Islamism & Islamophobia Abroad - News & Analysis (9-8-2014)

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 16 Jan 2015 21:07

Bakistan will hold Anti Charlie Hebdo meeting this coming friday with million march at Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 16 Jan 2015 21:11

They have already started showing their freedom of speech and expression outside the French Embassy.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 16 Jan 2015 23:24

Very interesting events at Duke University...

Background -
Duke is one of the top universities in US.
It has about 17,000 undergraduates from all over the world.
It was founded by United Methodist Church (in 1800), has a beautiful campus, and chapel but now welcome all (including, Muslims) faiths, races etc.... The Chapel , has christian services but also allows prayers and services of other faiths.
Recently (a few days ago) the administration decided (IMO extremely strange and stupid decision) that it will allow adhan (call to prayers Muslim) from its bell towers. for its muslim student

The first call to prayers was supposed to go today.

Many thought this was stupid.. and let the administration know.

They reversed the decision.

The story now is all over US Media (CNN etc..).. Big news.. Big embarrassment for Duke..
Worth to read, the story, editorials, comments from one of the premier universities in US..
Duke reverses decision to hold Muslim call-to-prayer from Chapel bell tower

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 17 Jan 2015 01:09

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fathima-i ... 51612.html

A honest article by a muslim woman who states what is known to people who are called "islamophobic".

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 17 Jan 2015 01:16

http://thehumanist.com/commentary/charl ... beral-left

erosion of the liberal left in the wake of hebdo murders.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 17 Jan 2015 01:19

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/941 ... platitude/

"Religion of Peace" is not a harmless platitude by Douglas Murray

All these leaders are wrong. In private, they and their senior advisers often concede that they are telling a lie. The most sympathetic explanation is that they are telling a ‘noble lie’, provoked by a fear that we — the general public — are a lynch mob in waiting. ‘Noble’ or not, this lie is a mistake. First, because the general public do not rely on politicians for their information and can perfectly well read articles and books about Islam for themselves. Secondly, because the lie helps no one understand the threat we face. Thirdly, because it takes any heat off Muslims to deal with the bad traditions in their own religion. And fourthly, because unless mainstream politicians address these matters then one day perhaps the public will overtake their politicians to a truly alarming extent.

Last point is certainly one all these oiseaules in politics who go around repeating the "Religion of Peace" lie need to consider.

Rajagopal · Post by **Rajagopal** » 17 Jan 2015 01:20

ashvin wrote:^^
You observations are spot on! The Europeans have no clue what's coming their way. Anyway, its an experience.

Ashvin bhai: I am sorry to hear about your racist experience due to being mistakenly identified as Muslim. This is something which every SDRE can relate to living outside of India. I can only imagine what our sikh brothers are going through.

Suddenly all the non-SDRE colleagues and business associates ask you for your viewpoint as if we are responsible.
Earlier, i used to make secular, gurgling noises. These days, i clearly let everyone know that i am a Hindu. My car has a big OM sticker on the windshield.

The takeaway is, we should be explicitly communicating to the society that we are Hindus(or Sikhs or Christians or Buddhists).

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 17 Jan 2015 01:28

Amber G. wrote:
They reversed the decision.

The story now is all over US Media (CNN etc..).. Big news.. Big embarrassment for Duke..
Worth to read, the story, editorials, comments from one of the premier universities in US..
Duke reverses decision to hold Muslim call-to-prayer from Chapel bell tower

This is only an embarrassment to all those who protested it; that's how it will be spun. Perhaps that was the intention all along; let the xtian, 'zionist', and other 'fundamentalists' object, and make the poor muslims the victim again, being subjected to more islamophobia. Of-course, if a non-muslim religious group had demanded broadcasting religious messages from the bell tower, it is that group that would have been pilloried for its religious bigotry. Whereas now, the muslims can claim victim again, while their leftist enablers in the administration can sympathize with them, wring their hands, and point to the xtian and zionist lobbies that nixed it.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 17 Jan 2015 02:29

Some politically incorrect Ramble :

It is offensive to shout "My God is the only true God" (Allah-hu-Akbar) on the top of your lungs 5 times a day. It offends my sensitivities, and I am sure it does the same for many many Americans.

BTW: That is the famed "sharia creep" style of Islamism. The other model that is practiced in India is the sufi-creep.

Any reaction from the larger society to these "creeping on" nature of Islam will be termed as Islamophobia. Mullahs will rant and rage on at Fridin Brayers and soon enough one or the other frustrated muj will take matters into his own hands.

Catch-22. There needs to be a smarter way out of this. If the larger society (I am talking planet earth here) is to survive, a proper education on what is Islam is absolutely essential.

In a single sentence:
It is a cult with a war manual as a holy book in a perpetual state of war against the rest of the world, upon becoming victorious using unspeakable violence and innumerable lives lost, there will be a peaceful utopia where everyone will be Islamic.

We are left with no option to de-escalate from the point where we are at. This sounds silly and belongs to a "doomsaying" category, but let me state this: We either go to war knowingly, or watch as war is thrust upon us whether we like it or not.

Killing petro-$$$$ is a must at some point in the future.

saip · Post by **saip** » 17 Jan 2015 02:35

After 9/11 my son who was in college at that time used to be singled out at the airports for special security screening because of his name (which is common among Hindus, Muslims and Jews) and age. That also meant he always ended up beating the line as he was always given priority in security check. So he had no problem with it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2015 02:58

Fatah
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/13/mu ... a730aefa35

Muslims shouldn’t pray to defeat non-Muslims
110

Tarek Fatah
By Tarek Fatah, Toronto Sun

First posted: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 05:20 PM EST | Updated: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 05:41 PM EST
prayer This photo taken on June 30, 2014 shows Myanmar Muslims praying during the start of the holy month of Ramadan at Bahadur Shah Zafar Dargah in Yangon. ( AFP PHOTO)
Article

Change text size for the story
Print this story

Report an error
Related Stories

Mukherjee-union feud recalls past controversy
Muslims must save Islam from Islamists
New year could belong to jihadis
India, Pakistan on the brink, again
Turkey no friend of the West

One of the reasons I avoid attending Friday congregations at mosques is a specific ritual supplication uttered by Imams at many mosques in Canada and around the world, just prior to our formal Friday community prayer, the Juma’a.

In the supplication, the cleric prays to Allah for, among other things, to grant “Muslims victory over the ‘Qawm al-Kafiroon,’” the Arabic phrase that lumps all non-Muslims — Jews, Hindus, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists and Sikhs — into one derogatory category, the “Kuffar”, or non-Muslims.

This supplication is not obligatory. Not uttering this prayer would in no way adversely affect the holiness or solemnness of the collective community prayer.

I have long argued with my orthodox and conservative Muslim friends and family that at least when living among non-Muslims, we should avoid praying for their defeat at the hands of Muslims.

They agree, but it comes down to the challenge: Who will bell the cat?

Last Friday, the world was still in shock over the Charlie Hebdo massacre when news came that another jihadi terrorist had killed French Jews inside a kosher grocery store in Paris.

Enough, I said. I decided to ask friends to take the challenge to a local mosque and stand silently with “I am Charlie Hebdo” placards.

I wanted to encourage Muslims entering the mosque to join those Muslims who renounce jihad, denounce Islamist terror and stand by the right of free expression, even of people who insult our Prophet.

Only a handful responded to my call.

Most of my comrades from our life-long struggle against Islamism were terrified and bailed out at the last minute.

Only the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, writer Munir Pervaiz, and two Kurdish exiles, Keyvan Soltany and Hadi Elis, braved the snow to stand beside me.

Inside the mosque, I was hoping that in wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the cleric would have the good sense not to speak about non-Muslims as adversaries or enemies, but my hopes were dashed.

Far from condemning the acts of terror, the cleric, speaking in English, thundered that Islam “will become established in the land, over all other religions, although the ‘Disbelievers’ (Jews, Christians, Hindus and Atheists) hate that.”

I could not believe my ears.

There was no indignation expressed at the taking of Jews as hostages by a French jihadi that morning.

The imam did ask us Muslims, that in reacting to insults we should take the example of Prophet Muhammad himself and follow in his footsteps.

The problem with that suggestion is that while there were indeed times when Prophet Muhammad forgave those who mocked him, there were others when he ordered them killed.

At the end of his “khutba” (sermon), the cleric repeated the ritual praying to Allah to grant Muslims victory over non-Muslims.

That prayer is: “O Allah, pour patience upon Muslims, strengthen their feet and give them victory over ‘Qawm -el Kafiroon’ (Non-Muslims).

“O Allah, give victory to our brothers the Muslims, the oppressed, the tyrannized and the ‘Mujahedeen’ (those who fight jihad against non-Muslims)”.

Then we all stood up in orderly rows, turned towards Mecca and followed the imam as he led us in the ritual prayer that is obligatory for all Muslims.

As I left, I knew I would not be returning to that mosque again.

dsreedhar · Post by **dsreedhar** » 17 Jan 2015 05:40

Good one from Douglas Murray. Mention of hindus, sikhs and muslims migration from Indian subcontinent and inspite of similar treatment and circumstances meted out to all these communities, while hindus and sikhs assimilated and law abiding, muslims radicalized to the extent of killing.

watch from 4:50

Peregrine · Post by **Peregrine** » 17 Jan 2015 18:12

Cartoonists show solidarity after Paris Charlie Hebdo attack, in pictures

Cheers

Peregrine · Post by **Peregrine** » 17 Jan 2015 18:37

Charlie Hebdo attacks: Anti-Islam parties are now on the march across Europe

The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo had no qualms about lampooning Islam. Why should it? In a free and liberally-inclined country like France it routinely took the mickey out of politicians and creeds whatever their source. But the editors knew they were running a risk by sending up Islam because militants will simply not accept that their religion be traduced in any way – and are prepared to kill or threaten to make their point.

Salman Rushdie discovered this more than 20 years ago after the publication of Satanic Verses brought a fatwa upon his head from Iran and forced him into hiding for years. Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard found out in 2005 when he was asked by his newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to draw the prophet Muhammad "as you see him". The resulting cartoon was deemed blasphemous by hard-line Muslims around the world and provoked death threats. Ten Years ago, Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who made a controversial film about Islamic culture, was stabbed and shot dead in Amsterdam for insulting the Prophet.

Staff at Charlie Hebdo had already tasted this murderous backlash three years ago when their offices were firebombed when the magazine reprinted the Danish cartoons and named Mohammed editor-in-chief for a week’s edition. It also published a “halal” comic book on the life of the Prophet. To most Western sensibilities all of these publications were the warp and weft of what it means to live in a free country. Even if Christians or Jews object to their religions being satirised, they put up with it. But militant Islamists were not prepared to do so. Two gunmen in Paris have now exacted bloody vengeance in an act of violence that will send shock waves around Europe.

Anti-Islamist attitudes are beginning to move away from the far-Right extreme and more into the mainstream of popular discontent. In Germany since last October weekly marches have been held in a number of towns and cities staged by an organisation called Pegida which campaigns against what it sees as the "Islamisation" of Europe. Nearly 20,000 turned out to one rally in Dresden. The marches have been denounced by political parties and religious leaders across Germany but its supporters do not appear to be drawn from the usual neo-Nazi quarters.

In Holland, the PVV party led by Geert Wilders continues to attract substantial popular support even though its leader is facing trial for incitement to racial hatred. But it is in France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe, where the tensions are greatest. Partly this is a legacy of its colonial past but also the result of its failure to integrate, despite the advancement of some Muslim politicians. Paris was the first city to experience the wave of Islamist attacks of the modern era when the Metro was bombed in 1995. Two years ago, the lone wolf terrorist Mohamed Merah killed two soldiers, a rabbi and three small children in a shooting spree in Toulouse.

The reaction has been both cultural and political. The French author Michel Houellebecq latest novel Submission looks ahead to a time when a Muslim runs France according to the laws of conservative Islam. It predicts that in 2022 France's mainstream Left and Right club together to back a Muslim candidate in a second round presidential run-off against Marine Le Pen. This may sound fanciful but the Front National is now the most powerful party in France, running 11 towns, and with two seats in the Senate, and top position in last year’s European Parliament elections.

President Francois Hollande went to the offices of Charlie Hebdo within hours of the atrocity; but he must have known that the task of confronting the Front National just got a whole lot harder.
Cheers

sanjeevs · Post by **sanjeevs** » 17 Jan 2015 19:33

Islam, a religion of peace at war with itself

Yes, Islam is a religion of peace for the people who take that side of the argument. What a rotten thing for them that there are people with bombs and guns, and a martyr’s eagerness to use them, on the other.

The nature of Islam, and especially of its political character and role, has been an occasion of open disagreement since the 7th Century. Every so often, the old sectarianism inspires a renewal of the Holy War, the Caliphate, or the Crusade. For table-talk of the chicken-and-egg variety, nothing beats arguing which came first: the stupid cruelty of our species, or the irrational textual pretexts cited as its justification. Religion is, ladies and gentleman, as religion does: and throughout our history it has done it all.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Jan 2015 20:18

Context for France: a 2002 essay by Theodore Dalrymple:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_t ... rians.html

Kind of predictive.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 17 Jan 2015 23:17

Tarek Fatah wrote:Far from condemning the acts of terror, the cleric, speaking in English, thundered that Islam “will become established in the land, over all other religions, although the ‘Disbelievers’ (Jews, Christians, Hindus and Atheists) hate that.”

I could not believe my ears.

I do hope Tarekji realizes that he is not a Muslim if does'nt agree to the Imams statement.

Ref: http://quran.com/9/29 --> specifically Mushin Khan translation.

"Disbelievers hate that":
http://quran.com/5/14

And from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant, but they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection (when they discarded Allah's Book, disobeyed Allah's Messengers and His Orders and transgressed beyond bounds in Allah's disobedience), and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jan 2015 00:00

Lokesh, what I found remarkable about Fatahs statement's, was that he was admitting that even the Prophets actions were not exactly consistent.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 18 Jan 2015 00:18

The Prophet never cared about consistency (was mentioned to the Prophet himself by Ayesha -- I dont have the quote remembered now) and that makes Islam extremely suicidal.

The general rule in Islam is : If there is a contradiction, the "latest revelations" are the ones to be used. You can chose to ignore this rule at your own risk

The suicidal part comes from this very fact: The book is very clear on who is a Murtad and what has to be done to him (bull cattle). But the rules in the book on who is a true muslim are a contradictory mess. There are some words that dont make any sense (they are not arabic basically). That means that there are bound to be many interpretation with each interpretation calling the other Murtad and itself as true Islamic.

Islam is thus a doctrine of perpetual war, with the world and itself.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 18 Jan 2015 00:21

Here are a list of convenient (and contradictory) revelations that the Prophet received. Its a bit of a read but its completely worth it IMO (written by a "radical Christian"

):

http://radicaltruth.net/index.php/learn ... evelations

There is very little difference between his action and the actions of any other cult leader.

~~Brigham Young~~ Joseph Smith, The leader of Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints) had similar "convenient" revelations. More on that later. But he is very similar to Muhammed (He practiced polygamy bordering pedophilia,he received exclusive revelations from God) etc. Mormonism started out as nothing but a cult. It still is to a large extent judging by the ex-mormon forums on the net. Here is a site that argues it is a cult:

http://mormoncult.org/

Had ~~Brigham Young~~ Joseph Smith been more violent, we would have had another Islam.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jan 2015 02:39

They can be wool wearing pasta worshipping tree huggers ...at least they aint killing people.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jan 2015 05:26

LokeshC wrote:The Prophet never cared about consistency (was mentioned to the Prophet himself by Ayesha -- I dont have the quote remembered now) and that makes Islam extremely suicidal.

The general rule in Islam is : If there is a contradiction, the "latest revelations" are the ones to be used. You can chose to ignore this rule at your own risk

The suicidal part comes from this very fact: The book is very clear on who is a Murtad and what has to be done to him (bull cattle). But the rules in the book on who is a true muslim are a contradictory mess. There are some words that dont make any sense (they are not arabic basically). That means that there are bound to be many interpretation with each interpretation calling the other Murtad and itself as true Islamic.

Islam is thus a doctrine of perpetual war, with the world and itself.

There is a great paper - I will post the link when I find it showing how Islam as practised takes cues from Mohammad's behaviour from three different texts - each of which recorded different phases of his life. The three texts are the Quran, Sunna and Hadiths. In one phase Mohammad may have said "make peace with xyz". In another phase Mohammad may have said "Make war" - so depending in which mullah is quoting what, both become true. Any Muslims who complains about such ambiguity will be killed so nothing can change until mullahs have their brains cleaned out.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jan 2015 05:27

LokeshC wrote:Here are a list of convenient (and contradictory) revelations that the Prophet received. Its a bit of a read but its completely worth it IMO (written by a "radical Christian" ):

http://radicaltruth.net/index.php/learn ... evelations

There is very little difference between his action and the actions of any other cult leader.

~~Brigham Young~~ Joseph Smith, The leader of Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints) had similar "convenient" revelations. More on that later. But he is very similar to Muhammed (He practiced polygamy bordering pedophilia,he received exclusive revelations from God) etc. Mormonism started out as nothing but a cult. It still is to a large extent judging by the ex-mormon forums on the net. Here is a site that argues it is a cult:

http://mormoncult.org/

Had ~~Brigham Young~~ Joseph Smith been more violent, we would have had another Islam.

Would anyone be kind enough to explain to me the difference between organized crime and organized religion?

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 18 Jan 2015 06:23

To drink or not to drink:
https://twitter.com/PeterTownsend7/stat ... 2026005504

So, if one takes the non-Jeehard way to Jannat :- which is by following the Prophet in all his mannerisms (beard without moustache and all that, pajamas above ankle etc), one has to resolve the conundrum of whether one can drink or not. Both are Islamic and UnIslamic at the same time.

In Bakistan: Jernails use the former "path" to the truth. TTP uses the latter and calls the Jernails Murtads befitting bull-cutletting.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 18 Jan 2015 06:25

shiv wrote: Would anyone be kind enough to explain to me the difference between organized crime and organized religion?

Good question

Added later after thinking about it:

Organized crime has only one motive: And that is making $$$$$$. The paths are many but the goal is one. You MAY work with someone on a different path if it benefits both of you.
Islam has only one motive: Conquer everyone and implement sharia everywhere. The goal is one, but the paths are many and the goal is to kill everyone on a different path than yourself.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jan 2015 08:35

LokeshC wrote: Islam has only one motive: Conquer everyone and implement sharia everywhere.

I believe that assessment is wrong. Implementation of sharia is simply a tool to impose power from a central authority, who is then free to get filthy rich.

There is actually no difference between organized crime and organized religion. The methods are the same and the goals are only defined differently where religion is more devious than crime because they say "It's not for me. It's for God and you will get houris/heaven in exchange (after you are dead)"

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Jan 2015 08:43

shiv wrote: Would anyone be kind enough to explain to me the difference between organized crime and organized religion?

1. Organized religion is **way** more successful.
2. Organized religion has full cooperation of most of its victims, who have a "Stockholm Syndrome" with their religion.
3. To put it another way, the members of organized religion rarely recognize that their religion has victimized most of them.
4. Organized crime commits physical offenses, they are not after your mind. E.g., the purpose of their selling narcotics is to make money, that you are stoned is a side-effect, collateral damage so to speak.
5. Organized crime does not claim to love you.
6. Even the most hardened organized crime-wallahs don't claim that every child is born a criminal of their type.
7. It is atypical for organized crime to have state support.
8. Organized crime does not get tax exemptions.

Ramesh · Post by **Ramesh** » 18 Jan 2015 09:13

shiv wrote: There is a great paper - I will post the link when I find it showing how Islam as practised takes cues from Mohammad's behaviour from three different texts - each of which recorded different phases of his life. The three texts are the Quran, Sunna and Hadiths. In one phase Mohammad may have said "make peace with xyz". In another phase Mohammad may have said "Make war" - so depending in which mullah is quoting what, both become true. Any Muslims who complains about such ambiguity will be killed so nothing can change until mullahs have their brains cleaned out.

The paper you are looking for probably is Statistical Islam, read here in forum many moons ago.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jan 2015 10:57

Ramesh wrote:
shiv wrote: There is a great paper - I will post the link when I find it showing how Islam as practised takes cues from Mohammad's behaviour from three different texts - each of which recorded different phases of his life. The three texts are the Quran, Sunna and Hadiths. In one phase Mohammad may have said "make peace with xyz". In another phase Mohammad may have said "Make war" - so depending in which mullah is quoting what, both become true. Any Muslims who complains about such ambiguity will be killed so nothing can change until mullahs have their brains cleaned out.
The paper you are looking for probably is Statistical Islam, read here in forum many moons ago.

Thanks.
Here it is - read all 11 pages:

http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistic ... _Islam.pdf

Islam is based on Koran and Sunna. Since the Sunna is found in the Sira and the Hadith, this means that three books contain all the doctrine of Islam—the Trilogy. If it is in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira, Hadith), then it is Islam. If something is not in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. All of the Islamic doctrine is found in the Trilogy.

Now, we have the complete information with no missing pieces. We have established our first criteria of knowledge. All authoritative statements about Islam must include a reference to the Trilogy to be authenticated. It does not matter what a scholar, imam, media guru, or anyone else says, if what they say cannot be supported by the doctrine in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. If it is supported by the Trilogy, then it is Islam.

Also:

The Koran of the bookstore is not the historical Koran of Mohammed, because Uthman, a caliph (supreme ruler) had it arranged starting with the longest chapter and ending at the shortest chapter. After he created the Koran we know today, he burned the originals. The time and story have been annihilated by the rearrangement. From a statistical point of view, the text was randomized and, hence, very difficult to understand.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 18 Jan 2015 12:30

shiv wrote: Thanks.
Here it is - read all 11 pages:

http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistic ... _Islam.pdf
Islam is based on Koran and Sunna. Since the Sunna is found in the Sira and the Hadith, this means that three books contain all the doctrine of Islam—the Trilogy. If it is in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira, Hadith), then it is Islam. If something is not in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. All of the Islamic doctrine is found in the Trilogy.

Now, we have the complete information with no missing pieces. We have established our first criteria of knowledge. All authoritative statements about Islam must include a reference to the Trilogy to be authenticated. It does not matter what a scholar, imam, media guru, or anyone else says, if what they say cannot be supported by the doctrine in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. If it is supported by the Trilogy, then it is Islam.
Also:
The Koran of the bookstore is not the historical Koran of Mohammed, because Uthman, a caliph (supreme ruler) had it arranged starting with the longest chapter and ending at the shortest chapter. After he created the Koran we know today, he burned the originals. The time and story have been annihilated by the rearrangement. From a statistical point of view, the text was randomized and, hence, very difficult to understand.

I have always wondered about this issue.

Why is Sunna made into a companion of Koran? Koran was supposed to be a direct revelation of God, right? Mohammad claimed that he had perfected Islam by giving Koran, right? Then, what is the need for Sunna or anything else? Is it not blasphemy to attach Sunna to Koran?

Then, I came to know about Uthman rearranging the Koran(basically making it indecipherable) and then burning the original Koran. Just imagine: Uthman burnt the original Koran and then reordered the Koran to make it un-understandable...

Muslims routinely riot on the rumours that someone burnt Koran. Here, Uthman-the rightly guided caliph burnt the original Koran and muslims have no problem? He re-ordered the Koran to make it as indecipherable and muslims have no problem?

This Uthman character seems to be very interesting. Lets see his wiki:

wiki wrote:Uthman
Uthman ibn Affan (Arabic: عثمان بن عفان‎, strict transliteration: ʻUthmān ibn ʻAffān) (577 – 17 June 656) was a companion of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and the third of the Sunni Rashidun or "Rightly Guided Caliphs". Born into a prominent Meccan clan of the Quraysh tribe, he played a major role in early Islamic history, succeeding Umar ibn al-Khattab as caliph at age 65. He was also the prophet's son-in-law twice, being married to two of the prophet’s daughters Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum.

Under the leadership of Uthman, the empire expanded into Fars in 650 (present-day Iran), some areas of Khorasan (present-day Afghanistan) in 651 and the conquest of Armenia was begun in the 640s.[3]

Early life
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2013)

Uthman was born in Ta’if. He was born into the wealthy Umayyad (Banu Umayya) clan of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, seven years after Muhammad. Uthman's father, Affan, died young while travelling abroad but left a large inheritance to Uthman. Uthman followed the same profession as his father, and his business flourished, making him one of the richest men among the Qurayshi tribe.[4] His mother was Awra who was daughter of Umme Hakim bint Abdul Mutallib. The later was twin sister of Abdullah, father of Muhammad and therefore his first cousin. She also passed away before 610AD.[5]

Conversion to Islam

On returning from a business trip to Syria in 611, Uthman found out that Muhammad had declared his mission. After a discussion with his friend Abu Bakr, Uthman decided to convert to Islam, and Abu Bakr took him to Muhammad to whom he declared his faith. Uthman thus became the one of the earliest converts to Islam, following Ali, Zayd, Abu Bakr and few others. His conversion to Islam angered his clan, the Banu Ummayyah, who strongly opposed Muhammad's teachings.[6]
Migration to Abyssinia

Uthman and his wife Ruqayya migrated to Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia) in 614–615, along with 11 men and 11 women, all Muslims. As Uthman already had some business contacts in Abyssinia, he continued to practise his profession as a trader. He worked hard and his business soon flourished. After two years the news had spread among the Muslims in Abyssinia that the Quraysh of Mecca had accepted Islam, and that persuaded Uthman, Ruqayya and some other Muslims to return. However when they reached Mecca it transpired that the news about the Quraysh's acceptance of Islam was false. Some of the Muslims who had come from Abyssinia returned but Uthman and Ruqayya decided to stay. In Mecca Uthman had to start his business afresh, but the contacts that he had already established in Abyssinia worked in his favour and his business prospered once again.[7]

The highlighted part is very interesting. So, according to this part there were already muslims in Ethiopia before Meccans converted to Islam. Uthman went and stayed in Ethiopia perhaps because there were muslims in Ethiopia.

So, how did Ethiopians become muslims? Did Mohammad convert Ethiopians into muslims? This shows that the whole story biography of Mohammad was just created later. The similarities of Mohammad's biography with the story of Moses also shows that Mohammad's biography was created later on the lines of Moses' biography.

wiki wrote:Uthman compiled the Qur'an, and burnt its other copies. Uthman's governing policies and nepotism led to openly rise of dissatisfaction and resistance throughout most of the empire, especially among noble Companions of Muhammad [42][45][47]

Koran Burning and Islam's Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman
By Andrew G. Bostom
Burning the Koran has not always been an outrage in Muslim eyes. Let us recount the extensive Koran burning exploits of Islam's Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman (d.656).

The pious Muslim narrative is summarized in a canonical Hadith from Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to ‘Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin Az Zubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)"

The great scholar of early Islam, Leone Caetani (1869-1935), published an essay in The Muslim World Vol. 5, 1915, pp. 380-390, (reproduced in, Ibn Warraq, The Origins of the Koran, Prometheus Books, 1998, pp.67-75; extracts from pp. 69,74) entitled, "Uthman and the Rescension of the Koran," which included these confirmatory observations about the rationale for assiduously gathering and burning essentially all of the extant Korans in 650/51 A.D. Caetani's observations emphasize how Uthman's actions, which tacitly acknowledge the existence of Koranic "variants," and suggest a very human origin of the text, were motivated by a desire to enforce the dogma of the Koran being uncreated, unchanging, the eternal word of Allah --a belief which persists amongst the Muslim masses to this day.

The official canonical redaction undertaken at Uthman's command, was due to the uncertainty which reigned in reference to the text. It is clear that in 30 A.H. (650/51 A.D.) no official redaction existed. [Islamic] Tradition itself [i.e., the hadith, Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, above] admits that there were various "schools," one in Iraq, one in Syria, one in al-Basrah, besides others in smaller places, and then, exaggerating in an orthodox sense this scandal, tries to make out that the divergences were wholly immaterial; but such affirmations accord ill with the opposition excited by the caliph's act in al-Kufah. The official version must have contained somewhat serious modifications...

Uthman ordered the compilation of a single official text of the Koran, and the violent suppression, the destruction by fire of all the other copies existing in the provinces...It should be added that even if all existing copies of the Koran could not be traced to Uthman's official copy, anyone who cast aspersions on Uthman's action would be liable to the charge of raising doubts about the foundation of all Islam, for the Islamic world from one end to the other lives in the conviction that the text existing today represents the true, eternal, immutable word of God.

Link

wiki wrote:The last recensions of the Quran were effected under Caliph Uthman starting some twelve years after the Prophet's death and finishing twenty-four years after it. They had the advantage of being checked by people who already knew the text by heart, for they had learned it at the time of the Revelation itself and had subsequently recited it constantly. Since then, we know that the text has been scrupulously preserved. It does not give rise to any problems of authenticity."[2]

Wiki Link

Shia View

The Qur'an is not in chronological order, but arranged roughly longest surah (chapter) to the shortest. The following lists the chronological (or revelational) order of the Qur'an. [1][2][3][4][5]

Link

Uthman ruled from 644 to 656 CE. Uthman married Ruqaya and Umm Kulthum. Both were daughters of Mohammad and Khadija. Khadija was the eldest wife of Mohammad. So, Uthman was son-in-law of Mohammad. Mohammad supposedly died in 632 CE.

Mohammad's biography was written by Muhammad al-Bukhari around 850 CE. Just note the dates. Mohammad died in 632 CE and his biography was collected and written after 200 years. After just 20 years of Mohammad's death, the Koran was jumbled up so that no one could understand anything.

If someone writes a biography of anyone after 200 years, then such a biography cannot be called authentic and reliable. And if its based on collections of hearsay, then its totally spurious. Why should such a spurious work be used to interpret so-called revelation of the god himself? If Koran is great, then it should be able to stand on its own feet without the support of sunna, no?

It seems that Uthman jumbled up koran and after that Koran became indecipherable. So, Hadiths were created to make some sense of Koran. These stories about Mohammad were based on Moses stories. The Mohammad's biography was created by using Moses as template. And then, they used it to interpret Koran because Koran had become indecipherable for them otherwise.

If Uthman did not jumble up the Koran, does it mean that Koran was jumbled up and indecipherable always? Does it mean that Koran was not understandable always? Whether Uthman jumbled up Koran or whether it was already jumbled up, regardless sunna seem to be created to make sense of Koran because Koran was not understandable on its own.

But, is this not wrong to use some spurious work to interpret supposed god's revelation?

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 18 Jan 2015 15:06

Good reading for abrahamic texts

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm

Happy reading! Enjoy a few chapters.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Jan 2015 15:54

JohneeG: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro ... _the_Koran

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Jan 2015 16:24

The paper on Statistical Islam is good, but calls for further work. The paper relies on counting words in the Quran, Sira, and Hadith - but that gives every word an equal weight. In actual cultural usage, what words and topics are used the most? E.g., not all of Gita or Ramayana (or Shakespeare or Constitution) is quoted equally.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jan 2015 16:46

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote: Would anyone be kind enough to explain to me the difference between organized crime and organized religion?
1. Organized religion is **way** more successful.
2. Organized religion has full cooperation of most of its victims, who have a "Stockholm Syndrome" with their religion.
3. To put it another way, the members of organized religion rarely recognize that their religion has victimized most of them.
4. Organized crime commits physical offenses, they are not after your mind. E.g., the purpose of their selling narcotics is to make money, that you are stoned is a side-effect, collateral damage so to speak.
5. Organized crime does not claim to love you.
6. Even the most hardened organized crime-wallahs don't claim that every child is born a criminal of their type.
7. It is atypical for organized crime to have state support.
8. Organized crime does not get tax exemptions.

+1

That is a keeper of a post

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Jan 2015 19:51

The Islamic trilogy - Quran, Sira, Hadith - has 1.07 million words.
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Texts.html

In comparison, the Mahabharata alone has 1.8 million words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

The Bible (Old Testament + New Testament) has 0.8 million words.
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00722.html

If one looks at the word count here, http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/index.html
just the Sathapatha Brahmana comes to about 0.76 million words.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Jan 2015 20:13

A very clear passage from Dr. Bill Warner, who is also author of the Statistical Islam paper.
http://www.politicalislam.com/product/f ... ersuasion/

emphasis added.

THE GOOD MUSLIM

There is an attempt to make the problem of Islam go away. It is the “good Muslim” who will save the day. Everybody seems to know a “good Muslim” who is a friend at work.

What is a good Muslim? A good Muslim is one who seems non-violent.

But that point of view is not Islamic. Islam is the one and only basis of determining what a good Muslim is. An apologist’s opinion of “good” is not relevant to anyone, except to the apologist and his friends. Islam says that a good Muslim is one who follows the Koran and the Sunna. That is the one and only criteria of being a good Muslim.

Apologists think that good Muslims are a proof of a “good” Islam and that the doctrine makes no difference. Oddly enough, Muslims do not agree with this. Muslims have one and only one definition of what a “good Muslim” is, one who has submitted to Islam and follows the Sunna. The cause is Islam; the effect is Muslim. Apologists think that Islam submits to Muslims, but apologists are ignorant, so they are free of facts, and in the soil of ignorance, any fantastic flower grows.

The problem in talking about Muslims as a group of people is that there are three kinds of Muslim.

The first kind is the Meccan Muslim. A Meccan Muslim is primarily a religious person without the jihadic politics.

A Medinan Muslim is a political Muslim.

Then there is the Muslim who follows the Golden Rule, instead of Islamic ethics.

At this point a voice can be heard: “I know this Muslim and he is a good person. There are good Muslims.” Notice the shift from Islam to a person. Yes, he may be a good person, but that is different from being a good Muslim. His goodness is due to his following the Golden Rule and treating a Kafir as a human being. A Golden Rule Muslim is one who is an apostate to some degree.

Maybe the Golden Rule Muslim drinks beer or doesn’t go to the mosque.All Muslims have some Kafir in them. The Kafir civilization has much to offer: freedom, wealth, friendship, women who do not wear a bag for a garment and great entertainment. Some Muslims prefer Kafir civilization to Islamic civilization in many ways.

Since every Muslim can have three parts, it is hard to nail him down. There is a shifty quality that goes with the territory. Which center of gravity is he coming from? Is he religious, political, or friend? If religious or political, then he is not your friend, but a deceiver. But if he is your friend, then he is following the Golden Rule and is a Kafir. But how do you ever trust him? When is he Kafir? When is he Muslim?

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 18 Jan 2015 23:29

A most dangerous Islamophobe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXELQK8_64

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 19 Jan 2015 01:04

from teetar,
per Tarek fatah, as per Madudi--> the virgins for the soosai mujaihids come from kuffars daughters .

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 19 Jan 2015 02:59

Can the facts in this Tarek Fatah article be verified?
http://tarekfatah.com/was-aisha-only-ni ... rried-her/

While the Islamists and Wafa Sultan rely on medieval gossip, I have chosen to make a rational estimate of Aisha’s age based on acknowledged historical timelines.

Most medieval Islamic history books were written 200-300 years after the advent of Islam and it is true that all of them state emphatically that Aisha was only nine when she became Muhammad’s bride.

However, all of them rely on, and quote, one single individual as the source of this information. His name was Hishām ibn Urwah, a prominent narrator of sayings of the Prophet (the Hadith), who died in the year 756AD. He was Aisha’s great-grand nephew, who first suggested that his great-grand aunt was only nine-years old on the day of her wedding, 125 years after the said event. Prior to his utterance– a century after the fact–there is no mention or reference to the age of Aisha.

Hisham bin Urwah lived and taught in Medina for 70 years, yet no one else—not even his famous pupil Malik ibn Anas—-reported Aisha’s age.

The historian al-Tabari informs us in his treatise on Islamic history that the father of Aisha, Abu Bakr had four children and all them were born before the year 610AD, the year of the advent of Islam. If, as is generally accepted, Aisha became Muhammad’s bride in the year 624AD, then she had to be at least 14 years of age, if not older on the day of her wedding.

Ibn Hisham, the historian, reports that Aisha accepted Islam quite some time before Umar (the second caliph). This means she must have been at least a young girl in the year 610. Assuming she was five years old when Abu Bakr and his family converted to islam, the information puts the age of Aisha at 20 or more at the time of her marriage with Muhammad was consummated in 624AD.

Furthermore, most Islamic historians agree that Asma, the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than her. It is also reported that Asma died in 683AD at the ripe age of 100. If this is true, then Asma would have been 31 years old at the time of Aisha’s wedding with Muhammad in 624 and the bride would have been 21.

Finally, this following is opinion, not asking anyone to validate it:

Of course, these facts do not suit either the critics of Islam or the Mullahs who sanction child marriage. Had the medieval caliphs or their court appointed clerics in the 8th century accepted these timelines, it would have taken away their right to fill their harems with young girls of their choice.

My critics may argue that I am juggling the dates to validate my thesis. But where is the evidence that suggests my timeline of historical events is wrong? If the critics of Islam argue that there needs to be a reformation in Islam, then why would we not err on the side of an argument that could end child marriages in the Muslim world?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 19 Jan 2015 07:17

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... rlie-hebdo
On Charlie Hebdo Pope Francis is using the wife-beater’s defence
Yes, free speech has always had its limits – but verbal provocation is never an excuse for violence

On the day another cartoonist victim was buried at Père Lachaise cemetery, the pope came as near as dammit to suggesting that Charlie Hebdo had it coming. “One cannot provoke; one cannot insult other people’s faith; one cannot make fun of faith,” he said.

Oh yes, you can. You may not choose to. It may not be wise or polite or kind – but you can. And to show you can, without being gunned down, Charlie Hebdo has just gone on sale in the UK, in bolder outlets, proudly defiant with an image of Muhammad on the cover – though with a tear and a kindly thought: “All is forgiven.”

The pope pointed to his aide as he said “If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

No, it’s not normal to punch someone who insults you; the pope’s Christ certainly didn’t think so. Verbal provocation is never an excuse for violence – that’s the wife-beater’s defence.

The right to make fun of popes, imams and prophets is fading fast as self-censorship for commercial, as much as self-preserving, instincts stops the presses.

The flurry of scandal over Oxford University Press stopping its children’s writers from referring to pigs or pork for fear of risking Middle East sales – or the Harper Collins atlases for export that mysteriously omit Israel for the same reason – show how easily freedom slips away unless scurrilous outriders like Charlie Hebdo can keep mocking church and mosque.

http://www.alternet.org/media/bill-mahe ... do-attacks

The Pope compared mocking a person’s faith to insulting their mother and said that anyone who hurls such an insult “can expect a punch.”

“I think it’s in Galatians 13 when Jesus said: Turn the other cheek… Into my fist you ****** mook,” Maher joked.

“Well, George Bush said it: you’re either with us or against us. Apparently the pope is not with us because he came down on the side of the bad guys.”

The funny part is that Pope flees Philippines because a storm was approaching. So much for faith.

Pope flees Philippine storm, cuts short typhoon mercy trip
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-set-emotiona ... 41285.html