I thought there was something strange about this murder when the story first broke. Like how did they know that the couple were not yet married? How do any of these morality enforcers tell the married couples from the unmarried? Show us your marriage lines or we'll smash your face in?
Why did they kill the elder sister and not the younger, who was also out with a man not her husband. Is Magdalen a common name for a Moslem?

Now we have the information that the killers didn't know that the couples were formally betrothed. In this particular case the immoral behaviour element is a red herring, I think. This has all the hallmarks of a gangland contract, albeit religious gangs.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 16, 2005 9:55 AM

What goes around, comes around.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at April 16, 2005 10:01 AM

Why we don´t listen the liberals bashing islam like they bash catholicism for 500 years ago inquisition, they are very hypocriticals, like forever.
We are in XXI century and the killing of this woman is unaceptable.

Posted by: Franze at April 16, 2005 10:05 AM

Images of another enforcement group flashed into my head when I saw the graphic that depicts the Hamas "Morality Police". The KKK were also a morality police that enforced the hideous values of a different time period, values that are now seen as "flawed" and unacceptable.

Islam is unchangeable because the values put forward and acted upon my the so-called morality police in Saudi Arabia, Taliban-controlled and, to some extent, contemporary Afghanistan, Nigeria, Hamas-controlled Gaza, and even the Muslim-controlled neighborhoods of Paris, to name a few place, are mandated by the Koran and praised in the ahadiths, Sira, and by hundreds of thousands of scholars and the billions of Muslim voice that have exhorted death for immorality over the ages.

Honor killings will continue because they are part and parcel of Islam and will become more frequent and blatant as a muscular extremism forces itself upon both the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

Woe to those that have Muslims as neighbors for sooner or later the darkside of Islam will rise up to enslave or annihilate.

Posted by: epg at April 16, 2005 10:34 AM

"Palestinian law allows crimes to happen like adultery and wine drinking. There have been recent increases in these crimes and no one is punished."

I thought the Taliban was misunderstanding Islam ?

Sarcasm!

It´s gonna be so great having these nice moral police crowds arounds, just like in Paris where they run around armed and the police stays clear of them.

Long term consequence = they let it happen and grow and eventually they have to send in the foreign legion, they know how to deal with such, they just shot anything looking armed, and throw in handgrenades into buildings where they think people might be hiding.

What a great idea this wall around PA actually is!

Posted by: TBH_1 at April 16, 2005 11:07 AM

OT~ The Sword of the Prophet, by Serge Trifkovic. Has anyone heard of this book?

Posted by: Gary at April 16, 2005 11:29 AM

a few questions about the "moral Police".

Where do you sign up for the "moral police dept"? Is special training required?
Can anyone apply or just those displaying a low level of intelligence? What kind of pay? Is there any money in it? Full time or part time?What about retirement benefits? Do you get to kill or beat up people daily or just sometimes?What do you do when not enforcing morality? What about bonuses and paid time off? Health insurance? Can I buy shares in the company?
Sorry, the "moral police dept", just cant quite pass the smell test. A lousy place to work. Poor lighting and an open cesspool. Guess I will just have to keep looking for meaningful work.
Someone said "get a job hippy", and I have been trying since 1977...things are a little slow... I thought the the "moral police", might be right up my alley. What a disapointment...swami

Posted by: duh_swami at April 16, 2005 12:01 PM

Gary,

I just got "The Sword of the Prophet" , but have not yet cracked the cover.

Posted by: BillR at April 16, 2005 12:33 PM

Steppenwolf ought to remake their classic song the Pusher to The Prophet.

Artist: The Prophet Lyrics
Song: Steppenwolf Lyrics

You know I've smoked a lot of grass
O' Lord, I've popped a lot of pills
But I never touched nothin'
That my spirit could kill
You know, I've seen a lot of people walkin' 'round
With tombstones in their eyes
But the prophet don't care
Ah, if you live or if you die

God damn, The Prophet
God damn, I say The Prophet
I said God damn, God damn The Prophet man

You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With the love grass in his hand
Oh but the pusher is a monster
Good God, he's not a natural man
The dealer for a nickel
Lord, will sell you lots of sweet dreams
Ah, but the Prophet ruin your body
Lord, he'll leave your, he'll leave your mind to scream

God damn, The Prophet
God damn, God damn the Prophet
I said God damn, God, God damn The Prophet man

Well, now if I were the president of this land
You know, I'd declare total war on The Prophet man
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

God damn The Prophet
Gad damn The Prophet
I said God damn, God damn The Prophet man

Posted by: Cross at April 16, 2005 12:57 PM

Ever see the movie Easy Rider? It's the lead song.

Posted by: Cross at April 16, 2005 1:03 PM

According to the Shari'ah itself, Islamic Sacred Law can only be enforced by legitimate State authority. However, as usual, the primary feeling on this site is that this event directly reflects real Islam, when it is clear to those that actually know something about Islam, that it is in fact a contradiction of Islamic Sacred Law.

Posted by: Shukri at April 16, 2005 1:19 PM

it is clear to those that actually know something about Islam, that it is in fact a contradiction of Islamic Sacred Law

Must be that tiny minority of misunderstanders again.

Posted by: Charles Martel at April 16, 2005 1:30 PM

"“There is no such concept in Islam that is called “honor killing”. Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings." - Fatwa

Posted by: Shukri at April 16, 2005 1:48 PM

http://www.mp3raid.com/search/dload/Easy%20Rider%20-%20Steppenwolf%20~%20The%20Pusher/http:~~www.stalle2281cente2281.com~wav~steppenwolf%20%20%20the%20pushe2281.mp3/

Posted by: Cross at April 16, 2005 2:32 PM

Shifti

I'm glad you have surfaced. There are some gentlemen from the "Germany: Police arrest jihadists and raid mosques thread looking for you".
A little matter of an outstanding debt?
$100 and $1000?

Remember?

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 16, 2005 2:37 PM

Interesting. Folks should follow the link above and read the response of the 'respected scholar' at Islamonline. More irrational weaving of brutality into peace. He refers to Al-Bukhari in developing his position that 'honor killings' (at least as such killings are carried out now) disregard 'morals and law'.

`Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances]: the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community." (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

These three conditions only apply to Muslims, of course. Non-believers belong in another legal category. And, reference to this hadith implies that blood 'may legally be spilt' for adultery, murder, and apostacy.

And what is the meaning of the phrase 'blood may be split'? Well, why don't we just say it? Kill. Kill. Kill.

Oh, but the ruling must be by an 'authoritative law court', says Sheikh Ahmad Kutty. But what is an 'authoritative court'? Well, he also says this:

"It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.”

No mention of Infidel courts and laws. I suppose, according to the Bukhari hadith above, one must simply wait until a Muslim State has been established before Muslims can be lawfully killed for adultery, murder, and apostacy. Yes indeed, Islamic law is very much against killing, uh, killing of believers, uh, who do not commit adultery, uh, who do not kill another, uh, who do not leave the faith.

But what if a Sharia court in Canada sanctioned the killing of an apostate by appeal to the hadith above?

What a merciful, compassionate rendering of Islamic law by respected scholars, one of which, lives and works in Toronto.

True enlightenment and moral progress. Isn't it?

Posted by: JTF at April 16, 2005 2:47 PM

There is no such concept in Islam that is called "honor killing". Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice..~ Shukri

Shukri, have you ever read the Qur'an? Or Hadith?
How do you rectify the anti-Semitic statements in the Qur’an?
If we believe the Qur’an to be true then the God of the Jews, hates the Jews?
That is completely oxymoronic!

Mohammadanism does allow at least Moslems to take the law into their own hands.

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

This passage clearly states that killing non-Moslems is completely acceptable to Mohammad and the god of his imagination (Allah), but only after ancient pagan practices are completed.

This is what the Hebrew God thinks about followers of Mohammadanism.

Proverbs 1:10-33 MKJV
My son, if sinners lure you, do not be willing.
(11) If they say, Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood, we will watch secretly for the innocent without cause;
(12) let us swallow them up alive as the grave, and whole, as those who go down into the pit;
(13) we shall find all precious goods; we shall fill our houses with plunder;
(14) cast in your lot among us, and let us have one purse.
(15) My son, do not walk in the way with them! Keep back your foot from their path,
(16) for their feet run to evil and make haste to shed blood.
(17) Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird,
(18) And they lie in wait for their own blood; they watch secretly for their own lives.
(19) So are the ways of everyone who gains unjust gain; it takes away its owners' life.
(20) Wisdom cries outside; she utters her voice in the streets;
(21) she cries in the chief place of gathering, in the openings of the gates; in the city she utters her words, saying,
(22) How long will you love simplicity, simple ones? And will scorners delight in their scorning? And will fools hate knowledge?
(23) Turn at my warning; behold, I will pour out my Spirit to you; I will make my words known to you.
(24) Because I called, and you refused; I stretched out my hand, and no one paid attention;
(25) but you have despised all my advice, and would have none of my warning.
(26) I also will laugh at your trouble; I will mock when your fear comes;
(27) when your fear comes as a wasting away, and your ruin comes like a tempest when trouble and pain come upon you.
(28) Then they shall call upon me, and I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me;
(29) instead they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of Jehovah.
(30) They would have none of my counsel; they despised all my correction,
(31) and they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own desires.
(32) For the turning away of the simple kills them, and the ease of fools destroys them.
(33) But whoever listens to me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

This is an uncanny description of Islamic values written long before Mohammad,
and their final result.

Posted by: Bar at April 16, 2005 2:52 PM

JTF

No mention of Infidel courts and laws. I suppose, according to the Bukhari hadith above, one must simply wait until a Muslim State has been established before Muslims can be lawfully killed for adultery, murder, and apostacy

Bingo. So you see, Israel is to blame for the "honour killings" because the Jews are preventing the Palestinians from establishing their Islamic state and implementing Sharia which would, in turn, make the killings lawful.

The cognitive dissonance between what Shukri believes his religion teaches and the manifestation of that religion as practiced by its 1.2 billion adherents must surely make his head explode.

Posted by: Charles Martel at April 16, 2005 3:12 PM

Shukri reminds me of the Communists during the Cold War.

Yes, Shukri, 'honor' killing is not specifically mentioned in the Koran. But 99.999% of all the 'honor' killings are carried out by Muslims. It's a Bedouin tradition which has become accepted within the greater Islamic community. Why don't you deal with the actual problem instead of condemning the messenger?

Posted by: Beagle at April 16, 2005 3:14 PM

So Shukri doesn't object to the murder and mutilation of a woman for the crime of holding hands with her future husband, he just insists that the murder and mutilation be carried out by a state authority. I guess that makes him a moderate muslim, in contradistinction to the fundamentalists of Hamas who carried out this atrocity.

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at April 16, 2005 3:59 PM

SHUKRI:

Islam holds only the followers of Islam in any esteem at all--and even then Muslims have a tendency to be killed like flies by their own religious leaders as they have since the formal inception of Islam as a (pseudo) Abrahmic faith over 13 centuries ago.

Taliban, home of the widely revered (by Muslims) Ousamah bin Laden, alone is estimated to have massacred more than 200,000 Muslims in Afghanistan during its reign of horror there in the late 1990's. Are you saying these religious leaders were NOT considered legitimate by the Islamic lawmakers? Are you saying the Taliban didn't know anything about Islam? If you are, Islamic jurisprudence and political leaders would likely declare YOU an 'infidel' and hold that it is in fact YOU WHO knows nothing about Islam --were you to make such assertions about Taliban in their presence.

As for Islam's respect for each individual see below:

The unbelievers are, in the Qur'an, said to have an 'evil fate awaiting' them. This judgment is based on who and what these people are as opposed to any harm they have caused through their conscious actions. Their individuality isn't considered --let alone respected--and worst of all this aspect of Islam has been played down and is noticeable only through a reasoned assessment of Qur'anic passages.

Yet another passage in the Qur'an reads as follows (and I quote): "after the forbidden months have passed, slay the infidels everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, set every stratagem of warfare upon them..." Here each Muslim is assumed to defer his own life toward the destruction of the lives of people he doesn't even know, and the direction of his life is determined by the premise that taking the life of a non-Muslim even without personal knowledge of their actions is moral, even though Muslims have absolutely NO way of knowing what if anything in the Qur'an is true--and in fact much of what is written in the Qur'an is UNTRUE. The Muslims individual identity is in fact neutralized by blackmailing him into becoming a warrior for the cause of spreading Islam (by the sword). I see nothing respectful of each individual's identity in this as his choice in the matter never enters the picture.

It is clear to see that Islam has no respect for human life or individuality. Instead it does quite the opposite: Islam makes LAWS more important than human life itself and in so doing makes killing and slaughtering human beings appear as 'holy' and thus both desirable and easy Imagine the horror of those unlucky souls who were murdered by Islam who learn they were killed to enable some Muslim soldier to go a brothel in the sky with 72 virgins! Even the lives of children are slaughtered indiscriminately by Muslims these days. CHILDREN!!!!!Pope who have not lived long enough to understand the value of human life.

Enough, Shukri. No one here is going to believe you. Not because they 'hate' Islam but because they are logical and observe Islam's predisposition toward massacring non-muslims and the cruel behavior of its representatives.

Posted by: pythagoras at April 16, 2005 4:00 PM

Dont usually copy and paste, but this seemed appropriate for this space...

Bukhari

Book of Jihad, on page 580 of Maktba Dar-us-Salam’s publication of Sahih Al-Bukhari: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.”

Posted by: duh_swami at April 16, 2005 4:28 PM

Now everyone repeat the mantra , islam is a religion of peace.

I was reading Jihadwatch before i went to bed last night and i couldnt sleep. I just kept thinking about the oxymoron that is = islam is a religion of peace.

I propose that islam have an islam is a religion of peace day , whereby there are no beheadings or suicide bombings for 24 hours.

J/K would that would never happen

Posted by: Pegcity at April 16, 2005 4:42 PM

Pegcity-

But if they had a day without any killings for religious reasons, the reason for the the religion would vanish.

Posted by: BigSleep at April 16, 2005 7:32 PM

Shukri, have you ever read the Qur'an? Or Hadith?

Bar, of course I have.

How do you rectify the anti-Semitic statements in the Qur’an?

There are no anti-Semitic statements in the Quran.

This passage clearly states that killing non-Moslems is completely acceptable...

Bar, If you would only read it in its appropriate historical context. Here, go read the commentaries on that Surah.

he just insists that the murder and mutilation be carried out by a state authority.

Doctor Phibes: Kindly do not put words in my mouth. This killing was not justified under any circumstances.

The unbelievers are, in the Qur'an, said to have an 'evil fate awaiting' them.

All disbelievers in God have a severe punishment awaiting them, Pythagoras.

For the faithful, there is eternal reward:

"Those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians and Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" - Quran 2:62

Yet another passage in the Qur'an reads as follows (and I quote): "after the forbidden months have passed, slay the infidels everywhere they are found..."

I am sick and fed up of people quoting verses without knowledge. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ THE CONTEXT FOR GOD'S SAKE.

Sorry about that but I am truly fed up.

Posted by: Shukri at April 16, 2005 10:19 PM

epg: Please don't get me wrong, for I really despise the KKK, and am glad the FBI went after it. However, in the late 19th century south and interwar years in Indiana, part of Klan "moral policing" was to horsewhip wife-beaters.

As for the article, it is one that makes me suspect that a Falastin state, whether WB and Gaza or River to Sea, will probably be pretty tumultuous and self-destructive.

Posted by: Kepha at April 16, 2005 10:47 PM

Just what you'd expect from the Paleo-stainians!

Posted by: Jakester at April 16, 2005 11:16 PM

Just what do you expect from a bunch of illiterate,ignorant, uneducated,bloody PAGANS. Honour killing? well this is pagan islamic honour. Three, armed dribbling thuggish lunatics attack four unarmed fellow pagans.What honour, what bravery, what a stinking pagan religion. islam is a totally brutal, blood soaked pagan heap of manure. alla is a complete satanic creep mohamed a complete idiot.
Spitting on alla,mohomad and pagan islam, numbat

Posted by: numbat at April 16, 2005 11:51 PM

Why is that mohammedans cann't understand that God does not need mortals to kill people for him.

The stupid unknowing rock shakes and 120,000 souls are lost.

How much more powerful must be the creator of the rock?

A being that wills a universe into existance can will anyone, or anything out of existance without even memory of that thing remaining. Not even a ripple.

Any "god" that needs flawed, weak, mortals to kill for it, simply is not God.

Posted by: Joseph of Carpentry at April 17, 2005 12:22 AM

I learned more useful philosophy in a bar from the drunk transient who was an expert trick-shot artist. But here I go trying to figure out this Rubik's Cube of brutality we call Islam.

Shukri is SOOOOO upset we don't read the commentary on the famous ambush sura. Here's the commentary in its entirety:

Ibn Juzayy:

(Then when the sacred months are over) i.e. the four months designated for them. Those who say that they are Shawwal, DhuÕl-QaÔda, DhuÕl-Hijja and al-Muharram, says that they are the well-known Sacred Months - with the addition of Shawwal and omission of Rajab. They are called "sacred" because the majority dominates in an Arabic phrase. Those who say that they last until Rab'Ô ath-Thani calls them sacred because of their inviolability and because fighting in them was forbidden.

(kill the mushrikun* wherever you find them) Abrogating every peace treaty in the QurÕan. It is said that it abrogates, "by setting them free or ransom." (47:4) It is also said that it is abrogated by it and so setting them free and ransom are permitted. (seize them) means to capture, and the one taken is the captive.

(If they make tawba) after disbelief. Then He connects belief to the prayer and zakat. That is is an indication that one should fight anyone who abandons the prayer and zakat as Abu Bakr as-Siddiq did. The ayat encompassed the meaning of the ProphetÕs words,"I am commanded to fight people until they say, 'There is no god but Allah' and establish the prayer and pay the zakat." (let them go on their way) granting them security.

Jalalayn:

(when the sacred months are over) have gone and the term is complete. (kill the idolaters wherever you find them) In sacred or profane land. (and besiege them) in fortresses and forts until they are forced out, being killed or becoming Muslim.

[Ibn Kathir states that is not enough to merely find them, but they must be besieged in their strongholds and fortresses. You must wait for them on their pathways and roads so that what was previously ample becomes constricted for them and you force them to either be killed or become Muslim.]

(lie in wait for them on every road)

[As-Sawi: So that they do not disperse in the land.]

(if they make tawba and ... pay the zakat)

{Ibn Kathir notes that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq relied on this noble ayat when he fought those who refused to pay the zakat since the prohibition against fighting them was based on entering into Islam and carrying out its obligations.]

(let them go on their way) do not attack them.

[As-Sawi: Do not attack their persons or property and do not take jizya, 'ushr or anything else from them.]

(Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful) to the one who turns in repentance.

*"mushrikun"
That's everyone but Muslims. (pagans, idolaters, polytheists, surfer dudes, hermaphrodites, circus clowns, mimes, etc.)

Posted by: Beagle at April 17, 2005 1:06 AM

Gary and all:

The Sword of the Prophet is a good one. Very revealing, and disturbing.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 17, 2005 1:17 AM

Beagle, very nice response.

Shurki, did you have anything to say about that?

Oh, and Shurki, here you are:

Q 2: 120 And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor the Christians, till thou follow their creed!

This is a bit anti-semitic. The Jews and Christians would accept thee if thee would just cease trying to murder them all the time. Same for Q 2: 135.

Q 2: 140 Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians?

Well, yes, they were in fact Jews. Maybe Allah don't know best. This kind of arbitrary religious thievery is, itself, also anti-Jewish.

Q 4: 46 Some of those [Mohammed later says the majority] who are Jews change words from their context and say "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not" and "Listen to us!" distorting words from their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said "We hear and obey; hear thou and look at us" it would have been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, SAVE A FEW.

In other words, the Jews are corrupt and only a few are "believers". What happens to non-believers under sharia, Shurki? (Actually that alone suffices, really; sharia, that is.)

Q 4: 159-160 There is NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE SCRIPTURE who will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them. Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews, We forbade them good things which were made lawful to them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way.

Again, the Jews are made out to be corrupt. What happens to the corrupt in islam, Shurki? I don't mean the ones that go on to be imams, of course. =)

More of the same: 5:18, 5:41, 5:44, 5:64, 5:82, 6:91, 6: 147 (particularly interesting since it discusses how the 'wrath' of this 'Allah' will 'never be withdrawn from guilty folk' - now, if only islam could let their god deal out wrath on his own, eh Shurki? Unfortunately, he seems to be kind of a weak fellow; he needs islam to do it for him), 9:1-29 is basically a manual for "killing the idolaters", which are Jews and Christians, basically, 9: 30, 9: 34 ("hoarders" which must have a "painful doom", which I'm certain is another happy misunderstanding point for islamicists), 16: 118, 62: 6 "Long for death if ye are truthful" - another one that I'm sure islamicists are happy to misinterpret - How perverse they are! eh, Shurki? LOL. And what indeed does one do with folk that obey not Allah? Sura 9 seems to hint at it.

Q 5: 51 is great: "Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends to one another. He among you who taketh them for friends is of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." So, I guess I can see why you dislike this site and the people on it so much.

So, was the going rate still $100 or are we up to $1000 now? Of course, I can't send you my address, for obvious reasons ;) , but maybe we could work out a wire transfer. Anyone here know how to do that in an untraceable manner?

Thanks again,

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 17, 2005 1:48 AM

Shurki,

Sorry you're so fed up. I must have missed that part. I know you can imagine how fed up we must be with the constant apologetics, the never-failing refusal to admit some responsibility for some of the crimes committed in islam's name, the obfuscation, the ignorance of how so many in islam today truly observe it as distinct from how the apologicists try to explain it away, the constant and never-ending insult to our intelligence: it all strikes us as exceedingly childish. Add to that the 1400 years of bloody history by the Prophet's followers - including that done today in his name, such as the above - and, well, I know you can see why we're so annoyed.

Perhaps, when you go among your islamic brethren and teach them the proper ways - when, for example, you explain to the imams of the PA that they are interpreting islam incorrectly and that you can save them, or perhaps travel to any islamic country where religious minorities are oppressed under sharia and fight against it, or when you donate your time to helping women achieve equality in islam - we would take your efforts more seriously.

Sorry you're so fed up. We are too.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 17, 2005 1:56 AM

Why is that mohammedans cann't understand that God does not need mortals to kill people for him

Joseph of Carpentry, Muslims don't kill people on behalf of God as you seem to think. We kill only when necessary to defend ourselves against invaders and occupiers. Obviously you have extremists who, contravening Sacred Law, kill indiscriminately but that in no way reflects Islamic teachings. Muslims are always told not to go beyond the limits:

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors." Quran 2:190

Well that certainly cleared things up. It's nice to know you Muslims can kill each other using that sura. But for the rest of us, it means what it sounds like it means.

Beagle, if you indeed read the commentary, you would read the beginning verses of Chapter 9 of the Quran as follows

1) This is about treaties and those who break treaties
2) Muslims should hold to their treaties and even if the enemy breaks the treaties, it is better to wait out the term of the treaty
3) Mercy should not be shown to those who kill people while there is a treaty going on except if they repent.

I hope you get the drift. "Kill them wherever you find them". "Them" is referring to treaty violaters who murdered people while the Treaty was in effect. Please take time to understand the commentary line by line.

Q 2: 120 And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor the Christians, till thou follow their creed!

This is a bit anti-semitic.

Sorry, it is just cold hard fact. There are groups of Christians and Jews who will never accept Muslims until we believe as they do.

Q 2: 140 Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians?

Well, yes, they were in fact Jews. Maybe Allah don't know best. This kind of arbitrary religious thievery is, itself, also anti-Jewish.

So where does Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob claim that "we are Jews" or "we are Christians"?

But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, SAVE A FEW.

In other words, the Jews are corrupt and only a few are "believers". What happens to non-believers under sharia, Shurki? (Actually that alone suffices, really; sharia, that is.)

The Quran uses this type of terminology not just for Jews, but for human beings as well. Most of humanity does not follow guidance when it comes to them nor are they thankful to God for what they have.

Q 4: 159-160 There is NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE SCRIPTURE who will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them. Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews, We forbade them good things which were made lawful to them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way.

Again, the Jews are made out to be corrupt. What happens to the corrupt in islam, Shurki? I don't mean the ones that go on to be imams, of course. =)

You should actually go read what the Jewish scriptures itself says about the Jews. Btw the above verse is mistranslated enough to alter its meaning. The verse:

"There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them."

"Him" refers to Jesus peace be upon him.

9:1-29 is basically a manual for "killing the idolaters", which are Jews and Christians, basically, 9: 30, 9: 34 ("hoarders" which must have a "painful doom", which I'm certain is another happy misunderstanding point for islamicists),

Please read this

Q 5: 51 is great: "Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends to one another. He among you who taketh them for friends is of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." So, I guess I can see why you dislike this site and the people on it so much.

The word that is translated as "friend" here is "wali". Wali does not mean just friend. It means someone who protects you. Hence, we are advised not to take other than our own as protectors.

or when you donate your time to helping women achieve equality

Like I mentioned in another thread, Geoff, women are truly equal in Islam because they do not take men as their standard. Rather they have their own standards. In the west, women are constantly trying to be "equal" to men which is basically that whatever a man does, a woman also must do. This is real inferiority and Islam liberates women from such degradation.

Posted by: Shukri at April 17, 2005 3:28 AM

I am sick and fed up of people quoting verses without knowledge. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ THE CONTEXT FOR GOD'S SAKE.

Sorry about that but I am truly fed up.

Posted by: Shukri at April 16, 2005 10:19 PM

Sorry Shukri.
But the actions carried out in the name of Islam have created the context.

The historical context no longer has any real bearing upon world events in these,.. the final years of islamic brutality.

Also the historical context is just as vicious and bloodthirsty..... wanting SLAVES and LOOT from subjected subjugated and terrorised civilizations.

Any claims to ancient islam being more advanced than its counterparts is surely the same old revisionist history that even today is spoon fed to weak minded infidels.

I charge that Islam has nothing to offer the planet Earth but DEATH,DESTRUCTION, and never ending BRUTALITY

ISLAM is MISERY and STAGNATION to whatever humans and societies it comes in contact with.

Save yourself .shrug off this ISLAM.....this.... madmans nighmare vision of servitude .

There is no hiding the awful truth from infidels who seek to discover why ISLAM must hate and kill, and consume... and force western allies to attack in thier defence....
The entire planet shall turn against Islam, for it is increasingly becoming obvious that it is a evil ideoligy of conquest and slavery.

I am so awfully sick of taqyaa practitioners and apoligists who shout
"OUT OF CONTEXT" "OUT OF CONTEXT"in some lame attempt to end a loosing argument.I just doesnt wash....good day sir

Posted by: AvrageJoe at April 17, 2005 4:25 AM

Shukri,

I received the highest grade in my law school class in statutory interpretation. I only mention this because your supposedly clear commentary is as clear as a the shoreline after a hurricane.

You are hanging your hat on this statement:

Abrogating every peace treaty in the QurÕan.

This statment follows:

(kill the mushrikun* wherever you find them)

What your so-called peaceful commentary actually suggests is ambushing anyone who isn't a Muslim, whatever treaties you have in effect.

The sura itself does not mention treaties of any kind. The plain meaning is all too clear. I don't blame you for ignoring it.

Worst of all, Muslims don't obey treaties with infidels because they are only temporary hudnas until you can regroup, rearm, and gain strategic advantage. Moreover, any Muslim can lie to an infidel for any reason, as per the rules of taqiyya.

But it's hard to say with exactitude. Your 'scholars' make the Internal Revenue Code seem clear by comparison.

Posted by: Beagle at April 17, 2005 4:47 AM

I quote Shukri:

"The Quran uses this type of terminology not just for Jews, but for human beings as well."

So, Jews are what?

Posted by: Ernst at April 17, 2005 6:30 AM

Ernst:

That sentence jumped out at me as well.

"The Quran uses this type of terminology not just for Jews, but for human beings as well."

Oops, Shukri can't help but reveal his true feelings when agitated - I've seen other muslims make that same type of statement here. I guess as "the descendants of apes and pigs", the JOOOOOOZ don't count as human beings, a point reinforced by the sermons of many an imam as reported on this very site.

Posted by: CGW at April 17, 2005 9:18 AM

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors." Quran 2:190

"Don't go beyond limits"? What limits are those? Shurki doesn't post them. It's always good to have nebulous limitations, I suppose.

Shurki: "Kill them wherever you find them". "Them" is referring to treaty violaters who murdered people while the Treaty was in effect. Please take time to understand the commentary line by line.

I did. Regrettably, to which extent does this concept of "treaty" go to? A province? A city? An entire civilization? The islamic interpretation of this appears to be the latter. And what constitutes the 'breaking' of the treaty? It also seems that a single word against the 'prophet' amounts to such justification. Please take the time to grasp the larger sense about the Sura: that it represents, in whole, a call to war and violence against other religions. Additionally, the Quran says nothing whatever of murder in these passages. Please refrain from libelistic da'wa while you are on this site. Thankyou.

Q 2: 120 And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor the Christians, till thou follow their creed!
Geoff: This is a bit anti-semitic.
Shurki: Sorry, it is just cold hard fact. There are groups of Christians and Jews who will never accept Muslims until we believe as they do.

Sorry, it is a cold hard fact that this doesn't say: "There are GROUPS of Jews who will not be pleased with thee..." Maybe you should go back and re-read this passage. If you can't simply read for comprehension, it would seem that there is less for me to teach you and more that you need to learn on your own. This is the stereotyping of all members of a civilization. To use a bit of tu quoque: you, Shurki, won't be happy until the whole world is islamic.

Q 2: 140 Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians?
Geoff: Well, yes, they were in fact Jews. Maybe Allah don't know best. This kind of arbitrary religious thievery is, itself, also anti-Jewish.
Shurki: So where does Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob claim that "we are Jews" or "we are Christians"?

Well, since they wrote the books, and they are in fact Jews...I sort of assumed it would be obvious that they were.

Quran: But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, SAVE A FEW.
Shurki: The Quran uses this type of terminology not just for Jews, but for human beings as well. Most of humanity does not follow guidance when it comes to them nor are they thankful to God for what they have.

Well, here it's using it for Jews specifically. Again, as Mohammed is not Jewish, this is wrong. Leave other cultures alone. Golden rule.

Geoff: Again, the Jews are made out to be corrupt. What happens to the corrupt in islam, Shurki?
Shurki: You should actually go read what the Jewish scriptures itself says about the Jews.

It's fine for the Jews to say this about THEMSELVES. But of course, you are not Jewish. It is therefore verging on criminal to recite such passages. The verse is not mistranslated, unless again you posit yourself higher than all the other scholars.

Geoff: "There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them."
Shurki: "Him" refers to Jesus peace be upon him.

Yes, we know. And this is relevant to your case - how?
As for Sura 9, I hate to contradict you, but you yourself (and a plethora of other Sunnis I argue with) admit that islam must "defend itself". Sura 9 is specifically defended by such apologists in this way. Of course, "defense" constitutes a great many things, does it not? Some islamicists argue that "defense" is necessary against women who lead prayers; others, against those who dare say anything in debate against the Prophet - a Sunni I debated told me angrily that "anyone that insults the Prophet SHOULD be in hiding" - meaning that they deserve to die. So endeth the concept of 'free debate' - which I imagine is actually not permitted in sharia either. I read your link: how again does it support your point?

Q 5: 51 is great: "Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends."
"The word that is translated as "friend" here is "wali". Wali does not mean just friend. It means someone who protects you. Hence, we are advised not to take other than our own as protectors."

Well, that's funny, because almost every other source tranlates it as friend as well. I suppose you know better than all the scholars who translated it? From another perspective entirely, this suggests quite strongly that muslims should not become citizens of nations with Christian rulers - since such rulers would be "protecting" you, by default. Given your other postings about how muslim can be citizens of other countries (and even join their National Defense forces to protect them), this interpretation is tenous at best.

"Like I mentioned in another thread, Geoff, women are truly equal in Islam because they do not take men as their standard....This is real inferiority and Islam liberates women from such degradation."

And puts them under the domination of islam, where they are equal to half a man in terms of inheritance and general legal 'value'; where they can be divorced by the simple act of saying "I divorce you" three times; where, presumably, they don't have the right to work or even drive cars in some places; where they are so untrusted that they can't be allowed out of the house alone; and where it is also permissible (so sayeth the prophet) for them to be beaten.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Geoff

pwnage

Posted by: Geoff at April 17, 2005 12:35 PM

Ernst, interesting point.

"Not just for Jews, but for human beings as well."

Nice comment, Shurki. You're a prince.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 17, 2005 12:39 PM

If these fine folks are so concerned about honor, perhaps improving the literacy rate in the Muslim world would be a good beginning.

ie: Put down the swords and pick up a book.

Posted by: DCWatson at April 17, 2005 2:27 PM

Geoff -- Thorough rebuttal. Thank you.

Posted by: former liberal WF at April 17, 2005 2:39 PM

What your so-called peaceful commentary actually suggests is ambushing anyone who isn't a Muslim, whatever treaties you have in effect.

I'm just going to leave it for qualified Islamic Scholars to interpret this verse. None of them believes that this verse calls for indiscriminately attacking or killing non-Muslims. I'll leave it at that.

The sura itself does not mention treaties of any kind.

Ok, now it seems that you are being deliberately blind. The very first verse of the chapter mentions treaties.

Moreover, any Muslim can lie to an infidel for any reason, as per the rules of taqiyya.

Beagle, please do provide me with a source that gives us the rules of "Taqiyya". All the madrassa's that I've been to seem to have somehow left it out of their curriculum.

"The Quran uses this type of terminology not just for Jews, but for human beings as well."

So, Jews are what?

Ernst, I meant to say "not just for Jews, but for other human beings as well".

Regrettably, to which extent does this concept of "treaty" go to?

Treaties are between state entities.

"If the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." Quran 8:61

Q 2: 120 And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor the Christians, till thou follow their creed! Geoff: This is a bit anti-semitic. Shurki: Sorry, it is just cold hard fact. There are groups of Christians and Jews who will never accept Muslims until we believe as they do.

Sorry, it is a cold hard fact that this doesn't say: "There are GROUPS of Jews who will not be pleased with thee...

You might want to understand the subtleties of Arabic. The verse is referring to a certain group of Jews and Christians.

Shurki: So where does Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob claim that "we are Jews" or "we are Christians"?

Well, since they wrote the books, and they are in fact Jews...I sort of assumed it would be obvious that they were.

Sorry it's not obvious. So, where do they say that they are Jews or Christians?

Shurki: The Quran uses this type of terminology not just for Jews, but for human beings as well. Most of humanity does not follow guidance when it comes to them nor are they thankful to God for what they have.

Well, here it's using it for Jews specifically. Again, as Mohammed is not Jewish, this is wrong. Leave other cultures alone. Golden rule.

Looking at the Quran with the view that it is man made, one might come to that conclusion. However, we believe the Quran to be the actual speech of God.

As for Sura 9, I hate to contradict you, but you yourself (and a plethora of other Sunnis I argue with) admit that islam must "defend itself"

Please don't misquote me Geoff. I said that Muslims are obligated to defend themselves when attacked.

Some islamicists argue that "defense" is necessary against women who lead prayers; others,

Defense is not only physical. It can be oratory and debate as well.

More on "progressive Muslims"(who organized this intermixed prayer) here.

a Sunni I debated told me angrily that "anyone that insults the Prophet SHOULD be in hiding" - meaning that they deserve to die. So endeth the concept of 'free debate'

Debate is fine. Insults are not.

Well, that's funny, because almost every other source tranlates it as friend as well. I suppose you know better than all the scholars who translated it?

I am taking it from scholars on Islam. The widely available translations of the Quran were translated by translators, not by Islamic scholars (who, based on their knowledge of Quranic Arabic, would perhaps choose more suitable words).

where they are equal to half a man in terms of inheritance

They are not equal to half a man, like I said. While the daughter in an inheritance gets half of what the son gets, males are obligated to spend on their wives and familes while females are not obligated. Hence the distribution is equitable.

where they can be divorced by the simple act of saying "I divorce you" three times

Islamic divorce law. Please read.

where, presumably, they don't have the right to work or even drive cars in some places;

That is based perhaps on the culture of those places. There is no harm in women working so long as they follow proper etiquettes. As might be seen here

where they are so untrusted that they can't be allowed out of the house alone

This is a lie. Women can freely move about in their locality. But beyond a certain distance, they need to have a mahram (related male escort).
This is not about trustworthiness. It is about security and safety. Of course in the West, many apparently don't care about the safety and security of their womenfolk, so this would seem strange to them.

and where it is also permissible (so sayeth the prophet) for them to be beaten.

Please read

Thank you.

Posted by: Shukri at April 17, 2005 6:32 PM

From another thread:

From Shukri, referring to muhammad's pedophilia with regard to aisha: "Please, Mrs. Weathermax. Can't you see the fallacy in judging an event that occured 1,400 years ago by the standards of modern Western thought?"

Whew, I'm so RELIEVED that muslims like Shukri agree that muhammad was NOT the "ideal man" whose behavior is to be emulated "for all time and in all places".

Posted by: CGW at April 17, 2005 09:50 AM

BTW, too bad Khomeini didn't get that when he lowered the marriageable age of girls to NINE in Iran when he came to power to follow the "prophet's" example.

Posted by: CGW at April 17, 2005 09:52 AM

Posted by: CGW at April 17, 2005 6:53 PM

I would like to see Shukri go to Pakistan or Iran and challenge some of the Islamists about how those guys are misinterpretting the Koran. I wonder how quickly he's get executed.

Posted by: Tomilio at April 17, 2005 9:30 PM

I know why it is why it is so hard to discuss with Shurki.

Some reasons:

If Shurki is caught redhanded lying, misquoting and saying terrible things, he simply claims being misunderstood, being misrepresented, quoted out of context, ignorance of the discsussionpartner or himself or typingerrors and so on, and on and on.
Thus he shares the Doom of Quaran and Islam: always being misunderstood, taken out of context and so on and on and on and on, he must be very pious indeed.

P.e. his remark about Jews and human beings he claims to be the result of some kind of typing error, although it has all the marks of a Freudian mistake on his part, and yes, I understand that all too well.

Then his use of words, in islam words do simply not have the same meaning as they have in the rest of the world.

Peace in islam is the state in which all people and states are Muslim or where those who are not are dhimmis or slaves or dead. Not acceptance of this peace leads to death or slavery and is considered an attack on the Islam.
Thus, whether or not you accept the Islam, you can only be at peace with it and not attacking it by playing by the rules set by Islam. As long as you do not, muslims are obliged to wage war on you for attacking them and not accepting the peace they offered. In the lexicon of the rest of the world an attack is what it is, taking up arms and wage war, in Islam an attack is not abiding by its rules (even if you are not a muslim).

To all the non-muslims peace means that they can lead their live in co-existence as they want, without being attacked for not following the rules of Islam.

Since peace Islam style excludes peace-everybodyelse's-style, peace between islam and the rest of the world is simply not possible.

The same babelonic problem arises with muslims claiming to abide by the laws of the (non-islam) countries they live in. They are advised by Islam to abide by the laws of those (not dar-er-salaam) countries AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT YET MUSLIM. Untill the country has become Islamic they must consider themselves on enemy soil and behave as such, meaning that they have to alter the country they live in into an islamic state by all the ways of Jihad, for a recent and ungoing example I may refer to the genocide and massrapes in Darfur.

Yes, this means that we can not live in peace with the Islam as islam can not be at peace with the rest of the world, the different meanings of "peace" are not simply different but exclude each other. It is not a happy idea, but helas,
it's a realistic one.

To end at a lighter note: Since watching Back to the future we all know that altering the past alters the present. Thus, if we follow the idea that Abraham cs might not have been Jews (muslims maybe?), this alters the present, and proofs that Mohammed can not have been a profhet and that Allah does not extists and the quran is a hoax. That is a nice thought indeed, since I get a bit fed up occupying myself with quran and islam because, apart from all the obvious reasons, it reminds me to much to my studies of the nazis and WOII.

Posted by: Ernst at April 17, 2005 10:27 PM

Shurki,
as a woman I feel very comforted that women are equal to women, that is a nice way of using words without saying anything, my compliments.
Whatever words you might use, they can not wash away the black reality of the slave-status of women under islam rule. (or, this is not true, to be a slave you have to be human and women have to be regarded and treated as cattle, which is something different as being regarded and treated as human. This is not my idea but from some guy Mohammed who got his information from some other guy named Allah)

Posted by: Ernst at April 17, 2005 11:07 PM

"What your so-called peaceful commentary actually suggests is ambushing anyone who isn't a Muslim, whatever treaties you have in effect."

Shukri Replied:"I'm just going to leave it for qualified Islamic Scholars to interpret this verse. None of them believes that this verse calls for indiscriminately attacking or killing non-Muslims. I'll leave it at that"

Interesting to see that Allah needs a cleric, according to Shukri, to interpret the Koran for all and sundry. This is contrary to what he said to me in the past, that anyone can understand the Koran and that you don't need a cleric.

Like the Roman catholic church in Martin Luther's day - having clerics control thought leads to corruption.

It also shows the fallicy of the Koran. Think about it - if God really wanted to save his creation, he would not write a book that the ordinary person could not understand without the help of a cleric. God realises that people are corrupt, and would lead others astray.

Obviously, by Shukri's own reckoning above, the Koran is flawed.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at April 18, 2005 3:21 AM