Libertarian Muslim

It's not that I'm being paid to do this Brant, it's just that I'm trying to save the world and humanity from a far greater cost in the future if this cycle of hate and ignorance continues.

There is a hellfire for those who belong there. Hitler would certainly be one. Edit: But God knows best. http://www.al-islam.org/Resurrect/ for more info.

I have to admit if Hitler had been drawn and quartered I'd have had trouble articulating an objection to it. I'd object. Try hanged, drawn and quartered! That's better! --Brant "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter" (Qur'an 5:33). Actually, he'd get far worse than this. The prophet Muhammad pbuh punished war criminals and torturers with the same treatment their victims received.

I can appreciate you feel that way, but the punishment, as I've said isn't really for infidelity, it's for making it so public and humiliating your partner like that. The example you gave before of coming home to find your wife in bed with someone else isn't likely to happen because even the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said you shouldn't go home to your house without warning your wife that you are coming first, and not to be suspicious that your wife is gallivanting around with the local soccer coach. The Battle of Kerbala is a very big occasion in Islamic History, it is when Islam was saved from being completely changed by Yazid. And you are indeed correct, there are Muslims who believe that all four of the first caliphs were rightly guided, but I don't believe this at all and neither do all Muslim. None of the first three had the right to lead and committed many crimes whilst in power. If you would like to know about the Battle of Karbala here is a link. http://www.al-islam.org/ashura/ It's a big read, but you'll see after this precisely why I believe what I do in terms of freedom. Libertarianism to me is basically being able to do whatever you want, providing that you don't harm anyone else in the process. Small government without interference in your life by them. Low taxes because taxation is banditry and oppression. Free commerce and markets to promote prosperity. The rights of the people can not be infringed, ever. Tyranny must be opposed.

Thank you Darrel, exactly. I will respond to your earlier post a little later, I'm at work and it requires a big response to all of your points. "And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 24:33) The tafsirs or scholastic interpretations for this verse indicates that this is not just whoredom, but also fornication if the slave girl wishes to remain chaste or who simply just doesn't want to have sex with her master. Some even go to the extent of saying you can't even have sex with your slave unless you marry her. Just a note because I'm sure someone will raise it, the "Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful" part is not applying to the person who forces a slave girl to have sex with them . Well I won't say shariah is my ideal because your understanding of Shariah isn't what my understanding is. Also, regarding those caliphs. I don't recognize their right to lead and believed they usurped power. So I agree, they were dictators and created a nanny state, but if you look at how Yazeed bin Mu'awiyah a tyrant used the welfare state as a means to coerce the people into not helping Imam Hussein ibn Ali who was the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and then brutally massacred not only Imam Hussein but most members of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's family at Karbala, displaying their heads for everyone to see. This event is a perfect example of why the welfare state is unislamic and only leads to tyranny. You have no freedom to speak against a tyrant while you rely on them to feed you. Libertarianism in my opinion perfectly fits with Islam and the events which occurred right after the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's death up until today are perfect examples of why this is the case.

Well, to be fair, they started their insulting and profane reactions like that long before the issue of adultery was raised Xray. Well thank you Xray, I think that is because I've heard all of these arguments before etc, and have researched most of the cases that people bring up. My faith in my religion over the last 8 years has only gotten stronger from engaging in discussions with people because for everything that I have seen so far, I can find suitable explanations. Xray, you are indeed right. A slave has no inalienable rights except those which are granted to them by their master. However, when your master is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth it is different to having a human master. I believe also in the following statement by perhaps one of my greatest heroes, Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yes, I am a slave to God and believe in Him as being the Creator of the Universe. I acknowledge the Creator as being the Greatest Power in the Universe and so that means, I worship that Creator. I'd urge you to look at what is actually being said here. I believe that in being a slave ONLY to God, that I am equal to any other human on this Earth, that no man can be born with or attain, greater rights than I based on their color, race, creed, class, race, name, profession, wealth or title. That I am, inherently equal to all people as they are to me and endowed with the same ability as they, that is. If I strive I can do as much as any other human being. Also, Ayn Rands beliefs were her own, she was entitled to believe as she chose without being forced to justify her beliefs just like any other human being. Which source specifically? The Qur'an? Because I believe that there were enough witnesses of sound mind and body during the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him who testified that his character was that of a good man who was not a liar nor incapacitated by illness or mental deficiency and who state clearly that what they saw was true and can corroborate each others story on this. I believe that the book, ie the Qur'an is a book of immense knowledge and logic which I don't believe could have come from any man, especially that of an illiterate man. It doesn't connect to reality Xray because at the end of the day, people who do commit adultery by their very nature usually commit it in privacy. All the punishment for adultery and fornication are there for is to prevent people from bringing their transgressions out into the public and harming the public with them by imposing such perversions on everyone else. I suppose you could look at it and say, the idea is to prevent society over time from becoming decadent and corrupted like that of Sodom and Gomorra, that is why it requires not just four witnesses, but four witnesses that are of good standing character and reliable, who have not perjured themselves in a court of law before. If people were to keep their sins to themselves by doing whatever they do in private then there is no problem. Because we're forbidden from spying on each other. Also, contrary to what the Wahhabis and Taliban believe, Islam doesn't forbid a man and woman who are unrelated from talking in public. I believe that the state should not legislate things that aren't it's business like religion, marriage etc. So I believe that ultimately in addition to normal common law, if a person so wished they should be accountable to their religious laws and customs but also have the choice of opting out.

Hi Robert, I wasn't saying that you couldn't have sexual relations with slaves, I was saying that from my understanding you cannot force a slave to have sex with you.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." --Brant --Jesus, son of the Virgin Mary, Peace be upon them.

Hi Michael, I wonder if we could perhaps move the Occupation talk to another thread so not to hijack this one. I fear if this becomes a big discussion it'll detract from your original intentions.

Michael I don't like what is on Palestinian TV either. But I think that the Occupation 101 documentary is not just a tit for tat video. If you haven't watched it then I suggest you do. It wasn't made by the Palestinians.

A Definition of Zionism: Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

Adonis, Impossible? Do you really believe that? How about reversing it? How does this sound? It will impossible to convince the West to remove its troops in the Middle East until there are no more terrorist organizations. So give up the terror, and then it will be possible for people to think about this. So long as there are terrorist organization, Western people will not think about new policies. Isn't that what you are saying on the other end? Until the troops are withdrawn, Middle Eastern Muslim people will not think about new ideas. I don't believe that. I don't believe you do either. Not really. In fact, my research bears out the contrary. People on both sides are thinking, slowly granted, but it is growing... I have a general strategy on dealing with hostilities (both foreign and internal, and both here and over there). Meet force with force. Meet ideas with ideas. Is that difficult in today's world? Yes. Is it impossible? No, it is not impossible. So I disagree with you. And I note, you, yourself, are here discussing ideas (although I recognize that Turkey and Australia are not exactly the Middle East)... Michael Sorry Michael, I thought my example would have shown that I meant that the people wouldn't be likely to take ideas of liberty and freedom from people occupying their land, they can't see from the example then. Not that it is impossible as a whole.

Shalom Alechem then Jeffrey, it is always lovely to hear from a practicing Jew. Yes, there is a great deal in common between Islam and Judaism, we all come from the same root of monotheism and worship the same G-d. That is correct, never are such punishments delivered after just one instance, the guilty party is usually warned time and time again until it has been ascertained that nothing else will swerve this person from these actions, except of course, in the case of something like rape or murder. You know Jeffrey, I really do not believe that we are far apart in terms of religion. I think the matter of Israel is, as a whole an issue not to do with religion in so much as it has to with race. As I'm sure you're aware, prior to the creation of Israel, there were no real problems between Arabs and Jews, they went to the same markets, the same doctors, babysat each others children etc. Palestinians are Arabs, Jews are a Jews. The Arabs descend from The Prophet Ishmael and the Jews descend from the Prophet Isaac, peace be upon them both. Yes both groups certainly have lived side by side in peace for the majority of history. But they are two different ethnic groups. Yes I agree that the Roman empire (evil as you say) exiled the Jews without just cause. Allow me to say this, I do not believe that suicide bombing is accepted in Islam. Firstly because you are taking your own life and in Islam we don't believe we have the right to do this, if we are to be blessed with martyrdom let God bless us with it, it is not something we can simply take. Secondly, as I mentioned previously, I am totally against the harming of non combatants and Islam forbids this. Palestinians as a whole have no problem with Jews being in Palestine and welcomed the Jews, they did and still do however have a problem with Zionism which was a secular belief promoted by non practicing Jews. But what gave Zionists a right to create a state in a land where there were already people? Their race? That is racial supremacy to believe that simply because of your race or religion, you have the right to enter a land and expel the inhabitants who'd lived there for the same amount of time that the Jews did. To say that the Zionists had more right to it than the Palestinians is racism and this is why I am completely against Zionism. As I'll remind you, the Palestinians and Jews did live in peace together prior to Israel's creation, but the creation of the Zionist state changed that. In 1948 the UN Partition plan was a travesty and so unjust. It gave the Arabs 46% of the lands in Palestine, The Arabs at that time were 69% of the population and owned 92% of the land. The UN also gave the Zionists, 56% of the land when they were 31% of the population and owned less than 8% of the land. The Zionists were also given, the most fertile and best lands in that deal. I might also add, that up until the beginning of World War 2, the 'Jews' made up but a small amount of the population in Palestine with the overwhelming majority being Arab. I really suggest you watch the following documentary called Occupation 101 and take a look at the history of it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589&ei=WWFBS-KhM5_-qAO77LzmDg&q=occupation+101&hl=en&view=3&client=safari The Palestinians didn't deserve any of this. The major problem is the Zionist settlers, they are messing any peace process up. They are trying to make the Palestinians leave and here's just one example of the treatment Palestinians go through from them. Hmmm well actually, I might disagree with that, it's rare that I've seen Palestinian Muslims attacking Palestinian Christians and in fact the Palestinian resistance has been joined by Christians, George Habash, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is just one example. I have also seen examples of Israelis attacking Christian places of worship. If you also view that Occupation 101 documentary you'll see more of that.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7nXmsBlaFj8 This is happening in every community in America. The representation that is being made is that 1, 500, 000 Americans have reverted [converted] to Islam since 9/11. This is the website represents that this is to counter all the "negative propaganda" "spread by the media" and "...to educate people about Islam and the Muslim World." [Why the capital on world?]. http://www.turntoislam.com/ "The hatred some people might show towards Islam and the ill-practices of some Muslims should not hinder a Person from seeking the truth!" Adam I think this could be a very fruitful conversation Actually, I think that they mean that of the 6 million Muslims in America, more than 1,500,000 of them are reverts to Islam. Isn't that it? If it was 1.5 million converts since 9/11 I think that there would be a really huge outcry. It is true, people coming to Islam in droves, even when the example of it portrayed in the Middle East and other places is horrible. Most people decide to want to study about it for themselves and once they see that it's not the way then they see the real message that it contains and revert. I wasn't raised Muslim but as a Christian and even the Muslims in my life and family weren't the best example of Islam. Yet I myself became Muslim at the age of 16, only a few months before 9/11. I think a good discussion about Islam can be found with Sayyed Hassan Al Qazwini, the head Imam of the Islamic Centre of America www.icofa.com, the largest Mosque in the USA located in Dearborn, Michigan. He's an amazing guy. Here's what I found: After all of my travels in the Middle East, I have no doubt that the Muslims that I have encountered in the West are far better than any Muslim I met in the Middle East. I believe that it's the freedom that we have here to make our own decisions that really allows us choose and shine. This is another reason why I believe that Islam and Libertarianism mix so well with each other. Because what good is not drinking alcohol if you don't have the chance to do so? What good is praying when religious police force you to do so? Surely there is no blessing in anything that involves compulsion. There is a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him that states, that that the Final Hour would not come until the sun will rose from the west instead of from the east, and that this would cause everyone to believe in Islam. Amongst it's quite literal meaning which of course is also entirely possible (if you believe the 2012 movie). I and many others also believe that this means that Islam itself will rise within the West and become not only followed by many in the West, but that in the West, you would find that the best examples of Islam.

I agree 100% Michael, but these ideas are impossible to introduce while the Middle East is occupied by Western forces.. Would you peacefully accept to study ideas about communism if the Chinese invaded or attacked the US?

No, he always used it. We find war detestable but will fight if we have to. The Medinan tribe that you're referring to had first committed itself to the constitution of Medina thus making themselves citizens of Medina. When the Muslims were being attacked by a force of 10,000 soldiers from the Pagan tribes in Mecca (which was the largest army the Arabs had ever seen at the time), the Medinans set about defending the nation by building a large ditch around Medina which ultimately saved it, however during the battles, this tribe committed treason by attacking the Medinan army while it was defending Medina. Once the Pagans were sent packing, the Army was sent to subdue this insurrection. Once the insurrection was subdued and the war was over, the question was, what to do with the tribe in question? Well as I've pointed out, the crime was treason and in most nations even today, the punishment of which is the death penalty. The tribe as a whole made this decision to engage in this treason and so were all guilty. The tribe requested, as a part of their terms of surrender that Muhammad would not be their judge and then asked for another judge, they requested a man who was previously a Rabbi but became a Muslim would be their judge. Islam dictates that we are unable to impose an Islamic Law judgment on non Muslims because that isn't fair on them, unless of course they request it.. But because they were Jewish the former Rabbi who they asked to judge them, in turn judged them according to Jewish law: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies." Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (Today's New International Version) Had they asked the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him to judge them, he wouldn't have handed out such a punishment. He probably would have just banished the tribe from Medina like he did with another. So ultimately, it wasn't about war, it was about the law of the state and treason. Yes, it does set a percentage.. but the question is why? 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 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. In terms of hijab, yes it does you are correct. Voting is an interesting issue, women had their opinions counted as equal citizens in matters of the state when the citizens were asked. This had never happened before. Yes, Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves and in fact slave owners are forced to negotiate a date with their slaves to set them free which is reasonable if they can't afford to do so immediately, and should even give the slave a portion of their wealth so as to help them set themselves up. For those slaves that were in captivity, their slavery was reduced to a form of involuntary servitude and were given human rights. Also the right to eat what their master ate, sleep the way they slept and dress the way they dressed. They also made it so that no free person could be taken into slavery again except in one condition and that is in war. In Islam, war is detestable and we believe it better to make treaties and agreements of trade and commerce with all nations to ensure prosperity. On occasion however the Muslims have been attacked by unrelenting armies who won't stop until the Muslims are wiped out. If the Muslims were forced to fight an aggressor to the extent of having to take over their nation, then as you could imagine, this would be a very costly venture in both material wealth and human lives. So reparations would be in order. As a way to deter others from doing so in the future we make the cost for the nation as large as possible. That is, all of their wealth and property are taken as war booty to help pay the cost of the war. So what to do with the remaining citizens who have no wealth or property and thus no means to live? Well there's a few options there. 1. Kill them all. The Pagan and Christian laws were pretty big on that. 2. Kill the men and take the women and children into slavery. The Jewish laws were pretty big on that. 3. Banish them all from the land as refugees. or 4. Take them as servants and provide for them while they work for you until such a time that you can let them go with some amount of money so they can begin re-establishing themselves. Also, regarding forced sex with slaves from my understanding this isn't allowed. Yes at the time of Muhammad they most certainly were. Now however not so much. There were occasions where he was accused of things by his companions and he told them to come and take their justice from him. There was also an example when Ali ibn Abu Talib, the 3rd Caliph and son in law of the Prophet was falsely accused of something and his accuser won in court. When he won he realized that the system really is protecting the people and admitted that he lied, exonerating Ali. I disagree here, I don't think trying to convert Muslims is forbidden. Historically you're right though it was forbidden but I don't support the leadership of the Caliphs who said that. You can't stop people from converting, it's simply an illogical act and unislamic. As far as I'm concerned, let Christians, Jews and other religions try and convert Muslims. If the Muslims convert it is their choice and I think such a thing would cause the Muslim world to get their act together and start adhering to Islam proper instead of many of the backwards ideas that many still hold

Islam is neither incompatible with freedom nor against leaving people in peace. All you need to do is look at the relationship between Muhammad pbuh and the Negus of Abyssinia. You mean like the near extermination of all of the millions Native Americans? Countless broken treaties? Slavery? Lynchings? Rapes? Torture? Segregation? Racism? The CIA backed assassination of JFK because he wanted to end the federal reserve, stop the military industrial complex, dismantle the CIA and bring troops home from Vietnam? COINTELPRO? The FBI involvement in murdering Malcolm X because he was too popular and when he began speaking about the unity of mankind and not the segregation of races and saying the only criteria should be justice? The war in Vietnam? The countless Latin American dictators put into place and their goons being trained at the School of the Americas and by the CIA to torture, execute etc to put fear into their people. The 1,500,000 Indonesians who died as a result of the US putting Soharto into power and supporting his dictatorship. Supporting the Bin Laden family, Arab tyrants and monarchs, training and paying Al-Qaeda and aiding the Taliban? Clean you own house up before you start saying you need to change us. If you don't like having your soldiers being beheaded in Iraq, it's simple.. Follow the following steps: 1. Don't install dictators and tyrants as governments to create 'stability' in the region (ie to ensure your oil is coming no matter which civilians are oppressed). 2. Don't give those dictators chemical and biological weapons and have them use it against their neighbor who just became independent after overthrowing the tyrant you put into place after creating a coup against their democratically elected government. 3. Don't bomb a country with Depleted Uranium weapons and then put sanctions on them so that they can't buy the medical equipment to treat the cancer you created with those weapons. 4. Don't let those sanctions kill more than 1,500,000 Iraqis between the years 1991 and 2003, of which more than 500,000 were under the age of 5 years old. 5. Don't have your soldiers there occupying land which is not yours. These are just some steps your country could take to ensure that your soldiers aren't needlessly losing their lives to beheadings and IED's. Keep your noses out of other people's lands and stop trying to rule absolutely everything in the world. If you allow people to make their own decisions and show a good example of liberty, they'll come running towards that liberty because ultimately it's a better idea. You lack an understanding of Islamic history then, we submit to only one thing. God. That means we believe ourselves equal to all human beings and able to achieve anything in this world. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him said: "You will not enter paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love one another" What is an Islamic Government? Are you aware of what you speak about?

Oh please. If a person is driving a car recklessly breaking the road rules and happens to get in an accident. Is the fault that of the road rules or of the driver for not following them? Islam is pretty clear on killing non-combatants. Heck even Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi State says that suicide bombings are forbidden in Islam. Yet it's still done. I could judge any ideology based on it's supposed adherents according to your logic, but the fact is that at the end of the day, you'd be judging the adherents and not the religion. also, Muhammad pbuh was not a pedophile. You need to research more.

Hello Xray, welcome to the conversation! The primary sources that we look at in Islam are the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The latter being complimentary to the first as we believe that Muhammad, peace be upon him was the human example for us to follow. Is that what you're asking or are you asking why I believe what I believe?

Yes, you're right. It can be a little frustrating having to say over and over again that I don't support the practices of those extremist's actions and neither do the majority of Muslims, except ignorant people. The Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him once warned us to seek knowledge so that we could purify Islam "from the falsification of the extremists, and the assumptions of the liars, and the misinterpretation of the fools.” I agree with you Michael, which is precisely why I don't agree with it being used in every case. There are too many examples of innocent people being proven guilty today thanks to DNA evidence etc long after they have been put to death. I did put a few links of articles that you may be interested in Michael on that page it's at http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254 I hope you can check them out and then check the links to those organizations out too. Which war was it that Muhammad started? Yes, he did indeed kill people in combat and criminals sentenced to death. But he was the leader of a nation and an army. The Commander-in-Chief if you will. Well, I'm not quite sure what makes you think that I'm actually going to defend those practices in places like Saudi Arabia, I never said that they were conforming with Islam. Islam forbade such things, if Muslims partook in them then they did so against the teachings of Islam. I might remind you that the majority of those Africans taken into slavery were indeed Muslims also. It's an interesting thing to research. Often brutal is hardly a word for it. When you can go to war at the drop of a hat and bury your baby daughters alive because they're just another mouth to feed. It's far beyond brutal. I don't think it was a religious dictatorship though. I think you should re examine the issue, what Islam states through the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him is completely the opposite. Just because throughout history some dhimmi were treated as if they were inferior it can't be blamed on Islam, rather it's blamed on the person who went to extremes against what Islam said. There was a quote in one of the articles I provided links for on the SOLO website which also included a link to a book I think the information is on there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna is just one, I think if you google something like Islamic Philosophers and Islam's contribution to science or medicine you should find some more. Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not. I think the words of the Abassador are particularly revealing. He quotes the Koran (Quran) as stating that Muslims have the right and duty to make war upon and enslave non-Muslims. I have read similar things in other places. If I get around to it, I might dig it up in my copy of the Koran. At any rate, the edicts of the Koran are far from benign. Darrell Well to be honest, I believe that any person will use anything they can to justify their lust for money and power, religion or science (like with today's carbon trading). But that still doesn't mean that Islam is to blame. What are they trying to get implemented in Shariah law? It's not Islam that requires changing. It's people's interpretation that needs to be addressed. This is a huge mistake that the West keeps making, when people start talking about making Islam Progress, Modernize, Change etc, they play into the hands of the people who've perverted the religion to the current state of practice and point to the verse in the Qur'an that states: "They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein." (Qur'an 2:217) This line of thinking is completely unnecessary, Islam doesn't require changing at all, we just need to get back to the original message that Muhammad, peace be upon him taught.

Darn repost!

Ninth Doctor, I apologize about cutting your quote down. I read the link that you pasted and have found it to be good in some ways, but lacking in fact in others and will comment more on that later. In regards to not making any friends with the NZ Libertarianz party by being here, well first of all, I don't care if that's the case. If they were to judge me and not want to deal with me based on the discussion on SOLO or here, they wouldn't really be Libertrians. I doubt they'd do that though. It's not evasive at all. I don't get how I can be called evasive when I am stating clearly what I believe. Yes, I am justifying the stoning of adulterers in some circumstances because I believe that public adultery is a crime against your partner and against society. I don't however, believe it's a one size fits all punishment and believe that the way it is practiced in countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran and other places is completely incorrect. That's not true at all. A woman can make it a condition of her marriage that she has the same right as a man to divorce and even if she doesn't, she can have a judge nullify her marriage if she gives back the Mahr or Dowry at any time. And yet.. Within the West Islam is one of the fastest growing religions with the majority of those who do convert to it being women.. They must really be a bunch of gluttons for punishment eh? Oh and also, someone asked if I wanted to implement the stoning punishment here in New Zealand. No, absolutely not. Short of New Zealand converting en masse to Islam and through referendum of at least 90% of the adult population demanding such a change to the laws to include the punishment of such, I absolutely wouldn't want it here. I also am very very doubtful of any current nation's ability to implement any 'hudood' or capital punishments appropriately.

Agreed. Whilst I agree that this is not the whole story, I still stand by the fact that the issue appears to be one of racial or religious superiority granting a group of people from Europe more right to live in the land than the people who have lived there for hundreds of years. I don't support it and see it as a form of Anglo/European Neo-Colonialism. I'll try and see what I can find! Yes, I'm quite aware of these also, in addition to things like the School of the Americas which produced some of the most evil people to walk the face of the Earth with their torture, rape and executions. Indeed. I wonder if you'd ever googled the phrase 'Islam condemns terrorism' or something similar? I don't think you'd find much in the News Media because it simply doesn't create fear which in turn doesn't sell. Here are just a few links that I found that also link to many religious edicts and condemnations by scholars and organizations. http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx http://www.khalidzaheer.com/essays/others/islam_condemns_terrorism.html http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm The thing is Michael that these things are under reported not only because they don't sell media, but also because there are certain groups of people, the global elite who need Islam to be seen as the enemy of the West so that they can justify their actions towards Muslims. Ditto Please, feel free to ask any time. I will start reading what I can find on Ayn Rand when I get the chance. Indeed! I am happy to have found such rational discussion, I am glad that the SOLO site wasn't the only example of objectionists that I've come across because they don't seem like a very friendly group of people and I believe that dialogue can only lead to progress. It's simple dragonfly. If you aren't happy in your marriage. Get divorced. It isn't difficult to get divorced in Islam at all. Why stay in a relationship where you're not happy? What's worse is, why on earth would you humiliate your partner who may very well love you with all of their heart by engaging in acts of sex in the full view of the public? Do it in private and save your partner the humiliation of your public betrayal. There is no punishment in Islam for homosexuality Dragonfly. While it is forbidden in Islam and is a sin, you can't be punished for being gay or lesbian. The only punishments you can get would be for adultery or fornication. That is, if you are married and engage in sexual acts outside of marriage in public view, you'll be an adulterer and if you are unmarried and do the same thing in public, you will be a fornicator. What case? You said I was saying things that were not true and also dodging the questions. I have done neither of those.

Haha. Actually that's my one of my names and what most people know me by, I'm half Greek and half Turkish you see. I was born and raised in Melbourne, Australia. I came to NZ after a long trip of one year and two months living, working and traveling in the Middle East. I am actually here for university studies, work and politics. I have to be entirely honest with you and say that I am not familiar with Ayn! I am a little embarrassed by that but do intend on researching Ayn vigorously within the next few days to see what the ideas are about. For my monetary income I work for an internet service provider doing technical support. I will also start my own business soon importing 100% Natural herbal soaps, creams and perfumes made in Lebanon and selling them here in the weekend markets. In addition to that, I will start University study in March. I also like to do community work and intend to restart my work in interfaith dialogue and prison chaplaincy here in New Zealand Michael, thank you very much for your kind and warm welcome. I appreciate your candidness and will address your points below. You can be sure that I have no intention in yelling back and forth, I have much better things to do with my time than be on a forum and argue like this. Perhaps when I was 18-22 I'd have enjoyed it more, but now I just don't have the time nor interest in doing so. I wont insult you for your beliefs and am happy to engage in any dialogue. I will also state that I am not a supporter of Israel and believe that it has no right to exist in its current form without a peace agreement with the Palestinians. However having said that I am not for killing Jews or any human being for that matter because in the Qur'an God tells us: "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth." Qur'an 5:32 I believe the matter of Zionism and Israel to be about justice and racism. I would be overwhelmed with joy if Israel were to just accept the Arab Peace Initiative which I believe is fair and just as a two state solution. If however Israel were not willing to accept such a deal and believed that it could continue the current and longstanding 62 years of brutal policies of low-intensity genocide against the Palestinians simply because of its military might. Then however unlikely, if it were ever invaded successfully, it would have no leg to stand on in terms of being a state and I would support its complete dismantling and the expulsion of any Zionist not willing to live side by side as equals with the Arabs from those lands. But as you said, perhaps this isn't the thread for such a discussion and would be happy to discuss it more in the future. I can give my evaluation based on my knowledge and experience and would be happy to do so. What questions do oyu have? Agreed Agreed some more. I agree also, and do believe that intervention is an absolute necessity. Although I have never heard of these so called Muslim Nazi sympathizers hired to combat communism. Can you provide me with more information please? It's the only way these governments stay in power, as you said the government is in cahoots with the corporations and if their puppets in the Middle East, the tyrants and monarchs that they are don't play ball, they get overthrown and replaced with their cousins or sons. I unqualifiedly condemn the terrorsim practiced by Islamist fundamentalists. It's disgusting. Actually I unqualifiedly condemn terrorsim from any group whatsoever. I mention Islamist fundamentalists at the moment because of the obvious. Terrorism historically been recognized as a tactic in war, that of using bombings, assassinations of civilian infrastructure and leaders to try and get a desired result. It can be perpetrated by an individual, group or a government. In the past, terrorists used to limit civilian casualties by bomb threats etc. Now however it seems to be a different game where civilians are directly targeted and killed. I might also state that the US, UK and other Western nations did indeed train their special forces and intelligence services in terrorism during the Cold War so that in the event of it becoming a 'hot' war, they could try and cripple the USSR's ability to fight. This also did include bombings of civilian infrastructure and assassinations and they didn't care what the civilian cost would be in such a situation. I have no doubt that the same Western nations still do train their intelligence services and special forces in such tactics and also don't doubt their willingness to use them in conflict. I unqualifiedly condemn any attack on any non combatant. It goes against Islamic and any moral teachings and ultimately is just counterproductive. Actually the majority of Muslims do speak out openly against the extremists. They are despised everywhere throughout the Muslim world and they have to operate in strict secrecy whether they are in the West or in the Middle East. I might also state that Saudi Arabia (which I DO despise) is against terrorism and have to state that no matter how repulsive I find their ideas, the majority of Wahhabis condemn the actions of Al Qaeda and other groups, thinking that they are against Islam. I have to also clarify something. I'm not against violence whatsoever. I believe that sometimes, in the pursuit of justice after exercising all other diplomatic means a person may need to resort to violence to attain it. Thus, it may be completely necessary and justified to use violence. I am however, as stated above against violence being used against non-combatants. I also wholeheartedly support anyone's right to self defence providing they do not transgress and become oppressors themselves. I believe that violence is not a one sized fits all solution to any problem. Contrary to what many say, Islam abhors violence and Qur'anic teachings and the example of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh definitely show us that peace is better than violence. I am more than happy to answer any questions that you may have no matter how sensitive they are. Thank you, you most certainly will receive the same respect and conduct from myself. Not at all! Thank you Michael.

Hello everyone, I must say that I am both quite surprised (pleasantly) and flattered at the creation of this thread, to be honest I'd never heard of this forum until I was pointed there by Mr. William Scott Scherk on the SOLO forum. So Mr Kelly you do me great honor with your kind words. I must clarify though that I don't classify myself as a Sufi. I won't say much more than that about what I do believe though because I wouldn't want people to start assuming that my particular school of thought alone is capable of the type of Libertarian ideas that I've displayed, rather I believe that it is Islam as a whole that does. I also never claim to be anything else other than a Muslim and detest sectarianism. I'm sorry that you find it off putting. But that is the etiquette in my religion and out of the immense love and respect that I have for the Prophet Muhammad yes, peace be upon him. I will indeed say it almost as often as I say his name. Although you may see it shortened to pbuh or the arabic equivalent sawas. I haven't dodged any questions Dragonfly. I've answered every question to the best of my knowledge using the evidence at my disposal. I'm sorry if you don't find them satisfactory but at the end of the day, if I say something is not from the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's mouth it is because that there are serious issues that indicate the sanad which is the chain of narration is not reliable or authentic. Then I mean just that. Hadith is a science and not something simple. The whole problem with this type of Wahhabi beliefs started when people, not educated in the science of hadith started thinking that they could interpret them and put value on hadiths that were not authentic just to promote their own perverted ideas. Mr Hougen, would you care to tell me where I was being dishonest? BTW. I also tried to watch that pjtv.com video but it doesn't seem to work, I'll try at a net cafe and respond later. Sherk put a link on the thread, I’ll be happy to chat with him. Adonis, that is. From what I’ve seen, Sherk’s pretty weird, I don’t know what to make of him. However, I think Adonis must have been itching for a fight to go to SLOP, it makes me think of Jesus’s reply about dining with tax collectors, you go to where the sinners are. Maybe he didn’t realize what kind of terrain he was parachuting into: Thank you for your invitation Ninth Doctor. I have to say I didn't actually go onto the SOLO website looking for a fight at all, you see I'm quite new to New Zealand and as a Libertarian I want to help promote the ideas of freedom so I got in touch with the Libertarianz party here. Then on the site Mark Hubbard pointed me toward the SOLO site. Now to be fair, I didn't just go looking for anti Islam posts on there, in fact I didn't expect there to be any. I just saw one saying 'Death to Islam' and the name Lindsay Perigo sounded familiar so I looked at it. It was only when I realized that Perigo was one of the founders and a former leader of the Libertarianz that I was so disgusted with his attitude and felt the need to respond to them. I was very disappointed that he was so arrogant and ungentlemanly in his behavior and made it quite clear that it just seemed like he spoke that way to make himself feel superior and important and as a form of ego-masturbation. He didn't actually go and respond to the content of my points and instead was just sarcastic and used profane insults. Thus far, nothing that the people on the site have brought up is new to me and I do believe that thus far I have addressed their points with clarifications of the Islamic opinion. As I did say however, I am not there to try and convert people, just to clarify the Islamic opinion and ensure my rights aren't being infringed. Had Lindsay not been a founder of the Libertarianz party I wouldn't have wasted my time on it because it's the same old nonsense every time and it gets a bit old.