amount ov time in half a dozen muslim countries this infidel has met w/nothing but hospitality.

Intolerance breeds more intolerance. compassion & understanding are what's needed.

Tell that to them

I'd tell it to intollerant folk wherever i meet them. I work & live w/muslims & find the intollerance & hate doesn't come from their direction.

Unfortunately while the older generation has managed to live without such abuse many ov the younger muslims are finding themselves in the firing line; this breeds ill feeling & a vicious circle is created, whipped up by a biased media.

the attitudes ov hate & intolerance are creating a situation no-one wants.

[Guest onemind]

I work & live w/muslims & find the intollerance & hate doesn't come from their direction.

Tell that to the buddhists in asia being slaughtered by muslim invasions today. Yes, Mr Joe Average muslim is like every other human, trying to make a living ect ect but he cant escape the fact that his faith is a breeding ground for intolerance. I admit, it was wrong of me to be so blatently intolerent but wars are faught over this crap and when a group of fundys try to establish islamic law in this country like they have in countless other countries i will not tolerate it. You cant escape the fact that the goal of this meme is world domination and total conversion.

having spent a large amount ov time in half a dozen muslim countries this infidel has met w/nothing but hospitality

I have lived in dubai and experienced their hospitality, witnessed sheiks drinking and gambling and seen muslim woman uncovered so it is easy to conclude that they are just like us with the same old hypocrisy and religious ideals not being lived up to. However, thats all very well until you get in trouble and their legal system is nothing short of dark age facsism.

Multiculturalism, tolerence, freedom to choose religion for oneself, secularism, woman rights, gay rights ect ect are not a part of the islamic agenda so i dont see why we should be so quick to tolerate their bs.

The only recent riots in this country was over muslims, the only religous leader openly critisized in the news and on 60 minutes was a muslim.

Whispering in a childs ear that allah is the one true god and mohammed the one true prophet at the moment of birth is just wrong. Brainwashing is how this meme got so big in the first place and you want to encourage it?

I guess we just see things differently and if my view makes me look like a racist, bigoted, closed minded bastard then so be it but dont come crying to me when your grand kids are yelling allah ackbar.

Edited January 5, 2007 by onemind

[Chemakazi]

but dont come crying to me when your grand kids are yelling allah ackbar.

lol isnt that some dude of starwars?

[nil]

having spent a large amount ov time in half a dozen muslim countries this infidel has met w/nothing but hospitality.

i know you were being facetious, nabraxas....but...i have never heard a muslim refer to anyone as an 'infidel'. there's a term in the muslim community 'kafir', which is meant to mean one who rejects faith in "god". this word is misued in muslim circles and is highly frowned upon in general.

to everyone eles reading.....i hope anyone who has any interest in knowing what islam is and isn't about would just research it for themselves and not rely on words on the internet posted by any biased individuals (same as anything, i guess!).

[Guest onemind]

I have researched it and my conclusion is based on that research. How many times is the word infidel used in the english translation of the quran? At least 500 times and you have never heard it used? What kind of a muslim are you?

[Green Osiris]

To onemind:

Reasearch ? On the English translation of the Quran ? So you would be well aware that NO Muslim considers a translation as the genuine article, merely a poor 'guide'. You will find that in many Muslim countries people learn Arabic for the sole purpose of reading the TRUE Quran.

I too have spent considerable time in Muslim countries, not really the more progressive ones in the UAE, but moreso in Pashtun tribal regions (ie the NWFP and let's say 'surrounding areas') where western influence is minimal and the peoples exist pretty much as they have for hundreds of years. With that comes an unwavering dedication to Islam. And as a solo westerner in a place far, far from typical backpacker paths, I experienced no such hatred nor felt any danger in which your posts might suggest. In fact, despite making it clear to many that I was not (still not) a Muslim, I was embraced by every community I lived with - yes LIVED, not 'travelled through' for a cuppa and some happy-snaps.

I've had far more fundamentalist Christians in my face in Sydney.......

Tell us more about your 'research', onemind.....Living in Dubai probably gave you more an experience of how people worship mammon.

[sobriquet]

I guess people who are destined to not understand never will. Bigotted minds like onemind have little understanding of simple concepts. The word 'infidel' is used commonly in those translations which are done by those with a negative bias since the word has an antagonistic 'us vs. them' quality. The word 'kafir' is simply a denoter for a rejecter of God, and is not a classifier that creates an enemy out of these people. Everyone is free to accept or reject as they wish and no one can be villified for the way they think by other humans. It does not give any person an excuse to hate or villify; their problem is with God, and not in the hands of other people.

2:256 There shall be no compulsion in the way (one chooses): the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.

And for your 'infidel' theory try a search for the word "infidel" in the following search engine and see how many results you get...

http://quranbrowser.submission.info/search.html

=======

Note that the koran also makes it clear that it is not exclusive in having any favour with God. Anyone who believes in God, is righteous and believes that they are accountable to Him alone has nothing to fear, no matter what they label themselves as. Labels are meaningless.

2:62 Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

5:69 Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who (1) believe in GOD and (2) believe in the Last Day, and (3) lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

You can also see that the koran places the common quality of 'humanity' and humanness above allegiances to religions or clubs. For example in the following verse the Jews and Christians who claim special favour with God are told they are HUMANS just like ALL OTHER HUMANS.

[5:18] The Jews and the Christians said, "We are GOD's children and His beloved." Say, "Why then does He punish you for your sins? You are just humans like the other humans He created." He forgives whomever He wills and punishes whomever He wills. To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them, and to Him is the final destiny.

It is clear from this that He has full sovereignty and may forgive or punish WHOMEVER he wills, not based upon allegiance to any club or so called religion.

Islam is not a religion. It has been corrupted by men and made into something it was never meant to be. God calls upon men to live fullfilling lives with dignity and righteousness. He calls upon them to reject evil, and emphasises personal/individual responsibility.

See: http://www.aididsafar.com/ for more details.

Edited January 5, 2007 by sobriquet

[Green Osiris]

There are a tribe of peoples in the region of Afghanistan/Northern Pakistan known as the ‘Kafir Kalash’, which I always thought to be commonly translated as “Black Infidels.” However further investigation suggests that the term ‘Kafir’ being translated as ‘infidel’ may be a false etymology. Historians suggest that:

.....the local name "Kafir" in fact comes from Kapishor Kapishi, the ancient Sanskrit name of the region that included historic Kafiristan; which is also given as Kipin in old Chinese sources. That name, unrelated to the Arabic word, would have at some point mutated into Kapir. Supporters of this theory point out that the name of king Kanishika, who once ruled that region, is also found written as "Kanerika", an example of "sh" mutating to "r". They also note that the dominant Kafir clan before Islamization was called Katir.

The second change from Kapir to Kafir, may have occurred spontaneously, since the exchange of "p" by "f" is fairly common in Indo-European languages. It may also have been the result of confusion or intentional word-play with the Arabic word, since the Kafirs were indeed pagans until 1895. Today it is disputed if the term Kafir really defines a traditional ethnic group.

[Guest onemind]

Well, i am of the understanding that the translation of the quran is quite an extensive process with some of the worlds best islamic scholars being involved. It is not done willy nilly and i doubt they used the word infidel as some kind of propaganda because it is a great offense to create fraudulent copies of the quran and the scholars took great care for the indoctrination of non arab speaking humanity. Whether you use the word infidel or kafir makes no difference, there are still 164 verses that preach the torture and murder of non believers in the quran whether it be the official arabic version or a translation. I am not about to learn another language to learn the one and only truth contained in some book. What crap, only arabic speakers can come to the truth, bs.

I guess people who are destined to not understand never will.

True, you are the righteous chosen one with all knowledge and i am an ignorant faithless heathen. FUCK RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeat, just because i do not believe mohammed to be some kind of prophet and do not believe there is a big bored god up in the sky making ants to torture does not make me ignorant. Your dogmatic, self righteous attitude is the very thing that puts most educated, 21st century human beings off.

[reptyle]

puts them off what? believing in stuff? they do that anyway.

meanwhile its people that attempt to find ways not to make their world more interesting and CHOOSE to search for the negative aspects of what ultimatley is just more data that end up speaking against things which potentially provide gateways toward fullfilment for some people.

the beauty of the texts is that they do contain many distractions, may or may not be intentional, this means that the people that can focus on the beauty get to play with it whilst those that choose to limit their own library's based on other peoples interpretations and actions get trapped in a cycle of disbeliveing what their own mind is trying to show them.

trying to convert someone away from their belief by pointing out the bits you dont understand, and critisizing it, doesnt make that someone think differently, it just makes you look narcisistic. meanwhile pointing out the positive aspects of the many other things outside that someones belief may give them greater freedom...so on and so forth.

everything

[Guest onemind]

whateva

[nil]

i really <3 this place.

[caludia]

by pointing out the bits you dont understand, and critisizing it

i thought i had something to say, but decided not to say it. passed over in silence.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Rimbaud

[nabraxas]

the dalai lama, the embodiment ov compassion, whose people escaped those who were trying to rid the world ov the religious meme & found themselves welcomed into a muslim area ov northern india, once said "God is like a mountain, & all religions are just the views of the different faces of the mountain."