So I hate? Do I? What is hate?

Original Article

Why I am not a moderate Muslim By Asma Khalid
I’d rather be considered ‘orthodox’ than ‘moderate.’ True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to piously adhere to a religion’s tenets. Cambridge, England - Last month, three Muslim men were arrested in Britain in connection with the London bombings of July 2005. In light of such situations, a number of non-Muslims and Muslims alike yearn for “moderate,” peace-loving Muslims to speak out against the violent acts sometimes perpetrated in the name of Islam. And to avoid association with terrorism, some Muslims adopt a “moderate” label to describe themselves.I am a Muslim who embraces peace. But, if we must attach stereotypical tags, I’d rather be considered “orthodox” than “moderate.”
     “Moderate” implies that Muslims who are more orthodox are somehow backward and violent. And in our current cultural climate, progress and peace are restricted to “moderate” Muslims. To be a “moderate” Muslim is to be a “good,” malleable Muslim in the eyes of Western society.
     I recently attended a debate about Western liberalism and Islam at the University of Cambridge where I’m pursuing my master’s degree. I expected debaters on one side to present a bigoted laundry list of complaints against Islam and its alleged incompatibility with liberalism, and they did.
     But what was more disturbing was that those on the other side, in theory supported the harmony of Islam and Western liberalism, but they based their argument on spurious terms. While these debaters – including a former top government official and a Nobel peace prize winner – were well-intentioned, they in fact wrought more harm than good. Through implied references to moderate Muslims, they offered a simplistic, paternalistic discourse that suggested Muslims would one day catch up with Western civilization.
     In the aftermath of September 11, much has been said about the need for “moderate Muslims.” But to be a “moderate” Muslim also implies that Osama bin Laden and Co. must represent the pinnacle of orthodoxy; that a criterion of orthodox Islam somehow inherently entails violence; and, consequently, that if I espouse peace, I am not adhering to my full religious duties.
     I refuse to live as a “moderate” Muslim if its side effect is an unintentional admission that suicide bombing is a religious obligation for the orthodox faithful. True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to adhere piously to a religion’s tenets.
     The public relations drive for “moderate Islam” is injurious to the entire international community. It may provisionally ease the pain when so-called Islamic extremists strike. But it really creates deeper wounds that will require thicker bandages because it indirectly labels the entire religion of Islam as violent.
     The term moderate Muslim is actually a redundancy. In the Islamic tradition, the concept of the “middle way” is central. Muslims believe that Islam is a path of intrinsic moderation, wasatiyya. This concept is the namesake of a British Muslim grass-roots organization, the Radical Middle Way. It is an initiative to counter Islam’s violent reputation with factual scholarship.
     This was demonstrated through a day-long conference that the organization sponsored in February. The best speaker of the night was Abdallah bin Bayyah, an elderly Mauritanian sheikh dressed all in traditional white Arab garb, offset by a long gray beard.
     The words coming out of the sheikh’s mouth – all in Arabic – were remarkably progressive. He confronted inaccurate assumptions about Islam, spoke of tolerance, and told fellow Muslims an un­pleasant truth: “Perhaps much of this current crisis springs from us,” he said, kindly admonishing them. He chastised Muslims for inadequately explaining their beliefs, thereby letting other, illiberal voices speak for them.
     I was shocked by his blunt though nuanced analysis, given his traditional, religious appearance. And then I was troubled by my shock. To what extent had I, a hijabi Muslim woman studying Middle Eastern/Islamic studies, internalized the untruthful representations of my own fellow Muslims? For far too long, I had been fed a false snapshot of what Islamic orthodoxy really means.
     The sheikh continued, challenging Mr. bin Laden’s violent interpretation of jihad, citing Koranic verses and prophetic narrations. He referred to jihad as any “good action” and recounted a recent conversation with a non-Muslim lawyer who asked if electing a respectable official would be considered jihad. The sheikh answered “yes” because voting for someone who supports the truth and upholds justice is a good action.
     The sheikh, not bin Laden, is a depiction of true Islamic orthodoxy. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the man trained in Islamic jurisprudence. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the authentic religious scholar. But to call him a moderate Muslim would be a misnomer.
     Asma Khalid is pursuing her master’s degree in Middle Eastern/Islamic studies at the University of Cambridge in England.

ASA, Interestingly and co-incidentally, this entry fits in quite well with the lecture by Sh. Yasir on ‘Progress with Progressives’.
I love Dr. M’s twisting of the word to a more appropriate ‘pro-regressive’. Really, what it implies is a regression in Islam. Regressing it to the level of faiths before us that had been undone by the hand of man. And now we have our own who wish to rewrite Islam.
To claim to ‘reform’ what is perfect can mean only one of two things: either (a) the reformation is a farce or (b) the perfection is a farce. For Muslims (b) is tantamount to disbelief, which really leaves us to choice (a).

As salaamu alaikum,
Great points mentioned in your analysis and the article. May Allah reward you for sharing sister Ruth!
“They reject a bigger picture of the universe, one that allows an understanding that the world is greater than that which our senses can behold. Because my faith allows for miracles and divinity I am in fact more open-minded than those who accuse me of repression and intolerance.”
So true!
May Allah guide us all, ameen.

The Qur’aan itself states that true Muslims are the components of a justly balanced nation. translates the ayaah (2:143) as “a middle nation.” It’s kind of absurd to claim that Islaam needs reform when it’s criterion itself states that the religion was and is perfected by an omniscient and omnipotent God!
The progressive Muslims of today claim to harbour a perspective that extends beyond literalism. Actually, they see the literalists as rejecting the bigger picture by strictly adhering to seventh and eighth century thought. These progressive Muslims themselves want to reinterpret Islam to suit their lives today.

Where are the moderate Muslims?” Many who ask this question know little of Islaam. By moderate, they really mean tolerant and less Islaamic. When beseeching a moderate Muslim, actually, they are demanding compliance. Malleable is the correct word.

And it was Marmaduke Pickthall that translated the ayaah (2:143) as “a middle nation.” I’m in a hurry. Sorry for that. Ma-asalaama.

Asalaamualaikum,
its funny how when they do bring a muslim into the news that usually they are the ones who do not know what they are talking about, I think ive only seen once a knowledgable muslim brother who they aired for maybe 1 min because he was giving them the right answers. And we all remember the guy on sky news.

Two things:
I think extremists when using “moderate” do so because to them there really is not “moderate” Muslims - wasnt it Joe Kaufman who said on record there were no moderate muslims or it could have been Steven Emmerson, either way they are both right wing extremist with their own agenda- to marginalize and delimitimigize the Muslim community.
However, unfortunatly when we go out into the community and listen to everday Americans, they use the terminaology that is put out there by these extremists and filtered through the media. What happens is that these people sincerely believe there is a distinction between good Muslims who are moderate and the “extremists”.
I agree with the sister in her article, I admit I might have fallen into the trap she did on numerous occuasions. But the thing is when I go out into the community and speak to non-Muslims they are shocked and think where are the Muslims like you- and they say I represent “moderate Muslims” when in fact I dont think I represent anything of the sort aside from the American Muslim community.
So its important to look at that aspect- and by doing so we can also take this “reform debate” out of the hands of the idiots who trumpet themselves as “reformers” who ever heard of non-practicing anybody’s trying to reform anything- no I think the conversation needs to be taken out from under them and reframed into how Islam can and has functioned in any society that it has come into contact with that is the core to the reform debate- these extremists believe Islam is not compatible with Western society.

     For once I agree with you, but only to the extent that Islam cannot change. If it changes, and becomes “moderate,” it isn’t Islam. Islam without the hate and violence isn’t Islam. Also, if you are a Muslim, and you are honest, you must recognize that terror and Islam are not only associated, but linked in the womb. Wasn’t it your prophet that said “I am make victorious with terror”? Didn’t he send out dozens of expeditions to plunder, enslave and murrder? Or maybe the words in the ahadith aren’t clear? Or maybe Muslims preder to ignore these things (and then wonder why Islam is associated with violence).
     This old infidel is offended by the hate, violence and oppression that comes from Islam. I am even more offended by the denials and lies from Muslims about their own writings.
     Take, for example, the old sheikh mentioned above. The problem is not Muslims “inadequately explaining their beliefs” as he said, but their actions. I don’t really care what the Quran or Muslims say, I want Muslims to stop spreading hate, oppressing others and killing. Is that too much to ask? And oh yes, the word “jihad” means “holy war”. Check out any Muslim site, moderate or otherwise, and you will see the context almost always means “war against unbelievers” (except when explaining the word to stupid infidels).
     I would like to offer some advice: Don’t bother to try to counter Islam’s violent reputation with “factual scholarship” because you will lose the argument - the radicals have the Quran and ahadith on their side.
     As far as I am concerned, the “radicals” are the ones that kill while the “moderates” make excuses and pretend that these things have nothing to do with Islam.
     Well, thats it for today. I spend about 3 hours today reading Tabari, volume 28 - about the man you write ‘pbuh’ after his name. It was one expedition after another. Raids, killing, enslavement and so on. Sure, he did some nice things, but what about the rest? Why did Allah always come through with a new revelation just in time for for the prophet to get… well get what he wanted? Why did Allah grant so many exceptions for his prophet? Isn’t that kind of suspicious?
     Asma, there is no hope. I will not give an inch and Muslims will be Muslims. You can, at least, take comfort in the fact that I am not violent. I do not kill, torture, rob and rape, unlike certain people. I do not threaten people and I do not try to silence anybody. Even so, Muslims think people like me should be made to shut up.
     What do you think, lady? Does what I have written here offend you? Is it all lies? Do you think I made it up? Do you want me to lie? Do you want a world where people can be silenced for saying what they think? Consider these things.
     John kactuz

Mr. John , I never killed anybody, never tortured anybody or I am not a violent and I am a muslim. So, how would u define me?
You may not kill anybody or never be violent but u do have one thing that is u have “hatred “. When a person keeps hatred inside of him, should we call him a great person ?Do u consider urself a great person? You are preaching something that u don’t even practice by urself !! so pathetic !!
john kactuz, correct me if I am wrong, you seem a person who is pacifist and anti-war. Is that the case, are you against wars that America has waged?

Mr. Kactuz:
Yes, there are a very small minority of extremist, misguided Muslims that do very wicked, evil, and vile things. HOWEVER, there have been many, many condemnations, repudiations, and criticisms from Islamic scholars (including through fatwas), and lay people alike saying that what they are doing is totally, 100% haraam (impermissible), unIslamic, unethical, immoral, etc. These very misguided, extremist Muslims have been said to have deviant, evil, unIslamic beliefs that are totally incompatible with the true message of Islam by these various Islamic scholars that have denounced these extremists. With all due respect, you would have to be blind, ignorant, or a combination of both to not know that these extremist, misguided Muslims have been severely repudiated and refuted to the utmost by many Islamic scholars. Some of these Muslim scholars have said that these misguided Muslim extremists are the “khawarij,” and therefore have even insinuated or flat-out articulated that Muslims have a duty to kill and destroy them. And ironically, many of these same Islamic scholars that I have been talking about, are often themselves called “extremists,” “terrorists,” “terrorist supporters,” “evil,” and many times “Wahhabi” terrorists, or any combination of these by mainstream non-Muslim Americans, non-Muslim so-called “experts” and other westerners.

John: ““I am made victorious with terror”?”
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Allah made me victorious by awe…”there is a difference…

John, it seems that you have been thoroughly brainwashed by Jihadwatch or some other Islamophobic outfit out there. So, either (a) your interest is only to flame this thread and then take glee in ‘getting back’ at Muslims or (b) you are sincerely interested in having a serious discussion.
For (a), I am sorry I can’t help you. There are enough of your types all around that it is getting relatively boring.
For (b), I would ask you to start by reading this book: Holy Wars…Crusades…Jihad by Jalal Abualrub or ask intelligent questions. You cannot start to question history without first reading the history of Christian-oriented bloodbaths during the Crusades. Once you are a little more educated than your internet-read of Tabari, I am sure we will be able to engage you in a more intellectual fashion.

Mr. Kactuz:

I have a follow up point. I had articulated that there are obviously many, many Muslim scholars (and lay people alike) that have severely, totally and unequivocally denounced Muslim extremists, calling their actions evil, unIslamic, immoral, going against the religion of Islam, etc.
I have something to ask you, and other non-Muslim critics of Islam and/or Muslims.
Have you or your reverends or priests or rabbis EVER condemned or critiqued the 1995 massacre of around 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica, committed by Serbian Christians?
Have you or your reverends or priests or rabbis EVER condemned or critiqued the many, many, many despicable, evil, and heinous massacres, killings, rapes, and general ethnic cleansing that have been committed by the Russian Christians against the Muslims of Chechnya, for over 300 years?
Have you or your reverends or priests or rabbis EVER condemned or critiqued the Jewish Israeli killing, massacres, and destruction of Lebanon in the summer of 2006 that resulted in over 1,000 innocent Lebanese Muslim civilians being slaughtered? Have you or your reverends or priests or rabbis ever condemned or critiqued for that matter, the invasion of Lebanon by the Jewish Israelis in 1982 that resulted in the killing of around 20,000 Lebanese Muslim civilians? Or the despicable massacre, and rape of around 2,000 or so innocent Muslim Palestinian civilians in Sabra and Shatilla, committed by the Christian Lebanese Phalange, with the very direct support, encouragement, and help of the Jewish Israeli military, including by the certified zionist Israeli war criminal, Ariel Sharon?
Have you or your reverends or priests or rabbis EVER condemned or critiqued the many, many heinous, barbaric massacres, killings, and ethnic cleansing committed by the Jewish zionist/Israelis in Palestine, against the native Muslims for over 50 years? Have you or your reverends or priests or rabbis EVER condemned or critiqued all of this murder, evil, and mayhem as many, many Christians (especially, but not exclusively, the dispensationalist Protestant ones) and Jews say is done in the name of Judeo-Christian “zionism?”
Have you or your reverends or priests or rabbis EVER condemned or critiqued the Judeo-Christian American (and other Judeo-Christian western coalition “partners of the willing”) 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, that has resulted in the repulsive, evil, and barbaric murder of at least 500,000 innocent Muslim Iraqi civilians? (note - these Iraqi civilian estimates were reported by very highly esteemed, well respected, well educated western non-Muslim physicians and scientists, and they have stressed that these estimates are on the low end) On a similar note, have you or your reverends or priests or rabbis ever condemned or critiqued the 1990s western “Judeo-Christian” zionist-centric American-UK embargo of Iraq that resulted in the killing and genocide of at least 500,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (some say up to one million), including MOSTLY children? (as reported by many western non-Muslim humanitarian organizations and officials, including former UN officials who had resigned directly as a result of what they had termed a “genocide”)
Mr. Kactuz, I believe that we Muslims should definitely, without a doubt, look into the mirror, to totally be honest and frank with ourselves, including the good and the bad, but at the same time, should not Christians, Jews, Judeo-Christians, zionists, or westerners ALSO do the same? It is my opinion that most Christians, Jews, Judeo-Christians, zionists, or westerners that are always saying how bad, evil, or violent Islam or Muslims are, are NOT at all looking in the mirror.

As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,
I converted to Islam three years (and a couple of months) before 9/11 and I noticed that the community sh. Bin Bayyah is associated with were doing a lot of work before then. They were trying to steer people away from sectarianism and were attracting British Asians who were sick of Bareilawi/Deobandi politics and needed religious guidance in English and not Urdu. They were very active and commonly appeared in the English-language Muslim media, particularly Q-News. This has, of course, grown vastly since then with the rise of the Internet and blogs.
Shaikh Hamza Yusuf said in one of his lectures that the western colonisers and their Muslim clients did away with traditional Islamic education in the Muslim world by infiltrating or suppressing the madrassas. The last one, he said, closed in Marrakesh in the early 1960s. This is a major reason why the moderate, traditional path is unpopular and has less of a profile than the Shi’ism promoted by Khomeini, the type of “Salafism” promoted by the Saudis and the type kept afloat by anger at the Saudis and distrust of any scholar who is not anti-government. I am uneasy about the government-funded “Radical Middle Way” programme in the UK, because it makes the movement look like part of a government attempt to control the community by funding one group of (mostly middle-class) Muslims without addressing any of the community’s problems or grievances. There is a long history of movements losing credibility once they are shown to have government or intelligence community backing.

     So I preach hate, do I? That statement by itself is meaningless. A better analysis would be to determine what a person hates and why?
     Is it hate if its true? For example, if I say that the Mongols invaded ancient Iraque and murdered hundreds of thousands and destroyed a great civilization, or that the crusaders slaughtered people in Jerusalem until they were ankle deep in blood, or that the American Calvary massacred innocent Indians at Wounded Knee or that Mormons killed helpless immigrants at Mountain Meadows, or that Turks killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the early 1900s or the Nazis killed millions of Jews and other peoples, or Stalin starved millions of Russians to death in the 1930s or that the Jews massacred innocents at a village called Deir Yassin in 1948…. Is this hate? No, of course not. It is truth.
     What if I deny any or all of these? What is it? It is dishonesty. These are all facts, uncontestable facts. What if a person denies the truth? It is not just dishonesty, it is deception. It is a statement that the lives of men, women and children mean nothing. It means that a person accepts and approves the evil that was done to those innocent victims. This means that that person is also evil and cannot be trusted.
     Can we agree on this? Do you have any problem with this argument?
     So the question then is ‘what is truth?’. Does the Quran say things that lead to hate and violence against non-Muslims? Do the ahadith tell stories of vile, evil actions by Islam and its followers? These are relevant, important questions. Talking about these things is not hate. It is a search for truth.
     I will be the first to say that the Quran says some nice things. The prose is lacking in style and the language is often ambiguous, but those are my minor issues in my opinion. The problem is that there is a subcontext throughout the book that says that non-Muslims are, in principle, evil, vile and traitorous. Worse yet, in many passages, the Quran clearly urges and permits discrimination and violence against infidels. Now let’s talk about Islam’s great prophet. The hadith indicate that Mohammed was politically astute, an inspiring leader, a quick thinker, articulate, a very good strategic general and very determined. It also shows that Mohammed had a sense of humor and notions of justice. I also understand that he was not gay! Now the bad part. The hadith also clearly state that Mohammed and his men raided dozens of villages and caravans, plundered, murdered, tortured, enslaved and raped. The traditions also say that Mohammed beat his own wife. Now all of these are grievous, repulsive acts, so one must be sure that these can be found in the hadiths. In fact, given the seriousness of these things, it is better not to rely on one writer or a single story. To take them seriously, they must be found in multiple accounts by different authors. Is this not right? Just as wicked as these things are would be to defame an innocent man. Do you agree?
     I know Muslims don’t like the last few lines above, but be patient and honest. These things are important, so if we like them or not is relevant. What is relevant is what these things mean and their consequences.
     So what does the Quran say about non-Muslims? It says fight (qaatiloo) them until they are subdued and humbled (4:47, 9:29, 8:39) , to be harsh to them (9:123), to strike terror into them (48:29, 8:59-60) , to slay (aqtuloohum) them (2:191, 4:86, 4:89, 4:91, 9:5) , to smite (darba) them and capture them (47:4). It also says not to take them as friends (al-Ma’idah 5:51) and that infidels are cursed, to be seized and slain (33:61). It declares that non-Muslims are irreconcilable enemies (al-Baqarah 2:113), ignorant (ummiun) and do not know Scripture (59:13, al-Baqarah 2:78, al-Ma’idah 5:64, al-Baqarah 2:75), perverted and distort things (al-Baqarah 2:75; an-Nisa’ 4:46; al-Ma’idah 5:13,41) and so on…. There are dozens of verses, maybe hundreds, that directly or indirectly, softly or harshly, teach hate and violence against non-Muslims. Or maybe cutting off their fingertips (8:12-13) or crucifying (5:33)
infidels for offending Muslims is not evil.
     Now lets talk about Islam’s great prophet, a man Muslims consider to be a great moral example. The acts and sayings of Muhammad are found in the hadiths (or ahadith, plural). Here is what Muslim authorities say about these:
     1. To be a true Muslim, the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (…) must be followed. The sources of information about the Sunnah are found in Hadith…” ( from http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=141)
     2. “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. (from http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=106)
     Now lets look at Mohammed and his life: Quote: Ibn ‘Aun reported: …The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Muslim Book 019, Number 4292 - also in Bukhari). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4321
     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 writer was especially proud of the raids where the caravans and villages were taken by surprise. I was reading Abu Dawud and it states that Mohammed liked to attack villages in the morning. It said if he heard a prayer or saw a mosque, he would turn back. Otherwise he would attack, plunder, enslave and kill. And Muslims’ write “Peace be upon Him” after this man’s name?
     And then there is the cold-blooded murder of Mohammed’s critics, including old men, girls, poets and even young mothers and pregnant women. Consider the Case of Asma Marwan, killed while nursing a child because of a few verses satirizing the prophet. And how about this revolting act, recording by Mohammed’s own followers:
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 need to comment on the content of the link. Read it! And Muslims are offended by cartoons! Here is another Islamic source that proudly lists the people killed by Islam’s prophet: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm. Their crime? Criticizing murder and oppression – for this they were killed.
     Consider the cases of Raihana Bint Amr and Safiya / Safiyyah, slave women taken by Mohammed. The hadiths say that Mohammed killed Safiyyah’s husband, father and brother the night before he wed her. Hey, doesn’t the Quran say that a widow must wait 4 months to re-marry? Yeah, right. Have you wonder about all the exceptions granted by Allah to his own rules? Rather suspicious! Note also that in the case of Juwairiya (mentioned above, of Banu Mustaliq) Mohammad’s men were about to rape the captives and they asked him if they should practice coitus interruptus. The prophet said go ahead and not to worry…. And so on The problem is that all these vile acts (murder, torture, rape, slavery, etc…) are permitted in the Quran. Even people that don’t like Islam’s prophet must admit that he practiced what be preached. He was consistent.
     From the start to finish, from the Quran to the hadiths, Islamic writings are full of hate, anger, oppression, violence and murder. From Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari to Bukhari and Ibn Hisham the early stories of Muhammad and Islam are full of vile, evil events. It is not one, two or ten verses, or one or two sources. It is hundreds of verses and many different writers, including Islam’s most respected authors, in page after page. In fact, Ibn Hisham wrote in his biography of Mohammud that that he “omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people.” (Ishaq: 691). This posting is already long, so I won’t give the references of torture and wife-beating (unless you think I made them up and want me to prove it).
     Is this hate? What I write are facts. The only real question is if the hate and violence we see today among Muslims is linked to the hate and violence in the Quran and ahadith. Take a wild guess. The fact is that the only Muslims that are honest about these things are the so-called radicals. They kill and hate and justify it in the Quran and hadith. The moderates, like people here, deny these things and pretend the hate and violence have nothing to do with Islam.
     Shame on you for your denial and deceit. Why do you hate the countless victims of Islam-sanctioned violence? Do you think they deserved to die? Did men, women and children deserve to be enslaved by your dear prophet? Did he have a right to rob and plunder their possessions? Is rape of married captive women Allah’s gift to his followers (4:24 ), as it says in the Quran? And so on. Why do you hate these innocent people so much that their lives and suffering mean nothing to you? You are a true follower of the prophet.
     John Q Kactuz
     PS - From todays news: Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, declared during a Friday sermon at a Sudan mosque that America and Israel will be annihilated and called upon Allah to kill Jews and Americans “to the very Last One.” And they call it “religion of peace”

By the way, I would advise that comments from the likes of John Kactuz are suppressed here. They add nothing, and only serve to side-track discussion, as has happened with this thread. I advised a brother recently that I did not read the comments on his blog, because they are usually full of garbage from blindly hostile non-Muslims, and that I moderate them out on my own.

Agreed, Br. Yusuf. If Mr Kactuz posts anything that resembles what he posted before, then we will be sure of his intentions. At that point garbage will go where all garbage should go… to the trash-bin. -MM

It is no coincidence that the orientalists have chosen to translate into English works such as Tarikh al-Tabari while neglecting and deliberately ignoring other works which shed light on the life of the Prophet. In fact, they have deliberately tried to marginalize sources like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim which Muslims regard to be authoritative and superior in authenticity to the works of the Sirah. Al-Tabari, on the other hand, intended to gather in his history all the claims that are made and related, true, false, and fabricated.
For the orientalists to rely on such narrations, actually to cherrypick the narrations which seem to cast Islam and its teachings in the worst light, while knowing full well that Muslims do not accept such narrations as authoritative is indicative of their desire to distort the image of Islam. I highly encourage you to read Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali’s 2-volume work “Biography of the Prophet (arabic?) and the Orientalists” found in PDF form ...

The hate never ends, and neither does the denial...

Books calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain indoors and forbidding interfaith marriage are being sold inside some of Britain’s leading mosques, according to research seen by The Times.
Some of the fundamentalist works were found at the bookshop in the London Central mosque in Regent’s Park, which is funded by the Saudi regime and is regularly visited by government ministers. Its director, Ahmad al-Dubayan, is also a Saudi diplomat and was among those greeting King Abdullah when he arrived in Britain last night for his official state visit.
Extremist literature, including passages supporting the stoning of adulterers and waging violent jihad, was also found on sale at many other mosques regarded as mainstream institutions.
More than 80 books and pamphlets were collected during a year-long project in which researchers visited 100 mosques across Britain.

“Bookshops sell a variety of publications and we live in an open, democratic society where it is not illegal to sell books which contain antiWestern views.”

The articles like these only provoke anti-Muslim feelings and Islamophobia and do not serve any constructive and cohesive purpose for inter-community relationship. Just look at the resposes you have! By sensationalising the situation the Times is unfortunately, helping develop a culture of communal hatred rather than friendship and co-operation. You need to intellectually enquire and debate the issues raised rather than help incite hatred against the Muslim community and its major places of worship in the UK. Any way, this is not the right way to refrom the Saudi regime and its system, who you actually meant to target! Syed, Southend, UK

Anthony Browne, Policy Exchange's director, said: "It is clearly intolerable that hate literature is peddled at some British mosques. "I am sure the majority of moderate Muslims will be as horrified as everyone else that pamphlets advocating jihad by force, hatred for insufficiently observant Muslims, Christians and Jews, and segregation have found their way into the UK's mosques."

Dr MacEoin said that, while the literature does not usually go as far as encouraging violence, it creates an environment in which 'those who do encourage and conduct violence can move'. Dr MacEoin said the discovery of offensive material at an institution did not mean it 'necessarily' condoned, permitted or encouraged the literature.

An airport worker who wrote poems about beheadings is the first woman to be found guilty under new terror laws.
Samina Malik, who liked to call herself a "lyrical terrorist", called for attacks on the West and described "poisoned bullets" capable of killing an entire street in her poetry.
The 23-year-old Muslim wrote of her desire to become a martyr and listed her favourite videos as the "beheading ones".
She had a profile on the social networking website Hi-5, where she called for the execution of "depraved" Westerners.
The British-born Muslim listed her interests as helping the Mujahideen "in any way I can".
She also wrote of how she enjoyed video messages from Osama Bin Laden and "videos that showed massacres of the kuffars", or non-Muslims.
In one poem, called The Living Martyrs, she called for Muslims to rise up against the infidels.
In another, How To Behead, she warned that the victim should be bound and blindfolded.

... why do i get this feeling that this is a fabrication so that the attention will be turned on muslim women "woah man, becareful, dont wear your hijaab." "uncover, we know you're hiding somethin." if thats not alrready happening.
... i also think that this is just a scare tactic. make us paranois and insecure about practising our religon, as well as others about us.
... I don't really think there is anythig rong with the poems...so what? She likes Jihad and poems.......that doesnt make her a terrorist!
... the sister seems pious mashaAllah, shes trying to practise her deen, the stupid west should just lay off her
... because the laws of some counties have "conviently" changed against the muslims. everyone gets righs, except us. anyone can say whatever they want, dress however they want, except we are the only ones that get looked down upon.
... I like writing poetry, and I like Jihad! SO SUE ME! I have a feeling that the Britains are scared of Muslims

What do Muslims want?

     It’s so easy to blame the entire community for this act and why shouldn’t others blame us when Muslims kill, torture and spread terror on this planet! Iraq and Afghanistan are living hells. Palestine has become a mass grave. Lebanon keeps boiling. Iran keeps threatening the world with its nuclear capabilities. Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations curtail the rights of non-Muslims. Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines have Muslim extremist groups who would butcher at slightest of provocations. Pakistan is another hot bed of extremists. Lal Masjid has more weapons than Musallas (The prayer mats). Not just the Muslim countries but non-Muslim countries with Muslim population haven’t been spared. India, US, UK, Spain and the list continues. Well the big question is, what do Muslims want?
     This question has no one line response. We have to dig deep into Muslim mentality to find answers to these questions. To start with we should understand that there exists a wide gap between pious Muslims and non-pious/non Muslims. Its not that piousness leads to extremist but its actually something else. It’s the pride of being the chosen one, it’s the contempt that one inculcates and its the hatred one generated within oneself. These superlatives are born because a Muslim feels victimized in this world. A world that doesn’t adheres to Quranic principles. A world that is slowly degrading morally. A world where ‘love’ is deliberately misspelt as ‘lust’. A world which has made its own rules, many of which are totally contrary to Shariah.A world were living the halal way is increasingly becoming impossible. A world were a pious Muslim find its difficult to preserve his belief. So what’s the solution? Eradicate from the face of planet every one who is responsible for the woes!
     ... You should understand that Islam doesn’t recognize the existence of any other religion so any attempt to modify the Quran or the Hadeeth would lead to further bloodshed. Is this non-acceptance really a problem for non-Muslims when the Quran has clearly laid down the rights of non-Muslims? The onus is on Muslim community to cleanse the religion of such fanatics; fanatics who have contempt for non-Muslims, fanatics who have no respect for lives and fanatics who would ideally want to see this world destroyed rather than be under a non-Muslim ruler.

     The problem with the Islamic world is not that the majority of people are Muslims, the problem is that the state is Islamic. Secularism is not only virtually unknown, but is a concept which is detested and there is absolutely no separation of Church and the State. Their constitutions actively promote one religion(Islam) and attempt to run the country according to Islamic tenets. Thus, an institutional framework exists which (directly or indirectly) promotes violence and discrimination against religious minorties. And of course, in due course, this extends to hatred against those who do not share the faith, whatever their geographical location.
     A Hindu state or the Christian state would treat its minorities the same way as the Islamic states do. Will a Hindu India led by the likes of Narendra Modi be fair to the minorities? I think the answer is fairly obvious. Thus to judge Islam from how the Islamic states behave is completely wrong.

Another discussion about hate and critical words

     P, So I "demean and denigrate someone else's faith" by quoting and linking to texts from that faith? Strange idea! How can calling attention to Muslim writings be considered an insult? (except to infidels)
     F, No "religion on the face of this earth asks its followers to commit sin." That, of course, depends on the definition of sin. Sin is not synonomous with evil. Eating pork for some is a sin. Bacon is not evil in my book. Once again we go back to what Islam's prophet did. Mohammad murdered, tortured, enslaved, etc.. and Muslims do not denounce this, and consider him to be an example of morality - so I can only conclude that these are not sinful to Muslims.
     I dislike Islam because I see it as an intolerant, deceitful, oppressive ideology. I have seen nothing in it or from Muslims to make me reconsider. Worse yet, I have noticed that even "pious" Muslims cannot be honest even about the basic principles of their faith. They may be 'good' people, but they cannot be trusted to stand up for our lives and liberties.
     Tell me why I should trust a Muslim that reads the texts linked above and says they don't matter or he doesn't care? Am I being unreasonable?
     I don't trust anyone that says PBUH after the name of a person that did the vile things Mohammad did. Oh yes, the threats to me and my family didnt improve my opinion of the 'Relighion of Peace."
     People here say that being honest about Islam or hurting Muslims' feeling will drive them into the arms of the radicals. Maybe, maybe not. But for 5 years governments and organizations have been nice to Muslims and nothing has changed. We are still waiting for the moderates to change things. And when is this going to happen?
     So why not try truth? Churchill didn't overcome Nazis by being nice. Apartheid in South Africa didn't end by not talking about it. Racism in the American South was not fought by not hurting Whites' feelings.

     If Muslims want to end all these terrible insults maybe they should just stop preaching and doing hate and violence throughout the world. Or is that too much to ask? Muslims do these things and then blame others for talking about it.
     "Our Prophet never used force to convert others to Islam". Are you sure? What about "If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"
     http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294
     Convert, pay tribute or die. No force there! Nope! None at all.
     I can hardly read any statement about Islam from Muslims without finding errors, distortions and lies. Either they don't know their own writings or they are dishonest. Muslims have this tendency to say things about Islam that reflect what they would like to hear, not what their own writings actually say.

A man was was walking across a bridge one day, and he saw another man standing on the edge, about to jump off and commit suicide.
He immediately ran over and said
"Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
The man said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Well ... are you religious or atheist?"
"Religious."
"Me too! Are you Muslim, Christian or Jewish?"
"Muslim."
"Me too! Sunni or Shiite?"
"Sunni."
"Me too! Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi or Maliki?"
"Hanafi."
"Wow! Me too! Do you follow Sheikh Fulaan al Fullani or Sheikh Kaza Kazah?"
"Sheikh Fulaan al Fullani."
"What?!! Die, heretic scum!" and he pushed the man off the bridge.

These guys know hate

• 2.223: Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.
• 3.56: Then as to those who disbelieve, I will chastise them with severe chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers.
• 3.106: On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved.
• 3.151: We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
• 3.178: And let not those who disbelieve think that Our granting them respite is better for their souls; We grant them respite only that they may add to their sins; and they shall have a disgraceful chastisement.
• 4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
• 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 murdered 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.
• 5.86: And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the companions of the flame.
• 8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
• 8.55: Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.
• 9.4: Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
• 9.36: Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
• 9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
• 9.73: O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
• 9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
• 18.29: And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about; and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place.
• 24.6: And (as for) those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the evidence of one of these (should be taken) four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely of the truthful ones.
• 22.19: These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads. 22.20: With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well. 22.21: And for them are whips of iron. 22.22: Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning.
• 98.6: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.

sam said on 9 December 2006:
[Admin: Deleted for hate language against Muslims. Go and burn in Hell when you die, you filthy Trinitarian pagan worshipper of a naked man.]
bosvark said on 15 January 2007:
Macintologist, where did you find those extracts from the Christian Bible, you know as well as I do that it’s not in there… There’s nothing to fear from the Christian Bible, why don’t you read it so you can have some idea what you’re talking about when you do criticise it?
The admin message regarding hate language against muslims is quite interesting: It seems fine to have hate language posted at non-muslims, but not the reverse… The term for that is “hypocrisy”.