Reclaim Australia : What do they want, anyway?

58 Responses to Reclaim Australia : What do they want, anyway?

1. Kilby Steamer says:

   February 21, 2015 at 9:32 pm

   Thank you for your informative comment.
2. Tim Dymond says:

   February 23, 2015 at 11:31 am

   Hello, I appreciate that you are trying to avoid giving ‘Reclaim Australia’ links – however could you let us know the URL address of the website in the screen capture at the top of this post? We’re trying to act against the Perth rally. Maybe if you spelled out the address using [dot]? Cheers.
3. @ndy says:

   February 23, 2015 at 3:00 pm

   Hi Tim,

   It’s here : www . reclaim-australia . com
4. Tim Dymond says:

   February 23, 2015 at 3:01 pm

   Thanks. Much appreciated.
5. @ndy says:

   February 23, 2015 at 6:26 pm

   No worries: lemme know if you wanna hand promoting the Perth thing.
6. Tim Dymond says:

   February 23, 2015 at 8:48 pm

   Thank you – although I guess at the moment we’re hoping we won’t have to promote anything. Would prefer the whole RA to fall over through its own incompetence.
7. @ndy says:

   February 23, 2015 at 9:33 pm

   Fair enough. Of course, by holding it at Solidarity Park, the racist xenophobes are taking the piss.
8. Scott says:

   February 24, 2015 at 8:27 pm

   “Australia Day (aka Invasion/Survival Day)”

   No. It’s commonly referred to as ‘Australia Day’: date of landing of First Fleet in Port Jackson in 1788.
9. James says:

   February 24, 2015 at 10:19 pm

   Hi nice bagging of patriotic Australian’s. Can you point me in the direction of your blogs on the protests by Muslims in Sydney preaching against Australian law and for those that enforce it.

   Also can you point me to any links where you have commented on placards at Islam [rallies] that call for infidels to be beheaded. And can you show me where you have condemned Australians involved with IS. And any comments made about the protests made by Muslims complaining about the police force raiding homes and arresting potential terrorists planning attacks in Australia.

   And if you can please send me the links where you condemn parts of the Quran that enforce murder and torture and how it is ok to beat women, commit rape and take child brides.

   A question… Are you aware of the situation in Paris? Can you tell me how this will not be part of Australia’s future if we ignore what is happening in and in the vicinity of caliphates.

   I would love to hear your views on recent terror attacks on innocent people. Now that I know your views on Australians worried for their future.

   The people commenting above wanting to join counter rallies… you obviously support what I have just outlined. If you did not support this abhorrent behaviour of some Muslim groups then you would be taking part in the Reclaim Australia rally.

   I am taking part and I can assure you I am not racist, and I am not a bigot and I am not a xenophobe. I just care about where this country is headed. We cannot continue down the current path turning blind eyes and putting our heads in the sand.

   What will it take for you people to open your eyes and have a good look around. Perhaps you could educate yourself a little by examining what is happening in Europe.

   Doing and saying nothing, symbolically holding hands and singing kumbaya is the most ignorant thing you can do. That type of inaction whilst labelling normal Aussies as racists blaa blaa blaa will help destroy this country for future generations.

   Do you wonder where Tony [Abbott’s] tough security changes are coming from? Here’s a clue… the newly appointed head of ASIO was until recently Australia’s ambassador to Belgium, the European Union, Luxembourg and NATO. He may just know first hand what is coming…
10. jdrmot says:

    February 25, 2015 at 7:56 am

    I find your shallowness and irrational denialism to be jaw-dropping Andy. You say “This demand (not to teach Islam) begs an obvious question: why do protest organisers want Australian schoolchildren to remain ignorant of one of the world’s major religions?” Perhaps this would be better put “Islam cannot be taught in Australian schools UNLESS the true nature of Islam is taught… and by that I would see the origin of the Quran included and THIS is the dark place it came from (not that you will be able to perceive the relevance with your incredible lack of knowledge of the facts).

    QUESTION… how did chapter 4 vs 24 of the Quran come into being?

    Firstly what does it… say? Here it is:

    And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. (RH possess=slave girls/captives like ISIS is doing right now!)

    ANSWER: Here is how the authentic hadith of Abu Dawud relates a battle aftermath:

    Abu Sa’id Al Khudri said “The Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So, Allaah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand posses.” Book of Marriage 2150

    Well there you go… ‘ORIGIN’ of the Quran 4:24 is… this diabolical, disturbing, dangerous monstrosity of inhumanity to women and an absolute war crime (by any standard… not just today’s).

    So, there you are… opposing a group which wants to RECLAIM Australia from creeping domestic violence and sexual abuse that claims a RELIGIOUS sanction. That’s not a good place to be Andy… not a good place at all. One of the convicted Benbrika terrorists lives in a certain street in Fitzroy… he is given ‘obeisance’ and hero status by the Muslims in his street… he also has a wife… and 3 other wives all being paid for… by YOU (if you pay taxes, which I doubt) and us… because they are living in public housing. In that same street… one Muslim male dragged his wife kicking and screaming into the street while beating the crap out of her (and the Muslim males all looking on)… police were called but did they arrest this scumbag? NO… why? “Cultural sensitivities” … so that is the kind of thing we intend to ‘RECLAIM’ Australia from.

    You might argue… “Oh but domestic violence happens all over Australia and not just by Muslims” but in how many cases is the man, the violent offender let off because of ‘cultural/religious’ sensitivities? Andrews claims he will ‘jail the cowards’… what a pile of BS that is… he will possibly jail non Muslim offenders… but Muslims? Pigs will fly when that happens.

    Your position against the rally is entirely untenable, and highly suspect, in fact you are indicted in the court of public opinion and condemned in the hearts of right thinking people.
11. Rashid says:

    February 25, 2015 at 10:45 pm

    @James

    Hi.

    “If you did not support this abhorrent behaviour of some Muslim groups then you would be taking part in the Reclaim Australia rally.”

    The “some Muslim groups” are, like yourself, an attention seeking minority. Such a minority among Muslims has not captured any part of Australia, therefore whilst their views and ideas need to be countered, nothing needs to be reclaimed from them. But your qualification (i.e. ‘some’ Muslim groups) is laughingly disingenuous. The Reclaim Australia crowd makes no meaningful distinction between the ‘some’, the ‘most’ and the ‘all’ when it comes to their opposition to Muslims in Australia. Why bother pretending you do?

    “…please send me the links where you condemn parts of the Quran that enforce murder and torture and how it is ok to beat women, commit rape and take child brides. ”

    There’s no need for condemnation of what doesn’t exist. There are no such ‘enforcements’ in the Quran. None. If you require context and interpretation, why not seek it? If you’d prefer to just stick with your own interpretations, then that’s your prerogative.
12. Rashid says:

    February 25, 2015 at 11:14 pm

    @jdrmot

    Hi.

    You may be someone whose interest in Islamic scripture extends only insofar as it validates your existing anti Islam position. Or you may be someone whose antipathetic position has arisen from an entirely neutral interest in scripture. I’ll proceed on the basis of assuming the latter.

    >>”QUESTION… how did chapter 4 vs 24 of the Quran come into being?”

    It was revealed to Muhammad(sa) during the Medinite period of Islam.

    As for your allegation, which includes the absurd claim that the Quran supports the behaviour of ISIS, the first thing to be clarified is upon what basis the Quran allow Muslims to fight or war with others. There is only one reason mentioned in all of the Quran, and it is explicated the very first time the subject is mentioned. That reason, is the protection of religious freedom against those who initiate hostilities targetting it.

    “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them.”

    “Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty” (22:40-41)

    This verse alone is enough to invalidate the unprovoked, offensive, and immoral actions of ISIS. ISIS were not driven from their homes or anywhere else ‘only’ on the basis of their religious beliefs. Instead, they are the ones driving out others. They are the ones ‘pulling down’ places of worship. They are the ones violating the principle of freedom of worship.

    Turning to the Quranic quote you posted, the following is the full verse, since your partial quote tells us nothing…

    “And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess. This has Allah enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly and not committing fornication. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there shall be no sin for you in anything you mutually agree upon, after the fixing of the dowry. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.”

    And the next verse…

    “And whoso of you cannot afford to marry free, believing women, let him marry what your right hands possess, namely, your believing handmaids. And Allah knows your faith best; you are all one from another; so marry them with the leave of their masters and give them their dowries according to what is fair, they being chaste, not committing fornication, nor taking secret paramours. And if, after they are married, they are guilty of lewdness, they shall have half the punishment prescribed for free women. This is for him among you who fears lest he should commit sin. And that you restrain yourselves is better for you; and Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.”

    So what do these verses mean? The context of the first is exclusively that of female prisoners of war during the religious wars of the Medinite period, i.e. when the newly established religion of Islam was seen as a threat to the status quo, and attacked by various neighbouring warring tribes. This is exactly the period when this chapter was revealed, and the only context (war targetting religion) in which that verse is applicable.

    And whilst God declares personal restraint of desire by men as the better course, the permissibility and associated conditions contained in the verses, address those men who fear ‘committing sin’, i.e. entering sexual relations outside of the covenant of marriage. The principles are clear enough:

    – Marriage not fornication, therefore men and women observing the rules of marriage, including (for the already married) the observance of Idda, the waiting period between divorce and remarriage.

    – a dowry (i.e. currency or property) for the bride as part of the marriage contract, plus whatever else beyond that which is mutually agreed.

    – both the woman and man being married be chaste.

    The treatment of women generally in Arabia during that historical period was horrific. They had virtually no rights and certainly none over men. Female infanticide was the cultural norm. So it was not uncommon that female prisoners of war would convert to the religion of their Muslim captors, a religion which afforded them a right to protection, property, inheritance, divorce etc.

    But this verse allows marriage to female prisoners of such wars, even if they are not believers, as long as the established rules of marriage are followed. The established rules of marriage in Islam do not allow force, rape or subsequent slavery. The intent of the revelation is therefore to provide an option of protection for (non believing) women, in such a wartime situation where they would otherwise be completely vulnerable.

    The verses in their entirety completely invalidate your understanding from the Abu Dawud hadith that you’ve posted. But there is also a second problem. The Abu Dawud hadith you’ve presented is an altered fabrication. The words “in the presence of their husbands” does not appear anywhere in the original Arabic. It’s an addition to the translation. The same hadith, through a different chain of narration, also appears in the hadith compilation of Sahih Muslim without the fabrication. The bogus hadith is now found largely only on anti Islam websites promoting a purported “true nature of Islam”.

    So jdrmot, will you now be marching holding a ‘Reclaim Australia from misleading Quranic interpetrations’ banner? Or sticking to the one that says ‘I support reading the Quran ISIS style’?
13. @ndy says:

    February 27, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    @James:

    1) You’ve completely ignored the content of the post to which your comment is presumably intended to be a response. In reality, I don’t “bag patriotic Australian’s” (sic); rather, I examine each of the demands that have been published on the Reclaim Australia website and critically assess them. I take your silence to indicate that you do not dispute the accuracy of my assessments. That being the case, it seems rather silly of you to support the rallies.

    2) Muslims have organised protests in Sydney, yes, with various demands (and declarations). I don’t know which protests you have in mind, but as an anarchist and an atheist I obviously feel no particular need to spell out my opposition to theocratic rule. With regards IS, I’ve expressed support for and promoted the struggles of Kurds in Kobani and in Rojava, ‘Australians for Kurdistan’ and other related groups and projects, on my blog, Facebook page and Twitter account.

    3) I have some familiarity with ‘the situation in Paris’ if by this you mean the reaction to the Charlie Hebdo murders. I think the assessments published by Le Monde Diplomatique (which I republished on my blog) are germane.

    4) The ‘national security’ laws introduced by the Abbott government are a further consolidation and extension of laws introduced by the HoWARd and numerous other foreign governments following 9/11. These attacks on civil liberties and many others like them — whether contemporary or historical — have invariably been justified by reference to ‘security’. As Chomsky (among others) has noted, ‘security’ has a special meaning in statist discourse, and relates only tangentially to the ‘security’ of the general population.

    @jdrmot:

    You write: “Perhaps this would be better put “Islam cannot be taught in Australian schools UNLESS the true nature of Islam is taught… and by that I would see the origin of the Quran included and THIS is the dark place it came from …”

    I’m responding to reality, ie, what the protest organisers have actually published on the website in question. With regards the Quran, as Rashid notes, like other historical texts, its meaning is informed by its context and is subject to interpretation, both historical and ongoing. Claiming that the Quran is uniquely despicable because it contains objectionable passages which may be interpreted as condoning contemporary crimes is simply false — though this practice does share similarities with the kinds of anti-Semitic tropes perpetuated by David Duke and his followers, who claim that the Talmud is a uniquely despicable text and may be employed in order to explain Jewish peoples’ supposed desire for world domination.

    So, there you are… opposing a group which wants to RECLAIM Australia from creeping domestic violence and sexual abuse that claims a RELIGIOUS sanction. That’s not a good place to be Andy… not a good place at all. One of the convicted Benbrika terrorists lives in a certain street in Fitzroy… he is given ‘obeisance’ and hero status by the Muslims in his street… he also has a wife… and 3 other wives all being paid for… by YOU (if you pay taxes, which I doubt) and us… because they are living in public housing. In that same street… one Muslim male dragged his wife kicking and screaming into the street while beating the crap out of her (and the Muslim males all looking on)… police were called but did they arrest this scumbag? NO… why? “Cultural sensitivities” … so that is the kind of thing we intend to ‘RECLAIM’ Australia from.

    You might argue… “Oh but domestic violence happens all over Australia and not just by Muslims” but in how many cases is the man, the violent offender let off because of ‘cultural/religious’ sensitivities? Andrews claims he will ‘jail the cowards’… what a pile of BS that is… he will possibly jail non Muslim offenders… but Muslims? Pigs will fly when that happens.

    I have difficulty following your line of argument in the above. From what I can gather, you claim that there’s some bloke in Fitzroy with three wives who’s regarded as a hero by other Muslims; further, that at some point, at some place near this man’s residence, a Muslim male assaulted his wife and the police did not arrest him because their cultural sensitivities prevented them from doing so. In the absence of any evidence, pardon me if I read this account with some skepticism. So too your claim that the Victorian premier will sabotage the legal system to ensure that no Muslim goes to jail, ever. That’s crazy talk. In any event, it’s hardly surprising to learn that men try to justify their abuse of women, whether by reference to religious texts or simply because ‘she asked for it’. The Reclaim Australia rallies are simply popular exercises in racism and xenophobia that will do nothing to combat this violence — nor are they intended to.
14. jdrmot says:

    February 28, 2015 at 6:53 am

    Dear Andy, I can see that you are capable of a reasonable discussion, so don’t regard my barbs as anything too personal (you need an ideological shake to wake you up).

    @RASHID Good grief… his spin there had more theological and historical holes in it than a ton of Swiss cheese. His response illustrates why it is so futile arguing with a Muslim generally. He defended the indefensible on the basis of some serious selection, emphasis, de-emphasis and he is completely oblivious to the principle of abrogation. The prime example of this is found below:

    Quote from RASHID:

    As for your allegation, which includes the absurd claim that the Quran supports the behaviour of ISIS, the first thing to be clarified is upon what basis the Quran allow Muslims to fight or war with others. There is only one reason mentioned in all of the Quran, and it is explicated the very first time the subject is mentioned. That reason, is the protection of religious freedom against those who initiate hostilities targetting it.

    Now.. this is either an outright lie, or spoken from ignorance, or.. pure propaganda.

    I demonstrated clearly (in an earlier post today) that this is simply not supported by the facts. The primary evidence for HOW the early Muslims understood and interpreted 9:29 is found in a remarkable hadith about Caliph Umar, one of the ‘rightly guided’ Caliphs. He was, by the way, the father of one of Muhammad’s wives (Hafsa bint Umar) so he was close by religious association and close by marriage… he KNEW what Muhammad meant in 9:29 because he was a close companion.

    It is standard hermeneutical procedure to examine ‘how’ contemporaries to an event understood that event.

    Some facts: from Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386: (see it cited below)

    -Umar planned to invade the Persians.
    -The Persians had not, repeat NOT invaded the Muslims. (“Who are you?” asked the Persian)
    -It was NOT a defensive war unless you consider it a pre-emptive attack which is still an offensive invasion based on a presumed future event that is highly speculative.
    -To justify this invasion.. Al Mughira QUOTED 9:29 “Fight those….”
    -Muhammad is already dead. (Thus this is how the Muslim Caliph interpreted 9:29 in his post Muhammad context)
    -This provides the basis for ‘suicide bombing/martrydom operations’
    -It demonstrates the Imperialistic, expansionist social and political dominance nature of Islam, BASED ON it’s believed revealed truth! (“Our prophet has ordered us to fight you until Allah alone is worshiped or you pay the Jizya”)

    In fact… just replace Umar with Al Bagdadi and you have the proto-early ISIS. Where do you think Al Bagdadi GOT his ideas from?

    CONCLUSION. Rashid is completely wrong, hopefully due to ignorance, but I suspect from deliberate spin. He now has no further excuse for expressing such deviant and Un-Islamic heresies because he has now been taught that they are just that.

    There is no point in trying to unpack Rashid’s justification of sexual abuse, because his thinking is equally errant for the same reasons he is wrong about the above issue… why waste time trying to fix all his faults? One demolished argument is sufficient to prove his approach to all is wrong.

    CAPITALISM?

    Andy, given your anarchist credentials and your distaste for capitalism, you should really be joining the rally to reclaim Australia. Reclaim from… what? Islamic intrusion is just one dimension of it… the far bigger and more nefarious aspect is how there is corrupt collusion between a number of people with power and influence in Bendigo who are using the Muslim mosque issue for pure hyper capitalist greed and dirty money making. I’m not discrediting either capitalism or free markets, I am condemning corrupt PEOPLE… as you should be. You are far too locked into your narrow world view, and should be liberated from it to enable you to see things as they really are! (OK… we’ve been taking faith issues… here’s one for you. “All.. ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. This means me, you and all Muslims and Christians and secularists. In short… humanity is the problem. Ideological systems do NOT change this, they can merely restrain it. But there IS hope… yes… really, but it is not found in Marx, Lenin, Bakunin, Chomsky, Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes or any human agency. You might hopefully guess who I am alluding to, but hey… who am I to ‘preach’ to you?

    CORRUPTION IN BENDIGO

    https://www.rightsforbendigoresidents.org/the-bendigo-mosque-vcat-council-media-an-overview/

    Makes jaw-dropping reading! This is the very thing that gives free market capitalism a bad name… it’s called a CLOSED CORRUPT market!

    HADITH

    Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:

    Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, ‘Umar said to him. “I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade.” Al-Hurmuzan said, “Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau.” So, ‘Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, “We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.” (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu’ man said to Al-Mughira, “If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah’s Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah’s Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday).
15. Rashid says:

    February 28, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    @jdrmot

    Oh dear, where to begin.

    Your curious response bemoaning my engagement in “serious selection” may have held some credibility, if you’d in fact outlined exactly what I did not select from the Quran which might challenge what I did. You outlined nothing of the sort.

    Likewise, your bold allegation of my apparently wrongful “emphasis” and “de-emphasis”, promised much by way of actual examples of what deserved being given greater emphasis than or from the Quran, and wasn’t. And what was given emphasis by myself but shouldn’t have been – and why.

    And so, in an admittedly delightful rhetorical flourish alleging ‘lies, ignorance and propaganda’, you chose instead to rest your case simply on your assertions themselves. How disappointing.

    The verse I posted from the Quran (22:40-41), was the very first revealed verse pertaining to religiously sanctioned war, and explicitly laid down the preconditions for doing so. You choose to completely ignore it. Almost as if by doing so it might magically disappear. I can assure you it’s still there. That it doesn’t serve your ‘Quran supports ISIS’ narrative, but instead refutes it, may explain the myopia.

    Having been caught out posting a bogus hadith in your previous post, you rationalise your position around yet another hadith, revealing an apparent ignorance of the hierarchy of Islamic sources. Hadith can no doubt be used to contextualise verses of the Quran, but not at the expense of any other part of the Quran. Therefore claiming that this hadith supports your assertion of ISIS’s Islamic validity, as well as illuminating 9:29, is nonsensical if your understanding of it contradicts 22:40.

    Briefly… of the three primary Islamic sources, only the Quran is considered by Muslims to be infallible, and thus retains primacy in all instances. The second source is sunnah – what the Prophet(sa) reportedly did. The third source is hadith – what the Prophet(sa) reportedly said.

    Hadith were historically transmitted orally from one narrator to the next, in a sort of extensive game of Chinese whispers. There is a shorthand as well as a scientific method for ascertaining the authenticity of hadith.

    The shorthand method is to simply confirm congruence with the Quran. If instead there is contradiction which can’t be reconciled, then that particular hadith is discarded. The scientific method involves investigating the historical isnad (chain of narration). For example, a hadith with multiple chains of reliable narrators may be considered to have a strong isnad, whilst a hadith with only a single chain containing a narrator of dubious repute may be considered weak.

    So importantly do Muslims regard the authority of the Quran, that there is a whole category of Muslims who do not accept the validity of any other source. They are known as ‘Quranists’. But as a self appointed adjudicator of Islamic ‘heresies’, no doubt you already knew all this.

    >>”The primary evidence for HOW the early Muslims understood and interpreted 9:29 is found in a remarkable hadith about Caliph Umar, one of the ‘rightly guided’ Caliphs.”
    >>”Some facts: from Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386: (see it cited below)

    -Umar planned to invade the Persians.
    -The Persians had not, repeat NOT invaded the Muslims.
    (“Who are you?” asked the Persian)
    -It was NOT a defensive war unless you consider it a pre-emptive attack which is still an offensive invasion based on a presumed future event that is highly speculative.”

    Your primary basis for being in agreeance with the proposition that ISIS’s self declared religious war is Islamically justified, is your belief that Umar’s(ra) conquest of Persia was an unprovoked attack on a benign empire.

    This belief in turn instructs your reading of the hadith you’ve presented, which you then claim should be the prism through which to understand how (rightly guided) Muslims of that historical period read Quran 9:29. Wow. It’s all a bit of a stretch.

    The first obvious point to make is that characterising all conflict and conquest involving Muslims at that time as wholly religiously inspired, and divorced from the political realities of the period is absurd. The outer lying provinces of Muslim controlled territory were frequently witness to uprisings, revolts and insurgencies, supported and encouraged by the influence of the neighbouring Byzantine and Persian empires.

    If we’re to make an assessment of how Umar(ra) regarded the incursions into the border provinces by his Persian neighbours, we have some indication from his own words:

    “I wish that between the Suwad [area between the Euphrates and the Tigris] and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them. The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war.” – ‘Al Farooq, Umar’ By Muhammad Husayn Haykal. Chapter 5, p 130. Publisher: Dar al-Ma’arif, 1981.

    Instructive too are the words of al-Ahnaf to Umar(ra) when the Caliph enquired into the reasons for the revolt in al-Basrah (what is Basra, Iraq today):

    “Umar said to the delegation (from al-Basrah), “Have the Muslims perhaps done harm to the people living under their protection? Or have they perhaps done things to them that caused them to commence hostilities against you?” “No,” they answered, “we only know that we acted in good faith and with decency.” ‘Umar asked, “Then how did their revolt come about?” But after questioning them, he did not receive any answer from anyone that took away his doubt or through which he gained insight into the situation they described.”

    “Commander of the Faithful, I shall enlighten you. You forbade us to spread out farther into Persian territory, and you ordered us to stay within the borders of the region that we have under our control. However, the king of the Persians is still alive among them, and they will therefore not cease to contend with us for control of the region, as long as their king is among them. Two kings can never govern simultaneously and agree; the one will inevitably oust the other. I have come to realize that we made one conquest after another solely because of their continuous revolts. It is their king who incites them, and this will always be his line of action until you give us permission to venture out into their land so that we separate him from his subjects and expel him from his kingdom by divesting him of his might and authority. Only then will the hope of the Persians be crushed and will they capitulate.” – ‘The Conquest of Iraq, Southwestern Persia, and Egypt’, by Ṭabari, G. H. A. Juynboll, p 140-1. Publisher: State University of New York, 1989.

    So was Umar(ra) inspired by your ‘ISIS like’ reading of 9:29 when he waged war with the Persians? Did he attack them simply on the basis that they needed to be conquered for being non Muslim? You’ve presented no proof of that, because you have no proof of that.

    The following is what some well known non Muslim writers and historians have said about Umar(ra), including his reputation for religious tolerance:

    http://www.alislam.org/topics/khilafat/Hadhrat_Umar_in_the_eyes_of_non_Muslim_writers-20080815MN.pdf

    >>”One demolished argument is sufficient to prove his approach to all is wrong.”

    Well you’ve certainly huffed and puffed…
16. jdrmot says:

    March 1, 2015 at 8:35 am

    *smile* Not only have I huffed and puffed, but I intend to blow your house of Islamic cards right down (as long as Andy allows my contributions)! But for right now? Having just read your response) I cannot… as I am forced to flee from the power of your polemic, the purity of our profession, the enticement of your elocution (which is in reality ‘pollution’) with my tail between my legs, cringing, cowering and caving in to your inspiring insights, breadth of knowledge and incisive invective. That’s code for … “You wish! … I’m actually heading off for a family reunion” … but will come back to paw over the entrails of your soon to be disemboweled logical fallacies and hyperbole, not to mention your reliance on post hoc ergo proctor hoc in your connection with dodgy tepid tainted sources (in those mentions of Umar) and original documents are … Quran and Hadith, but I’ll also consider ibn Ishaq and Tabari if you will.

    As MacArthur said “I will return”.
17. John Connelly says:

    March 1, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    This is the real “Reclaim Australia” Facebook page. The one you mention is a FAKE, designed by Muslim/Leftist students to throw dirt on the real one.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/worldcoalitionagainstislam/#!/pages/Reclaim-Australia-Rally-Australia-wide/762398587169729
18. @ndy says:

    March 1, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    @John Connelly:

    Huh? Who are you addressing? What fake “Reclaim Australia” Facebook page? What are you talking about?
19. jdrmot says:

    March 1, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    @ Rashid:

    “I’m Back”… ok… Let’s tackle your early premise there (top of your post) about 22:39-41.

    (22:39) Permission (to fight) has been granted to those against whom war has been waged because they have been treated unjustly, *78 and Allah is certainly able to help them. *79

    *78 This (v.39) is the first verse of the Qur’an in which permission to tight was given in the month of Zil-Hajj in the first year after Hijrah according to our research. Then the command to fight was given in vv. 190, 191, 193, 216 and 244 of Chapter II (Al-Baqarah) in Rajab or Sha`ban of A.H. 2.

    *79 “…and Allah is certainly able to help them”: this assurance was urgently needed by the persecuted Muslims whose fighting strength at that time was very meagre-not even a thousand including all the migrants and the Muslims of al-Madinah. On the other hand, the fighting strength of the Quraish by themselves was much greater. Besides, they had all the other mushrik clans of Arabia at their back and were joined later by the Jews as well. Therefore, this assurance was most opportune and the challenge to the disbelievers was very significant, for it meant to say that they were not fighting against a small number of the Muslims but against Allah. Therefore, “You are. welcome to fight if you dare”.’ (Tafheem Al Quran, Maududi)

    COMMENT. Clearly this is grounded in the physical and chronological context of just after Muhammad and his gang had fled Mecca to Medina. ie.’this is EARLY ‘revelation’. Now, could this early revelation be updated, abrogated? Indeed it can… justification.

    Malik: In his review of the question of whether the Muslim traveler should observe or may postpone the obligation to fast during the month of Ramadān, which involves him in a comparison of conflicting opinion reported from many prominent Muslims of the past, including contradictory reports as to the practice of the Prophet himself, Mālik states that his teacher Zuhrī had told him that the Muslims had adopted as standard the latest of all the Prophet’s reported actions… while in another chapter Mālik himself actually states that of the two relevant Kur’ān rulings, one had replaced the other.

    QURAN: 2:106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

    IBN KATHIR
    Verse: Q.9:5 (āyat al-sayf, the “sword verse”)
    Abrogatee (mansūkh): Literally dozens of verses enjoining the umma’s peaceable conduct towards outside groups: Hibat Allāh and al-Nahhās cite 124 and 130 verses, respectively.[7] Ibn al Jawzī and Mustafā Zayd count 140 verses[50] and Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsir that 9.5 abgrogated “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.”

    Verse: Q.9:29
    Abrogatee: “Nahhās considers 9:29 to have abrogated virtually all verses calling for patience or forgiveness toward Scriptuaries”.

    COMMENT: This information, all sourced, confirms exactly what I said before and exposes your rant as just that… a rant of what might be termed “political” truth… not real truth.

    BACK TO UMAR. Your sources for Umar were predictably vague and lacked the weight of original sources such as the (sahih) hadith. If you cannot prove your point from the Sahih Hadith, it is pointless relying on, or pointing to later less weighty texts or books written long after the events.

    THE HADITH. You tried to deflect the clear and unambiguous intended meaning of Vol 4, book 53, number 386 by obfuscating with less weighty later sources, but I sprang you on this. Nothing you said can detract from the obvious and clear meaning of the sections that showed Umar was planning to invade a people who DID NOT NOW who he/they was/were. Therefore it is an absurdity to claim they have been attacking the Muslims. It is more likely that Arabs under the rule of the Persians were rebelling from WITHIN the reign of the Persians, and that this deserved to be put down by the prevailing laws of State of that time. Using that as an excuse to invade is ridiculous, and can only be used when you hold a world view that “If Muslims anywhere are attacked, the Ummah has an obligation to protect them” which is fine… if you can show ORIGINAL SOURCES that declare just such a scenario and I mean ORIGINAL not speculation by later writers or arguments from silence.

    In regard to the Jizya, Ibn Kathir says of the Jizya in 9:29 it is a symbol of: (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, with willing submission), in defeat and subservience (and feel themselves subdued), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.

    COMMENT: Now this might come as a bit of a revelation, but THAT MEANS ME and every non-Muslim Australian and any bright spark who thinks we will take that treatment on board would be wise to reconsider. ( to seriously understate the issue) When Muslims say “Islam is peace”… THAT is the kind of peace they mean.

    MAUDUDI ON 9:29 (Tafheem al Quran)
    The second reason why Jihad should be waged against them is that they did not adopt the Law sent down by Allah through His Messenger.
    *28 This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the `Islamic Way of Life.’ They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land.

    COMMENT: There you have it, from both Kathir and Maududi, the intention, goal, calling of the Muslim Ummah is to violently overthrow non Muslim governments and replace them with Islamic rulers.

    THE END.
20. Rashid says:

    March 2, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    @jdrmot

    I trust the reunion went well.

    >>“I’m Back”… ok… Let’s tackle your early premise there (top of your post) about 22:39-41.

    Even in the loosest definitions of the term ‘tackle’, it does not mean simply quoting verbatim the opinions of others without reference. I understand that like the rest of us, you’re probably also busy, but is it too much to ask that you use whatever sources you choose, to form and present your own considered argument/opinion rather than simply cut and paste dumping?

    >>”*78…*79″

    ?..ok…so I disagree with this opinion. As do many other Muslims.

    This cut and paste Quranic commentary is attributed to the controversial Maulana A’la Maududi, who was a popular 20th century Indian journalist. Later in his career he turned to writing about Islam, and founded the Jamaat e Islami party in India/Pakistan. Here’s what some of his contemporaries thought of his religious credentials:

    “Being a journalist rather than a serious scholar he wrote at great speed and with resultant superficiality in order to feed his eager young readers—and he wrote incessantly… Not one of Maududi’s followers ever became a serious student of Islam, the result being that, for the faithful, Maududi’s statements represented the last word on Islam-no matter how much and how blatantly he contradicted himself from time to time on such basic issues as economic policy and political theory”– Prof. Fazlur Rehman

    “I know Maulana Abu Ala Maududi. He has neither learned from nor been disciplined by a scholar of repute. He is very well read but his understanding of religion is weak”– Mufti Kifayatullah of Delhi

    “His pamphlets and books contain opinions which are anti-religious and heretic, though written with theological trappings. Lay readers cannot see through these trappings. As a result they find the Islam brought by the Holy Prophet repugnant; the Islam which has been followed by the Ummat-i-Muhammadiya for the last 1350 years”– Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani

    “Having read Maududi Sahib’s writings I have concluded that he did not acquire the disciplines of Muslim legal philosophy and mysticism. He cannot write on them with authority”– Maulana Ahmad Ali Lahauri

    Source: Murder in the name of Allah’, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, chapter three, ‘A rebuttal of Maududian philosophy’, Lutterworth Press 1989.

    Having offered no reasoning of your own, I’ll address Maududi’s commentary. In short, he says 22:39 was revealed as a reassurance from God to Muslims who were outnumbered. Nothing remarkable in that. He then claims the verse was a direct challenge to their opponents… ?? The text of the verse emphasises no such thing. And on the substance of the verse, i.e. protection of religious freedom and the protection of (non Islamic) religious houses of worship, he along with you are both predictably mute.

    >>”Now, could this early revelation be updated, abrogated? Indeed it can… justification.

    Malik: In his review of the question of whether the Muslim traveler should observe or may postpone the obligation to fast during the month of Ramadān, which involves him in a comparison of conflicting opinion reported from many prominent Muslims of the past, including contradictory reports as to the practice of the Prophet himself…etc.”

    What you’ve presented unsourced, is lifted directly from John Burton’s ‘Islamic theories of abrogation’. It’s a statement attributing an opinion to Malik bin Anas, i.e. founder of the Maliki school of interpretation. The opinion is related to the sunnah (Prophet’s(sa) practice) of fasting. Though he (Burton) does mention Maliki opining on the abrogation of Quranic verses, it’s unclear which verses, what matters they refer to, or in what circumstances.

    In any case, this (Maliki) is only one of the four major schools within Sunni Islam. And even within each school there have been, as your own quote states, differences of opinion. For instance al-Dabusi, a well reputed Hanafi jurist of the 11th century did not believe in abrogation in the sense that earlier verses of the Quran were made redundant by later ones.

    “Dabusi responded..by saying that God’s injunctions in the Quran are indeed established forever, but that those injunctions can only be applied in specific circumstances. Thus, one should not think that God’s commands are temporal, but that precipitating causes are temporal and change when societies evolve, requiring new injunctions that speak to the new circumstances.”
    – ‘Narratives of Islamic Legal Theory’, Rumee Ahmed, Oxford University Press 2012.

    Or in other words, verses of the Quran are never redundant, but the application of some is contingent on the context of the circumstances they are being applied to. And again, your quote itself states that Maliki’s opinion “…involves him in a comparison of conflicting opinion reported from many prominent Muslims of the past, including contradictory reports as to the practice of the Prophet himself”, thereby confirming that his opinion was not universally accepted by other prominent Muslims.
21. Rashid says:

    March 2, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Furthermore, even amongst scholars who do subscribe to one of the various theories of abrogation relating to sunnah over the Quran, or Quranic verses over each other, it is erroneous to assume that they therefore all believe in Quranic abrogation theory as you imply it. And it is also erroneous to assume that they all believe that 22:39 is one of the verses which is subject to whichever principle of abrogation that they may or may not support.

    Your non sequiturial conclusion runs as follows: ‘Here is a scholar who supports Quranic abrogation, therefore 22:39 is conclusively abrogated by later verses’…? If the basis for your assertion is simply that some scholars support the principle, then that is directly countered by other scholars who don’t, and certainly doesn’t factor those scholars whose understanding of abrogation does not match yours. And it’s also countered by the absence of any mention of its purported validity in Islam’s primary sources.

    John Burton, the author of the quote pertaining to Malik, which you’ve blindly offered up as proof, makes the same conclusion: (parentheses and bolding is my addition)…

    “That Muhammad accepted, or even heard of the theories of naskh[abrogation] in all their three-fold modality is certainly untrue, for we have exposed the origins of the theories in gradual developments arising from the attempts of exegetes and usulis[influential Shia interpreters of fikh] to resolve the painful problems posed by the conflicts they themselves noted between the contents of Fikh[interpretations of shariah] and mushaf[physical text of revelation]. But the ‘conflict’ we have seen was actually between different exegeses of the Kur’anic passages.

    If the Fikh had been from the first based directly upon the texts of the Kur’an, as the classical statement of usul al-fikh[principles of Islamic jurisprudence] alleges, rather than indirectly and at one remove – that of tafsir[exegesis], and if the usulis had always understood the true import of such expressions as ‘the Book of God’, for example, and if they had appreciated the exegetical origin of much that passes for the Sunna, such conflicts need never have arisen, and, in consequence, the ingenious theories of al-nasikh wa-l-mansukh[the abrogating and abrogated] would never have needed to be constructed.”– ‘The sources of Islamic law: Islamic theories of abrogation’, John Burton, p 208-9, Edinburgh University Press 1990.

    >>”QURAN: 2:106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?”

    The immediately preceding verse states:

    “They who disbelieve from among the People of the Book, or from among those who associate gods with Allah, desire not that any good should be sent down to you from your Lord; but Allah chooses for His mercy whomsoever He pleases; and Allah is of exceeding bounty.”

    And so both verses considered together clearly relate to scripture which was sent previously to the Quran (to People of the Book etc.), being ‘substituted’ with something better, i.e. the Quran itself. Ironically for yourself, the contradictory Maududi, whose Quranic exegesis you have trumpeted as
    worthy of our consideration, agrees that this is how the verse should be read:

    “This is in response to a doubt which the Jews tried to implant in the minds of the Muslims. If both the earlier Scriptures and the Qur’an were revelations from God, why was it – they asked – that the injunctions found in the earlier Scriptures had been replaced by new ones in the Qur’an? How could the same God issue divergent injunctions?”– Maududi (on verse 2:106, Tafheem al Quran)

    So is Maududi still your man for the correct understanding of Islam or not?

    The Quran itself explains how it is to be interpreted. It contains verses that are “firm and decisive in meaning” (muhkamat), which are used to interpret those verses susceptible of different interpretations (mutashaabihat). It does not endorse its own abrogation at all.
22. Rashid says:

    March 2, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    >>”Nothing you said can detract from the obvious and clear meaning of the sections that showed Umar was planning to invade a people who DID NOT NOW who he/they was/were.
    Therefore it is an absurdity to claim they have been attacking the Muslims…if you can show ORIGINAL SOURCES that declare just such a scenario and I mean ORIGINAL not speculation by later writers or arguments from silence.”

    You start by defending something which isn’t being disputed. I’ve offered no argument against the proposition that Umar(ra)planned his invasion. Your assertion however that the Persians enquiring from Al-Mughira as to who he was, meant therefore that they didn’t know who their immediate neighbours were is absurd.

    You’re supposing an alternative reason for the revolts and uprisings in the lands controlled by Muslims. I’ve offered an explanation supported by historical writers post the event. You’ve dismissed them all because they weren’t there. Err..ok. But you’ve offered no sources, either post or from that period, supporting the idea that the activities and influence of the Persians in relation to the uprisings was non threatening to the Muslim state, and therefore (at that junction in history) to the religion of Islam itself. Your hadith doesn’t address that subject at all.

    And you seem to have also forgotten your central thesis – that Umar(ra) was acting only because he felt that 9:29 was compelling him to, i.e. purely a religious imperative. And that his actions were based only on the alleged instruction in 9:29 to subjugate non believers only for being such, and that his actions were not for any political considerations at all.

    The veracity of this claim of yours does not simply hinge upon my ability or not to disprove it. There is also an onus upon you to substantiate it. To that end, i.e. what the provable or inferrable motivations of Umar(ra) were, you’ve offered nothing. On the other hand, you dismiss out of hand the accounts and character references of British historians Sir William Muir and Edward Gibbon, American historian Washington Irving, distinguished American academic Prof. Philip Kitti, and Christian historical writer Jurji Zaidan.

    So we’re left to balance your claims of Umar’s(ra) motivations, based on a fanciful extrapolation from your hadith, versus the celebrated credentials and reputations of the non Muslims I’ve mentioned. You seem not to understand that the issue here is one of historical accuracy, not scriptural interpretation. Therefore in the absence of first person accounts, it is perfectly valid to consider the accounts of historians.

    CONCLUSION: You randomly selected a quote without any appreciation of the context in which John Burton (your own source) made it. The author, after extensively outlining the reasons why the various differing theories of abrogation arose, in the end agrees with my position (i.e. disagrees with you) that such theories were an unnecessary exercise in tortuous reasoning.

    The various schools of Islamic thought are not unanimous on the idea that earlier verses of the Quran abrogate later ones. Even those scholars who entertain some idea of abrogation, differ on what source abrogates another or itself, and in which circumstances.

    The various scholars in Islam are interpreters of Islamic sources, they are not Islamic sources themselves. Therefore no Muslim is religiously bound to accept or follow any one opnion or another. Many Muslims, including myself, don’t on the idea of abrogation, and with good reason. You apparently selectively do, for your own reasons.

    You’ve presented zero hadith to show that Muhammad(sa) supported abrogation, because the simple fact is that he didn’t. You’ve presented zero verses of the Quran which support its abrogation, because none exist. You then make the fanciful leap to claiming that Umar’s(ra) invasion of Persia was by reference to 9:29, and without regard for 22:39 which you claim is abrogated. But all of the scholars you quote as proof of this (practice of abrogation), came after Umar(ra). So who or what did Umar(ra) reference as justification for abrogation?

    Furthermore, your cherry picking of sources on the basis only of what appears to support a disreputable portrayal of Islam, inevitably runs the risk of being exposed for the shallow, dishonest approach that it is. It can result, as we have seen, in the presentation of fabricated hadith, selective quotes from authors (such as Burton) who actually disagree with your conclusion, and the promotion of commentators (such as Maududi) who appear to vaguely support your reading of 22:39, but then completely contradict your ‘understanding’ of 2:106.

    Keep puffing.
23. ablokeimet says:

    March 3, 2015 at 3:58 pm

    It should be noted that the debate over the merits of Islam is beside the point. Freedom of religion is one aspect of freedom of thought, as is freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As such, it is not necessary to approve of, let alone believe in, a particular religious philosophy in order to defend the right of people to believe in it and to practice its beliefs in their own life. If they attempt to enforce their beliefs on other people, they go beyond their rights and start infringing the rights of others.

    In Australia today, the people whose freedom of religion is most in danger are Muslims. They are the ones who get abused, harassed and assaulted. The people who are trying to get Islam banned are actually validating the position of the House of Saud, the Ayatollahs of Iran and the self-styled Caliph of Raqqa. They are saying that the State has the right to regulate what religions people can believe and/or practice. Once you’ve given the House of Saud that much, you’re just arguing about which religion is going to be enforced.
24. jdrmot says:

    March 4, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    @ Rashid…

    Well, you are demonstrating with the utmost clarity why I generally refrain from online debates and discussions with Muslims … it just becomes messier than a rubbish truck that’s just run over a huge land mine. So … I’ll try to prune this down to manageable proportions for the sake of both our time constraints. Let me say I do appreciate your obvious level of knowledge and education, it makes the debate more worthwhile. That’s not to concede for a moment that your position is any more tenable or stable than a test tube of mercury poured onto a marble staircase.

    You spent considerable time attacking my assertion about abrogation, and you hurled back my exegetical hero Maududi at me for evidence of the error of my ways. I am fully aware of Madudi’s reputation among some Muslim scholars and I’m fairly aware of why … the main issue seems to relate to his views on his political understanding of Islam.

    But I never rely on a man’s critics as much as the strength of his actual argument. I love the way he follows through the full 4 major schools of jurisprudence and compares and contrasts their views and reasons for them. In fact I can follow his reasoning very easily, and would probably argue that way myself if I was a serious Muslim.

    Now, on the issue of Abrogation and whether it applies to the Quran as opposed to the Quran replacing the old scriptures of the Christians and the Jews. I take your contextual point as having some (but not much) merit. I see also that this is how Maududi understands the issue. But one of his idiosyncracies is that he tends to rely on some very strong presuppositions about the impossibility of the Quran being perfect. The trick is to recognize when that presupposition is at play and when he is just applying solid argumentation.

    For more discussion on the meaning of Abrogation, I’ll refrain from cut/pasting, but refer you to Ibn Kathir and his discussion of the issue. (2:104-106) He is clearly of the view that it encompasses the Quran, and he provides numerous hadith authorities to show who thought what about it.

    My final point is that you yourself are applying a very strong presupposition to your own hermeneutics and exegesis. You have declared boldly that the first time something was mentioned in the Quran, it sets the principle (such as on the issue of fighting). This seems to be something you arbitrarily choose to use, and I find the most attractive reason for such an understanding in the fact that you are a member of a demographic minority, in whose interest it is to hold such a view.

    One could more reasonably say that the LAST mention of something is that which cements the principle and this is far more reasonable and compatible with the evidence. For example, Muhammad’s repeated pronouncement that he has been commanded to “fight people until” what?

    Multi choice answer:

    a) Until the invaders are repelled?
    b) Until the Muslims are victorious?
    c) Until all worship Allah or pay the Jizya?

    Of course ‘c’ is correct. We know this because he SAID it so many times in so many places. Don’t ask me to list them you know jolly well of them. (Muslim book 1: 29, 30, to 33 and many in Bukhiari as well). So, it boils down to a religious motivation, clearly expressed, repeatedly enunciated and practically applied. The tone and temper of the Umar hadith is entirely in harmony with the bulk of evidence. As for his motivation? It’s right there in the hadith, as a quote from 9:29 for crying out loud. There is no possible way of construing that invasion as some ‘political’ issue, because Islam by nature IS political and expansionist.

    Your suggestion that the Persians ‘did not know’ who this army was is absurd? Not at all, they were aware of who was under their suzerainty (‘Arab’ tribes, not “Muslim” Arab tribes necessarily) and they would have little regard for the hotch potch of warring Arab clans in the Arabian Peninsula unless they showed signs of unity and aggression … which they did … rather surprisingly quickly.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the Persians were ‘attacking’ the Muslims? “That” dear Rashid is the absurd claim on your part. Your argument is not so much with me, but with your own sahih hadith.

    Al Mughirah’s response to the Perians is an absolute slam dunk of evidence that wins the game I’m afraid. Only a rampant denialist would say otherwise.

    Please don’t waste both of our time with reference to Orientalist scholars or sympathetic academics. I can see the evidence myself and I would never ever rely on their opinions which have very dodgy motivation sometimes. It’s like expecting ME to rely on “Bart Erhman” the apostate New Testament scholar for information about the Bible.

    Anyway I think we’ve exhausted this issue, but have another wail at it if you like … I remain totally convinced of my position.

    I think a better issue is the one in Sunan Abu Dawood 2150 which is backed up and supported by umpteen other references which leap out of your documents as signs of the evil that the faith is.

    I wonder if you ever thought about this … the soldiers who were ‘horny’ and wanted to have sex with these traumatized women … were in all likelihood MARRIED! So … away from wives … captive vulnerable traumatized women … put two and two together? The Muslim idea that these women gave their “consent” to being violated by these smelly brutes who had killed their loved ones (even after their ‘iddah’) is the kind of thing only a ‘winners are grinners’ history would ever entertain!

    The tone of that hadith (2150) and those hadiths does not leave any room for ‘iddah’ because they were sex starved NOW … so to speak … they sought permission NOW (to satisfy their lusts … now). (The comment about iddah in the hadith to me is clearly a commentator’s addition.) It’s shameful. Disgusting … and the Sydney marriage between the older man and the 12 yrs old child in a backyard screams from the mountaintops that THAT is the Islam that ‘quiet suburban Muslims’ actually follow, or a significant number of them at least and their shameful conduct seems to match the tone and content of your scriptures.
25. Rashid says:

    March 4, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    @ablokeimet

    Hi.

    >>”The people who are trying to get Islam banned are actually validating the position of the House of Saud, the Ayatollahs of Iran and the self-styled Caliph of Raqqa”

    You state a legitimate principle which most Australians subscribe to, and which section 116 of our Constitution upholds – i.e. freedom of religion or no religion for all citizens, free from government interference. And it’s assumed that the caveat to this, that the freedom of some shouldn’t impinge upon the freedom of others.

    Paradoxically, the anti Islam crowd would claim that ultimately it is this very principle they are fighting for by asking for its withdrawal in this instance.

    There are two main types of arguments put forward as alleged proof of the incompatibility of Islam/Muslims with ‘freedom’ as we know it. They can be summarised as claims demonstrable by either behaviour or ideology.

    The behavioural claim points to instances (anywhere) of Muslims behaving against the principles of freedom. They are usually countered by retorts such as ‘most Muslims are not like that’ or, ‘if Muslims behaving badly is proof of the inherent violence in Islam, then Muslims behaving well must be proof of its inherent peacefulness’ etc. etc.

    The ideological objection against Islam though, necessarily requires some consideration of scripture, and has probably been best propagandised by the essentialising Geert Wilders:

    “Most Muslims are moderate, but this does not mean there is such a thing as a moderate Islam. People who reject Islam’s violent and intolerant commandments are not practising “moderate Islam” — they are not practising Islam at all.”
    – Wilders, The Australian, Feb 18, 2013.

    Or in other words, just like the intolerant, dogmatic, religious extremists he rails against, Wilders insists that there is only one true Islam – his interpretation of it. And, according to him, Muslims who claim differently are therefore, by definition, necessarily apostates, heretics and/or liars.

    But it would be incorrect to assume that the likes of Wilders simply object to the expression of extremist Islamic ideology in the West, rather than an overall objection to anyone claiming to be Muslim.

    This is the conspiratorial element of the anti Islam movement. Wilders is but one of the chief promoters of the idea that what is actually an obscure, exceptional, and generally unheard of (amongst Muslims) principle known as ‘taqiyya’, i.e. lying to further Islam, is instead the common, general rule. Unlike the medieval practice of witch drowning, this allegation, when made against any Muslim, is completely non repudiable in life or death. Whatever a Muslim may do or say, they fit the conspiracy.

    Ultimately though, it’s true to say that most Australians are not particularly interested in theological debates, and are simply happy to treat people as they find them, i.e. by observable individual behaviour.
26. Rashid says:

    March 4, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    @jdrmot

    >>”One could more reasonably say that the LAST mention of something is that which cements the principle and this is far more reasonable and compatible with the evidence.”

    Only if the ‘last mention’ does not contradict earlier ones. Otherwise it sounds like a principle of abrogation to me, one which I’ve already rejected.

    >>”For example, Muhammad’s repeated pronouncement that he has been commanded to “fight people until” what?

    Multi choice answer:

    a) Until the invaders are repelled?
    b) Until the Muslims are victorious?
    c) Until all worship Allah or pay the Jizya?

    Of course ‘c’ is correct. We know this because he SAID it so many times in so many places.”

    Caution, I’m about to bore both of us by repeating myself. The grounds for the permission to fight had been established in 22:39…

    Why this is important is because it limits the context in which a religious sanction underpins any permission to fight. The context has two aspects. Firstly, that hostilities are initiated by the ‘other’. And secondly that the ‘other’s’ motivation is only the destruction of the religion of those they are attacking. The verse is quite explicit on these conditions.

    Nowhere in the Quran does it say to fight with non Muslims only and exclusively because they are non Muslim, and for no other reason. <b<Nowhere. Time and again when Muslims are instructed to fight, the Quran lays out conditions.

    “And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress, Surely Allah loves not the transgressors” (2:190)

    Chapter 9, leading up to 9:29, makes its context abundantly clear. Muslims had triumphed over the idolaters and other Meccan tribes who had engaged in a war to destroy Islam.

    The chapter then goes on to address the ruling Muslims, telling them to honor all treaties made with such defeated, albeit hostile, groups.

    “Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.” (9:4)

    It then explains that for those tribes who had not made treaties and continued to attack Islam, or those who went back on their treaties, the permission for Muslims to fight remained.

    “And if they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief — surely, they have no regard for their oaths — that they may desist.

    Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers” (9:12-13)

    However if any from amongst such tribes sought protection, i.e. no longer wished to be part of their warring tribe, protection was to be granted.

    The situation that this verse addresses was one where the Muslims, although substantially victorious in Mecca, still faced ongoing external threats, and potential internal rebellion from non Muslim subjects of the state.

    Having stated how idolaters were to be treated, chapter 9 then turns to Jewish and Christian subjects of the state.

    “Fight those from among the People of the Book, who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection” (9:29)

    As Muslims continued to face external threats from hostile Christian and Jewish tribes as well, a distinction is made between Jews and Christians who would remain peaceful, loyal subjects of the state, i.e. “acknowledge their subjection”, and those who would not. The initial direction is to make no distinction between those already Muslim and those People of the Book who now claimed to be Muslims – i.e. religious conviction was not for Muslims themselves to judge. The distinction that was to be made, was between those who willingly pay the tax (Jizya) and those who refuse.

    This tax was less than the tax paid by Muslim subjects (Zakat), and was in exchange for guaranteed protection by the state from external attackers. It also (unlike Muslims) exempted those who paid it from being obliged to serve in the armed forces of the state. Those who refused to pay it were, especially at a time when the state was at war and threatened by external aggression, refusing to acknowledge loyalty to the state where they resided.

    So the purpose of jizya was threefold. As a revenue tax, as a quid pro quo payment for (Muslim) state protection in lieu of military service, and as a symbolic gesture by non Muslim subjects, affirming their loyalties to the state rather than its enemies. Judging by his rhetoric, I think Tony Abbott might well be considering something similar (minus the levy) with regards to national security and citizenship reform.

    >>”Anyway I think we’ve exhausted this issue, but have another wail at it if you like … I remain totally convinced of my position”

    As do I of mine. Though in such discussions it’s more important to me to be understood than agreed with.

    “The Messenger of Allah (sa) prohibited us to wail” – Hadith, Sunan Abu Dawud 🙂

    >>”The Muslim idea that these women gave their “consent” to being violated by these smelly brutes who had killed their loved ones (even after their ‘iddah’) is the kind of thing only a ‘winners are grinners’ history would ever entertain!”

    Interestingly you’ve now shifted your rhetoric from ‘forced sex in front of their husbands’, to forced sex after their husbands’ deaths. Quran 4:25 makes clear that fornication is not permitted. It also makes clear that they are to be “married properly”. And it explicitly states that, “there shall be no sin for you in anything you mutually agree upon, after fixing the dowry”, i.e. both parties need to be in agreeance to avoid sin. Couldn’t be any clearer, and it’s all there. Your unsubstantiated, nonsensical claims conjuring up the Western stereotype of the ‘lustful Arab’, is better suited to Hollywood history, rather than Islamic history.
27. jdrmot says:

    March 5, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Well Rashid… it’s an interesting but predictable discussion. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard or read what you produced here I could spend all my days debating because I’d be quite well off.

    I am aware of the psychology at work in your mind as you approach these issues, and as I said another time, there are more holes in your position than in a 1 ton Swiss cheese. Because there are so many, of both reasoning and fact, I’ll desist from making them my chew toy once again. However… I’m curious about a few things if you can help me out.

    i) Are you an Australian convert or from a traditional Muslim background?
    ii) What are your own qualifications (field of employment/interest) or are you undergoing some study?
    iii) On what authority do you assert that the conditions for fighting are established in 22:39?

    It seems to me that this is a theological construct that is then imposed onto all subsequent passages that suggest otherwise.

    You seem to be understanding all passages such as Muslim Book 1- 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 in this way even though they are abundantly clear to the contrary. You are also imposing this on 9:29.

    Did you look up Ibn Kathir on 9:29? It’s most illuminating.

    Your injection of those ‘conditions’ (your theological construct based on 22:39) onto 9:29 is in reality ‘isogesis’ not exegesis. The idea that ‘the’ conditions for fighting were established in 22:39 depends a lot on your faith view of the Quran. If we take that view and apply it to the consumption of alcohol … you know that this was changed/abrogated. Evidence of abrogation is found in the issue of the consumption of wine, then its complete prohibition (among other things).

    I can see that psychological process so glaringly visible it’s not funny because it’s not rational.

    FINAL POINT … humor me with an evaluation of this statement and do you think it is ‘Hate Speech’?

    “Muslims do not believe in the Son of God, May God curse them and destroy them, they are utterly deluded and far from truth.”

    I can’t wait to hear your answer on this 🙂

    Cheers.

    PS. I’ve benefited greatly from this discussion, in ways you cannot even imagine.
28. Rashid says:

    March 6, 2015 at 12:13 pm

    @jdrmot

    >>”i) Are you an Australian convert or from a traditional Muslim background?”

    What’s a traditional Muslim background? I was brought up Muslim by deeply religious parents in traditional Australia – public school, backyard cricket, Army Reserve etc.

    >>”ii) What are your own qualifications (field of employment/interest) or are you undergoing some study?”

    I’m not a student and I have no religious qualifications. I’m employed in the government sector.

    >>”iii) On what authority do you assert that the conditions for fighting are established in 22:39?

    It seems to me that this is a theological construct that is then imposed onto all subsequent passages that suggest otherwise.”

    I assert it on the authority of the Quran. It was the first verse revealed which explicitly gave permission for Muslims to fight. But more importantly it laid down the limitations and the principles. Subsequent verses which sanction fighting do outline other contexts, but no verse can abrogate 22:39, and none can be read in contradiction to the already established principle. It’s simply illogical to read 22:39, acknowledge the stated principle of protecting freedom of religion and religious places of worship, and then read any subsequent verse and infer a contradictory principle – e.g. ‘kill and subjugate non Muslims simply for being such’.

    As I stated earlier, the Quran does not support its own abrogation. And as I also stated, the method for understanding the Quran is, as it instructs, to read verses (such as 9:29) in the light of already strongly established principles.

    “He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are decisive in meaning — they are the basis of the Book — and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking wrong interpretation of it. And none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding.” (Quran 3:8)

    >>”You seem to be understanding all passages such as Muslim Book 1- 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 in this way even though they are abundantly clear to the contrary. You are also imposing this on 9:29.”

    The books of ‘Muslim’ or any other Hadith, are only relevant to the extent that they don’t contradict any part of the Quran. If they are contrary to any part of it, they are invalid. This is the standard Muslim approach when considering Hadith with the Quran.

    >>”Did you look up Ibn Kathir on 9:29? It’s most illuminating.”

    No he’s not illuminating on this matter at all. Ibn Kathir is without doubt a respected scholar of Islam. But he is neither infallible nor the final word on all (Islamic) matters, including this one. He is just one opinion among many. His conclusion on this, simply shows the potential wide negative influence which a human mix of dogma, authority and reputation can have, when incorrect rulings are made.

    Such aberrations or intra-religious phenomenon are not exclusive to Islam. When Galileo published his findings which placed the sun at the centre of our solar system, he was forced to recant, and was then placed under house arrest by the authority of the Catholic Church. His findings were considered heretical and contrary to Bible teaching. It was only in 1992, after 12 years of committee deliberations, that Pope John Paul II reversed the judgement.
29. Rashid says:

    March 6, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    >>”The idea that ‘the’ conditions for fighting were established in 22:39 depends a lot on your faith view of the Quran. If we take that view and apply it to the consumption of alcohol … you know that this was changed/abrogated. Evidence of abrogation is found in the issue of the consumption of wine, then its complete prohibition (among other things).”

    The verses concerning wine/intoxication are not an example of abrogation at all in the sense you’re suggesting. The Quran was revealed gradually, and so some laws were also gradually strengthened as the faith of believers strengthened. Demanding all changes at once would have been socially disruptive as well as perceived as onerous.

    Alcoholic wine for the purpose of intoxication was a common, normalised part of Arab society and culture at the time of Quranic revelation. So 2:219, the first of the revelations pertaining to this, states that whilst there are benefits as well as harm in liquor, the harm is comparatively greater than the benefit – but no clear prohibition is mentioned. 4:43 then forbids Muslims to approach God (prayer) whilst intoxicated – still no prohibition mentioned. Finally 5:90, with the preceding principles in place, firmly prohibits wine and intoxicants. The point is that this last verse does not contradict or abrogate earlier ones, but rather, strengthens them.
30. Rashid says:

    March 6, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    >”FINAL POINT … humour me with an evaluation of this statement and do you think it is ‘Hate Speech’?

    “Muslims do not believe in the Son of God, May God curse them and destroy them, they are utterly deluded and far from truth.””

    Well it’s three statements rather than just one. The first statement is true, i.e. Muslims don’t believe in God having a son or any partner. The second statement is an appeal for Divine punishment. The third is a subjective opinion.

    In terms of whether it’s ‘hate speech’, I think it probably doesn’t fit the regular definition. There is no direct incitement for other persons to act in an abusive or violent manner. Instead it’s an appeal/prayer to God. But there is certainly a ‘hate vibe’ about it. In essence, the author of the statement is personally wishing for the destruction of others, simply on the basis of their (dis)belief.

    Speaking from an Islamic perspective, not just such punishment, but also such judgement (specific or final), is the sole preserve of God. And individual beliefs or disbeliefs are not themselves the exclusive determining qualifiers for God’s grace or displeasure. A Muslim has no right over a non Muslim for mercy or reward simply because they’re Muslim. People are judged by God according to what they do in light of what they know. Anything else is not justice. Therefore as a Muslim, I believe (for example), that even an atheist who sincerely does good work will necessarily be rewarded for it in the afterlife, whilst a Muslim who knew better and does bad, will necessarily be called to answer for it. Who is or isn’t acting in their own good conscience, is not for any of us to judge.

    The purpose of differing religions is not to curse and wish harm upon each other. According to God in the Quran, the purpose of these differences is a deliberate test. And the test is passed or failed through the competition of doing good deeds, whilst judging all others equitably – i.e. not (dis)favouring on the basis of religious affiliation. This is exactly what the Quran says, and is probably a good a place as any to leave this exchange for now.

    “And We have revealed unto thee the Book comprising the truth and fulfilling that which was revealed before it in the Book, and as a guardian over it. Judge, therefore, between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their evil inclinations, turning away from the truth which has come to thee. For each of you We prescribed a clear spiritual Law and a manifest way in secular matters. And if Allah had enforced His will, He would have made you all one people, but He wishes to try you by that which He has given you. Vie, then, with one another in good works. To Allah shall you all return; then will He inform you of that wherein you differed. (Quran 5:49).
31. jdrmot says:

    March 7, 2015 at 12:31 pm

    Hi Rashid…I find your views very informative and interesting…however flawed they might be.

    i) You should be aware of the criteria used by the compilers of Sahih hadith (Bukhari, Muslim and much of Dawud) that they would only include hadith that did NOT contradict the Quran. So what we see is what we get.

    ii) You would also be aware that large portions of Sharia law are derived from the hadith.

    iii) Your comment on ‘strengthened’ rather than abrogated is almost laughable. It’s called ‘spin’. But the psychological explanation is that IF you conceded the obvious (abrogation) you would experience cognitive dissonance between what you want to believe and what is actually there, hence your forcing of the text into conformity with what you want to believe.

    HATE SPEECH. I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on that rather tricky trap I laid for you. Specially considering I’ve mentioned 9:29 numerous times. You are quite correct. It has factual (to your perspective) but there is only a subjective element when considering it as a general statement.

    IF it happened to be a divine affirmation it is no longer subjective but a revealed truth.

    You say it does not ‘incite’ people to harm others, but how much of a logician to you need to be to realize that if the deity curses and condemns members of a particular class/belief/race then it follows like night follows day that if YOU have the political and social power over them you would be obligated to fulfill the deity’s viewpoint… I mean… this is not hard.

    John Stuart Mill said it succinctly, If I wrote a letter to the editor that “Corn dealers are thieves who manipulate the prices” I might attract a sympathetic audience, but it’s unlikely that anyone would immediately go out with pitchforks and look for a corn dealer to impale. On the other hand, if I stand outside a corn dealer’s house and say the same thing it’s a different story.

    Applying this to the ‘hate speech’ of cursing people who are deluded because of their wrong belief, it stands to reason that if these values permeate the social and political order, bad things will happen to such ‘deluded’ people. After all if God/Allah curses them surely the deity’s followers should too?

    It was a trap because all I did was take 9:30 the VERY NEXT verse from “fight them” 9:29 and replaced “Christians and Jews” for Muslims.

    9:30
    The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

    Claiming it is the deity’s prerogative to ‘destroy’ them completely nullifies and denies the political reality of the Muslim government being responsible to punish people IN THIS life (I won’t bore you with proof texts.)

    YOUR UPRINGING. I suggest that some fairly deep psychology is at work there too. You have inherited the Judeo-Christian tolerance and passiveness that is based on the two great commandments “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbour as yourself” coupled with the reality of the peaceful Sermon on the Mount that permeates so much of our social structure.

    The more likely explanation for your particular spin on Islam is that you are ‘projecting’ a view that you have derived from the subconscious learning within a culture that is primarily Christian based rather than Muslim (not that we see much daily evidence of this in today’s world given the insidious attacks from the ‘progressive’ Left) but our institutions, legal framework, government system, education have strong links to the Christian worldview.

    Your rejection of the respected scholar Ibn Kathir as “just one opinion” is evidence of this, because he is very clear on how the Jizya is to be understood (from 9:29). Thus it is needed for me to show you exactly how he (and the community of his day) saw this tax:

    (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience (and feel themselves subdued), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. (Tafsir.com)

    Well well well… “truth time” is quite jarring isn’t it? Again, your lack of alignment with this outlook is more about ‘transference/projection’ than truth as it stands. Your views sound so much more like Christian views than Muslim. I wonder why ? 🙂 (See above.)

    Though I won’t go into any lengthy accounts of Muhammad’s own character, theirs plenty to pick from. I suggest though, that it will be the above outlined subconscious irrational choice on your part to be more ‘Christian’ than Muslim in your interpretation, that would on the one hand accept Sharia law (derived from the hadith) but reject the inconvenient hadith on the grounds that it is incompatible with the Quran, yet Sharia law contradicts this (notice the circle?).

    I am however curious about two final hadith, and would value your own opinion. Here is the hadith:

    Narrated Anas bin Malik: (Bukhari Vol 4 Book 52 number 261)

    A group of eight men from the tribe of ‘Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.” So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.”)

    One more… a similar incident on sexual brutality as in Dawood:

    (3) Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.” (Bukhari Book #59, Hadith #459)

    Note carefully…
    i)These men were MARRIED… ‘away from our wives’
    ii) They were sexually desperate “celibacy came hard on us’
    iii) They wished to do coitus interruptus (to avoid pregnancy)
    iv) Muhammad clearly gives these sex starved brutes permission to ejaculate inside the traumatized women captives and satisfy their carnal lusts on the battle field (in the aftermath).

    On the balance of probabilities and the clear facts of this, you can not suggest that sex starved males would be waiting the full 3 months of Iddah (65:4) before ‘marrying’ these women as you suggested in a previous post (rape is the appropriate word).

    CONCLUSION. The point you are missing in the big picture sense, is that anyone who came across this kind of information when researching “Muhammad the person” would recoil in horror at the very thought that such an inhuman brute could ever EVER be a conduit of divine revelation from a just and holy God. So, your starting point should have been an objective study of “Muhammad the man” before accepting the irrational view that “The Quran is dictated by Allah” or that it is of divine origin. But… alas… your starting point is… your upbringing, family and identity. Hence this rather lengthy discussion.
32. Rashid says:

    March 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    @jdrmot

    You seem to be tediously intent on a continuing pattern of ignoring the basis of my responses, i.e. the Quran itself, and defaulting predictably to cherry picked Hadith. Through these Hadith you then (reverse) interpret verses of the Quran.

    That’s not an approach I consider valid. But it’s one that’s very common amongst the anti Islam brigade, whose primary objective is after all defamation rather than objective consideration – a consideration which would include conformity to any accepted practice of engaging in Islamic theology, including upholding the Quran’s primacy.

    You display all the transparent hallmarks of such an approach where, as an antipathetic non Muslim, on the one hand you don’t actually believe any of the Quran or Hadith, but on the other, will vociferously insist on the truth and validity of whatever from amongst these two sources you believe supports your claims.

    That of course is your choice, but the bizarre aspect of it is that you seem to be either blissfully unaware, or stubbornly apathetic, to the lack of credibility such an approach engenders.

    The simple fact is, Hadith (in their entirety) are a collection of truths, partial truths and untruths. And finding one with or without a ‘Sahih’ prefix is not the ultimate purity test for determining which category to put it in. The only Islamic source whose absolute validity Muslims will accept at face value, is the Quran. God in the Quran guarantees the protection of the Quran’s authenticity; no such guarantee is given for Hadith.

    “Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We will be its Guardian.” (Quran 15:10)

    >>”Your comment on ‘strengthened’ rather than abrogated is almost laughable. It’s called ‘spin’. But the psychological explanation is that IF you conceded the obvious (abrogation) you would experience cognitive dissonance between what you want to believe and what is actually there, hence your forcing of the text into conformity with what you want to believe.”

    And yet unsurprisingly you offer no actual rebuttal. Here’s a dictionary definition of abrogate:

    abrogate

    verb (used with object), abrogated, abrogating.

    1.

    to abolish by formal or official means; annul by an authoritative act; repeal: “to abrogate a law.”

    2.

    to put aside; put an end to.

    Returning to the three Quranic verses pertaining to intoxication, how does the last revealed verse ‘abolish, annul or repeal’ either of the two earlier ones? The first verse concludes that the harm (in liquor) is greater than the benefit – is this conclusion subsequently annulled? The second verse proscribes praying whilst intoxicated – is that ruling subsequently repealed? The answer in both cases is obviously no.

    If the earlier verses had in any way implied that becoming intoxicated was permissible, then abrogation could be claimed. The diagnosis therefore is mental rigidity and confirmation bias on your part. I’ll leave you to decide whether that’s a laughing matter.
33. Rashid says:

    March 10, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    >>”HATE SPEECH. I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on that rather tricky trap I laid for you…You say it does not ‘incite’ people to harm others, but how much of a logician to you need to be to realize that if the deity curses and condemns members of a particular class/belief/race then it follows like night follows day that if YOU have the political and social power over them you would be obligated to fulfill the deity’s viewpoint… I mean… this is not hard.”

    I’ll take you at your word that you’re quite the trickster, but regardless of whether I did or didn’t see ‘the trap’, my answer would not have differed. And as to your subsequent line of reasoning, I have to admit that even for you this reaches a new level of fatuity. By your ridiculous logic, the New Testament must surely be an axiom of anti Semitism. No?

    “For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.” (Thessalonians 2:14-16)

    “Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” How Jesus(as) addressed Jewish leaders according to John 8:44.

    Your conclusion that a Quranic verse where God curses non Unitarian Christians (i.e. those subscribing to trinity), as well as a no longer existing sect of Jews who regarded Ezra as the son of God, will therefore naturally mean that Muslim rulers will feel religiously obliged to hate on all Christians and Jews, is absurd. God’s curses in the Quran are always taken as prophetic, not commandments.

    Such a flagrantly false inference would directly contradict the Quranic principle of freedom of faith. How can there be freedom of faith if men take it upon themselves to act out in some way what God has promised only from Himself? Muhammad(sa) made clear the respect to be afforded to People of the Book, e.g. Christians:

    “This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them… If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.” – From the Charter of Rights given by Muhammad(sa) to the monks of St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mt. Sinai.
    http://dianekatsiaficas.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=291&g2_jsWarning=true

    But returning to the Quran chapter 9, if you’d bothered to read a little further you would have seen that God is not addressing his curse simply upon any Christian who ever sincerely held/holds a belief in trinity. He is addressing a particular group of (at the time) antagonistic Christians towards Islam. They were characterised by their association of not just Jesus(as) with God, but also their clergymen as well. Furthermore, they were corrupt and impious in their behaviour.

    “They have taken their learned men and their monks for lords beside Allah. And so have they taken the Messiah, son of Mary. And they were not commanded but to worship the One God. There is no God but He. Too Holy is He for what they associate with Him!” (Quran 9:31)

    “O ye who believe! surely, many of the priests and monks devour the wealth of men by false means and turn men away from the way of Allah. And those who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah — give to them the tidings of a painful punishment” (Quran 9:34)
34. Rashid says:

    March 10, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    In terms of how non Muslims are to be regarded by Muslims, God in the Quran explicitly declares that even those who are against Muslims (Islam), but not active in physical war or their destruction, are to be treated kindly and equitably.

    “It may be that Allah will bring about love between you and those of them with whom you are now at enmity; and Allah is All-Powerful; and Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.”

    “Allah forbids you not, respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you forth from your homes, that you be kind to them and act equitably towards them; surely Allah loves those who are equitable.” (Quran 60:8-9)

    As I stated in a previous post, God judges people by what’s in their hearts and what they knowingly do or don’t do. Not simply which banner life’s circumstances and experience has contributed to them associating under. Verse after verse of the Quran rejects your implication that Christians and Jews are regarded as two monolithic groups bereft of God’s mercy and grace, and are instead to be wholly cursed and hated by Muslims.

    “They are not all alike. Among the People of the Book there is a party who stand by their covenant; they recite the Word of Allah in the hours of night and prostrate themselves before Him. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and enjoin good and forbid evil, and hasten to vie with one another in good works. And these are among the righteous.” (3:114-115)

    “Surely, the [Muslim] Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians — whichever party from among these truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good deeds — shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.” (Quran 2:63)

    “And surely among the People of the Book there are some who believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to you and in what was sent down to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They barter not the Signs of Allah for a paltry price. It is these who shall have their reward with their Lord. Surely, Allah is swift to take account” (Quran 3:200)

    >>”YOUR UPRINGING. I suggest that some fairly deep psychology is at work there too. You have inherited the Judeo-Christian tolerance and passiveness that is based on the two great commandments “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbour as yourself” coupled with the reality of the peaceful Sermon on the Mount that permeates so much of our social structure.”

    I agree there has been some influence from being brought up in the environment of Australia. But my morality was inherited and taught firstly and primarily from my parents, who were neither Judeo nor Christian. And their already established morality, ethics etc were not acquired from this country. They came with them when they immigrated here, and were passed on to me by means which included the teaching of the Quran, Hadith etc.

    And by your logic (which I would agree with), ‘good’ Christians brought up Christian in nations dominated by Muslims, must have also inherited some of the positive (Islamically influenced) values present in the societies they lived in.

    I don’t however subscribe to a view that truth and goodness is monopolised by one faith or another. Two of the six articles of faith incumbent on all Muslims is belief in previously (to the Quran) divinely revealed scripture, and belief in previous (to Muhammad(sa)) righteous prophets. So it’s hardly surprising that the basic values inherent in all the major religions are similar.

    >>”Your rejection of the respected scholar Ibn Kathir as “just one opinion” is evidence of this….Well well well… “truth time” is quite jarring isn’t it? Again, your lack of alignment with this outlook is more about ‘transference/projection’ than truth as it stands. Your views sound so much more like Christian views than Muslim. I wonder why ? “

    Wow. And here I was thinking The Bolt Report would be the most unconvincingly jaundiced commentary I’d encounter today…

    Actually I think my rejection of Ibn Kathir comes entirely from my parents’ and my own reading of my religion. Why? Because I have friends, family and coreligionists who live in many countries all over the world, and hold the same Islamic views and conclusions as myself. Some of them have never ventured outside the (Islamic) country they reside in. Does ‘transference/projection’ work like a trans national Jedi mind trick? That might explain it.

    >>”I suggest though, that it will be the above outlined subconscious irrational choice on your part to be more ‘Christian’ than Muslim in your interpretation, that would on the one hand accept Sharia law (derived from the hadith) but reject the inconvenient hadith on the grounds that it is incompatible with the Quran, yet Sharia law contradicts this (notice the circle?).”

    Err, no. I’m not rejecting ‘inconvenient’ Hadith on account of a latent, unacknowledged streak of Christianity running in me. I’m rejecting Hadith which can’t be reconciled with [the authority of] contradictory Quranic teachings. I’ve outlined why on more than one occasion. You keep dancing around my stated reason with increasingly bizarre explanations, underpinned now by comical psychoanalysis.
35. Rashid says:

    March 10, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    >>”I am however curious about two final hadith, and would value your own opinion.”

    LOL, no you wouldn’t. Your method for choosing Hadith is specific to your blinkered aim, nothing else. As entertaining as the charade is, wouldn’t it just be easier to admit it?

    But that aside, the first Hadith also appears with some variation in a different narration within Bukhari (Volume 2, Book 24, Number 577). This narration has extra detail, including the fact that these tribesman had sought (political) refuge as well as medicine for their ailments, the camels they subsequently drove away were allocated for sadaqah (charity), and they had inflicted the branding of the shepherd’s eyes before killing him.

    The context is Medina at a time when Muslims and the new religion of Islam is under threat from multiple warring tribes. With no formalised legal system at that time, as well as no institutions for incarceration, physical punishment was the only method of justice which would have been recognised or respected by the inhabitants of the broader Arabian territory. The crime of the herdsmen included murder, terrorism and treason.

    I believe the relevant verses which were applied are:

    “And the recompense of an injury is an injury the like thereof; but whoso forgives and his act brings about reformation, his reward is with Allah. Surely, He loves not the wrongdoers” (Quran 42:41)

    “The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment”

    “Except those who repent before you have them in your power. So know that Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful” (Quran 5:34-35)

    As with all prescribed punishments in the Quran, there is always a qualification allowing repentance. And given the range of options available, including simple banishment, it’s clear that the gravity of the crimes in the context of observing, hostile neighbours, coupled with an absence of repentance, attracted the harshest of punishments.

    As for your second Hadith, the explicit Quranic restrictions/conditions which I outlined earlier (i.e. marriage, not fornication) still apply. Absolutely nothing in the Hadith says otherwise. Your colourful commentary and unsubstantiated suppositions about the actual intent and motives of the Muslims is just that – wishful commentary.

    >>”Note carefully…
    i)These men were MARRIED… ‘away from our wives’
    ii) They were sexually desperate “celibacy came hard on us’
    iii) They wished to do coitus interruptus (to avoid pregnancy)
    iv) Muhammad clearly gives these sex starved brutes permission to ejaculate inside the traumatized women captives and satisfy their carnal lusts on the battle field (in the aftermath).”

    With regards to point i), the restricted permissability of polygamy is applicable to just such circumstances (e.g. war widows) where women are vulnerable. Social services as we understand them today, were at that time a non existent concept. The fact that the men were already married is not relevant. The relevant rulings also applied to any men there who were not married.

    With regards to point ii), one of my earlier posts outlined the clear Quranic injunction for marriage and against fornication in precisely this very situation. Explicit also was the Quran’s stated reason – i.e. “This is for him among you who fears lest he should commit sin”. In principle, celibacy as a chosen alternative to marriage is not encouraged in Islam, because of the potential for some to stray towards uncontrollable urges or sexual deviancy.

    With regards to point iii), there is no specific prohibition on the practice as a method for birth control.

    And with regards to point iv), this is a false extrapolation on your part. Nowhere does the Hadith mention brutality, trauma, or acts undertaken on the battlefield. And nowhere does it place itself (therefore) in contradiction of Quran 4:25-26. You may choose to believe that Mohammad(sa) and his followers were ‘brutes’, ‘rapists’ and incapable of following clear Quranic direction, but there’s no proof of that in what you’ve presented.

    In order to accept what you are proposing, i.e. the Prophet’s(sa) ‘permission’ to engage in rape, sex outside of marriage etc., we would have to believe in a wholesale conspiracy. Because surely someone at the time would have questioned why the (supposed) sanction for such behaviour was being given in clear contradiction of the already revealed Quranic verse? But of course there is absolutely no record of any questioning, objectioning, highlighting, or even hinting at this supposed discrepancy. And the reason there is no record is because your constructed fantasy never occurred.

    Nor is this the first time that marriage to slaves by believers in God has been mentioned in scripture. The proposition that any such mention must automatically draw some inference that force, brutality and the unrestrained lust of ‘brutes’ was necessarily in play, is curious logic. Or does such logic only apply when Muslims are the protagonists?

    “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.” (New Testamant, Galatians 4:22)

    >>”CONCLUSION. The point you are missing in the big picture sense, is that anyone who came across this kind of information when researching “Muhammad the person” would recoil in horror at the very thought that such an inhuman brute could ever EVER be a conduit of divine revelation from a just and holy God.”

    And the point you’re missing is that not everyone ‘researching Muhammad(sa)’ employs your unscientific, decontextualised approach of selective sources, biased intent, all looking to confirm a predetermined conclusion.

    “What we see depends mainly on what we look for.” – John Lubbock
36. PeterS says:

    March 13, 2015 at 10:16 am

    Sooo, that’s all very hard to follow. Can I summarise?

    It’s OK to keep female slaves for sex because it was better than the alternative? I mean, God says it’s OK – in context? Is this right?

    Kind of like the argument about “striking” your wife: You’re only allowed to do it after you’ve spoken to her, NOT fucked her for a while and then only gently. That’d work.

    What I don’t understand about this perfect book is why it’s so hard to follow. I mean, I can understand why I get it wrong, but all these Muslims seem to be getting it wrong big time – why is the Prophet revealing God’s word as a “contextual” history lesson? You’d think that the perfect book for all time would make it rather more explicit. O believers, it’s OK to have slaves now, but not in a thousand years. It’s all right to hit your wife now, but not later. And all that stuff about striking terror in the land, that’s just history – don’t take ii literally.

    Islam is a mess of contradictions.
37. Rashid says:

    March 13, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    >”Sooo, that’s all very hard to follow. Can I summarise?”

    How can you summarise something you couldn’t follow?

    >>”It’s OK to keep female slaves for sex because it was better than the alternative? I mean, God says it’s OK – in context? Is this right?

    Well actually no, that’s wrong. I’ll keep it simple, and if you still can’t follow you’ll have to try harder and read previous posts. According to the Quranic verse previously discussed, if you want to have sex with your slave you need to (with her permission) marry her first. But since even that could only be applicable to the time before slavery was phased out, it’s not relevant to the world as it currently is.

    >>”Kind of like the argument about “striking” your wife: You’re only allowed to do it after you’ve spoken to her, NOT fucked her for a while and then only gently. That’d work.”

    It’s nothing like that argument, and I’m not making it.

    >>”What I don’t understand about this perfect book is why it’s so hard to follow. I mean, I can understand why I get it wrong, but all these Muslims seem to be getting it wrong big time – why is the Prophet revealing God’s word as a “contextual” history lesson?”

    If you’re getting it wrong, then it’s probably for the same reasons as the “all these Muslims”. Simply being Muslim doesn’t make anyone more enlightened. Having said that, it seems you’re unaware of the ‘all these other Muslims’ who in my opinion seem to be getting it right.

    All revealed scripture has a context. Societies, culture and the world in general is/has been ever changing. So is/has language. I think the principles in the Quran are fairly clear. Besides that there is a mixture of historical lessons, as well as metaphorical and literal language. But the point is, that a book for all times will necessarily have parts to it which will be more immediately relevant at some points of history or modernity than others.
38. PeterS says:

    March 14, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Why does God need context? What if you’re a purist, i.e., you use only the Quran as your source text – where do you get your context about slaves and beating your wife or killing all those polytheists? From what I’ve read, it doesn’t do context – it quite literally says you can hit your wife, it allows you to keep slaves and it commands you to cause terror and to fight and to crucify. There are no “buts” in it.

    It’s God’s revealed word and you’re talking literal and metaphorical language and history lessons and context! This seems more like your hopeful spin than anything based on the reality of the revealed word of God.

    It might be nice to console yourself with the belief that you have to get your slave’s permission and then marry her before you have sex with her, but she’s still your slave. And God doesn’t reveal his plan for phasing out “slavery” or wife beating or any of the other horrors in Islam.

    Islam, in the end, is a fascist and totalitarian ideology. All the sophistry in the world will not change this.

    Meantime real Muslims really are rolling gays down hills, beheading kafirs, enslaving women, forcing people to convert, die or pay the tax. They’re using your holy books and your prophet’s actual actions as a template and justification for their actions. They’re saying Alla’hu Akbar as they do it. Real Islamic scholars are justifying it and hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of Muslims around the world think that it’s justified.

    The fact that you and the vast majority of Muslims are good people misses the point – you are good people despite your faith and not because of it.

    PS. Please explain the wife beating Sura for me. Tell me how I’ve got God’s word wrong. Put it in context for me. Tell me where God plans to phase it out.

    It’s either all The Word of God or it’s not. And I’m sorry to say, if you believe God allows you to keep slaves and beat your wife you’re living in the wrong century.
39. Rashid says:

    March 14, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    >>”From what I’ve read, it doesn’t do context – it quite literally says you can hit your wife, it allows you to keep slaves and it commands you to cause terror and to fight and to crucify. There are no “buts” in it.”

    I’m not sure what exactly your position is since on the one hand you confess, “… it’s so hard to follow…I get it wrong”, and on the other you declare, “The fact that you and the vast majority of Muslims are good people misses the point – you are good people despite your faith and not because of it”.

    So on Quranic interpretation, do you get it wrong? Am I wrong? Or are we somehow both wrong?

    The Quran does not allow you or me to keep slaves. It does not permit Muslims to fight or crucify without reference to specified conditions and limitations. With regards to ‘hitting your wife’, I’m assuming you’re referring to chapter 4. If so, the verse is not a ‘go to’ permission for ‘wife beating’. And in this chapter, as well as the others, there is always context and there are always buts.

    >>”Meantime real Muslims really are rolling gays down hills, beheading kafirs, enslaving women, forcing people to convert, die or pay the tax. They’re using your holy books and your prophet’s actual actions as a template and justification for their actions. They’re saying Alla’hu Akbar as they do it. Real Islamic scholars are justifying it and hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of Muslims around the world think that it’s justified.”

    Even if some or all of that’s true, it’s a different argument to the one you end with. If your complaint is simply that some (or many) Muslims are behaving badly, then that’s a complaint I share as well. But if you’re instead claiming that such Muslims are behaving correctly re their/your Quranic interpretations, then, whilst you’re entitled to your opinion, it’s not a statement you’ve validated. You’ve neither demonstrated the superiority of your interpretation(s), nor the invalidity of mine.

    >”PS. Please explain the wife beating Sura for me. Tell me how I’ve got God’s word wrong. Put it in context for me. Tell me where God plans to phase it out.”

    I don’t know how you’ve got God’s word wrong because you haven’t outlined your interpretation or reasoning – you’re simply making a statement. If you’ve inferred from the Quran that ‘wife beating’ is sanctioned, why don’t you make your case? Explain how you’ve reached that conclusion? Explain to me how there are no “buts” about it. Show me, as you’ve stated, how a permission for ‘wife beating’ is there without context.

    >>”It’s either all The Word of God or it’s not”

    Muslims believe it is. And importantly, they therefore also believe that there are no contradictions in it.
40. PeterS says:

    March 15, 2015 at 12:24 am

    Oh please, after you’ve talked to her, foresaken her in bed and now you’re allowed to strike her. There’s no but at the end of that – you’re entitled to hit her. The sophists might say “but only gently” or only with some reeds or a toothbrush, but your still allowed to hit her. What might constitute arrogance such that it requires a light beating, I really can’t imagine.

    Could God be really so obtuse? Divorced of the context of the Hadith and Sunnah, it’s pretty unambiguous. All your quibbling about context is buried under layer upon layer of what in the end is BS. How can you keep it your head?

    Let’s parse one of your statements: “…there is always context and there are always buts…” So there is “context” and “buts” to when and where how you may hit your wife. But you’re still allowed to. Just not in the face I’m led to believe.

    And another: “…does not allow Muslims to fight or crucify without reference to specified conditions…” But you’re still allowed to if those conditions are met. Crucify people that is. And chop off their hands and feet. For Gays it’s being thrown off a tall building when it’s not possible to turn the earth upside down. For apostates it’s death. For unbelievers and polytheists it’s death or the tax or conversion. All within context and with plenty of buts.

    Can’t have slaves? Not even the ones you mentioned in one of your posts above? You know the slave you have to marry before you can have sex with her? I assume you mean you and I can’t have slaves because we haven’t met one of the preconditions of slave ownership laid out in the Quran? But at some theoretical time and place you might have reason to enslave my daughter?

    Oh, but there was no safety net back then, so it made sense for captured slave women to convert to Islam and marry their owners! That’s the context, right? I can accept that. It makes a perverse sort of sense. You still haven’t explained where God tells us to phase it out.

    Here I was thinking Allah had an opportunity to talk about a social security net and he just rolled with the status quo.

    Here’s one of my favourites from your earlier posts: “Gods curses in the Quran are always taken as prophetic, not commandments.”

    So all that cursing about killing the Jews et cetera is not God’s commandment to his followers, but his promise. Just as long as all the preconditions and contexts and buts are taken care of.

    You do realise that IS think they’ve got all that wrapped up? They’ve got the State and they’re living the dream. No contradictions.
41. jdrmot says:

    March 15, 2015 at 5:08 am

    Regarding wife beating. Rashid…there is no ‘case’ to make, it’s there as a clear permission. That IS the case. Your bleating about ‘buts and context’ are absurd. The end of the story is that a man may beat his wife. The buts and context are found in the verse itself. There is a specified process. Your response was obviously justifying domestic violence and spouse abuse (ie, the bloke may give the woman a whack but not vice versa) as long as you follow the ‘buts’.

    First…second…finally… nothing to argue or debate here…it’s game set match. The only issue that usually gets debated is whether the ‘instrument’ of the beating is a 2 x 4 or a toothpick. Contextually, the idea of a toothpick is bizarre, because the action is one of last resort, clearly much weightier than a light pat on the bum. Specially considering that all ‘instructional’ videos freely available from the Arab speaking countries just say “don’t damage the face or leave marks.” Rubber hoses anyone?

    The Western convert/feminist Muslims hate this verse, and will go to extreme lengths to argue against its clear permissions, but let’s face it…they have a vested interest in playing down this obscenity.
42. Rashid says:

    March 15, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    @jdrmot

    Your post argues essentially the same as PeterS, so rather than doubling responses (and my time) as it were, I’ll engage with him exclusively for now since he’s raised the topic first. Also, I mentioned ‘buts and context’ not as the definitive explanation for the verse in question, but in direct response to Peter who asserted that the Quran “…doesn’t do context”, and that “There are no “buts” in it”.

    @PeterS

    It seems you weren’t kidding after all when you said you have trouble following things…and addressing responses directly (if at all)…and dealing with one topic at a time…

    No there is no Quranic punishment for being gay. No there is no Quranic earthly punishment for apostasy. No you can’t have slaves, and yes it was phased out. Yes your daughter is safe, no need to lock her up. Yes God’s curses are prophetic, not commandments. And yes any verses sanctioning killing of anyone (including Jews) are context/period specific.

    There is no argument (at least in this forum), that the verse you are alluding to uses the (equivalent) Arabic term ‘strike’ when describing one of the ways a husband may deal with his wife.

    The two questions whose answers we have a difference of opinion on, are firstly what exactly the Quran means by that term, and secondly which context, if any, is the verse speaking in. And the conclusion we therefore then also necessarily disagree on, is what message the Quran is trying to convey, and whether or not the verse is conclusively proof that Islam openly gives sanction to domestic violence, as that term is understood today.

    Your contention (apparently) is that the verse is a self evident permission to beat women (wives). Mine, on the other hand, is that the verse outlines a process of anger management, reformation and reconciliation, with the intention at all times being to heal a relationship which is in danger of breaking apart.

    Our positions on this verse are irreconcilable. If the intention of the verse is to sanction wife beating, then the idea of ‘healing the relationship’ becomes nonsensical. On the other hand if the verse’s intention is reconciliation, then inferring a right to beat your wife is similarly nonsensical.

    There are three ways in which an interpretation can be approached. Firstly, the verse can be read without regard or reference to other verses, Sunnah, or Hadith. Secondly, as Quranists would do, the verse can be read with regard to other verses, but without regard to Sunnah or Hadith. And the third way is to give regard to all of the above.

    I think the first approach is invalid. Your position, if I’m understanding it correctly, agrees with me on that, since you’ve stated that “It’s either all The Word of God or it’s not”.

    “Men are guardians over women because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with Allah’s protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and chastise them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely, Allah is High and Great.

    And if you fear a breach between them, then appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they (the arbiters) desire reconciliation, Allah will effect it between them. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.” (Quran 4:35-36)
43. Rashid says:

    March 15, 2015 at 10:37 pm

    Marriage in Islam is a contract between a husband and wife. Both are afforded rights and responsibilities. The wife’s rights include to be looked after, protected and provided for, and her responsibilities include guarding the honour of her husband, and respecting his authority as head of the family. Both are obliged to respect the familial roles they have been given. The consequence of marriage, according to God, is that it should bring about peace, love and tenderness between its participants:

    “And of His Signs is that He has created wives for you from among yourselves that you may find peace of mind in them, and He has put love and tenderness between you. In that, surely, are Signs for a people who reflect.” (Quran 30:22)

    The purpose of marriage is described in the Quran as two individuals becoming one, complementing one another, and being a source of protection for one another:

    “They are a garment for you, and you are a garment for them” (Quran 2:188)

    The manner in which a husband should act towards his wife is also clear:

    “..and consort with them in kindness, and if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing wherein Allah has placed much good” (Quran 4:20)

    The first thing to be said about 4:35-36 is that it does have a context, and it does not relate to any minor infraction or ‘arrogance’ as you contend. The Arabic, Nashazat al-Mar-‘atu ala Zauji-ha, literally means: the woman rose against her husband; resisted him; deserted him; was an evil companion (Source: Lane’s Arabic Lexicon). In other words it relates to a woman not supporting her husband in any primary sense required for the marriage to work. This could include any number of serious things which fall in the category of ‘deal breakers’, such as adultery.

    In such a situation, a sequence of steps is given to save the marriage. Firstly, admonishment – counselling her to change behaviour. If this is unsuccessful, the second step is separate beds for a period of up to four months. The second step is potentially a greater penalty for the husband. It serves therefore as an incentive for the husband to make every effort into making the first step work, as well as showing the wife how serious the husband is.

    The third step is one my translation describes as ‘chastise’. The Arabic is iribuhunna (root – daraba), a word with multiple meanings including ‘strike’. Of those that translate it as ‘strike’, there is near unanimous consensus that this does not mean strike in the sense of (physical) abuse. The Prophet Muhammad(sa) described it as ‘dharban ghayra mubarrih’ which means ‘a light tap that leaves no mark’.

    Given that such an action (lightly tapping) would carry no physical compulsion for the wife to change behaviour, this has been seen by some scholars as more of a symbolic gesture, whilst others have inferred it as a limiter to a husband’s actions in anger, and in both interpretations, an indication of the finality in resolving the issue between the couple themselves, before others are involved.

    Al-Nisa 4:36 then describes the responsibility of the wider family/community in which the couple live – the final step of the reconciliation process – though their involvement is encouraged earlier if needed. If either of the husband or wife are observed by others to be breaking their covenant or not fulfilling their responsibilities in any way, then mediators from the respective families are involved in the resolution process. And resolution and reconciliation is absolutely the theme of both this verse and the Quran generally when it comes to marital relations:

    “And if a woman fear ill treatment or indifference on the part of her husband, it shall be no sin on them that they be suitably reconciled to each other; and reconciliation is best. And people are prone to covetousness. If you do good and are righteous, surely Allah is aware of what you do” (Quran 4:129)

    In Islam, a woman has the right to seek divorce at any time she wishes. A part of this is a right to receive from the husband initially (to marriage) agreed compensation, as well as being provided for, for a period after separation. For a woman nursing children, the provision is even more extensive.

    To read Al-Nisa 4:35 as meaning that husbands have an inalienable right to ‘beat their wives’ is not just a simple misconstruing of some Arabic, it’s also to completely misunderstand the Quranic philosophy of marriage. And it ignores authentic hadith. On using force with women Muhammad(sa) said:

    “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (trouble) his neighbor. And I advise you to take care of the women, for they are created from a rib and the most crooked portion of the rib is its upper part; if you try to straighten it, it will break, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked, so I urge you to take care of the women.” (Bukhari 62:114)

    “The most perfect man in his faith among the believers is the one whose behaviour is most excellent; and the best of you are those who are best to their wives.” (Tirmidhi 1:628)
44. Rashid says:

    March 15, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    Ok…so let’s suppose for the sake of your argument, that my interpretation and understanding is, as you imply, incorrect. Let’s suppose it’s deliberate ‘sophistry’ or some sort of obfuscation on my part to point out that iribuhunna does not directly translate as meaning beating as in the commonly understood way of the term ‘wife beating’. And let’s suppose therefore that your literal (of the English translation), non contextual reading of 4:35 is the correct way to view the verse, i.e. it is a clear, condemnable and irrefutable permission for wife beating, and also a clear illustration of how potential wives can be expected to be treated. Let’s also suppose that you’re a Quranist in your interpretations, and do not recognise any authority of the Hadith I’ve given as adjuncts to the understanding of the verse. If and even so, your position is still illogical, because it raises questions which are simply irreconcilable with the rest of the Quran.

    If the purpose of marriage is as God states in 30:22 to “put love and tenderness between [the husband and wife]”, how would that be possible if the husband retains an ever present right to beat her? How would such “love and tenderness” be possible if the husband is already beating her? And how is ‘wife beating’ reconciled with 4:20 which exhorts kindness to wives? At best you might argue contradiction, or can you reconcile the verses in some other way?

    Furthermore, if your position is that a husband in such a situation of serious and ongoing wifely misbehaviour can follow the prescribed steps, i.e. admonishment, separation of beds for a period etc., and then give his wife a beating, why couldn’t the wife simply exercise her given right to divorce before the third step?

    If 4:25 is a sanction for wife beating, why does the verse then immediately prescribe (after the apparently sanctioned beating) reconciliation involving the wife’s family members? What possible reconciliation could they (as the verse describes) “desire” for their family member that’s just been beaten?

    If 4:25 is a sanction for wife beating, why is there no recognised Sunnah (report of what the Prophet(sa) did), which confirms him as following the verse in the manner which you assert is correct? Why are reports (to the contrary) that he always treated his wives with respect and kindness? Why did he not, as the living example of the Quran, practice what you claim is being preached?

    Peter, as a Muslim who has apparently been doing it all wrong, I eagerly await your answers.
45. Melbourne says:

    March 16, 2015 at 8:26 am

    Perhaps all those blogs I’ve read on “disciplining” your wife Muslim style have got it all wrong. Perhaps all those Islamic jurists are not the Olympic class linguistic gymnasts that you seem to be. You should get yourself out there – there’s a big business it seems in explaining what the Quran doesn’t mean.

    On homosexuality: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood – Book 38 Hadith 4447.

    But, you might say. And, yes, there’s plenty of buts and the Prophet was silent on homosexuality as he was on the punishment for Apostasy. But, what about this Hadith or that I might say? 100 lashes for adulterers (maximum), death for apostates, burning for gays, stoning for adulterers.

    But you will say. That Hadith has been discredited – it had only one narrator for one generation and that Hadith had only two for two generations and that one was taken from the Bible (Old Testament) and must therefore have been used by a Jew or Christian to discredit the Prophet and Islam.

    But, but, but.

    So many buts, backwards and forwards. It makes me wonder: this perfect book, so explicit here, so literal there but metaphorical here, so impenetrable that it requires one to read it in classical Arabic and with the help of Islamic scholars and Jurists. This perfect book with appendix of hundreds of thousands of Hadith of varying degrees of authenticity written and collated in some cases hundreds of years after his death.

    A quranic purist might quote 6:112 as proof that the Prophet didn’t want people to write down any of his words other than the ones given to him by God. They’ll even quote passages from this or that Hadith quoting the Prophet as commanding his followers not to quote him.

    Here we might have half a punishment for believing slave women and the full punishment for others. Here it’s 100 lashes, there it’s 50. We might argue over the first person plural and parse our sentence clearly to find “them” rather than “her” or “him” or “you.” We might argue that this or that punishment was meant for Muslims only and not for Kuffrs till the cows come home. We could argue about suitable punishments for Gays forever: (suitable punishments [in general] mentioned in the Quran – in 4:34, flogging in 24:2, exile in 5:33, imprisonment in 4:15, and social boycott is understood in 9:118.

    For fornicators and the unchaste, flogging. But, you will say: bring 4 witnesses and if you can’t then the punishment will be for the accusers.

    But, but, but. All this God made law and all these buts. Round and round and round. So many qualifications and buts even before you get into parsing words for their hidden meaning or grammatical context.

    You write “So on Quranic interpretation, do you get it wrong? Am I wrong? Or are we somehow both wrong?”

    I don’t know. Both of us? It seems there’s something in there for everyone. Whatever floats your boat. To me it’s still a mass of contradictions and violence.

    Nothing to do with Islam? Only if you say so.

    P.S. You keep saying that slavery has been phased out (except in Iraq and Syria, it seems). Can you tell me where in the Quran it tells Muslims to phase it out?
46. PeterS says:

    March 16, 2015 at 9:53 am

    I might easily argue the opposite: how is God’s instruction to strike your wife reconciled with the others? God meant men to give their wives one in the belly for arrogance. That you should be nice to them at all other times is irrelevant. If they’re not being arrogant it pays to be nice. Happy wife, happy life. Your arguments are not arguments of logic, they’re arguments of hope.

    As to reconciling with the inlaws as you assert, that to me is obvious: if you’ve just smacked your wife she’s most likely to visit her family to tell Dad. Who knows what he might do. Besides, why would you need to reconcile with the in-laws if all you have done is chat with their daughter and not had sex with her for four months?

    Curious about the Sunnah argument. Not the Hadith. There’s one I read where he struck Aisha in the chest which caused her pain. I’ve read some stuff that suggests this might not be as bad as it sounds. I’ll give the prophet the benefit of the doubt on this, but there are plenty of Hadiths that do suggest that wife beating is allowed. I’ll take your usual arguments about the validity of the Hadiths, what you think God really meant and reconciliation with all the other nice bits as a given.

    As to slavery, I’ve read a lot about freeing slaves when you sin and freeing slaves for this and that. They’re not generally commandments to free slaves, but nice to dos. That slavery might die out because there are no wars and slaves to be taken is not the same thing as an injunction against slavery.
47. Rashid says:

    March 16, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    @..?..Melbourne?..PeterS?

    >>”Perhaps all those blogs I’ve read on “disciplining” your wife Muslim style have got it all wrong. Perhaps all those Islamic jurists are not the Olympic class linguistic gymnasts that you seem to be.”

    What you believe is up to you. If the blogs and ‘Islamic jurists’ you’ve read make better sense to you, then stick with them as the truth. You put forward an understanding of 4:35 (not 4:25 as I incorrectly typed in my last post). I disagree with that interpretation and I’ve given you the detailed reasons why. And it’s not my interpretation exclusively, it’s one which is followed by millions of other Muslims as well.

    You’ve adopted the Geert Wilders’ angle, claiming that Muslims such as myself “are good people despite [our] faith and not because of it”. The implication is that we either deliberately ignore its teachings, or have misunderstood them. Also implicit in your statement is that you understand ‘my faith’ better than I do.

    But your posts are devoid of the necessary reasoning required to invalidate my alleged erroneous understanding. Instead, your responses so far are simply a series of statements and questions….followed by yet more ‘matter of fact’ statements and questions, laced with inferences of my position on a wide range of Islamic matters.

    >>”I might easily argue the opposite: how is God’s instruction to strike your wife reconciled with the others?”

    You might argue that, but you’d actually be arguing the exact same point as I’ve just made. The point would still be that the meanings of the verses can’t be reconciled with each other if your interpretation of 4:35 is adopted. So that’s why I asked you whether you can reconcile them in some other way. If you can’t, what will you do?

    You could say that 4:35 (as you understand it) is still correct, and the other verses are fabricated. But this would contradict your earlier statement – “It’s either all The Word of God or it’s not”. Or you could default to an ‘Oh well’ conclusion that the Quran is contradictory. But this then gives no particular reason to give specific credence to any of your interpretations, since some shadow of doubt would necessarily then be cast upon every verse, i.e. which is or isn’t true.

    My interpretation of 4:35 is harmonious with all of the rest of the Quran. My interpretation is strengthened by Hadith and Sunnah. My interpretation gives due consideration to the indeterminate meaning of the Arabic term iribuhunna. My interpretation is supported by the reconciliatory [between husband and wife] tenor of this verse, the proceeding one, and the rest of the Quran. Your interpretation does none of these things.

    >>”As to reconciling with the inlaws as you assert, that to me is obvious: if you’ve just smacked your wife she’s most likely to visit her family to tell Dad. Who knows what he might do.”

    Indeed, what would Dad do? But why would she complain anyway? According to you, her beating is Quranically sanctioned. Surely both she and her dad, as Muslim followers of the Quran, would willingly accept it. No? ….And so an absurd understanding begets yet more absurdity.

    “And if you fear a breach between them, then appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they (the arbiters) desire reconciliation, Allah will effect it between them. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.” (Quran 4:36)

    If the husband is following what you assert is the correct way to understand 4:35, i.e. by giving the wife a beating, what exactly do you suppose is the purpose of the then Quranically prescribed reconciliation? According to you, he hasn’t done anything (Islamically) wrong. So her dad, mum, brother or sister would tell her what exactly at this marital arbitration? ‘You deserved your beating, now go back to him and kiss and make up, so that God’s intended “love and tenderness” can once more bloom’?

    Holding the position on 4:35 as you do, necessarily lead s to nonsensical outcomes in the understanding of other verses.

    >>”Besides, why would you need to reconcile with the in-laws if all you have done is chat with their daughter and not had sex with he for four months?”

    There is no mention of ‘reconciling with the in-laws’. The mention is of the participation of in-laws (kinfolk) in the reconciliation process. And just as in 4:36, 4:129 emphasises the desirability of reconciliation and maintaining the partnership of marriage.

    If you have felt the need to admonish (chat) with your wife because of some serious wrongdoing on her part, then that’s evidence of a “breach” between you and her as stated in 4:36. If you are sleeping in separate beds, then that’s also an obvious breach between the two of you, and possibly a legitimate cause for ‘appointing arbiters’ from in-laws. The reason such external arbitration is mentioned as a final step, is because of the relative desirability for any issue to firstly be resolved by the husband and wife themselves.

    >>”P.S. You keep saying that slavery has been phased out (except in Iraq and Syria, it seems). Can you tell me where in the Quran it tells Muslims to phase it out?”

    “As to slavery, I’ve read a lot about freeing slaves when you sin and freeing slaves for this and that. They’re not generally commandments to free slaves, but nice to dos. That slavery might die out because there are no wars and slaves to be taken is not the same thing as an injunction against slavery.”

    You’re right, it’s not the same thing, and I’m not aware of an explicit Quranic verse to that effect, though there is a Hadith from Abu Daud which says as much. But a different question is, is it a better thing? From my understanding, the sudden and complete emancipation of slaves by Islam was not only not done, it was deliberately not done.

    Islamic teachings about slavery fall into two general categories. Teachings for the betterment of their condition and status, and instructive steps leading towards permanent abolition. Given that Islam gives no sanction to enslave anyone, the question is whether or not this approach is/was better or worse than an injunction to release all slaves immediately. I think the former, but I’ve reached my word limit for today so I’ll leave it at that.
48. jdrmot says:

    March 16, 2015 at 7:38 pm

    @Melbourne:

    “You are a legend”! That piece of yours indicates a depth of study, knowledge and understanding that is often lacking in the critics of Islam. Well done!

    I will add a linguistic perspective also. I think it’s safe to assume that Indonesian Muslim scholars will know not only their own language, but also Arabic. When they translate the word for ‘beat’ in 4:34, they use the Indonesian word “pukul” … which is as clear as the driven snow in meaning … It means WHACK as in the way you’d whack a naughty child, or even someone you are having a fight with. The weight of the intensity is context sensitive, and if you were describing someone being beaten up you’d say “Dipukul banyak kali” (beaten over and over many times). If you were speaking to a naughty child, you’d say “Jaga … nanti bapa pukul” (“watch yourself, or dad will smack/whack/beat you!”) or “pukul kuat kuat” (smack very hard).

    Feel free to google/translate that.

    So on a language level via
    Arabic=> Indonesian=> English or…
    Arabic=> English=> Indonesian…

    It’s all the same. In a Bornean tribal language, they would translate the Arabic underlying ‘beat’ with the word “Mapet!” and I know that language also.

    Rashid is fixated on a theological view that is not supported by anything other than his own sentimental presuppositions. Hence, what an ‘ordinary person of reasonable intelligence’, to use the legal definition, would say is “this bloke is off his rocker”! Muhammad chose what to say for each circumstance and those circumstances were very different, and he claimed divine authority to justify his own perverted predilections.

    One act of Muhammad I find curious, is that apparently Allah does not know that the prefrontal cortex, the brain region devoted to weighing up consequences, is not properly developed until the ’20s. So when Muhammad consummated his marriage to 9 yr old Aisha, he was unquestionably abusing this immature child, and so, it might be said was Allah, considering that Muhammad claimed to be led by Allah, and is claimed by Muslims to be the ‘best of all mankind’. So that’s a real worry, especially for the poor tragic Yazidi girls and other children being ‘married off’ by age 9 or consigned to sexual slavery by the ARMY of Islamic scholars who are the foundation of ISIS theology.
49. Rashid says:

    March 17, 2015 at 10:28 am

    @jdrmot

    >>”I will add a linguistic perspective also. I think it’s safe to assume that Indonesian Muslim scholars will know not only their own language, but also Arabic. When they translate the word for ‘beat’ in 4:34…”

    How completely nonsensical. It’s no different to saying, ‘It’s safe to assume that English Muslim scholars will know not only their own language, but also Arabic’. Or substitute English with your language of choice. Your argument is simply, ‘Indonesian Muslim scholars would know Arabic because … they’re Muslim’. And Indonesian Muslims who agree with my interpretation must also understand Arabic. No?

    >>”Rashid is fixated on a theological view that is not supported by anything other than his own sentimental presuppositions. Hence, what an ‘ordinary person of reasonable intelligence’, to use the legal definition, would say is “this bloke is off his rocker”!”

    Predictably absent from your opinion, apart from perhaps ‘reasonable intelligence’, is an addressing of the intra Quranic contradictions that your position presents, and the fact that it is not supported by Hadith or Sunnah. If I’m ‘off my rocker’, it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to disprove my reasoning. Of course you’d have to actually address it first…

    >>”So when Muhammad consummated his marriage to 9 yr old Aisha, he was unquestionably abusing this immature child”

    Actually, not only has it (the alleged age of Aisha) been ‘questioned’, it’s been repeatedly debunked for the baseless claim that it is. It’s now mostly only rabid anti Islam types like yourself who keep (mantra like) repeating this falsity. That’s nothing new though. You follow in a rich tradition of hateful ignorance.

    “Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet’s character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam.” – Kecia Ali, Associate Professor of Religion, Boston University.
    http://www.bu.edu/religion/people/faculty/bios/kecia-ali/
50. lucky says:

    April 5, 2015 at 8:26 am

    God so much debate here. Hey Rashid since u r so learned about Islam i have a few questions u should reply to.

    1. In a country with Muslims as majority why there is no temple of Buddha? Why they kill or convert non Muslims? Why sharia imposes tax on non Muslims for following their religion? How would you like if you are charged tax for being a Muslim by Australian govt?

    2. As per sharia when is a rapist punished? Why are four pious paak witnesses required to confirm that rape happened? Did you read the story of rehanna jabbar recently? Pls google it.

    3. Why, as per sharia, females not allowed to study go for higher studies? Don’t debate on this and say it’s not so, pls read saudi’s court rulings for examples.

    4. What kind of sane and god loving people cut heads off by sword and pelt stone and kill people as per sharia?

    There are many such questions pls reply to this much only.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.