Apostasy and Islam

All religions are misrepresented and not followed properly by the majority of their devotees.

Except of course Capitalism. Which is of course devoid of any moral fibre.

Just to make your position clear.

(a) Do you think that a Muslim living in a country organised and governed accordingly to Islamic principles who converts to another religion and openly repudiates Islam, including the legal principles and obligations which flow from Islam, is guilty of treason?

(b) What if such an ex-Muslim encourages other Muslims to abandon their faith? Would you regard that as constituting treason?

I do not think that it is inevitable that these actions would amount to treason.

However, I would be interested to know what sort of actions, which might naturally accompany apostasy, you would regard as treasonous.

You write:

'To force someone to remain in a faith they do not believe seems rather absurd as it negates the whole basis of sincere belief and seems closer to officially endorsing hypocrisy.'

I couldn't agree more, especially as the same verses people use to justify temporal punishment for apostasy contain the words 'God leads people astray.' I'm no theologian but isn't the Christian and Muslim God - as you say - the same god? Our Afghani example therefore shows that conversion should be accepted, does't it?

I followed your link. I'm not sure how indicative these jurists are of Muslim opinion as a whole - could someone steer me on that?

What Muslim opinion as a whole thinks doesn't matter. Religious people might well believe in all sorts of reactionary (or uplifting) stuff. That's their prerogative.

The only thing that matters is whether they are trying to create a state which is organised on religious principles.

Islam-Online is run by the Muslim Brotherhood: a political organisation which hopes to establish, gradually, a state that is organised according to its own particular take on Islamic principles. The Muslim Association of Britain is the British franchise of this organisation. A number of the columnists - who also regularly write for the Guardian Comment pages - have also been invited to write for CommentIsFree. Therefore, if you want to know what sort of political ideals they stand for, Islam Online is a very good guide. Their position is that apostates should be executed.

The orthodox position is, as I understand it, that apostasy should either be regarded as a crime in its own right, or a form of treason. In both cases, it has traditionally been regarded as a capital offence: subject to various evidential safeguards and opportunities to recant, etc..

I think that Mr Bungalawala is saying that he opposes the execution of apostates, but I am not sure. I don't understand why he does say "I think that apostates should not be executed", and what the Canadian scholar he quotes regards as "high treason", coupled with apostasy.

None of this matters, in any case, if Mr Bungalawala doesn't think that a state should be governed according to Islamic principles. People are entitled to think that their religion, in theory, requires a particular punishment fora particular act, if they are opposed to religious laws being used as a basis for temporal law making.

Anyone that voluntarily converts to the Church of Rome needs their head examining. So much pain from that thing.

"To force someone to remain in a faith they do not believe seems rather absurd as it negates the whole basis of sincere belief and seems closer to officially endorsing hypocrisy."

I doubt you'll find anyone disagreeing with that statement here. But let's not overlook the fact that the original story here wasn't just about 'forcing someone to remain in a faith': the man was actually about to be *executed* if he didn't. That's not just absurd, it's absolutely outrageous - I'm opposed to execution generally, but to use it as a punishment for people changing their religion is almost inhuman.

That's the real story here, IMO, and I'm not sure why it got so little coverage here. Even if most British Muslims strongly disagree with execution being used as a punishment for apostasy - and I'm sure that's the case - we still deserved to be told about the story in the first place. I'm not entirely sure what the point of this article is, but if it drew attention to this narrowly-averted miscarriage of justice, that has to be a good thing.

@altrui: I think Inayat's position on apostasy is perfectly clear from the article - presuming to speak for him, I would say no, he doesn't believe that apostasy is treasonous. Honestly, as an atheist humanist, I found nothing in the article to disagree with.

Well that is what I think he is saying. I just don't understand why he doesn't say "I do not believe that Islam requires an apostate to be executed, and I agree with scholars who take that view".

Instead, what he says is

1. There's a Canadian scholar who only thinks that treasonous apostates should be executed

2. It seems absurd to and hypocritical to force somebody into a belief which isn't sincere.

This is reminiscent of Iqbal Sacranie's line on Salman Rushdie:

"Death is, perhaps, too easy for him"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1774037,00.html

It is a construction which gives every impression of opposing the death sentence without saying it explicitly.

I did think that what might be going on is that Bungalawala knows that, in opposing the death sentence for apostasy, he is taking a very unorthodox position, and one which he lacks confidence as a political spokesman for the MCB rather than a jurist, in articulating in a bold fashion. Therefore, this is the closest he feels he can come to saying what he really thinks.

As I said, there are loads of religious people who deal have to reconcile the unpalatable aspects of their religious beliefs with their personal views. Take Christians and their attitude to homosexuality, and the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin/God forgives/We are all imperfect" compromise.

Yes, sometimes religious people try to reach a compromise which respects the letter of their holy book while being more compassionate than they used to be historically.

However, there is another strategy that many religious people use to deal with strange, archaic aspects of their religion. Rather than trying to reconcile those aspects of their religion with their own opinions, they simply ignore them completely.

Take these quotes for example:

" Women should remain silent in
the churches. They are not allowed
to speak, but must be in submission,
as the Law says. If they want to in-
quire about something, they should
ask their own husbands at home;
for it is disgraceful for a woman to
speak in the church."

" If a man have a stubborn and re-
bellious son... Then shall his father
and his mother...bring him out
unto the elders of his city... And all
the men of his city shall stone him
with stones, that he die."

" If a man [meets] a virgin who
is not pledged to be married and
rapes her... He must marry the
girl... He can never divorce her
as long as he lives."

Read that last one again. It's absolutely chilling.

These quotations all come from... The Bible. I got them from this leaflet:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/nbw.htm

Most Christians ignore all of these Biblical doctrines (indeed they may not even be aware of them). Even many so-called "fundamentalists" and "Biblical literalists" ignore them! Of course, anyone who claims to be a Christian, and who claims to believe in the literal truth of the entire Bible - but ignores these passages - is a hypocrite.

I'm sure you could find passages from the Koran and the Torah which are widely ignored by many Muslims and Jews respectively, as well. Indeed, it would be especially easy for the Torah, since it shares many books with the Bible's Old Testament.

Ignoring what your own religion says is very popular, it seems.

I am or I follow what I believe to be my version of being a Christian. The word Christian simply means that I believe in Jesus Christ as my saviour and as the new covenant. The New covenant being what interests me most, the old covenant is the old testament. When Christ said those words, that he was the new covenant for me that meant that he was the new testament and that is what I follow as a Christian. Nowhere in the new Testament does it say any of the things that Robin mentioned. I personally could never have followed the old testament because for me anyway it portrays a cruel and fearful unforgiving God and was obviously written for the purpose of total control. While I do read the old testament (a lot of which is difficult to follow especially when you get to parts talking about who begot who which can go on for days at a time)I read it like any other book, simply to learn.

I also have my own outlook on the subject just like terroxas, only I enjoy being a Roman Catholic. I left my faith for many years because I found the new testament in total conflict with canon law. Then one day while with my mother at my fathers funeral her priest spoke with me about my loss of faith and asked me why I had left the church. I explained to him how I felt and it was the simple reply he gave that in turn made me rethink my own position and my faith. He said that he understood where I was coming from and that he himself had many conflicting anomalies, he told me that he realised that his beliefs came from his heart and not his head. We both believed in Jesus Christ my problem had always been how through man and not God rules had been written which suited the church and its rulers. Like everything else even the New Testament it was not written directly by God but men. Like all men each has a different perspective on things and sees them in his own way. The Apostles didn't agree with each other with regards to who would be admitted into this new faith. Over the centuries the differences between man have caused the divisions of Christianity about how each worships and what rules it follows. The one thing that remained unchanged was that which was witnessed by the Apostles and those around them. It is fundamentally what Christianity is about overall. Whether you believe or disbelieve is of no consequence it is neither an insult nor a blessing, it is a personal thing which each of us has and it is that basic freedom to choose that separates any one of us here from Islam. My own personal view of Islam is simple, here was a man who was in awe of Judaism, but was not accepted into it, so he began his own branch of religion based on the concepts of the Jewish faith and using the old testament and taking snippets of the new testament he built on and developed until he was satisfied with the outcome. It was the sixth century when Islam appeared around 500 circa or thereabouts after Christ. Like the old Testament it is full of an unforgiving God and cruel punishments.

But no man woman or child should ever be forced into any religion or faith. No man woman or child should ever be damned or threatened for changing at any time no matter how many times they might change their minds. Religion or belief is and always should be free to choose, or not, to threaten some ones life or to put some one to death or call for the death of some one just because they do not conform to their beliefs is nothing but barbaric, savage and from the dark ages or stone age.

[Islam-Online is run by the Muslim Brotherhood: a political organisation which hopes to establish, gradually, a state that is organised according to its own particular take on Islamic principles. The Muslim Association of Britain is the British franchise of this organisation. A number of the columnists - who also regularly write for the Guardian Comment pages - have also been invited to write for CommentIsFree. Therefore, if you want to know what sort of political ideals they stand for, Islam Online is a very good guide.]

Really?

"Fox News is owned by News Corporation. The Times is the British franchise of this organisation. A number of its employees also write for the Times Higher Education Supplement. Therefore if you want to know the views of the THES, 'The O'Reilly Factor' on Fox News is a very good guide."

Is News Corporation a political movement which is attempting to establish a state governed by 7th century biblical principles?

I thought it was just about making money for Rupert Murdoch by being nice to the People's Republic of China.

Even a "moderate" scholar thinks that apostasy is likely toi go along with treason- without saying what is being betrayed or how it is being betrayed- or murder. The fact remains, many muslim scholars, muslim countries and muslims in general consider apostasy to be treason and to deserve death.
It is one of the problems of and with islam. According to post-Ghazali interpretations the quran is supposed to be literally the exact uncorrupted and unchanged word of god, absolutely true, regardless of historical change. Christians and jews can abandon the nastier bits of their holy books safely and easily and still retain their core beliefs. muslims find it much more difficult.

Adamastor,

Thank you for the astute analysis. I find it mind-boggling how many Brits, other Europeans and Americans go out of their way to exonerate Islamic theology as one of the root-causes and driving forces of religiously-inspired violence and intolerance within the Muslim ummah.

The "tiny minority of extremists" canard simply doesn't hold water when one looks at the reality on the ground: a sampling of public opinion in Afghanistan indicating overwhelming majority support for the execution of Abdul Rahman; large crowds demonstrating (and often rioting) around the world during the Danish cartoon controversy, calling for the heads of the cartoonists; radical fundamentalists and purveyors of jihad winning elections in Palestine and fairing well in Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan.

For as long as we continue to automatically exonerate Islam when analyzing the terrorism, violence and intolerance existing inside the Muslim community, we narrow the parameters of discourse about the need for introspection and reform within the ummah, and cut the ground out from under Muslim moderates who may be truly interested in reforming and reinterpreting their faith.

"oakenfold
March 30, 2006 08:08 PM
Anyone that voluntarily converts to the Church of Rome needs their head examining. So much pain from that thing."

**** as if there's no pain associated with ISLAM? I havn't noticed the fanatic of any other religion crashing planes into buildings, etc .

**** Sure there was plenty of horror and pain associated with "the church of rome" - but that was 1500 years ago .

ISLAM is still stuck in the 7th century .

Adamastor:

You wrote:

-'According to post-Ghazali interpretations the quran is supposed to be literally the exact uncorrupted and unchanged word of god'-

You refer to Al Ghazali's 'Inchoherence of the Philosophers' but forget to mention the famous reply of Ibn-Rushd cheekily titled 'The Incoherence of the 'Incoherence''

You also write:

-'The fact remains, many muslim scholars, muslim countries and muslims in general consider apostasy to be treason and to deserve death'-

Yes, but many don't.

1oldHippy wrote:

-'Islam is stuck in the 7th Century.'-

My point is that you simply cannot talk about Islam in these general terms. Just as the only thing that connects a quiet Methodist in South Wales with David Koresh in Waco is the bible; so the only thing that connects the Muslim cab driver in Luton and the suicide bomber in Ramallah is the Koran.
Interpretation of the same words differs from one cleric to another regardless of the religion.

"To force someone to remain in a faith they do not believe seems rather absurd as it negates the whole basis of sincere belief and seems closer to officially endorsing hypocrisy."

Your argument is logical as far as it goes. But to expect someone who believes in the irrational, illogical, and inconsistent -- i.e., in religion -- to be rational, logical, and consistent is to expect too much.

From the Islamists' perspective, "Allah says to kill the apostates, so that's what we've gotta do." Who are you to question Allah?

"My point is that you simply cannot talk about Islam in these general terms. Just as the only thing that connects a quiet Methodist in South Wales with David Koresh in Waco is the bible; so the only thing that connects the Muslim cab driver in Luton and the suicide bomber in Ramallah is the Koran. Interpretation of the same words differs from one cleric to another regardless of the religion."

Fair enough, but then the next logical step is to examine said connections. Christianity has a clear Old-New Testament split and is much more diffuse ideologically than Islam, so Koresh has a much harder road to hoe in advocating violence in the name of God. The Quran/Hadith on the other hand is pretty straightforward. So you can generalize on theological grounds. To extrapolate that to Muslims on the other hand, is absurd ..... or is it? I can point to many an opinion poll on what Muslims think as well as a 1400 years of Islam in practice. It ain't pretty. Of course, you can do the same thing with Christianity or any other religion and probably find a host of horrors. So I think for the most part you can attribute that to human behavior.

But simply because human behavior is barbaric in no way means that you should dismiss the ideas that drive them. Islam the idea is deeply flawed, from a 21st century perspective. The Islamic God and the Christian God, while sharing Abraham, do it only in name. Conceptually, they are 180 degrees apart.

I'd suggest that people look to the founder of a religion in order to get the best assessment of what it stands for.

Muhammad routinely raided caravans bound for Mecca and spent the last ten years of his life as a warrior, utilizing the sword.

Jesus spoke of peace and at his most "violent", shook money changers in the temple.

Islam is a violent religion.

The founder of Christianity bade his followers "render unto Ceasar, etc., etc." and said "my kingdom is not of this earth".

The founder of Islam made no such distinctions. Islam is very much a complete social and political structure unto itself.

Given that the God of Mohammed is the same God of Jesus, Abraham and Moses. So then, this Afghan convert from Islam to Christianity has not repudiated Allah/God but has given his ear to (what many Muslims would call the prophet) Jesus.

The question is then reduced to whether the prophet Mohammed is bigger than God or just (the prophet) Jesus ?

Some would say that since Mohammed came after (the prophet) Jesus, his word should be given preference. But then should John Smith, the founder of the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), be given greater preference than Mohammed ?

Since God/Allah doesn't make mistakes, it is for no man to give more credence to one prophet or another to the point of breaking the law of Moses without opening himself to the wrath of God.

Altrui:

We can't keep meeting like this...
I didn't mention Ibn Rushd because it was Ghazali who had a lasting influence on muslim philosphy and thought unfortunately.
You say- truly I hope- that many muslim scholars and countries and people don't consider apostasy treason punishable by death. However, in the places where they can do so muslims do kill alleged apostates, legally or not. There are lesser penalties, official or unofficial- a Malaysian state insists on a re-education course before accepting that someone has stopped being a muslim. In my more pessimistic moments I wonder how many of the muslims who say they do not think apostasy deserves death actually mean that they can't kill people so they'll put up with it for now.

"Just as the only thing that connects a quiet Methodist in South Wales with David Koresh in Waco is the bible; so the only thing that connects the Muslim cab driver in Luton and the suicide bomber in Ramallah is the Koran."
Except that the taxi-driver in Luton or one of his relatives may become a suicide bomber in Ramallah or London. The bible has probably inspired even greater horrors than the quran in its time; however, it is easier to keep the benevolent bits and dump the horrors. There isn't the same insistence that it all applies now. I don't think that the Luton taxi-driver, or even the imam in the mosque he attends, is consciously influenced by- or has even heard of- al-Ghazali. However the whole way islam and the quran are taught now are the result of Averroes' loss in the battle of thought.
Given that Averroes has probably had more influence on European christian and post-christian thought than on muslim thought, you could argue for a strong muslim element in the change in the way people think which led to the enlightenment- it's just that it didn't have that same influence in the muslim world.

VarietySnob:

You wrote, 'The Islamic God and the Christian God, while sharing Abraham, do it only in name. Conceptually, they are 180 degrees apart.'

But Jews, Christians and Muslims are all the 'sons of Abraham,' nevertheless. And they have much in common, although they are different in many ways. I suppose its how you view it, like the situation where the glass his half full or half empty. I can't help thinking that the glass itself may be the wrong size.

Adamastor:

Hi again, your point on the difficulties Islamic thought has in adjusting Islam to the West is valid, it may just be time that is needed, but I couldn't let you away with this: 'Except that the taxi-driver in Luton or one of his relatives may become a suicide bomber in Ramallah or London.' - I'm not sure how that argues against my point or raises a new one; sure he may do that - but he may become an astronaut - or my Methodist may even get a one way ticket to Waco.
My point on Averroes simply served to illustrate the point that there are many strands of thought within Islam: The Sufis, for instance, have ideas which, I suspect, you would like.

Mr Bunglawala is not entirely clear in his view, and it is equivocation like this that renders Muslim opinion in Britain (and indeed in any non-Muslim country) suspect. When we hear opinion on such matters from Muslim countries, it is clear and uncompromising. So we wonder "is he saying that to placate (or deceive, using the doctrine of Taqiyya) us, or is he sincere". As for the standard Muslim position, it has been since Baydawi that:

"Whosoever turns back from belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard" (cited in Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, 1924, pp. 33-34).

The position of Tariq Ramadan deepens our suspicion of the Muslim agenda, and the means by which it is to be achieved. According to Ramadan, Western countries should no longer be seen the traditional way as Dar ul-harb, the space of war, but as Dar el-dawaଠthe invitation to Islam, or Dar ash-shah⤡, the space of testimony.

Dar el-dawaࠡnd Dar ash-shah⤡ are two of the trickiest inventions ever to reach the goal of conquest: at a quick and superficial glance it means resigning from the conversion of the West to Islam, permitting everybody to keep on in his belief, but on closer examination that means what the French call "l'entrisme", unnoticed penetration.

The Muslims are not living any longer in a hostile surrounding, they are almost in Dar ul-Islam. Professor Nezvat Yal穮tas, member of the Istanbul parliament, made an interesting statement. During the inauguration of the Murabitun mosque in Granada, Spain, in July 2003, he told the audience that Paris, Rome, Madrid now were components of the Islamic world due to the erection of new mosques.

But as Muslims are still obliged to wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit, the jihad is continuing in Dar ash-shah⤡, and people not behaving according to the Qur'anic laws have to be punished. The trick of introducing these new definitions has a severe impact on Muslims' consciousness, especially on young Muslim men. People not behaving according to the Qur'anic laws are to be punished even stronger now. The Muslims are not any more restricted by the laws of Dar ul-harb, that has evaporated without notice, merely by changing the definition. The inhabitants of our countries are to obey to Muslim male supremacy and Qur'anic laws.

We see the effect of this new ruling in views expressed by Imams in the West on the rape of "immodestly dressed" western women (viz. "what did they do wrong?"). We have also seen executions, notably of Theo van Gogh and translators of the Satanic Verses, and the need for police protection of politicians, notably in Holland, and an attempt to kidnap the daughter of one of the Danish cartoonists. Does Mr Bunglawala condemn all this, and if he does, how can he prove his sincerity?

Further suspicion of the agenda and sincerity of western Muslims is engendered by Hizb-ut-Tahrir's recent removal of its constitution from its website after it was used to demolish deceitful arguments made by HuT's Nazreen Nawaz on PTV.

Lionheart (if you will allow me a Chirac moment):

You wrote:

'The position of Tariq Ramadan deepens our suspicion of the Muslim agenda...'

What muslim adgenda? Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? There is no single, over-arching muslim agenda is there? Tariq Ramadan may well have an agenda; Inayat Bunglawala may well have an agenda; certain of the commentors (is that the right word) on these pages may have an agenda; but to somehow accuse a whole culture of having a hypothesised unspoken world-wide agenda is just an illegitimate, and slightly sinister way to frame an argument on the subject.

Islam is not what people say, it is what people do. Moreover, it is what Muslims do where they dominate, not in the West. The sad fact is that where Islam rules, other religions, women, jews, gays and even minority sects of Islam are oppressed - and worse. Islam is intolerant.

Until Muslims in Islamic countries treat others as well as those in the West are treated, we must not trust them. Note that polls indicate that most (?) Muslims in Muslim societies support the execution of Abdul Rahman.

Remember the "cartoons Wars". Freedom of speech and conscience have little value in Islamic societies. Not only that, Muslims insist we respect a man that did so many evil things. Yes, read the hadiths. Mohammed murdered his critics, executed hundreds, enslaved, raped, tortured and even beat his favorite wife. Yet, Muslims tell us that this man was a "mercy for all mankind" and consider him a great example. Figure out what this means. Oh yes, Islam's prophet also said it was OK to lie to fool the enemy. Consider that, also.

This is only the beginning of a very long, hard struggle for human rights and dignity. Honest people must stand up and tell Muslims what they don't want to hear. They must demand explanations for the hate and anger in the Quran. They must demand that Muslims condemn the many horrible, dispicable acts that Mohammed did. (Or, are torture rape and murder ok for Muslims?). Don't blame me for this - Its all in Islam's own writings - the Quran and hadiths.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses.

John Kactuz

r no value eother

"What muslim adgenda?"

Conquest, of course, as it has always been. What else do you think Jihad is about?

"All those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world ... Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. [They] are witless!" - Ayatollah Khomeini.

So where does Mr Bunglawala stand? What does he want and what may he do to get it? How can we ever tell?

And Khomeni most certainly had his agenda - so how does that advance your argument? My example cab driver wouldn't agree with him would he, any more than my Methodist?

Sure, some interpretations of Islam scare you, no doubt some interpretations of Christianity scare you (certain armageddonist cults e.g.), but come on, lets get the generalisation out of it, and have a proper debate.

Jonana (above), an athiest, sees nothing to disagree with in the article, and I must admit I'm with her on this. What do you find so objectionable about it?

Altrui:

I doubt your taxi driver would agree with Khomeini, as you aver. But just as few Germans were real Nazis, and few Muslims are Islamists, it is the fanatics that matter. They seek out the levers of power and eliminate opposition. The moderates just go along with it, becoming irrelevant by their own inaction, until they find that terror rules their lives and choice has gone. Why? Because they see the chance that some of their dreams will be fulfilled, and cannot or will not see the perils.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21447

The fanatics took over in Saudi Arabia in 1979, and moderates are being eliminated in Bangladesh and southern Thailand. There is little opposition.

-it is the fanatics that matter.-

Only if you let them Lion.
My cab driver doesn't 'seek out the levers of power and eliminate opposition, does he?' He seeks out a fare and then takes them home.
Poiliticians seek power, moderate or hard line, in whatever culture they are in, I still don't see how you can demonise all of Islam for it, or just Islam for that matter.

Oh and Lion,

You wrote 'What else do you think Jihad is about?' I would very much like to know your version...

Again, and I am no Koranic Scholar, there are many different concepts of Jihad - my Ramallah bomber would have a very different idea of Jihad than the one the Sufi speak of. And my cab driver would have a chronically overdeveloped sense of ambition if he dreamt of world domination.
But what about the piece?

A quick response to some of the comments above?

CluelessJoe: Yes, I believe people should be allowed to change their faith if they so wish and call others to that faith if they so wish. No, I do not believe that apostasy and treason are necessarily the same at all.

Altrui: Muslim opinion on the issue of apostasy differs as the conflicting fatwas on Islam Online indicate. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (www.cair-net.org) issued a press release on 22nd March which laid out a similar position to the one I advocated in my original piece.

CoeurDeLion: I thought my piece was quite clear and your ?equivocation? charge seems misplaced.

Kactus: You say ?Mohammed murdered his critics, executed hundreds, enslaved, raped, tortured and even beat his favorite wife?. I suggest you try reading more reliable source material. You can download a free booklet about the blessed Prophet Muhammad from the top of the MCB homepage at www.mcb.org.uk.

Inayat:

Many thanks for responding.

May I make an appeal, through you, to the Muslim Council of Britain to take note of some of the above comments and those on other threads, and address some of the horrible misconceptions some of the more frightened among them have. If only to address the constant appropriation of any reasonable debate on the issue by Islamophobes? I am sure you are aware that the great tragedy of recent events is that some versions of these views are pretty widely held, and I have to say more so, it seems, in America.

As a tolerant athiest, I have seperate concerns to those posting like that, but it seems that atheism constantly finds itself drawn into defending these bigots (who are our opposites) against Islam, and I am forced to defend tolerance against all sides!
Even though the debate between athieism and Islam has raged for years, I would like to think that both have at least a clue where each other comes from. This is emphatically not the case with those clashers of civilisations.

So please, moderate Islam needs to help us drag this whole thing back to civility by helping the tolerant of every creed and none to get a grip of these ingrates on both extremes and show them what Islam is really all about.

Inayat. The ?blessed? Prophet Muhammad, you say? More reliable material? The accusations above are serious. If I say that a person murdered, tortured, and raped. I had better be sure of my sources.

Now let us look at the accusations:
1. Wife beater. Aisha says ?He struck me on the chest which caused me pain??. ,? Muslim 4:2127.
(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127). What does that mean to you, Inayat? Wasn't Aisha his 9 year old wife?
2. Torture. ?Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (ie. rocky land). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died?? (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html)
Read verse 261 Yes, they were thieves and murderers, but?.
3. Slaver. Quote : ?The military expeditions (Ghazawat, literally raid) in which the Messenger personally participated were twenty-six. Some say there were twenty-seven.? Tabari IX:118 ?The armies and raiding parties sent by the Messenger of Allah between the time he came to Medina and his death (ten years) was forty-eight.? Tabari IX:115. The accounts tell of the plunder and taking slaves, of giving captured women to the Prophet?s men. The writers were especially proud of the raids where the caravans and villages were taken by surprise.
4. Murder. In Islam own histories we find dozens of accounts of unprovoked attacks, horrible torture (like the case of Kinana, building a fire on a man?s chest) and murder (Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, etc) and so on. Here is a very Islamic site that proudly lists people killed by your dear prophet for petty reasons: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm). Note that I am not even talking about accounts of the hundreds of men executed by Mohammed after surrendering in battle.
5. Rape. Consider this verse: Quote: ?And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess (your slaves). It is a decree of Allah for you.? (Muslim 4:24). I only find three things that are totally immoral here. Do you see any problem? Consider the cases of Raihana Bint Amr and Safiya / Safiyyah, slave women taken by Mohammed. I don?t know about you, but taking women to his bed after just killing their husbands might be considered rape. What do you think? Also don?t the traditions say that Mohammed had also killed Safiya?s father and brother? How about the guard that was worried about Mohammed?s safety with his new ?bride??
6. Treatment of women. There are score of verses in the Quran and hadiths that disparage women.
Quote: ?The women asked, ?O Allah?s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?? He said, ?Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?? They replied in the affirmative. He said, ?This is the deficiency in her intelligence? ?This is the deficiency in her religion.? Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301. (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301)
How about the ?beat your wife? verse in the Quran? Have you noticed how translators distort and add words to make it less offensive?
7. The reliability issue. Do you want to pick and choose verses, or bring up the ?out of context?, ?bad translations? or ?that was then, no longer valid? excuses? Consider these:
(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html)
?This thorough authentication process ensures that these accounts (the Hadiths) are real, validated narrations of the sayings, actions, and tacit approvals of the Prophet Muhammad.
(http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=106)
?These (hadiths) are the real explanation, interpretation, and the living example of the Prophet (...) for teachings of the Qur'an.? (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/)
The Shareeah, which is embodied (in) the Quran and Sunnah, are the proclamations of Allah and His Messenger (...) ...it is obligatory for every Muslim to obey any command that he hears from Allah or His Messenger (...), even if the command should go against his own desires, opinion or against popular opinion. (http://www.iisca.org/articles/document.jsp?id=65)
?To be a true Muslim, the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (...) must be followed. The sources of information about the Sunnah are found in Hadith...? (http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=141)

Most of current troubles with Muslims can be traced directly to the Quran and Mohammed. Words like "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam" (Koran 8:39) and "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" (Koran 48:29) leave little room for doubt. Islamic terrorists are simply following the precepts of their prophet. They are practicing their understanding of Islam. Even if hate is not open and declared, it exists in the contempt and dislike for Western culture and its people. Quote: "You should instill a hatred for this culture (the West) and its ways in the hearts of your children" (Question 70256, item 8) http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=70256&dgn=4

See, Inayat. I can read too - I don't need some booklet about the life of your prophet that conviniently 'forgets' the vile, evil acts. Is that being honest? And this is the person you call ?blessed.? Finally, please consider this incident: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348.
Note that it is from a Muslim site at the University of California. I really don't even want to think about this disgusting story! Would you care to comment on it?

That?s it, Inayat. Now either condemn Mohammad or tell me these are all lies.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses.

Cordially
John Arthur aka kactuz

Inayat:

I think that proves my point, don't you?

Inayat, again. I just reread my post. It is a little harsh, perhaps, and maybe too direct. However, the matter is important and the issues must be clearly understood. When it comes to human rights, there is no middle ground. A good rule is the old ?Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?. Once you have applied the basic principles of honesty and equality, it is all downhill.

The problem is that Muslims refuse to see the facts. They are in denial. Rarely can one find a Muslim who will take a deep look at the soul of Islam and apply those two principles. Thus we have the ?Islam is perfect? and the ?Mohammed is a mercy for all mankind? mentality when the facts indicate otherwise. Thus we have these clashes over cartoons and/or a heated debate about the punishment for apostasy and blasphemy. Why oh why is this happening in the 21st century?

Regarding the quotes I gave above. If it were just one or two accounts, and if Muslims and Islamic societies demonstrated a higher regard for others and their rights, I would be silent. The truth is that the Quran and hadiths are filled with hate, anger and persecution (don?t blame that on me ? I didn?t write them). The accounts with these kind of actions and words are too numerous and varied to dismiss as irrelevant, particularly in view of current events. Why don?t Muslims condemn these things? Another truth is that Islamic societies are among the most repressive on earth. Yet Muslim deny the first and ignore the second. There may be a link.

Inyat. I don?t do this to cause you distress. I do it because I think Muslims need to take a good long look at themselves, their religion and their societies. I also raise these issues because I believe we are heading for a major conflict, and many innocent people will get hurt. We don?t need sweet words; we need naked facts and hard truths. That is the only way that Muslims and non-Muslims can live together. Even so, I am very pessimistic. I don?t think most Muslims will change and I know that there are too many people in the West that will not give up their rights to freedom of speech and conscience just so that Muslims don?t get their feelings hurt. The future will probably not be nice.

You take care.

John