SOC care to share your source of that info?

There are more than enough instructions in it to not to make a terrorist out of each of the billion over followers of Islam. If you choose to believe a stereotypical, xenophobic and warped view of Islam its not Islam’s or Muslims’ fault now is it?

Typical SOC 🙂 taking a few selected verses from the Qur’an and misquoting them to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam.

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. This verse is quoted during a battle. And if you were kind enough to read the very next verse you’d have known better.

“If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge.”
[Al-Qur’an 9:6]

The first verse quoted is about the apostates who were conspiring against the religion during Muhammad (PBUH)’ time. And then again if you cared just enough to read the very next verse.

004.090
Y: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

Islam does not force people to embrace Islam and recognizes their freedom to choose their own faith. This freedom is stressed in the following Qur’anic verses: [Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error] (Al-Baqarah 2:256) and [Wilt thou (Muhammad) then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!] (Yunus 10:99).

The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.

Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

“My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers — readers in general, not necessarily Christians,” cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.

Jens Kaiser, the former editor of Jyllands-Posten’s Sunday edition who turned down the cartoons three years ago, said he had done so because they were no good.

“Having seen the cartoons, I found that they were not very good. I failed to see the purportedly provocative nature,” he said in a statement.

“My fault is that I didn’t tell him what I really meant: The cartoons were bad.” Kaiser said he told Zieler he had not used the cartoons because they were offensive to some readers.

Zieler’s five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled “Saviour-cam” showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet.

“I do think the cartoons would offend some readers, but only because they were silly,” Kaiser said.

Unlike Muslims, who consider depictions of the Prophet to be deeply offensive, many Christians adorn churches with images and sculptures of Jesus. However, some Christian congregations have protested at portrayals they perceive as blasphemous, especially in the cinema.

The editor of Jyllands-Posten has apologized for offending Muslims by printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, including one of the founder of Islam holding a bomb in his turban, but defended his right to do so in the interests of free speech.

Dozens of newspapers in Europe and elsewhere have reproduced them with the same justification.

“Perhaps explaining my story of three years ago in its proper context at least won’t make matters any worse,” Zieler said.

source: Yahoo! News

Another rather interesting piece of news 🙂

One individual wore a belt like those used by suicide bombers. Others wore masks to hide their identities.

Regards,

kev35

The Asian man photographed outside the Danish embassy in London at the weekend wearing an imitation suicide bombing outfit was sent back to prison yesterday. In 2002 Omar Khayam, 22, from Bedford, was jailed for six years for possession of crack cocaine with intent to supply and had been on licence since being released last year. The Home Office asked the police to arrest Khayam for breaching the terms of his parole and he was returned to jail.

His actions were condemned by members of the predominantly Muslim community near his home in Bedford. Asif Nadim, the chairman of Khayam’s local mosque, where he was an “occasional” visitor, said he was “an idiot” who had “gone too far” but said that the former student had intended not to dress as a suicide bomber, but as a “military man”.

Muhammad Khan, a local councillor who lives on the same road as Khayam, said members of the Pakistani community in the town were dismayed at the image in the media. “No one condones his actions,” he said.

source: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article343936.ece

Good work I’d say :).

And while you are at it, why not ban the Hizb ur Tahrir people as well and deport em all?

These marches were held by an organisation called Hizb-ur-Tahrir which is already banned in several Muslim and Non-Muslim countries (including Germany, Sweden, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and most of the Middle Eastern countries). Yet British government has allowed them to work with full impunity within United Kingdom inspite of several warnings from allied Muslim states. The sooner British Government will throw this scum out of UK the better.

and how those enlightened principles are not shared by rest of the world? and Muslims are enjoying the fruits of those enlightenment as all modern day comforts came directly from that. do you think 10 million would go and come from saudi arabia without Aero Plane in existence or they could have listened to that live broad casts every year without satellite TV? the thing is that u are using things of some one else civilization without appreciating it. and dont start over 1000 year old history.i perfectly understand it.

The Enlightenment wasnt just a process that stimulated scientific development- that was part of the deal yes but the emphasis on “rational”, scientific thinking took one model of rationality as its foundation. Its now understood that rationality is not one singular framework- what is irrational in one culture might seem perfectly rational in another. Male and female patterns of thinking are also not the same- research has shown (this research is heavily contested though because the question is whether women in that study thought so because they were culturally conditioned or whether biology itself orients women to think that way) that women think differently from men on notions of ethics and values. For men, Justice may be the highest value and for women Mercy. Is this because women are emotionaly overwrought and irrational? No. its because both paradigms are equally rational and its just that the Enlightenment reasoning put the white, male, western judeo-christian perspective on a pedestal. There is a french philosopher, Jacques Derrida whose written about “logocentrism”- the “logos” or framework of logic he talks about here is this particular western ideal and he talks about how alternative forms of ‘truth’ are suppressed. Interestingly when notions of Enlightenment were being framed the West was busy sharpening its swords for colonial domination and slavery. Not quite enlightened but not surprising either. High rhetoric often doesnt match high action.
The Enlightenment also has to be seen in its historical context- the struggle for power between the church and the royal power of kings had resulted in severe bloodshed in Europe and the Enlightenment thinkers were trying to think through these issues and determine how to fashion a workable system. So separation of church and state, the relegation of religion to a less important place in social life and secularism had a pragmatic application that was not just owing to their appeal as logical principles.
Its only because western colonialism imposed their patterns of thought and an enlightenment rationality on the rest of the world and this rationality is given such a formidable legimitacy by being upheld by the most powerful countries in the world that it appears as ‘THE ONLY POSSIBLE logic’- the ONLY WAY of doing things when in reality it is one of many ways. Michel foucault talks of power/knowledge- power cannot operate without acquiring the force of compiling everything under its own logic. You cant conquer africa mind, body and soul without piling libraries full of info saying that africa is barbaric, cannibalistic and backward. You have to make your own categories of logic supreme and make them transparent and naturalize it so that they seem not One particular structure but the only possible structure.
Enlightenment logic of ‘we must make everything better, if somebody else cant derive the maximum out of a resource then we (whites) should do it (this is often traced back to John Locke) is often seen as the direct parent to colonialism. Colonists said hey these africans/ asians/ native americans are wasting their land, their minds are backward and unreformed. We must use the land and save it from going to waste. The entire ‘moral’ foundation to colonialism was to “save” the souls of the native. This logic was obviously self serving.
Enlightenment wasnt a black and white phenomenon- obviously a lot of good also came from it. But the West has sooooo often exoticized ‘the Other’ – be that the shamans of native american religions or the indigenous religions of various African traditions or the mysticism of Sufi Islam because it feels a need for more than one constrictive mode of apprehending reality, laying hold on the universe. Cold blooded rationalistic thinking also becomes closely aligned with capitalist materialism and not matter how much you say that everyone has adopted western notions, fact is in mexico theres still efforts being made to preserve communal farming which questions capitalist notions of land ownership. For purposes of claiming superiority in every possible way the West now says that Marxism is also western but during the Cold War at least, Western meant upholding capitalism beyond question and by no means is ruthless capitalism beloved among all- powerful protests against the globalization movement attest to that.
The assumption in the West is that ‘we went through secularization, philosophers have been making pronouncements such as “god is dead” for half a century now- this is modernity. So the rest of the world has to follow the same steps and get to the same conclusions’. postcolonial theorists argue that modernity exists within each culture and we can all strengthen it without becoming clones of the West – modernity is basically a progressive mindset. It is often said that technology leads to modernity- as we’ve seen in the example of India where more availability of reproductive choice has meant more female infantilization this is not quite the case in every situation.

Its a complex world and its not just Muslims who often tend to see it in simplistic ways.