Misconceptions about Islam

[Vajradhara]

salam code,

Do you understand what it meant to be a slave in Arabia, before Islam? Also, do you realize how many actual slaves, and how many more functional slaves exist in the world right now? Even in America?

what do you mean by understand? i've read the historical and anthropological information though there is, undoubtedly, much more than i've not seen.

i have no idea why how slaves were before would be possibly relevant to the discussion that i'm having with Sally.

i'm quite aware of being a debt slave, thank you very much. again, red herring in this discussion. if you'd like to talk about slavery in the united states or debt slavery in general why don't you start a thread about it and i'll happily participate as i'm able.

Look dude,

i'm a woman

some people get the short end of the stick, while others get made kings and queens in this life. There is no point in religious people trying to make excuses for God in this matter. HE is beyond our rationalizations. However, the great thing is, according to my faith, everyone will get their peace eventually. But according to yours, there's nothing for a boy who dies in his teens of leukemia (something that just happened to someone I knew).

i'll save you the long winded explanation and simply say that you're wrong about my beliefs. i don't tell you what you believe and i'd appreciate the same in return, ok?

So the real question for you should be: How do you live with yourself, knowing how privileged your life is compared to mortals like that? That's what I'd be asking myself if I were you.

...because i understand what my religion teaches and you do not. other than that, i'd say it's really not applicable to the conversation that i'm having with Sally so why don't start a new thread and pose those questions to me, m'kay?

 

[Muslimwoman]

i've not been myself of late.

Salam Vaj. I am genuinely sorry to hear that and hope you are back to your old self now.

i must wonder if you can understand my feelings on this given as i don't believe in a creator deity and therefore have no option but to view Al Qur'an as something different than a Muslim does which, naturally, engenders different emotive responses

I have no problem discussing the Quran with you as an historic document, rather than a Scripture but I hope you will accept God is going to have to come into the discussions.

could you elaborate a bit on what it means to be better for a woman to remain in the home? better in what manner?

In short it preserves our reputaton. For Muslim women it is paramount that our reputation remains untarnished and nobody can ever raise an eyebrow or suggest we acted improperly. We try to emulate the wives of the Prophet (pbut), to whom the instruction to remain in their homes unless they need to go out for a specific purpose, was given. This came after a number of incidents when gossip and false accusations toward to wives of the Prophet were made in order to cause trouble.

That can sound as if the wives were punished for the wrong doings of other but that is not the case. What the Quran says is:

“And abide quietly in your homes, and do not flaunt your charms as they used to flaunt them in the old days of pagan ignorance; and be constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues, and pay heed unto Allah and His Messenger: for Allah only wants to remove from you all that might be loathsome, O you members of the [Prophet’s] household, and to purify you to utmost purity.” [33:33]

This is known as the purification verse and Allah (swt) is telling the women of the Prophets home how to purify their reputations and keep them spotless.

Generally women are the home makers. Even when both partners work women tend to be the ones thinking about what's for tea tomorrow, whether the kids uniforms are ready for school tomorrow, etc. So Muslm women believe it is better to emulate the wives of the Prophet and concentrate on their duties in the home, only going out when necessary. Of course we move between our family homes (parents, sisters, brothers, etc), go to work if we wish or need to work, go shopping, the doctor, take kids to school, etc but socially we limit ourselves unless we are accompanied by our husband/brother/father/etc and this ensures our reputation remains in tact.

i understand the de jeur exposition of Islam vis a vie women and i understand the de facto reality of a large group of women living in Islamic societies.

I agree with you totally, however I can't change the de facto way women are treated outside my own family but my intention here is to explain the misconception this treatment creates when people look at Islam through the actions of Muslims.

i'm wondering how it is that you're not agreeing with me when i'm quoting the ayat itself and simply copypasta the text here. there are two clauses in the ayat where we're talking and you're focused on the first and i'm focused on the second. i grant the first clause to you, can you grant the second clause to me? if so, since we agree on the first clause i'd rather talk about the second one if we can.

please don't be patronizing.

I am not trying to be patronising, I am trying to explain a point. We have laws to tell citizens what not to do ... we then have jail sentences because we know some people will break those laws. What is the difference with this ayat?

1. So we agree on the first point, Allah (swt) tells men NOT to force girls into prostitution.

2. Allah (swt), who knows some men will ignore this, then tells the girls, IF they are forced into prostitution there is no blame on them.

I really don't see why you are having difficulty understanding that.

sally, i'm not sure what to say to you. do you know what the word "if" signifies in that sentence? "...if they seek chastity," do you understand the implications of this is that there are slave girls (and why are their slave girls sally?) that may *not* seek chastity (which isn't expounded in any great detail i might add) and ipso facto can be forced into prostitution?
if you cannot agree on this then i really don't think that we can make any further progress in our discussion until this is resolved between us. it seems such an obvious, blatant, exemption that i find it hard to understand how an obviously intelligent woman such as yourself would support it.

Support what? I cannot change history, the fact is there were slaves back then all over the world and for centuries after. Islam made freeing slaves a virtuous act, even breaking a fast required the freeing of a slave. Slaves were to be dressed, fed and housed in the same manner as their master.

Payment of zakat is a religious duty and zakat money was used to buy slaves their freedom. So no I don't have any problem with the fact that Islam put in place a system which would, over time, see an end to slavery but ensure slaves were well treated until that end came.

when you fall back upon God as part of our discussion it leaves all realm of rational discourse for me

As this is the Islam board and we obviously believe in God then I wonder why you would choose to come and discuss issues if you feel you can have no rational discourse here?

 

[Muslimwoman]

Yes - totally agree that there are the nutters and radicals in other sectors of the community, although I cannot recount anyone threatening someone with death for mocking their ATHEISM? Maybe a wee link there, perhaps?

I gooled "death threats for insulting" and found these on page 1 of the search results:

death threats for insulting the unwashed

Come Dine With Me star gets death threats after insulting performance on show | Finance News

death threats for insulting the Welsh

?Top Gear? hosts receive death threats after latest insults | Wheels.ca

death threats for insulting Led Zepplin

Bassist of Cream received death threats for insulting Led Zeppelin - National Led Zeppelin | Examiner.com

So as you can see, there are indeed nutters in all walks of life.

But you are stating, so that we're clear, that Islam does not in itself, eg; in the Koran, teach reprisals to anyone who insults Mohammed or Allah?

Genuine question.

I am stating categorically that there is no punishment, other than the punishment of Allah (swt), in the Quran or Sunnah for blasphemy of Allah (swt) or any Prophet (pbut).

“Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained.” (33:57)

There is no human punishment.

 

[Vajradhara]

I have no problem discussing the Quran with you as an historic document, rather than a Scripture but I hope you will accept God is going to have to come into the discussions.

naturally. you are a Muslim after all.

In short it preserves our reputaton..... So Muslm women believe it is better to emulate the wives of the Prophet and concentrate on their duties in the home, only going out when necessary.

fair enough.

Of course we move between our family homes (parents, sisters, brothers, etc), go to work if we wish or need to work, go shopping, the doctor, take kids to school, etc but socially we limit ourselves unless we are accompanied by our husband/brother/father/etc and this ensures our reputation remains in tact.

oh? it only limits one sort of undesirable reputation doesn't it? one could still be a liar or a cheat or a thief or any other number of things which, if found out, would stain her image in the minds of others, couldn't one?

I agree with you totally, however I can't change the de facto way women are treated outside my own family but my intention here is to explain the misconception this treatment creates when people look at Islam through the actions of Muslims.

fair enough.

I am not trying to be patronising, I am trying to explain a point. We have laws to tell citizens what not to do ... we then have jail sentences because we know some people will break those laws. What is the difference with this ayat?

whatever difference between humans and Allah is and you'll have a fair idea of the difference between these things.

1. So we agree on the first point, Allah (swt) tells men NOT to force girls into prostitution.

belabour the point much? i have already and repeated told you that i accept this into the discussion as it is written. i'm unclear why you are unsure of this. if i've left any doubt about this i hope this has removed it for you.

2. Allah (swt), who knows some men will ignore this, then tells the girls, IF they are forced into prostitution there is no blame on them.

I really don't see why you are having difficulty understanding that.

the part i'm having difficulty understanding, Sally, is your selective reading. the ayat clearly stipulates, yet does not elaborate upon, the fact that said lack of blame is only if the slave forced into prostitution seeks chastity. without defining chastity, and i fully admit that this may be a poorly chosen term in English to represent something different than this in Arabic, i'm not sure how any slave girl or anyone else, for that matter, would know if that sex slave was seeking chastity and would therefore be blameless.

i've said that several times now Sally.

Support what? I cannot change history, the fact is there were slaves back then all over the world and for centuries after. Islam made freeing slaves a virtuous act, even breaking a fast required the freeing of a slave. Slaves were to be dressed, fed and housed in the same manner as their master.

i explained what i thought you were supporting by failing to acknowledge that conditional statement in my response to you. i didn't ask you anything about history, changing it or otherwise. we're talking about the words used in Al Qu'ran. i think you are dissembling because you know, in your heart of hearts, that this is wrong, it's an affront to the dignity of those mothers and wives and daughters that were taken captive and sold into slavery.

As this is the Islam board and we obviously believe in God then I wonder why you would choose to come and discuss issues if you feel you can have no rational discourse here?

i also gave you an example of the point in which i can no longer participate in the conversation. i have no idea why that would be bothersome to you in any manner whatsoever. i fully understand the idea that there will become a point in our conversation when i cannot participate. i would strongly suggest that you read what i have written as the words are rather than try to read anything into them and i think we'll be able to have a conversation which is decidedly less defensive.

metta,

~jae

 

[Muslimwoman]

And non-Jews who have any association with Israel.

At least you are beginning to accept that their issue is with Israel and not an attempt to exterminate Jews for their Jewishness!!

The synagogue was called "Beth Israel" (like synagogues in many neighborhoods, including mine), and Argentinians typically use the word "Israelites" for Jews, because Jews have used that name for thousands of years, longer than there have been any Muslims. You have a problem with that?

Now you're just ranting for the sake of it. I specifically said:

"With the exception of the synagogues, which I agree were civilian, non-political targets can we see a common thread in there anywhere?"

It is part of the pattern that their murderousness is not just directed at Jews, but at anybody in the world who has normal dealings with Israelis. This is the arch-primitivist tribal mind-set that I abhor, and which has guaranteed them a raft of enemies.[/quote

Israel is their enemy and Israels allies are their enemies ... it's very simple Bob but still doesn't point to a desire to exterminate all Jews as you have asserted.

Your attempt to blame-shift here is totally sickening.

I was not blame shifting, I was showing that things are not all cute and kind on one side but murderous and hideaous on the other. Both sides are as bad as the other.

Explain yourself then. What did you mean to say Husseini would make a deal with the devil himself?

You've never heard the expression that a heroine addict would make a pact with the devil to get more drugs? Clearly it means a person who desperately wants something that badly (and in Husseini's case he wanted to stop the Jewish National Homeland that badly) would go so far as to make a pact with satan if it brought them what they wanted.

Husseini dealt with Hitler because they were thoroughly like-minded, their main difference being that Husseini advocated for the Final Solution long before Hitler was ready to go that far.

Ergo Husseini would do anything and side with anyone, be they satan or Hitler, to stop Jews emigrating to Palestine.

Indeed he blocked Jewish children and adults from being moved from Hungary and Poland to Palestine and I dread to think what happened to them. He also asked for Jewish areas of Palestine to be bombed. He planned to poison whole communities ... indeed he was ruthless in his persuit of freeing Palestine from the Zionists.

However ... I had to dig through 11 search results pages of Jewish propaganda to find a website that looks at the actual records ...

Al-Husayni was in Berlin during the war, and denied knowing of the Holocaust. One of Adolf Eichmann's deputies, Dieter Wisliceny, stated after the war that al-Husayni had actively encouraged the extermination of European Jews, and that he had had an elaborate meeting with Eichmann at his office, during which Eichmann gave him an intensive look at the current state of the “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe” by the Third Reich.



Hannah Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial, concluded in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil that, "The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded."

Rafael Medoff concludes that "actually there is no evidence that the Mufti's presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution."

Haj Amin al-Husseini : Ties With The Axis Powers During World War II

 

[Muslimwoman]

oh? it only limits one sort of undesirable reputation doesn't it? one could still be a liar or a cheat or a thief or any other number of things which, if found out, would stain her image in the minds of others, couldn't one?

No not at all, if I remain within the family or only go out when necessary I am less likely to commit any sin ... even if only through lack of opportunity.

the part i'm having difficulty understanding, is your selective reading. the ayat clearly stipulates, yet does not elaborate upon, the fact that said lack of blame is only if the slave forced into prostitution seeks chastity. without defining chastity, and i fully admit that this may be a poorly chosen term in English to represent something different than this in Arabic, i'm not sure how any slave girl or anyone else, for that matter, would know if that sex slave was seeking chastity and would therefore be blameless.

Why would you need chastity defined, I would think the definition was perfectly clear (which of course can include a virtuous character and not only virginity). I'm not aware of any difficulty in the translation from Arabic to English of this term.

Surely any woman is able to demonstrate that she desires to remain chaste, either through word or deed.

A slave cannot be forced into either prostitution or to have sex with their "master", as this would constitute rape:

In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a "dowry" like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta', Volume 2, page 734)


We know from hadith the punishment the second Caliph meeted out to men who forced themselves on slaves:

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead.

We see that mistreated slaves are to be set free:

Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free. (Sahih Muslim Book 015, Number 4082)

So if Islam does not allow you to slap the face of a slave girl, it certainly would not allow you to rape her.

It is too easy for us, as free women in 2011, to view the past within the sphere of modern morality. Speaking of this subject in terms of the Bible Matthew B Schwarz in is book The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women said:


The Book of Deuteronomy prescribes its own rules for the treatment of women captured in war [ Deut 21:10-14 ] . Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers' laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes

They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle. The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how to treat female captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.

Camp followers are nothing new and are not limited to the historic Middle East, we only have to look at the Napoleonic wars. Some women would willingly sleep with their captors and some would desire chastity.

we're talking about the words used in Al Qu'ran. i think you are dissembling because you know, in your heart of hearts, that this is wrong, it's an affront to the dignity of those mothers and wives and daughters that were taken captive and sold into slavery.

Not at all. Slavery was ingrained in pre Islamic society and the Quran brought relief and dignity to slaves in the short term and then ensured it's abolition in the long term. Islam does not approve of slavery, it simply accepts it as a reality at the time the Quran was revealed.

[FONT=Arial, Times New Roman, Palatino, Times]The Prophet said: 'Your slaves are your brethren; therefore whoever has a brother who depends upon him must feed and clothe him in the way he feeds and clothes himself; and should not impose upon him tasks which exceed his capacity; should you ask them to do such things, then you are obliged to help them.'[/FONT]

This can hardly be compared to the slave trade in the Roman Empire or trans-Atlantic slave trade, where slaves were were considered property rather than human.

 

[Vajradhara]

Not at all. Slavery was ingrained in pre Islamic society and the Quran brought relief and dignity to slaves in the short term and then ensured it's abolition in the long term. Islam does not approve of slavery, it simply accepts it as a reality at the time the Quran was revealed.

yet slavery is alive and well in Muslim lands Sally.

your post made me weep.

i have no more to ask you.

 

[Muslimwoman]

yet slavery is alive and well in Muslim lands Sally.

It's not a phenomena that exists only in Muslim lands. Slavery (including sex slaves) is also alive and well in the UK and all over the world Vaj .. it's sad but true.

I can only say so many times that what Islam says and what some Muslims choose to do are different things.

 

[bob x]

At least you are beginning to accept that their issue is with Israel and not an attempt to exterminate Jews for their Jewishness!!

What I said was, that they also kill non-Jews, if they have some tangential connection to Israel. Jews they may kill whether there is an Israeli connection or not.

Now you're just ranting for the sake of it.

You were claiming that the Buenos Aires Cultural Center was connected to Israel, on the grounds that "Israelite" is the Argentine way of saying "Jew".

"With the exception of the synagogues, which I agree were civilian, non-political targets can we see a common thread in there anywhere?"

In other words, the Jews that are killed are connected to Israel-- except for those who aren't. Their criteria for selecting murder victims are broad and vague.

Israel is their enemy and Israels allies are their enemies ...

Where "allies" includes anyone who plays sports with them, or buys products from them, or any other normal human interaction.

Bananabrain had a Palestinian family over for dinner. Would you expect Mossad to execute him as a traitor to his race? In Ann Arbor, I used to get good, reasonably-priced food from the Palestinian-owned "Felafel Hut", and in Santa Clara I get good deals on smokes from the Palestinian-owned "Cigarette Outlet". Does this make me an "ally" of the Palestinians?

it's very simple Bob

Very simple, and very sad: I'm going to kill you, and your second cousin, and your second cousin's babysitter! That's the mind-set.

I was not blame shifting, I was showing that things are not all cute and kind on one side

You were trying to spin some ludicrous scenario where the Achille Lauro hijacking was a Mossad plot, just like enlightenment does with 9/11. And you have no sense at all of how sick it makes you look.

Both sides are as bad as the other.

Not even close.

You've never heard the expression that a heroine addict would make a pact with the devil to get more drugs?

Sure. It means that the addict is dealing with someone he would otherwise find repugnant, and wouldn't want to deal with. You are pretending that Husseini would have found something repugnant about Hitler; that just isn't true.

Indeed he blocked Jewish children and adults from being moved from Hungary and Poland to Palestine

Uhhh, Palestine was controlled by the British, remember? Britain wasn't letting anyone into Palestine, remember? Husseini was protesting that these Jews were being moved to labor camps, which had not yet become extermination camps, rather than being shot at once.

and I dread to think what happened to them.

You know goddamned well what happened to them.

Al-Husayni was in Berlin during the war, and denied knowing of the Holocaust.

But his public statements of what he wanted were models of clarity: "We must kill the Jews wherever we find them!" His problem with the Nazis is that he didn't think they were killing enough Jews.

One of Adolf Eichmann's deputies, Dieter Wisliceny, stated after the war that al-Husayni had actively encouraged the extermination of European Jews, and that he had had an elaborate meeting with Eichmann at his office, during which Eichmann gave him an intensive look at the current state of the “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe” by the Third Reich.

Well, I'd never heard of this particular claim before you brought it up; but I would seriously doubt that Eichmann would want or need any administrative advice from Husseini about setting up the camps (administration was never Husseini's strong suit), or would wish to share information (that was very much on a "need to know" basis) with such a loose cannon. Your point? That by dredging through a lot of web-sites you can find one thing he was accused of that didn't turn out to be true?

Haj Amin al-Husseini : Ties With The Axis Powers During World War II

Look, we are dealing with one of the most loathsome of the Axis figures, who is not as famous as some others simply because the smallness of his nation and the feebleness of his own talents limited the damage he could do.

The Axis side lost, for excellent reasons. The Germans, Japanese, Italians, and Palestinians all lost territory in consequence. None of them are getting that land back, ever. The Palestinians are the only ones who are unclear on the concept, probably because their fellow Arabs wouldn't let them settle down and start living normal lives, like all the other displaced people of that time.

 

[Muslimwoman]

What I said was, that they also kill non-Jews, if they have some tangential connection to Israel.

Please note the words in bold.

You were claiming that the Buenos Aires Cultural Center was connected to Israel, on the grounds that "Israelite" is the Argentine way of saying "Jew".

Only in your mind ... as you then go on to quote what I actually said.

In other words, the Jews that are killed are connected to Israel-- except for those who aren't. Their criteria for selecting murder victims are broad and vague.

OK so educate me Bobx. You want to assert that Palestinians are trying to exterminate the Jews all over the world because they are Jews. Considering "the number of Palestinians worldwide at the end of 2003 was 9.6 million" that should have a significant and easily identifiable Jewish body count all over the world.

I await your proof.

You were trying to spin some ludicrous scenario where the Achille Lauro hijacking was a Mossad plot, just like enlightenment does with 9/11. And you have no sense at all of how sick it makes you look.

Now you are just throwing mud and hoping some sticks to me.

What I said AND I QUOTE is:

"Sure enough it was actually the Palestinians who carried out the hijacking and murder but proof of a desire to wipe out all Jews ... I don't think so."

Not even close.

Only in your mind and those who think like you.

Sure. It means that the addict is dealing with someone he would otherwise find repugnant, and wouldn't want to deal with. You are pretending that Husseini would have found something repugnant about Hitler; that just isn't true.

I'm going to give up on this discussion if you're going to keep making stuff up. I never likened Hitler to Satan in this situation, I said and I shall try to make it as clear as I can ..

Husseini would have become an ally of Satan if Satan had promised to rid him of the Zionist threat.

Now don't start swapping Satan for Hitler again, I said Satan and I meant Satan.

Husseini could have been the live in lover of Hitler for all I care, it is only proof of a political solution for him and Palestine and not of Palestines desire to exterminate every Jew alive in the world.

Uhhh, Palestine was controlled by the British, remember? Britain wasn't letting anyone into Palestine, remember?

It's called history Bob:

1920-1945 .. 367,845 immigrant Jews to Palestine ... taken from British Mandate: A survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan.

British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

Husayni intervened on May 13, 1943, with the German Foreign Office to block possible transfers of Jews from Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, after reports reached him that 4000 Jewish children accompanied by 500 adults had managed to reach Palestine. He asked that the Foreign Minister "to do his utmost" to block all such proposals and this request was complied with.[143] A year later, on the 25 July 1944, he wrote to the Hungarian foreign minister to register his objection to the release of certificates for 900 Jewish children and 100 adults for transfer from Hungary, fearing they might end up in Palestine. He suggested that if such transfers of population were deemed necessary, then:-
"it would be indispensable and infinitely preferable to send them to other countries where they would find themselves under active control, as for example Poland, thus avoiding danger and preventing damage."

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But his public statements of what he wanted were models of clarity: "We must kill the Jews wherever we find them!" His problem with the Nazis is that he didn't think they were killing enough Jews.

Can you provide a reference for the quote please as a google search produces 0 results.

While I wait for your reference I wonder how his quote compares to .... say this one:

During a sermon, the influential Israeli Rabbi Ovadia Yosef exclaimed: “May the Holy Name visit retribution on the Arab heads, and cause their seed to be lost, and annihilate them.” He added: “It is forbidden to have pity on them. We must give them missiles with relish, annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones.” Source: Ha’aretz April 12, 2001

It seems nutters are not limited to one side.

Well, I'd never heard of this particular claim before you brought it up; but I would seriously doubt that Eichmann would want or need any administrative advice from Husseini .... Your point? That by dredging through a lot of web-sites you can find one thing he was accused of that didn't turn out to be true?

My point ... you stated "Husseini advocated for the Final Solution long before Hitler was ready to go that far" and yet Eichmann was the logistical mastermind in the Final Solution but all I can find to support links between them are pages upon pages of Jewish websites. When it gets to the few websites examining historic records (including diaries and court records) there is no evidence of this.

"The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded."

So if Husseini had no links to Eichmann or his Final Solution how could he advocate it before Hitler wanted to go that far and what proof is there that he did? So far you have offered one quote with 0 search results.

Look, we are dealing with one of the most loathsome of the Axis figures, who is not as famous as some others simply because the smallness of his nation and the feebleness of his own talents limited the damage he could do.

I agree he was loathsome but I maintain that he was a nationalist who would do insane things to stop Zionist Israel and not simply intent on killing all Jews for their Jewishness.

We need to move this to another thread soon as this is meant to be about misconceptions about Islam and not a politics thread on Palestine.

None of them are getting that land back, ever. The Palestinians are the only ones who are unclear on the concept, probably because their fellow Arabs wouldn't let them settle down and start living normal lives, like all the other displaced people of that time.

No problem, now all I need you to do is go and change International Law and I will agree with you.

 

[enlightenment]

I feel that we are going a little off topic here, so in an effort to get it closer to the intended topic, here is something that I would like to say.

In the UK there is an orchestrated attempt, imo, to portray Muslims in the dimmest possible light.

Certain sections of the media (and groups like the EDL and BNP), they are well aware that your average person is not going to have the time or inclination to bother to research whether or not a piece of information is true or not. They rely on that.

I live in a city which has a wide range of people, different cultures and nationalities. By and large, everyone seems to live together just fine (are you watching, David Cameron). Instances of racially motivated crimes are, by and large, pretty rare.

As you are well aware, I am not a believer in any god, therefore, I cannot fairly defend Islam from a religous perspective, any more than I could any other monotheistic religion.

And it is also true that there are various Islamic regimes who I would not care for, in terms of their political structure.

However, I am of the view that there are certain things that non Muslims in the UK could actually learn from British Muslims.

For instance, we often lament the erosion of the family unit, and a sense of community. British Muslims have better held onto those things than the native(sic) population of the UK.

Take a trip through any city centre, after the pubs and clubs close, on a weekend, or revel in a visit to A&E - you will struggle to find many Muslims involved in the usual orgy of druknen violence.

And yet, for all of that, it is rare to read anything which focuses on the positive values that British Muslims still hold dear to. A good work ethic is also worth a mention.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I think both cultures could learn a lot from each other if we could stop being afraid of each other for 10 minutes and actually try to find out what we all think in reality, not in the media.

It's important to note the positives you have mentioned Steve are all enshrined in the Quran.

1. Family and community spirit. Spoken of over and over again in the Quran, it is even an Islamic obligation to visit the sick. We know Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) went to visit a Jewish neighbour who was sick, even though he used to leave his rubbish on the Prophets step to antagonise him.

It is even important to understand that the suggestion women are better in their homes is not to stop women working or punish them but because they are the centre of the family unit, they are the person the whole family returns to and it is such an important role.

2. Drunken violence. The Quran initially banned drinking before attending prayers, then banned getting drunk and finally banned any consumption of alcohol. Even if alcohol was limited in the UK we could cut down on the deaths abd abuse caused by alcohol, as well as the cost to the health and police services.

Gambling was also banned, so we don't see hungry kids and wives because he spent his wages at the races (although we see family hunger for other silly "I spent my wages" reasons).

3. Work Ethic. Again enshrined in the Quran. Whether you go out to work to feed your family, work in the home, school, charity or whatever .. all Muslims are told to work and use the lives they are given.

In my opinion we can also learn a lot about how to conduct war from the Quran. No not the Jihadi loonies and their slay or convert everyone but the real teaching of the Quran.

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah

said: Do not desire an encounter with the enemy; but when you encounter them, be firm. - Muslim Book 019, Number 4313

Abu Bakr

, the first caliph or successor to Prophet Mohammed

established a detailed set of rules for Islamic conduct in war. He gave these instructions to an Islamic army setting out for Syria, then still part of the Byzantine Empire:​

"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone"​

Even if you don't look at the Quran with a belief in God there is so much to learn from it with regards to social structure.

 

[enlightenment]

Here is another point I would care to make.

Some people will point to the Islamic styles of dress, and either snigger at it, or even fear it, for some reason.

Personally, much of it doesn't do it for me, but hey ho, I suppose I could equally say that the sight of a women of 50 staggering down the road, drunk, while tottering in high heels, and a leather mini skirt is not exactly my taste either.

I might even snigger at that more, actually.

People get bent out of shape about women wearing the Burkah, and while I would not wish my partner to don such a thing, I don't think control over what people can wear should be a state decision, not here.

If a women passes me wearing one, it is not a big deal to ME, one way or the other, to be honest. Her business. There are those who pretend to oppose it on some faux noble grounds, such as it being an affront to the women's liberties, however, when those saying that are either Mail readers or in the EDL, I am a bit cynical ....

When that fails, the usual absurd arguements come out, about them being permitted to keep it on, in banks, etc.

Pathetic, imo.


However, where I do think you get an issue is maybe when you have a disproprtionate number of Burkah wearing Muslims, in one area on England.

Luton is a good example, for some reason, there appear to be a lot there, and it is not shock that this was also the birth place of the EDL.

The older generation feel uneasy when there are too many people in foreign dress, and Burkah's in the town centre, right or wrong, that is how it is, and a firebrand younger generation act on that, in the way that the EDL did.

Of course, the EDL itself was born out of some rather ill advised actions by Muslims in Luton, during the funerals of soldiers.

Shame.

 

[bob x]

Considering "the number of Palestinians worldwide at the end of 2003 was 9.6 million" that should have a significant and easily identifiable Jewish body count all over the world.

I show you corpses from all over the world, and you yawn and ask for more. I don't know what your point is: if it is just that Palestinians are more likely to pick murder victims with some connection to Israel, that's true, but they reserve the right to kill people just for being Jewish, if they feel like it.

What I said AND I QUOTE is:

What you also said was some lunatic BS about Achille Lauro really being a Mossad operation.

Multiple-choice question: after Alan Turing cracked the Enigma code, one of the first intercepts was about the German plan to bomb the city of Coventry; Churchill sent no warning to Coventry because...

A. After much agonizing, he decided it was important not to tip off the Germans that their code was cracked.

B. He celebrated the bombing of Coventry, because he had never cared about protecting British people, but just wanted excuses to kill a lot of Germans, because, well, just because.

C. One of his campaign contributors competed with a firm that was headquartered in Coventry.

You and enlightenment keep peddling stories like B and C, with no sense of how detached they are from the way humans actually behave.

Can you provide a reference for the quote please as a google search produces 0 results.

It was in the article I linked you to before.

While I wait for your reference I wonder how his quote compares to .... say this one:

During a sermon, the influential Israeli Rabbi Ovadia Yosef exclaimed: “May the Holy Name visit retribution on the Arab heads, and cause their seed to be lost, and annihilate them.” He added: “It is forbidden to have pity on them. We must give them missiles with relish, annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones.” Source: Ha’aretz April 12, 2001

It seems nutters are not limited to one side.

I didn't say they were. I would consider "Rabbi" Ovadia a very evil man. So?

My point ... you stated "Husseini advocated for the Final Solution long before Hitler was ready to go that far"

He introduced the slogan "EXTERMINATE THE JEWS!" in 1920.

and yet Eichmann was the logistical mastermind in the Final Solution

Just because Husseini had been shrieking for Jewish blood for decades is no reason why Eichmann would have found him useful to consult on matters of logistics (logistics were never Husseini's strong suit).

We need to move this to another thread soon as this is meant to be about misconceptions about Islam and not a politics thread on Palestine.

Well, one of the major conceptions of Islam floating around nowadays is that when "extremist" Muslims commit foul crimes, "moderate" Muslims can be relied upon to make excuses for them ("wouldn't you do just the same?" uh... no, no I wouldn't), change the subject to crimes by other people (the "so's your old man" defense), shift the blame to anyone except the perpetrators (including the invention or re-telling of slanders against the victims), and then act all huffy and surprised when someone thinks there's something wrong with that. Is this a "mis"conception? It sure doesn't seem so.

No problem, now all I need you to do is go and change International Law and I will agree with you.

Under international law, forfeiture of territory has always been a common penalty for starting a war and losing it. This has not been abrogated. Germany will never get Silesia, Pomerania, or Prussia back-- and accepts that. Italy will never get Istria or Rhodes back-- and accepts that. Japan will never get Manchuria, Taiwan, Korea, Micronesia, or the Kuriles back-- they sometimes demand the Kuriles back, but they won't get them. The 1947 lines would have been much more favorable to the Palestinians than anything they will get now; but after 1949 the cease-fire line was recognized as the border, and Israel was recognized as a state because it accepted the cease-fire, while "All Palestine" was not because of its persistent refusal to accept the cease-fire. After 1967, there were arguments about whether Israel should be told to return "territories", or "the territories", in exchange for peace, and the word "the" was struck out because a return to the unstable pre-1967 situation was untenable. Egypt was offered Gaza and the Sinai in exchange for peace; Sinai was accepted, and Gaza was refused. The Arab League has offered peace in exchange for going back to the pre-1967 lines, but that is a non-starter. At Camp David in 2000, the principle that any retention by Israel of land beyond the green line should be compensated by surrendering land the other way, but Israel would only offer land of considerably lesser value-- and the Palestinians still expect some reversal of the 1948 outcome, which is just not going to happen. It has been revealed that some of the PA leaders acknowledge that what was lost in 1948 was lost for good-- but they do not dare say so in public for fear of being attacked or maybe shot.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I show you corpses from all over the world, and you yawn and ask for more. I don't know what your point is: if it is just that Palestinians are more likely to pick murder victims with some connection to Israel, that's true, but they reserve the right to kill people just for being Jewish, if they feel like it.

My point is very simple. I believe that the Palestinians hate Israeli's and anyone, Jew or ortherwise that supports Israel as a Jewish Homeland and state ... that makes their agenda political.

You wish to assert that the Palestinians are out to exterminate the Jewish population of the world simply because they are Jewish.

As you are suggesting the Palestinians are actively committing a second holocaust I have asked you, quite reasonably I believe, to back that assertion up with some hard evidence.

What you also said was some lunatic BS about Achille Lauro really being a Mossad operation.

No, I quoted a former Israeli intelligence worker.

The first thing any country does when one of their spies, secret agents, special forces or arms dealers speaks in public is call him a lunatic and liar.

The Jerusalem Post, quoting an "authoritative" source, wrote on March 27, 1990 that Ben-Menashe had not worked for the Israeli government in any capacity, and that the Israeli defense establishment had had "no contact" with him. Documents subsequently obtained by American journalists showed that Ben-Menashe had, in fact, worked for the External Relations Department of Israeli military intelligence from 1977-87, though his critics say he was a low-level translator.[7]



However, Moshe Hevrony clearly stated:
Ben-Menashe worked directly under me... He had access to very, very sensitive material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_Ben-Menashe

In December, his Australian visitor's visa (due to expire in April) was cancelled after his allegations of Australian involvement in arms deals were publicised.

Ben-Menashe appealed. Last month, the Department of Immigration backed down rather than obey a Federal Court order to disclose the information justifying the cancellation.

That's the problem with spooks and spies, it's all too easy to call it all lunatic lies because you don't have to provide evidence.

Multiple-choice question: after Alan Turing cracked the Enigma code, one of the first intercepts was about the German plan to bomb the city of Coventry; Churchill sent no warning to Coventry because...

You and enlightenment keep peddling stories like B and C, with no sense of how detached they are from the way humans actually behave.

So an intelligence operative planning and carrying out murders in order to maintain cover and gather information is just silly conspiracy theories and the stuff of fiction ... right?

THE British army's most deadly double agent, who operated at the very heart of the IRA, has been identified as Alfredo 'Freddy' Scappaticci, known to spy-masters by the codename 'Stakeknife'.


As the British government's most powerful weapon in its 30-year 'dirty war' against the IRA and Sinn Fein, Scappaticci is suspected of being allowed by the army's Force Research Unit (FRU) to take part in up to 40 murders. He is said to have been involved in the killings of loyalists, policemen, soldiers, and civilians to protect his cover so he could keep passing top-grade intelligence to the British. He also kidnapped, interrogated, tortured and killed other IRA men suspected of being British informers.

Stakeknife Named: British double agent who murdered for the IRA

Would the British government and intelligence services celebrate the dead civilians ... of course not but they would certainly celebrate the success of the missions, the intelligence gathered and the damage done to the enemy in public opinion.

It's called life, it ain't pretty but it happens all the time, particularly where terrorism is concerned.

It was in the article I linked you to before.

I have checked the thread twice and can only find one link by you:

The quote "We must kill the Jews wherever we find them!" does not exist on that page.

I didn't say they were. I would consider "Rabbi" Ovadia a very evil man. So?

Of course he was an evil man and I don't think he is representative of Judaism or it's beliefs. The fact that evil men exist on both sides and all say bloody stupid things is not representative of an entire nation or faith system.

Well, one of the major conceptions of Islam floating around nowadays is that when "extremist" Muslims commit foul crimes,

You can just stop there. This thread is not in the politics board. If you want to discuss what deranged Muslims or Jews do we can do it in the politics board.

Now if you want to quote an ayat of the Quran which says "exterminate the Jews" then I will be happy to discuss it.

Under international law, forfeiture of territory has always been a common penalty for starting a war and losing it.

The International community disagrees with you and has done over and over again, even Israel's closest ally disagrees with this.

Israel has made it's case over and over again ... the international community still disgree with them.

So is Israel the only country in the world who can understand international law?

 

[bob x]

My point is very simple. I believe that the Palestinians hate Israeli's and anyone, Jew or ortherwise that supports Israel

And my point is very simple too, that they will also kill Jews whether there is any particular connection to Israel or not.

As you are suggesting the Palestinians are actively committing a second holocaust

They don't have the capacity. But they randomly murder. They could kill Bananabrain tomorrow.

The first thing any country does when one of their spies, secret agents, special forces or arms dealers speaks in public is call him a lunatic

When Phillip Agee went public, the CIA called him a traitor and an oath-breaker. Calling someone a "lunatic" usually happens when the things they say raise questions about whether they are right in the head. Now I don't know the particulars of this case, but the notion that he was just a clerical worker who is spinning stories to make himself sound ultra-important sounds at least possible: you give this strong presumption of truth to outlandish stories, if they make the Jews look bad, and don't seem to understand why I don't take all these stories as facts.

Would the British government and intelligence services celebrate the dead civilians ... of course not

And yet you took it for granted that the Israelis were celebrating the deaths on the Achille Lauro.

I have checked the thread twice and can only find one link by you:

The quote "We must kill the Jews wherever we find them!" does not exist on that page.

More fully, "Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you." (March 1, 1944 broadcast)

Of course he was an evil man and I don't think he is representative of Judaism or it's beliefs.

So you had no point at all in mentioning him, except the usual purpose of deflection. You don't want to say Mufti Husseini was evil, so you say "Let's talk about somebody else."

Now if you want to quote an ayat of the Quran which says "exterminate the Jews" then I will be happy to discuss it.

We had some discussion of the hadith earlier, don't remember which thread it was on.

The International community disagrees with you and has done over and over again

ONLY with regard to Israel. Every other case of territorial forfeitures for aggression is totally non-controversial.

 

[Quahom1]

Bob X and Muslim Woman

"They don't have the capacity. But they randomly murder. They could kill Bananabrain tomorrow".
[/QUOTE]
WHAT? How could you even bring the man into this issue? What are you two STUPID!!!

Asses from different shores...

You both know me, I will defend him from the like of you two idiots...

You are STUPID people, I don't care how educated you think you are...

Box of rocks.

 

[enlightenment]

Anyone understand that last post?

 

[bob x]

Anyone understand that last post?

I do. When Bbrain talks about the dangers of the increasing anti-Semitism in the UK and Europe, it is personal for him; he genuinely has to worry about danger to himself. MW generally likes Bbrain, better than she likes me, despite disagreements; I was taking a cheap shot by saying, when MW trivializes the dangers of random attacks on Jews, she might be endorsing an attack on her friend. It was over the line, and I apologize. I think I just have to let the whole subject of Israel/Palestine rest for a while; certainly my views have been amply explained.

 

[enlightenment]

I do. When Bbrain talks about the dangers of the increasing anti-Semitism in the UK and Europe, it is personal for him; he genuinely has to worry about danger to himself. MW generally likes Bbrain, better than she likes me, despite disagreements; I was taking a cheap shot by saying, when MW trivializes the dangers of random attacks on Jews, she might be endorsing an attack on her friend. It was over the line, and I apologize. I think I just have to let the whole subject of Israel/Palestine rest for a while; certainly my views have been amply explained.

Might join you - unless a real big story hits the press.