Qadri terms terror attacks unIslamic

We're not buying it!!!

Who is we? Other anti Islamic bigots?

Exactly, another muslim denouncing terrorists. Why do you believe them, yet don't believe non muslim organizations when the say the same thing? Why are they considered racists and bigots?

Repub-1484163

Please see the website listed in post #5 by Salmann below which is a comprehensive list of muslim scholars and leaders condemning acts of terrorism in the name of religion.

bigots always say they are not racists

This irrelevant statement means that you liken Dr Tahirul Qadri to bigots and obvoiusly you didn,t read the topic of the seed

Repub:

Exactly, another muslim denouncing terrorists. Why do you believe them

Why do you not believe them? Your rationale is based on...your conversation with Dr. Tahirul Qadri?

Exactly, another muslim denouncing terrorists. Why do you believe them, yet don't believe non muslim organizations when the say the same thing?

I believe and agree with anyone who denonces terrorism, no matter what their background is.

Why are they considered racists and bigots?

I don't think anyone who denounces terrorism is a bigot. However, I do think that someone who assumes Dr. Qadri is lying because he is Muslim is.

Hence the silence.

Asheville Jack

Please see Dr Qadri's statement on condeming Bin Laden below in post#5 below.

Dennis:

Thanks again for the seed. I too have used many links to show worldwide condemnation of terrorism by many Muslims, one being shown by salmann in # 5. I wonder why our media will never pay attention to these kind of reports / articles? I guess these reports are not sensational enough?

You are aware that some people (e.g. post # 4) will still have selective reading and listening problem.

Do you or anybody on this blog know if this Dr. Qadri is the same guy who once entered Pakistani politics, same who was initially joined by their cricket player Imran Khan when he entered into politics? Can someone please confirm?

Salmann

Thanks for providing the list of muslim scholars condemning terrorism.

Here is another list of major muslim organizations world wide condemning terrorism

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_terrorism_part_ii_statements_by_organizatio/0012210

This should put the rumors aside that muslims are not actively protesting and condemning terrorism. In fact muslims around the world are suffering more from this curse (while trying to control it) than non-muslims although in either case it is equally deplorable.

Dennis ~

Still, I'm constantly met with uninformed people who say that Muslims never denounce terrorism..

Well, it's good to see these well intentioned fatwas have put an end to terrorism, that no one is dying at the hands of Islamic terrorist for political and religious reasons and all is well with the world.

For a real world reality check, why don't you try walking down the main street in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Print out Dr. Qadri's fatwa, wrap yourself in it and see how much real world protection it renders to you. Better yet, don't bother because I'll tell you how it will end...your head would probably end up on a stick.

Still, I'm constantly met with uninformed people who are galactically naive, such as your self.

Wow., sarcasm. How reasonable. How realistic and engaging. How ginormously obtuse.

magz # 1.7 ~

Astute observation. Perhaps because terror groups have no regard for true Islam? Because they're terrorists first., and that Islam is a religion of peace?

What, you use sarcasm to make a point too? Very astute. Thanks for agreeing with me.

You have a funny way of defining sarcasm. Perhaps because the obvious escapes you.

*hint: the secodf sentence is sarcasm.

What exactly is the point you are arguing Asheville, because I dont understand. Are you trying to say that even though these leaders say true Islam does not permit such acts, that it does? Or that these words do nothing to help? If they dont help, why do people complain that "Muslims dont speak up"? Obviously when they do, you see them as either liars or just ineffective. This is a lose-lose situation for these people...

Heels # 5.7~

What exactly is the point you are arguing?

What can possibly be said about one of the world's major religions that religious edicts or fatwa's need to be publicly proclaimed maintaining that the killing of innocent human beings is to be "strictly prohibited." Think about this. Does this make sense? What kind of religion is this? Yet when innocent people are slaughtered billions of the followers remain silent, many even celebrate in the streets. So a second fatwa needs to be issued countermanding other fatwa's stating that the killing of believers and non believers alike is now prohibited.

This isn't a religion, it's a cult. Charles Manson would likely feel right at home in this religion.

Wrong and wrong. The Quran has ALWAYS outlawed the slaughter of innocents for any reason. This is nothing new and has been around since Islam's inception. If some choose to ignore those passages for their own gain cannot be blamed on the religion itself, but those who commit such acts. Can we blame the Bible, which strictly prohibits murder, when people murder in the name of Christ?

I wouldnt dare say that billions have remained silent, seeing that there are only 1.6 billion (meaning no possible plural) and countless numbers have spoken out against such atrocities. The fact that this man is speaking out for the umpteenth time is evidence of that. There is a great MINORITY that condones such behavior, but they are not true adherents to Islam and should be called out as such...

Asheville Jack

The fatwa does not mean that anything is wrong with religion that people have to reminded with fatwa. In the present situation there are some fake religious leaders particularly in the areas where there are terrorist who twist the teachings of the religion to influence the minds of those uneducated young men who never study the religion themselves because they are illiterate and are being used as mules in the acts of terrorism by the fake leaders who are being driven by lust of ego and power.

The fatwa or a religious announcement is done by the learned every now and then to counter the fake leaders of the terrorists so that they know that the majority rejects them and that they should desist from there acts of terrorism.

The purpose of this seed is to inform everyone who thinks or says on the newsvine that peaceful muslims are silent against the terrorist. This fatwa is not just from one person but from the majority of muslims who agree with the religious leaders who oppose the terrorists.

Its not the weakness or wrong teaching of the religion but the wrong understanding of a small minority that commits violence.

By saying what you are saying you are trying to generalize and put the blame on religion.

It is similar to the fact that if someone decided to commit a violence at an abortion clinic in the name of christianity, most christians would disagree with it and the blame of this act of violence is not on the religion of christinainty's teachings but on the person who developed a wrong understanding of christian religious teaching. I hope this will make sense to you.

May God bless you and make you more understanding of the realities. Amen

It is not just Dr. Qadri but majority of True muslims and Tue Islamic religious leaders have come forward world wide to condemn terrorist practices of killing innocent in the name of religion.

"True Muslims"? "True Islamic religious leaders"? Are those anything like True Scotsmen?

I think I see how it is with you. Anytime a Muslim makes Islam look good (or at least not bad), he speaks for Islam, he has authority. Anytime a Muslim makes Islam look bad, he must be illegitimate, not worth the time of day. Remember when you seeded that article with Yusuf "all Israeli citizens are fair game" al-Qaradawi, just because he was all friendly with anti-Israel Jews?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I think I see how it is with you. Anytime a Muslim makes Islam look good (or at least not bad), he speaks for Islam, he has authority. Anytime a Muslim makes Islam look bad, he must be illegitimate, not worth the time of day

So would you say that the people who blow up abortion clinics are a fair representation of Christianity? Or, for that matter, that the people who tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib are fair representations of American soldiers? When the vast majority of a given group disapproves of a minority's actions, those actions cannot be said to define that group. What's so hard to understand about that?

This isn't a religion, it's a cult. Charles Manson would likely feel right at home in this religion.

Attempting to rationalize your prejudice by calling Islam a cult rather than a religion is childish. Taking that one step further by implying that all Muslims have something in common with Manson is downright infantile. Islam is no more or less valid than any other religion that people have created for themselves. The problem lies with radical religious leaders using their religion to justify destructive actions. Many religions have been used to justify these types of acts over the course of history.

Read their credentials. One actually is a religious leader and the other is not, yet for some reason, western people take bin Laden's actions as examples of Islamic doctrine. They're not.

Even if we pretend that Sheikh Osama Bin Laden is not a religious leader, there are still religious leaders who think terrorism can be justified Islamically. Your favorite religious leader, the Islamic scholar Yusuf "Allah was behind the Holocaust" al-Qaradawi says that all Israeli citizens are fair targets for suicide bombs. And get this, al-Qaradawi, the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, also says hundreds of other Islamic scholars are in agreement. Is your favorite Islamic scholar right, are all Israeli citizens fair targets? It doesn't matter if he's right! What matters is that a sizable number of Muslims around the world seem to agree with him. And don't pretend Yusuf "I support FGM" al-Qaradawi is some fringe loon either, he is unquestionably one of the most influential Muslims in the world.

If you don't think Osama Bin Laden is a religious leader, then, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. But some Muslims out there seem to think he's a religious leader. Osama Bin Laden himself seems to think he's a religious leader, hence why he issues fatwas from time to time.

Regarding Yusuf "Kill Apostates" al-Qaradawi, obviously I'm being a bit playful when I say he's your favorite Islamic scholar. I got that silly notion when you began seeding positive articles about him, and linked to his site as if you read it daily. If your favorite Islamic scholar is actually Reda Bedeir, that's cool, but why does someone who claims to be non-religious have a favorite Islamic scholar? I do not speak for all non-religious people, but the only religious scholars I hold in any esteem are the ones who are secular academics, heretics.

Now, if you think civilians are not fair game, that's great and all, but I never really suspected you thought differently. I also doubt you think adultery is a crime, apostates should be killed, female genital mutilation is an honor, etc. But it doesn't really matter what you, the non-believer, thinks. What matters is that some Muslims - smart, well-educated Muslims - think differently. And quite often, they have sophisticated, scholarly arguments to support their position.

What? Did you count how many times you qualified your positions there yt? That';s right. Positions. Plural. All qualified just so they don't sound half as dumb as they really are. Your debating technique is as straight as a pretzel.

Felps? The guy with the world class bong hit?

What? Did you count how many times you qualified your positions there yt? That';s right. Positions. Plural. All qualified just so they don't sound half as dumb as they really are. Your debating technique is as straight as a pretzel.

You're right, qualifying things is dumb. I'll make sure to state opinions as facts from now on.

Similarly, the Wahabbists think terror acts are justified under Islam. The rest of Islam thinks they're nuts. They're the Fred Phelp's of Islam.

According to you, 105 million Muslims think 9/11 was completely justified. The "evil-doers" are not quite as fringe as you let on.

105 million Muslims think 9/11 was completely justified. The "evil-doers" are not quite as fringe as you let on.

And yet American Christians think that dropping nuclear bombs and weapons on Japan was justified. The killing of the innocent Palesitnese by Israel was justified by Jews.

If 105,000,000 out of 1.6 billion people think terrorism is justified, that means less than 7% have those sentiments. Since when do we judge over 93% of people because of the opinion of less than 7%? Less than 7% would qualify as fringe in my book any day of the week...

And yet American Christians think that dropping nuclear bombs and weapons on Japan was justified. The killing of the innocent Palesitnese by Israel was justified by Jews.

Hey, I thank you for this reminder and all, but I'm not really sure what this is in response to? Am I arguing somewhere that only Muslims kill people?

Since when do we judge over 93% of people because of the opinion of less than 7%?

Since when have I said to judge over 93% of people because of the opinion of less than 7%?

AshevilleJack:

What can possibly be said about one of the world's major religions that religious edicts or fatwa's need to be publicly proclaimed maintaining that the killing of innocent human beings is to be "strictly prohibited." Think about this. Does this make sense? What kind of religion is this?

Terrorists cloaking themselves in religion to justify their actions is nothing new. Do you remember Oral Roberts' command that God would kill him if viewers didn't send him money (to the tune of $8 million)? This, from a fundamentalist "Christian," a tent evangelist with a university named after him, no less. What kind of religion was that?

Yes, please do think about this.

Less than 7% would qualify as fringe in my book any day of the week...

Yeah, now that I think about it, those Anglicans are a pretty fringe group...

So again...don't show me a link to a snippet of conversation from newsvine.mobi. Link to the entire conversation or the actual report so we can see what we're dealing with.

That's the link I got from Google, alright? You asked me for "a link to the actual poll" and I told you to Google it. You said only 7% of Muslims supported the 9/11 attacks. The actual poll showed 7% of respondents believed 9/11 was completely justified. Earlier, I implied that a total of 23% believed 9/11 was at least somewhat justified. I was wrong. Apparently, in the full report (which costs money) the 23% figure was for those who believed 9/11 was "in some way justified". When you add it up, 36.6 per cent believed 9/11 was at least in some way justified. You liked the results of this Gallup poll so much you wanted to "make sure people see this".

No. You're arguing that Islam somehow justifies the killing, when it does not. Does your standard hold up to Christianity too? Since some Christians support such things, does that mean Christianity justifies it?

No, I don't really like saying Islam is this, Islam is that. I would never want to say that Osama Bin Laden's interpretation of Islam is the correct interpretation. As I've said, there is no correct interpretation of Islam. I don't mind saying that Islam is not a monolith, that Muslims interpret Islam in different ways. A sizable number of Muslims, for example, say that dogs are forbidden by Islam. A sizable number of Muslims say they are not. Each group has their own arguments. Who is right? If I was a Muslim, I would have good reason to want to get to the "truth". But I'm not, so who cares? All that is true is that a sizable number of Muslims say dogs are forbidden, and a sizable number say they are not. That's all. Dennis, you have a habit of making bold statements about Islam, a religion you're not even a part of. You pretend as if Islam is monolithic, that all Muslims have the same interpretation of Islam, and the evil heretics that don't just don't understand Islam as well as you do.

yt at #5.33

...there is no correct interpretation of Islam.

Then why are you arguing over Muslims, Islam and terrorists? You have got to make up your mind fella.

If you think terrorism is un-Islamic based on the Qur'an, that's great, good for you! But guess what? There are countless Muslims out there who think terrorism can be Islamically justified, and they do justify it with lengthy treatises that constantly invoke the Qur'an and other Islamic texts. I don't want you to think that I believe their interpretation of Islam is the correct one. There is no correct interpretation of Islam, so stop pretending there is.

There is no correct interpretation of Islam, so stop pretending there is.

If you truly believe that Bin-Laden's interpretation of Islam is just as valid as anyone else's, then you must admit that Scott Roeders interpretation of Christianity is just as valid as St. Peter's.

Dennis # 7.3

Hmmm. 1.5 billion peaceful people say Islam is peaceful, a few hundred thousand think violence is justified.

You sound like Neville Chamberlain. It was just a few thousand hardcore Nazi’s who plunged all of Europe, Russia, Africa and the middle East into a brutal war that killed millions.

Any religious organization that contains “a few hundred thousand (who) think violence is justified” is not a peaceful religion. Why do you continue to diminish and apologize for the fact that the supposedly millions of ‘peaceful’ Muslins are not out in the street protesting against these terrorist criminals. This is a religion that holds that religious Sharia law should supersede secular constitutions, including the US constitution. It holds that woman are nothing more than chattel who are owned by the men in their family. That believes in honor killings of family members who disgrace Islam. And these are just the peaceful Muslims.

Your continued supplication to the cult of Islam is rather sickening, truth be told.

Dennis, here’s another story regarding peaceful Islam, which you seem to admire so much. It seems that Saudi Arabia is about to execute a man for the practice of ‘witchcraft’.

From the article: Unfortunately, Saudi executioners may not feel much like mercy, and Hussein Sbatt told me yesterday that Saudi lawyers had asked for $1m to make a legal appeal, money which is unavailable in this tiny, poor village, some of whose houses still have mud walls and wooden rafters.

Islam is not a religion, it’s a cult.

No, it is a religion, but like other religions before it, have had extremists and zealots making the rules.

If I recall, a lot of women were burnt at the stake on the orders of many priests in the US in the name of Christianity - would that make it a cult?

Saudi Arabia is a Wahabi state.

Some of their interpretations are strict to asinine, outside the norms of mainstream Sunni orthodoxy. (unfortunately that is part of the problem with some Muslims who want and state Sharia law, they think Saudi law, which is wrong)

Recall, that being in Lebanon, the Lebanese man wasn't bothered there.

Just because there's Mecca and Medina housed there, doesn't make the House of Saud a representative of Islam. The same way Iran isn't a representative for other Muslims outside it, as much as the clerical establishment would like to mention the 'Guardianship' theory.

So please...stop calling me a cult member...this ain't Scientology...!

Asheville please. Not a few months ago there was a story out of Nigeria where some Christians had denounced CHILDREN as witches and killed them. These kids didnt get a trial, a lawyer, or too much attention until it was too late. Looks like things are not so different after all...

Heels~

This particular seed is about Islam so I tried to stay on subject, but I take your point. Everybody knows that untold numbers of innocent people have been killed in the name of God and religion. To my mind religion is a sure sign of ignorance and self delusion left over from mankind's early attempts to explain his place in the universe. The fact that we haven't been able to progress beyond religion (to explain our place in the universe) is just one rather sad indictment of mankind's limitations as a species.

Dennis # 7.12

Nevertheless, all the stuff you're ascribing to Islam, isn't a part of Islam. Really, man, read the Qur'an before you make such statements.

Dennis, If a well know and respected Imam such as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, who has spent his entire adult life studying the Qur’an and is an expert on the Qur’an, issues a fatwa against someone such as Salmon Rushdie for his authorship of The Satanic Verses, and this fatwa orders the death of Rushdie, what more do I need to know about this religion? Are not Islamic religious leaders and Qur’an experts more knowledgeable and a true authority as to Islam’s exact intentions, much more so than you or me?

Well, not countless. A few hundred thousand accordıng to the CIA and the FBI, who actually count such things.

Hmmm. 1.5 billion peaceful people say Islam is peaceful, a few hundred thousand think violence is justified.

Until someone invents a device that can read people's thoughts, it is impossible to "count such things". Unless you think the CIA has already invented such a device, in which case I'd advise you that Wal-Mart is having a sale on tinfoil.

Of course, you know the number is not merely "a few hundred thousand". According to this one guy Dennis P. McCann, "only" 7% of Muslims believe 9/11 was completely justified. Phew, what a relief. But, 7% of 1.5 billion (your figures, not mine) is 105 million, not "a few hundred thousand". Oh, and the poll which you based your 7% claim on showed that 23% of Muslims believe 9/11 was at least somewhat justified. I'll let you do the math on that one. So, no Dennis, it's probably not just a "few hundred thousand [who] think violence is justified". According to you and your own standards, a few hundred million think 9/11 (a violent terrorist attack) was at least somewhat justified.

I wonder then how many Muslim think violence is at least somewhat justified? Certainly more than the number who think 9/11 was at least somewhat justified. I'd wager the overwhelming majority of Muslims think violence is at least somewhat justified. Before you flagellate me, I would say the same about Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. This is because violence is not inherently wrong. I think most everyone can name examples where violence is necessary. I think you should specify what kind of violence you're talking about.

Unless, of course, you want to be consistent; in that case, feel free to judge all Muslims by Khomeini and all Christians by Wiley Drake.

And all Americans by Charles Manson, all atheists by Mao, all patriots by Hitler, all nerds by the Columbine shooters... see how dumb this game is?

Khomeini was not actually an Ayatollah. It was an honorary title bestowed on him when he was chosen to be Supreme Leader.

Just a correction on historical accuracy...he wasn't 'suppose' to be Ayatollah, but when he was in the Shah's prison and awaiting execution, there was this state rule that no Ayatollah could be awarded the death penalty. The senior Ayatollahs, two signatories, quickly promoted him to that rank to save his life, and he was saved and exiled.

So by the time he came back and proclaimed himself as Supreme Leader he was already legally recognized as Ayatollah, even though his promotion was more to do saving his life rather than scholarly achievement.

You're saying the CIA has no knowledge of how many members are in these terrorist groups? Well, if that's the case, then we're @!$%#ed, aren't we?

Oh I'm sorry, weren't you saying that "a few hundred thousand think violence is justified"? Since when do you have to be in a terrorist group to think violence is justifiable?

Got a link to the actual poll?

Google it. The figures come from a Gallup poll.

So then why single out Islam...and why qualify it in such a way.

Because you're the one saying "a few hundred thousand [Muslims] think violence is justified". That's just not true about Muslims, and it's just not true about the other groups I mentioned.

And a lot of Christians say violence is justified by Christianity. Look how many justify capital punishment based on the Bible's "eye for an eye" verse (despite Matthew 5:38-39). Look at the Just War theory. Look at the Salem Witch Trials. As much as I'd like to believe that Christianity is all about peace and love, the reality is that it has caused violence, and will continue to cause violence. Unlawful violence.

P.S. http://www.google.ca/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=flagellate

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

And all Americans by Charles Manson, all atheists by Mao, all patriots by Hitler, all nerds by the Columbine shooters... see how dumb this game is?

I don't know if this was meant for me, but I'm not saying we should judge all Muslims by Osama Bin Laden. If I'm saying something, it's that Osama doesn't speak for Islam, and neither does this Qadri guy. Nobody speaks for Islam except for maybe that Big Guy in the Sky, and He's been a little quiet of late.

Ashville Jack, Its seems that you are bent upon trying to find an excuse to blame religion for the errant behaviour of a few. The other day someone mentioned the criminal behaviour of Barruch Goldstien (A American/Israeli jewish medical doctor living in Israel) who killed (gunned down innocent unarmed people) many people paraying at a mosque in Jurusalem in 1995 as ajewish terrorist an many people of jewish background came in to respond that he was not a jewish terrorist but just a terrorist and majority of jews do not approve his behaviour.

In another instance the guy who killed Yitzhak Rabin was known to be an extremist militant jewish, but many jews and others will not call him jewish terrorist bud a criminal murderer.

By the same token the extremist who are killing other muslims and non muslims with suicede attacks are terrorist and should not be called islamic terrorist or people who are behaving like that because of their religion and majority of muslims disapprove of and are fighting against their behaviour.

norsam ~

You make a very good point. The Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy because of his personal political views, which were this beliefs that Kennedy, if elected President, would lean too strongly in favor of Israel. This killing was one man acting alone. But it was still an act of terrorism.

However, the present situation in the Islamic world is that religious cover has been given to terrorist attacks, and these attacks sanctioned by those in positions of authority by virture of official Fatwa's.

I understand perfectly what others who disagree with my view in this seed are saying. I'm not disagreeing just to disagree. It's fabulous that Dr. Qadri has spoken out against those in the Islamic world who would use fatwa's to promote terrorism. But to say that there are not those in postions of power, whether religious or secuular, who do give voice to advocating religious killings is to deny reality.

The Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy

Sirhan Siran is not Islamic: he is Christian.

Sirhan was born in Jerusalem to a Palestinian Christian family and emmigrated as a child to the United States with his family. In his adult life, however, he made several religious conversions, joining Baptist and Seventh-day Adventist churches, and dabbled in the occult.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan

I've read the Qur'an, carefully, several times...and all killing is strictly prohibited., unless it's in defense, to save your own life or that of another, or in defense against a military invasion.

Under no other circumstances may a human life be taken.

Come on Dennis, is this some sort of joke? You and I both know this isn't true. Many Muslims will tell you that Islam allows apostates, adulterers, and homosexuals to be killed. They justify it with hadiths like these:

Mohammed on Apostates:

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Mohammed on Adultery:

A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle and Informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and bore witness four times against himself. Allah's Apostle ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married Person.

Mohammed on Homosexuality:

The Prophet (pbuh) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

What do you have to say about that? Does it really sound like all killing is prohibited "unless it's in defense, to save your own life or that of another, or in defense against a military invasion"? Let me guess, Mohammed was a radical extremist who twisted the religion? Why couldn't Mohammed understand Islam as well as you obviously do?

Dennis, I've agreed with all your points up to this one:

So...I guess we're done here, and I trust you'll never use such inaccurate and offensive statements as "Islamic terrorism" again, since there's no such thing.

I have to disagree. Islamic terrorism simply means terrorism committed in the name of Islam, just as Christian terrorism means terrorism committed in the name of Christ. Both are abominations and don't represent the larger community of believers, but they are useful words.

Islamic terrorism is a just a handle for a complex issue, but I think it certainly is a useful label. Unless you have a more descriptive word you think is better? I'm certainly open to being convinced.

So yeah, I guess we're done here. You've proven yourself woefully ignorant about Islam once again. It's almost like all your knowledge about Islam came from some book you read 10 years ago and don't remember all too well. You'd have to have been living in a cave (sans Osama) to not have heard about the proscribed punishment for adultery, apostacy, and homosexuality).

AshevilleJack:

I'm not disagreeing just to disagree. It's fabulous that Dr. Qadri has spoken out against those in the Islamic world who would use fatwa's to promote terrorism. But to say that there are not those in postions of power, whether religious or secuular, who do give voice to advocating religious killings is to deny reality.

It's good to hear you give credence to the sincerity of Dr. Qadri's comments. I hope you won't give credibility to those who claim to kill in the name of religion. It's a very easy and convenient claim to make, and it usually results in hatred of those who subscribe to the religion (a handy form of deflection) such as we're seeing today. Don't fall prey to such tactics. To do so will only misdirect your attention from what matters, and you'll become a tool of tricksters.

Dennis, I've agreed with all your points up to this one:

Wait, wait, you agreed with Dennis that killing is strictly prohibited in Islam, "unless it's in defense, to save your own life or that of another, or in defense against a military invasion"? Huh? Have you been in this cave with Dennis? Are you seriously unaware of what Mohammed proscribed for adulterers, apostates, and homosexuals?

I hope you won't give credibility to those who claim to kill in the name of religion.

Oh so I guess if you're non-violent you have credibility, but if you're violent, you don't? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's say an Orthodox Rabbi goes out and has an Orthodox Jew adulterer stoned to death. Killed in the name of religion. Does the Rabbi automatically lose his credibility? Isn't he just sort of following what the Torah says? And the Torah has a lot of credibility to people.

ytmd

you keep repeating Mohammad said this and that without providing your sources. Of all the sources I have read (authentic) I did not see these writings attributed to Mohammad as you have described.

First off all Mohammd did not write is autobiography. Most muslims beleive of him of what is known from Quran and any other AUTHENTIC sources only . I highlight the words AUTHENTIC sources because many of the sources written about Mohammd's life were compiled and put togather by people long after he was gone (almost 200 years later) and were compiled based on stories and tradations by humans and not any devine revelations claimed by people.

Considering that these are all man made sources, there is always a possibility of errors and out of these sources many have been set aside as weak or not worthy of style and character of Mohammad (a Prophet of God same as Jesus and Moses). Although indirect terms describe in Quran the happenings in his life.

So if you are basing your information on weak sources or sources that want to put down Mohammad person and his character as a Prophet than surely you are on the wrong track on this discussion here.

For most muslims the person of Mohammd is that of a Prophet of God or messenger and good examples of his life that can be inferred from the study Quran primarilay.

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 82:

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:

Narrated Abu Burda:

Ytmnd . The sources you are quoting are simply man written books compiled by men after more than 200 years of Mohammad's passing away and not based on any first hand observation or association with Mohammad and are prone all kinds of errors based on the subjective mind of the writers.

Bukhari or Imam Bukhari live 200 years after Mohammad and was from a land (Samarkand and Bukhara) far away from the home place of Mohammad (Mecca and Medina). He travelled to Mecca and the wrote this book. There are many other good traditions in the book which are in accordance with the teachings of Quran but there are also weak or erronous traditions that are rejected by majority muslims. I would take Bukhari's book as a man made research manuscript (not divine) and as many such manuscripts they open to interpretations and critisim on their wekness and strengths.

ytmnd

Mohammed on Apostates:

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

But in the Quran(God) says "There is no compusion in religion- Truth is manifest clear from Falsehood.

Mohammed on Homosexuality:

The Prophet (pbuh) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

But the Quran describes the people of Lot and Lot's (Prophet of God)'s struggle trying to convince by preaching to the people to refrain their lifestyle since God prohibts it. It does not say to Lot Go kill all of them. Quran also says God gave plenty of time to Lot to preach and convince the people. And when it was clear that Lot's preaching was not effective after a long time, God told Lot to leave the town with his family (again not to take matters in his own hand) and then God destroyed the town and the people. So the decision of life and death for those people of town was made by God not Lot. This is the revelation recived by Mohammad in Quran, so I would be a littele surprised to see that statement which somehow does not resonates with the message from Quran.

you keep repeating Mohammad said this and that without providing your sources. Of all the sources I have read (authentic) I did not see these writings attributed to Mohammad as you have described.

What do you mean I didn't provide my sources? I linked directly to the hadiths!

Most muslims beleive of him of what is known from Quran and any other AUTHENTIC sources only . I highlight the words AUTHENTIC sources because many of the sources written about Mohammd's life were compiled and put togather by people long after he was gone (almost 200 years later) and were compiled based on stories and tradations by humans and not any devine revelations claimed by people.

You really can't get more authentic than the six canonical hadith collections of Sunni Islam. And all those quotes are from the six canonical hadith collections. Two of the three hadiths come from Sahih al-Bukhari, a text considered second in authenticity to the Qur'an by most Sunni Muslims. So please, spare me the authenticity stuff, okay?

For most muslims the person of Mohammd is that of a Prophet of God or messenger and good examples of his life that can be inferred from the study Quran primarilay.

Look, if you're one of those Qur'an only Muslims, that's great, alright? If we compare the Qur'an with the Sunnah materials, the Qur'an is not all that controversial. But if you throw away all the Sunnah materials, you're throwing away a pretty significant part of the religion. It has been said that the Qur'an is Islam in black and white, and the Sunnah materials provide the color. For example, nowhere in the Qur'an is circumcision mentioned, but because of the Sunnah materials, the overwhelming majority of Muslim males are circumcised. So for reasons like this, most Sunni Muslims aren't gonna reject the Sunnah materials anytime soon. The reality is that most Sunni Muslims consider the Sunnah materials to be largely authentic and authoritative. So it's not really all that difficult to see how a Sunni Muslim would get the idea that apostates should be killed, since it says as much many times in a text considered second in authenticity to the Qur'an.

By the state. Those are capital punishment. I don't like or agree with them, but that's the punishment for those 'crimes' under Quranic law, just as a lethal injection is punishment for first degree murder in the states. Perhaps I should have said "murder" rather than killing, but is state sponsored execution murder? Many people think so, but it's also the law... and not just Islamic law, Christian and Jewish law too.

Woah, woah, woah, wait, what? Did I somehow imagine you posted this?

I've read the Qur'an, carefully, several times...and all killing is strictly prohibited., unless it's in defense, to save your own life or that of another, or in defense against a military invasion.

Under no other circumstances may a human life be taken.

You said that "killing is strictly prohibited", and gave several exceptions where killing is allowed. Did you conveniently forget about all those other exceptions? If you had just "said murder rather than killing" you wouldn't have even needed to give those several exceptions!

For the record, death is not "the punishment for those 'crimes' under Quranic law", because nowhere in the Qur'an does it say to kill apostates, adulterers, and homosexuals! Well, okay, some say Qur'anic verses like this one support the position that apostates should be killed. I think the verse is ambiguous. Regarding adultery, there's a funny hadith where Aisha claims that a goat ate the verse about stoning and that's why it's not in the Qur'an! Regarding homosexuals, the Qur'an does say to punish them, but it also says to leave them alone if they repent. Of course, you no doubt knew that death is not "the punishment for those 'crimes' under Quranic law" because you've "read the Qur'an, carefully, several times", right? Well anyways, the death penalty for these horrible "crimes" come from the Sunnah materials, as I've shown. The bright side? If you're a Qur'an only Muslim, it's difficult to justify killing adulterers, apostates, and homosexuals.

Further, they're only practiced in the few places where Islamic law is the law of the land - Saudi, Iran, Taliban controlled Afghanistan, some tribal regions.

Phew, that's a relief!

I don't know about you guys, but I'm laughing over the flagellating thing.

Me too bro, apparently some people think it's not a word?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/FLAGELLATE

And in the comment above, I said "Perhaps I should have said murder."

Hence why I quoted you.

Private citizens do not carry out those punishments on their own. If they did, it would be murder.

Don't be so sure. Even if it's legal, it's still pretty sick.

That's the understatement of the year.

yt @ 7.38.

Oh, you mean flog. I was thinking about the zoological definition, you know, flagellate protozoans, or perhaps the most famous flagellate of all, sperm! I think Dennis does not want either. Oh man, please don't flagellate me for that one...

ytmnd

You answer your own argument

since it says as much many times in a text considered second in authenticity to the Qur'an.

When something is considered second to something else then the second is second and the first comes first. And so the first Qur'an is the first and the authentic source. The second source is always scrutinised against the first to confirm the authenticity.

As you said in your post that there are sunni (who follow the second source as more authentic ) then you should also understand that those sunni who follow the second source considering it to be primiray, follow the wrong messages, are in mistake and are in minority (like the terrorist and their leaders) who are using some of these second sources to justify their acts while ignoring the first and the authentic source. Infact one their leader (small minority that openly considers that the second source is the primary source - even the name of their party includes the name of second source in its name - i.e they call themselves as party of second source just to emphasize its impotance) recently came on the news and tried to refute the fatwa of Dr. Qadri.

I do not see any difference here between some of the different shades of man made sects in other religions where certain groups interpret and practice one form of the teachings more gentle and humane while others another form of interpretation in which the message is "me only" and while others who go to extreems to justify there actions of injustice and crushing the rights of others ethnic cleansing for more land, throwing out people from their home, even going to the extent of killing innocent, all in the name of some interpreted teachings of a religion.

Ytmnd

and in answer to your "Quran Only Muslims", reference, the answer to your argument was also under the link you provided

Tolu-e-Islam followers do not reject all hadiths; however, they only accept hadiths which "are in accordance with the Quran or do not stain the character of the Prophet or his companions

There's nothing Islamic or Christian about terrorism, so I prefer the terms Islamist and Dominionist, which are the accepted terms for the political movements in the respective religions.

Fair enough.

ytmnd

The reference you gave above from Quranic verses in post 7.36 pretty much refutes your arguments. The first one related to killing apostates refers to people who are like spies in the ranks. All nations warn there citizens of spies. Also the specific reference is to kill them only when they join the enemy and attack you, then in defence killing them is permitted.

Regarding the second verse on homosexuals, The verse starts with "If .. amongst you" refers to amongs the muslims who have accepted to follow a code of conduct and violated it and does not apply outside the groups outside ie non-muslims. The verse also ends up beautifully, with the words that if they repent then leave them alone - more of a call to forgiveness which is expected from a true muslim once he or she violates their code of conduct as a muslim.

ytmnd

Talking about spies

All nations warn there citizens of spies and even treat them harsh

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg)

Mohammed on Apostates:

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Mohammed on Adultery:

A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle and Informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and bore witness four times against himself. Allah's Apostle ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married Person.

Mohammed on Homosexuality:

The Prophet (pbuh) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

these laws are not given to civilians to act themselves ..these are for law enforcing agencies only, first there should be a case filled in court , if a person found guilty then according to these laws he will be punished..its not for everyone that any one found a man committing these things so he can kill himself ... not at all , file a case first!!

VisionCoast:

I hope you won't give credibility to those who claim to kill in the name of religion.

ytmnd:

Oh so I guess if you're non-violent you have credibility, but if you're violent, you don't?

You missed the central point of my meaning and the primary word: "claim." It's one thing to claim something. The truthfulness of a claim is something else altogether. What I'm saying is, learn to recognize impostors.

The reference you gave above from Quranic verses in post 7.36 pretty much refutes your arguments.

Maybe I'm wrong, but you're trying to argue that the Qur'an doesn't say to kill apostates and homosexuals, is that correct?

Maybe I'm wrong,

the specific reference is only to kill them when they join the enemy lines and attack muslims physically, then in defence of the community when attacked physically, killing is permitted but not just for the fun of it or out of grudge or anger or just to make a point.

Aside- there is a story of the Ali who was a relative of Mohammad (and to whom Mohammad married his daughet Fatima ) was once engaged one such war of defence. While he subdued one of the enemy fighter and was about to kill him as was permissble in the war of defence, the guy spat on him. Ali withdrew back his sword and refrained from killing the opponent. This surprised very much the guy and he asked why didn't he hit him as he was epecting. Ali said that before it was the war of defence on my mind, now it became a personal anger in my mind against him. He said, "I cannot let my personal anger or grudge fall in between me and my duty and commit a killing for personal reasons". The man was so impressed he decided to be taken to the Prophet and convert to Islam.

I asked a question and you didn't really answer it.

Qur'an doesn't say to kill apostates and homosexuals

You mixed your question here with two separate cases. one is apostate and other is homosexuals

My above response was in relation to apostates (who are generally to be considered as spies). Post #7.47 also includes more and the case of homosexuals.

ytmnd says

I asked a question and you didn't really answer it.

Your question has been answered in above posts I have written unless you are having a problem understanding the answers. If so you can copy and paste a specific section of my post that you would like to be explained more.

I wil try to reword and see if this makes better sense.

Regarding apstates wo are also referred to as hypocrits and in modern day term spies when they there not loyal to there group, the answer is no as long as they are not physically arming theselves to kill other muslims. Once they pick up physical arms (declare a fight) then killing them in defence is permissible. But as long as they are within the ranks but are not violent with their intention to kill others they are not to killed.

Regarding homosexuals the person referred to in Quranic verses are those who are muslims and living with other muslims and have pledged to adhere to a code of conduct which includes not to partcipate in homosexual activities. Now if they break that code of coduct (if you look at precious verse also refers to wittnesses who will testify to this fact) then they deserve punishment. This punishment will not be killing since the another story of people of Lot does not say that Lot had been given the authority to kill homosexuals. The punishment in this case could be anythinh that has been agreed by common consensus within the community. It could be fines, imprisonment, lashes,couseling etc. whatever the punishment has been agreed within the community for such an act taking also into consideration the age and health family consideration factors of the criminal. Also the last part of the verse you have quoted says clearly that if they repent (ask forgiveness from God and pledge not to repeat their criminal act) then let them go.

I Returned from being suspended. Anyone missed me so far?

Salam. Allho Akbar.

Your question has been answered in above posts I have written unless you are having a problem understanding the answers.

I'm getting the sense you're a pretty, uh, unique individual. You see, most people tend to answer yes-no questions with either "yes" or "no".

Anyways, you do seem to be arguing that the Qur'an doesn't say to kill apostates and homosexuals. It is very odd that you chose to present this as a counterargument, because I said pretty much the same thing:

nowhere in the Qur'an does it say to kill apostates, adulterers, and homosexuals

You're refuting a point that no one has been making. Before launching into another long-winded diatribe, I suggest you read people's posts a little more carefully.

Here's something I wrote:

Regarding homosexuals, the Qur'an does say to punish them, but it also says to leave them alone if they repent.

For some reason, you took issue with this and wrote two paragraphs supposedly refuting what I said. Then you concluded with the following:

Also the last part of the verse you have quoted says clearly that if they repent (ask forgiveness from God and pledge not to repeat their criminal act) then let them go.

I just said that! I am agreeing with you! How could you possibly interpret what I said to mean the opposite?

I just said that! I am agreeing with you!

ytmnd Thank you

I am just one of those people I guess who has a tendency to get into details of questions and answers.

Ok, Ateeq this doesn't help. Its denialism.

First of all quoting Rehman Malik is the first thing you DON'T do! Because any person with a bit of decency would take responsibility and show more competence or step down.

Second, the Sardar maybe a little more educated than his peers, but like most Pakistani 'uncles' is also into the conspiracies and the "hum nahin hai" talk...which you're falling into too.

No credible agency or proper investigation (come on its Pakistan!) has ever ever implicated India (except in with the BLA which the reports are credible).

The story is not clear for wise people, because there are fallacies in their accounts, and the failure to actually produce any open documents or evidence for scrutiny, or any serious security talks (what nation says its their neighbor next door and just sit backs calmly and says we'll address it in the next meeting?) just tells you the same old, same old.

Its the same stuff I heard in the 90's, from army men, politicians, ISI and normal citizens and my observations on the ground said otherwise.

Law & Order was and still is bad. Lal Masjid wasn't a mistake, and something concocted by RAW and CIA. There are known open secrets and militant groups. The country is flooded with guns.

There are extremists, and many folks affected with Wahabi beliefs, and not surprising that the 7/7 bombers were influenced by such.

My column is littered with articles that discusses the fallacies of the claims of 'foreign hands'.

Sorry, no posy intended.

Ok, first of all, all this blame game is a bit off-topic. Second, my stand is that if it is happening in Pakistan, regardless of which foreign hand is involved or not, it is a damn responsibility of Pakistani government to control the mess inside their territory and provide security to their population.

Case Close!

my stand is that if it is happening in Pakistan, regardless of which foreign hand is involved or not, it is a damn responsibility of Pakistani government to control the mess inside their territory and provide security to their population.

Case Close!

Exactly...Thank You!

the only people obsessed with him are his lunatic followers and the western media

Sometimes irony is so true

Al-Qaida Kills Eight Times More Muslims Than Non-Muslims

.