Western Concepts: Are they Compatible with Islam??

[c0de]

@ Tao

Good Mourning

A technique not limited to Islam but certainly exemplified in the famous 'example' Muhammad set when he executed in cold blood the 600+ captive Jews.

This issue has already been dealt with:

"You do realize that the verdict to execute them came from a Jew right?..." Is Islam compatible with Western concepts of freedom? Post #153

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Official protest from the UN and other countries and NGOs like Amnesty International did not limit themselves to disgust for the punishment. Indeed the main noises made were about the process of trial where legal representation is denied or deliberately thwarted. In Saudi, Iran, Sudan and several other countries the sharia courts ignore all international conventions on what is a fair trial. To call them courts at all gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve. They are nothing but rubber stamping committees for the ruling elites.

It seems like you nullified your own original objection. That is exactly what I said in my last post: It has nothing to do with Islam.

Now you can believe in god or allah or the flying spahgetti monster as a persoanl belief system and it can be harmless. But when it demands political exclusiveness it becomes intolerable fascism because it derives its mandate not from what serves the people but what serves the ruling elites.

How can Islam require "political exclusiveness"? It is the Muslims who require political exclusiveness for their own political interests. I will give you an example of a system of beliefs that does require political exclusiveness, Communism. Last I checked, atheism is a built in feature of this system.

Islam is dangerous because Mohammad was a warlord,

The rest of your post, like this statement is based in opinion and not fact.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by c0de

This issue has already been dealt with:

"You do realize that the verdict to execute them came from a Jew right?..."

This may be your chosen explanation of events but it is far from "dealt with" in your rendering of it. Certainly it is not the opinion of Osama Bin Laden, the current spiritual leader of the Islamic world. It is not the opinion of Hamass nor of Iran. And nor is it the opinion of hundreds of preachers singing their hatred of Jews from the Orwellian loudspeakers situated on mosques across the muslim world.

It seems like you nullified your own original objection. That is exactly what I said in my last post: It has nothing to do with Islam.

It has everything to do with Islam. Just as a man would find it difficult to behead a man without some sharp edged steel it is difficult to control a populations minds without some equally effective weapon. Islam is such a weapon and was designed to be so. In this it is unique. Other religions have been hijacked to be that, only Islam was purposefully designed.

How can Islam require "political exclusiveness"?

I am sure you are 'bright' enough to figure it out.

The rest of your post, like this statement is based in opinion and not fact.

lol, and what is yours? Consider for a moment that we are both correct. We put your opinion on Islam and mine on opposite trays of the scales of judgement. The question is whether Islam does or not benefit the whole of the people. Your never realised ideal of Islam to my mind does not serve humanity, and my factual appraisal of Islams long history of bloodshed is not in humanities interest. This is where I come from. I could not give a flying fig about ideals. I do care about injustice. And Islam is nothing but a tool for those who thrive on injustice. Its that simple. If Stalinist/Maoist communism existed I would condemn it equally. And I condemn the Papacy, western corporate fascism, Russia and China's totalitairianism and any other system than subjugates the masses through tyranny for the prosperity of a corrupt elite equally. But this discussion is about Islam.


tao

[c0de]

@ Tao

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

This may be your chosen explanation of events but it is far from "dealt with" in your rendering of it.

It is not my "chosen explanation"... it is a historical fact.
Ponder on these words Tao. The rest will fall into place.

[Tao_Equus]

Fact. lol. You say fact and we all have to bow down before your infinite wisdom. LMFAO!!

Muhammad went to Medina after his EXPULSION from Mecca, for being a lying, cheating upstart wannabe of the absolutely intolerable variety. In Medina, with an at the time predominately Jewish and unmilitarised rule, he settled with his HIRED group of mercenaries paid for by the rich widow who despised him but was forced to become his wife. There he sought to teach a new version of the Torah as revealed to him during his epileptic visions. They, the Jews of Medina, were told that he was the last word from god. The Jews said "F**K you you psycopathic upstart. So he commanded his mercenary army to sew plots and to wage war upon the unmilitarised Jews. He commanded that every one of his followers should kill at least 2 Jews. He bribed, coerced and terrified some Jews into supporting him. Then he began to wage real war on them. After capturing some 600 (according to Jewish historians and 900 according to Islamic), and having them rendered helpless he beheaded them in cold blood. These ARE FACTS. And you can try to repaint them any way you like but I get all this from MUSLIM sites, NOT anti-muslim sites. Muslims have one story for us westerners/non-muslims, and another for themselves. And this is the crux of things.


tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Muhammad went to Medina after his EXPULSION from Mecca, for being a lying, cheating upstart wannabe of the absolutely intolerable variety.

Interesting. I thought it had something to do with the fact that he threatened the Meccans financially. They had a vested interest in providing a polytheist tourist attraction for the many visiting pilgrims.

[c0de]

@ Tao

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You say fact and we all have to bow down before your infinite wisdom.

I am flattered that you would give me such credit, however, I can not accept it:



Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 36f

Peters Muhammad and the Origins of Islam,

Buchanan, States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries

Rodinson, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam, p. 208.
Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion

Hashmi, Sohail H.; Buchanan, Allen E; Moore, Margaret (2003). States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press.

Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Peterson, Muhammad: the prophet of God, p. 127.

Lings, Martin. p. 232

Nomani, Sirat al-Nabi,


If you want more, let me know

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Certainly it is not the opinion of Osama Bin Laden, the current spiritual leader of the Islamic world. It is not the opinion of Hamass nor of Iran.

No wonder you have such a foaming hatred of Islam is you think these small extremist groups somehow represent the billions of Muslims around the world.

It really does need underling as narrow-minded crap - go out in the world, meet some different people, live among Muslims, and then come back and tell us whether you still believe in it.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Muhammad went to Medina after his EXPULSION from Mecca, for being a lying, cheating upstart wannabe of the absolutely intolerable variety. In Medina, with an at the time predominately Jewish and unmilitarised rule, he settled with his HIRED group of mercenaries paid for by the rich widow who despised him but was forced to become his wife. There he sought to teach a new version of the Torah as revealed to him during his epileptic visions. They, the Jews of Medina, were told that he was the last word from god. The Jews said "F**K you you psycopathic upstart. So he commanded his mercenary army to sew plots and to wage war upon the unmilitarised Jews. He commanded that every one of his followers should kill at least 2 Jews. He bribed, coerced and terrified some Jews into supporting him. Then he began to wage real war on them. After capturing some 600 (according to Jewish historians and 900 according to Islamic), and having them rendered helpless he beheaded them in cold blood. These ARE FACTS. And you can try to repaint them any way you like but I get all this from MUSLIM sites, NOT anti-muslim sites. Muslims have one story for us westerners/non-muslims, and another for themselves. And this is the crux of things.

[shakes head sadly]

You obviously read a lot of hate literature - I don't read any of that in my history books, not do I read this on Islamic sites - just hate sites.

I read about Mohammed being a reformist and being treated as an outcast for it, of him and his followers taking up with outcast Jewish tribes and living together, of defending themselves against direct attacks by the Arabs of the time.

That's what I read about in history books, on Islamic sites.

Perhaps you simply seek those sources that help feed your own hatred?

[Tao_Equus]

It has absolutely nothing to do with hatred on my part. And my interpretation of the historical facts are actually no different from what the apologists here are stating, I am just stating them without the 'spin' of trying to make a warlord into a holy man'. I simply remove the bull and state the obvious.

You seem to forget the millions of muslims that poured into the streets to celebrate 9/11 and the other terror attacks in Europe and Bali. And ignore survey after survey that show a barely suppressed loathing of westerners.
Although the support for OBL is waning, largely due to his failure to mount another spectacular attack, still around 25-30% of muslims "have confidence in him" as a spiritual leader.* Over 60% of muslims 'hate' Christians and over 90% "hate" Jews.* In Islamic schools across the world children are taught the supremacist ideology that only muslims are worthy and everybody else is an evil sinner. In mosques everywhere hatred of non-muslims is screamed from the pulpit and the loudspeakers.

Indeed the only place you get this peaceable benign version of what Islam is is amongst the western inteligentsia and pseudo-scholars that are engaged in the well funded orientalist campaign of apologetics and deception. And the only people who seem to believe it are those who like to think themselves scholars. In the general population in Europe and the US there is an 80- 85% recognition that Islam is a threat. Why do so many believe that? Perhaps because we see what is right under our noses and are not reading the junk pumped out by scholars funded by Saudi sheiks and Jordanian kings.

*Stats drawn from Pew report on global attitudes.


tao

[c0de]

@ Tao

Good Mourning

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

In Islamic schools across the world children are taught the supremacist ideology that only muslims are worthy and everybody else is an evil sinner. In mosques everywhere hatred of non-muslims is screamed from the pulpit and the loudspeakers.

Funny, sounds like you are talking about FOX news there... Or the Christian/Zionist Right wingers for that matter, (who have much bigger loud speakers then our mullahs btw). And as long as we are talking about sociology, here is an interesting survey from PEW Global: Apparently most Westerners consider the most violent religion to be Islam.... Pew Global Attitudes Project: I. How Muslims and Westerners See Each Other: Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics

According to this... maybe we Muslims here should be the ones who should be making all the fuss about an imperialistic and aggressive West? After all, how many civilian Muslims have been killed by "the West" in the past half century? How do you think that figure compares to the the 3,000 who died at 9/11? You know, as long as were counting numbers.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You seem to forget the millions of muslims that poured into the streets to celebrate 9/11 and the other terror attacks in Europe and Bali.

tao

Millions? Drop a couple of zeroes, on that figure... like three of 'em.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

*Stats drawn from Pew report on global attitudes.

muslims "have confidence in him" as a spiritual leader.*

Over 60% of muslims 'hate'

Christians and over 90% "hate" Jews.*

You mean this Pew Report? I think the title says it all... but You might want to add up the numbers again as well.

Pew Global Attitudes Project: IV. How Muslims View Relations with the World: Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I simply remove the bull and state the obvious.

Now this... is just precious.

[GlorytoGod]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

It has absolutely nothing to do with hatred on my part. And my interpretation of the historical facts are actually no different from what the apologists here are stating, I am just stating them without the 'spin' of trying to make a warlord into a holy man'. I simply remove the bull and state the obvious.

You seem to forget the millions of muslims that poured into the streets to celebrate 9/11 and the other terror attacks in Europe and Bali. And ignore survey after survey that show a barely suppressed loathing of westerners.
Although the support for OBL is waning, largely due to his failure to mount another spectacular attack, still around 25-30% of muslims "have confidence in him" as a spiritual leader.* Over 60% of muslims 'hate' Christians and over 90% "hate" Jews.* In Islamic schools across the world children are taught the supremacist ideology that only muslims are worthy and everybody else is an evil sinner. In mosques everywhere hatred of non-muslims is screamed from the pulpit and the loudspeakers.

Indeed the only place you get this peaceable benign version of what Islam is is amongst the western inteligentsia and pseudo-scholars that are engaged in the well funded orientalist campaign of apologetics and deception. And the only people who seem to believe it are those who like to think themselves scholars. In the general population in Europe and the US there is an 80- 85% recognition that Islam is a threat. Why do so many believe that? Perhaps because we see what is right under our noses and are not reading the junk pumped out by scholars funded by Saudi sheiks and Jordanian kings.

*Stats drawn from Pew report on global attitudes.


tao

hey nice post Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by c0de

Funny, sounds like you are talking about FOX news there... Or the Christian/Zionist Right wingers for that matter, (who have much bigger loud speakers then our mullahs btw). And as long as we are talking about sociology, here is an interesting survey from PEW Global: Apparently most Westerners consider the most violent religion to be Islam.... Pew Global Attitudes Project: I. How Muslims and Westerners See Each Other: Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics

According to this... maybe we Muslims here should be the ones who should be making all the fuss about an imperialistic and aggressive West? After all, how many civilian Muslims have been killed by "the West" in the past half century? How do you think that figure compares to the the 3,000 who died at 9/11? You know, as long as were counting numbers.

Why on earth would I look to Fox News for information? You know I have stated several times to you now that I do not visit Islamaphobic hate sites and I tell you now I do not look for news on corporate soapboxes either.

It is true that what you might call 'western imperialism' has caused the deaths of many millions and untold suffering for many more than that. But since when did two wrongs make a right? I am no supporter of the corporate machinations to exploit the natural resources in the middle east or anywhere else. I am as vociferous against corporate lies and greed/power as I am against Islam. In fact I see them as no different in motivation from each other. They both want absolute power.

But you do play down the terror and loss of life, and the untold suffering of many millions of people at the hands of Islam in recent decades. In Sudan, Algeria, Nigeria,Chad, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Chechnaya, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco, Egypt, Palestine and more people die or suffer in the name of Islam. Not all in big spectacular events but in the pernicious attrition of a totalitarian intolerance endemic amongst large swathes of muslims.

Millions? Drop a couple of zeroes, on that figure... like three of 'em.

4 million in Iran alone according to their news agency.

You mean this Pew Report? I think the title says it all... but You might want to add up the numbers again as well.

The numbers are clear and if you were to add those that refused to answer specific questions on allegiance to terror in Islamic nations (Pakistan it was 50%), as being people who did not want to declare their support for terror, a rational assumption to make in these countries, then the figures show an even bigger hate than the figures at first suggest. I did not add them.


tao

[c0de]

@ Tao

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

It is true that what you might call 'western imperialism' has caused the deaths of many millions and untold suffering for many more than that. But since when did two wrongs make a right? I am no supporter of the corporate machinations to exploit the natural resources in the middle east or anywhere else. I am as vociferous against corporate lies and greed/power as I am against Islam. In fact I see them as no different in motivation from each other. They both want absolute power.

Good to hear.

For my part, I am also vociferously against muslims who want absolute power, but I believe that their fascination with violence has nothing to do with Islam. This is the divergence between me and you.

But you do play down the terror and loss of life, and the untold suffering of many millions of people at the hands of Islam in recent decades. In Sudan, Algeria, Nigeria,Chad, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Chechnaya, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco, Egypt, Palestine and more people die or suffer in the name of Islam. Not all in big spectacular events but in the pernicious attrition of a totalitarian intolerance endemic amongst large swathes of muslims.

Not at all. I fully hold -Muslims- responsible for all these wrongs. I have said this many times now. But most of these attrocities are not commited in the name of Islam at all, but are political actions. Also, the name of Islam is just that, a "name"... Anyone can use the name of anything for their own purposes. The discussion here deals with Islam itself.

4 million in Iran alone according to their news agency.

Are you sure, cuz this is what I found:

"Huge crowds attended candlelit vigils in Iran, and 60,000 spectators observed a minute's silence at Tehran football stadium."

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iran's gulf of misunderstanding with US

The numbers are clear and if you were to add those that refused to answer specific questions on allegiance to terror in Islamic nations (Pakistan it was 50%), as being people who did not want to declare their support for terror, a rational assumption to make in these countries, then the figures show an even bigger hate than the figures at first suggest. I did not add them.
tao

The numbers are clear, your interpretation is wrong.
The only countries which even approach the figures
you are listing are Pakistan and Morocco.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Why on earth would I look to Fox News for information? You know I have stated several times to you now that I do not visit Islamaphobic hate sites and I tell you now I do not look for news on corporate soapboxes either.

Did I say you watch Fox news? I said your description of Muslim sources of information seemed to me to be equally applicable to Fox news. You however, did assume that most Muslims are always listening to Mullahs with loudspeakers and somehow this is all we have to do in our day. As if we only watch our Fox news equivalents.

[farhan]

For this reason, I believe that it is fine to talk about Islamic Law as a theoretical model for the state, but I simply do not think that it can ever be applied in the real world. The obvious reason for this is because it is just too utopian. But the real reason why it is "too Utopian" is because no top-down approach can bring lasting change or benefit for society.

When the Prophet ordered the ban on Alcohol in Medina, the streets flowed with dumped out wine, every drop of alcohol was spilled into the gutters. Everyone obeyed instantaneously. But we usually forget that this ban was not instituted a day after the coming of the Prophet. God took care of the "emotional/spiritual conditioning" of his servants beforehand. This is the exact opposite of a top-down approach (ironic isn't it? Even God, the Absolute Ruler does not apply his laws in a authoritarian fashion). So God has this finesse, and we apparently do not. Many Mullahs today believe that if you institute Shareeah, the rest of society will just fall into place. What will actually end up happening however is the corruption of Shareeah. I think Saltmeister has a good point in saying that the real reason why Religion should be kept separate from the State is because the State will always run on a corrupt foundation, and if you mix Religion with it, then the blame will inevitably fall on Religion. So to preserve the dignity of Religion, you should keep it far away form the state. Personally, I fully agree with this sentiment.

What I said implicitly, was that it has to start from some form of democracy, but democracy as a mean, not as an end. I mean philosophically speaking, democracy can never be considered an end, but it definitely is a good begining. Democracy means you are allowed to choose...choose what? What if 51% choose Islam?

Islam btw doesnt mean no-democracy.

What happened in the career of Prophet Muhammad is again "a sign", that change or evolution cant be imposed by a top down approach. It always comes bottom-up (Mecca+Early Medina), & then it goes top-down (Later Medina). No hadud laws can be implemented if the society is still in the swamp, otherwise its gonna be counter productive (There is an incident regarding Umar & Famine in Medina). Its not a questoin of "even God doesnt apply...", but "God too applies in bottom-up fashion".

Evolution occurs in every society, its the people who decide which direction this evolution will go. A hundred years ago, women in the west wore almost Islamic kind of dress. After a hundred year of evolution, full sleeves & scarf are seen as opressive. Thats definitely an evolution, but in the wrong way. The ideals of this evolution were labelled freedom, so it makes people free (of what?). One can start from any society, substitute its ideals* with piety/god-consciousness, & evolve it for a hundred years. Its not impossible, nor is it utopian. Just because an ideal doesent seem to be materialising right now doesnt mean it never will. Its always people, their ideals & conditioning that makes society.

I have talked about secularism too. Its only a tool, people can take it in any direction. There are examples of secular democracies chosing Islam .

The quote by Caliph Umar (ra) is very relevant here. At the end of the day, it is the narcissists who end up in these positions of authority, because the real leaders are out doing actual work. Look at Edhi for example, he was offered the Prime Ministership of Pakistan, he refused and said he could be more productive leading his NGO then as a PM. He was right.

Well, I think this quote is attributed to one of the four Caliphs, or may be Hussain. He was asked, "Did you want to be the Caliph?" He replied ,"No". Questioner asked, "Then why did you accept it?" He replied, " People thought I am the best choice, how can I refuse what is good for the Ummah?"

Lots of wisdom there too. If we are supposed to leave leadership to narcissists, that is going to be another form of monasticism. Good people living in the mountains, narcissists ruling the cities. Edhi might have had a thousand reasons for his choice. Politicians need to be clever for example, he isnt. Pakistani politicians would have killed all his reputation within a couple of days. But one cant take this choice as an ideal. There is an Imran Khan too. There was a Jinnah, Iqbal, Salahuddin. They could have just left the nation in the hands of narcissists. It was Iqbal who 70 years ago said, "If you remove faith from politics, whats left is Genghis-ism".

BTW never heard about the Edhi thing.

Unfortunately, the mosque has become a very similar institution to the Church. Examples: If Muslims actually forget that a fatwa given by a Mullah technically has no legal significance, and start to see it as some sort of a divine legislation, then we have our own priestly class, like the Jews and Christians before us; If the Mosque today is involved in politics, like it is in many Muslim countries, then many Muslims are granting Pope-like authority to its leaders (which are often unified under a political party like entity, which is probably totalitarian in nature); If Muslims today are averse to reading the Quran but instead rely on the Mosque to tell them what it says, then we are in the same paternalistic church-type system of Christianity.

Muslims need education, both secular & religious, & lots of it (That was one of the first things Prophet Muhammad did in Medina). You wont see any proper scholar saying those kind of things. There are scholars with decades of experience, Taqi Usmani, Hamza Yusuf, Timothy Winter, Nuh Keller..... these are real scholars. Every one of them is working for an evolution.

Who is a Mullah? Mullah is a dars-e-nizami equivalent of an 8th grader. Who listens to an 8th grader? A 5th grader ofcourse (ironically it means a big chunk of muslim population). Problem isnt "The mosque", problem is the millions of 5th graders ..... one eyed is king among the blind. Its a vicious cycle, dumb people following narcissists, & narcissists keeping people dumb. Educate people, & it ends.

-----------------------

* Collective consciousness

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by c0de

For my part, I am also vociferously against muslims who want absolute power, but I believe that their fascination with violence has nothing to do with Islam. This is the divergence between me and you.

In some sense it is not. But in another it is. The story of Muhammad is not a peaceable one. It is violent. This gives a great platform of legitimacy to those that are angry, discontented and wish to vent it. It is this potential of Islam to embrace the extremist and give him legitimacy that is cause for my objection to Islam as a whole. As it is impossible for a muslim to consider a rewrite of the koran to remove the hate and violence it is impossible for me to consider Islam as anything other than a danger to global peace and security. And it is this that will always have me in opposition to Islamic apologetics.

tao

[c0de]

@ Farhan + Tao



Farhan

Lots of wisdom there too. If we are supposed to leave leadership to narcissists, that is going to be another form of monasticism. Good people living in the mountains, narcissists ruling the cities. Edhi might have had a thousand reasons for his choice. Politicians need to be clever for example, he isnt. Pakistani politicians would have killed all his reputation within an hour. But one cant take this choice as an ideal. There is an Imran Khan too. There was a Jinnah, Iqbal, Salahuddin. They could have just left the nation in the hands of narcissists. It was Iqbal who 70 years ago said, "If you remove faith from politics, whats left is Genghis-ism".

Well Farhan, looking at this list of historical figures and comparing it with the contemporary claimants to these titles, we see an obvious difference. Both Jinnah and Salauddin were forced into their respective positions. Jinnah was dragged into nation building by the Muslim League, and the boy Saladin was picked away from religious studies to be trained by his uncle, who later was assassinated and Saladin was his replacement. All indications are that he preferred his religious studies to military ones in his youth.

Compare that with the current slew of people like Imran Khan... the guy builds a hospital and claims that he is now deserving of the Prime Ministership. Anyone who wants to become a leader, is doing so out of ambition and ignorance. Ambition is obvious, ignorance is not, but is even more important to note. Anyone who really understands what leadership is, knows that it is the ultimate form of servitude. Like Socrates said, who the hell would willingly want to become a servant of everyone in the city? Only one who does not understand the responsibility of such a task.

It is said that on Judgement Day, as Allah holds the entire universe rolled up in one hand, and holds the Earth spread out in his other, His first words would be: "I am the King... So where are the kings of earth?".... my skin crawls just typing these words and imagining that scene...

What I said implicitly, was that it has to start from some form of democracy, but democracy as a mean, not as an end. I mean philosophically speaking, democracy can never be considered an end, but it definitely is a good begining. Democracy means you are allowed to choose...choose what? What if 51% choose Islam?

I understant your point, I am just skeptical that democracy is a beginning to anything. That would imply that the proccess is progressive... But democracy was developed thousands of years ago in Greece. I do not see much improvement today, apart from fact that the metaphoric slaves of today are allowed to vote... to choose... (to elect puppets)... unlike the literal slaves of Greece back then who couldn't even do that. However still, I agree with your point... we both understand that bottom-evolution has to come before the top-down governance... I just dont think were ever going to get past the first stage, so worrying about the second stage is a moot point IMO. Especially if we consider the fact that the second stage is actually a self-fulfilling consequence of the first anyway.

Who is a Mullah? Mullah is a dars-e-nizami equivalent of an 8th grader. Who listens to an 8th grader? A 5th grader ofcourse (ironically it means a huge chunk of muslim population). Problem isnt "The mosque", problem is the millions of 5th graders ..... one eyed is king among the blind. Its a vicious cycle, dumb people following narcissists, & narcissists keeping people dumb.

Classic







Tao

In some sense it is not. But in another it is. The story of Muhammad is not a peaceable one. It is violent. This gives a great platform of legitimacy to those that are angry, discontented and wish to vent it. It is this potential of Islam to embrace the extremist and give him legitimacy that is cause for my objection to Islam as a whole. As it is impossible for a muslim to consider a rewrite of the koran to remove the hate and violence it is impossible for me to consider Islam as anything other than a danger to global peace and security. And it is this that will always have me in opposition to Islamic apologetics.

Anything can be interpreted in a wrong way.
Do you think Stalin interpreted Marx right?
How about the fundamentalists and the Bible?

The life of our Prophet is a message of peace and struggle
against the resistance of evil... You are believing in the interpretation
of the story that is believed by people like Osama.... you think someone
like him has it right? Would a scholar of history not have a better idea?