Libertarian Muslim

Dennis, That could be true. I'm willing to admit it's an opinion. But my opinion is based on my Doctorate Degree from Screw U. I worked hard for that degree and paid my dues... I sense a person of good character with Adonis. This is different than the time I cut a lot of slack for the dude who spammed OL with plagiarized posts. I was trying to change that guy back then (an experiment in moral learning) and boy, did I misfire! I have no wish to change Adonis, nor be changed by him. I merely wish to interact with him. There are no guarantees, of course, but in my experience, people who are serene with their world view like he has expressed rarely (almost never) change that manner of being if their world view changes. They continue in serenity and not wishing to harm others. Interestingly enough, the opposite is true, also. Perigo, for instance, back when he was a communist, was the same kind of bully he is now. Becoming an Objectivist did not change his actions or improve his character. The words changed, but the garbage he does still stinks. You know, I'll take "benevolently wishful" evaluation when I see good character. It's got a nice ring to it... Building a good character (or changing your character) is as much of a choice as adopting (or maintaining) world-view ideas is. I think it's a good thing to mention it at times when you see it. btw - I think you have good character, too. Michael Thank you Michael, I appreciate your kind words, and your faith. Ultimately I have to say, I have no interest whatsoever of leaving my faith, nor becoming an objectivist. But I would never say no to learning about other ideas and comparing them to my own. It's the only way to really understand life. So I suppose we're quite similar that way.

Hi Ninth Doctor, even during the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him the Jews in Medina weren't even required to pay the tax if they agreed to be obligated to come to the defence of the city if it came under attack. It simply gave them the option to fight or support those who were defending them. Muslims had no choice, if the city was under attack they were obligated to fight against the attacking army in defence of the city and including defending the lives, freedom, wealth and property of the Jews. Also, regarding the the humiliation of the dhimmis, you're quite correct. These events did take place, but that isn't Islam, rather it's the extremism of those rulers of the time. They were horrible and even had no right to lead the Muslims. I don't think that Shariah is a theocracy either. You are not ruled by clerics in an Islamic state in my opinion and you can elect your leadership.

I'm not being disingenuous at all, I just want to make sure we're on the same page about the words you use. It's quite easy to just say a word but not understand its correct meaning. Your understanding of what a Dhimmi is also incorrect. It's neither a form of second class subjecthood nor is it a protection racket. Shame on your ignorance.

I now refer you to the blatant hypocrisy that is Lindsay Perigo. http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254#comment-83196 So by this I understand that I shouldn't assess and judge Objectivism based on my experiences with people who claim to be adherents of that ideology and claim to know about it? I shouldn't judge it based on their actions and words? So I asked you, what sources should I look at? To which you replied: And so I asked you: And to which you replied: So ultimately, you say: 1. I shouldn't judge Objectivism by people who are claiming to be adherents of it and claiming to be representing Objectivist values and ideas, even if they sound quite educated regarding what they speak about. 2. I should study all of the different subjects about it to understand it properly, from the sources themselves. 3. It could take years of study to be able to understand it properly to the extent of being educated well enough on the ideas to promote them. Isn't it odd? You tell me that I should take these steps to properly understand Objectivism, yet you haven't nor are you willing to take the same steps in understanding Islam and instead: 1. You judge Islam based on the example of people who claim to be representing it, even when others tell you that they are doing unislamic practices that people claim to be Islamic. Your examples of Islam are the worst of the Muslims. 2. You Don't want to study from the sources like the Qur'an, the interpretations by scholars, the Hadiths, the differences of opinion to gain an understanding of what Islam really is. 3. You do so and claim to know what Islam is, but as above, you have no real knowledge, you don't study the sources properly and instead you take verses or snippets of verses from the Qur'an and represent the meaning and judge it based on your lack of understanding of it. And so, your ideas are wrong, yet you claim to be able to speak about Islam but you speak from ignorance.. The differences between you and myself Lindsay are very clear. I'm willing not to judge something without fully understanding it and seeking the knowledge directly from the sources. I won't swear about it and condemn it, acting like a savage. Rather I'll ask questions when I don't understand and if I don't like something, I'll look for the good in it and see how it applies to the real world. You however bathe in ignorance and hate, like a Wahhabi you judge and judge when you have no knowledge of what you are judging. You use hateful speech and rhetoric as a means to try and prove yourself as being right when ultimately, you don't speak in depth about anything. Lindsay, your and many others' hypocrisy, in your conduct and expectations of others is now so blatantly clear and apparent that there is nowhere else to go with it. You expect of others what you wouldn't do yourself and that shows your character very well Yes, I will study more about objectivism, I'll read the books and ask the questions. But I won't behave like you or others because clearly, from your own conduct you have proven to me that you're well below the level of people that I should be discussing this with. It's no use speaking with the immature and inhumane when I could be speaking to those who have wisdom, logic and good gentlemanly conduct.

How could we possibly take over? That would require the consent of the people and can't be imposed. Also, what is your understanding of what a Dhimmi is?

That's funny, so you require all history to be given to you first hand? Sounds a little difficult don't you think? Michael, I'm truly glad that you are understanding where I'm coming from. I am not here debating you Brant, nor am I debating anyone else. I am expressing my opinions and beliefs and clarifying what I believe you do not understand about Islam. And so, this thread is not a discussion about God's existence, if you don't believe in the existence then that is up to you. It's not up to us to disprove the existence of a god, the burden of proof is on the person who claims that there is a god. As he cannot do that, we're justified in rejecting that claim and calling it false. Zeus, Thor and Jehova don't exist. There is no burden of proof on me whatsoever Dragonfly, in fact the burden of proof in such a debate as to the existence of God (which I'd like to reiterate that this is not and nor am I interested in involving myself in such fruitless discussion) is ultimately on people who claim that there is no god because people have believed that the universe was created by a being that has the power to do so for thousands of years. So if you'd like to bring any new ideas. You can disprove the current beliefs and if you can't do that, then you are in no better a position than I, in fact I'd dare say that your position is worse because there is eye witness testimony to the miracles that God has sent through His prophets and messengers, may he bless them all located in many Holy Books. You have nothing.

I see.. Okay.. So eyewitnesses of those events, the miracles and those events who wrote down their experiences aren't good enough for you? If not that's okay, I just would like to know. Who is trying to impose their beliefs on you? Who is trying to introduce religion into your laws? 1. There is no 'Islamic Country' in the world because none fit the criteria, in fact the closest thing to it in my opinion is the US as it's values in the Constitution are very similar to that of Islam. 2. I didn't say that if stoning wasn't in the Qur'an that I would condemn it. I said that it ISN'T in the Qur'an and if it was so proven that it was against God's command to use this as a punishment, then I'd speak out against it. Having said that, if it was in the Qur'an then I'd definitely accept it as a punishment for those who have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of such a crime, providing that their crime were to fulfill all of the criteria required for that punishment. 3. What if the Qur'an told me to skin non believers alive for not believing in Islam? I wouldn't be Muslim because I don't believe that God would compel us to believe and rather allows us the choice. 4. What are my feelings on the stonings in the videos? I feel upset because I don't for a second believe that the criteria was met within Islamic law for that punishment to take place. For that punishment to take place, as mentioned previously. It would have to be done within the viewing of 4 witnesses, reliable witnesses. I mean even if it were to occur in an orgy in someone's house it still wouldn't be likely to happen because the people who would have witnessed it would have to have been participants to it to be in that house and would then be testifying against themselves which no one would do. Rather the only possible scenario that could occur is for the guilty parties to have physically done it in public and imposed their perversions on the rest of society which society doesn't deserve to be put through. In addition to that it is also having humiliated their wife or husband with doing so in the view of everyone else. In that case, I don't feel sorry for such a person who cares so little about their wife or husband's dignity and love that they'd be willing to humiliate them so much by cheating on them in public, physically having sex in front of people. I feel empathy for the person being cheated on and humiliated so much in public. Who deserves that? This punishment is a deterrent to prevent the whole of society becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah. 5. Now is your problem with the death penalty as a whole or for it being used in this scenario?

So the reason why you have a problem with it, is because he fears being punished by God? I'm sorry, but I don't see why that's an issue. Most people don't drive through red lights because they fear being charged with doing so by the police and being punished for their crime by having their license taken away. That is fear and submission to another human being. All we fear and submit to is The Creator. Now I understand where you're coming from a bit better. Sure.. I agree with you, women can't marry more than one husband and men can marry more than wife. In that sense Islam doesn't provide equality. Of course, refuse to share a bed is more than one word, and admonish is also pretty self explanatory, however the way you do this can be many ways and we'd have to look at the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's example to see how. Next, regarding the word beat, why does it need more explanation when the others didn't? Well because it can mean many things, that is precisely why we don't just look at the word, we look specifically also at the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's example. He didn't dance around at all, he explained it quite clearly. He also didn't say that it's okay to even lightly tap a woman. To whom are wives devoutly obedient? You're saying that myth forming and legend forming can come into play, surely if that was the case they'd have made it clear if the Prophet Muhammad pbuh lifted a finger against his wives like that. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf's explanation was good. I'm sorry I don't understand? What laws don't exist? Excuse me for one moment whilst I eat my words. I apologize for my inference. I am a slave to the Creator, I don't deny it. But God is the only being thing I submit to and I do so as I believe God wishes me to do so. As I said, I'm not here to debate the existence of God.

Adonis, I'll go with the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Slavery is involuntary servitude, excepting the involuntary servitude of prisoners who have been duly convicted of a crime. A slave is an adult human being who is considered the property of another human being, and is subject to being bought and sold. He or she may be required to work for no pay. If a slave is allowed to own anything, or to obtain wages and keep any portion of them for him or herself, it is only because his or her master chooses to permit this. He or she may not go wherever he or she wishes to go, only where the master permits. An escaped or fugitive slave, by law, is subject to apprehension and punishment. The master is entitled to discipline the slave by beating. In a slave system, there are few legal constraints on a master physically harming a slave. Customary morality may exert further constraints—or it may not. There are few legal constraints on working a slave to death, and there may not be any additional constraints in customary morality. Slave systems have in many cases automatically relegated all children of slaves to slave status, but this is not a necessary feature. Some slave systems have appealed to racist doctrines to legitimize them, but this is also not a necessary feature. Most slave systems in ancient times were not predicated on appeals to racial superiority. I think there is enough detail here to further the present discussion. Now, here are my questions: (1) Can an Islamic believer who attributes moral and legal authority to the Qur'an and the hadith make an Islamic case against the legality of slavery as an institution? Against the morality of holding or trading slaves? (2) If this can be done, can you identify a significant indigenous social or political movement in any part of the Islamic world that actually did it? (3) Who is the closest Islamic counterpart to William Lloyd Garrison? To Frederick Douglass? To William Wilberforce? To John Henry Newton? To Harriet Beecher Stowe? Robert Campbell Here is a short explanation on slavery in Islam for you that I found online, it's quite good and explains a lot. Regarding the 3 questions I can say all of the answers are the Prophet Islam,the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and the Muslims at that time. If you have more questions please let me know. ---------------

Oh yes, great idea Brant.. But the problem is, it'd make your food a source of fuel for the military machine, meaning due to the principles of supply and demand the prices would go up considerably and then that'd cause even more economic chaos in the US. But... If you all became Muslim, you probably could afford it because you wouldn't be eating the pig as a source of food!

Adonis, A new kind of hero targeting the Muslim market. One that can become a series. Heroes can carry and present ideas in a manner nonfiction cannot... Interested in exchanging ideas on this? btw- I saw the sermon on domestic violence you posted (which, within the context of Islam, I found quite good) and the first 15 minutes of Occupation 101 (but I will finish it). Thoughts coming. Michael Yes Michael, I would love to exchange ideas on it. I was thinking of making a hero like that too. In fact I was thinking of two different series. One of one hero and the other of a group of Muslims too. Something targeted towards young adults and adults. Something that will help not only build bridges, but would also inspire young Muslims males to want to engage and not fall into certain traps that the Wahhabi machine can bring about. I look forward to reading your comments on Occupation 101.

Ohhh so then the Zionists obtained a treaty with the Palestinians first, accepting the creation of a Zionist state based on mutually agreed borders and the Palestinians agreed to give up the majority of their lands to them? No? That's not true at all. Even massing armies isn't a justifiable excuse to attack a country. So it's okay to go into land where there are a people and demand to make your own state from it? What right is that? Please explain what gives them that right?

I agree completely Michael, to be quite frank, I see no difference between many of those people and extremists like Al-Qaeda and the Wahhabis which is why I wrote this http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254#comment-82963. Do I write fiction? Well as a matter of fact I do just a little. I am thinking of writing a few books myself.. I write a little poetry too believe it or not, it's all on my blog at http://thevitalissue.blogspot.com What did you have in mind?

It appears that you guys have become quite popular over at the SOLO forums. http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254#comment-83063

I'm against the fatwa. I don't think that's the correct Islamic opinion on the issue at all. Please define slavery including the rights of slaves and conditions etc.

Who physically stopped him from shaking your hand? Or was it his own choice because he believed that is what God wanted of him? What leaders in power are promoting this? Are you aware of the Amman message? http://www.ammanmessage.com/ Most leaders and top scholars have signed this. As I said before, I'm Muslim, that is sufficient, I don't subscribe to the false dichotomy that is the Sunni and Shia divide, the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was a Muslim. I don't even say Sunni or Shia to Muslims. Depends on the person, some still get stuck in that mindset for years and years, I know one who has been like that for 30 years and still hasn't developed. To be honest they can have their opinion, as long as they don't act on it and break the law by doing so. Do you know why that is? Ah interesting question.. It means that even though you are obligated to treat all of your wives the same in terms of material things, ie if you buy something for one, you have to buy something for all and you have to divide your time between them equally. But you could never love all of your wives the same, no matter how hard you tried. So don't stop seeing one or start treating her bad because you don't love her as much as the others. I'm sorry but I'm not going to transcribe the whole 26 minute sermon for you xray, please get some headphones because the points he makes therein are very important. Translation is a very big issue. I won't address anymore points about this until you've watched the full thing so you can understand where I'm coming from. Really? Wouldn't his companions have been so proud of it that they'd have promoted such a thing to justify if they did the same? That is far more likely. No, I meant this previous comment about the division of inheritance. My point is that in a time 1400 years ago, Islam was providing not only inheritance for women when no one else was, but at the same time her husband couldn't touch her wealth and in addition to that she HAD to be provided for by her husband, that is a legal requirement of the marriage. Yet in the West, this still is not a requirement of men and women can be obligated to work and the man doesn't have to provide anything for her. Even if the wife is filthy rich he still has to provide for her. In fact, she could even go so far as to demand payment for breast feeding their children and he'd have to pay her for it. And Yes.. Muslim men are still obligated to provide for their wives. That's what being a man and husband is, providing for your family and taking responsibility. Interesting, you continually talk about how the Qur'anic words should mean what they say in the translation yet you can't seem to make yourself understood without explanation and you're a native speaker of English. It's a hadith, I'll try and find it. This is a common thing in Islamic etiquette. In the Qur'an it also states: "O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, for some suspicions are a sin. Do not spy on one another, nor backbite one another. Would one of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, you would abhor it, [so similarly, avoid backbiting]. And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Qur'an, 49:12] The not spying has something to do with it also I won't answer yes or no for all of them simply because you might think by saying yes or no, that I am saying it to what your interpretation of such a thing is. I made this clear earlier on. Applied where? What is your understanding of Shariah? I would participate as a witness of any crime that I saw committed. Depends on the circumstances. Well, I'll say this, I don't believe that we have everything down 100% correct and it may be the case that we're somehow wrong about whether punishments like stoning should be applied today, and as time goes on our understanding of Islam grows with study into the evidences and there may be new evidence that comes to light that shows that this practice isn't allowed in Islam. If this was the case and there was sufficient evidence for it, I'd not only call for it to end but I'd fight against it too. I say this specifically because the punishment for such is not mentioned in the Qur'an and therefore, as hadith it may indeed be inauthentic. The banks and corporations, specifically the military industrial complex in collusion with their puppets in Government (both Western and Middle Eastern), intelligence organizations who use their assets ie Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to commit horrendous attacks that create a climate of fear and hate that would give public support for perpetual conflict and thus feed the military industrial complex with trillions of dollars so they benefit and become rich and gain yet more control over people's lives, while the people become more poor, more destitute and more enslaved than they were before. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson Do I support them? No.. They're the enemies of mankind..

Actually no. You assume too much. I haven't allied myself with those people. Instead I've allied myself with people like the Neturei Karta, orthodox Jews who stand up against Zionism. http://nkusa.org/ No. A right to exist in its current form is a right to its creation, as if there was some justification to use military force to take the lands that belonged to other people and occupy that calling it a state. It's a military occupation and not a state, just like the Crusader state initially was. I will not recognize Israel as a legitimate state until there has been an agreement with the Palestinians on the issue, ie if Israel accepts a peace agreement like the Arab Peace Initiative which is fair and is a two state solution. That would legitimize its existence and I'd recognize it's right, from then on to exist as a state under the auspices of a peace treaty.

I see, yes this isn't uncommon. Some believe that PHYSICAL contact between unrelated or unmarried men and women is not allowed. But I don't see why someone would have a problem with this? That's not true at all. The majority of Muslims get along with each other VERY well no matter what group they are from. The problem is however in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and some parts of the Mid East where there are a minority of extremists that engage in acts like that. I didn't say that he is a new Muslim, I said that at the time, he was a new Muslim. And yes, I know you might not think that being a Muslim for 12 years is being a new Muslim but it is. At that time, in the UK the lack of information he'd have had would be phenomenal. All I can say is look at him now, he clearly doesn't think like that anymore and he's as dedicated to peace as he always has been. Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your problem is with this? It's talking about doing justice to orphans and making sure you don't take their inheritance. Again, what is the problem with this? Do you understand the meaning? Tell me what you think this means? Do you understand the meaning of this? Below is a sermon titled "Removing the Silence from Domestic Violence" by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, an American Muslim scholar who spent a lot of time studying classical Arabic in the Gulf and Islamic studies in Mauritania amongst other places. Translations themselves can mean many things, that one word has several meanings. The best example is to look at the Prophet Muhammad pbuh's life. He never laid a finger on his wives and was known to have said, the best of men are those who are best to their wives. I'll explain this again because I don't think you read it. A lot of people say this is unfair but let's take a look at it. 1. In Jewish and Christian law, women have no right to inheritance whatsoever unless there are no sons. 2. Up until recently, common law dictated that a man who marries a woman, automatically owns all of her wealth (An example is that of George Washington who married a rich widow). Also, Let's take a look at what Islam says should be spent by men and women in terms of money? The financial obligations of a man that must be fulfilled are as follows; - He has to pay the expenses for the wedding and the dowry when he gets married to his wife. - He has to pay for his house and land. - To provide for his wife and his family, that is a right women have. - He is also required to provide for his parents once they get old and need help with things like that. - He is also not allowed to touch his wife's wealth whether she works or inherits, it is her own and he has no access to it and still has to provide for her, even if she's rich. The financial obligations of a woman are as such: - Nothing. - None - Nada - Zilch - Zero So is there any wonder why a male gets twice the share than that of a female? All of the financial burdens in society are on males so it means that maybe 100% is going to be spent on his family, whereas for a woman. She has no financial burdens whatsoever and can spend it all on whatever she likes.. Be it shoes, land, education, candy or even Michael Bolton and Yanni CD's. I believe those religions will at last crumble to dust, and that the recent revival of islam is merely like a candle flickering before dying down for good. In time of crisis, people will of course flock to whatever gurus promise them 'salvation', but this is not going to last. What recent revival? We've been going strong for 1400 years.

I’d forgotten about that. However his Wikipedia page does say: “In the years since these comments, he has repeatedly denied ever calling for the death of Rushdie or supporting the fatwa.” “But if you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is brother you have to wait” The Beatles Revolution This whole situation was silly.. Firstly, Rushdie's book and the controversy did nothing but promote him in addition to bringing Islam into the spotlight, like the result of 9/11 I know people who studied about Islam and became Muslim after hearing about that controversy.. I guess it's true.. Any press is good press.. Next, Yusuf Islam was a new Muslim at the time at a very uncertain time where his access towards Islamic knowledge was lacking. He was still learning and not a spokesman for Islam. I don't know whether he actually said it and even if he did, I'd put it down to the zealousness that most people who become Muslim or who rediscover Islam go through when they first become Muslim. It's trying to find a balance between the differences being non Muslim and being Muslim while at the same time learning new things that brings this about. It's a process of building a wall up around yourself and making things simple and black and white while you learn. Most new Muslims break that wall down and start to realize that it's not so black and white but unfortunately some don't. It appears that Yusuf Islam broke his down a long time ago, but people keep focusing on some stupid statement he may have made in the past. I said a WHOLE lot of stupid things that I wouldn't even dream of repeating now up until about the age of 22. Only three years ago.. But it's a process of learning and youth, now I'm a better person for it because I found balance. There needs to be more support for new Muslims to allow themselves to come into Islam gradually, rather than run straight into it because this is the type of problem it causes.

Thank you, sir for your lovely welcome. I believe that the OL boards are a great asset and example of how Objectivists can be and I feel very welcome here. In comparison to the other SOLO board where it seems everyone there must be the Wahhabi equivalent of an objectivist. Quite interesting, if this was indeed the case, then why are so many Americans becoming Muslim? It isn't the fastest growing religion in the US simply because we like having babies (although I have to admit, we do love having babies!). So why are so many people coming to Islam if it sounds so ludicrous? And all of this whilst people see the worst examples of Islam in the media.. I wonder how quickly the rate would rise if there were actually great examples of Muslims in the media?

I still don't see any examples of how you believe that Islam is non-accepting of self-responsibility or individualism? Also, hopefully people would group me in the category of being consistent in my belief of the Qur'an. Secularism created Zionism, Hertzel was an avid secularist and many Orthodox Jews were against Zionism, claiming it to not only be blasphemous but also completely contradictory to the teachings of Judaism, in that God had meant for Jews not to have and rule a state due to breaking their covenant with him. That because of this their role was to spread out throughout the world and live peacefully with their neighbors. So I don't believe that making Israel a secular country will make a difference, the problem isn't so much religion as it is of a group of people who were from Europe and after having lived there for generations (whatever their religion) migrated to a land where another people who had stayed in that land for thousands of years, the Europeans claiming that due to their race, they have more right to the land than the group who had been living there for generations. I don't want to detract so I'll at some stage write down what I would like to see as a solution in a bit more detail on the Palestine thread that Michael created. כפיר‎? or كافر?

You believe that Islam becoming the majority religion in the US would result in the US' demise? If so, how and why?

Tony, I'm sorry your mother went through such things. However, as mentioned previously. I don't believe the state of Israel had the right to be created and instead believe that the Jews, being welcome the the Mid East as they always had been, should have lived side by side with their Arab brethren in the same state. Creating another state and confiscating the lands of people who had lived on it for generations is just counter productive and unjust. But that's for another thread Also, I believe the Muslims have done enough to speak out, I mean look at the list of condemnations of terrorism that I found. Have you even searched for these things? There are so many examples If you did so that you'd be overwhelmed. But you don't, you expect the media to hand it to you on a platter.. Why would they do that when it is only drama and fear that sells their media? What more could we have done in your opinion? Islam also doesn't deny self responsibility and individualism. I'm not sure where you got that from. Paradise is whatever you want really, sure there have been many attempts to make examples of it to show the people the extent of what they could have, but this is paradise.. It will be the person's reward for their life, surely a lifetime of good deeds is worth more than just a fast food menu type paradise where you don't really have a choice of what you get. I did understand the reference to God's mercy as applying to the slave-girls who had been forced into prostitution. Could it be that Muhammad anticipated that the girls would be blamed for becoming prostitutes, even though they had been forced to? Robert Campbell Yes, I am aware of that translation, however according to the tafsir or scholastic interpretations that I've read it includes fornication. You're also right, Arabs at that time, and even now have a tendency to blame the victim for crimes committed against her rather than the guilty party. Thus, honor killing.. A wicked and despised act against humanity itself. I must say, in my opinion, Islam was not brought to the Arabs because they were a great people, it is because they had become so corrupted and were the ones who needed reformation the most. - Willing to go to war at the drop of a hat, engaging in blood fueds that lasted generations - Buying and selling women as if they were their property - Burying their baby daughters alive - Slavery - Honor killings - Idolatry etc etc etc.. They had perverted the message of monotheism they were given by Ishmael and Abraham, peace be upon them and made it into something disgusting. To be honest, I would argue that within the Gulf especially and also places like Jordan, a lot of this stuff continues today as these people have fallen back into the time of Jahiliyah, or ignorance. Sure, a good man can. But not even the Pagan Qur'aish claimed that he was a liar or wrong. Below is an example of such of when Muhammad pbuh sent a letter to the Byzantine king, inviting him to Islam. Upon receiving this letter the King summoned Abu Sufyan bin Harb, who at that time, and even until the day he died (I and many others would argue) was an enemy of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and of Islam. Al-Bukhari gave a long narration of the contents of the letter sent by the Prophet (Peace be upon him) to Hercules, king of the Byzantines: “In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the slave of Allâh and His Messenger to Hercules, king of the Byzantines. Blessed are those who follow true guidance. I invite you to embrace Islam so that you may live in security. If you come within the fold of Islam, Allâh will give you double reward, but in case you turn your back upon it, then the burden of the sins of all your people shall fall on your shoulders. “Say [O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)]: ‘O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allâh, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allâh.’ Then, if they turn away, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims.’ ” [3:64] The Muslim envoy, Dihyah bin Khalifah Al-Kalbi, was ordered to hand the letter over to king of Busra, who would in turn, send it to Caesar. Incidentally, Abu Sufyan bin Harb, who by that time had not embraced Islam, was summoned to the court and Hercules asked him many questions about Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and the religion which he preached. The testimony which this avowed enemy of the Prophet gave regarding the personal excellence of the Prophet’s character and the good that Islam was doing the human race, left Hercules wonder-struck. Al-Bukhâri, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, narrated that Hercules sent for Abu Sufyan and his companions, who happened to be trading in Ash-Sham, Jerusalem. That was during the truce that had been concluded between the polytheists of Quraish and the Messenger of Allâh (Peace be upon him). Hercules, seated amongst his chiefs of staff, asked, “Who amongst you is the nearest relative to the man who claims to be a Prophet?” “I (Abu Sufyan) replied: ‘I am the nearest relative to him from amongst the group.’ So they made me sit in front of him and made my companions sit behind me. Then he called upon his translator and said (to him). ‘Tell them (i.e. Abu Sufyan’s companions) that I am going to ask him (i.e. Abu Sufyan) regarding that man who claims to be a Prophet. So if he tells a lie, they should contradict him (instantly)’. By Allâh had I not been afraid that my companions would consider me a liar, I would have told lies”, Abu Sufyan later said. Abu Sufyan’s testimony went as follows: “Muhammad descends from a noble family. No one of his family happened to assume kingship. His followers are those deemed weak with numbers ever growing. He neither tells lies nor betrays others, we fight him and he fights us but with alternate victory. He bids people to worship Allâh Alone with no associate, and abandon our fathers’ beliefs. He orders us to observe prayer, honesty, abstinence and maintain strong family ties.” “Hercules, on hearing this testimony, turned to his translator bidding him to communicate to us his following impression which reveals full conviction in the truthfulness of Muhammad’s Prophethood: ‘I fully realize that Prophets come from noble families; he does not affect any previous example of Prophethood. Since none of his ancestors was a monarch, we cannot then allege that he is a man trying to reclaim his father’s monarchy. So long as he does not tell lies to people, he is for the more reason, immune to telling lies as regards Allâh. Concerning his followers being those deemed weak with numbers ever growing, it is something that goes in agreement with questions of Faith until this latter assumes its full dimensions geographically and demographically. I have understood that no instance of apostasy has as yet appeared among his followers, and this points to the bliss of Faith that finds its abode in the human heart. Betrayal, as I see, is alien to him because real Prophets hold betrayal in . Bidding worship of Allâh with no associates, observance of prayer, honesty and abstinence and prohibition of paganism are traits bound to subject to him all my possessions. I have already known that a Prophet must arise but it has never occurred to me that he will be an Arab from among you. If I was sure I would be faithful to him, I might hope to meet him, and if I were with him, I would wash his feet.’ Hercules then requested that the Prophet’s letter be read. The observations of the emperor and finally the definite and clear-cut exposition of the Islamic message could not but create a tense atmosphere amongst the clergy present at the court. We were ordered to go out.” Abu Sufyan said, “While coming out, I said to my companions, ‘The matter of Ibn Abi Kabshah [i.e. Muhammad (Peace be upon him)] has become so prominent that even the king of Banu Al-Asfar (i.e. the Romans) is afraid of him.’ So I continued to believe that Allâh’s Messenger (Peace be upon him) would be victorious, till Allâh made me embrace Islam.” The king did not embrace Islam — for it was differently ordained. However, the Muslim envoy was returned to Madinah with the felicitations of the emperor. How does anyone know this? We as humans can only look at all of the evidence put before us and judge based on our knowledge, understanding and natural expectations of the Creator. Does that mean Islam is the only correct religion and that all followers of other religions are wrong and thus, only Muslims would go to paradise and the rest to the fires of hell? No, God says: "Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve." (Qur'an 5:69) Through that which has been revealed ie the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Which unequal treating of men and women in Islam are you referring to? I don't believe that such things can be imposed on a person by the state nor should she be forced to adhere to religious practices if she doesn't want to. Providing she doesn't engage in public indecency by going out 'buck nekkid' as some would say. I don't see an issue with it. Others will have a different opinion to me, but at the end of the day I get my opinion from having lived in both the Mid East and the West and see the dangers of such impositions. People, if given the right to choose, ultimately will choose the way they think is best to live their life.. You can't impose things on them. If any of you have seen the packs of Saudi Arabian male students that are drunk on Queen Street here in Auckland on a weekend at night, you'll understand that they become like this after not having the freedom to choose in their own nation. So they go from one extreme to the other. Yet in the West where people are free to make their own choices, the majority of Muslims don't drink and in my opinion are better than anything I've seen in the Middle East. Yes religion's, but not as an institution, rather as a guide as to how to live their lives to attain paradise if they so wish to participate in that structure.. However at the end of the day, it isn't really anyone's business but the people themselves and maybe their family's.

Yes, I agree with you. This is called Jihad Al-Nafs, ie the struggle against ones self or one's desires. This is also known as Jihad al Akbar, the Greater Jihad. The majority of the Muslim world believes that this is far more important than any war. For more info on Jihad al Nafs you can go to: http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=7756 Regarding Salam.. I think that the problem you are having Ba'al is that you're assuming what things mean due to similarity. I thought, being a Jew that you'd realize this isn't a logical thing to do due to the closeness of Hebrew to Arabic Islam means submission to God Salaam means peace.. They are similar because they both come from the root "Silm", or the Arabic letters are: Seen-Lam-Meem Silm, actually means a state of peace, with one's self and with one's surroundings. The way that we believe is best to attain this state of peace with ourselves and our surroundings, is through submission to the Creator of the Universe by following what He has commanded us to do. All arabic words are derived from a root word, a word of three letters. This is why some people get confused by meanings and Islam and the Qur'an gets misinterpreted. Is Hebrew similar to that? Who was blaming the Jews? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a known forgery. I don't believe that the penalty for leaving Islam is death, it contradicts the verse that states: "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower." (Qur'an 2:256) The idea of forcing someone to stay Muslim or any other religion is illogical. You can't force a person to think a certain way or contain something in their heart, if the person doesn't want to be Muslim then let them leave, if you don't you'll only have hypocrisy. Also, in terms of your other question. You can't control people's thoughts, Islam has never legislated that having other ideas is a punishable offense or a bad thing. Think anything you like, explore and voice your ideas. Islam doesn't infringe on this right. Who said the US would be destroyed? I didn't state that it would be it's demise.

Of course, there is no doubt that Islam will triumph ultimately here, even in the US.. Like Christianity against the Roman empire. You can't kill an idea and the proof of it is simple, even with the WORST possible examples of Islam that we do have in this world, it is still the fastest growing religion in the world with people coming to it in droves.. 9/11, as terrible an event as it was, of which the perpetrators will face their punishment (including those within the US government and other global elite). 9/11, was an event that brought Islam into the spotlight and made many people question, what is this religion? And when they do their own research they see beyond what the government and media shows them and see the deeper meaning. I don't believe that world war is inevitable and I pray that it can be avoided at all costs, but I fear that it is too late and it will occur. May God have mercy on the innocent. Sure, yet the people who waged war upon you still have yet to be brought to justice, Osama bin Laden's connections to the Bush family, the Hijackers being trained at US military bases, the Mossad connection, the money, who made all that money that we heard about when people sold all their shares right before 9/11? How come we didn't hear about that again? Tell me, who has benefitted from this war? Has it been the Muslims? No, millions and millions of people have died. Has it been the US Citizens? No, your rights have been infringed in the name of protecting them with warrant-less wiretapping, illegal searches and seizures, the end of the laws which prevented your troops being active on your own soil.. Who has benefitted? Corporations.. The military industrial complex.. The Arab Sheikhs who's pockets get fatter as the price of oil rises. And all the while, they try and play you and I, non-Muslim and Muslim off against each other and make us fight each other and hate each other.. All while they clean up and make trillions of dollars and gain yet more control over your lives and enslave you. Yes, you have war waged upon you... But do you know your enemy? Or do you believe the facade? Edit: Daar al Salaam means the Domain or Land of Peace, not of Submission.