You don't tell people when they join that the forum doesn't allow deletion of posts.

They rant at you when you ask them to do that.

I agree with you newform, although there are a lot of crazy things in it, Pickthall's writing has a lot of feeling in it which makes some of his passages quite beautiful - like this one in chapter 84 -

Oh, I swear by the afterglow of sunset,
And by the night and all that it enshroudeth,
And by the moon when she is at the full,
That ye shall journey on from plane to plane.

Compare it with the free minds translation

8416 So I do swear by the redness of dusk.
8417 And the night and what it is driven on.
8418 And the moon when it is full.
8419 You will ride a vessel upon a vessel.

Pickthall may not have the command of Arabic of the Free Minds translation, but he seems to be very aware of the content and is better at expressing it poetically - afterglow, enshroudeth, at the full, from plane to plane.

I don't think that contradicts what I was saying. God defines all things in the universe, the universe does not define God. Likewise, the Quran is a text the Prophet received from God, for the benefit of human kind, not for the benefit of God.

Salam,

By my reckoning, the fast of Ramadhan is to begin on December 12th (the full moon) and last for 10-days.

Why only ten days? Do you view the 20 days before Laylat Al-Qadr as unQuranic?

As I see it, those characteristics are relational to us, they are not absolute, because we can never know anything 'absolute' about God, as only God can know himself.

We call God 'All-Powerful' because he is more powerful than we can imagine

We call God 'All-Knowing' because he knows more than we can imagine

We call God 'All-Loving' because he loves us more than we can love ourselves

We call God 'All-forgiving' because he forgives more than we could every forgive

These are all about our relationship with God - because God created the universe, our only way of looking at him is through ourselves and the rest of creation. So when we ask any question about God as separate from creation - i.e. what he can do to himself, that is impossible for us to ever approach. We just don't know, our brain does not work with regards to topics outside this universe, the laws of logic cannot tell you anything outside their jurisdiction.

Likewise, the sex of God is nothing to do with God and all about us. "Father" God is juxtaposed against "Mother" Earth, rain from the heavens fertilizes the soil to create life, it's all symbolism.

Surely the agenda isn't very hidden? The saudis have oil and money, western politicians are very fond of both.

I was there Sunday evening, manning a stall for a political party. Looked like there was a lot going on, but a few too many fundies for my taste.

Ideally, I'd like to see peace keepers in Afghanistan and Iraq who aren't British or American and so who don't encourage the Jihadis. But well. On the subject of the thread, it is a pity there aren't more proper parties in the US. The trouble with Ron Paul is that people may decide they like having roads. And you'd have to be a little bit crazy to prefer Mr John 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' McCain to Obama.

Do laws preventing parents divorcing increase the rights of children?

Allah, Subhanna wa Ta'ala, isn't a real estate agent.

You would be a false witness, unless you were there at the time the hadith was (allegedly) made.

I found this one interesting http//www.futureislam.com/20080103/insight/ali_mazrui/ISLAMO-FASCISM.asp

My main concern with it would be it's generalisation about western culture

Against the background of all the debates about Islamic fundamentalism and Arab terrorism, one powerful paradox of the twentieth century may be overlooked. While Islam may indeed generate more political violence than does Western culture, Western culture in turn generates more deviant street violence than does Islam. Islam does indeed produce a disproportionate of number of violent Mujahiddeens; Western culture produces a disproportionate number of violent muggers.

In terms of quality of life for the average citizen, is there a trade-off between the excesses of the Islamic state and the excesses of the liberal state? Let us look at the dilemmas more closely. The crisis of the Western liberal state is still one where citizens are safer from their governments than ever before but less and less safe from fellow citizens. The quality of life is becoming increasingly violent in the West. It is less politically frightful than in parts of the Muslim world, but the direction of social change is towards increasing social conflict.

Whilst it is true that there is a lot less crime in Muslim countries during peacetime than western countries during peace time, it is not true that violent crime constantly increases in the west. It increased a lot between the 1960s and 1980s. It has fallen a lot since the 1980s. Fatal knife stabbings in Britain today are overwhelmingly black Somali immigrants killing each other. Otherwise most violent crime is drug/gang related, and rises/falls with the effectiveness of government policy to tackle drug abuse. There are also the powerfully argued studies by Steven Levitt that falls in crime since the 1980s are the result of increased abortion and birth control during the late 60s and 70s.

http//slate.msn.com/id/33569/entry/33571/

The mistake is that when God says he has given something to 'you', people assume he is talking about them, only about a family or a tribe. This is just selfish wishful thinking. When God says 'You' he means 'Us', the human race. God isn't tribal. He doesn't care who your parents are, as he created all of us. 'The People' God gave the land to are the whole human race.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_(song)

• Article I 7. Citizens are deemed as those persons who carry the nationality at the time of implementing this constitution. The law shall grant citizenship to any person who is legally residing within the borders of the republic and applies for such citizenship at the time of the implementation of this Constitution.

Why only at the time of implementation? Shouldn't everyone be accepted into the ideal state, so long as they're not trying to destroy it or something?

Salam all,

I've had a little email conversation with Khalim Massoud, the antagonist of this debate, and thought I'd share it with you for your amusement. It starts with me questioning him on his description of a random Palestinian mullah as being worse than the Nazis without him backing up his attack.

---

from Mahmud H
to [email protected]
date Tue, May 27, 2008 at 850 AM

Dear Khalim,

On your "Aryans are Masters of the World; Everyone Else is Subhuman"
article, do you really think "Muslims are Masters of The
World, Its Leaders and Teachers" is racist in a way comparable to
"Aryans are Masters of the World; Everyone Else is Subhuman", as
opposed to just being narcissistic?

---

from Khalim Massoud [email protected]
reply-to [email protected]
to Mahmud
date Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1136 PM
subject Re "Aryans are Masters of the World; Everyone Else is Subhuman "

First of all, Islamic supremacy has nothing to do with racism. There are Muslims of every race and Islamic supremacy discriminates against non-Muslims of every race.

Second, Islamic supremacy is worse than Aryan supremacy. German fascists' strife for world domination was primarily motivated by greed; they wanted to live. Islamic fascists' strife for world domination is motivated by a perverted sense of religious duty; they don't care whether they live or die. The danger of Islamic fundamentalism goes far beyond narcissism.

---

from Mahmud
to [email protected]
date Wed, May 28, 2008 at 922 PM
subject Re "Aryans are Masters of the World; Everyone Else is Subhuman "

Dear Khalim,

I read your debate on FrontPageMagazine.com entitled "A New Koran?" I
do agree with you that where a passage indicates sectarianism, such as
in Chapter 9, that is contradictory, and so cannot be from God.

However, when you say "Attempts to reinterpret verses like 2.191 or
9.5 are simply pathetic. It is nothing more than whitewashing of
genocide." This is somewhat undermined by your defending of the
medieval crusades on your blog. Surely genocide needs to be condemned
consistently. Haven't you read about crusades?

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)

"Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city
almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of
that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a
few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence.
Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to
one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our
men waded in blood up to their ankles..." According to Raymond of
Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." The
chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi states the Jewish defenders sought refuge
in their synagogue, but the "Franks burned it over their heads",
killing everyone inside. The Crusaders circled the flaming building
while singing "Christ, We Adore Thee!". Tancred claimed the Temple
quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims
there, but he could not prevent their deaths at the hands of his
fellow crusaders. The Fatimid governor Iftikhar ad-Daula withdrew to
the Tower of David, which he soon surrendered to Raymond in return for
safe passage for himself and bodyguards to Ascalon. "

When you say on your blog, "the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of
aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands
controlled by Muslims," you are doing exactly the same thing as
chapter 9v5 - "Kill the pagans wherever you find them" - you are
generalising on the basis of religion. The Jews in the Synagogue of
Jerusalem didn't unjustly take any land from "The Christians". The
Frankish warlords who invaded and ethnically cleansed much of
Palestine and Lebanon form Muslims and Jews did not have any kind of
'just cause'. They were not defending anyone.

The Arab tribes that conquered the region did not take it from the
Franks, nor did they take it from the Pope. They took it from the
Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire ? the empire of Constantinople, which
was raped, pillaged and sacked by the Forth Crusade. Is this your idea
of self defence?

Can I ask, why do you defend this most cruel slaughter based on
religious extremism, whilst condemning an article by a cleric which
nowhere advocates any kind of violence?

http//newsblaze.com/story/20071002112158tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html

The writer seems to have a na?ve, utopian view of Islam's history.
Don't you realise you give the impression you have the same na?ve,
utopian view of western history, whitewashing genocide along the way?

---

from Khalim Massoud [email protected]
to Mahmud
date Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1133 PM

I don't think I ever defended the Crusades on our blog. While I understand the reason behind the Crusades, I could never defend the mostly barbaric manner in which they were conducted.

Surely genocide needs to be condemned
consistently.

Absolutely!

Haven't you read about crusades?

Yes, and chances are a lot more than you have.

When you say on your blog, "the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of
aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands
controlled by Muslims," you are doing exactly the same thing as
chapter 9v5 - "Kill the pagans wherever you find them" - you are
generalising on the basis of religion.

Your statement is patently false. It is a historical fact that Middle East was Christian before it became Muslim. This makes the Crusades not unprovoked. You can agree or disagree with the need for the Crusades, but the fact remains, they were not unprovoked. The reason we placed the Crusades in our manifesto is because that are being used by Islamists to paint every Muslim v. non-Muslim conflict as the Crusades, which became a dirty word due to the fact that most people choose to ignore history.

The Jews in the Synagogue of
Jerusalem didn't unjustly take any land from "The Christians".

Again, we are not stating that the Crusades were just or unjust. All we're saying that they were not unprovoked acts of aggression.

The
Frankish warlords who invaded and ethnically cleansed much of
Palestine and Lebanon form Muslims and Jews did not have any kind of
'just cause'. They were not defending anyone.

The Arab tribes that conquered the region did not take it from the
Franks, nor did they take it from the Pope. They took it from the
Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire ? the empire of Constantinople, which
was raped, pillaged and sacked by the Forth Crusade. Is this your idea
of self defence?

Can I ask, why do you defend this most cruel slaughter based on
religious extremism, whilst condemning an article by a cleric which
nowhere advocates any kind of violence?

There is a difference between stating the fact defending something. When Nazi Germany preemptively attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, it wasn't unprovoked. Does it mean that I defend or justify that attack? Absolutely not. On the other hand, Islamic supremacy is the basis for violence. Remove Islamic supremacy from the Islamic religious text, and Islam becomes a peaceful religion, just as the God intended.

http//newsblaze.com/story/20071002112158tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html

The writer seems to have a na?ve, utopian view of Islam's history.
Don't you realise you give the impression you have the same na?ve,
utopian view of western history, whitewashing genocide along the way?

Again, there is a difference between stating the fact and condoning it. Apparently this difference is too subtle for you.

---

From Mahmud
Date Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 809 PM
To [email protected]

Dear Khalim,

"Your statement is patently false. It is a historical fact that Middle East was Christian before it became Muslim. This makes the Crusades not
unprovoked."

Nonsense. You might as well say because a random passer by gave you a funny look, viciously beating him to death was not 'unprovoked aggression'. As I've clearly explained to you, "Muslim" and "Christian" are not two factions that can be 'provoked' or have rightful, eternal claims to territory.

Genocide is always unprovoked aggression. Genocide is the murder of innocent people. No faction can be provoked by innocent people. Murdering innocent people is always unprovoked agreesion.

You are claiming the crusades, which were the systematic, religiously motivated murder of vast numbers of innocent people, were not unprovoked aggression. Therefore no matter what long winded excuses you use, you are whitewashing genocide for political gain.

Don't you see how badly this alienates normal people?

---

From Khalim Massoud [email protected]
Date Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 301 AM
To Mahmud

Nonsense. You might as well say because a random passer by gave you a funny look, viciously beating him to death was not 'unprovoked aggression'.
As I've clearly explained to you, "Muslim" and "Christian" are not two factions that can be 'provoked' or have rightful, eternal claims to territory.

Let me try to explain the way that even a moron can understand.

1. I have a piece of land.
2. You attacked me and kicked me out.
3. You gave it to your son.
4. My son attacked him and kicked him out.
   Was the action #4 justified? Maybe, maybe not. Was it unprovoked? Absolutely not.

Genocide is always unprovoked aggression. Genocide is the murder of innocent people. No faction can be provoked by innocent people. Murdering innocent people is always unprovoked agreesion.

You must be a real idiot to equate the Crusades with genocide. According to you, every conquest is a genocide. If you don't understand the meaning of the word, look it up before using it. Genocide is a systematic extermination of people based on a trait. Extermination of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs is genocide. Extermination of Black Muslims by Arab Muslims in Darfur is genocide. Murdering rampages of Crusaders, however abhorrent, are not genocide.

You are claiming the crusades, which were the systematic, religiously motivated murder of vast numbers of innocent people, were not unprovoked aggression. Therefore no matter what long winded excuses you use, you are whitewashing genocide for political gain.

Again, let me explain it so even a moron can understand. The goal of crusades was to conquer (or rather re-conquer) the Middle East, not extermination of non-Christians. The argument could be made that the goal of the Inquisition was the extermination of non-Christians, but even that would be a stretch. And what possible political gain can we obtain by stating that the Crusades were not unprovoked?

Don't you see how badly this alienates normal people?

If, after what you wrote, you consider yourself one of the normal people, our criteria of normalcy greatly differs from yours.

---

from Mahmud
to [email protected]
date Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1037 AM

Let me try to explain the way that even a moron can understand.

1. I have a piece of land.
2. You attacked me and kicked me out.
3. You gave it to your son.
4. My son attacked him and kicked him out.
   Was the action #4 justified? Maybe, maybe not. Was it unprovoked? Absolutely
   not.

Sure, a moron can understand that. But only a moron will believe it -
because that wasn't what happened. The crusaders were not the sons of
the people people in Jerusalem when the Muslim Arabs conquered the
city. The people murdered by them were.

This is the whole point you're missing. Land can never be Christian,
Muslim or Atheist. Land belongs to people, not to religions. When a
army of barbarous murders wipes out the Muslim population of a city,
it is unacceptable to say that they were 'provoked' because the city
used to be a different religion. If that is the way you think, you are
an extremist.

You must be a real idiot to equate the Crusades with genocide. According to
you, every conquest is a genocide. If you don't understand the meaning of
the word, look it up before using it. Genocide is a systematic extermination
of people based on a trait. Extermination of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs is
genocide. Extermination of Black Muslims by Arab Muslims in Darfur is
genocide. Murdering rampages of Crusaders, however abhorrent, are not
genocide.

Of course they were - they charged into Jerusalem and killed all the
Muslims - is that not enough for you? This doesn't happen in every
war. When it does, it is genocide.

From Wiki
"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic,
racial, religious, or national group.

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal
definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this
convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such killing members of the group;
causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.""

Hitler committed genocide when he systematically killed Jews, and when
he starved the Dutch. The act of capturing France was not genocide.
There is a difference between capturing territory and trying to wipe
out the inhabitants. When the Crusaders systematically murdered
thousands of Muslim civilians simply because they were Muslim, that
was genocide.

Surely, since you think of yourself as an expert on the crusades, you
should know this? Or is your logic simply that it's only genocide when
it's committed by non-Western countries? Serbs of course don't count
as Western because they're Orthodox, and of course the Crusaders
murdered lots of Orthodox Christians too.

---

from Khalim Massoud [email protected]
reply-to [email protected]
to Mahmud
date Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 215 AM

We have no times for morons who make shit up and try to pass it as historical facts. Similarly, nobody here is interested in your half-baked opinions pulled out of your ass. In case this didn't get through your thick skull, your account is blocked. Fuck off.

---

Charming fellow, eh!

-D

I've given an example of what I would consider a non-sectarian statement about war. Now it's your turn - what wold it take for you to accept a contradiction! Because I get the impression that very little you could read would make you accept there was a contradiction.

If someone inserted a passage saying "drink the blood of the virgins" you'd say "but it needs to be read in context" and "In this context 'drink' should clearly be translated as 'seal' and 'blood' should be translated as 'wound' and virgins should be translated as 'wounded people'!" You can say that, but it doesn't mean it's true, and the rest of the world will think you're crazy. D

That might be different for each of us. I think most Muslims get to know the Quran bit by bit over a long period of time - through learning prayers, one by one, and through Quran classes. When the Prophet recited the Quran, he did so bit by bit, chapter by chapter, over many years. Not all at once. Can I ask what you mean by 'born knowing the Quran as a whole book?' - do you mean that spiritually, or were you a very fast learner as a new born baby?

Albert Einsteins theory that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only converted, was a beginning of science dealing with the possibilities outside their usual realm.

No comment. PS His actual main theory was general relativity, a theory of gravity...

It's confusing it with Newton, I think. The consevation of energy was Newton's first law of thermodynamics.

From what I heard, before Islam, in Arabia a tradition was for women to cover their hair and show their bosoms. Although this is only hearsay - are they any pre-Islamic sources for the dress code in Pagan Arabia?