There are many reasons Ex-Muslims have for not going public. For some, they fear retaliation because Islam instructs Muslims to kill apostates. For others, they are concerned that Muslims in their communities will gossip about them. And for some it’s about wanting to teach their kids morals while believing that religion is only way to teach morality. I'll explain why these last two ideas are wrong, and how they are both caused by another much more general problem that applies to all people, not just Ex-Muslims.
The first idea is about caring what other people think of you. It’s something people learn during childhood. It’s ironic because as parents we tell our kids not to care what other kids think of them, and we do this to persuade them to say 'no' to peer pressure.
So, clearly we know this principle that it's wrong to make decisions based on what others think. So, why do these same parents still care what others think of them? With respect to Ex-Muslims, they tend to care about what Muslims in the community are going to say about them. So, why is there this inconsistency in their thinking?
The answer lies in the fact that, like most people, they have conflicting ideas about lots of things in their lives. But surely a lot of people notice the inconsistencies in their thinking, so why don’t they fix them? Well, it’s because it’s not so straightforward, because many of our ideas are known subconsciously. How could this be? The answer lies in how people learn ideas.
We learn ideas mostly from society (which includes our parents). We also learn ideas on our own using our own creativity and logic. As for the ideas learned from society, a lot of these ideas are learned subconsciously, and are also taught subconsciously. To illustrate this, consider that a lot of people dress up nice when they go out for dinner; it’s a social norm. Their kids see this and what do they learn? That it’s important to look a certain way so that other people think about you in a certain way. Now some parents will deny this, stating that they want to look good for themselves not for others. But what they explicitly say doesn’t matter. What matters is that kids learn ideas using their own logic and the details of the situation they are presented with. So, say for example that mom asks dad how she looks in her dress. She is expressing that she cares what others think of how she looks. So that’s what most kids learn, to be concerned with what others will think of them.
So, parents teaches an idea while not being aware that they are teaching it (i.e. subconsciously) and kids learn that idea while not being aware that he learnt it (i.e. subconsciously). And these ideas exist subconsciously in the kid’s mind and they pervade a lot of his thinking without him being aware of it. And then he does the same with his kids, and the cycle continues. This is a serious problem so how can this be stopped?
The answer lies in the difference between people that care what others think and those that don’t. What's the difference between them? Well, society has an answer. They label the latter group as "asocial". This label carries with it a negative connotation, that there is something ‘wrong’ with them, and kids pick up on this. What is the implication? It’s that if you don’t follow society, then you are living immorally.
Notice that this idea presupposes that society is always right. But it’s common knowledge that there are many things wrong in society, in society’s social norms, for example Islam. In Islamic communities, the social norm is to believe in Islam. So this raises the question: Is it wrong to ‘break away from societies’ norms when you think society is wrong about a specific idea’? Of course not! So this contradicts the previous idea that ‘breaking away from society is living immorally’. And since these two ideas contradict each other, only one of them could be true. So which one is it? Well, one of them hinges on a falsehood while the other doesn’t, which is that society is always right. Now you decide. You judge for yourself, which idea is the right one?
So, why is it that some kids do what they think is right even if it goes against society? It boils down to how people judge ideas. Most people do it by popularity. But history shows us that this is the wrong way to approach ideas. A good example is that of the ancient view that the Earth was flat. So, when the first guy started saying that the Earth was round, should people have judged his idea to be false because it wasn’t the popular view? Of course not! So, judging ideas by popularity is false logic. That means you should never, under any circumstances, judge ideas by popularity. Truth cannot be determined by popularity contests.
So how should a person judge ideas? Should he judge by authority – like his parents, or teachers, or religious or political leaders? Well, they are often mistaken like society is often mistaken. So, judging ideas by authority is wrong too. But what about judging ideas by science? Doesn’t science have the answers? Even science is mistaken sometimes, actually often. For example, Einstein’s theory of gravity showed that Newton’s theory of gravity was false. Newton’s theory *approximately* (i.e. contains some error) works in some situations and it is completely wrong in other situations (where objects are moving close to the speed of light).
And there are many other instances in history where science was found to be wrong. This is why science uses the term ‘theory’ instead of ‘fact’. We don’t say Einstein’s Fact of Gravity. Why? Because we know that there is the possibility that in the future someone will show that it’s false. Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics. And the early Quantum Mechanics theorists were found to be wrong by Everett about the implications of Quantum Mechanics on reality, which is that the Universe is actually a Multiverse.
The right way to judge ideas is the focus of epistemology, which is the study of knowledge and of how knowledge is created.
Ever since Aristotle created his epistemology, which is now known as Justified True Belief (JTB), philosophers and society in general have been using it to judge ideas as true or false. This theory claims that it is possible to know absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, that an idea is true. And if it’s not known to be true, then it’s not knowledge. Sound promising? Well, in the mid-20th century, Karl Popper showed that this theory is false.
Justified True Belief theory says that for an idea to be true, it must be justified by an underlying truth. So, what about that underlying truth? How do we know that that underlying idea is true. Well, we have to use the same logic, that the underlying idea must be justified by a truth. So, how do we know that that underlying idea is true? Well, we have to use the same logic again, that the underlying idea is justified by a truth. But where does this end? Well it doesn’t end because it can’t end. It runs infinitely. This is known as an infinite regress problem. And so this refutes the JTB theory. So, Popper showed us that an idea cannot be labeled as the truth by justification. So, we should not, under any circumstances, judge ideas by justification.
Interestingly, the vast majority of society uses Aristotle’s epistemology. You can see it in their reasoning when they have disagreements. They respond with statements like:
- “Why should I believe you… what are your credentials that prove that you know what you’re talking about?” -- Here the person is judging an idea by asking for justification by the authority of the other person’s credentials.
- “My Daddy said so, so you’re wrong.” -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his father.
- “I saw it with my own two eyes, so I know it’s true.” -- Here the person judges his idea by justifying it by the authority of his senses.
- “I know she wouldn’t cheat on me because she loves me and I love her.” -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his emotions.
- “I know your idea is false because it contradicts my entire life’s worth of experiences and the experiences of everyone I know and everything I’ve ever known.” -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of experience.
- “I know it because I remember it so vividly.” -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his memory and of his perceptions of his senses.
- “I know Allah exists because the Quran proves it, because the Quran is absolutely perfect, and no other holy book has this quality of perfection.” -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of Muslim scholars who claim that the Quran is perfect.
- “I know Islam is right. How could a billion people be wrong?” -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of popularity.
All of these statements use this false JTB logic about how to judge which ideas are true.
So, how should we judge ideas? I already gave you the answer. I said to judge ideas for yourself, using your own reasoning. This is the only way that works, because it’s the only way that can correct errors. All the other ways of judging ideas causes you to adopt other people’s mistaken ideas with no possibility for correcting them. Will you be wrong sometimes? Of course! You’ll be wrong a lot. We are fallible beings. We can be mistaken about any one of our ideas. And from any one person’s perspective, everybody else can be mistaken about any of their ideas. So, no one should judge an idea to be true, just because other people believe it. Your parents could be mistaken. Your religion could be mistaken. Your doctor could be mistaken. Your perception of your senses, your emotions, your gut feelings, and your memory can be mistaken.
So, each person should judge ideas using his own best judgment. How does this work? When he notices a problem in one or more of his ideas, then he can use his best judgment to try to correct it. A problem is a conflict between two ideas. It’s a problem because one of them must be mistaken. Actually, both of them could be mistaken but this doesn’t matter. What matters is that you can work towards solving the problem by judging that one or both of those ideas is false, again using your own best judgment.
So, how does this work in practice? Popper explained that knowledge is created by guessing and criticizing. You guess an idea, and then anybody criticizes it, and then anybody criticizes those criticisms. And the guesses left uncriticized are considered the “truth”, for now. In the future, someone may come along with a new criticism of that “truth”, and the cycle continues. So, a "truth" is only an "idea" that I currently don’t have any criticisms of.
It’s important to note what I mean by "truth". I mean ‘conjectural’ truth, which is distinct from objective truth. Conjectural truth comes from our guessing and criticizing. Objective truth exists independently of us humans. Our goal is to evolve our conjectural knowledge towards the objective knowledge. Step-by-step, as a society, and each one of us as individuals, are evolving our conjectural knowledge towards the objective knowledge.
So, how do we know when we’ve reached it? How do we know when one of our conjectural truths has reached the status of objective truth? We don't. We can't. We can’t know which of our ideas isn’t mistaken. Any one of our ideas can be mistaken. So any one of our conjectural truths can be an objective truth, but we don’t know which ones. So, for example, it’s possible that our current moral theories about parenting are perfect, but we don’t know whether someone will come along in the future and find an error in it and correct the theory, or refute the whole theory altogether, similar to how the JTB theory was refuted altogether.
What are the real implications of this? It means that all truths are on the table. All truths are open for criticism. That means we are open-minded about every one of our ideas. All of them are open for debate. No idea is protected from criticism.
Does this feel pessimistic – that we can’t know anything for sure? The reality is that we always have mistaken ideas. And these mistaken ideas cause us to make mistakes in our lives. These mistakes are life problems, which are the sources of our suffering. And by living a thoughtful and consistent life, by judging ideas for ourselves, we are able to correct mistaken ideas and reduce the total number of mistaken ideas over time. And what comes with that is making fewer mistakes in life, which means less suffering. So, with each correction of a mistaken idea, one becomes a better person. This is very optimistic!
This brings me to the other reason Ex-Muslims don’t go public. They believe that religion has a monopoly on morality. They think that there is no other way to teach morality to their kids. But the reality is that morality is just a set of moral ideas, ideas about good ways of living. And so, these ideas too have to be created and evolved in the same way we create any other ideas, by guesses and criticism – not by justification by the authority of God.
As an example, consider the Golden Rule. It’s a moral idea that Western society believes to be true, but that Islam hasn’t adopted it. It says that we should do to others what we want them to do to us. But this is flawed because it presupposes that all people have the same preferences, while it’s common knowledge that people have different preferences. So, if you follow the Golden Rule, you could do something to someone that they didn’t want done to them, which causes suffering. This critical idea explains the flaw in the Golden Rule. And this is a problem, that there are two ideas that conflict each other. So what’s the solution?
We can create a new moral idea that uses part of the original idea and we can change the part that is problematic such that it is consistent with the new critical idea. So, the new moral idea is: Act towards others using common preferences, and be willing to find common preferences by rational discussion. With this idea, everyone gets what they want, so no one suffers. And suffering is what the Golden Rule is trying to address.
Now this does not mean that this new moral idea, called Common Preference Finding (CPF), was created by correcting a flaw in the Golden Rule. Ideas can be independently created by many different people from many different angles. For example, David Deutsch arrived at the idea of CPF by first understanding Popper’s theory of the growth of knowledge in science and in society. Then he realized that there is a deep, underlying epistemological theory there (and he wasn’t the only one to realize this). Then he realized that this has implications for how the mind works, and hence for education. Then he applied the epistemology to a knowledge-creating entity consisting of two or more people, such as a family.
The reality is that today’s moral knowledge is far more advanced than religious morality. Our current best explanations about people, how they learn, how people should approach conflicts, and how people should live good lives in general, is only a few years old as it evolves continually. But Islamic morality is frozen in time, which was engraved in gold 1,400 years ago, and stopped evolving since. Interestingly, Muslims says that one of the reasons we should believe it to be true is that it hasn’t ever changed, while other religions, like Christianity and Judaism, have changed over time. So, in the words of Muslims, Christian morality has been evolving with time, while Islam never evolves. That is a minus on Islam, not a plus. How ironic!
So, among the reasons Ex-Muslims use for not going public, there is only one that makes sense. If you believe that your life would be in danger, let’s say because you live in Saudi Arabia, then lying about your Ex-Muslim status is the preferred option. But if danger is not a problem for you, then what reasons do you have for preferring to lie about your religious beliefs?
Some of you do it because you are concerned about what others will say about you in the community. But does that actually hurt you? “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” Do you believe in this principle? If you do, and if you continue to lie that you are a Muslim, then you are teaching your children to be Muslims, to care what others think of them, and to live their lives with known inconsistencies. And no matter what you explicitly say to them, they are learning these ideas from you subconsciously.
And some of you don’t even tell your kids that you don’t believe in Islam because you want to teach them Islamic morals. But as I’ve explained, our best explanations of morality are far more advanced than any religious morality, especially Islamic morality.
You are your child’s role model. What moral ideas are they learning from you?
On a final note, there is an important reason that Ex-Muslims should go public. We know that Islamic thinking hurts people – themselves, their families, and others. We know that Islam teaches anti-liberal views. For example, it’s forbidden for people to have dissenting ideas. This is why Islam instructs Muslims to physically force people to convert to Islam and to kill apostates. We know that this kind of thinking promotes hate and that Islamic ideas directly promote terrorism. And by lying about being Muslims, we are promoting the replication of Islamic ideas to the next generation of young minds. Do you want your children to live in a world where people continue to turn to terrorism?
---
Rami Rustom's website: http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/
Further reading: http://beginningofinfinity.com/
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 3053
Comments (89)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Worldpeace , September 13, 2012
Good article, good reasoning, good advice, Rami. Thank you.
written by Worldpeace , September 13, 2012
You are very correct, Rami, that our moral knowledge is superior to any religious morality. No religion deemed it fit to abolish slavery. Today the western world has abolished capital punishment which will never make sense to Islam's ossified morality. How can you take something that you can never give back.
written by Malem , September 13, 2012
You state "Today the western world has abolished capital punishment", so I guess you have never been to Texas? Colorado? Arizona? or the other 33 plus states that have it. So much for your BS line that it was abolished.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 13, 2012
You are right that Western society has not yet eradicated the tradition of capital punishment.
I noticed that you called Worldpeace's statement BS. Why don't you just consider his line to be a mistake?
His line was in fact a mistake. And you have added the label of BS in order count the mistake as something really bad. But is it really bad? Does his mistake change the substance of his or my argument?
Why sidestep his or my argument and address such a small and insignificant mistake?
I think I know why. Your self-image is that you are a Muslim and that Islam is good. And Worldpeace's statement criticized Islam because Islam hasn't eradicated capital punishment while western society has done so. And this implies that Islam is bad, which conflicts with your self-image.
That conflict caused you to get offended. So you chose to attack Worldpeace by pointing out his mistake and giving it a negative connotation by labeling it as BS. I bet you thought he did it on purpose to attack Islam or something.
This is exactly the sort of negativity that I'll be discussing in my next article.
I noticed that you called Worldpeace's statement BS. Why don't you just consider his line to be a mistake?
His line was in fact a mistake. And you have added the label of BS in order count the mistake as something really bad. But is it really bad? Does his mistake change the substance of his or my argument?
Why sidestep his or my argument and address such a small and insignificant mistake?
I think I know why. Your self-image is that you are a Muslim and that Islam is good. And Worldpeace's statement criticized Islam because Islam hasn't eradicated capital punishment while western society has done so. And this implies that Islam is bad, which conflicts with your self-image.
That conflict caused you to get offended. So you chose to attack Worldpeace by pointing out his mistake and giving it a negative connotation by labeling it as BS. I bet you thought he did it on purpose to attack Islam or something.
This is exactly the sort of negativity that I'll be discussing in my next article.
written by abc , September 14, 2012
Very nice speach to malem there. Let's look at the article and the last paragraph in particular.
Islamic thinking hurts people???
Force people to convert??
That blanket statement "kill apostates"???
Islamic ideas directly promote terrorism?
I think you have some explaining to do my Iranian friend?
Islamic thinking hurts people???
Force people to convert??
That blanket statement "kill apostates"???
Islamic ideas directly promote terrorism?
I think you have some explaining to do my Iranian friend?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
> Islamic thinking hurts people?
Q-4.15 - Imprison your adulterous wives until they die.
Q-4.34 - Beat your wife if she disobeys.
> Force people to convert?
Q-8.39, 9.5, 9.11, 9.29,
> That blanket statement "kill apostates"?
Q-4.89
> Islamic ideas directly promote terrorism?
Q-5.33 - Kill people who attack Allah.
Q-9.5 - Kill pagans.
Note that my answers all come only from the Quran. There are many more in Hadith.
Q-4.15 - Imprison your adulterous wives until they die.
Q-4.34 - Beat your wife if she disobeys.
> Force people to convert?
Q-8.39, 9.5, 9.11, 9.29,
> That blanket statement "kill apostates"?
Q-4.89
> Islamic ideas directly promote terrorism?
Q-5.33 - Kill people who attack Allah.
Q-9.5 - Kill pagans.
Note that my answers all come only from the Quran. There are many more in Hadith.
written by Malem , September 14, 2012
Read Worldpeaces past posts, you will see why I called him on his line of BS, which it is in my opinion (we are able to have our own opinions correct?).
So you are also a "partial Quran quoter" eh? You dont list the part of Q 4.34 that says NOT to seek ways to harm them, or maybe you also forgot that There is NO compulsion in Islam as for 5.33 it does not say what you state (Sad, like Worldpeace you present false statements) THe surah deals with how to deal with people who are at War with you. Maybe you would like to shake their hands, bring them flowers, and make sure they are comfortable. That doesnt happen in real life, you war against people and chances are they will do the same back. Just look at the little Drone work in the Saudi pennisula that goes on weekly..mmm capital punishment without judge or jury, especially for the innocent bystanders.
So you are also a "partial Quran quoter" eh? You dont list the part of Q 4.34 that says NOT to seek ways to harm them, or maybe you also forgot that There is NO compulsion in Islam as for 5.33 it does not say what you state (Sad, like Worldpeace you present false statements) THe surah deals with how to deal with people who are at War with you. Maybe you would like to shake their hands, bring them flowers, and make sure they are comfortable. That doesnt happen in real life, you war against people and chances are they will do the same back. Just look at the little Drone work in the Saudi pennisula that goes on weekly..mmm capital punishment without judge or jury, especially for the innocent bystanders.
written by Guy Macher , September 14, 2012
The verse which Muslims liars there's no compulsion in religion is abrogated by 9:5 9:29 9:111
As for liars who think that kill those who attack Allah does not render perfectly the gist of 5:33, here's the verse:
The recompense of those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Al-Ma'idah 5:33)
نَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَه ُُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَاداً أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلاَفٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الأَرْضِ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْي ٌ فِي الدُّنيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيم
Why are Muslims ashamed of their Koran, their prophet, and their Allah?
As for liars who think that kill those who attack Allah does not render perfectly the gist of 5:33, here's the verse:
The recompense of those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Al-Ma'idah 5:33)
نَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَه ُُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَاداً أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلاَفٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الأَرْضِ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْي ٌ فِي الدُّنيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيم
Why are Muslims ashamed of their Koran, their prophet, and their Allah?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
> So you are also a "partial Quran quoter" eh? You dont list the part of Q 4.34 that says NOT to seek ways to harm them,
What I hear is that you agree that the Quran instructs to do bad things but that it also instructs not to do those same things. So you've illustrated an inconsistency. A conflict of ideas.
Note my article. Inconsistencies are bad. Its a bad way to live. Why? Because when you have an inconsistency, its impossible to know which of the conflicting ideas is wrong and which is right. Thats why so many Muslims beat their wives. Because they have inconsistencies in their thinking. Many Muslims criticize this by saying that Westerners also beat their wives. But they too have inconsistencies in their thinking.
I call on all people to try to live lives without inconsistencies. Every time you find an inconsistency in your thinking, work to fix it.
Here you have exposed an inconsistency in Q-4.34. That husbands should not seek ways to harm their wives, but if they disobey, to beat them. Clearly this is a conflict of ideas. How should we resolve this conflict?
What I hear is that you agree that the Quran instructs to do bad things but that it also instructs not to do those same things. So you've illustrated an inconsistency. A conflict of ideas.
Note my article. Inconsistencies are bad. Its a bad way to live. Why? Because when you have an inconsistency, its impossible to know which of the conflicting ideas is wrong and which is right. Thats why so many Muslims beat their wives. Because they have inconsistencies in their thinking. Many Muslims criticize this by saying that Westerners also beat their wives. But they too have inconsistencies in their thinking.
I call on all people to try to live lives without inconsistencies. Every time you find an inconsistency in your thinking, work to fix it.
Here you have exposed an inconsistency in Q-4.34. That husbands should not seek ways to harm their wives, but if they disobey, to beat them. Clearly this is a conflict of ideas. How should we resolve this conflict?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
> as for 5.33 it does not say what you state (Sad, like Worldpeace you present false statements) THe surah deals with how to deal with people who are at War with you.
No. It says how to "wage war against Allah and his prophet". What does that have to do with a person? It doesn't. And somehow you and others confuse "against Allah and his prophet" with "against you".
No. It says how to "wage war against Allah and his prophet". What does that have to do with a person? It doesn't. And somehow you and others confuse "against Allah and his prophet" with "against you".
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
> That doesnt happen in real life, you war against people and chances are they will do the same back.
I agree with using physical force in self-defense against someone using physical force against me.
> Just look at the little Drone work in the Saudi pennisula that goes on weekly..mmm capital punishment without judge or jury, especially for the innocent bystanders.
They are not innocent bystanders. The Saudi government financially supports terrorism. And Saudi people are responsible for the actions of their government. Therefore the Saudi people are not innocent.
The same goes for people who allow terrorists to hide among them. Muslims say that innocent people are murdered when drones hit terrorist targets. But those "innocent" people could call the police to expose the terrorists. Why don't they? They are guilty!
I agree with using physical force in self-defense against someone using physical force against me.
> Just look at the little Drone work in the Saudi pennisula that goes on weekly..mmm capital punishment without judge or jury, especially for the innocent bystanders.
They are not innocent bystanders. The Saudi government financially supports terrorism. And Saudi people are responsible for the actions of their government. Therefore the Saudi people are not innocent.
The same goes for people who allow terrorists to hide among them. Muslims say that innocent people are murdered when drones hit terrorist targets. But those "innocent" people could call the police to expose the terrorists. Why don't they? They are guilty!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
> maybe you also forgot that There is NO compulsion in Islam
Here you say that there is no compulsion in Islam.
But earlier in your post you agreed that Q-4.34 instructs mean to beat their wives.
Your position is inconsistent. How will you resolve this inconsistency?
Here you say that there is no compulsion in Islam.
But earlier in your post you agreed that Q-4.34 instructs mean to beat their wives.
Your position is inconsistent. How will you resolve this inconsistency?
written by abc , September 14, 2012
Seriously, that's what you are going to give me?
Let's take it one point at a time:
1. Sahih International
Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
That's the full reading of the verse.
Simple scenario, the deed has been done, what are your chances of having 4 whitnesses? So no 4 whitnesses no trail or conviction.
Trail infort of whom?? a judge.
Sounds like you need am islamic state for the punishment to be applied!
I think you misunderstand the verse!!
Is this verse has been abrogated!
Let's take it one point at a time:
1. Sahih International
Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
That's the full reading of the verse.
Simple scenario, the deed has been done, what are your chances of having 4 whitnesses? So no 4 whitnesses no trail or conviction.
Trail infort of whom?? a judge.
Sounds like you need am islamic state for the punishment to be applied!
I think you misunderstand the verse!!
Is this verse has been abrogated!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
>> 1. Sahih International - Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
>
> Simple scenario, the deed has been done, what are your chances of having 4 whitnesses? So no 4 whitnesses no trail or conviction. Trail infort of whom?? a judge. Sounds like you need am islamic state for the punishment to be applied! I think you misunderstand the verse!!
I understood it exactly the way you presented it.
Why does it matter how the judgment should be applied? The point is that the Quran advocates that adulterous women should be imprisoned until death. And sure it outlines a method of judgment which is practically impossible to do today, but why does this point matter?
The substantive point is that the Quran thinks its moral to imprison your wife! And notice how it doesn't say anything about what happens if a man commits adultery. So the implication is sexism!
> Is this verse has been abrogated!
What do you mean abrogated? The verse still exists in the Quran. People are still reading it. They are learning from it!
>
> Simple scenario, the deed has been done, what are your chances of having 4 whitnesses? So no 4 whitnesses no trail or conviction. Trail infort of whom?? a judge. Sounds like you need am islamic state for the punishment to be applied! I think you misunderstand the verse!!
I understood it exactly the way you presented it.
Why does it matter how the judgment should be applied? The point is that the Quran advocates that adulterous women should be imprisoned until death. And sure it outlines a method of judgment which is practically impossible to do today, but why does this point matter?
The substantive point is that the Quran thinks its moral to imprison your wife! And notice how it doesn't say anything about what happens if a man commits adultery. So the implication is sexism!
> Is this verse has been abrogated!
What do you mean abrogated? The verse still exists in the Quran. People are still reading it. They are learning from it!
written by Kaser , September 14, 2012
Malem,
No compulsion in Islam??? Are you deluding yourself?
Boko Haram? Al Quaeda? 9/11? 7/7? The Danish cartoon worldwide uproar? The recent attacks on the consulates? Tombuktu destruction? The budha statues? Taliban banning education for wemen? Acid attacks? Honor killings?
Need I go on???
No compulsion in Islam??? Are you deluding yourself?
Boko Haram? Al Quaeda? 9/11? 7/7? The Danish cartoon worldwide uproar? The recent attacks on the consulates? Tombuktu destruction? The budha statues? Taliban banning education for wemen? Acid attacks? Honor killings?
Need I go on???
written by Kaser , September 14, 2012
"unlawful sexual intercourse of your women..."
YOUR WOMEN ? You own them?
Who the hell can tell a man and a woman, sound of mind, that they can or cannot have a sexual intercourse??? Whose business is it abc????
And in your same thought patter abc, it's ok for Muslims to marry for a day and then dump their 14 year-old "bride" ...
I'm unimpressed abc, unimpressed...
YOUR WOMEN ? You own them?
Who the hell can tell a man and a woman, sound of mind, that they can or cannot have a sexual intercourse??? Whose business is it abc????
And in your same thought patter abc, it's ok for Muslims to marry for a day and then dump their 14 year-old "bride" ...
I'm unimpressed abc, unimpressed...
written by Worldpeace , September 14, 2012
Yes, the western world has not fully abolished capital punishment because some states in USA still practice it. Mark the word, some. Malem, you seem to miss the point. Even If just one country in the world chooses to do away with the practice, humanity will still have advanced beyond religious morality. This is more so for Islam whose morality is "frozen" to 7th century mode.
Take slavery, for instance. You do not find any categorical statement on its abolition in the religious texts. It took evolution of human morality to ban this unti human practice. Humanity is guilty on the count of its practice, but it has evolved and slavery is history. Or, is it.
Do not miss the point, this time around, which is, humanity does not require religion to be moral. Look at the way Muslims react recently to the vedio on Muhammad. Even if the contents are offensive, it is morally incorrect to attack innocent people. Morally advanced people will take legal action that will bring the culprit to book. Muslims can offend non Muslims without remose but they react irrationally(violently) when the truth about Islam is told.
Be in peace.
Take slavery, for instance. You do not find any categorical statement on its abolition in the religious texts. It took evolution of human morality to ban this unti human practice. Humanity is guilty on the count of its practice, but it has evolved and slavery is history. Or, is it.
Do not miss the point, this time around, which is, humanity does not require religion to be moral. Look at the way Muslims react recently to the vedio on Muhammad. Even if the contents are offensive, it is morally incorrect to attack innocent people. Morally advanced people will take legal action that will bring the culprit to book. Muslims can offend non Muslims without remose but they react irrationally(violently) when the truth about Islam is told.
Be in peace.
written by abc , September 14, 2012
"Yours" as in it incorporates the singular and plural.
No ownership implies or stated.
FFS- this is what happens when the uneducated try to interpret scripture.
I don't know what you mean bump someone??
No ownership implies or stated.
FFS- this is what happens when the uneducated try to interpret scripture.
I don't know what you mean bump someone??
written by non believer , September 14, 2012
Worldpeace and Rami have been emphasizing the need to reform. That is applying reason to whatever has been said in scriptures, accept if something is not equitable to all and change. All other religions are reforming. Only Muslims are acting like ostriches. Please reform for the sake of humanity. Don't contrive arguments to justify the unjustifiable. Some of those Quranic /hadith recommendations are not good for the present day society. Accept it and reform. Make the world a peaceful place by not resorting to violence whenever your religion is criticized. Islamophobia is only due to the fact that Muslims resort to violence at the drop of a hat. Other religions may have done it or may be doing it sporadically but not as a rule. But Muslims are needlessly getting violent all over the world. I think this is because of the lack of inherent strength in Islam to justify itself and the frustration of realizing it. When brain fails, muscle takes over.
written by abc , September 14, 2012
I think Islam will reform and indeed within Islam there are mechanisms for reform. See works done by Suleman the magnificent- the law giver.
Whenever a reformist scholar says something you have sites like this jumping up and down screaming taqiyya. Or accuse the person to talking with a forked tongue.
However before anything can happen, Islam and Muslims have to have an Islamic state which will have the central authority to reform.
Not long now!!
Whenever a reformist scholar says something you have sites like this jumping up and down screaming taqiyya. Or accuse the person to talking with a forked tongue.
However before anything can happen, Islam and Muslims have to have an Islamic state which will have the central authority to reform.
Not long now!!
written by bundypig , September 14, 2012
you had an islamic state would all of you go there and live and leave the rest of us alone? I kinda doubt it. They gave a bunch of radical blacks in the US a city of their own to do what they wanted and rule it like they wanted, and in 10 years it was defunct and everyone had left except for a few hangers on. I see that islamic folks would have to have the west to prosper, just like they always have and there would be the same trouble as we are seeing now, because muslims can't get over the sh*t taught to them from birth, and they couldn't leave the welfare states that they milk.
written by Infidel and More Proud , September 14, 2012
ABC and forked tongue.
KSA is a islamic state. So is Pakistan.
If islam has failed in these places to name a few how ill it work in even bigger entities?
You mean it will be a bigger failure?
KSA is a islamic state. So is Pakistan.
If islam has failed in these places to name a few how ill it work in even bigger entities?
You mean it will be a bigger failure?
written by bundypig , September 14, 2012
ask yourself this, if the middle east hadn't had oil, where would you be now? Just a bunch of goat herders in the desert riding camels (which is not to far from what's happening today) and trying to figure out which way is east ;)
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
My next article discusses this point. What would it take for Islam to be reformed?
How would Muslims reconcile the fact that the Quran explicitly states that it can not be reformed?
How would Muslims reconcile the fact that the Quran explicitly states that it can not be reformed?
written by xyz , September 14, 2012
Islam and creativity are two opposite phenomenon. Muslims have to go against "Allah's Will" to reform Islam.
written by HARKAT UL JIHAD EI KAFIROOON , September 14, 2012
as an ex-muslim i say muslims r more and more jihadis-voilent now,in india and congress/bjp etc back them.
muslims can do anything and get away.
we ex-muslims r screwed.
muslims can do anything and get away.
we ex-muslims r screwed.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
Your view is pessimistic.
Muslims might be more violent than ever before, but lets ask why they are. Is it because their faith in their God and religion is stronger?
I don't think so. I think its because they are more desperate and more offended than ever before. I see it as an emotional response.
Consider a temper tantrum, of a 2-year old or a 30-year old. They ask for something they want from someone. That someone refuses. How does the person react? He will react the way he knows how. Some people (young and old) only know how to react physically. So they yell and flail their arms to shock the other person into giving in. This is what many Muslims do today. They haven't learned better ways that can actually solve their problem of getting what they want.
But people do learn. They learn new ways of reacting to their problems. Ways that actually solve their problems.
Please don't take my tantrum analogy the wrong way. Its fairly different than the Arab situation. For one thing, 2-year olds are controlled by their parents. The 2-year can't decide to change his situation. If the parent is a piece of shit, the 2-year old can't change that.
Arab people are not controlled by anyone. Not by their dictator leaders and not by America. The Arabs will soon learn that they must take responsibility for their countries. They must take part in the politics of their countries and stop assuming that Allah will save them.
Muslims might be more violent than ever before, but lets ask why they are. Is it because their faith in their God and religion is stronger?
I don't think so. I think its because they are more desperate and more offended than ever before. I see it as an emotional response.
Consider a temper tantrum, of a 2-year old or a 30-year old. They ask for something they want from someone. That someone refuses. How does the person react? He will react the way he knows how. Some people (young and old) only know how to react physically. So they yell and flail their arms to shock the other person into giving in. This is what many Muslims do today. They haven't learned better ways that can actually solve their problem of getting what they want.
But people do learn. They learn new ways of reacting to their problems. Ways that actually solve their problems.
Please don't take my tantrum analogy the wrong way. Its fairly different than the Arab situation. For one thing, 2-year olds are controlled by their parents. The 2-year can't decide to change his situation. If the parent is a piece of shit, the 2-year old can't change that.
Arab people are not controlled by anyone. Not by their dictator leaders and not by America. The Arabs will soon learn that they must take responsibility for their countries. They must take part in the politics of their countries and stop assuming that Allah will save them.
written by The Real Indian , September 14, 2012
@Rami your Arguments are quiet logical and fun reading in.
written by Kaser , September 14, 2012
@Rami - Excellent point, well presented.
@abc
1- Islam will reform... Rare that a Muslim will admit to Islam needing reform, thank you abc. But I am curious, reform what exactly? Re-write the scriptures or re-interpret them for modern times?
2- A cental Islamic State? Is that not Saudi Arabia?
3- Not "bump" but "dump" - dump ans in throw away after usage. Like a used tissue paper.
4- "Uneducated" ? Please abc, enough with the insults, you are a grown person. Simply answer my question as to why Islam gave itself the right to control the sexual lives of sound-minded adults?
@abc
1- Islam will reform... Rare that a Muslim will admit to Islam needing reform, thank you abc. But I am curious, reform what exactly? Re-write the scriptures or re-interpret them for modern times?
2- A cental Islamic State? Is that not Saudi Arabia?
3- Not "bump" but "dump" - dump ans in throw away after usage. Like a used tissue paper.
4- "Uneducated" ? Please abc, enough with the insults, you are a grown person. Simply answer my question as to why Islam gave itself the right to control the sexual lives of sound-minded adults?
written by Malem , September 14, 2012
You state "The Saudi government financially supports terrorism. And Saudi people are responsible for the actions of their government. Therefore the Saudi people are not innocent. " Therefore any person who happens to live in a country whos government acts in a criminal manner, they are to be held responsible. So lets extend that out to other countries, Every German is responsible for what happened to the Jews thus should be jailed? Every Person in Afghanistan should be held responsible for the acts of the Taliban they are in the government? Tunisia, Libya etc.. all run at one time by dictators, but still all the people are responsible? You are as funny as Worldpeace, dellusional, but funny
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
> You state "The Saudi government financially supports terrorism. And Saudi people are responsible for the actions of their government. Therefore the Saudi people are not innocent. " Therefore any person who happens to live in a country whos government acts in a criminal manner, they are to be held responsible. So lets extend that out to other countries, Every German is responsible for what happened to the Jews thus should be jailed?
The idea of responsibility is not as simple as you describe it. In the case of the Holocaust, the solution was to use military power to bring the German military down and get rid of the evil Nazy government. Some German citizens died. Should we say that we shouldn't have used military power because of those German citizen were innocence? No. Why? Because they do have a degree of responsibility in the actions of their government. Are they responsible to the degree that they should be held accountable (by jailing them) for Holocaust victims? No.
> Tunisia, Libya etc.. all run at one time by dictators, but still all the people are responsible?
Yes they are responsible for changing their government. Who else is going to do it?
If their dictatorship government wages war against a religious sect within their own population, are they responsible for changing their government so that the genocide stops? Yes.
The idea of responsibility is not as simple as you describe it. In the case of the Holocaust, the solution was to use military power to bring the German military down and get rid of the evil Nazy government. Some German citizens died. Should we say that we shouldn't have used military power because of those German citizen were innocence? No. Why? Because they do have a degree of responsibility in the actions of their government. Are they responsible to the degree that they should be held accountable (by jailing them) for Holocaust victims? No.
> Tunisia, Libya etc.. all run at one time by dictators, but still all the people are responsible?
Yes they are responsible for changing their government. Who else is going to do it?
If their dictatorship government wages war against a religious sect within their own population, are they responsible for changing their government so that the genocide stops? Yes.
written by fineliving56 , September 14, 2012
Your article and posts are outstanding … keep them coming .
It is funny, how abc thought you are an Iranian ex Muslim, it is telling of how meager his knowledge of Quran's and Muhammad's language … if he did know, he would have a completely different post.
I commend you on your courage to have your article under your real name ..it is fitting, considering your article's subject.
You are fearless, especially, after the latest deadly demonstrations by the blood thirsty devout Muslims all over the Islamic world happening right now .
It is funny, how abc thought you are an Iranian ex Muslim, it is telling of how meager his knowledge of Quran's and Muhammad's language … if he did know, he would have a completely different post.
I commend you on your courage to have your article under your real name ..it is fitting, considering your article's subject.
You are fearless, especially, after the latest deadly demonstrations by the blood thirsty devout Muslims all over the Islamic world happening right now .
written by Infidel and More Proud , September 15, 2012
Rami you have done a great job of exposing the inherent contradictions.
RW, Malem, Kope and AKI bring it on... you guys seem to be losing steam
RW, Malem, Kope and AKI bring it on... you guys seem to be losing steam
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
Religious people of all stripes say that people who behave badly in the name of the religion are misunderstanding or misrepresenting its teachings. How many christians will accept that the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are in line with their religion? Not many.
Religious texts are vague enough to provide both an excuse and a condemnation for almost any human behavior. The people who say islam promotes killing, and the people who say islam is a religion of peace, are both correct. Islam is a religion that can be bent to supposedly justify nearly anything you want it to.
I think all the religions of the world, including the largest ones - christianity and islam and judaism, are not just wrong, but ridiculously so. Yet I find it hard to assign these religions blame for specific behavior that is rare among their followers. On the other hand, I do assign religions blame for behavior that is universally or nearly so taught by its leaders and implemented by its followers.
Some teachings / behaviors that are nearly universal: Faith instead of critical thinking. Altruism. Respect for authority. Virtue of sacrifice. Man's inherent evil nature. Supernatural forces. Beings beyond human comprehension. These are damaging, poisonous, dangerous ideas. They aren't unique to islam or christianity or judaism - these bad ideas permeate them all. I condemn these ideas and the religions that promote them.
Beyond that, thugs will be thugs, cowards will be cowards, and when asked to explain their despicable behavior it makes little difference if the thugs and cowards and their enablers cite the Quran, the Bible, Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto, or Karl Marx.
Religious texts are vague enough to provide both an excuse and a condemnation for almost any human behavior. The people who say islam promotes killing, and the people who say islam is a religion of peace, are both correct. Islam is a religion that can be bent to supposedly justify nearly anything you want it to.
I think all the religions of the world, including the largest ones - christianity and islam and judaism, are not just wrong, but ridiculously so. Yet I find it hard to assign these religions blame for specific behavior that is rare among their followers. On the other hand, I do assign religions blame for behavior that is universally or nearly so taught by its leaders and implemented by its followers.
Some teachings / behaviors that are nearly universal: Faith instead of critical thinking. Altruism. Respect for authority. Virtue of sacrifice. Man's inherent evil nature. Supernatural forces. Beings beyond human comprehension. These are damaging, poisonous, dangerous ideas. They aren't unique to islam or christianity or judaism - these bad ideas permeate them all. I condemn these ideas and the religions that promote them.
Beyond that, thugs will be thugs, cowards will be cowards, and when asked to explain their despicable behavior it makes little difference if the thugs and cowards and their enablers cite the Quran, the Bible, Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto, or Karl Marx.
written by Archpagan , September 15, 2012
I would like to put just two questions to you:
(1) Have you ever heard that a Christian/Jews priest goaded his flock to attack Saudi /Paki (or a non-Christian country's) embassy for terrorist attack in his country, or any perceived insult to Christianity/Judaism ?
(2) Do Osama bin Laden and the Dalai Lama deserve the same treatment from us (non-Muslims or non-Buddhists) because both of them come under the category of "religious leader"?
(1) Have you ever heard that a Christian/Jews priest goaded his flock to attack Saudi /Paki (or a non-Christian country's) embassy for terrorist attack in his country, or any perceived insult to Christianity/Judaism ?
(2) Do Osama bin Laden and the Dalai Lama deserve the same treatment from us (non-Muslims or non-Buddhists) because both of them come under the category of "religious leader"?
written by abc , September 15, 2012
"I understood it exactly the way you presented it"
Sorry I don't think you did understand the way I presented it.
"Why does it matter how the judgment should be applied? The point is that the Quran advocates that adulterous women should be imprisoned until death. And sure it outlines a method of judgment which is practically impossible to do today, but why does this point matter?"
Of course it matters how the judgement is carried out.
There are due processes to protect certain people and convict the guilty.
Yes the Quran did say that but made punishment of that sun virtually impossible.
Why do you think that would be?? Because it's a warning, a guidance to people that this may happen to you if you do not adjust your behaviour.
"The substantive point is that the Quran thinks its moral to imprison your wife! And notice how it doesn't say anything about what happens if a man commits adultery. So the implication is sexism"
Wrong again.
The point is that the Quran is warning you of the dangers of immoral behaviour.
It prescribes a sentance which is nearly impossible to do.
If a person cannot be trusted to behave, then withdraw them.
" Is this verse has been abrogated!
What do you mean abrogated? The verse still exists in the Quran. People are still reading it. They are learning from it"
You know full well that the verse we are talking about has been abrogated.
Rami you must know the punishment is no longer for just females but makes as well and it's not withdraw to a room.
Here is the thing. Your first point back to me is false. The other points you give can be proved false too. So where dies this leave your article.
You cheerleaders will no doubt try to defend you.
Sorry I don't think you did understand the way I presented it.
"Why does it matter how the judgment should be applied? The point is that the Quran advocates that adulterous women should be imprisoned until death. And sure it outlines a method of judgment which is practically impossible to do today, but why does this point matter?"
Of course it matters how the judgement is carried out.
There are due processes to protect certain people and convict the guilty.
Yes the Quran did say that but made punishment of that sun virtually impossible.
Why do you think that would be?? Because it's a warning, a guidance to people that this may happen to you if you do not adjust your behaviour.
"The substantive point is that the Quran thinks its moral to imprison your wife! And notice how it doesn't say anything about what happens if a man commits adultery. So the implication is sexism"
Wrong again.
The point is that the Quran is warning you of the dangers of immoral behaviour.
It prescribes a sentance which is nearly impossible to do.
If a person cannot be trusted to behave, then withdraw them.
" Is this verse has been abrogated!
What do you mean abrogated? The verse still exists in the Quran. People are still reading it. They are learning from it"
You know full well that the verse we are talking about has been abrogated.
Rami you must know the punishment is no longer for just females but makes as well and it's not withdraw to a room.
Here is the thing. Your first point back to me is false. The other points you give can be proved false too. So where dies this leave your article.
You cheerleaders will no doubt try to defend you.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
2- A cental Islamic State? Is that not Saudi Arabia?
3- Not "bump" but "dump" - dump ans in throw away after usage. Like a used tissue paper.
4- "Uneducated" ? Please abc, enough with the insults, you are a grown person. Simply answer my question as to why Islam gave itself the right to control the sexual lives of sound-minded adults?
Reply:
2: the Saudis are traitors to Islam and the day their tyrannical regime gets the boot the quicker the better! Have you read up the history of Saudi Arabia?
4. Look fella if you cannot read a line as it was intended and go all jackanory with it then what am I to assume?
3- Not "bump" but "dump" - dump ans in throw away after usage. Like a used tissue paper.
4- "Uneducated" ? Please abc, enough with the insults, you are a grown person. Simply answer my question as to why Islam gave itself the right to control the sexual lives of sound-minded adults?
Reply:
2: the Saudis are traitors to Islam and the day their tyrannical regime gets the boot the quicker the better! Have you read up the history of Saudi Arabia?
4. Look fella if you cannot read a line as it was intended and go all jackanory with it then what am I to assume?
written by abc , September 15, 2012
written by Infidel and More Proud , September 15, 2012
Rami you have done a great job of exposing the inherent contradictions.
RW, Malem, Kope and AKI bring it on... you guys seem to be losing steam!
Hey does this post come with a uniform? Tight top and skirt?
Maybe some pom poms? Do you have a routine?
I bet you do you sly dog!
Unlike you the rest of us have lives and respond when we can!!!
Rami you have done a great job of exposing the inherent contradictions.
RW, Malem, Kope and AKI bring it on... you guys seem to be losing steam!
Hey does this post come with a uniform? Tight top and skirt?
Maybe some pom poms? Do you have a routine?
I bet you do you sly dog!
Unlike you the rest of us have lives and respond when we can!!!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> Of course it matters how the judgement is carried out. There are due processes to protect certain people and convict the guilty. Yes the Quran did say that but made punishment of that sun virtually impossible. Why do you think that would be?? Because it's a warning, a guidance to people that this may happen to you if you do not adjust your behaviour.
So fear mongering! The Quran teaches fear mongering.
Also it warns women but not men. So it teaches sexism.
Do you believe in this morality?
So fear mongering! The Quran teaches fear mongering.
Also it warns women but not men. So it teaches sexism.
Do you believe in this morality?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> Here is the thing. Your first point back to me is false. The other points you give can be proved false too. So where dies this leave your article.
I said that Islamic thinking hurts people. It teaches fear mongering, sexism, agism, noncritical thinking, and other bad ideas.
Do you agree that these ideas are bad and thus hurtful?
Your own posts corroborate my theory.
I said that Islamic thinking hurts people. It teaches fear mongering, sexism, agism, noncritical thinking, and other bad ideas.
Do you agree that these ideas are bad and thus hurtful?
Your own posts corroborate my theory.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 15, 2012
Rami and abc. May I interrupt in your discussion. I dont know who of you wrote "adulterous women should be imprisoned until death."
It is not for adulterous woman. That punishment is not restricted for women and both man and woman will get 100 each.as prescribed earlier. That too is forgivable.
Confining in the houses is prescribed for those wives who go out and do immoral things. Asking them you will never go out is not a very deal. I read for you
وَاللَّاتِي يَأْتِينَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مِن نِّسَائِكُمْ فَاسْتَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةً مِّنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن شَهِدُوا فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّىٰ يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّـهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا ﴿١٥﴾ وَاللَّذَانِ يَأْتِيَانِهَا مِنكُمْ فَآذُوهُمَا ۖ فَإِن تَابَا وَأَصْلَحَا فَأَعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمَا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ كَانَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا ﴿
Provision of forgiving is also there in verse 4:16 is another option. If they divorce and abolish nikah, the man has no more control on her.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> I would like to put just two questions to you: (1) Have you ever heard that a Christian/Jews priest goaded his flock to attack Saudi /Paki (or a non-Christian country's) embassy for terrorist attack in his country, or any perceived insult to Christianity/Judaism ? (2) Do Osama bin Laden and the Dalai Lama deserve the same treatment from us (non-Muslims or non-Buddhists) because both of them come under the category of "religious leader"?
You are pointing out that Islam is worse than other religions. I agree. Much worse.
But note that the poster condemned some morals that even Christianity has. Like altruism.
Altruism means to sacrifice one's own preferences so that other's can have their preferences satisfied. This is horrible! See Ayn Rand, _The Fountain Head_.
You are pointing out that Islam is worse than other religions. I agree. Much worse.
But note that the poster condemned some morals that even Christianity has. Like altruism.
Altruism means to sacrifice one's own preferences so that other's can have their preferences satisfied. This is horrible! See Ayn Rand, _The Fountain Head_.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Over a 23 year period, as situations arose then guidance was given.
If the entire book was given in one go it would be too difficult to adhere to.
That verse was initially given as a warning.
The mechanism to get punished is impossible.
The idea is to get you to think. Why is the punishment for adultry serious?
Is there any good that comes from a mans wife sleeping with another man??
This verse was then abrogated as reed points out.
The punishment is now different and applies to men as well.
The more you write back the less I think you know about Islam.
If the entire book was given in one go it would be too difficult to adhere to.
That verse was initially given as a warning.
The mechanism to get punished is impossible.
The idea is to get you to think. Why is the punishment for adultry serious?
Is there any good that comes from a mans wife sleeping with another man??
This verse was then abrogated as reed points out.
The punishment is now different and applies to men as well.
The more you write back the less I think you know about Islam.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
If you get a chance then study the law there is always an underlying principle.
Forgiveness is better for you than the punishment.
Repentance is better for you than punishment.
Forgiveness is better for you than the punishment.
Repentance is better for you than punishment.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
"I said that Islamic thinking hurts people. It teaches fear mongering, sexism, agism, noncritical thinking, and other bad ideas"
Sure that's exactly what you said and I read your concluding paragraph and pointed out its inaccuracies.
To which you gave me a list of quranic points.
The first point was easy to prove false. Shall we move to your second point
4:34????
Sure that's exactly what you said and I read your concluding paragraph and pointed out its inaccuracies.
To which you gave me a list of quranic points.
The first point was easy to prove false. Shall we move to your second point
4:34????
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> The punishment is now different and applies to men as well.
You're missing the point. ALL PUNISHMENT IS BAD!!!
So Islam forbids behavior X. And says there is punishment if you do X (here and/or in afterlife).
But punishment does not cause learning. Punishment does not cause someone to change his values such that he believes X to be immoral. Punishment only causes one to change his behavior (avoid doing X) but only if he thinks he'll be caught and then punished.
So if the person thinks he won't be caught/punished, then he'll do behavior X. Why? Because he values X.
What's the alternative? Persuasion. Persuasion is the only tool that can help people change their values. Coercion (which includes punishment) doesn't work. It only deters the behavior and only while the person wants to avoid the punishment.
You're missing the point. ALL PUNISHMENT IS BAD!!!
So Islam forbids behavior X. And says there is punishment if you do X (here and/or in afterlife).
But punishment does not cause learning. Punishment does not cause someone to change his values such that he believes X to be immoral. Punishment only causes one to change his behavior (avoid doing X) but only if he thinks he'll be caught and then punished.
So if the person thinks he won't be caught/punished, then he'll do behavior X. Why? Because he values X.
What's the alternative? Persuasion. Persuasion is the only tool that can help people change their values. Coercion (which includes punishment) doesn't work. It only deters the behavior and only while the person wants to avoid the punishment.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> If you get a chance then study the law there is always an underlying principle. Forgiveness is better for you than the punishment. Repentance is better for you than punishment.
All those ideas are bad.
Punishment I've already refuted. It should *never* be done.
Forgiveness presupposes that you were mad at another person. You shouldn't be mad in the first place. All he did was make a mistake. Mistakes are common. We all make them. And we should all be working to fix them so that they don't happen going forward. So there is nothing to forgive.
Repentance presupposes that you are upset about your past mistakes. This is horrible. Say you made a mistake and you solve the problem such that you won't make that mistake again going forward. So you have improved yourself. Today-you is better than past-you. What is there to be upset about?
All those ideas are bad.
Punishment I've already refuted. It should *never* be done.
Forgiveness presupposes that you were mad at another person. You shouldn't be mad in the first place. All he did was make a mistake. Mistakes are common. We all make them. And we should all be working to fix them so that they don't happen going forward. So there is nothing to forgive.
Repentance presupposes that you are upset about your past mistakes. This is horrible. Say you made a mistake and you solve the problem such that you won't make that mistake again going forward. So you have improved yourself. Today-you is better than past-you. What is there to be upset about?
written by abc , September 15, 2012
"You're missing the point. ALL PUNISHMENT IS BAD"
That is absolute tripe and you know it.
Persuasion is not enough, although its powerful tool.
That is absolute tripe and you know it.
Persuasion is not enough, although its powerful tool.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Hey mr rapist! Tell me why it's wrong??
Rapist will give you every reason under the sun.
Are you convinced by persuasion that it's wrong?
Rapist will tell you he/she is convinced.
Yet they still commit the crime?? So persuasion only dies not work.
Since you are into child like analogies then this will be up your street.
A baby has learnt how to crawl and wants to explore. You out it on a sofa and it gets to the edge. It's faced with a choice, turn back or keep going.
The ones that kept going fell off and managed to bump themselves.,
Now same scenario again. The baby that fell will not go near that edge because it associates that edge with a fall and pain.,
Once you have felt the punishment you do not want to go back.
Rapist will give you every reason under the sun.
Are you convinced by persuasion that it's wrong?
Rapist will tell you he/she is convinced.
Yet they still commit the crime?? So persuasion only dies not work.
Since you are into child like analogies then this will be up your street.
A baby has learnt how to crawl and wants to explore. You out it on a sofa and it gets to the edge. It's faced with a choice, turn back or keep going.
The ones that kept going fell off and managed to bump themselves.,
Now same scenario again. The baby that fell will not go near that edge because it associates that edge with a fall and pain.,
Once you have felt the punishment you do not want to go back.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> Hey mr rapist! Tell me why it's wrong?? Rapist will give you every reason under the sun. Are you convinced by persuasion that it's wrong? Rapist will tell you he/she is convinced. Yet they still commit the crime?? So persuasion only dies not work.
You are confusing learning with protecting society from people that commit crimes against people's freedoms.
That rapist should be put in jail so that he doesn't rape others.
While in jail, if he is punished, the punishment doesn't cause him to no longer value rape.
You are confusing learning with protecting society from people that commit crimes against people's freedoms.
That rapist should be put in jail so that he doesn't rape others.
While in jail, if he is punished, the punishment doesn't cause him to no longer value rape.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> A baby has learnt how to crawl and wants to explore. You out it on a sofa and it gets to the edge. It's faced with a choice, turn back or keep going. The ones that kept going fell off and managed to bump themselves.,
Now same scenario again. The baby that fell will not go near that edge because it associates that edge with a fall and pain., Once you have felt the punishment you do not want to go back.
That is not punishment. Punishment is an act done by a human to another human.
What you've described is that physics is delivering pain to the child. But physics can't punish because it isn't a person and thus doesn't have he capacity to choose.
With punishment, a person chooses to perform the act. And he is choosing to inflict pain onto the other person. In your hypothetical situation, physics isn't *choosing* to inflict pain.
Now same scenario again. The baby that fell will not go near that edge because it associates that edge with a fall and pain., Once you have felt the punishment you do not want to go back.
That is not punishment. Punishment is an act done by a human to another human.
What you've described is that physics is delivering pain to the child. But physics can't punish because it isn't a person and thus doesn't have he capacity to choose.
With punishment, a person chooses to perform the act. And he is choosing to inflict pain onto the other person. In your hypothetical situation, physics isn't *choosing* to inflict pain.
written by Worldpeace , September 15, 2012
Hmmmm, some discussion. The thread is losing the substance of the subject matter.
Majority of ex- Muslims, including yours sincerely, do not declare their apostasy because of the first reason given in the article, i.e. Fear of ostracism or death. Open apostasy in the midth of Muslim will ordinarily require the apostates to explain their reasons, which when they do will naturally be criticism of Islam. We all know and agree that open criticism of Islam is not only unacceptable but dangerous. So the easy path is that of hypocrisy. Islam carries a hefty number of hypocrites by its creation, the more reason why it is evil and should have no place in this civilising world.
Majority of ex- Muslims, including yours sincerely, do not declare their apostasy because of the first reason given in the article, i.e. Fear of ostracism or death. Open apostasy in the midth of Muslim will ordinarily require the apostates to explain their reasons, which when they do will naturally be criticism of Islam. We all know and agree that open criticism of Islam is not only unacceptable but dangerous. So the easy path is that of hypocrisy. Islam carries a hefty number of hypocrites by its creation, the more reason why it is evil and should have no place in this civilising world.
written by fineliving56 , September 15, 2012
Sorry Reed … There is no use for you to manipulate meaning of words in Quran to suit your own interruption of Quran … it will not help to beautify Quran, in fact , it confirms it's shortcomings. The fact that you need to explain and manipulate, proves it never came from any perfect God, like we have said so many times before .
The exact word in Arabic to mean Adultery is ''zina'' …
the word '' Fahisha'' that is used in Q/4/15 is a general word for indecency but *includes* the crime of adultery in Islam.
That same word is used in 4/16 to describe the indecency of homosexuality in Islam … [ BTW …note the
The word ''Fahisha '' in 4/15 '' indecency is meant to be only for adulteries because the meaning is collaborated by sharia and hadeeth, any other crimes are punished in different ways like cutting hands for theft .
Reed …during the time I took time off …I have skimped over your posts and I detected many translating mistakes [ deliberate mistakes I might add ] and I was too distract to call you on it to post about it .
Reed …forgiveness looses it value completely when proceeded with cruel threats … your Quran is full of them and that is one of the many reasons, it is loosing believers every day .
Thank you for welcoming me … you are such a gentlemen
The exact word in Arabic to mean Adultery is ''zina'' …
the word '' Fahisha'' that is used in Q/4/15 is a general word for indecency but *includes* the crime of adultery in Islam.
That same word is used in 4/16 to describe the indecency of homosexuality in Islam … [ BTW …note the
The word ''Fahisha '' in 4/15 '' indecency is meant to be only for adulteries because the meaning is collaborated by sharia and hadeeth, any other crimes are punished in different ways like cutting hands for theft .
Reed …during the time I took time off …I have skimped over your posts and I detected many translating mistakes [ deliberate mistakes I might add ] and I was too distract to call you on it to post about it .
Reed …forgiveness looses it value completely when proceeded with cruel threats … your Quran is full of them and that is one of the many reasons, it is loosing believers every day .
Thank you for welcoming me … you are such a gentlemen
written by abc , September 15, 2012
"With punishment, a person chooses to perform the act. And he is choosing to inflict pain onto the other person. In your hypothetical situation, physics isn't *choosing* to inflict pain"
Ah but memory and the pleasure/pain reflex remains. These two are simply the two key drivers of all human interaction.
Irrespective of drivers (probably a poor example in my part)
Pain of punishment serves to remind a person that the crime was unacceptable.
Persuasion alone dies not and never has worked!!!
Ah but memory and the pleasure/pain reflex remains. These two are simply the two key drivers of all human interaction.
Irrespective of drivers (probably a poor example in my part)
Pain of punishment serves to remind a person that the crime was unacceptable.
Persuasion alone dies not and never has worked!!!
written by fineliving56 , September 15, 2012
So true …
I did not know you are an apostate from Islam like I am and Rami and the Admin and so many other posters …
Rami is showing the need to come out, in spite of danger and scrutiny from other Muslims, because if we do not, we are not only being hypocrites like you said, we are being enablers and helpers, as much as, moderate and peaceful Muslims, are . They are practicing their religion neglecting speaking out against the violent Muslims … they do not see, they carry some of the guilt as them …I understand the danger for them and us … but it has to be done .
I am thinking about it my self to post under my real name … as a women my self it is harder considering the subject '' Islam'' .. everything is double on women shoulders in Islam even shame.
I did not know you are an apostate from Islam like I am and Rami and the Admin and so many other posters …
Rami is showing the need to come out, in spite of danger and scrutiny from other Muslims, because if we do not, we are not only being hypocrites like you said, we are being enablers and helpers, as much as, moderate and peaceful Muslims, are . They are practicing their religion neglecting speaking out against the violent Muslims … they do not see, they carry some of the guilt as them …I understand the danger for them and us … but it has to be done .
I am thinking about it my self to post under my real name … as a women my self it is harder considering the subject '' Islam'' .. everything is double on women shoulders in Islam even shame.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Belief is a personal thing. You choose it or you don't.
Now in an Islamic state personal and state beliefs are the same.
If you choose to leave Islam, stop doing your fard actions. You have left. It's simple.
However if you choose to stand infront of a mosque and start ranting and raving as to why you left then that's considered as working against the state. That's treason and hence it's treated as such!
Now in an Islamic state personal and state beliefs are the same.
If you choose to leave Islam, stop doing your fard actions. You have left. It's simple.
However if you choose to stand infront of a mosque and start ranting and raving as to why you left then that's considered as working against the state. That's treason and hence it's treated as such!
written by fineliving56 , September 15, 2012
Just becouse you say Islam is a state and a Masjed [ mosque] is a place that represent a state and standing in front a mosque ranting and raving [ as you say ] doe not make true it is NOT TREASON …sorry abc you are wrong and you know it
Islam is a religion [ fake ] .. not a state .. the pope is a head of the relgion of Christianity and Christianity is a religion and, if people ranted in front of church, Christians doe not considered committing treason , they are considered rude and insulting …nothing more .
You, abc, say that , because you want TO EXUSE THE CRIME OF KILLING THE EX MUSLIMS and give it a legal term … the fact that you call it treason is a crime in it self …
You are guilty of helping a Muslim criminal terrorist to commit his crime by call it a treason … nothing more nothing less.
Do not do that … you are playing with fire … real lives at stack
We ex Muslim will never stop criticizing and exposing Islam …
It is called freedom of speech.
Islam is a religion [ fake ] .. not a state .. the pope is a head of the relgion of Christianity and Christianity is a religion and, if people ranted in front of church, Christians doe not considered committing treason , they are considered rude and insulting …nothing more .
You, abc, say that , because you want TO EXUSE THE CRIME OF KILLING THE EX MUSLIMS and give it a legal term … the fact that you call it treason is a crime in it self …
You are guilty of helping a Muslim criminal terrorist to commit his crime by call it a treason … nothing more nothing less.
Do not do that … you are playing with fire … real lives at stack
We ex Muslim will never stop criticizing and exposing Islam …
It is called freedom of speech.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 15, 2012
fineliving. Nice hearing from you. However it is quite discouraging when you allege cosmetics of Quran. I can be honest also.
I swear I dont translate. I dont know much Arabic to do this job. I keep my Arabic in my tummy and use readymade translations. I give text also to absolve me of the blame. Sometime I do select from the available translations for the sake of readers.
You know I follow Quran which does not authorize me to make amendments. Read 10:15.
Deliberate mistakes!!! Only author can do that. You know I am not God. .
"Reed …forgiveness looses it value completely when proceeded with cruel threats … your Quran is full of them and that is one of the many reasons, it is loosing believers every day."
Loosing believers, too, is my least consideration. So also persuading. I am not required to do that.
In the text the words الْفَاحِشَةَ and اللَّذَانِ are used. I am answerable to what I comprehend. We cannot hide our intentions from Allah.
I did miss you fineliving and wished your welfare. You have earned that; all the more when duh is not around. I hope every thing was fine.
I swear I dont translate. I dont know much Arabic to do this job. I keep my Arabic in my tummy and use readymade translations. I give text also to absolve me of the blame. Sometime I do select from the available translations for the sake of readers.
You know I follow Quran which does not authorize me to make amendments. Read 10:15.
Deliberate mistakes!!! Only author can do that. You know I am not God. .
"Reed …forgiveness looses it value completely when proceeded with cruel threats … your Quran is full of them and that is one of the many reasons, it is loosing believers every day."
Loosing believers, too, is my least consideration. So also persuading. I am not required to do that.
In the text the words الْفَاحِشَةَ and اللَّذَانِ are used. I am answerable to what I comprehend. We cannot hide our intentions from Allah.
I did miss you fineliving and wished your welfare. You have earned that; all the more when duh is not around. I hope every thing was fine.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> Ah but memory and the pleasure/pain reflex remains. These two are simply the two key drivers of all human interaction. Irrespective of drivers (probably a poor example in my part) Pain of punishment serves to remind a person that the crime was unacceptable.
No. That only works for animals. Animals change their behavior in response to a physical pain source. But humans don't do that.
Humans often want physical pain. Consider masochists and eating wasabi and wanting to be slapped during sex. Here humans want physical pain and they get gratification.
Besides, punishment doesn't even do what you're saying it does. You think punishment prevents someone from doing behavior X. But as soon as the person believes that he won't be punished, then he'll do behavior X. People commit crimes because they value the behavior and they believe that they won't get caught/punished.
> Persuasion alone dies not and never has worked!!!
Worked at doing what? Learning? My entire article was persuasion. Many people have learned from it and have changed their behavior. What happened was that they agreed with the ideas in my articles. And so they've changed their values, on their own accord.
So what do you mean that persuasion never works? Here it is working right before our eyes.
No. That only works for animals. Animals change their behavior in response to a physical pain source. But humans don't do that.
Humans often want physical pain. Consider masochists and eating wasabi and wanting to be slapped during sex. Here humans want physical pain and they get gratification.
Besides, punishment doesn't even do what you're saying it does. You think punishment prevents someone from doing behavior X. But as soon as the person believes that he won't be punished, then he'll do behavior X. People commit crimes because they value the behavior and they believe that they won't get caught/punished.
> Persuasion alone dies not and never has worked!!!
Worked at doing what? Learning? My entire article was persuasion. Many people have learned from it and have changed their behavior. What happened was that they agreed with the ideas in my articles. And so they've changed their values, on their own accord.
So what do you mean that persuasion never works? Here it is working right before our eyes.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> I am thinking about it my self to post under my real name … as a women my self it is harder considering the subject '' Islam'' .. everything is double on women shoulders in Islam even shame.
Shame is a misleading concept. The dictionary says its about feelings of guilt. Guilt means that you think you did something wrong. So what did you do wrong? Switch some of our values? State some of those values? Whats wrong with this?
Who is delivering the shame? The Muslims. Who is receiving the shame? You.
The Muslims believe you are guilty (for changing your values and for stating them). By you accepting that shame, you are letting them frame the discussion. You are playing by their rules.
Live your own life! Don't play by anyone's rules but your own. Rules are bad (unless you made them for yourself).
Shame is a misleading concept. The dictionary says its about feelings of guilt. Guilt means that you think you did something wrong. So what did you do wrong? Switch some of our values? State some of those values? Whats wrong with this?
Who is delivering the shame? The Muslims. Who is receiving the shame? You.
The Muslims believe you are guilty (for changing your values and for stating them). By you accepting that shame, you are letting them frame the discussion. You are playing by their rules.
Live your own life! Don't play by anyone's rules but your own. Rules are bad (unless you made them for yourself).
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
> in an Islamic state personal and state beliefs are the same. If you choose to leave Islam, stop doing your fard actions. You have left. It's simple. However if you choose to stand infront of a mosque and start ranting and raving as to why you left then that's considered as working against the state. That's treason and hence it's treated as such!
I agree that its bad to stand in front of a Mosque and voice your anti-Islamic opinions. Its bad to do things to people against their preferences.
Muslims don't want people to chant anti-Islamic sentiment in front of their Mosques. Therefore you shouldn't do it.
Now voicing your opinion on the internet is another story. The Muslims can simply not go to those websites.
I agree that its bad to stand in front of a Mosque and voice your anti-Islamic opinions. Its bad to do things to people against their preferences.
Muslims don't want people to chant anti-Islamic sentiment in front of their Mosques. Therefore you shouldn't do it.
Now voicing your opinion on the internet is another story. The Muslims can simply not go to those websites.
written by Yibel , September 16, 2012
abc has stated a fact:
"in an Islamic state personal and state beliefs are the same. "
But abc did not go far enough:
The fact is - in Islam there are NO PERSONAL BELIEFS, THOUGHTS, OR ACTIONS ALLOWED.
Islam is a complete totalitarian system that does not allow for the individual to even exist. Any action against Islam - whether it is a cartoon, a movie, or just having the audacity to NOT believe anymore - is, as abc stated, "treason and hence it's treated as such!"
I urge you to post only under the name fineliving56 and keep your personal information - which could lead to your identity - carefully hidden. These are very bad times that we live in. The enemy is deceitful and cunning and cruel and so very many have been deceived into believing that evil is good. Remember, when it comes to Islam, one cannot trust even one's own family members.
May the Good Lord bless and keep you save.
"in an Islamic state personal and state beliefs are the same. "
But abc did not go far enough:
The fact is - in Islam there are NO PERSONAL BELIEFS, THOUGHTS, OR ACTIONS ALLOWED.
Islam is a complete totalitarian system that does not allow for the individual to even exist. Any action against Islam - whether it is a cartoon, a movie, or just having the audacity to NOT believe anymore - is, as abc stated, "treason and hence it's treated as such!"
I urge you to post only under the name fineliving56 and keep your personal information - which could lead to your identity - carefully hidden. These are very bad times that we live in. The enemy is deceitful and cunning and cruel and so very many have been deceived into believing that evil is good. Remember, when it comes to Islam, one cannot trust even one's own family members.
May the Good Lord bless and keep you save.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
Yibel, do you believe that even in the USA that an Ex-Muslim is unsafe?
Should I fear for my life? What could happen?
Will Al Qaeda put out a hit on me? I don't think so.
Would some random Muslim try to kill me or burn my house down?
Should I fear for my life? What could happen?
Will Al Qaeda put out a hit on me? I don't think so.
Would some random Muslim try to kill me or burn my house down?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
If an Islamic state was to be created, I have two questions.
By what process would that happen?
And what would be done about the Non-Muslims currently living in the place that the Islamic state would be created?
By what process would that happen?
And what would be done about the Non-Muslims currently living in the place that the Islamic state would be created?
written by abc , September 16, 2012
Some confusion me feels. Let me clarify.
In an islamic state, if you decide to become an apostate thats entirely your decision. Just stop doing your fards.
In an islamic state if you start to spreading your BS then that would be considered treason and hence punished as such.
IN AN ISLAMIC STATE. Only the STATE has the authority to try and convict and punish as it sees fit.
Since there is NO islamic state then there can be no trials, or punishments.
So to answer your question.
Yes you can use your real name, you do not live in an islamic state, no individual has the authority to carry out any punishment. However there are plenty of nutters who do not understand that concept and hence i would personally advise against it. Unless you feel 100% secure.
In answer to your other question.
There are three distict phases as defined by an nabhani in his book.
Private phase- eduacte the the muslims regarding the need for a state
Public Phase- Declare openly to all and sundry that islam when applied correctly can be an alternative solution to their problems.
Power Phase- When enough people are convinced then implement the book by the request of the majority.
What do you mean what will be done about the non muslims?
They are a part of the state.
In an islamic state, if you decide to become an apostate thats entirely your decision. Just stop doing your fards.
In an islamic state if you start to spreading your BS then that would be considered treason and hence punished as such.
IN AN ISLAMIC STATE. Only the STATE has the authority to try and convict and punish as it sees fit.
Since there is NO islamic state then there can be no trials, or punishments.
So to answer your question.
Yes you can use your real name, you do not live in an islamic state, no individual has the authority to carry out any punishment. However there are plenty of nutters who do not understand that concept and hence i would personally advise against it. Unless you feel 100% secure.
In answer to your other question.
There are three distict phases as defined by an nabhani in his book.
Private phase- eduacte the the muslims regarding the need for a state
Public Phase- Declare openly to all and sundry that islam when applied correctly can be an alternative solution to their problems.
Power Phase- When enough people are convinced then implement the book by the request of the majority.
What do you mean what will be done about the non muslims?
They are a part of the state.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
> In an islamic state if you start to spreading your BS then that would be considered treason and hence punished as such.
What do you mean by "spread"? Do you mean talking to my friend in my house about my ideas? How about typing on my computer to the internet? How about talking on the phone? How about in a private school that I opened?
What do you mean by "spread"? Do you mean talking to my friend in my house about my ideas? How about typing on my computer to the internet? How about talking on the phone? How about in a private school that I opened?
written by abc , September 16, 2012
I mean read some of the articles that have appeared in this site you now write for!
There is plenty to choose from!
There is plenty to choose from!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
So you're ending the discussion by telling me to go read unspecified stuff? This is no way to have a rational discussion, which is what I thought we were doing. Why even start it in the first place then?
If you're going to act like this, I prefer that you don't engage me again.
If you're going to act like this, I prefer that you don't engage me again.
written by abc , September 16, 2012
Take it easy fella!
I'm my book you seem like a much better than the other writers. You take the time to respond!
When was the first time you heard the term taqiyya?? Were you taught by your nearest and dearest or even a mosque teacher???
Ok try this then:
When did you first know that it was ok for you to have sex with your grandmothers???
Ok try this one then:
When was the last time you had sex with a corpse???
I mean these are the type of articles that have appeared here!
Let me ask you, what do you make of the silly cartoons and caricatures that are supposed to depict Muslims on this site???
I'm my book you seem like a much better than the other writers. You take the time to respond!
When was the first time you heard the term taqiyya?? Were you taught by your nearest and dearest or even a mosque teacher???
Ok try this then:
When did you first know that it was ok for you to have sex with your grandmothers???
Ok try this one then:
When was the last time you had sex with a corpse???
I mean these are the type of articles that have appeared here!
Let me ask you, what do you make of the silly cartoons and caricatures that are supposed to depict Muslims on this site???
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
> I'm my book you seem like a much better than the other writers. You take the time to respond!
They might be too busy. I'm not.
> When was the first time you heard the term taqiyya??
I think 30 seconds ago. Its possible before but don't recall.
> Were you taught by your nearest and dearest or even a mosque teacher???
I went to an Islamic school.
> When did you first know that it was ok for you to have sex with your grandmothers???
That is immoral. What are you talking about?
> When was the last time you had sex with a corpse???
Never. Also immoral.
> I mean these are the type of articles that have appeared here! Let me ask you, what do you make of the silly cartoons and caricatures that are supposed to depict Muslims on this site???
They do those things as a way to poke at you. To hurt you. Its a game. And by getting hurt and reacting to it, Muslims are playing along. Its dumb on both sides.
They want to persuade Muslims. They play this poking-fun game but it sabotages any chance at persuasion. It only antagonizes Muslims.
Muslims play along not realizing that they look stupid (to the non-Muslims) when they get offended and physical.
Non-Muslims would do better to just persuade. But they don't because they suck at it. They resort to name calling. Calling human beings animals. Its disgusting.
But then there are cartoons like South Park. Now that is some funny stuff. They make fun of everybody, every religion. And ts funny because its true (with a little hyperbole). And its good for learning. For exposing the hidden truths that most people don't pay attention to.
They might be too busy. I'm not.
> When was the first time you heard the term taqiyya??
I think 30 seconds ago. Its possible before but don't recall.
> Were you taught by your nearest and dearest or even a mosque teacher???
I went to an Islamic school.
> When did you first know that it was ok for you to have sex with your grandmothers???
That is immoral. What are you talking about?
> When was the last time you had sex with a corpse???
Never. Also immoral.
> I mean these are the type of articles that have appeared here! Let me ask you, what do you make of the silly cartoons and caricatures that are supposed to depict Muslims on this site???
They do those things as a way to poke at you. To hurt you. Its a game. And by getting hurt and reacting to it, Muslims are playing along. Its dumb on both sides.
They want to persuade Muslims. They play this poking-fun game but it sabotages any chance at persuasion. It only antagonizes Muslims.
Muslims play along not realizing that they look stupid (to the non-Muslims) when they get offended and physical.
Non-Muslims would do better to just persuade. But they don't because they suck at it. They resort to name calling. Calling human beings animals. Its disgusting.
But then there are cartoons like South Park. Now that is some funny stuff. They make fun of everybody, every religion. And ts funny because its true (with a little hyperbole). And its good for learning. For exposing the hidden truths that most people don't pay attention to.
written by Yibel , September 16, 2012
"Yibel, do you believe that even in the USA that an Ex-Muslim is unsafe?
Should I fear for my life? What could happen?
Will Al Qaeda put out a hit on me? I don't think so.
Would some random Muslim try to kill me or burn my house down?"
Yes, you are not safe even in the USA! Not only are ex-Muslims unsafe, so are Muslims, especially females, who do not follow all the rules of shari'ah (ever heard of "honor killings"?) and anyone who speaks the truth about Islam or makes fun of their so-called prophet (with drawings for example).
You mention South Park. Well, the creators of South Park received death threats for their cute depiction of Muhammad in a teddy bear suit. They got the message - no more Muhammad cartoons.
For a Muslim , if they don’t follow the Islamic code, then they are living immorally.
To understand the Islamic code it is necessary to read the aHadith, the sunnah, the Qur'an and The Reliance of the Traveler. Murder is good if done for Allah and Muhammad. All lands and goods belong to Muslims. All "others" must either submit (join Islam), pay jizya tax (extortion/protection money) , or get their heads chopped off.
Yes, you should fear for your life - and take precautions. There are hundreds of US citizens who are now living in hiding because of death threats from Muslims who feel they must defend Islam because the Qur'an mandates this.
I don't know about Al-Qaeda putting out a hit on you, but any over-the-counter, random Muslim has the potential to be an assassin. It's built into the cult theology.
Should I fear for my life? What could happen?
Will Al Qaeda put out a hit on me? I don't think so.
Would some random Muslim try to kill me or burn my house down?"
Yes, you are not safe even in the USA! Not only are ex-Muslims unsafe, so are Muslims, especially females, who do not follow all the rules of shari'ah (ever heard of "honor killings"?) and anyone who speaks the truth about Islam or makes fun of their so-called prophet (with drawings for example).
You mention South Park. Well, the creators of South Park received death threats for their cute depiction of Muhammad in a teddy bear suit. They got the message - no more Muhammad cartoons.
For a Muslim , if they don’t follow the Islamic code, then they are living immorally.
To understand the Islamic code it is necessary to read the aHadith, the sunnah, the Qur'an and The Reliance of the Traveler. Murder is good if done for Allah and Muhammad. All lands and goods belong to Muslims. All "others" must either submit (join Islam), pay jizya tax (extortion/protection money) , or get their heads chopped off.
Yes, you should fear for your life - and take precautions. There are hundreds of US citizens who are now living in hiding because of death threats from Muslims who feel they must defend Islam because the Qur'an mandates this.
I don't know about Al-Qaeda putting out a hit on you, but any over-the-counter, random Muslim has the potential to be an assassin. It's built into the cult theology.
written by Worldpeace , September 16, 2012
Before apostates can really come into the open, Muslims must imbibe the culture of criticism. Once humanity can create that mechanism the world will be free. Right now, Islam is the only religion that doesn't brook any criticism, the reason why it doesn't evolve from its 7th century violent culture into a vehicle of human development.
As it is Muslims are sub human, they do not value even their lives when it comes to the defence of their evil trinity- Allah, Muhammad and Islam- from the most trivial issue.
I live in Boko Haram infested Northern Nigeria. It is not wise for me to declare my apostasy in the circumstance. However, I do not use Islamic morality in bringing up my children which is enough for the moment.
As it is Muslims are sub human, they do not value even their lives when it comes to the defence of their evil trinity- Allah, Muhammad and Islam- from the most trivial issue.
I live in Boko Haram infested Northern Nigeria. It is not wise for me to declare my apostasy in the circumstance. However, I do not use Islamic morality in bringing up my children which is enough for the moment.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
Every Muslim I've met was relatively good. They try to be good parents, good employees, good community members, and good citizens.
Are you saying that anyone of these people that I know could kill me because I criticized the Quran?
Or do you think it would have to be someone I don't know?
I just did a quick internet search looking for stories about Americans being attacked/threatened by Muslims as you describe. I didn't find anything. If you have a link about some stories, please post it.
Are you saying that anyone of these people that I know could kill me because I criticized the Quran?
Or do you think it would have to be someone I don't know?
I just did a quick internet search looking for stories about Americans being attacked/threatened by Muslims as you describe. I didn't find anything. If you have a link about some stories, please post it.
written by Worldpeace , September 16, 2012
@abc.
You said "Belief is a personal thing"
you are correct on this count.
You also said, " in Islamic state personal and state belief are same".
In that case humanity doesn't require an Islamic state. You have proven it yourself that Islam is anachronistic, an aberration in the 21st century.
You said "Belief is a personal thing"
you are correct on this count.
You also said, " in Islamic state personal and state belief are same".
In that case humanity doesn't require an Islamic state. You have proven it yourself that Islam is anachronistic, an aberration in the 21st century.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
abc I noticed a problem in your argument. You said that if someone is caught spreading BS, then he is tried and punishment for the crime of treason, but only if that person was in the Islamic state while he did it.
So if he posted his BS to the internet, while he lived in the Islamic state, he is guilty. But if he went to the internet cafe across the border (to a country that isn't an Islamic state) and then he posted his BS to the internet, then he isn't guilty.
Do you agree with my hypothetical situation and that the Islamic state couldn't tried the second guy for treason?
If not, why not?
If so, what is the point of the law? What problem does it solve? It doesn't prevent people from spreading their BS. Right? So why have a law that doesn't solve a problem?
So if he posted his BS to the internet, while he lived in the Islamic state, he is guilty. But if he went to the internet cafe across the border (to a country that isn't an Islamic state) and then he posted his BS to the internet, then he isn't guilty.
Do you agree with my hypothetical situation and that the Islamic state couldn't tried the second guy for treason?
If not, why not?
If so, what is the point of the law? What problem does it solve? It doesn't prevent people from spreading their BS. Right? So why have a law that doesn't solve a problem?
written by abc , September 16, 2012
I think you are looking for points that are not there.
Citizen if the Islamic state can be sitting in an Internet cafe on mars. As long as he/she is a citizen of the Islamic state then he/she is bound by the laws.
If he she renounces citizenship and chooses to live elsewhere then they are bound by the laws of the land they have chosen. Do what they want???
Citizen if the Islamic state can be sitting in an Internet cafe on mars. As long as he/she is a citizen of the Islamic state then he/she is bound by the laws.
If he she renounces citizenship and chooses to live elsewhere then they are bound by the laws of the land they have chosen. Do what they want???
written by abc , September 16, 2012
@ Yibel - Muslims in my experience
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
Every Muslim I've met was relatively good. They try to be good parents, good employees, good community members, and good citizens.
Are you saying that anyone of these people that I know could kill me because I criticized the Quran?
Or do you think it would have to be someone I don't know?
I just did a quick internet search looking for stories about Americans being attacked/threatened by Muslims as you describe. I didn't find anything. If you have a link about some stories, please post it.
Yes yibel do tell? I'm dying to hear this one!
Please make it original and not the copy and paste dribble!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
Every Muslim I've met was relatively good. They try to be good parents, good employees, good community members, and good citizens.
Are you saying that anyone of these people that I know could kill me because I criticized the Quran?
Or do you think it would have to be someone I don't know?
I just did a quick internet search looking for stories about Americans being attacked/threatened by Muslims as you describe. I didn't find anything. If you have a link about some stories, please post it.
Yes yibel do tell? I'm dying to hear this one!
Please make it original and not the copy and paste dribble!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 17, 2012
> Citizen if the Islamic state can be sitting in an Internet cafe on mars. As long as he/she is a citizen of the Islamic state then he/she is bound by the laws. If he she renounces citizenship and chooses to live elsewhere then they are bound by the laws of the land they have chosen. Do what they want???
I see. Note that your answer does not change the substantive aspect of my argument. Millions of Ex-Muslims are criticizing Islam on the internet. Muslims within the Islamic state are forbidden to do this because of the law you mentioned.
So what is the point of the law? What problem does it solve? It doesn't prevent people from criticizing Islam on the internet. And Muslims within the Islamic state can easily read the criticism of Islam on the internet while they reside in their state. So the law doesn't solve the problem it is supposed to solve. Or am I missing something?
I see. Note that your answer does not change the substantive aspect of my argument. Millions of Ex-Muslims are criticizing Islam on the internet. Muslims within the Islamic state are forbidden to do this because of the law you mentioned.
So what is the point of the law? What problem does it solve? It doesn't prevent people from criticizing Islam on the internet. And Muslims within the Islamic state can easily read the criticism of Islam on the internet while they reside in their state. So the law doesn't solve the problem it is supposed to solve. Or am I missing something?
written by Reed Wilson. , September 17, 2012
Rami Rustom. I do read your post with interest and there is substance there.
You write "I agree that its bad to stand in front of a Mosque and voice your anti-Islamic opinions. Its bad to do things to people against their preferences.
Muslims don't want people to chant anti-Islamic sentiment in front of their Mosques. Therefore you shouldn't do it."
The mosques are not mosques as defined by Allah where only Allah is addressed. Not only mosques, all the so called places of worship are business houses where people are robbed.
Mutual respect is a human consideration and all those disregard that are not doing the right thing. Behind all that mischief, there are ulterior motives and vested interests.Religion has nothing to do with that.
I fully agree with you.
You write "I agree that its bad to stand in front of a Mosque and voice your anti-Islamic opinions. Its bad to do things to people against their preferences.
Muslims don't want people to chant anti-Islamic sentiment in front of their Mosques. Therefore you shouldn't do it."
The mosques are not mosques as defined by Allah where only Allah is addressed. Not only mosques, all the so called places of worship are business houses where people are robbed.
Mutual respect is a human consideration and all those disregard that are not doing the right thing. Behind all that mischief, there are ulterior motives and vested interests.Religion has nothing to do with that.
I fully agree with you.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 17, 2012
What do you think of the motives of suicide bombers? What are their reasons for doing what they do? What are their goals? And how do they justify that their reasons and goals are morally right?
written by Kaser , September 18, 2012
May I venture with a proposal to your question Rami?
When someone is willing to end his life - there is an important presence of despair (and possibly hatred) but with a purpose.
Despair (and hatred) as in "I have no life, no future, no woman by my side, and tons of frustrated friends around me screaming, fist-in-the-air their outrage at something".
Since they hate that "something" so much, I learned also to hate it vehemently. It's sooooo easy to hate. Much easier than to learn, understand, compromise, soothe, accept and work for positive change.
Hatred is so powerful... Collective hatred, even more so...
So I despair, and I hate this "something"... Then comes purpose.
Purpose as in "a way for me to become a hero!" Since I have no life, no future, no woman by my side, I despair, and I hate, I will become a martyr. And (if I'm dumb enough) I'll even believe that an eternal, 72-virgin orgy awaits me in the afterlife... The one thing I crave so much, a woman, that I cannot have in my current life, is waiting for me in the afterlife...
And before I go, I become a hero... I become someone! I am adulated, I am told that glory awaits me!!!
I despair no more! My hatred has found purpose and reward awaits...
When someone is willing to end his life - there is an important presence of despair (and possibly hatred) but with a purpose.
Despair (and hatred) as in "I have no life, no future, no woman by my side, and tons of frustrated friends around me screaming, fist-in-the-air their outrage at something".
Since they hate that "something" so much, I learned also to hate it vehemently. It's sooooo easy to hate. Much easier than to learn, understand, compromise, soothe, accept and work for positive change.
Hatred is so powerful... Collective hatred, even more so...
So I despair, and I hate this "something"... Then comes purpose.
Purpose as in "a way for me to become a hero!" Since I have no life, no future, no woman by my side, I despair, and I hate, I will become a martyr. And (if I'm dumb enough) I'll even believe that an eternal, 72-virgin orgy awaits me in the afterlife... The one thing I crave so much, a woman, that I cannot have in my current life, is waiting for me in the afterlife...
And before I go, I become a hero... I become someone! I am adulated, I am told that glory awaits me!!!
I despair no more! My hatred has found purpose and reward awaits...
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 18, 2012
I don't think the tactic matters in determining whether a fighter is acting morally or immorally. I think there is such a thing as moral suicide bombing. Like if the goal is to kill some soldiers in an effort to beat a military and take down the current government in my country.
But if the goal is to kill as many jews as possible, take push Israel into the sea, and the tactic is to suicide bomb a bunch of civilians, then this is immoral. Because the goal is immoral.
If the goal is to kill any Americans because some Americans are criticizing my Quran/Allah/Mohamed, then this is immoral. Because the goal is immoral, also illogical. How can *all* Americans be responsible for some Americans creating videos? Do they think that the American government has the legal right to stop American citizens from creating videos? And even if they did have the legal right to do so, do they think its technologically possible to stop them?
Its so stupid.
But if the goal is to kill as many jews as possible, take push Israel into the sea, and the tactic is to suicide bomb a bunch of civilians, then this is immoral. Because the goal is immoral.
If the goal is to kill any Americans because some Americans are criticizing my Quran/Allah/Mohamed, then this is immoral. Because the goal is immoral, also illogical. How can *all* Americans be responsible for some Americans creating videos? Do they think that the American government has the legal right to stop American citizens from creating videos? And even if they did have the legal right to do so, do they think its technologically possible to stop them?
Its so stupid.
written by Kaser , September 18, 2012
1- A "moral" Suicide Bomber = A Japanese Kamikaze during WWII. Alos, a fanatic Muslim exploding himself at an armed checkpoint where his "enemy" is present. (Do I agree with it? of course not, but it is "Moral" if the bomber is "at war" with his enemy). This therefore JUSTIFIES and RENDERS MANDATORY profiling... WWII Navy personnel did not have to do any kind of profiling. A Japanese plane in the air - blow it to pieces. With Terrorist/coward/suicide bombers - this is practically impossible - hence the dreadful efficiency of the tactic. I'm afraid Islam (and it's socio/political system) spawns many such Hate-filled despaired human bombs...
2- An "immoral" Suicide Bomber = 9/11 hijackers and all those exploding themselves in public places where non-military are present = Terrorist = Coward. There is no honor in killing innocents in such a coward way. See my post above for what I think motivates these freaks of nature. Notice I do not judge in my previous post the morality (or not) - simply what I believe is the answer to your question - why do they do it.
2- An "immoral" Suicide Bomber = 9/11 hijackers and all those exploding themselves in public places where non-military are present = Terrorist = Coward. There is no honor in killing innocents in such a coward way. See my post above for what I think motivates these freaks of nature. Notice I do not judge in my previous post the morality (or not) - simply what I believe is the answer to your question - why do they do it.
written by Kaser , September 18, 2012
BTW, I'm curious as to what Reed Wilson will answer to your question above - what motivates Suicide Bombers.
written by Yibel , September 18, 2012
re: Every Muslim I've met was relatively good. They try to be good parents, good
employees, good community members, and good citizens.
You are judging an idea by justifying it by the authority of experience.
Just because all the Muslims you have met (so far) have been what you refer to as "relatively good" (whatever that means) so you are projecting this so-called "goodness" to all Muslims.
Please define what you mean by "good." The word "good" is very subjective and depends upon the point of view of the individual. For example: To a head hunter, cutting off a person's head and shrinking it is a "good" thing; however, it's doubtful that the victim would agree.
Also, how does your definition of "good" apply to jihadis (terrorists)? Are they not "good" Muslims? I am pretty sure that they will all disagree with your assessment of what "good" is - at least the ones that are still alive.
re: Are you saying that anyone (sic) of these people that I know could kill me because I criticized the Quran? Or do you think it would have to be someone I don't know?
Depends on a number of factors - such as, the individual's Islamic devoutness or
personal guilt complexes or the family's need for money or his desire for virgins, or whether an imam or other religious leader has been offended by your statements and decides to issue a death fatwa (ex. Salman Rushdie).
As for your difficulty locating stories about Americans who have received death threats from Muslims:
I don't know why you had a problem finding articles about TV talk show host David Letterman, State Senator Greg Ball, 2010 Tennessee candidate for
Congress Lou Ann Zelenik, artist Molly Norris, movie director Steven Spielberg.
A quick search on my part came up with several web sites with lists of names and links to news articles and op-ed pieces. Two examples:
http://quotingislam.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-lights-going-out.html?utm_source=BP_recent
and http://www.meforum.org/395/the-rushdie-rules
employees, good community members, and good citizens.
You are judging an idea by justifying it by the authority of experience.
Just because all the Muslims you have met (so far) have been what you refer to as "relatively good" (whatever that means) so you are projecting this so-called "goodness" to all Muslims.
Please define what you mean by "good." The word "good" is very subjective and depends upon the point of view of the individual. For example: To a head hunter, cutting off a person's head and shrinking it is a "good" thing; however, it's doubtful that the victim would agree.
Also, how does your definition of "good" apply to jihadis (terrorists)? Are they not "good" Muslims? I am pretty sure that they will all disagree with your assessment of what "good" is - at least the ones that are still alive.
re: Are you saying that anyone (sic) of these people that I know could kill me because I criticized the Quran? Or do you think it would have to be someone I don't know?
Depends on a number of factors - such as, the individual's Islamic devoutness or
personal guilt complexes or the family's need for money or his desire for virgins, or whether an imam or other religious leader has been offended by your statements and decides to issue a death fatwa (ex. Salman Rushdie).
As for your difficulty locating stories about Americans who have received death threats from Muslims:
I don't know why you had a problem finding articles about TV talk show host David Letterman, State Senator Greg Ball, 2010 Tennessee candidate for
Congress Lou Ann Zelenik, artist Molly Norris, movie director Steven Spielberg.
A quick search on my part came up with several web sites with lists of names and links to news articles and op-ed pieces. Two examples:
http://quotingislam.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-lights-going-out.html?utm_source=BP_recent
and http://www.meforum.org/395/the-rushdie-rules
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 20, 2012
> You are judging an idea by justifying it by the authority of experience. Just because all the Muslims you have met (so far) have been what you refer to as "relatively good" (whatever that means) so you are projecting this so-called "goodness" to all Muslims.
I made no such claim or projection. I was providing criticism to your claim that "(all) Muslims are subhuman" showing that its false.
> Please define what you mean by "good." The word "good" is very subjective and depends upon the point of view of the individual. For example: To a head hunter, cutting off a person's head and shrinking it is a "good" thing; however, it's doubtful that the victim would agree. Also, how does your definition of "good" apply to jihadis (terrorists)? Are they not "good" Muslims? I am pretty sure that they will all disagree with your assessment of what "good" is - at least the ones that are still alive.
Good and bad are about morality. Morality is objective. Most of Islamic morality is false. So, what Muslim scholars claim is a good person, is actually a bad person. So, when I said relatively good, I meant that they had moral ideas that were comparable to any other American's moral ideas.
> As for your difficulty locating stories about Americans who have received death threats from Muslims:
I don't know why you had a problem finding articles about TV talk show host David Letterman, State Senator Greg Ball, 2010 Tennessee candidate for Congress Lou Ann Zelenik, artist Molly Norris, movie director Steven Spielberg.
I do realize that famous people get targeted. I meant to only ask about regular Americans getting attacked/threatened by Muslim Americans. Does this happen?
-- Rami
I made no such claim or projection. I was providing criticism to your claim that "(all) Muslims are subhuman" showing that its false.
> Please define what you mean by "good." The word "good" is very subjective and depends upon the point of view of the individual. For example: To a head hunter, cutting off a person's head and shrinking it is a "good" thing; however, it's doubtful that the victim would agree. Also, how does your definition of "good" apply to jihadis (terrorists)? Are they not "good" Muslims? I am pretty sure that they will all disagree with your assessment of what "good" is - at least the ones that are still alive.
Good and bad are about morality. Morality is objective. Most of Islamic morality is false. So, what Muslim scholars claim is a good person, is actually a bad person. So, when I said relatively good, I meant that they had moral ideas that were comparable to any other American's moral ideas.
> As for your difficulty locating stories about Americans who have received death threats from Muslims:
I don't know why you had a problem finding articles about TV talk show host David Letterman, State Senator Greg Ball, 2010 Tennessee candidate for Congress Lou Ann Zelenik, artist Molly Norris, movie director Steven Spielberg.
I do realize that famous people get targeted. I meant to only ask about regular Americans getting attacked/threatened by Muslim Americans. Does this happen?
-- Rami
written by Reed Wilson. , September 21, 2012
Rami Rustom. You ask " What do you think of the motives of suicide bombers? What are their reasons for doing what they do? What are their goals? And how do they justify that their reasons and goals are morally right?
It is a social science question. May it fall in Psychiatry, Politics, Gorilla warfare etc. If by 'they' you mean Muslims, your question is based on wrong assumption.
My definition of Islam is 'obeying god'. I dont find any such instructions of God to do suicide bombing. Suicide is otherwise also forbidden in Quran.
Kaser. You write "BTW, I'm curious as to what Reed Wilson will answer to your question above - what motivates Suicide Bombers."
A war is going on Kaser. The motives are always mutual destruction. In WWII also we did suicide bombings. Every body sould wish that such things dont happen. It is loss of entire humanity. Quran says:
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ ﴿١١﴾ أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـٰكِن لَّا يَشْعُرُونَ ﴿
"When they are told not to commit corruption in the land, they reply, "We are only reformers". They are certainly doing corruption but do not realize it". 2:11-12
It is a social science question. May it fall in Psychiatry, Politics, Gorilla warfare etc. If by 'they' you mean Muslims, your question is based on wrong assumption.
My definition of Islam is 'obeying god'. I dont find any such instructions of God to do suicide bombing. Suicide is otherwise also forbidden in Quran.
Kaser. You write "BTW, I'm curious as to what Reed Wilson will answer to your question above - what motivates Suicide Bombers."
A war is going on Kaser. The motives are always mutual destruction. In WWII also we did suicide bombings. Every body sould wish that such things dont happen. It is loss of entire humanity. Quran says:
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ ﴿١١﴾ أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـٰكِن لَّا يَشْعُرُونَ ﴿
"When they are told not to commit corruption in the land, they reply, "We are only reformers". They are certainly doing corruption but do not realize it". 2:11-12
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 21, 2012
> My definition of Islam is 'obeying god'. I dont find any such instructions of God to do suicide bombing. Suicide is otherwise also forbidden in Quran.
That is false.
See Surat Al-Anfal (Q-6:151): “Say, ‘Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. (He commands) that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden (to be killed) ***except by (legal) right***.’” This has He instructed you that you may use reason.' - قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ أَلَّا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُم مِّنْ إِمْلَاقٍ نَّحْنُ نَرْزُقُكُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ذَٰلِكُمْ وَصَّاكُم بِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ
Now let’s go further and explain why it is that jihadi Muslims believe that its (legally) righteous to commit suicide on Western civilians. I think that their justification has to do with Surat Al-Baqarah (Q-2.193): “Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression ***except against the oppressors***.” - وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ فَإِنِ انتَهَوْا فَلَا عُدْوَانَ إِلَّا عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ
Now it’s important to understand what qualifies an act as an act of oppression, and how jihadi Muslims get this part wrong. They believe that the West is “taking advantage of” Islamic countries and they construe this “taking advantage of” as oppression. What do they cite? Free trade and diplomacy. America buys natural resources from Islamic countries while also paying off some of their dictators thus preventing fundamentalist Muslims from ruling those countries in an effort to prevent fundamentalist Muslims from attacking Israel. And jihadi Muslims view this as oppression.
That is false.
See Surat Al-Anfal (Q-6:151): “Say, ‘Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. (He commands) that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden (to be killed) ***except by (legal) right***.’” This has He instructed you that you may use reason.' - قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ أَلَّا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُم مِّنْ إِمْلَاقٍ نَّحْنُ نَرْزُقُكُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ذَٰلِكُمْ وَصَّاكُم بِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ
Now let’s go further and explain why it is that jihadi Muslims believe that its (legally) righteous to commit suicide on Western civilians. I think that their justification has to do with Surat Al-Baqarah (Q-2.193): “Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression ***except against the oppressors***.” - وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ فَإِنِ انتَهَوْا فَلَا عُدْوَانَ إِلَّا عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ
Now it’s important to understand what qualifies an act as an act of oppression, and how jihadi Muslims get this part wrong. They believe that the West is “taking advantage of” Islamic countries and they construe this “taking advantage of” as oppression. What do they cite? Free trade and diplomacy. America buys natural resources from Islamic countries while also paying off some of their dictators thus preventing fundamentalist Muslims from ruling those countries in an effort to prevent fundamentalist Muslims from attacking Israel. And jihadi Muslims view this as oppression.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 21, 2012
Note that the suicide bombers don't read the Quran nor do they know the reasoning I explained above. Its certain Muslim shakhs that know this stuff. They are the ones persuading young Muslims that the West is oppressing Muslims and that the right thing to do is to fight back by suicide bombing civilians.
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.
