IDEAS
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
When taboos must be broken
01-Feb-2008
Islam, as a religion, is a composite of beliefs and traditions from divergent monotheistic prophets, those who would teach the belief in one God. It is as a social order that Islam distinguishes in creeds and practice from other religions. It is as a social order that Islam is distinct in creed and practice from other religions; it is both a social order and a functional political system. Islam in its development abandoned the initial period of spiritual teachings in favour of strict social and judicial rules for Muslims. To see how this happened, let us take an unbiased look at its development.
The alleged prophecy of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah started with the revelation of the Koran when he was 40 and living in Mecca. He started believing that he was chosen to communicate a divine message to his fellow city dwellers. Thus his prophecy began when in one of his usual meditations in Mount of Hira, near Mecca, he received the first revelation of the Koran delivered by angel Gabriel. The revelation began with the first “Ayah” (verse) of the Koran, to illiterate Muhammad, commanding him to “read with the name of Allah”. In such moments of initial revelation, he was in a kind of trance (ecstasy), with accompanying features, such as perspiring, convulsions, clouding of or loss of consciousness. All those symptoms suggest to some scholars that he was probably epileptic. Perhaps because of excessive suffering in his past, he looked to his unconscious for sources of enlightenment.
The Koran is alleged to be God’s message to mankind. It contains 114 “Surahs” (chapters), which are sub-divided into “Ayah” (verses). The writings of the Koran remained in separate pieces for some 23 years. The doctrine of the Koran emphasises strict “Tawheed” (monotheism). It challenges the pantheism of both ancient Greek and Oriental religions, which prior to Islam had identified God with the forces of nature and with the natural substances within space and time. Tawheed also rejects the Christian Trinity, which claims that God is three persons in one substance. It considers any idea of joining others with God as a “shirk” (an unforgivable sin). Everything is created by God and is limited to divine predestination. Nothing can escape the Divine Laws, including Jinn (an intelligent being created from pure fire) and man (created from earth). However, it incorporates the idea of some ancient Greek philosophers who believed in the primary element (arche) for all that exists. Ancient Greek philosophers were the first to emphasise the rational unity of things by rejecting mythological explanations of the world. The elements of soil from Empedocles and fire from Heraclites (as the first elements of man and Jinn) have also been incorporated into the Koran.
A major part of the Koran consists of commands and warnings for Muslims; a smaller part contains stories, myths, and events also related in other Holy Books (Torah, Bible)--sometimes with some differences in detail. The allegations that the Koran is intact can be very controversial since its characteristics such as repetition, arbitrary succession, and variations in rhythmic style reflect a human collective modification in its origin. Many secular scholars are less than willing to attribute the entire Koran to Muhammad. For many critics, the Koran, taken as whole, is obscure, is both linguistically and conceptually incoherent, and it can be simply argued that the book is the product of belated editing of materials Intended for different purposes. Despite many prudent “Tafsir” (interpretations), the Koran is left untouched by criticism by Muslims. Muslims believe that the Koran is the infallible word of God, it can neither be influenced nor modified by circumstances: refuting one single verse of the Koran means to “condemn” the whole of Islam in its perfection. Muslims’ general belief is that that the righteous Koran can contain no mistake and it cannot be suppressed by any new discovery and can apply to any circumstances with no temporal or geographical border. The origin of the Koran is supposed to be inscribed as God’s eternal word on golden tablets in paradise.
The main taboo in Islam is that no Muslim should be allowed to blame the Koran for contradictions or mistakes. To bear more resemblance to logical commands, some “modern” Muslims attempt to interpret the surahs of Koran differently. Sometimes, the forged interpretations are so controversial that these interpretations are new causes of splits among Muslims. For example, Muhammad Abduh, the founder of modernism in Egypt, interprets Jinn as a microbe (though existence of Jinn with its myths and fables was a traditional belief of the Arab pagans and has been mentioned many times in the Koran as a living being equivalent to man). In another verse, God says, “And I created not the Jinns and humans except they worship me”.
Though religion’s teachings of the creation scenario and any scientific theory are fundamentally incompatible—religious interpretation says it all happened several thousand years ago and took six literal days to complete--some other “modern” Muslims do not deny the whole scheme from the Big Bang, or from the singled-celled organism to homo sapiens, but they grotesquely attempt to patch up the verses of the Koran with established sciences like Evolution, the theory of General Relativity, aerodynamics, and quantum theory to prove that Islam has the final solution for everything.
Muhammad was before the prophecy a reliable businessman (Muhammad-al- amin), working for his wealthy wife, Khadijah. As a prophet in Mecca, he was a sage thinker, a quick speaker, who could invite people to believe in the only God “Allah”. He was decent, humble and generous to the poor, with whom he shared his meal. After 10 years of prophecy, he had to leave Mecca and his migration--“Hijrat”-- to Medina in 622 marks his new career.
In Medina, as a powerful prophet with personal ambitions, Muhammad did not only used and abused the existing traditional norms of society; he s also violated ethical rules of his own religion to achieve his goals. As such, he had the privilege of having more wives than was permitted under his own Islamic law. He even had the controversial right to marry his daughter-in-law, Zainab--she divorced the Prophet’s adopted son (Zaid) to marry Muhammad. As a husband, he had the advantage to arbitrarily treat his wives as he liked.
In his financial exploits, he allowed himself the right to rob caravans (for which other robbers would have been beheaded), or to impose humiliating “Jizya” (taxes charged from non-Muslims) on “Dhimmis” (subjugated Christian and Jewish minorities living in the early Islamic community). He ordered the confiscation of lands and properties from “Dhimmis”, his enemies. He openly claimed that “the spoils of war were made lawful unto me”.
As a political leader he had the right to fight back against his rivals, and was merciless and revengeful toward his enemies and rivals, even so far as to give orders to murder many of them. He was the founder of the first Arab Empire (a Caliphate which became during a long period after the Prophet’s death one of the biggest conquerors in the world at that time). Historically, many believe that Muhammad was a religious and politically prominent leader. He undoubtedly left significant marks on the history of mankind. Many Western scholars, without believing in Muhammad’s prophecy, have confirmed this fact. However, the sources of information about the personal life of Muhammad are reduced to the Koran, “Sirah” (biography of the Prophet) and some part of the Hadiths which are considered as “sahih” (reliable).
Nabuwwat, or Muhammad’s claim of being God’s prophet ((Muhammad-al-rassul-Allah) is one of the pillars of Islam. Almost 100 surahs of the Koran attempt to confirm this claim. If all these surahs were not enough, Islamic scholars have additionally narrated different sayings over different periods and circumstances to endorse the belief on Nabuwwat. The only reason to endorse this belief however remains that the Koran is God’s word delivered to Muhammad; in other words, Nabuwwat or Muhammad’s claim of divine mission is written in the Koran which is allegedly the word of God, transmitted by Muhammad. In a certain logic, this entire puzzle looks like a tricky compromise between God and Muhammad himself, which has been difficult for rational people to believe. Nabuwwat can never be rationally proved, even for some Muslim scholars like the famous rationalist M.Z Razi, quoted by the Iranian writer, Ali Dashti in his book, “23 Saal” (23 years), a reference to the duration of Muhammad’s prophecy.
Another pillar of Islam is the conviction that Muhammad is the final Prophet, and his religion, Islam, is the last and only word of God to follow (Khatam-al-Nabiyin). It is not plausibly clear why an Almighty God should deprive mankind of new prophets to solve new problems in adaptive manners. And why one of these numerous gurus or alleged prophets around the world cannot be a new handpicked prophet by God.
But in the history of Islam, the Koran was often represented beside a sword—swords beside a verse of Koran on the flag of Saudi Arabia still represent this old Islamic symbol. “Seif-al-Islam” (sword of Islam) reminds how it could compensate for the lack of rationality and logic to expand Islam in “dar-al-Islam” (territory of Islam). Only, the effect of this symbiosis of sword / Koran was not rooted in ethics but in a moral failure--when “Dawa” (demand of conversion into Islam or accepting its values, for Muslims and non Muslims alike) cannot alone be enough to convert people to Islam or an Islamic way of life.
Nevertheless, the factor of fear behind this symbiosis impedes Muslims in posing simple questions about the authenticity of Islam, questions many of us may not have learnt to ask. However, the fear resulting from this symbiosis has a long history. The typical warmongering tradition of the clan society of Arabia was used cleverly by Muhammad. He divinised the tradition by calling it “Jihad-fi-sabil Allah” (war for the sake of Allah). Holy Jihad was served by Muhammad and his successors to expand “Islamic ummah” (Islamic society).
For the early Islamic ruling class, jihad was promoted into faith-based use of violence. Islam without the use of violence could never achieve its today’s growth. Among the terrors committed by Muhammad himself, some of them are more characterised because they inspire crimes of political Islam today. According to Ali Dashti, while Muhammad surrounded Mecca in 632, a compromise of capitulation was achieved: Muhammad accepted a peaceful capitulation of Mecca; in exchange of a general amnesty for the population, though excluding certain individuals like Ibn Abdullah, who was one of Muhammad’s early companions and wrote down scripts of Koran for him. He was executed because of having publicly denounced the man-made origin of the Koran. Although Muhammad accepted the peace treaty, on his return from Mecca to Medina, he attacked a group of Bedouins en route and so the treaty was voided. According to the Collection of Bukhari, a famous scholar, the Jewish peot Ka’b Ibn Ashraf, who wrote satirical verses about Muhammad, was killed for it. His voluntary killer was praised by Muhammad.
The above examples explain many acts of atrocity committed by the IRI and Islamists around the world; among which figure the execution of several thousand political prisoners in the massacre of summer, ‘88 in Iran, the death-fatwa against “unbelievers” like the British author, Rushdie, and the Dutch Islam-critical film maker Theo Van Gogh—killed by a radical Muslim in charge of the blasphemy against Islam in his film called “Submission”-- and terror on innocent people.
The worst is that these early Islamic terrors have been promoted into the pattern model for the Constitution and especially for the judicial system of some Islamic countries. With the advent of the IRI and its atrocious methods of repression and violation to the most basic standards of human rights against the people of Iran, we need more rational debates to bring about a new capacity for secular and democratic options to unmask the ills of political Islam. It is only possible when we have courage to break any taboo on public displays of judgement.
| Recently by Jahanshah Rashidian | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Journée Internationale des Femmes | - | Mar 08, 2010 |
| Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery | 13 | Feb 04, 2010 |
| Iran Fails United Opposition | 5 | Jan 20, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
RE: I think JR should be nominated for Noble prize!!!!!!!!!!!
by LostIdentity (not verified) on Wed Feb 06, 2008 08:15 PM PSTYou have totally misunderstood the message of Islam. I really don't know where to start in critically discussing your points here. In short, I may say that your take on Islam is AS DOGMATIC AS the take of so-called Islamic extremists are. If you do not believe me, just read what you have written and be your own critic.
You really don't want not question Islam, you are questioning existence of God. If you agree with that, you are then just barking of the wrong tree. You need to move onto discussing the philosphy of religions. BUT, I know that you are trying to make a political point here. So, I assure you that this is not going to serve you to reach your objectives.
As Wayn Dyer says: "You got to believe it to see it"
But a secular mind wants to see it to believe it; However, I assure you that the mindset you have you will NOT believe it even if you see it!!!!!!!!!!!
So, to achieve your political goals, I suggest you leave God alone in your mind, and go on more tangible subjects.
Re: Anon111
by LostIdentity (not verified) on Wed Feb 06, 2008 08:00 PM PSTYou say:"All I care about is: can this moderate's arguments from the Qur'an and Sunnah convince jihad terrorists to stop waging war in the name of Islam? If it looks as if they can, I will support the moderate wholeheartedly. But if it looks as if they can't, then I wish someone would tell me why such moderates are even worth supporting."
Dogmatic irrational mind is not a trait of one religion or one country. It's a behavioral and mental state of group of people on earth. You can find them in any religion or country. These people even go against their leader and have no respect and tolerance to any body else. Moderates and other scales of ratinal thinking is considered "out of line" and "inappropriate" with these people.
So, next time you want to categorize "the socially unbinding" people, I hope you categorize it under "dogmatic extremist" category rather than a particular religion.
Peace for all mankind;
Dear Wondering
by Anonymous4now on Wed Feb 06, 2008 02:12 PM PSTThanks for your thoughtful response. I am sure you know the recent history of the Middle East and how the British, in their infinite wisdom, tried to solve the problem of a people with no home, by displacing another, whom they considered nomadic and not attached to any one land. They carved out other artificial boundaries, out of the carcass of the Ottoman empire, in creating Jordan and Iraq and further to the East, by creating Pakistan. As if this was not problematic enough, you then have a colonel Naser from Egypt, who conjures up the phony concept of Arab Nationalism (he was the one who coined the term Arabian Gulf in place of the Persian Gulf) and feeds on the sentiments of the entire neighborhood to make himself the dominant power in the region (much like the IRI is attempting to do now, with the concept of the larger Islamic nation). The West (British at first and then the Americans) could not sit on the side line while a line up of self serving Arab nations pretended to be defending the rights of the Palestinians, and protected the country they had helped create.
If the Palestinians realized how they are being manipulated by the Arabs and the IRI and instead decided to stop terrorizing Israeli civilians and accept a two state solution, they would have it in no time at all. The Israelis are ready for a two state solution and are tired of being at war all the time. But instead, as soon as Gaza is returned to them, Hamas launches rocket attacks into Israel. There is a 60 year history of violence and it has to break some where and where and when better than starting to show the world you can take care of your own in Gaza. But the manipulated ones fought it out (Hamas and Fatah) and the real fight remains to be fought with the Shiite Hezbollah over which phony protector of the Palestinians will oppress them more. There is a 20% population of Arabs in Israel, who have integrated and live happily and comfortably in a democratic system. No one would benefit from peace more than the Palestinians, who could have, not only a home to live in but to enjoy the benefits of a trading relationship with Israel.
Ever since Naser, the Arab leaders (and now IRI) in the Middle East have fancied themselves to be that Arab (Moslem) leader and have been competing for that position. So the Palestinians remain to be the pawns, and Israel the villain.
RE: Anonymous4now
by Wondering (not verified) on Wed Feb 06, 2008 09:23 AM PSTYou are probably right. I don't think that if Israel was not there, that there would be peace or greatness in that area. But that doesn't justify the idiocy of a bunch of educated people with money and power to try to "defeat their enemy" in a 3000 year old war by "re-"establishing the old kingdom using force. What I AM saying is that Israel must acknowledge (even if quietly to herself) that such a decision was amazingly stupid. If they do, they will find an honorable way to get themselves out of this mess. But they clearly are not willing to do that. I have seen a lot of pro-Israelis here and they all do ONE thing. They apply psychology to the situation. They ONLY try to control the perception of people. This is probably because of the advice of the multi-million dollar PR companies (which all work on the principles of psychology on how to manipulate human perception). They are dishonest. They do not want to know the truth. They don't truly believe that the truth can set them free. They probably privately laugh at the idea. They are relying on their force (financial, political, military) to hopefully get them through for another few hundred years until people finally give up trying to change Israel. They are therefore dishonorable pathetic people, no matter how much they try to present themselves as democratic and modern. The fact is that it shows that they have reverted to their backward Middle Eastern roots and show their inability to take responsibility and have power. In other words deep down they doubt that they deserve to be powerful.
I don't say much about Arabs or Palestinians because I believe those who have more power are more responsible. I think Israel is in much better position to do something about that area. Now that they have made the mistake of migrating ("back") there, they have to wake up and realize that they have now inherited the area. It is their responsibility now - something that usually a conquering force does not expect or realize. Just like that Americans who are starting to realize that now that they have taken over Iraq, they must babysit it.
I hope that makes sense to you. I don't wish for any people to be wiped off the map or ignored or destroyed. But I mainly attack Israel because I really disapprove of their pathetic attitude and the strategy they take which is the use of mind manipulation instead of decency and honor and faith in human character. And Palestinians or Arabs? You should take pride in me saying that I don't expect much from a group of uneducated backwards people. If anything, I think we should help them grow instead of drawing a wall around us and refusing to even pay attention to them or blame them for being barbaric, or considering them subhuman (as Nazis considered the Jewish people). people are people and education and a little patience can be far far more effective than using force and punishment.
May real communication replace the need for bullets and bombs.
Wondering
by Anonymous4now on Tue Feb 05, 2008 09:29 PM PSTAre you wondering sareh piazi ya taheh piaz? Let me define a disaster for you. When and if the different Palestinian factions, miraculously accept a two state solution, you will witness Hamas, Hezbolah and Fatah, fight over who will oppress the Palestinians more and which one will be more successful in creating another disaster of a country, next to the most successful, technologically advanced democratic state in the Middle East.
Re: Anonymous111
by jamshid on Tue Feb 05, 2008 07:33 PM PSTThat was an excellent post! Funny but true! I loved it!
RE: تاريخ: تکرار مکرَ رات
Wondering (not verified)Tue Feb 05, 2008 04:16 PM PST
Hey, could you also do a poem like that describing when Israel was forced into existence and what the disastrous results were? That would make it a great pair.
Re: The Iranian Parliament is
by Wondering (not verified) on Tue Feb 05, 2008 04:14 PM PSTWhat is the difference between that and the alliance between Western powers to take out any country they don't like? Is Israel anything but part of such a repressive pact?
تاريخ: تکرار مکرَ رات
Anonymous4nowTue Feb 05, 2008 12:08 PM PST
هزاره سرآيد به ايران زمين دگرگون شودکاروشکل بهين
رسيدپادشاهي به يک ديوکين, که دين بهي را زند بر زمين
برآيدهمه کامة جور و خشم از آن ديو بي رحمت تنگ چشم
ز ايران زمين و زنام آوران, فتدپادشاهي به بدگوهران
همه خطة فارس پر غم شود, بجاي طرب رنج و ماتم شود
شود چيره بر خلق آز ونياز فزوني کند رنج و درد وگداز
بسي اوفتددرزمين بوم وبرز, که ويراني آرد به هر شهر ومرز
به بيداد کوشند يکبارگي نرا نندجز برجفا بارگي
کسي را بود نزدشان قدرو جاه که جزسوي کژي نباشدش راه
زمردم هرآنکس که باشدبتر بود هر زمان کار او خوبتر
نيابي در آن بدکسان يک هنر, مگر فتنه وکينه وشوروشر
نبيني در آن قوم راي و مراد, نباشد به گفتارشان اعتماد
نه نان و نمک را بود حرمتي, نه پيرانشان را بود حشمتي
جزآز ونياز و بد و خشم وکين, نبيني تو با خلق روي زمين
بسي گنج ونعمت ززير زمين, برآرند آن قوم ناپاک دين
چو باشند بی دين و بی زينهار, زپيمان شکستن ندارند عار
....................................................
زمردم در آن روزگاران بد, ز صديک نبيني که دارد خرد
بسي نامداران و آزادگان, که آواره گردندازخان ومان
رداني که دربوم ايران بوند, به فرمان ايشان گروگان بوند
شودجفت آن قوم بی اصل و بن, بسي دخت آزادة پاک تن
بخدمت بناچار بسته کمر به نزدچنان قوم بيدادگر
نيامد کسي را چنان رنج و تاب به هنگا م ضحاک وافراسياب
نيارد پدرياد فرزند خويش ازآن رنج وسختي که آيد به پيش
بهرام پژدو (قرن هفتم هجری - قرن چهاردهم ميلادی)
The Iranian Parliament is
by Anonymous3 (not verified) on Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:52 AM PSTThe Iranian Parliament is currently considering a draft penal code that for the first time legislates the death penalty for what the regime defines as apostasy.
Further, the law gives the regime global jurisdiction, holding groups accountable around the globe for differing from the regime on religious issues.
A careful review of the draft clearly shows that it is nothing more than a legislative tool to consolidate power around the regime and extend its religious tyranny globally.
//prweb.com/releases/2008/2/prweb677274.htm
Good job Anonymous-2 !
by Iranian- (not verified) on Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:31 AM PSTThank you by presenting the truth by reference in this website.
People who visit this site are mostly good people. However there have been a few individuals who try to spread irrational hate against Muslims with lies and deceit. The hateful ones never understand, but at least other unsuspecting people will not just buy their wretched thoughts for reality.
Also unfortunately this website promotes such bad behavior by not filtering these bigoted individuals and removing their hateful message. So the owners of this site are also to blame for the injustice against innocent Muslims.
Jewish Terrorists
by Wondering (not verified) on Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:00 AM PSTWe have lived in the West for many years now. We have been kicked out of our country. Now we have power. We have amassed a lot of wealth. We have a lot of political connections. We don't need to fight with suicide bombing or such. We can afford the latest fighter jets, laser guided bombs and such. We need to start our Jewish jihad and in the name of Moses, we will annihilate our enemies. It is our God given right to kill anyone who threatens our survival. It's a Jewish jihad. We have control over media across the world. They won't publish what we do. They will only publish what our enemy does. This is itself s sign from Mr. God that we are right.
Once the Nazis kicked us out of their country. It is time we force our own country into existence at any cost. We will not let anyone else in unless they are Jewish. We don't give a hoot about non-Jews - they are subhuman anyway. We will advertise anything they do in order to justify killing them. Now chant with me my fellow repressed Jews:
Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again! Never again!
Source:
by Anonymous111 (not verified) on Tue Feb 05, 2008 09:41 AM PSTSource: //www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006099.php
I am all for supporting moderate Muslims, but I am not for getting my intellectual pocket picked. I don't care one bit about how good any given moderate speaker can make non-Muslims feel about Islam and the war on terror. All I care about is: can this moderate's arguments from the Qur'an and Sunnah convince jihad terrorists to stop waging war in the name of Islam? If it looks as if they can, I will support the moderate wholeheartedly. But if it looks as if they can't, then I wish someone would tell me why such moderates are even worth supporting. Because they oppose terrorism and extremism? Great. So does CAIR and every other Muslim group in the world. Much, much more is needed, and by giving anyone who calls himself a moderate Muslim a free pass, immunity from questioning, a veritable Emperor's-New-Clothes seal of approval, we are making sure we don't get it.
One more time: jihad terrorists use the Qur'an and Sunnah quite effectively all over the world to recruit Muslims to their ranks. Then moderate Muslims come along and tell us that the Qur'an and Sunnah, properly understood, are benign and peaceful. Terrific. Now please convince your coreligionists.
Muhammad:- Hey people I am a
by Anonymous111 (not verified) on Tue Feb 05, 2008 09:37 AM PSTMuhammad:-
Hey people I am a prophet!
People: -
Where are your credentials?
Muhammad: -
Here is a letter that I have written that says I am a prophet.
People: -
But this is your own words.
Muhammad: -
No this is what Allah dictated and I wrote it.
People: -
How can we know you are not lying?
Muhammad: -
You are deaf, dumb and blind and you’ll burn in hellfire. 2.171, 6.39, 8.22, 17.97
Stupid people aka Muslims: -
Whoa! What a convincing argument! We believe.
Muhammad: -
Now let us go and raid merchant caravans.
Muslims: -
But isn’t stealing unethical?
Muhammad: -
No! Because you became poor after following me and are no more working, Allah has given you the right to lay hand on other people’s property. Also they oppressed you. You can kill them. Oppression is worse than killing 2:217 Now let us attack villages without warning and take the population by surprise while they are heedless and their cattle is being watered at places of water. We will kill their fighting men and take their women and children as captives. Remember that the prettiest of the captives is my share. [Bukhari 3.46.717 ]
Muslims: -
But isn’t raping married women sin?
Muhammad: -
No! Incidentally Allah sent me a verse this morning saying it is okay to have sex with your right hand possessions. 4:24 So rape them with clear conscience. But always remember that the prettiest captive belongs to Allah and his messenger. [Bukhari1.8.367]
Also from now on you don’t have to practice coitus interruptus. Go ahead and ejaculate inside your victims "for if any soul is predestined to exist, it will exist". [Bukhari 3.46.718, 5.59.459 Abu Dawood 29.29.32.95, 29.29.32.96]
Islam has always been about attacking and conquering others, enslaving or killing them, and then living off their slave labor, as disguised in pseudo-religious babble to both embolden the believers and fool the non-believer.
Apply the Golden Rule to Islam and treat it and Muslims as it and they would treat you in Saudi Arabia (the epicenter of the disease.)
Source:
//www.faithfreedom.org/
Israel taboo
by Wondering (not verified) on Tue Feb 05, 2008 08:30 AM PSTAnd then there is the group of educated modern people who take their accumulated wealth, political connections and purchased weaponry and take off from the great West "back" into Middle East to establish a "Jewish state" in order to resurrect a 3000 year old religion that very few still try to follow. This colossally stupid idea causes extreme tension in the area where people are mainly nomad living in extreme poverty. But their mission is sanction by Mr. God himself! This is the promise land! And so another religious jihad was started by people who should have knows better. I mean if these guys, after living in the West for so many years, after getting educated in the best universities of the West, after establishing so much power, can be so incredibly stupid, what should we expect from a bunch of thoroughly uneducated, living-in-the-stone-age people? So let's not just talk about one taboo only because it serves our purpose. Let's talk about the more destructive taboos.
Jihad
by Pouyan (not verified) on Tue Feb 05, 2008 01:01 AM PSTJihad is not only a defensive but also aggressive command. Through it great civilizations of Iran, Syria, and Egypt... were destroyed and
today it serves to the most hideous terrorist groups and the most fascist state, IRI.
The most problem is not if Islam was adaptive to the clan society of Arabia, but the pragmatic facts that it does not fit our time and society. Period
!
to kill or not to kill, that is the question
by The Atheist (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:03 PM PSTSome argue that the Quran instructs Muslims to kill infidels, but is this true? Huda writes:
{For example, one verse reads:
"Slay them wherever you catch them" (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are "they" that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).
It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants}.
"Huda is a Muslim educator and writer with over a decade of experience researching and writing about Islam on the Internet. An American woman of Irish/English descent, she has been a Muslim for the past 16 years."
You should really do your own studying!!
by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 09:45 PM PSTAs I had said earlier, you can't simply take an Aya out of context and expect to grasp its full meaning.
However, before I provide you with the accurate Surahs and their meaning - you had provided two versus one from the Hadith written by Al-Bukhari Ref: V4B52N270 (obviously this is taken from some internet web-site with its own code which identifies the volume, the chapter, book , page whatever..). As I don't use the internet and have no clue what these symbols mean, you have to provide me with the following information from the 9 volume of Al-Bukhari: The Volume #, The Book (within that Volume), and the Chapter (within the Book) before I can respond to your question.
Ishaq:550 - Just FYI Ibn-Ishaq didn't write a Hadith, he merely put together some collections. He wrote a book on the life of the Prophet. As such, if I were you, I would go read his book on the biography of the Prophet, as opposed to this verse.
It will surely give you a thorough idea. I neither have the book, nor his collection. I have Bukharis in hard copy!
Now on the Surahs of the Qur'an:
First: one cannot understand the meaning of these Surahs and the Aya’s without fully understanding when these verses were revealed to the Prophet. Therefore one must have a good understanding of the time frame in the Prophet’s life when these revelations were ordained.
Second: you cannot grasp their full meaning without reading the all of the related Surahs on this topic (earlier as well as later) to grasp the full meaning of the topic.
It is similar to jumping in the middle of a book and looking at two sentences or a chapter and concluding the meaning of what is being said.
This become of greater importance because the Qur’an is not put together in a chronological order.
As such one cannot just selectively take a Surah out of context and attempt to demonstrate its meaning. The individual must have a thorough knowledge of theology, the history of that time (i.e. pre-Islamic Arabia), a credible translation of the Qur’an into English ( the meaning of words in Arabic cannot automatically be translated into their exact equivalent in another language – as such the translator is key - the 3 that I have provided are considered some of the best in the translation of the Qur'an into English)
Third: On the matter of war:
Islam calls for JUSTICE and gives the permission to fighting BACK and resisting all oppressive and tyrannical regimes. However, this is a war for self defense not a preemptive war. . "Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged and verily, God has indeed the power to succor them - those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying "O Sustainer is God."
The Qur'an had begun to develop a primitive just war theory. In the Qur'an self-defense was the only possible justification for hostilities and the preemptive strike was condemned. War was always a terrible evil, but it was sometimes necessary in order to preserve freedom of worship. Even here Qur'an did not abandon its pluralism: synagogues and churches as well as mosques should be protected. The Muslims felt that they had suffered a fearful assault; their expulsion from Mecca was an act that had no justification. Exile from the tribe violated the deepest sanction of Arabia; it had attacked the core of the Muslim's identity.
Constantly the Qur'an insists upon the importance of mercy and forgiveness, even during armed conflict.
"O ye who believe! Be steadfast firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, let not a group's hostility to you cause you to deviate from justice. Be just, for it is closer to piety. Be God conscious; for God is Well Aware of what you do." (Quran; 5-8)
[Shakir 4:135] O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.
While engaged in hostilities, Muslims must fight with courage and steadfastness in order to bring the conflict to an end as quickly as possible. But the moment the enemy asks for peace, Muslims must lay down their arms. They must accept any offer of truce, whatever the conditions are imposed even if they suspect the enemy of double dealing. And although it is important to fight persecution and oppression, the Qur'an constantly reminds Muslims that it is much better to sit down and solve problems by courteous discussion. True, God permitted retaliation in the Torah - eye for eye, tooth for tooth - "but he who shall forgo it out of charity will atone better for some of his past sins."
Retaliation would be strictly confined to those who had actually perpetrated the atrocity, a great advance on the law of vendetta, which permitted revenge against any member of the killer's tribe. The Qur'an reminded Muslims that they were not fighting the whole tribe of Qurayesh; those who had remained neutral throughout the conflict and those Muslims who had chosen to remain in Mecca must not be attacked or injured in any way."
On the meaning of Jihad:
The primary meaning of the Jihad is not "holy war" but the "effort" or "struggle" necessary to put the will of God into practice. Muslims are exhorted to strive in this endeavor on all fronts: intellectual, social, economic, spiritual, and domestic. Sometimes they would have to fight but this was not their chief duty.
[22:39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;
This verse lays down the precondition for all war in Islam: there must exist certain oppressive conditions on the people. The Creator unequivocally orders us to fight oppression and persecution, even at the expense of bloodshed as the following verse shows (translation),
[Pickthal 2:190] Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
[Shakir 2:190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[Yusuf Ali 2:190] Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
The message of Islam is universal. From early times the Muslims were only permitted to fight in self defense. When there is no option, and in the face of persecution, the Muslims must fight. The strength of Islam lies in its certainty of ultimate victory over aggression, transgression, and ascribing falsehood to Allah and His last prophet. Fitna can mean oppression, persecution, seduction - all implying the "discord" that attachment with ghayrallah (other-than-Allah) brings about. It is used as in verse 217 of this surah - war is detestable but fitna is worse than slaughter. Islam promotes peace, order and harmony in the human society and keeps man on the right path. When the enemies of Islam found that the the message was being received from every corner, the disbelievers vowed to annihilate it. It was only then that, no recourse being left for the believers, they had to resolutely take up the sword in defense. Verses 39 and 40 of al Hajj also give permission to fight when any people is wronged, oppressed and persecuted.
If Numbers 25: 1 to 3 and 31: 7 to 18 in the Old Testament are read carefully one comes to the conclusion that when the Israelites, in Shitim, began to worship the gods of Moab the Lord God asked Moses to "take all the leaders of the people and hurl them down to their death before the Lord."
And they made war on Midians as the Lord has commanded Moses, and slew all the men. The Israelites took captive the Madianite women and children, and carried off all their cattle, their flocks and their property. They burnt all their cities. Moses asked them to kill every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man.
So in the way of Allah, the prophets were commanded to put an end to the activities of the disbelievers who wanted to destroy the true devotees of Allah in order to stop the advancement and progress of the religion of Allah. The Quran commands the Muslims not to exceed the limits but to fight evil until its power base is dislodged, and if the kafirs desist then to show mercy. Compared to what the other prophets did, as commanded by Allah, to destroy the unbelievers, the role assigned to Prophet Muhammad was the most benign of all the campaigns undertaken by His messengers to liberate mankind from the clutches of the enemies of Allah.
One has to understand the miserable conditions of the early Muslims to understand that a handful of people could not wantonly set themselves to provoke the active hostility of the whole world about them. They would quietly have borne any provocation rather than take the risk of fighting numberless hordes. If they did engage themselves in this way, the circumstances had forced them to it; unless their very existence was in peril, they could not possibly have thought to plunge themselves into a mortal struggle. This is so clear a priori that even if the initiative did appear to be taken by Muslims, no sane minded person would for a moment suppose that they were really offensive wars. The circumstances had forced them to take action, and if Muhammad had not been quick to it and had waited for a formal assault from the other side, he would only have given the enemy time to collect their forces; and obliterate this little band of Muslims that existed at the time.
The infidels had such a deep-rooted acrimony against the new converts that they pursued them even to Abyssinia, to where the Muslims had fled to avoid the horrible tortures they were suffering at their hands. The infidels would not let them live in peace even in other lands. So how would one imagine they would be allowed to flourish and develop their mission from a center only 70 miles away from themselves? What are the facts? Soon after the emigration of the Holy Prophet, they wrote to the chief of Madina, Abdullah ibna Obay, as follows:
You have given protection to our man. We have sworn by God that you either kill him or expel him, otherwise we will come upon you with all of us. and kill your fighting men and take hold of your women as lawful for us"
Obay bin Kab says, "When the Holy Prophet and his people came to Madina and the Ansars took them under their protection, all the Arabs were united to make an assault upon them. They never lay down to sleep except with their weapons with them."
This is not the place to give an account of the various wars and battles that were fought.
This is merely an introduction that may help you to understand the true state of things at the time. All this is quietly passed over by European critics of Islam.
On Sura 2:191:
Sura 2: Aya 191 from three different translations of the Quran and none had your version of the translation.
[Pickthal 2:191] And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
[Shakir 2:190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[Yusuf Ali 2:191] And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
As such if you put the Aya 190 and 191 together this is the full meaning:
[2:190-192] And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
You can see how the message becomes clearer as opposed to taking one aya as a standalone without fully understanding the entire concept.
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 2:191]
The order is to kill the enemy (against whom fighting has been enjoined) wherever they are found, whilst the war goes on. It does not refer to unbelievers in general.
"And drive them out from where they drove you out" refers to Makka, wherein the Holy Kabah, the centre of Islam, is located, because it belonged to the Muslims but was usurped by the infidels unlawfully.
Fitna means subversive activities to destroy peace and rule of law. With reference to other verses like this verse
(Nisa: 135[Yusufali 4:135] O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.; Ma-idah: 2 and 8)
Islam advocates universal peace and harmony in the human society and teaches its followers to tolerate and accommodate other creeds so far as their followers do not hatch plots and generate ill-will to destroy the Muslims and ascribe falsehood to Allah and His religion. In verses 1, 8 and 9 of al Mumtahanah, the believers are advised to show kindness and do justice to the unbelievers who are not hostile to them. Islam avoids killing and destruction, but when public peace and safety is at stake, prompt and severe action is taken to bring order and eliminate lawlessness. Islam has no room for willful aggressors and cunning mischief-makers. The sanctity of the holy Kabah and the sacred months is very important, but when attacked all considerations should be kept in abeyance till the aggressors are destroyed completely. Keeping this principle in view, the Holy Prophet fought against the infidels of Makka and their (Jewish) associates, in self defense, because at that time they wanted to exterminate the religion of Allah and its followers.
When the Syrian vassals of the Roman empire advised Hercules to help and support the Makkan pagans and liquidate the Muslims, the Holy Prophet had to go to war against the Christians. No peaceful person, tribe or community was ever attacked by him. He did not allow his followers, either in his lifetime or after, to needlessly attack any people. There are many traditions and verses of the Quran which enjoin peaceful preaching of the truth through argument and reason, with wisdom and kind exhortation in the best way possible.
(Nahl: 125[Yusufali 16:125] Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance. -).
With respect to Surah:33:60
First I have no clue where you have gotten your version of Surah 33:60: I have included three versions of the Quran translated by (1) Pickthal; (2) by Shakir; (and finally (3) By Yusuf Ali. As you can see with a slight variation none have the version that you have included.
[Pickthal 33:60] If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbours in it but a little while.
[Shakir 33:60] If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while;
[The Noble Qur’an translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (considered one of the best translations into English by Islamic Scholars) translates it as such:
[Yusuf Ali 33:60] Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time.
The meaning of this verse:
Let me define what the word hypocrite, “waverers” or in Arabic –manafiqun means.
When the Prophet left Mecca to Median some who accepted the religion of Islam were not all Muslims or true believers. They embraced Islam purely for material gains, while waiting to see how this new religion would benefit them. When they were with devout Muslims they cried, “we believe as you believe”, but in the company of other doubters they assured them: “Verily we are with you, we were only mocking!” Their leader was Ibn Ubayy - this is why the word hypocrite!!
As said in the commentary of Bara-at: 47 to 50, even in 9 Hijra a large number of hypocrites were present among the believers and were actively plotting to undermine the divine mission of the Holy Prophet (also see commentary of Bara-at: 41 and 42), but history written by their associates and followers do not mention them and their activities at all after the departure of the Holy Prophet from this world. In fact it was these hypocrites who annoyed, persecuted and killed the Ahl ul Bayt of the Holy Prophet.
The hypocrites, the disbelievers and the enemies of the truth had been seized and destroyed by Allah in the times of earlier prophets and Allah undertakes in verses 61 and 62 that such people among the ummah of the Holy Prophet will also meet the same fate. History does not furnish a single example of any action taken by the Holy Prophet against the hypocrites in the sense mentioned here.
SO NOW YOU MAY SEE THAT SIMPLY READING AND REGURGITATING THESE VERSUS IS INACCURATE AND MISLEADING!!
Sorry about the last post!
by Anonymous4now on Mon Feb 04, 2008 09:12 PM PSTI couldn't get the formatting right and I hit "post comment" by accident.
It is a poem by
بهرام پژدو (قرن هفتم هجری - قرن چهاردهم ميلادی)
and if I can get the formatting correct i will post it again.
هزاره
Anonymous4nowMon Feb 04, 2008 09:08 PM PST
هزاره سرآيد به ايران زمين دگرگون شودکاروشکل بهين
رسيدپادشاهي به يک ديوکين, که دين بهي را زند بر زمين
برآيدهمه کامة جور و خشم از آن ديو بي رحمت تنگ چشمز ايران زمين و زنام آوران, فتدپادشاهي به بدگوهرانهمه خطة فارس پر غم شود, بجاي طرب رنج و ماتم شودشود چيره بر خلق آز ونياز فزوني کند رنج و درد وگدازبسي اوفتددرزمين بوم وبرز, که ويراني آرد به هر شهر ومرزبه بيداد کوشند يکبارگي نرا نندجز برجفا بارگيکسي را بود نزدشان قدرو جاه که جزسوي کژي نباشدش راهزمردم هرآنکس که باشدبتر بود هر زمان کار او خوبترنيابي در آن بدکسان يک هنر, مگر فتنه وکينه وشوروشرنبيني در آن قوم راي و مراد, نباشد به گفتارشان اعتمادنه نان و نمک را بود حرمتي, نه پيرانشان را بود حشمتيجزآز ونياز و بد و خشم وکين, نبيني تو با خلق روي زمينبسي گنج ونعمت ززير زمين, برآرند آن قوم ناپاک دينچو باشند بی دين و بی زينهار, زپيمان شکستن ندارند عار..............................................................................زمردم در آن روزگاران بد, ز صديک نبيني که دارد خردبسي نامداران و آزادگان, که آواره گردندازخان ومانرداني که دربوم ايران بوند, به فرمان ايشان گروگان بوندشودجفت آن قوم بی اصل و بن, بسي دخت آزادة پاک تنبخدمت بناچار بسته کمر به نزدچنان قوم بيدادگرنيامد کسي را چنان رنج و تاب به هنگا م ضحاک وافراسيابنيارد پدرياد فرزند خويش ازآن رنج وسختي که آيد به پيش
one more thing
by QW (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 08:56 PM PSTMr. Rashidian,
You are quick to accuse your opponents of being "fanatics" but in reality your article and comments paint you pretty much with the same brush. You are just as much of a fanatic as those who you accuse.
To Jahanshah Rashidian
by QW (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 08:51 PM PSTHey man,
Do you think posting comments in bold font makes your argument stronger?
I have no dog in this fight but it looks like Anonymous 2 kicked your ass. He clearly shows, with references, that you have no integrity as an author and swing whichever way suits your purpose.
I would start publishing under a different name if I were you.
Mr. Rashidian, the IRI
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 07:38 PM PSTMr. Rashidian, the IRI apologists and leftists who attack people like yourself and me and jamshid, have gone ideologically and politically bankrupt for a long time now so they resort to personal attacks to engage in character assasination so they can devalue our argument. Whenever I have a posting, they do the same thing, they never have a counter argument, but they come back and call me a "imperialist" (Whatever that word means)! The important thing is if you go to Iran and see how people on the street think and talk, then you'd realize that these guys cannot be farther away from reality. Their communist system has been defeated and prooved disfunctional, their socialist model have been failed and more and more countires (Ex. France) are turning away from it, and the world has awaken to the horror of Islamic fundamentalism which they justify, and their blind anti Israel and anti U.S rethoric have few supporters in Iran and have shown irrelavent to what happened to our country, just ask everyday Iranians. So please keep up the good work and remember that the Iranian people inside of Iran support our stance.
S.O.J., Then from your
by Sick of conniving fanatics (all of them) (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 09:30 AM PSTS.O.J., Then from your perspective all religions (including other holy books like the Bible and Torah) should be looked at very negatively and in a dark light only. Actually one has more statements about the non-believers (how to be dealt with, and what will happen to them). With your negative view are you at war against the Christianity & the Bible & Judaism and the Torah also, or is it that you want to object to Islam and Koran only? The answer is obvious.
This is what I find very hypocritical about those who seem to show concern for and against Islam and muslims only. The majority of muslims, including the majority of believers of other faiths and religions, and the majority of agnostics and athiests are decent people all over the world. It is that extreme minority of fanatics everywhere and in every country that like to create problems.
All of this talk about muslims, threats, etc. are excuses on the surface by certain fanatics to attack, kill people, ruin and weaken, and to control those countries. Never mind for morality, nor the REAL interests of the United States, and also who will be billed for such phony wars (future generations of Americans, for the sake of current American and non-American fanatics and thieves, in their disguises).
Are muslims aware how the
by sick of jihadists (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 08:52 AM PSTAre muslims aware how the entire world has started to analyze every word of Koran to understand Islam?
I think at this point the non-believers have read koran and analyzed it more than any muslim commenter here. Koran unfortunately does not portray the religion of Islam in a good light. And fortunately, it's there for everyone to examine it. It's up to muslims to redeem koran and their own religion. I'm afraid, the religion of Islam has a very bad reputation...
//jihadwatch.org/
Read this
by Omar Khayyam (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 08:10 AM PSTOne group is in religious "convictions devout"
another is full of "uncertainty and doubt"
Then appeared a messenger from without
"You've both got it WRONG; you've both LOST OUT"
Omar Khayyam
Religion Vs Politics
by Moosh-geer (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 06:58 AM PSThey Jahanshah Rashidian,
You are mixing politics and religion. It is clear to all that you dislike IRI. That is a political matter.
For some reason you have now picked up a 'sword' and are now confronting Islam! Now every Muslim who reads your article will think very negatively of you.
To my Muslim brothers and sisters:
----------------------------------
Stand up to this man's unjust and arrogant point of view but please do not use bad words against him.
My comment on yours
by Jahanshah Rashidian on Mon Feb 04, 2008 07:07 AM PSTSome fanatic Muslims or pro IRI exaggerate, insult, slander or emotionally attack me without presenting a counter-argument or reasoning their attacks.
In fact, through this article, I try to open up a debate for all Muslims and non-Muslims alike to bring up one of the most conflicting topics, Islam and Islamism--to break taboos, one may discuss and argue on this forum. It is not this article, but interpretations of some commentators, who target at accusing or supporting in any price, go so far to represent Muhammad as a criminal or tyrant.
Whereas, I tried to present him as a man with all human personality traits of his time and culture, a man who happened to mark the history of a great part of the world. Yet, what is understood as a “sin” by fanatic Muslims seems the “impious” writing style, which implicitly shows that I personally do not believe in any divinity behind religions, including Muhammad’s one. This seems to irritate them more than anything else.
Critics are not only “unbelievers”, many curious Muslims, grass roots, not scholars, may ask themselves the same sort of questions I did-- questions that have been systematically banned to pose publicly.
A commentator (Anonymous 2) insists in accusing me for not referring my article. The references are plenty and everywhere. I propose this commentator, instead of taking so many time to read and even translate some of my past writings, which may also accidentally appeared in some Arab sites and some have nothing on common with this article, just discover with a little time many original references presented everywhere.
Here are a few, which inspired my article:
Qur'an 2:191 "And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter."
Qur'an 33:60 "Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy - a fierce slaughter - murdered, a horrible murdering."
Bukhari:V4B52N270 "Allah's Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.' Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?' The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.' Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.' Muhammad said, ‘You may do so.'"
Ishaq:550 "Muhammad ordered that certain men should be assassinated even if they were found behind the curtains of the Ka'aba. Among them was Abdallah bin Sa'd [the Qur'an's one and only scribe]. The reason that Allah's Messenger ordered that he should be slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur'an Revelation. Then he apostatized [rejected Islam]."
Also one of my main resource is “23 Saal” a Persian book written by Ali Dashti one of the recent scholars.
Ali Dashti believes that Muhammad as a political and religious leader led his community accordint to any particular situation and his own ambitions, interests, tastes... without having a divine origin. As, some other leaders, sultans, kings in his time and circumstances would do the same. This is my idea and that of an increasing Iranian Muslims too.
What is today abnormal, it is the criminal, and tarannical leadership of the IRI, a presentation of political Islam, which does not match our time and circumstances but interests of some Mullahs, radical Muslims, Bazaris, Pasdars, and of course their sold intellectuals.
Re:SURNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNA
by Anonymousurna (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:17 AM PSTEy surna, ey durna, ey zurna, ey kabab koobideh var malideh, ey soosool, ey googool, ey shoombol, ey ooshdool.......to hamoon behtar ke beri zire abrooto bardari!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Jamshid defends Rashidian...Blind leading blind
by LostIdentity (not verified) on Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:10 AM PSTFor sure, Hatred (I don't know why) has blinded both of you;
Jamshid says:
"Here is where Koran "advocates blatant killing of un-believers":
Koran, 2-191: And kill them wherever you find them, ... such is the recompense of the unbelievers...
"
Quran does not allow killing of innocent person(s). It considers killing one innocent person EQUAL to killing all on earth; HOWEVER, it allows PROTECTING if attacked. No sire, even you "modern, progressive intellectual!!!!!!" will defend yourself if attacked.