Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Islamophobia in the Blogosphere
It has been less than a month since Muslims Against Sharia published the manifesto, and we discovered to our dismay that Islamophobia is alive and well in the blogosphere, supposedly the more open minded part of humanity. I am not referring to rednecks who have more guns than teeth and whose first morning thought is “I’m gonna bag me some Muslims today.” I’m also not referring to CAIR’s shrieks every time someone utters a phrase “Islamic Terrorist.” I am talking about deep-seeded perception among Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that no free thought or reform can come from within Islam. Every time a bomb blows up in Iraq or a cartoonist receives a death threat, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that it is a manifestation of Islamic terrorism. However, when someone like Muslims Against Sharia advocate Islamic reformation, they are met with suspicion or outright dismissed as a fakes. By both, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I could understand the non-Muslim perspective; Islamic criminals have been terrorizing them for decades in the name of Islam. But why us, Muslims? Where all this self-hatred is coming from? Why the mere notion that some of us might want to leave in peace with non-Muslims is regarded as blasphemy and discarded as something that could not possibly come from a REAL Muslim? Maybe we need to learn how to stop hating ourselves before we can take the next step. Where are those “spiritual leaders” when you need them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
"I am talking about deep-seeded perception among Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that no free thought or reform can come from within Islam."
It is a problem. So far, Islam has quite effectively resisted reform attempts, the very reforms that are so badly needed to end Islamic terrorism and improve living conditions in Islamic countries.
And it is a large task, where you will down the line face resistance and anger from reactionary Islamic scholars who might even attempt to frame you as apostates.
But rest assured that we are many in the blogosphere who deeply appreciate your efforts and are wishing strongly for the many peaceful Muslims to stand up and steal the limelight from the radicals that seem to set the agenda today.
But one thing, please: Do not accuse us of 'Islamophobia' for the challenges you are facing. I, along with several of my friends, have read the Quran and the Sirat (Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) to better understand what the problems are, and we are in agreement that Islam has some violent roots that need to be exposed and purged. It is not 'Islamophobia' to point this out, it is help.
With best wishes.
The future of civilization may well rest on your shoulders. There will ALWAYS be critics and naysayers. Churchill was vilified and trashed, as have most of the great heros of civilization.
Henrik,
As you can see, I was pretty specific what type of Islamophobia I was referring to. Nobody seems to believe that the call for reform can come from within. I could understand the reluctance to accept this fact from non-Muslims as well as from Muslim radicals. But people who claim to be moderate Muslims seem to have the same reaction and it is very troubling.
Shoot....I only wish I had more guns than teeth.
And let me be clear with you...working under the assumption that you really are a Muslim..... I fully support what you're doing here......just pointing out the obvious, that you have zero chance of ever succeeding to reform Islam within the time frame you have to operate.
If you were to make these reform arguments in front of an American Mosque you would probably get your ass whipped, and if you tried to spread your message in a Mosque in a Muslim dominated society you would probably already be dead.
You're pissin on a global Islamist inferno. Good luck.
We know. But its either that or doing nothing. At least we are trying to do something, however pathetic and futile our attempts are. Hope is the only thing we got going for us.
I can understand the reaction of an orthodox Muslim who has read the Qur'an & Hadith.
You are bumping into barriers of logic and theology. Either the Qur'an is Allah's immutable word or it is situational scripture. In the former case, you are screwed. In the latter case, Islam might as well fold its tent.
How can you answer an Imam who quotes the ayat which forbid changing Allah's word? Or the ahadith which says far from mercy is anyone who changes the religion after me?
How can you answer when they challenge you with Allah's cursing the Jews for distorting his word?
Much water has passed under the bridge since I saw any hint of the European Islamic Charter. What, if anything is the E.U. doing with it?
Muslims are the ONLY ones who can end terrorism.
Ben,
Our contention is that the Koran may have been corrupted over the years. Al we want to do is to return it to its original state. Then everything will fall into place.
Muslims Against Sharia, Ben has a point. I have read the Quran and the Sirat (both Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari), and more than once, just to make sure I get the fine points and the connections.
Read in context the Quran does look like a mixture of situational statements and material borrowed (actually purchased) from Jewish apocryphical scripture.
This is, from any point of view I can imagine, problematic. Not least for a religion based more on scripture than Christianity, and even than Judaism.
Lots of us are hoping for a reformed Islam to appear, to defuse the increasingly confrontational tone we are hearing in the public discourse.
There is also a quite real risk that Islamic countries, like Pakistan, may descend into civil war over the matter. Much is at stake.
Does the corruption precede or succeed Uthman's Recension? As I understand it, the original codices were burned following that procedure.
In either case,how do you hope to obtain an uncorrupted codice to serve as a standard by which to judge the modern Qur'an?
What if the oldest codice you can obtain contains everything in Yoel Natan's list of 164 violent verses?
In that case, you would be in such a position that you must argue that 2:216,8:12, 8:39, 9:29, 47:4 etal. are Shaytanic bida.
That implies arguing from Jewish & Christian scripture which is rejected as corrupted or from an ill defined & inchoate natural law.
It appears that your best appeal is to that intrinsic or instinctive standard of morality which is commonly suppressed or beaten out of Muslim youth.
If there is a sufficient number of moral Muslims, and if you can communicate with and prevail upon them; uniting them into a vital force to overcome the radicals and seize control of Islam, then you'll have the problem of preventing the radicals from reconquista.
In any case, a rough row to hoe, but the crop to be reaped is well worth the effort.
Obviously, there is no way to obtain the original, short of inventing a time-traveling device. What we need are a few pragmatic Islamic scholars with a good moral compass.
On a grand scale, Islam is relatively young religion. It is going through its adolescence, much like Christianity went through its (the Inquisition.) Eventually Christianity evolved and reformed. Islam is 7 centuries younger, but we don't want to wait 7 centuries; we need to reform now!
Since when were having sex with animals acceptable in Islam??
You realize that if you go to far to the extreme, that you will have no Muslim readers, don't you?? I got your blog address from a friend who is an ex-Muslim and thought that your argument was so far out there, that surely the writers were not Muslim at all.
I am not Muslim myself, but it does appear to me that you hate your own religion, and going so far as to insinuating that having sex with animals is allowed in Islam.
I noticed that the names associated with your blog are from Arabs for Israel and Righteous Arabs and Muslims, both good organisations, all I am saying is, if you want to influence Muslims in the positive way, and get them to read what you have to say, you need to back off of the self hate. Try the regular pool before cliff diving.
I have my own blog, and I do my best to reach non-Muslims who think that all Muslims believe in the terrorist ideology. Those people, islamophobia type people, are the way they are, because they think the religion itself teaches to do what the terrorists are doing. You are encouraging that belief.
"Since when were having sex with animals acceptable in Islam??"
We cannot put a date stamp on the original occurrence, but since multiple Islamic scholars mention this practice, it is reasonable to assume that is has been going on for a long time. Example:
"A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine."
Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran
"You realize that if you go to far to the extreme, that you will have no Muslim readers, don't you??"
We consider ourselves pragmatics, not extremists; we will not compromise our principles for crowdpleasing.
"surely the writers were not Muslim at all."
We addressed this issue many times; read the blog.
"you need to back off of the self hate"
Pointing out our faults and self-hate are not really the same things.
"they think the religion itself teaches to do what the terrorists are doing"
We happen to partially agree with this statement. That's why we want to purify our religion from all this violent nonsense.
You bring up Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran but how is what he said Islam. Do you find in any of the Quran, Hadiths or Sunnas where having sex with animals is acceptable?? What about that other fool who issued a fatwa that said a man could work with a woman if she breast fed him. That was one person's garbage, not the religion. Just like the recent crap about having sex with infants. So no, its not reasonable unless you can show in the Quran or other religious books that it was ok, otherwise its just a moron.
My ex-Muslim friend said that he couldn't find where you had anything good to say about Islam, so he thinks you are not Muslim.
If no one see's anything good in your blog as far as Islam is concerned; how does that make you any different than the Islamophobes that are out there who consider the problem to be Islam and not terrorists?
I just thought that since you are Muslim, you would have positive things to say as well.
"You bring up Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran but how is what he said Islam."
Khomeini is one of the most respected Shia scholars. We are not. So who are we to dispute his statements?
"That was one person's garbage, not the religion."
This is your opinion. We think that all religious text and decrees are parts of Islam. Some of them are just wrong that's why we want to get rid of them, including Khomeini's statements that it is OK to have sex with animals.
"My ex-Muslim friend said that he couldn't find where you had anything good to say about Islam"
Maybe your friend needs to learn how to read. We believe that "Islam is peace; Islam is love; Islam is light." That's why it is posted in our manifesto.
"If no one see's anything good in your blog as far as Islam is concerned"
Our target audience is Muslims. We don't need to convince them how wonderful Islam is. Our goal is to point out the problems and to fix those problems.
""My ex-Muslim friend said that he couldn't find where you had anything good to say about Islam"
Maybe your friend needs to learn how to read. We believe that "Islam is peace; Islam is love; Islam is light." That's why it is posted in our manifesto."
I read that, I didn't see anything positive about Islam. Maybe what you should be saying is the difference between the religion and the politics of the religion. Islamist want to politicize Islam and spread it by the sword. The majority of Muslims just want to worship God.
This was the remark on your blog, on another blog:
"The authors of this blog have no proclamation of being Muslim as of 10th October, 2007.
They also have nothing positive to say about the religion they claim to follow.
Nothing on their blog makes it “religious”, nor do they have any theological backing for their desired “reform” of Islam.
Their entire blog is a collection of anti-Islamic vitroil, focusing on certain texts.
Their blog has no religious objective. Instead, it only has a political objectives like “let’s not use the term American Occupation anymore!”
And the nail in the coffin: they don’t even explain how they can believe in Muhammad being the last messenger of Allah and also believe he was a “pedophile”! That makes no sense whatsoever… and as any of our learned readers would know, the first and most basic belief that makes a person a Muslim is belief in Shahadah… that is, “there is no god but blah blah and muhammad is his blah blah”."
"And here I was hoping some Muslims actually grew the balls and intellect to criticize their own religion openly. Oh well… we’ll see it sooner or later if Towelians can do anything about it!"
Why am I pointing this out to you...because I think you have the right idea; but maybe there are things you can add or revamp. I feel that it is good to reach as many Muslims as possible with information that differs from Islamists.
But I fear that if other Muslims see your blog like the above, then you are talking to a brick wall. I mean do what you want, but at least think about the above comment.
As I think, I have said to you before... I am not Muslim, however in my blog I point out both sides of the religion. I point out the bad, but also the good.
"I read that, I didn't see anything positive about Islam."
How could "Islam is peace; Islam is love; Islam is light" be possibly interpreted as negative?
"Maybe what you should be saying is the difference between the religion and the politics of the religion."
Isn't that what we're saying? "Any set of beliefs that is spread by force is fundamentally immoral; it is no longer a religion, but a political ideology."
"The authors of this blog have no proclamation of being Muslim as of 10th October, 2007."
Really? then what is this? "We, as Muslims ..."
"Why am I pointing this out to you...because I think you have the right idea; but maybe there are things you can add or revamp."
Or, maybe you should just read our manifesto.
"I point out the bad, but also the good." The vast majority of Islam is good, it does not need to be reformed, so there is no need to point it out. We want to reform the bad parts, that is why we point them out. When you go to a doctor with a broken leg, what are the chances of you to be complimented on your arms and neck because they are not broken?
/Khomeini is one of the most respected Shia scholars. We are not. So who are we to dispute his statements?/
Uhmm what?
So Islam is for animal sex because Khomeni the Shi'ite(a minority among muslims) scholar says so. You say you are a muslim who wants to take such things out of Islam. Are you too not disputing Khomenis claim that this is a part of Islam? Unlike Khomeni you admit you are not scholars. Why would someone shi'ite take your word over his when you yourself point to him as a credible scholar of Islam.lol. I find this amazing.
And what I find even more amazing is that you give Khomeni more crediblity than the hadiths of Abu Daud which say-:
Book 38, Number 4449:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it.
hmmm?
With such odd statments I'm sure you can forgive the skeptisicm people have.
Ali K.
It is not our contention that zoophilia (or pedophilia) is widespread among Muslims. However, even if the tiny minority engages in it and prominent religious figures (Shia or not) condone this practice, we must address it.
We are glad you provided this quote from the Hadith. While we would not agree with capital punishment for zoophiles, because those people are obviously deeply disturbed and in dire need of psychiatric care, it is great to know that the Prophet, P.B.U.H., was against such practices.
Ahh.Interesting.
1.If you want to throw out parts of hadiths that are clearly wrong by modern standards. Not re-interpret them, as most 'reformists' do, but just throw them out. Would it be correct for me to assume that you do not take your ethics from the Koran or the hadiths but from some other standards due to which you are calling Verses of the Koran morally wrong and to which you want the Koran and hadiths to conform to? And could you elaborate on what they are?
2.Another thing, do you believe Prophet Mohammad commited paedophelia?
3.And I see pamela Geller is on your team, someone who calls for Islam to be banned and agreed with the statement: "Islam has to be declared illegal until Islamists are prepared to renounce those parts of their pseudo political and religious doctrine glorifying violence and the oppression of other cultures and religions."
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/08/ban-islam-uh-ye.html
Do you agree?
And How do you think this looks to the avg. muslim?
“Would it be correct for me to assume that you do not take your ethics from the Koran”
No. What we are trying to do is remove verses that are inconsistent with the spirit of the Koran, i.e., Islam is Peace; Islam is Love; Islam is Light.
“And could you elaborate on what they are?”
http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
“do you believe Prophet Mohammad commited paedophelia?”
By having intercourse with a pre-pubescent child, the Prophet, P.B.U.H., committed an act that in modern society would be viewed as pedophilia. However, due to many historical factors, including life expectancy, this practice was not uncommon in ancient times and some biblical figures also engaged in it.
“Do you agree?”
Ms. Geller, as many other Westerners often uses ‘Islam’ when she means ‘Islamism’. Should Islam as a religion is banned? Of course not. Should Islamism as a political ideology be banned? Absolutely!
“And How do you think this looks to the avg. muslim?”
We hope that an average Muslim is smart enough to see through BS. And if not, we would be happy to clarify our positions and views.
,I am curious to know where does the information (unlike peadophilia) that "such pratices were acceptable in the 7th century" come from?
The reason I ask is that Khomeni's statement merely shows that he approved of it not that it was acceptable in 7th century Arabia or by 7th century Islam.hmm?
/What we are trying to do is remove verses that are inconsistent with the spirit of the Koran, i.e., Islam is Peace; Islam is Love; Islam is Light./
You define the 'spirit of Islam' as 'peace, love and light'. Your 'clarifications' are vague. Is there any religion in the modern world that wouldn't associate such stuff as a part of its 'spirit'? (rhetorical)
You adamantly alledge that the Koran has been corrupted. You've thrown out quite a bit of the Koran too. How do you know none of that was part of the 'spirit of the Koran'? Infact since you allege that the Koran has been corrupted how do you know what the 'spirit of the Koran' is anyway? Your allegation puts the reliablity of every verse in the Koran into doubt. Since you have no objective way of knowing what the 'spirit of koran' is except from the Koran itself, this dosn't make you claim anymore reasonable than the Jiahdi who chooses to ignore the verses in the Koran that you choose to keep.heh. So what it comes down to is an arbitary(not to be taken in the literal sense but as subject to individual preference) selection of verses from the Koran and thus ethics. How do you think this looks like to the smart muslim who can see through BS eh? I'd say it looks like moral relativism.
But hey, if its any consolation I hope I'm wrong.
/By having intercourse with a pre-pubescent child, the Prophet, P.B.U.H., committed an act that in modern society would be viewed as pedophilia./
*Grin*
Where did you get the information to so conclusively state that he had sex with an underage Ayesha?
/ American (Christian / Crusader / Israeli / Zionist) occupation: these terms promote bigotry;\
How do terms American or Israeli occupation promote bigotry?
We were making a general statement that pedophilia, zoophilia, cutting off body parts, and other outdated practices are not acceptable practices in today's civilized society. Whether or not those practices were widespread in the 7th century or were proclaimed to be acceptable by religious scholars in 20th century is not relevant to the point we are trying to get across.
“You define the 'spirit of Islam' as 'peace, love and light'. Your 'clarifications' are vague.”
If you don’t like our definition, you do not have to accept it.
“How do you know none of that was part of the 'spirit of the Koran'? Infact since you allege that the Koran has been corrupted how do you know what the 'spirit of the Koran' is anyway?”
Simple deductive logic based on Allah being the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate. It is inconceivable that Allah would command “kill theme wherever you find them.”
“I'd say it looks like moral relativism.”
It might, if you lack ability to think critically.
“Where did you get the information to so conclusively state that he had sex with an underage Ayesha?”
The Hadith. The Prophet's marriage to Aisha was consummated when she was 9 years old.
“How do terms American or Israeli occupation promote bigotry?”
These terms have negative connotations and promote resentment that grows into unreasonable hate of America and Israel.
/not acceptable practices in today's civilized society.\
So you consider pedophilia wrong because it is 'not acceptable in today’s civilized society or is there another reason?
Is pedophilia a sin in Islam?
/The Hadith. The Prophet's marriage to Aisha was consummated when she was 9 years old./
Either
a) Muhammad is in contradiction of the 'spirit of Koran'as you define it ;
b) pedophilia is compatible with the 'spirit of the Koran' as you define it?
Which is it?
/These terms have negative connotations and promote resentment that grows into unreasonable hate of America and Israel./
I could say the same about Pam Geller use of 'Islam' instead of "Islamists' as you allege above. That has negative connotations and promotes resentment that grows into unreasonable hate of all Muslims. Yet Pam is part of your team and you vigorously defend her. Why the double standards?
I fail to see how saying ‘Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights’ or ‘American occupation of Germany’ promote bigotry. What term would you use?
/Simple deductive logic based on Allah being the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate\
And where exactly is it that you get your premise to make such a deduction from? The Koran. And Since you admittedly have no way of knowing this independent of the Koran and have come to know of it from the Koran itself, it again comes down to an arbitrary selection of verses from the Koran and thus ethics. My previously expressed concern still remains. *Shrug*
“So you consider pedophilia wrong because it is 'not acceptable in today’s civilized society or is there another reason?”
We consider pedophilia wrong because it is not acceptable in today’s civilized society and for other reasons.
“Is pedophilia a sin in Islam?”
Apparently not according to Ayatollah Khomeini.
“pedophilia is compatible with the 'spirit of the Koran' as you define it”
As far as we know, there is nothing on the Koran regarding pedophilia, either pro or con.
“Why the double standards?”
We spend a lot of time trying to explain to people, including Muslims, the difference between Islam and Islamism, and why those terms must not be confused. We wish that Ms. Geller would use proper terms, but we have no control over what she says. However, her misusing these terms is very minor in comparison with her overall contributions to the fight against Islamism.
“What term would you use?”
‘Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights’ makes as much sense to us as ‘American occupation of California’ or ‘Muslim occupation of Syria.’ We would use the word ownership in all three cases.
“My previously expressed concern still remains.”
As terrible as it is, I guess, we just going to have to live with that.
/misusing these terms is very minor in comparison with her overall contributions to the fight against Islamism./
MInor?!?!? How can you say it's minor???
The bottom line is, that is the problem with many non-Muslims. They equate Islam as Islamist!! Period. They don't consider moderate Muslims as 'true' Muslims!! So it is NEVER minor when a person uses the term Islam as a general way of referring to Islamist. That is why there is such a problem with Islamophobia!!
There is a difference between minor and minor in comparison. While recent pile-up on I5 that included fatalities is not a minor event by any stretch of imagination, it is minor in comparison to Pearl Harbor.
Ali K wrote:
"You adamantly alledge that the Koran has been corrupted. You've thrown out quite a bit of the Koran too. How do you know none of that was part of the 'spirit of the Koran'? Infact since you allege that the Koran has been corrupted how do you know what the 'spirit of the Koran' is anyway? Your allegation puts the reliablity of every verse in the Koran into doubt. Since you have no objective way of knowing what the 'spirit of koran' is except from the Koran itself, this dosn't make you claim anymore reasonable than the Jiahdi who chooses to ignore the verses in the Koran that you choose to keep.heh. So what it comes down to is an arbitary(not to be taken in the literal sense but as subject to individual preference) selection of verses from the Koran and thus ethics. How do you think this looks like to the smart muslim who can see through BS eh? I'd say it looks like moral relativism."
OoOOouuch! Point hammered home...!
I was hoping Mr. Ali K would be given a better reponse than the one he got:
"If you don’t like our definition, you do not have to accept it."
That's a sophisticated way of uttering the juvenile favorite: "whatever... talk to the hand cause the face don't care!"
and these guys are out to change islam??? with an intellectually bankrupt argument?
the best and most sophisticated answer by "muslims against sharia" has been "well guys since islam is peace, love and light - we're going to call muhammad a pedophile and just arbitrarily believe islam promotes zoophilia because some guy said so... and then we're going to reject all this"
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that this guy's calling islam "peace and love" and at the same time saying it promotes pedophilia and zoophilia - which is a huge contradiction.
Mr. Ali K pointed this out very clearly and questioned on what grounds is "muslims against sharia" rejecting parts of islam as "against the spirit of islam"... the million dollar question is: HOW DOES HE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CERTAIN PARTS ARE ISLAMIC AND OTHERS ARE NOT??? ESPECIALLY SINCE HE ADMITTED HIS KNOWLEDGE OF ISLAM IS INFERIOR TO MUSLIM "SCHOLARS" LIKE KHOMEINI!???
don't give us vague replies, MAS. Answer the question without playing semantics and without sophistry... no "switch and bait", no dodging the question and no stone walling... just answer the question plain and simple.
you make the claims but can you intellectually back it up???
MAS will undoubtedly try to answer with "look how bad the verses are on their own merits!" - but the question is why he thinks all the SO CALLED bad stuff is AGAINST the "spirit of islam" and yet MAS himself admits he knows less than the Ayatollah...
Ali K wrote:
"You adamantly alledge that the Koran has been corrupted. You've thrown out quite a bit of the Koran too. How do you know none of that was part of the 'spirit of the Koran'? Infact since you allege that the Koran has been corrupted how do you know what the 'spirit of the Koran' is anyway? Your allegation puts the reliablity of every verse in the Koran into doubt. Since you have no objective way of knowing what the 'spirit of koran' is except from the Koran itself, this dosn't make you claim anymore reasonable than the Jiahdi who chooses to ignore the verses in the Koran that you choose to keep.heh. So what it comes down to is an arbitary(not to be taken in the literal sense but as subject to individual preference) selection of verses from the Koran and thus ethics. How do you think this looks like to the smart muslim who can see through BS eh? I'd say it looks like moral relativism."
OoOOouuch! Point hammered home...!
I was hoping Mr. Ali K would be given a better reponse than the one he got:
"If you don’t like our definition, you do not have to accept it."
That's a sophisticated way of uttering the juvenile favorite: "whatever... talk to the hand cause the face don't care!"
and these guys are out to change islam??? with an intellectually bankrupt argument?
the best and most sophisticated answer by "muslims against sharia" has been "well guys since islam is peace, love and light - we're going to call muhammad a pedophile and just arbitrarily believe islam promotes zoophilia because some guy said so... and then we're going to reject all this"
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that this guy's calling islam "peace and love" and at the same time saying it promotes pedophilia and zoophilia - which is a huge contradiction.
Mr. Ali K pointed this out very clearly and questioned on what grounds is "muslims against sharia" rejecting parts of islam as "against the spirit of islam"... the million dollar question is: HOW DOES HE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CERTAIN PARTS ARE ISLAMIC AND OTHERS ARE NOT??? ESPECIALLY SINCE HE ADMITTED HIS KNOWLEDGE OF ISLAM IS INFERIOR TO MUSLIM "SCHOLARS" LIKE KHOMEINI!???
don't give us vague replies, MAS. Answer the question without playing semantics and without sophistry... no "switch and bait", no dodging the question and no stone walling... just answer the question plain and simple.
you make the claims but can you intellectually back it up???
MAS will undoubtedly try to answer with "look how bad the verses are on their own merits!" - but the question is why he thinks all the SO CALLED bad stuff is AGAINST the "spirit of islam" and yet MAS himself admits he knows less than the Ayatollah...
Towelie,
Is there a point in arguing with someone who puts words in our mouth and then, accuses us of contradicting ourselves based on those words? And on top of everything is too cowardly to let us post comments on his blog?
We seriously doubt that.
Post a Comment