Enlarging on the response to the London bombs
Just don’t call it war
in The Spectator
If we were Israelis, we would by now be doing a standard thing to that white semi-detached pebbledash house at 51 Colwyn Road, Beeston. Having given due warning, we would dispatch an American-built ground-assault helicopter and blow the place to bits. Then we would send in bulldozers to scrape over the remains, and we would do the same to all the other houses in the area thought to have been the temporary or permanent addresses of the suicide bombers and their families.
After decades of deranged attacks the Israelis have come to the conclusion that this is the best way to deter Palestinian families from nurturing these vipers in their bosoms, and also the best way of explaining to the death-hungry narcissists that they may get the 72 black-eyed virgins of scripture, but their family gets the bulldozer.
No doubt there are some people in Britain – I can think of at least one Daily Mail columnist – who would approve of such tactics; but we are not Israelis, and we are novices not just at dealing with suicide bombers, but with suicide bombers as British as the fish-and-chip shops in which they grew up. They were born in our NHS, these killers. They were coddled by our welfare state, they were fed on our butties and our Spangles, they played cricket on our glum and bemerded streets. They were washed by the rains and blessed by the suns of home. They have in their houses (or, perhaps, scattered in fragments at four London Transport crime scenes) documents in which Her Britannic Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs requests and requires that the bearer be given all the deference and precedence that is the due of a British national.
They were not metics, or the second-class citizens of the Occupied Territories. We cannot build a wall against them, or erect turnstiles on the way into London, foul-smelling pissoirs of the kind that connect the West Bank and Israel. So we have to focus – in the way that only this kind of slaughter can make us focus – on what we should do now to stop people like them hating us so much that they want to kill us. Something so scorched these fools in their young male psyches that they were prepared – in at least one case – to leave wife and child, and to take their own lives and the lives of dozens of other Britons.
In groping to understand, the pundits and the politicians have clutched first at Iraq, and the idea that this is ‘blowback’, the inevitable punishment for Britain’s part in the Pentagon’s fiasco. George Galloway began it in Parliament; he was followed by Sir Max Hastings, with the Lib Dems limping in the rear. It is difficult to deny that they have a point, the Told-You-So brigade. As the Butler report revealed, the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment in 2003 was that a war in Iraq would increase the terror threat to Britain. Anyone who has been to Iraq since the war would agree that the position is very far from ideal; and if any anti-Western mullah wanted a text with which to berate Britain and America for their callousness, it is amply provided by Fallujah, or the mere fact that Tony Blair cannot even tell you how many Iraqis have been killed since their liberation – only that the number is somewhere between ten and twenty thousand.
Supporters of the war have retorted that Iraq cannot be said to be a whole and sufficient explanation for the existence of suicidal Islamic cells in the West, and they, too, have a point. The threat from Islamicist nutters preceded 9/11; they bombed the Paris Métro in the 1990s; and it is evident that the threat to British lives pre-dates the Iraq war, when you think that roughly the same number of Britons died in the World Trade Center as died in last week’s bombings.
In other words, the Iraq war did not create the problem of murderous Islamic fundamentalists, though the war has unquestionably sharpened the resentments felt by such people in this country, and given them a new pretext. The Iraq war did not introduce the poison into our bloodstream but, yes, the war did help to potentiate that poison. And whatever the defenders of the war may say, it has not solved the problem of Islamic terror, or even come close to providing the beginnings of a solution. You can’t claim to be draining the swamp in the Middle East when the mosquitoes are breeding quite happily in Yorkshire.
The question is what action we take now to solve the problem in our own country, and what language we should use to describe such action. The first step, as we swaddle London and Yorkshire with Police/Do Not Cross tape, is to ban the phrase ‘war on terror’, as repeatedly used by G.W. Bush, most recently on 7 July in Edinburgh, with Blair nodding beside him. There is nothing wrong in principle in waging war on an abstract noun; the British navy successfully waged a war on slavery, by which they meant a war on slavers. But if we continue to say that we are engaged in a war with these people, then we concede several points to the enemy, and set up a series of odious false equivalences.
For 30 years we fought something called the Irish Republican Army, and it was always an axiom of our anti-terrorist strategy that we did not accept the self-description of these thugs as ‘soldiers’. This wasn’t a war, we said; this was murder. They weren’t soldiers, these men whose apologists now draw parliamentary expenses (so showing an interesting partiality in our ‘war on terror’). They were just killers, we said; not military figures, but criminals. So why do we now call it war? Why glorify the actions of these Yorkshire maniacs? Why do we hand them this right to be recognised as belligerents, when we do not even understand their war aims?
At least the IRA had comprehensible geographical objectives: to reverse the partition of Ireland. What do these folks want? Do they really want British troops out of Iraq, when most people I met in Baghdad secretly or openly want them to stay and help fight the insurgency? Is it really the injustices of Palestine that get their goat? Is that what makes a young cricket-loving Beeston lad go and top himself? Is it the continued existence of the house of Saud? Or were they all so seriously maladjusted to modern Britain, and found it so hard to get girlfriends that they went down the Tube in search of the hur, the 72 black-eyed ones of paradise that some Islamic scholars believe to be correctly identified not with virgins but with raisins?
If we are baffled by them, it may be that they find our own motives equally puzzling and suspicious, and that, too, is why it is a bad idea to talk of a general ‘war on terror’. There are plenty of people in Iraq who think Britain did a wonderful thing in helping to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and it is still too early to reach a final verdict on the success of the Iraq war. But it was surely a mistake to continue, in spite of all the evidence, to present this invasion as part of the ‘war on terror’. It became obvious to everyone that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and it is easy to see why Muslims might suspect that there must be another explanation.
To the paranoid Muslim mind, the evident bogusness of the ‘war on terror’ – in so far as it applied to Iraq – suggested that the war was really about something else: about oil, about humiliating and dominating the Islamic world; and because they make no separation between religion and politics, the bogus ‘on terror’ seemed to imply an undeclared war on Islam, and that was an impression that neither Bush nor Blair properly corrected. If the neocon project means democracy throughout the Middle East, and Starbucks, and women being able to drive, then I am an ardent neocon. Just don’t call it war.
There has been a fatal elision between the ‘war on terror’ and the campaign to democratise the Arab world, and many Muslims can be forgiven for thinking that this is really a war to democratise the Middle East in the interests of General Motors, evangelical Christianity, Hollywood and global pornography. No wonder they dislike it; and if we use the vocabulary of war, it gives the maniacs all the more excuse to wage war on us. When Bush said, ‘If you are not with us, you are against us,’ and then invaded Iraq on charges that were frankly trumped-up, he co-opted tens of millions of Muslims into the camp of his enemies, even though they might loathe Saddam. They had nowhere else to go.
To keep talking of war plays on militant Muslim paranoia, and, incidentally, since it is a key point of Islamic theology that the suicide bomber may not be called a martyr, and therefore entitled to his ration of virgins/raisins, unless he dies in ‘war’, we are by our own vocabulary offering these people an incitement to murder and a laissez-passer to paradise. Above all, misplaced talk of ‘war’ is a distraction from the real disaster, which is that we have a serious and long-term security problem, not in Iraq but in this country, among young men who speak with Yorkshire accents. This is a cultural calamity that will take decades to correct.
We – non-Muslims – cannot solve the problem; we cannot brainwash them out of their fundamentalist beliefs. The Islamicists last week horribly and irrefutably asserted the supreme importance of that faith, overriding all worldly considerations, and it will take a huge effort of courage and skill to win round the many thousands of British Muslims who are in a similar state of alienation, and to make them see that their faith must be compatible with British values and with loyalty to Britain. That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem.
To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.
The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?
It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken, and by way of a first gesture the entire Muslim clergy might announce, loud and clear, for the benefit of all Bradford-born chipshop boys, that there is no eternal blessedness for the suicide bombers, there are no 72 virgins, and that the whole thing is a con and a fraud upon impressionable minds. That might be a first step towards what could be called the re-Britannification of Britain.
There is much more to be done, not least in the treatment of women. But we should not call it a war, whether cultural or military. The language of a ‘war on terror’ may help the government to pass its illiberal measures, such as the ID cards that would have been of no assistance whatever against last week’s bombs, but it is profoundly dishonest. Britain is not at war. Even if you include last week’s fatalities, the number of deaths from terrorism is falling across the world; indeed, the world has seldom been more peaceful since the age of the Antonine emperors. The more we talk of war, the more we big up the terrorists, inflame suspicions across the Muslim world, and give power-crazed politicians the chance to force through some liberty-eroding measure. Last week’s bombs were placed neither by martyrs nor by soldiers, but by criminals. It was not war, but terrorism, and to say otherwise is a mistake and a surrender.
137 Comments
JAB -
Your extreme sensitivity is absurd but quite normal it seems for “moderate” Muslims. Koran is simply a variant spelling. We can cope with the French calling our capital Londres. But for you it seems variant spelling is a cause of “alienation” that leads possibly to suicide bombing.
I agree with Boris that British Muslims will simply have to lighten up and realise they are living in a free society which isn’t afraid to criticise religion.
As for your quotes from the Koran, they are of course selective. I know from experience that most Muslims don’t like to debate but perhaps you can enlighten us as to whether it is true Mohammed consummated his marriage with a nine year old girl, owned slaves, fought battles and took his share of war booty? And also whether Muslims consider him a “perfect example” to all humanity.
Rate This:
0 
0
I would just like to say that we should love an embrace all races equally. Wether Muslim, Christian (blessed be our Lord Jesus), Jew or whatever else there is by way of races and creeds on this ghastly planet we call earth. Life is so terrible that we should cease to fight each other where ever we can. The cost in human life is simply too high. It might be as simple as saying sorry and everything will be forgiven by our good Sheppard in Heaven.
Amen
Let us praise Him
Rate This:
0 
0
I just like to say your article proves beyond reasonable doubt your are Zionist Extremist, if your friend Hitler was alive, he would have given you a Gold medal for Racist Zionist Views. Traitors like you supported the killing of British Nationals by Zionist Terrorists, than your evil friends do the bombing and you blame it on Muslims!
Rate This:
0 
0
Hold your horses Dara Miah…
P-SIMON
I’m walking the extra mile – let’s have a sponsored walk… like a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela
And Peace and Love to you too. I am sure that Vicus Scurra would wholeheeartedly agree. (very sixties flower power – luv rules)
Rate This:
0 
0
Field – you see, this is what I’m talking about. What exactly are you getting at? Is it your opinion that Islam is simply completely wrong and in fact an irredeemably negative influence on the world? That seems to be the general thrust of where you are going.
If that is the case, just say so, so we all know where we stand. And if it is the case, why should you expect any Muslim to listen to what you have to say? It is beneath the dignity of any human being to have someone tell them their fundamental beliefs are wrong and evil, and then be expected to gratefully lap up whatever alternative is proffered by their critic. It is simply not a productive starting point for constructive debate, which is what we need right now.
If, on the other hand, your intention is sincerely to engage in debate where each side wants really to understand the other, and find the common ground between them in order to move forward together – then that is a different matter, and I welcome it.
But sadly, from your consistently patronising and narrow-minded comments, it appears it is not. If you are serious about helping this country in this area, you are going utterly the wrong way about it. The people you want to convince will not listen to a word you say, because they will not listen to something based on contempt.
An example – ‘British Muslims have to realise they are living in a free society.’ Just get over yourself Field. My grand-dad flew bomber planes over Germany for our free society. How many Indian troops died – Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs – in WWI and WWII to protect our free society? So just get over yourself. That type of exclusionary, divisive and ill-informed comment just adds to the impression you are point scoring, not actually seeking any metting point for British people of all backgrounds to move forward to together.
The Qu’ran/Koran spelling is another example of what I mean. Fine, they are just variant spellings, although since you seem to know so much about Islam you will have to agree with me that the former is a much better transliteration of the Arabic.
My point is that ‘Koran’ is anachronistic and has certain overtones, in particular of anti-Muslim and fundamentally ill-informed Orientalist scholarship. Not for a simply arbitrary reason, but because it’s just not very accurate. It’s like saying ‘Moslem’, or ‘Hindoo’ or ‘Tanganyika’ or pronouncing Kenya ‘Keen-ya’ or saying Bombay for Mumbai. It is not like Londres/London because that variation is not caught up with the whole ugly history of imperialism and colonial subjugation. It has overtones whether you regard it simply as a variant spelling or not.
What I am saying is that using ‘Koran’ is just one more little thing that adds to an overall impression of a lack of respect for the people you’re (apparently) talking to. By urging you to use the other spelling, I am trying to help create a framework for constructive, mutually respectful debate. Although, judging by the tone of the rest of your comments, it will need a lot more than that.
Now to your specific points, if you are fact interested in hearing how a Muslim understands them. If not, skip the next bit and continue to rage away in your box about how Muhammad was a greedy, warmongering, paedohile. It all depends on whether you actually acknowledge the fact Muslims are a part of British society, or whether you’d really just prefer they would all go back to where they came from (Wood Green in my case, though I suppose I could go to my ancestral lands of Kent.)
Let me preface this by saying my understanding of Islam is my own. Also by asking you Field, what exactly is your point about me quoting selectively from the Qu’ran? You want me to post the whole thing? Should I have posted the ‘violent bits’? Are they the ‘real Islam’ that the bits I quoted are just camouflaging in a big dastardly plot? There are verses in the Qu’ran legitimising war, no doubt – but they must be understood in the context of the whole. Just as the verses I quoted must be understood in the context of them. Basically it’s a version of just war, drawing a middle path between never resorting to war unless absolutely necessary, and in all other respects doing all you can by other means to promote friendship and mutual respect.
So, Muhammad, God bless him, and Aisha, likewise. It is possible that they were married when Aisha was very young, although some people believe that the reports of this are unreliable and she was in fact older. If, however, she was that young it is important to bear in mind several points.
First, Muhammad married women of many different ages, including widows and those older than him. Most of these needed protection in some way in the society in which they lived at that time. He did not marry any other women while his first wife was still alive. He was also well-known (indeed shocked his companions by) being a scrupulous husband who helped with all the housework, never, ever used violence against his wives, and listened to their opnions respectfully. So there are many aspects to consider when looking to Muhammad as an example in marital affairs.
Second, it may be important to remember that customs change, and that it was quite common in ancient societies and modern trible socieities for women to be married as soon as reaching puberty, for the obvious reasons of shorter life span, need to produce children for the group, etc. This was not something particularly unusual or infamous in some way.
In this respect, it is important to remember that Muhammad is considered by Muslims as a model for behaviour, but this does not necessarily mean his behaviour should be copied absolutely. It is the spirit and intention that is important. Thus most Muslims today would consider marriage at puberty too young, bearing in mind changed life expectancies etc
Slavery – yes, it’s true that that people held slaves with the Prophet’s knowledge. However, he urged the freeing of slaves at every opportunity and desribed as a very high form of good deed.
This is an example of the Prophet’s gradualism, i.e. there was an ingrained custom in the society (slavery) which it was very difficult to end overnight. Instead Muhammad used persuasion to convince people that it was a very bad thing. The fact that Muslims since and even now still hold slaves and use the example of the Prophet’s time is, in my opinion, a complete misunderstanding of the Prophet’s intentions.
Incidentally, some people consider that polygamy is another similar example of this gradualism, i.e. by restricting the practice of taking as many wives as possible to four, and putting severe restrictions on that, the Prophet may have intended us to later phase out polygamy altogether. Some believe it was allowed, however, as a means to provide familial structures in times when men are few, e.g. war, enforced migration etc.
As a another aside, this type of gradualism is an exmple of why violent terrorist attacks are completely against the spirit of Islam and must be rooted out from our community. Sudden violence changes nothing and destroys the rights of every other individual to life, regardless of religion or ethnicity; gradual persuaion by example is much more effective and does not have any of these terrible side-effects. This part of the lesson of the Prophet’s life.
Yes, Muhammad fought battles – see above. What’s your point?
Yes, Muhammad took part of the ‘war booty’ as you quaintly call it. He did not fight for personal gain (see above again), as is manifest from the fact that he was a very poor man who gave away all he had constantly, to help others in charity. Sometimes even his own family complained about him giving away more than they could afford. So his share of material goods was a byproduct of the wars he fought. He encouraged all his followers to do likewise with whatever they owned.
Finally, yes Muslims believe Muhammad is a perfect example for us to try and imitate. His life contains many wonderful and inspiring lessons. Exactly how to interpret everything that happened in his life is not an easy thing, however, and has generated so much thought and interpretation I can’t do justice to one-millionth of it here.
So Field, if you are genuinely interested in having a debate with Muslims about where we can take British society together, on the basis of the values we all share, I suggest we communicate directly instead of clogging up this message board.
If you are intersted in just scoring points to ‘prove’ how bad Islam is, then shut up, because you are not helping anyone.
Yours etc
Rate This:
0 
0
Ok – you’ve made your point James Ab
Rate This:
0 
0
This message is to fIELD: You are again speaking out of ignorance;you are taking examples without understanding the “CONTEXT” of verses of the Quran as well as critisizing the Prophet of God without understanding the cultures of the people of Arabia at the time. You say that the Taliban would not allow WOMEN TO GO TO SCHOOL: This does not mean that Islam does not allow it; You don’t seem to understand that Islam gives women EQUAL rights such as being allowed to work, study, etc. etc. but God has created women DIFFERENT to men so our responsibilities and duties are not necessarily identical to a man’s (which is what women have strived for in the west but have only resulted in the breakdown of family life!).
1. Your claim that the Prophet allowed slaves to be used as sex workers is misinterpreted.Women captured in the preislamic era were subjected to inhumane treatment;after Islam these women were allowed to be kept and taken care of and treated in a respectable manner as one would treat a wife. Now, the human intelligence may think, that this is wrong,etc. but God ordained this because leaving women to roam free only encourages prostitution and this ‘sex trade’ is abhorent to Islam.
2. Yes, I’m proud to say that Muslim women are not allowed to marry non Muslims;Mr. Field, your human mind can only understand so much; broaden your senses and try to grasp why Islam puts down certain rules. Women are more adaptable than men and often try to please their partners; if women were allowed to marry from other faiths, then there would be a serious threat of God’s religion being diluted ; mothers are their children’s teachers.
3. Prophet (PBUH) was married to Hadrat Ayesha when she was nine; she was very mature for her age;she loved the Prophet and became a great scholar and ambassador for the rights of women.Infact, the wives of the Prophet were given the right to divorce but they refused to do so; a verse from the Quran is evidence for this. If the Prophet was the man you are trying to depict, they would have divorced him.
4. Your claim that Jews and Christians were treated as second class citizens is absurd. The Prophet’s uncle was a pagan worshipper, yet he loved him dearly;His wife’s uncle was a Christian. The Prophet was once asked “who amongst women are the best of creation?” and the reply was three women, one of whom was “Mariam (Mary) mother of Jesus.” At another time, the Prophet stood up out of respect for the funeral of a Jew. When asked why, he replied,”Did this man not have a soul?”
5. Give evidence for your claims before you make them. War booty was distributed amongst the Muslims but don’t forget that they led simple and luxury free lives. The booty was used for the needs of the poor and most of the Muslims were poor since they had left their homes and goods in Makkah when they migrated to Medina. NO, THE PROPHET DID NOT TAKE WAR BOOTY FOR HIS PERSONAL USE.If he had done so, then he should not have led a life of poverty;sometimes, he had no food except for dried dates and water.As for the captives, they were not allowed to be tied up but treated well and then set free- many of whom converted.
6. I am not contradicting myself. There is no ruling that women should not drive;Yvonne was impressed by one aspect of the Taleban but that does not mean that they were 100% following Islam. The Prophet’s hadith for men and women: seek knowledge even if you have to go to China for it.” My advice to you, is similar. You make up your own understanding and assumptions.
7. Islam is from the same God who sent Christianity and Judaism. Mary, wore a hijab and covered herself just as we Muslim women do, yet when we do it,we are opressed! Jesus had a beard, Jesus prostrated(as written in th bible) when he prayed;he ordered us not to eat the flesh of the swine- also a verse in the bible. We Muslims, are more Christian than the Christians themselves!At least Islam gives women the right to wed,and inherit unlike nuns!
8. The final address of the Prophet spoke of human rights;no Arab is superior to a non Arab, no black oover white (and vice versa)- this was said 1400 years ago; blacks have only recently started to enjoy their rights in the late sixties. Oh, yes, who started the slave trade????Muslims? Who imposed their imperialism for centuries? The Red Indians have been mercileessily wiped out- by WHO??? Who has attacked and bombed innocent lives in other countries in the name of democracy? Does Abu Ghraib and Guatanomo represent the actions and beliefs of Christians or Jews?
9. When I SAID THAT ISLAM IS THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION, I WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE POPULATION SIZE; I WAS REFERRING TO TO NUMBER OF CONVERTS;
THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE COMING INTO ISLAM THAN THERE ARE IN ANY OTHER FAITH.
10. What are your evidences for the Prophet slaughtering the prisoners of war? The Prophet always fought in self defence. The Muslims were always attacked first; there were many rules during war, such as no harm to children, women, the old and no cutting of trees.
11. Again, I will emphasize that you take things out of context from the Quran. When you read a verse, ask a scolar its meaning (but you probably wouldn’t do that cos you WANT to follow blindly all those who try to scandalise the image of Islam). The Quran does say , Do not opress’ but also tells us not to be oppressed.
I don’t know which verse you were referring to when you claimed that it tells us to kill Christians and Jews.Can you give me your evidence please?
12. You say that Muslims don’t like to debate-UNTRUE but there is a limit to everything- even in debating!
The QURAN DOES SAY TO THE NON BELIEVERS: “Unto you, your religion and unto me, mine” (Surah Kafiroun). This surah, implies that after a discussion, we leave in peace; I shall continue to believe what I want believe what I want, and you may continue to believe what you want. Is that not giving the non Muslims the freedom of thought?
13. Conclusion: your views show your ignorance and lack of tolerance towards Islam and a man who is the best example to humanity.
Rate This:
0 
0
Well done James Abdul Aziz! A brilliant piece!
Just one note to Field: YES, THE PROPHET, PEACE BE UPON HIM, IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE BEST EXAMPLE FOR MANKIND. You are ignorant and judgemental. Get your facts right before you decide to spread rumours and scandalous gossip about our beloved Prophet. Your remarks do not do any good to Britain cos you are spreading Islamophobia through your narrow minded attacks. This country needs unity, peace and tolerance so if you have nothing positive to say, then keep it shut.
Rate This:
0 
0
Sarah:
You ask who started the slave trade, and implied that it was us.
The Romans had a slave trade LONG before us. There is evidence that slavery pre-dates them too. I understand that the pyramids were built by a nation (the Israelites) in bondage. Slavery. And slavery still exists in some countries to this day, including Arabic ones.
We were the first country to BAN slavery, and bring in laws to rescue and protect those who had been taken as slaves.
James: I have only spent a few months in Kenya, but the locals all pronounced it as “keen-ya”. “Ken-ya” is a much more modern pronunciation derived from the name of their president (Kenyatta), and seems limited to tourists.
But it is possible the nation was wrong, and that you are right.
I must now check out your other “facts” to see how false they might be….you’ve raised doubts on the validity of your arguments in my mind, but i’m always happy to add to my knowledge. Thank you for giving me the opportunity!!
In the mean time, let’s all try and be nice to each other…it makes the world a more joyful place!!
;o)
Rate This:
0 
0
Another incident in London today, a man shot! Another example of the kind of thing brought about by the actions of adherents of an alleged, “All Loving” , theistic idea? Another attempt to cow the inhabitants of these Islands into surrendering to an ideology ; totally foreign to these climes? We may never know the exact answer to that, but one thing is certain, the more the irritation , the harder will be the scratching to remove that irritation.
I shall never experience Nirvana: Paradise; or the Garden of Eden; name it how you will. This is a statement of fact as seen by yours truly, because; what I had and lost was for me, perfection: or as near to that state as is possible.
Four years ago. I lost whatever vestigial remains of any belief in any Deity, which may have remained from my childhood teachings. Although I was always marginally cynical, a propos superhuman, “Godlike”, happenings, due to the above senseless and cruel happening , cynicism was replaced by the absolute certainty that a Deity; supposedly all loving and forgiving; who was capable of doling out such quantities of dolour and misery, did not, and could not exist.
Since that time, I have been a confirmed and committed atheist, despite siren attempts to lure me back onto the Lorelei Rock of organised religion, by misguided, albeit well meaning friends. My counter argument, if there were an all loving; all understanding supreme Omnipresence; then all mankind would be singing from the same hymn sheet. What we have, instead, are a million shards of religious differences: a veritable kaleidoscope; with each shard in the tube coloured to suit the jealous arguments; and indeed pockets; of the seemingly numberless “Prophets”. Each of these multitudinous prophets has sought, or is still seeking a monopoly of power, (using whatever tactic they think is acceptable and necessary), in the name of his/her brand of “The one True Religion”.
There would have been none of the numerous wars, nominally to claim sole stewardship of The Almighty, had there been the universal brotherly love as preached by the organised religions, since all would have the same aim. What we are experiencing today seems to me to surpass the excesses of Torquemada and his Spanish Inquisition. At least there were no suicide bombers, each one of which having been promised a seat on the right hand of The Almighty.
Where there is no conflict of interest, there is per se no conflict…….Full stop. Religions, of whatever calling, promise a future life of milk and honey, whilst at the same time delivering piss and vinegar for current consumption. The dignitaries of these religions lie in the lap of relative abundance, whilst leeching the widow’s mite from adherents taught to fear the Wrath of The Almighty, if they do not support that particular brand of Fire and Brimstone.
Despite my having been a dedicated, and indeed some said, able ,choirboy, those many years ago, I fear that the choir practice; the cassock; the surplice and high starch collar, were mere trappings in the telling of grown-up fairy tales. I confess: I am a dyed-in-the-wool cynic, so help me.
Rate This:
0 
0
Psimon, you may be right about Kenya, it was an example off the top of my head to illustrate my point about ‘Koran’/Qu’ran, which I think still stands. It’s a minor point, as I said, it’s just indicative is all.
You’re more than welcome to check everything else I wrote. I’m not saying I’m ‘right’ just saying the debates need to be conducted with a general respect for the fact that other people have sincerely held and constructive opinions, rather than throwing around generalisations about Islam (or the slave trade for example).
Also more than welcome to keep encouraging everyone to be nice, which is completely right. Was it Bernard Shaw who said before he died, ‘Everyone should just be a little bit nicer to each other’?
It’s just hard when some people on this post are talking about Zionist conspiracies on the one hand, and deporting Muslims on the other (see jaq’s allusions to the expulsion of the Jews – in the Middle Ages!!).
But thanks for injecting that note.
Rate This:
0 
0
On the subject of pronunciation (an aside, if you will), I’ve always wondered why we (the British) pronounce the name of every place in France by the French pronunciation…EXCEPT for their capital city.
Most odd!
Rate This:
0 
0
I advise all of you to go and actually research Islam before agreeing with Boris Johnson’s racist comments.
Islam is not the “problem,” the British governments foreign policy is. It’s hypocrisy and historical meddling. “Nobody attacks civilization-they attack oppression.”
Islam has always given rights to women, the rights the West denied for centuries. Islam was the religion that stopped female infanticide. Islam does not say women cannot drive. That is a policy of Saudi Arabia’s which it is now reveiwing. Islam says it is a duty of every single Muslim to be educated, that includes women.
Something which may also be of interest to you is that Islam considers the type of Jihad that the media is so keen to publicise as “LESSER Jihad,” meaning it is of less importance. Of more importance is the daily struggle to overcome the temptation to carry out bad deeds.
Furthermore, Islam lays down strict conditions which must be adhered to when carrying out a holy war. One example of this is that innocent civillians must not be killed and neither should plants. Therefore, nuclear and chemical weapons (which Bush has used on innocent Iraqis) are forbidden. Hardly a religion of violence.
Islam in no way permits suicide under any circumstances, so then how can people be “Muslim suicide bombers?” And where has this “72 virgins” come from?
Furthermore, I would like someone to explain to me exactly what “British values” are because I constantly hear this term and yet no-one seems to be able to explain it to me.
Rate This:
0 
0
Sarah, I am worried for you, you remind me of the lady that I see at the supermarket that wears tights in the roman summer and tells the cashier that she is to made up and pretty and will ruin marriages…, she is an integralist (and batty) Catholic. I mean: “leaving women to roam free only encourages prostitution and this ‘sex trade’ is abhorrent to Islam.”. I roam free, and I shall not be part of the 72 raisins, in fact quite a few years have passed from that time, and, horrors, I am not married! I am a prostitute? I do not flaunt my body, but I do like my legs and tend to show them off when I have the chance, but not to expose myself and make man drool (chance would be a fine thing). I dress sensibly and have never been unduly pestered, now and again I have received some nice compliments and never denounced anybody to the sexual harassment. My parents are separated, a family broken down, but they are much nicer persons at the moment and I am happy for them. I am not married and not living in sin, but I do not feel that I am on the shelf, if the right person comes along I shall give him a chance, but I want a partner that walks next to me, not ten paces in front or ten paces behind. I respect your beliefs, if they make you happy, but you having all these prejudices against me because I live like a modern western woman makes me quite irritated. I do not need the safety of a religion, I only need my independence, my culture and my chances in life. If that makes me a prostitute or a sad and pathetic creature is your opinion, but thank goodness, not mine.
Rate This:
0 
0
I would remind the readers of these comments, of whatever persuasion; belief; creed; subsect ; colour, or educational ability, that those quoting religious texts, are quoting words uttered and recorded, by mere humans. A supreme being did not write anything by hand.
It is equally wrong for some secular interpretation of a particular phrase or verse , from any of the so-called Holy writings, to be preferred over someone else’s interpretation opf the same passage. The scholars of all religions argue today; as they have always argued; since the booke were there to read; about every word; every piece of grammatical difference; every nuance of meaning ; and will , in all probability ,continue to do so until time is no more. Let us try to co-exist in peace; let religion stay where it belongs; in the hearts and heades of its adherents. It does not belong on the streets, its arguments are not any more potent in the gaseous explosion of a bomb. He / she who needs to resort to violence to prove a point, has a poor argument.
Rate This:
0 
0
Some comments/questions from above answered stright from the Qur’an and Hadith:
———————-
Comment 1: “Islam has always given rights to women”
Answer 1: I think not. “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, Admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them,…” – Qur’an 4:34. “Your wives are as a tilth (a field to be ploughed) unto you, so approach your tilth
when or how ye will.” – Qur’an 2:223.
———————-
Question 2: “And where has this “72 virgins” come from?”
Answer 2: Hadith Al-Tirmidhi in the Book of Suna, volume IV, chapter 21 (but note that the meaning is disputed)
———————-
Question 3: I don’t know which verse you were referring to when you claimed that it tells us to kill Christians and Jews. Can you give me your evidence please?
Answer 3: “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war.)” – Qur’an 9:5. That do? See also 9:29 below.
———————-
Question 4: What are your evidences for the Prophet slaughtering the prisoners of war?
Answer 4: I don’t know of any such evidence. Closest to that is “It is not for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaugher (among his enemies) in the land.” – Qur’an 8;67. So this is approval for randomed kidnappings, but not murder of prisoners of war. It is not stated what to do if ranson is not paid.
———————-
Comment 5: “Your claim that Jews and Christians were treated as second class citizens is absurd”
Answer 5: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day… Nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya (taxes) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Qur’an 9:29. I’d say that covers it, wouldn’t you?
Rate This:
0 
0
From above: “YES, THE PROPHET, PEACE BE UPON HIM, IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE BEST EXAMPLE FOR MANKIND. You are ignorant and judgemental. Get your facts right before you decide to spread rumours and scandalous gossip about our beloved Prophet.”
I suppose the Hadith writers were ignorant and judgemental too, were they?
Bukhari:V4B52N50 “Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N260 “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’”
Ishaq’s Sira speaks of the murder of poet Asma bint Marwan. She spoke critically of Muhammad, telling her tribe to be wary of him. Ishaq: 676: “‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said, ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”
Ishaq: 308 “Halfway to Medina, Ocba was called out to be executed.” Since the other prisoners were being held for ransom, Ocba asked Muhammad why he was being treated more harshly than the other captives. “The Prophet said, ‘Because of your enmity to Allah and to his Prophet.’ ‘And my little girl,’ cried Ocba in bitterness, ‘who will take care of her?’ ‘Hell Fire,’ Muhammad responded. At that moment he was decapitated. ‘Wretch that you were, [Muhammad eulogized] you scoffed at me and claimed that your stories were better than mine. I give thanks that Allah has slain you and comforted me.’”
Best example for mankind. Yeah right………
(and that’s an example of killing prisoners of war that I couldn’t find above)
Rate This:
0 
0
vanessa, You don’t need to worry about me; you see, my views are not borne out of prejudice as you might think ; I did not say that EVERY woman who roams free will turn to prostitution but there are greater chances of a woman falling into trouble- be it prostitution, be it getting into an adulterous relationship (or whatever) if she displays her beauty and wanders freely as compared to one who maintains her dignity and covers up.You might not want to accept or admit that but statistics will tell you that in todays society there is far more promiscuity (in the name of freedom, by the way) than ever before. I have no intentions of hurting anyone so I apologise if you felt offended but we Muslims are always getting the stick from so called “liberalists” and I, being a Muslim and a woman feel it is unfair, unjust and biased. People often confuse Islam with cultures of certain regions. Islam has given women many rights; I have been married for nine years and I can honestly say that my husband and I have NEVER argued,never sworn at each other, etc. etc.and NO- you’re wrong-I walk side by side with my husband- not ten paces behind him! Oh yes, the shocking part is that he has never raised his hand to hit me!! (I mean isn’t that supposed to happen in a Muslim household??!!) We are happily married because we have made a consious effort to go by the rules of Islam.One great part about being a Muslim woman is that he has to provide for me and our children but whatever I earn is Islamically my own right, ie. I can spend it all on myself.He respects me, loves me, IS FAITHFUL to me and always discusses issues with me; we seek advice from each other. This was examplified by the Prophet of God (PBUH). You are clearly irritated by my comments; yet I, and other Muslims have to put up with prejudices against Islam which are based on a lack of deeper understanding of Islam- on a daily basis! You see, all religions are against adultery, premarital sex, prostitution etc. but Islam takes matters one step further by giving us practical guidance on how to avoid these problems and if that means rules and self restraint then let it be! It is for the betterment of society. I presume you have never walked into an average secondary school and observed the behaviour and moral conduct of teenagers; your wonderful ideology on so called ‘freedom’ is prevalent amongst them and if you can’t stomach the point that I am trying to make, let me give you some quotes taken from the Daily Mail (may 27 2005):
Schoolgirl Baby Boom: “Pregnancies have soared among girls under 16: the legal age of consent. More than 2000 a year have not even reached the age of 14.” “Figures showed that among girls under 18 in England and Wales, the number of conceptins went up, not down. In 2003, there were 42,183 such pregnancies in the year. For girls under 16, the picture was even worse.7,875 in 2002 to 8,076 in 2003.More than a quarter, 2,261 were among girls of 14 and under.
Vanessa, I could go on and on with more statistics but I don’t have the time to do so. The fact is that many aspects of so called “women’s liberalisation” do not do any favours to women. Islam simply recognises that God created women in a beautiful form and it is up to our individual selves to safe guard our own bodies. The Quran says, “Verily, We have created man weak.”
To all those who have the guts to enlighten themselves and remove myths and misconceptions which they may harbour on Islam, please tune into Islam Channel (836 – Sky) or log onto http://www.islamchannel.tv
Rate This:
0 
0
This is to Frank; you are typical of the nonbeliever who takes the ‘superficial’ understanding of the Quran. This verse that you have quoted does not at all indicate that women are illtreated in Islam- ALTHOUGH TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT AWARE OF THE DEEPER MEANINGS AND BACKGROUND OF THIS AYAAT, IT MAY APPEAR SO.
Although pages upon pages can be written to give a deeper explanation of any one ayaat, I will give a summary in the minimal amount of time that I have. The ayaat with the grace of Allah is: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands) and guard in the husbands absence what Allah orders them to guard (eg. their chastity and their husbands property). as to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next)refuse to share their beds (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.
1. Islam recognises and rejoices that God has created men and women differently, not only in bodily form but psychologically, emotionally,and mentally, (etc.) we are different. Since men are physically stronger, God has ordained them to be the protectors of their wives; it is their duty to earn and provide for her. This does not mean that women are not allowed to work- they are but the husband’s earning are his wife’s whereas a woman’s earning are her own. (though she may spend it on her family if she so wishes).
2. The family in Islam is the most important functional unit of society. Problems always leak out into society when there are problems at home. Although divorce is allowed, every effort is made to avoid this since it can cause long lasting psychological trauma, especially where children are involved. This beautiful ayyat gives a step by step guidance to a man having problems in his marital life. In an offce, although all employees are deemed equal, there would be chaos if no one listened to the boss. An Islamic home thrives on similar principles.
3. Since it is a duty upon a man to provide for his wife, obviously that means, him leaving the house and going to work. If a woman decides that she does not want to work, but wants to stay at home alone, then it is her duty to guard her chastity (which unfortunately is not the case in many western households (note: I said ‘many’ – not ‘all’).That does not infer that men have no restrictions. One verse from the Quran springs to my mind:”and ask the believing men to lower their gaze.”
4.What would you do if you suddenly found that your wife was having an extra marrital affair behind your back whilst you were slaving away all day at work to provide for her and the kids?
Give this a serious thought. Many men probably would out of rage, lash out OR PROBABLY KICK HER OUT! The Quran gives a step by step approach. FIRST ADMONISH HER. This means, discuss, talk, reason, and warn.
5. If in time, admonishing proves to be futile, and the wife is still adherent to her sinful weys, then refuse to share her bed. This is not meant to be a punishment but a remedy; absence from each others company and abstinence of sexual relations for a while can make the heart fonder (for each other). And, it is meant to provide a ‘cooling off’ period for each other so they both have time to think and contemplate whether their relationship is worth saving. All this, under one roof! Often, in the west, one partner is either kicked out or storms out!It must be mentioned that whilst a man and woman are in this “separate bed” phase, the man has no right to hit his wife or mistreat her.
6. The last step does say “beat them.” Now this statement has to be analysed. All scholars agree that it does not mean “viciously” beating. Infact, this part of the verse has been expanded upon by a hadith of the Prophet (PBUH) when he said, “Do not hit a woman, even with a flower”. This may seem to be contradictory to critics but a lot of the Quran is understood by taking examples from the life of the Prophet and by understanding the context. Did he ever hit his wives? NO, NEVER. So, it is preferable and recommended not to hit. This part of the verse is understood to mean that only in extreme cases,where a woman is constantly, extremely quarrelsome and sinful, where all the previous steps have failed, the last resort may be raising the hand – not to cause any hurt and as our beloved Prophet said, not to leave any mark – but merely to cause a psychological, shock- enough for her to realise that she has stepped out of bounds. This raising of the hand according to the saying of the Prophet should be as low as one would raise the hand with a book squeazed under the arm pit and the stick (if there is one) should be as thin as a twig! I again emphasise, that Islam is against domestic violence. There are undoubtedly so called “Muslims’ out there who carry out unjustfully this dreadful act (as there are in every society)but they will be answerable to Allah for their evil deeds. This final step too is simply a last resort to save a marriage.
7. I can sense that many non believers would question why a woman is not allowed to strike a man. The reason goes in favour of women:i.e. to protect the woman because men are physically stronger and most women(though not in every household) would be beaten to pulp if there was a battle between husband and wife. There is a case when the Prophet told a woman to hit her husband back because she came to him complaining of his violence. But, later a revelation from God came to him, stating that women should not hit and this ruling is seen to be for the protection of women.
8. Lastly, this one ayaat which required sentence upon sentence of deeper expanation, asks men to treat their wives well once they have reconciliated.(“but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance” Quran). If a husband and wife have fallen out in the past, the husband should not constantly repeat or remind her of it. He should not constantly cause annoyance by arguing. Leave the past and move on together.
9. Finally, your quoting of the verse, “Fight and slay the Pagans…..” is out of context. It takes a lot of writing and time to explain a single verse that I cannot do justice to any verse via the internet. In a nutshell, I will say that this does not refer to peaceful times and do not generalise verses of the Quran. We all agree that every society and every individual has the right to self defence. When the pagans attacked the ‘weaker’ Muslims of Medina, they outnumbered them in number, horsepower, arms, etc. Don’t forget that they marched from Makkah to attack the Muslims (who were minding their own business) in Medina. The shear number and apparant strength of the Pagans frightened the new community of Muslims. This verse was revealed by the angal Gabriel to the Prophet (pbuh) as an order to fight- not run and be slain! Your comments are quite hypocritical: the west is allowed to bomb innocent civilians in Iraq although they were not a threat to the west yet you find a quote from the Quran which asks Muslims to fight and slay in self defence; had they not done so, they would have been slain. You try to present your own understanding of the Quran which is incorrect and superficial. Your quotes of incidents of the life of the Prophet and hadith are again superficial, out of context and debatable, However, I’m not going to because there would be no end to your nonsense and it is not possible for me to give so many lenghthy explanations. My advice is to you to get out of your dark shell and genuinely seek knowledge from scholars OR TUNE INTO ISLAM CHANNEL (SKY 836) OR leave us alone!
Rate This:
0 
0
This is to Frank; you are typical of the nonbeliever who takes the ‘superficial’ understanding of the Quran. This verse that you have quoted does not at all indicate that women are illtreated in Islam- ALTHOUGH TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT AWARE OF THE DEEPER MEANINGS AND BACKGROUND OF THIS AYAAT, IT MAY APPEAR SO.
Although pages upon pages can be written to give a deeper explanation of any one ayaat, I will give a summary in the minimal amount of time that I have. The ayaat with the grace of Allah is: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands) and guard in the husbands absence what Allah orders them to guard (eg. their chastity and their husbands property). as to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next)refuse to share their beds (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.
1. Islam recognises and rejoices that God has created men and women differently, not only in bodily form but psychologically, emotionally,and mentally, (etc.) we are different. Since men are physically stronger, God has ordained them to be the protectors of their wives; it is their duty to earn and provide for her. This does not mean that women are not allowed to work- they are but the husband’s earning are his wife’s whereas a woman’s earning are her own. (though she may spend it on her family if she so wishes).
2. The family in Islam is the most important functional unit of society. Problems always leak out into society when there are problems at home. Although divorce is allowed, every effort is made to avoid this since it can cause long lasting psychological trauma, especially where children are involved. This beautiful ayyat gives a step by step guidance to a man having problems in his marital life. In an offce, although all employees are deemed equal, there would be chaos if no one listened to the boss. An Islamic home thrives on similar principles.
3. Since it is a duty upon a man to provide for his wife, obviously that means, him leaving the house and going to work. If a woman decides that she does not want to work, but wants to stay at home alone, then it is her duty to guard her chastity (which unfortunately is not the case in many western households (note: I said ‘many’ – not ‘all’).That does not infer that men have no restrictions. One verse from the Quran springs to my mind:”and ask the believing men to lower their gaze.”
4.What would you do if you suddenly found that your wife was having an extra marrital affair behind your back whilst you were slaving away all day at work to provide for her and the kids?
Give this a serious thought. Many men probably would out of rage, lash out OR PROBABLY KICK HER OUT! The Quran gives a step by step approach. FIRST ADMONISH HER. This means, discuss, talk, reason, and warn.
5. If in time, admonishing proves to be futile, and the wife is still adherent to her sinful weys, then refuse to share her bed. This is not meant to be a punishment but a remedy; absence from each others company and abstinence of sexual relations for a while can make the heart fonder (for each other). And, it is meant to provide a ‘cooling off’ period for each other so they both have time to think and contemplate whether their relationship is worth saving. All this, under one roof! Often, in the west, one partner is either kicked out or storms out!It must be mentioned that whilst a man and woman are in this “separate bed” phase, the man has no right to hit his wife or mistreat her.
6. The last step does say “beat them.” Now this statement has to be analysed. All scholars agree that it does not mean “viciously” beating. Infact, this part of the verse has been expanded upon by a hadith of the Prophet (PBUH) when he said, “Do not hit a woman, even with a flower”. This may seem to be contradictory to critics but a lot of the Quran is understood by taking examples from the life of the Prophet and by understanding the context. Did he ever hit his wives? NO, NEVER. So, it is preferable and recommended not to hit. This part of the verse is understood to mean that only in extreme cases,where a woman is constantly, extremely quarrelsome and sinful, where all the previous steps have failed, the last resort may be raising the hand – not to cause any hurt and as our beloved Prophet said, not to leave any mark – but merely to cause a psychological, shock- enough for her to realise that she has stepped out of bounds. This raising of the hand according to the saying of the Prophet should be as low as one would raise the hand with a book squeazed under the arm pit and the stick (if there is one) should be as thin as a twig! I again emphasise, that Islam is against domestic violence. There are undoubtedly so called “Muslims’ out there who carry out unjustfully this dreadful act (as there are in every society)but they will be answerable to Allah for their evil deeds. This final step too is simply a last resort to save a marriage.
7. I can sense that many non believers would question why a woman is not allowed to strike a man. The reason goes in favour of women:i.e. to protect the woman because men are physically stronger and most women(though not in every household) would be beaten to pulp if there was a battle between husband and wife. There is a case when the Prophet told a woman to hit her husband back because she came to him complaining of his violence. But, later a revelation from God came to him, stating that women should not hit and this ruling is seen to be for the protection of women.
8. Lastly, this one ayaat which required sentence upon sentence of deeper expanation, asks men to treat their wives well once they have reconciliated.(“but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance” Quran). If a husband and wife have fallen out in the past, the husband should not constantly repeat or remind her of it. He should not constantly cause annoyance by arguing. Leave the past and move on together.
9. Finally, your quoting of the verse, “Fight and slay the Pagans…..” is out of context. It takes a lot of writing and time to explain a single verse that I cannot do justice to any verse via the internet. In a nutshell, I will say that this does not refer to peaceful times and do not generalise verses of the Quran. We all agree that every society and every individual has the right to self defence. When the pagans attacked the ‘weaker’ Muslims of Medina, they outnumbered them in number, horsepower, arms, etc. Don’t forget that they marched from Makkah to attack the Muslims (who were minding their own business) in Medina. The shear number and apparant strength of the Pagans frightened the new community of Muslims. This verse was revealed by the angal Gabriel to the Prophet (pbuh) as an order to fight- not run and be slain! Your comments are quite hypocritical: the west is allowed to bomb innocent civilians in Iraq although they were not a threat to the west yet you find a quote from the Quran which asks Muslims to fight and slay in self defence; had they not done so, they would have been slain. You try to present your own understanding of the Quran which is incorrect and superficial. Your quotes of incidents of the life of the Prophet and hadith are again superficial, out of context and debatable, However, I’m not going to because there would be no end to your nonsense and it is not possible for me to give so many lenghthy explanations. My advice is to you to get out of your shell and genuinely seek knowledge from scholars OR TUNE INTO ISLAM CHANNEL (SKY 836) OR leave us alone!
Rate This:
0 
0
A note to Maccarnie,
I really apreciate your statements since, unlike others, you seem more rational, neutral and non judgemental. I just felt the need to comment on your statement that God did not write a book by hand. That is exactly the point that Muslims make when we talk of the Quran as being the word of God; He did not write the Quran but He did reveal it.This was done by God by sending His verses through the Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad. This is why we often say that the Quran was revealed through the heart (it was inspired). Muhammad (PBUH) was the “mouthpiece” of God’s verses. Just think; he was illiterate!How could an illiterate man have come up with such verses? Up to the age of 40, he was not known as a statesman, a preacher or an orator. He was never seen discussing the principles of metaphysics, ethics, law, politics, economics or sociology. He possessed an excellent character, charming manners and was highly cultured. But when he came out of Cave Hira , with a new message, he was completely transformed. Is it possible for such a person to turn all of a sudden into ‘an imposter’ and claim to be the prophet of God and risk the rage of his own people? For what reason did he suffer all these hardships? His people offered to accept him as their King and to lay all the riches of the land at his feet if only he would stop preaching. But he chose to go on preaching in the face of insults, social boycott and even physical assault by his own people! Furthermore, had he come with a design of rivalry with the Christians and Jews, why should he have made belief in Jesus Christ and Moses and other Prophets of GOD, A BASIC REQUIREMENT OF FAITH WITHOUT WHICH NO ONE CAN BE A mUSLIM? Inspite of being unlettered and having led a normal and quiet life for forty years, when he began preaching his message, all of Arabia stood in awe and wonderat his eloquence and oratory.Only one who can read the Arabic text of the Quran can realise the intensity of its eloquence. And above all, how could he then pronounce truths of scientific nature contained in the Quran that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time. There are 1000 verses which are scientific truths (discovered centuries later) in the Quran; I am tempted to name just afew: the Quran mentions that the sun too is in movement, the light of the moon is reflected- not its own whereas that of the sun is its own, various embryonic stages are mentioned such as the “chewed up clump” which refers to the somites of an embryo, that the universe is expanding, that even plants have a male and female, that the shape of the earth is spherical yet flatter at both poles and the list goes on and on!
Finally, why did he lead a hard life even after gaining power and authority?
I quote: If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations,empires,peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the alters, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls.his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after his death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm convictionwhich gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was two fold: the unity of God and the immateriality of God.
Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad.
Quote taken from Lamartine: Historie dela Turqie, Paris 1854, Vol 11,pp(276-77)
Also, Michael H.Hart chose Muhammad(PBUH) amongst one of the most influential persons in history (1978). There is so much more but not enough time!
Rate This:
0 
0
Sarah : whilst still remaining on neutral territory, I take up your point,”How can an illiterate man have come up with such verses?”
There were , and in all probability still are , in any community, men ,learned in letters , usually coming from an aesthetic background; known as scribes, who would write down; from simple dictation; what even the most ignorant of peasants might have to convey to a distant relative or liege lord . Illiterate means precisely what it says , without letters, ( which you , yourself, wrote elsewhere): it neither impinges upon, nor denigrates, the mental ability or logical processes of a person, whose capacity for thought and analysis of a situation are totally independent of the ability to write or read a script.
Ergo, I put it to you , that the word was not personally written; but rather dictated by Muhammad.
It is a petty argument, but one which I felt needed addressing.
Rate This:
0 
0
Macarnie,
Your mention of scribes writing down whatever unlettered men have dictated does not prove anything; he did not dictate whilst others sat writing! Quite often verses were revealed unexpectedly and spontaniously (because, like other Prophets, the verses came from outside- not from within his mind). There are several books which explain in depth the various evidences of why it is not logical to suggest that his speech (during revelation) were other than divine; the scholar, Ahmad Deedat has given logical debates and reasons why he is proven to be the Prophet of God. Do go out to any Muslim bookshop and read his booklets because the reasons are innumerable that I cannot write them all down. There are testimonies by the people of his times who saw the physical’effect’ on the Prophet when the Archangel came to him with a revelation such as his sudden and profuse sweating and ‘heaviness’ of his limbs. Furthermore, there are verses of the Quran which address him and point out to him his shortcomings. I’ll give one example; the Prophet was busy preaching to the Makkan chiefs for he thought that if he gained their support, it would make his mission easier. A blind man came to the Prophet asking about his message; the Prophet, being a human was irritated by this sudden interuption and frowned and ignored this blind man. Thereafter, a revelation came upon him (Surat Abasa, part 30):
1. (he) frowned and turned away
2. Because there came to him the blind man (Abdullah bin Umm Maktoum)
3.And how can you know that he might become pure? (from sins- this is God asking Muhammad PBUH)
4.Or he might receive admonition and the admonition might profit him?
5. As for him who thinks himself self sufficient (i.e. the leaders of Makkah)
To him you attend.
This surah does not stop here but I can’t post all of it. If you haven’t yet got the gist of what I am saying, either the Prophet was insane (Astaghfarullah) by preaching against his own actions- in public, where critics were always ready to attack his authenticity (as they do today) or he was not only a great orator, poet, etc but also a great actor!Afew more points to make are that he too was given his share of miracles (As the previous Prophets were) such as when he pointed to the moon and by the will of God, it split and rejoined. However, as Muslims we do take these past miracles as ultimate evidence if his prophethood since we were not there to witness it and the non believing witnesses at the time, opposed him even more and accused him of witchcraft! Ou ultimate proof is the Quran (and his prophecies, some of which have come true- the rest will too.). It is difficult for a non believer to appreciate the Quran’s authenticity without reading the Arabic text. It is the only sacred text which has been preserved in it’s entirety, 1400 years on- in it’s original language; every word, every squiggle remains as it were 1400 years ago and that in itself is a miracle (from God)!.If scribes and dictation had anything to do with it, there surely would have been changes and flaws!
Final point, how did the Prophet know about the 1000 signs mentioned in the Quran which science has proven centuries later?
I haven’t and can’t give all evidences.
Please, do me a favour. Read up on it so I don’t have to constantly sit at this computer with my baby on my lap! Take care!
Rate This:
0 
0
Maccarnie, please note my grammatical mistake:
second para, sixth sentence: As Muslims, we do NOT take these past miracles as the ultimate evidence…
Rate This:
0 
0
Sarah -
I am on my hols and so unable to reference everything I need to but I must say that your post to me was incredibly and knowingly dishonest. You claim Aisha was mature at 9 – without defining what you mean by that. But you know that when her mother called her away the
to have her marriage consummated by the Prophet she hazd been playing on a swing with her friends! So much for maturity. You msut have read that. \
The slaughter of the Jewish tribe POWs is well attested in authenticated Hadith. He had the boys inspected. Those with mature hair growth were slaughtered along with the men. Charming.
Rate This:
0 
0
Sarah:
You said to me: “you are typical of the nonbeliever who takes the ‘superficial’ understanding of the Quran”.
You are wrong, but for the sake of discussion, let’s assume for a moment that you are right.
I want to ask you one important question:
What views will the BELIEVER who takes a similarly “superficial” view of the Qur’an have?
The answer is obvious. They’ll see it the same as I do. But while, as a nonbeliever, I am disgusted and repulsed by what I read in the Qur’an and Hadith, such a believer will try to follow it.
Such a “superficial” believer will be a supporter of armed jihad against all who reject Islam, criticise Islam, or in some other (subjectively-judged) way stand against the global spread of radical political Islam.
Because on the face of it, that’s exactly what the Qur’an and Hadith teach.
Now, if you really believe that a “deeper” view should hold sway, then the onus is on you, and all so-called “moderate Muslims”, to fight that ideological battle. Because the extremists don’t care at all for what I say. I’m just kufr – filthy infidel pig! – what I say has no value to them. So over to you!
Oh, just one other thing. Can you please explain to me why so many thousands of senior Islamic “scholars” – those who openly support suicide bombings, praise 9/11 etc – share my “superficial” understanding?
(And when you answer, please realise that I understand the notion of al-Taqiyya, and can usually spot it a mile off.)
Rate This:
0 
0
I think I’ll deal now with your vacuous assertions that women are highly regarded in Islam. Again, straight from the Qur’an and Hadith…
Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur
Rate This:
0 
0
The debate between Frank and Sarah is fascinating in its specificity, quoting chapter & verse.
Howver, can’t help commenting again with a broad sweeping brush that The Book (whether Qu’ran, Bible or Torah) becomes the root of evil when it is taken literally and used to justify attitudes which are not merely illiberal but practically medieval.
Give me the rule of law over The Book any day. I’ve the greatest respect and admiration for our judges, who judge and are in turn judged and sometimes overruled by a higher court.(Judge Not Lest Ye May Be Judged). If only all priests and mullahs and rabbis exercised the same responsibility and rigour in their pronuncements.
And of course the judiciary are now the Unofficial Opposition, viz the House of Lords slapping down the Home Secretary (Blunkett/Clark) over human rights.
But I never had the Latin for the judging…
Rate This:
0 
0
Kevin B:
Your observation on the Qur’an vs. the Bible, Torah etc made me wish that I had kept to the jihad topic and not allowed myself to be distracted into gender issues – on which the Bible and Torah could indeed be said to have similarly eyebrow-raising content.
Islam is completely unique in that a “superficial” reading of its books justifies spreading the religion by force. This can be said of no other religion.
I take no pleasure in being so contentious. But the evidence is overwhelming. There are hundreds more Qur’an and Hadith verses similar in character to those below:
Qur
Rate This:
0 
0
Just a note to Frank and others.
With respect to the verses of the Qu’ran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, you have to realise firstly that it takes a number of requirments before anyone can simply dish out such sayings and verses and interpret them as one wishes- as I understand it, years of studying the classical Arabic lanugage, pre-islamic Arabic literature, Arabic rhetoric, eloquence and grammar (all subjects in themsleves)amongst other things before directly interpreting sayings and verses.
Fair enough, not everyone has the capacity or desire to travel the road of Islamic scholarship, but one should at least appreciate the original language that these lines that have been lifted from and that they are translations (and probably very loosely at that) of classical arabic- which is a very rich language.
I myself who has studied to some level classical language – Latin and is currently studying modern standard Arabic language has only a sense of this richness.
To interpret such sayings without understanding the Arabic and its eloquence and its context is an erroneous path.
Perhaps that is the point you were trying to make, but I am emphasising the caution which non/muslims alike ought to be aware of.
In addition many of the saying of the prophet have different levels of reliability, and a sophisticated system was created when they were compiled in the 7th century that classified these sayings (or hadith) as being sound/ strong /weak etc based on the chain of narrations.
It is in effect a science and should not be taken lightly.
As muslims see the Qur’an as the word of God, it could be argued to be an insult to one’s creator to feel onself so superior as to assume that their interpretation is a valid one without proper understanding.
As for the word Jihad- it comes from the wor “Jahada, YuJahido” which means to struggle.
My humble and lowly dare I stress unscholarly understanding of which is to Struggle for a just cause, against oppression, injustice etc for the sake of God.
That would therefore entail many different levels of struggle, indeed a military sense is included but so is and perhaps the most important is the struggle against one own self.
Indeed the Prophet, peace be upon him said
“speak out against injustice even if it is against your own self”
There are in addition my understanding is that there are certaing requirements of Jihad that would need to be fulfilled and also ettiquetes associated with the practice of Jihad in a military sense.
Which again in my very very very humble opinion one could argue has been flouted in the wars and acts of terrorism that have taken place probably since in the past century or at the least since WW2.
p.s. please excuse my spelling and grammatical mistakes as I have noticed I might have made a few.
Rate This:
0 
0
Ginger Sams:
In arguing that a scholarly approach is required to understand the Qur’an, you contradict the Qur’an itself, which quite clearly – and repeatedly – states the exact opposite:
Qur’an 54:17 (and verses 22, 32, 40)
“And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember…”
You are right in saying that the various Hadith are not always accorded the same weight, but I have taken the above straight from the Qur’an – considered by all Muslims to be the inerrant word of Allah. There is no room for debate here.
Now, put the expression “easy to understand” in the appropriate historical context and I think you might begin to see why I cannot agree with your assertion that the meaning of the Qur’an can only be revealed through what you call “a science not to be taken lightly”.
Also, that the meaning is completely obscured unless one understands “the Arabic and its eloquence and context” is a complete red herring! Here’s a challenge for you:
Choose for yourself any one of the Qur’an verses I cited in my earlier posts. I quoted verses relating to jihad, the subservient “dhimmi” status of Christians and Jews and gender inequality. I don’t mind which you target. The choise is entirely yours.
Now, the challenge. However poetic and eloquent the original Arabic for your chosen verse is, perhaps you could explain how it actually has a meaning completely opposite to the way it is rendered in English?
Rate This:
0 
0
Ugh, choise = choice.
Rate This:
0 
0
Sarah said: “It [the Qur'an] is the only sacred text which has been preserved in it’s entirety, 1400 years on- in it’s original language; every word, every squiggle remains as it were 1400 years ago and that in itself is a miracle (from God)!.If scribes and dictation had anything to do with it, there surely would have been changes and flaws!”
Sorry, not so. Muslims blindly deny the existence of old manuscripts that vary from the current version. But such variations do exist.
See, for example:
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html
Rate This:
0 
0
The Israelis have had 25,000 (yes, the decimal point is in the right place) terrorist attacks launched against them since the year 2000.
160 suicide bombings since 1993.
ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY. They’ve lost the population equivalent of 10,000 British citizens. Case in point, 29 people died when a suicide bomber detonated explosives at a Passover celebration on March 27, 2002. This would be the equivalent of 290 Brits dying.
Our response to terrorism?
We’ve be involved in the invasions of two countries, much as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks which were not directed specifically against us.
So which is the harsher response to terrorism? Flattening a few houses or bombing a couple of countries?
You ignorant buffoon.
Rate This:
0 
0
Yes us Brits are far too sophisticated for mere house demolition.
We simply shoot innocent Brazilians, oh and invade a couple of countries at the whim of the U.S. But hey, everyone loves a dig at the Israelis so what the hell!
————-
Mark Steyn – IT’S WAR! If you don’t know you’re in one, it’s hard to win it
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6422&issue=2005-07-30
The distinction between coarse blundering Israelis and subtle sophisticated Britons depends where you�re standing. If you happen to be the late Jean Charles de Menezes, for example, you might wish fate had selected you instead to be the Palestinian suicide bomber interrupted en route to Tel Aviv that same Friday. The Euro-reviled IDF managed to disarm the Fatah terrorist of his explosives belt, packed with nails, without harming a hair on his pretty little suicide-bomber head. If the demented anti-Zionism of the British and Continental media these last four years ever had a point, it doesn�t now, when you�re in the early stages of the Israelification of Europe � and, in one of fate�s better jests, in this scenario you�re the Jews.
————-
Rate This:
0 
0
Firstly, i suggest Boris, gets off his lazy ass and trys to do some extended reaserch of his own, instead of listening to rumours,and propogating what he ‘thinks’ he knows.Islam does NOT accecpt the killing of ‘non-muslims’, if he has actually read the quran he will know that it is said ,that if a person takes the life of another person, it is like he killed the whole of mankind’it does not say ‘muslim’, it says person meaning someones LIFE, so how anyone can say that islam agrees with these ‘alleged bombers’ just shows their ignorance in education.Boris, every society, religion and race has their share of people who are the bad apples, so why did u not point out that cathlocism also were misrepresented by the IRA.similarly Islam has their share of bad apples, but let it be reminded their motive was also political, and you of all people should understand how parties have bad apples, because just like that your party has you, a bad apple who should be there to represent the conservatives, but it is now understandable why they have not won any recent elections with members like you.Yes, by invading Iraq, and being slave followers of America, Britian has definitely increased their chances by 99% of being attacked, but i think it came as a shock that these ‘alleged bombers’ were of British nationality,but dont brand us all with the same colour,the majority of muslims are nothing but Law abiding people, and i suggest you all take a step back and leave the muslims alone, because with you all constantly targeting muslims in this country, it will not be suprising if the coccasian community gain a few more enemys.
Rate This:
0 
0
I think that Jasmin has overstepped the mark by calling Boris a bad apple.
The whole purpose of these commentaries and resultant replies, is to promote a better understanding between the various peoples who inhabit this land.
Insults and personal jibes are neither asked for, nor are they welcome. Every contributor here , excepting perhaps for those who do not wish to understand the above conditions , has the right to state whatever their case might be, in order to further the discussion and promote that better understanding.
According to her use of the word ,” alleged”, it is obvious that she, along with some others, including some radical Muslim Clerics, still does not believe that they were terrorists, acting in the name of the Muslim community, who perpetrated these bombings. Who does she suggest did it, if the ones who died did not?
As for the failed bombing attempts,at least one of those suspected is fighting attempts to have him returned to the UK to face charges of terrorism. Not the actions of an innocent man, I would have said.
After the 7.7 bombings, there was forensic evidence, of an irrefutble nature, in abundance, available to the Police forensic scientists ,which tells a damning story , (or is there a sub plot here, about which we know nothing?)
“Alleged” is therefore, no longer the apposite description.
She should accept that there are, as she called them ,” bad apples”, and throw them out of her collective storeroom, before they spoil all her supplies.
As for the veiled threat which she undoubtedly made at the end of her contribution: it would be laughable, were it not for its sinister undertones , particularly in the face of her self confessed wish for peace.
Rate This:
0 
0
Jasmin:
what on earth is a “coccasian”? Is it just terrible spelling, or a word i have never heard? If the former, are you saying that caucasians are not allowed to be Muslim?
Someone better tell them!!!
P
Rate This:
0 
0
Psimon: I didn’t want to be the one to comment on the spelling: the meaning was clear enough.
Rate This:
0 
0
I listened to a Muslim Cleric on Radio 4 this morning, who likened Tony Blair to Hitler.
His reasons for citing Hitler’s preoccupation with the, ” Jewish Question”, were totally spurious , in that he hinted that the newly heralded emergency measures to exclude; deport, or jail anyone stirring up racial or religious hatred were purely against Muslims. His views on this matter are hardly surprising, because he is still in denial of the fact that the bombers were Muslims, by insisting that the only evidence available is circumstantial. It is twisted logic such as this which causes the apparent gulf in understanding between religions.
These proposed measures, according to Miss Blears yesterday, are to be applied to EACH and EVERY person found guilty of promulgating religious / racial hate, regardless of creed or place of birth. And high time too. Still, better late than never.
Rate This:
0 
0
Browsing this and associated blogs I come across a number of proud claims to be “a Pagan”. Often this is alongside a denounciation of (usually) Christians as being wicked and/or silly. Before I say any more could any of you Pagans explain (briefly) what a Pagan believes in, possibly with some references to Great Pagans in history?
Rate This:
0 
0
Taken from the web site of Pagans:-
Pagans may be trained in particular traditions or they may follow their own inspiration. Paganism is not dogmatic. Pagans pursue their own vision of the Divine as a direct and personal experience.
Some authors see the emergence of Paganism in the twentieth century as a revival of an older Pagan religion and describe all the above traditions as Neo-Pagan. Pagans are not necessarily recognized, due to the diversity of those claiming to be of a Pagan disposition: Wiccanism and Druidism are only two of the so-called, ” isms”, recognized as Pagans.
Historically, pagans built Stonehenge, and other great Henges.
My paternal Grandfather was a follower of Druidism , in fact, highly placed in Druidical circles in the last century.. He believed , if I am not falsely informed , in the prescience of Nature,in its manifold magnificence, and who will prove that his beliefs were wrong?
Rate This:
0 
0
Thanks Macarnie. I suspect I asked the wrong question. What is it to be a non-Pagan then?
Rate This:
0 
0
Monotheism, per se, is a non paganistic trait. Dogmatism is a non pagan trait. I suspect that the answer to your question Jack, is simply to belong to a recognised religion, and practise it.
Normally on this , or related subjects , I am a fence sitter: the personification of the three monkeys, or perhaps the Yorkshire guy who says :-
‘ear all see all, say nowt
Ate all , sup all, pay nowt;
an’ if ever tha’ does owt fer nowt,
allus do it fer thisen.
Rate This:
0 
0
I didn’t have a chance before to back up my recollection with a quote to show that Sarah was misleading people here with her paraphrase.
The quote is set out below. It will be seen firstly that the “saving one life” injunction relates to the “children of Israel and is not specifically directed to Muslims. Be that as it may it is the following verse which prescribes punishments in relation to those who create “mischief in the land” that are the eye openers. It’s crucifixion, limb amputation and death.
Even “moderate Muslims” believe that the democracies are engaged in an illegitimate war in Iraq which is part of teh land of the Muslims. Even if it is held that 5.33 refers only to persons living in the land of Muslims, it is clear such punishments would on that reading apply to the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government.
Sarah has tried, like all Muslim apologists, to pull the wool over people’s eyes. I’m sure most people are sensible enough to see what the message of the Koran is from this quote.
HERE IS THE QUOTE FROM CHAPTER 5 OF THE KORAN
“For this reason did We prescribed to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be [killed] or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,”
Rate This:
0 
0
I notice that a lot of defence of using the Koran as your guide to life depends on you being pretty sophisticated in interpretation, as well as knowing which interpretation suits which day of the week.
Anyway as a miserable (non-fundamenatist) atheist I’m not so much interested as being told what to think and do as learning how to think and working out what to do. My non-fundamentalist friends of a variety of religions seem to have the same attitude. As my ignorance of other religions is overwhelming, please forgive me for noting that most of the 10 commandments offer a reasonably coherent set of rules for a framework in which the free will that the Christian God gives can be used by responsible people. The Old Testament minute sayings and doings of the prophet Donald in the ancient Middle East seem less useful somehow.
Come on guys of all religions (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Marxism, Fascism, the BBC is always right, etc. etc.) Think a bit – you have nothing to lose but your fundamentals!
Rate This:
0 
0
According to a Channel 4 report,and various other sources; relatives of the Brazilian man; Jean C De Menezes; shot dead by anti-terror police on a London Tube train ,want the perpetators to be charged with murder …
The lawyer for the de Menezes family,Harriet Wistrich, said they were distressed at newly publicicized revelations, calling them ‘shocking and terrifying’ and adding that it raises serious questions about the shoot-to-kill policy of the Metropolitan Police; and has called for a public inquiry into the death of the electrician.
The Met’s Police Commisioner, Sir Ian Blair , made an explanatory statement at the time, and this could cause him considerable embarrassment, since subsequent reports are at odds with it.
Rate This:
0 
0
well done boris . its about time some body stood up against these murdering terroists. your doing a fine job. keep up the good work..
Rate This:
0 
0
Well Sarah, your post interested me, you may have many fooled, you certainly spun a pretty picture but lets look at what you said and what Islamic literature actually says….
1 “Your claim that the Prophet allowed slaves to be used as sex workers is misinterpreted. Women captured in the pre-Islamic era were subjected to inhumane treatment; after Islam these women were allowed to be kept and taken care of and treated in a respectable manner as one would treat a wife. Now, the human intelligence may think, that this is wronged. but God ordained this because leaving women to roam free only encourages prostitution and this ‘sex trade’ is abhorent to Islam.”
I will respond to that comment with a hadith:-
sahih Muslim
1)Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
your prophet
Rate This:
0 
0
In the light of the latest piece of videotape evidence; this time from beyond the grave; confirming, beyond doubt, that we have / had, in our midst, some (hopefully a miniscule minority) radical Muslims who are prepared to commit mayhem, involving innocent civilian bystanders,of whatever creedor colour,
in the mistaken belief that the average Brit is a monster, intent on destroying Islam.
This morning, on radio 4, John Humphries interviewed a leading Muslim Cleric, whose insistence that there is, and was, no proof that Muslims were involved in the 7 / 7 bombings was, to say the least, bizarre.
Is this the state of affairs we wish to be in the ascendancy, when all sections of Society are in danger, to a greater or lesser degree, by as yet unknown atrocities?
It must be approaching the time for a further definitive declaration of solidarity from the spokesmen of the Muslim community, (the majority of whom are against terrorism, in any and all its forms), denouncing all those participating in terrorism, of whatever beliefs and political associations.
This country, foremost in Europe, has a liberal attitude towards minorities, but this tolerant attitude could change if controversial
Preachers are allowed to rubbish incontrovertible evidence. This morning’s example cited possible image manipulation, in order to prove Muslim involvement, as an explanation for the above mentioned tape.
Rate This:
0 
0