A Muslim's perspective

[Orignal Earl]

Here's a helpful tip for dictators everywhere: If you value your art, don't invade your neighbors and don't shoot at American warplanes.

lol @ your justification for the Iraq war.
The world suffers over those losses. Not just Saddam

Your post doesn't make sense as usual. Are you equating the intentional destruction of prized historical monuments to looting that took place under a negligent occupation? I hope you can see a difference there. But I was always against the Iraq war. And it is shameful that the occupational forces allowed historical treasures to be looted.

I didn't, we didn't, they did

Ya, my post didn't make sense to you.

 

[werepossum]

werepossum, I would have very much appreciated a reference. Allow me to answer every point raised.

Foremost, I would like to say, Lying is prohibited in Islam, except in certain cases. The "except in certain cases falls under the concept of Taqiyya". This is not a novel concept. We lie everyday in certain circumstances. Islam just provides a name to it, so that it does not weigh as a massive sin.

Taqiyya is definitely an Islamic concept. However, to claim that it is a "widely-practiced art" is quite incorrect. I would like to see some substantiation to that claim. The second claim of denying something in English and promoting it in another language is also a claim without substantiation. Please provide substantiation, so that either I can address it or condemn it as the case may be.

The hadith is quite irrelevant to the invasion of Mecca. The history of the treaty and the invastion of Mecca can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

The scope you are referring to is a misrepresentation. Lying to benefit self-esteem is permissible under Islam in cases like where if your wife asks you if she is fat, you say, no darling, you arent. Its not meant to lie by saying stuff like "I make $1 million dollars", just so you boost your self-esteem.

The Lying for "protection of faith" is with respect to situations where your life depends on your religious belief. As we all know, history is rife with examples of where your life was in danger based on your faith. Islam allows you to lie about your faith when a gun is pointed to your temple. This is simple common sense.

As you stated, the broad interpretation of Taqiyya is not the majority view. Can you please provide clarify to which Sunni clerics shun Taqqiya and also endorse the practice in another term?

I am not sure the context to the praiseworthy goal hadith that you quote. If I have time, I will definitely try to educate myself about it and come back with a educated response. I can certainly tell you that no Muslim thinks that Sharia and Islamic clerical rule can be only achieved by lying. Most Muslims are not even in support of Islamic clerical rule.

Hope this helps.

The hadith is The Reflections of the Traveller or The Reliance of The Traveller - the exact title depends on the translator. From The Reliance of the Traveller translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller [Amana Publications, 1997], section r8.2, page 745: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." I have in past seen other translations that strengthen this to include the admonition that lying is mandatory if the goal is mandatory, but I have little access to the hadith and never owned the ones I read. I think this appears in other hadith as well, a lot of sayings do.

The concept of stating one thing in native language and another, more peaceful version in English for world consumption is so standard among Islamic leaders that I'm surprised you'd even question it. Spend some time with those sites that track Islam's leaders and translate their utterances, then compare that with the English translations.

BTW, that wiki page is funny! As wiki itself says, that page has "multiple issues". Sometimes we forget that anyone with any agenda can create or append a wiki page. Puts me in mind of Maulana Muhammed Ali who claimed that Muhammed's 7 year-old bride was actually seventeen because back then people didn't count the first ten years.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Do you think Muslims should form their own army within the US like the Mormons did and swear an Oath of vengeance against the United States

Only if they have holy underwear, everyone knows thats where the real power comes from.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Good points all. Certainly Islamic extremists do not speak for all Muslims, but they do represent far too large a part of international Islam. Just as good Muslims need to speak out and oppose Islamic terrorists and those who would impose sharia, good Christians need to speak out against those who bomb abortion clinics, burn Muslim mosques, and commit atrocities in Africa in the name of Christianity.

So, that the LTTE, mostly Hindus committed the most terrorist attacks in the WORLD prior to the glorious invasion of Iraq to stop them from delivering their farts of depression on Manhattan soil, that means nothing?

Or the LRA who are Christians who hack women and children to death with machetes, or the RIRA, or the LIRA, or the ETA, or the other various Christian groups out there who commit horrors and terrorism in the name of your Christ. (this isn't counted as terrorism, if it was, most terrorist attacks would be made by Christians)

There is a SHIT LOAD of them around the world, i'd say it's about equal between Islam and Christianity actually, however, Christians don't regard those as "True Christians" and they are ok with that, however, when some Muslim remarks that those who commit terrorist acts are not true Muslims, then some Christian will be the first to say "well they do it in the name of Allah and call themselves Muslim". That all those Christian groups do the same and call themselves Christians, that completely eludes them.

It's like talking to the extra stupid people in a nursing home for the exceptionally retarded.

Religion is the bane of all sanity.

 

[routan]

The hadith is The Reflections of the Traveller or The Reliance of The Traveller - the exact title depends on the translator. From The Reliance of the Traveller translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller [Amana Publications, 1997], section r8.2, page 745: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." I have in past seen other translations that strengthen this to include the admonition that lying is mandatory if the goal is mandatory, but I have little access to the hadith and never owned the ones I read. I think this appears in other hadith as well, a lot of sayings do.

The concept of stating one thing in native language and another, more peaceful version in English for world consumption is so standard among Islamic leaders that I'm surprised you'd even question it. Spend some time with those sites that track Islam's leaders and translate their utterances, then compare that with the English translations.

BTW, that wiki page is funny! As wiki itself says, that page has "multiple issues". Sometimes we forget that anyone with any agenda can create or append a wiki page. Puts me in mind of Maulana Muhammed Ali who claimed that Muhammed's 7 year-old bride was actually seventeen because back then people didn't count the first ten years.

werepossum, thank you for the reference to the hadith. As I said before, I do not know the context of the hadith, and will try to educate myself about the subject.

Can you please provide examples of stating one thing in English and another in native language? I sincerely have not come across of such, and examples would be appreciated so at the minimum I can learn about it.

The Wiki link certainly does not cite sources (and I think Wiki should enforce sources requirement for all articles). However, the content is what most textbooks and history books I have read state - albeit they have been mostly Islamic books.

Nonetheless, I tried to answer all your questions and queries. Hope that helped.

 

[bfdd]

routan, how are you a Muslim and know nothing of the context of the hadith? Isn't knowing the hadith essential to understanding the Quran?

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Do you think Muslims should form their own army within the US like the Mormons did and swear an Oath of vengeance against the United States

Ummm, no, what I would like, is for Muslims to form their own army within the US, and abroad to denounce terrorism. To expose, decry, and condemn those that hijacked, and bastardized the Islamic religion. To police their Mosques and report, expose, and expel the Mullahs, that teach hate, and anti Americanism, and those that would follow them, across this/the country. To assimilate,enlighten, assure, and calm the fears of their fellow citizens, with words, and deeds. This may even mean compromise, (placate if you will, i.e. move the damn mosque). And to swear, and affirm an allegiance TO the United States.
[FONT=&quot] Alas, I fear this will never happen, cuz, according to routan the “hundreds of millions”, of good Muslims, are just too damn busy![/FONT]

 

[Orignal Earl]

Ummm, no, what I would like, is for Muslims to form their own army within the US, and abroad to denounce terrorism. To expose, decry, and condemn those that hijacked, and bastardized the Islamic religion. To police their Mosques and report, expose, and expel the Mullahs, that teach hate, and anti Americanism, and those that would follow them, across this/the country. To assimilate,enlighten, assure, and calm the fears of their fellow citizens, with words, and deeds. This may even mean compromise, (placate if you will, i.e. move the damn mosque). And to swear, and affirm an allegiance TO the United States.
[FONT=&quot] Alas, I fear this will never happen, cuz, according to routan the “hundreds of millions”, of good Muslims, are just too damn busy![/FONT]

That's what the Iman at Park51 wants and does.
Your just too tuned into the the Jabber and Infohawk commercials.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Ummm, no, what I would like, is for Muslims to form their own army within the US, and abroad to denounce terrorism. To expose, decry, and condemn those that hijacked, and bastardized the Islamic religion. To police their Mosques and report, expose, and expel the Mullahs, that teach hate, and anti Americanism, and those that would follow them, across this/the country. To assimilate,enlighten, assure, and calm the fears of their fellow citizens, with words, and deeds. This may even mean compromise, (placate if you will, i.e. move the damn mosque). And to swear, and affirm an allegiance TO the United States.
[FONT=&quot] Alas, I fear this will never happen, cuz, according to routan the “hundreds of millions”, of good Muslims, are just too damn busy![/FONT]

Didn't hear you denounce the LRA, LIRA, RIRA and ETA, i mean, you should, because if you are not against them, then you are for them.

It's that way it works, right?

 

[routan]

routan, how are you a Muslim and know nothing of the context of the hadith? Isn't knowing the hadith essential to understanding the Quran?

bfdd, lol. Gem.

No, hadith is not essential to understanding the Quran.

And you neednt know every bit of the Quran to be a Muslim either.

A Muslim is one who believes in the Oneness of God, and accepts Mohammad (sa) as His last messenger. Thats really all you have to do to be a Muslim.

Then you have obligations to the faith, which include praying, fasting, alms-giving and pilgrimate as the essential obligations.

You have further obligations, which include societial, moral and ethical values.

These latter obligations (amongst many thngs) are mentioned in the Quran and expanded on in the Hadith and Sunnah.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Didn't hear you denounce the LRA, LIRA, RIRA and ETA, i mean, you should, because if you are not against them, then you are for them.

It's that way it works, right?

Being in the ETO, you have me at a disadvantage, or I, and my media are under a rock. For I have only fleetingly heard of the ETA, who BTW earlier this month called a cease fire. How it works is, if you get us Yanks riled up enough, we're gonna bomb somebody.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Being in the ETO, you have me at a disadvantage, or I, and my media are under a rock. For I have only fleetingly heard of the ETA, who BTW earlier this month called a cease fire. How it works is, if you get us Yanks riled up enough, we're gonna bomb somebody.

You do realise that these are real organisations that together have perpetrated about 10x as many terrorist acts as Muslims in the last three decades?

I was hoping you'd denounce them, but since you are a terrorist sympathiser along with every other Christian on this forum that has never denounced them either i can only deduct the conclusion that most Christians are actually terrorist sympathisers.

Now, of course, you don't feel it should be your responsibility to reject it, after all, what did you have to do with it, you are totally against it, right?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[soulcougher73]

soulcougher73, so you're saying because I refuse to answer stupid spam questions by one member, that makes me weaslish and avoiding hard questions? Really?

Yes i am. They were all very valid questions that pretty much every member would love to hear your moderate Muslim response to. They are very simple and direct questions. If they were posed to me i would answer each and everyone of them.

You only call them spam because you are scared to answer them.

 

[routan]

Yes i am. They were all very valid questions that pretty much every member would love to hear your moderate Muslim response to. They are very simple and direct questions. If they were posed to me i would answer each and everyone of them.

You only call them spam because you are scared to answer them.

soulcougher73, lol, fine, you can absolutely go ahead and consider me "scared to answer" questions. I'll continue to ignore idiots.

Interesting that you speak for all members here 🙄

 

[runzwithsizorz]

You do realise that these are real organisations that together have perpetrated about 10x as many terrorist acts as Muslims in the last three decades?

I was hoping you'd denounce them, but since you are a terrorist sympathiser along with every other Christian on this forum that has never denounced them either i can only deduct the conclusion that most Christians are actually terrorist sympathisers.

Now, of course, you don't feel it should be your responsibility to reject it, after all, what did you have to do with it, you are totally against it, right?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

You have failed at reading, and/or comprehension. Re-read my last 2 posts. Meanwhile, take your finger off the trigger, stand down, and take a breather, and don't go picking fights with those that, very well, may be on your side, as I, may be, one day on routan's side. And yeah, I get what you are trying to say, but it really has nothing to do with ME. Although it may appear that this is a gang tackle on routan, please keep in mind that each poster in this thread is an individual, so try and isolate your targets, before firing.

 

[PJABBER]

As routan is not addressing the softball questions he has been lobbed (spammed, LOL!) as a "moderate" Muslim, perhaps we might sympathetically consider what being a "moderate" really implies.

The challenge of truth to routan is a difficult one indeed. For what are the actual differences between a "moderate" Muslim and one who is not? Where is the line drawn? How far is far enough?

How far before "moderation" becomes apostasy? Any claim to "moderation" means that some literal aspect of the Koran is rejected and that itself is heretical and cause for a finding of fasaad fi al-ardh.

Fasaad fi al-ardh is punished by death. What are some crimes for which the capital punishment of fasaad fi al-ardh may be applied?

• Apostacy (always #1)
• Terrorism (against Islam only, kafirs like us are fair game)
• Rape
• Adultery
• Homosexual behavior

Actual methods of capital punishment vary from place to place. In some Muslim countries, methods have included beheading, hanging, stoning, and firing squad. Executions are held publicly, to serve as warnings to would-be criminals.

If a "moderate" Muslim dare not speak the truth, may actually fear for his life, then how are we to deal with the not-"moderate" in places like Afghanistan?

We have lots of troops in these places of non-"moderate" Islam. Diana West offers a comment on the cultural barriers confronted daily and how difficult it is to find common ground, if we should at all.

Chilling with mullahs

By Diana West

September 24, 2010

Your tax dollars at work:

"In a mock Afghan village on the Quantico Marine base," the Washington Post reports, "Sloan Mann, a military contractor, guided several Marines into a sweltering concrete room. They came to meet a fake mullah, played by an Afghan American actor. Mann, a former Army infantry officer, watched as the Marines practiced the seemingly straightforward tactic of chatting up Afghan village leaders."

The article goes on to describe Sgt. Walton Cabrera, 25, who "sat before the mullah but couldn't ease into a groove. 'So . . . how's everything in the village so far?' he asked. 'Has the population changed?'

"Armed with a pen and report card, Mann, 36, handed up harsh feedback. 'No rapport,' he wrote.'"

No rapport? But that's a good thing.

America will truly be in trouble when our best young people actually relate to the dominant members of Afghanistan's violent, misogynistic, pederasty-prone, polygamous, tribal, Islamically supremacist and corrupt culture. But Mann, currently delivering on a tidy $1.5 million annual contract with the Pentagon, has a job to do.

He pulled several Marines aside near the mock Afghan bazaar to give them expert instruction: "You guys don't like building rapport? Chill. Have a conversation. Hang out with them."

So it goes, up and down the military food chain, all eyes on The Relationship between Americans and Afghans, which, given the constant and remedial attention, would appear to be sparkless - again, civilizationally speaking, a good thing.

Last July, with the initial deployment of Marines to Helmand province, it was Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson telling his men: "You're going to drink lots of tea. You're going to eat lots of goat. Get to know the people. That's why we're here."

Last month, it was Gen. David Petraeus' new counterinsurgency guidelines, which open with "The decisive terrain is the human terrain." Later: "Take off your sunglasses. ... Earn the people's trust, talk to them, ask them questions, and learn about their lives."

Now, it's come to this: A military contractor is hired to help Marines pull themselves out of the Lonely Hearts (and Minds) Club that is, in the words of the Post reporter, making their "encounters with the 'mullah' [feel] like bad first dates."

But, honestly, what would count as icebreakers with a Pashtun tribal elder? In all likelihood he has several wives, some of whom are no more than children (in homage to Mohammed's child bride Aisha).

He may well be a "bacha baz," which is the term for an older man who has a sexual relationship with a boy. (As research recently highlighted by Joel Brinkley shows, this is common practice in Kandahar and other southern Afghan towns.)

How's - the wives? What's a night out in Kandahar like with - the boys? Um, burned any Americans in effigy lately? And by the way, wherever do you shop for all of those American flags to light up for Islam?

Clearly, it's all too easy to get off on the wrong foot, and Sgt. Cabrera just never clicked with his "mullah." By the newspaper's account, he earned "zero out of five points for his 'build rapport' and five out of 10 for having 'effectively weaved questions into a conversation.'"

Cabrera explained he had been "worrying too much about avoiding insult to the mullah" - always a conversation chiller.

By session's end, Mann delivered his final assessment to Marine commanders. "Three things," he told them. "One, lack of preparation. Two, it was a full-on interrogation. Three, lack of rapport."

And yes, that contract was for $1.5 million.

But maybe it's worth the price to know Marines aren't simpatico with mullahs. You already knew that? Well, let's hope it sticks.

The Petraeus guidelines are also big on pushing Afghan empathy, specifically encouraging troops to "view our actions through the eyes of the Afghans." That's perfectly fine for the Afghans, but when an American commander exhorts his troops to "consult with elders before pursuing new initiatives and operations," we can only hope he doesn't mean consulting them before pursuing polygamy or pederasty or wife beating or such like.

The truth is, for our civilization's sake, we can't afford for our people to hit it off.
​

 

[soulcougher73]

soulcougher73, lol, fine, you can absolutely go ahead and consider me "scared to answer" questions. I'll continue to ignore idiots.

Interesting that you speak for all members here 🙄

By idiots do you mean posters who pose rational questions to you? Or does it only apply to poster who ask questions you don't want to answer?

Oh wait. You probably don't want to answer that. I'm an idiot. My bad.

 

[routan]

By idiots do you mean posters who pose rational questions to you? Or does it only apply to poster who ask questions you don't want to answer?

Oh wait. You probably don't want to answer that. I'm an idiot. My bad.

soulcougher73, I have answered (almost) all queries that werent idiotic.

This line of conversation is not serving any purpose. You can continue to bait me, to which you will certainly fail, or you can contibute in a positive fashion.

The choice is yours.

 

[nobodyknows]

That's what the Iman at Park51 wants and does.
Your just too tuned into the the Jabber and Infohawk commercials.

what people say they want and what they really want are usually two different things.

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

 

[Orignal Earl]

what people say they want and what they really want are usually two different things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxFzFIDbKpg

Yup, lot's of times..

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/07/exposing-david-wood-of-mosques-and-men-pt-2/

Exposing David Wood: Of Mosques and Men, Pt. 2

 

[werepossum]

routan, how are you a Muslim and know nothing of the context of the hadith? Isn't knowing the hadith essential to understanding the Quran?

Hadith are collections of apocryphal sayings of Muhammed. There are literally hundreds of hadith and multiple translations of most, no one can really know them all. There are six or seven major hadith, I forget. Hadith are mostly used by clerics to interpret the will of Allah as reflected by Muhammed; different sects place different amounts of emphasis on each major hadith, so the hadith, and the post-Muhammed clerics who compiled them, are what define the various sects. Not many Muslims are actually familiar with a large number of them, and then usually only those considered important to their particular sect, so it's not unusual for Muslims to know little or nothing of hadith. Also they tend to place Muhammed in a light not flattering by modern standards - Muhammed is in no wise a man to compare with Jesus or Moses or Buddha, but is thoroughly a man of his times, violent and self-serving as any - so it's not something most Islamic clerics really push their wards to read unless they want radicalized followers. Most probably prefer to push Muhammed through the Quran, which casts him a better light. Note though that the hadith are used to form Islamic law - that is, to determine the proper interpretation and limits of Sharia.

Routan, it's very difficult to provide specific examples as I largely gave up visiting sites in Islamic countries a couple years ago. I used to frequent many political and military sites in Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, Iran and Russia, but had to give them up because I kept getting nasty viruses with which my anti-virus software was not yet familiar. But I'll give you this.

This is a quote from Abdul Rauf in Al-Ghad (Jordan) as translated by Walid Shoebat:
"People asked me right after the 9/11 attack as to why do movements with political agendas carry [Islamic] religious names? Why call it ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ or ‘Hezbollah (Party of Allah)’ or ‘Hamas’ or ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’? I answer them this—that the trend towards Islamic law and justice begins in religious movements,because secularism had failed to deliver what the Muslim wants, which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

In America Rauf has limited himself to refusing to call out these groups as terrorist organizations, saying only "it's complicated." However in Arabic he refers to them as "the trend towards Islamic law and justice."

Walid Shoebat is an ex-PLO terrorist who, to make amends, now makes his living speaking out against terrorism and exposing those who give aid and comfort to terrorist organizations. http://shoebat.com/

If you want to see for yourself what Islamic leaders are saying for domestic consumption, try these sites, but remember - you are warned. Viruses in these countries are often not yet defined and protected against in Western countries. I long ago deleted the worst though, these are relatively safe. If you read Arabic or Farsi, look for those news sites as the English versions are often sanitized. If not, you'll have to decide for yourself whose translations you believe.
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://www.irna.ir/?LANG=EN&PART=_HOME&TYPE=HP
http://www.jpost.com/
http://paktribune.com/index.shtml

 

[Orignal Earl]

In America Rauf has limited himself to refusing to call out these groups as terrorist organizations, saying only "it's complicated." However in Arabic he refers to them as "the trend towards Islamic law and justice."

RAUF: I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism. And Hamas has committed acts of terrorism.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

You guys wonder why routan gets sick of repeating himself.
He answers one poster, and then a couple of pages later, here's another guy repeating the same crap.
Over and over.

 

[werepossum]

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

You guys wonder why routan gets sick of repeating himself.
He answers one poster, and then a couple of pages later, here's another guy repeating the same crap.
Over and over.

Good to know he has bent enough to admit Hamas has committed terrorist acts even if he can't quite bring himself to call it a terrorist group.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Good to know he has bent enough to admit Hamas has committed terrorist acts even if he can't quite bring himself to call it a terrorist group.

A lot of countries don't call Hamas a terrorist org.
Australia and the UK only call the military wing a terrorist org
Basically you only have Canada the US and the EU agreeing it is.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

A lot of countries don't call Hamas a terrorist org.
Australia and the UK only call the military wing a terrorist org
Basically you only have Canada the US and the EU agreeing it is.

What do you think?