Islam in Europe

[krkey1]

Zameel honestly does not get the basic problems here.

Stats show that Jews are being attacked far more often them Muslim. He can make a cook up for why Muslims report it less, but you can use the same cook ups for Jews. So again we have a situation where Jews are being attacked far more often, and mainly by Muslims. I want to note that unlike Muslims, Jews do rarely resort to violence.

Discrimination against Muslims while wrong in many cases can be shown to be a tit for tat thing. Muslims act superior to or hostile to non Muslims and the complain when the favor is returned. Of course their are cases when the individual Muslim did nothing wrong and those should be swiftly condemned. However a lot of this stuff is being caused by Muslim attitudes. Do Hindus immigrants or Christian immigrants face such problems. Doubtful. It is because they do not consider themselves to be better then the locals.

Sharia law no matter how liberally applied still considers Muslims to be superior to non Muslims. And no matter how liberally applied it still views women as superior to men. No one but a Muslim and in probability but a Muslim male would possibly submit to such a wretched law but by force.

[krkey1]

Just out of curiosity Zameel

You are obviously a Muslim and live in the UK. Your profile says you are 21.

Where you born in the UK or did you immigrate and if so where from? How old were you?

Have you ever visited a Muslim country as an adult? If so where?

thanks in advance

[zameel]

Jan 11, 2010 17:17:07 GMT krkey1 said:

interesting article on Sharia law in England

timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/01/sharia-a-threat-to-britains-future-as-tolerant-society.html

There is a lot of misinformation in that blog article. I find it troubling that a bigoted ignoramus like Douglas Murray is considered worthy of notice. No similar attention would be paid to anti-Christian or anti-Jewish bigots. As the article is lengthy, I will show a representative few of his lies and half-truths:

Though awarded a certain respect as ‘people of the book’ the best that Jews and Christians can hope for in an Islamic society is to be afforded second-class citizen status – a position known as ‘dhimmitude’. Historically, the ‘dhimmis’ are permitted to live in a Muslim society only if they accept their second-class station, pay a special tax (the ‘jizya’) and submit to the authority of Muslims. ‘Polythesists’ – Hindus and others – have not, historically, been so fortunate.

The last comment is a blatant untruth. Hindus as with Zoroastrians and Buddhists and others were granted Dhimmi status according to most Islamic schools of law (madhhabs) including the Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali (the Shafiites were the major exception – but for Islamophobes the exceptions are the rule when it suits their agenda).

And although it is true the "dhimma" were second class citizens, they were citizens nonetheless and their basic rights (life, property, clothing, religions) were protected and they were not denied access to universities, hospitals and even administrative roles (although this was sometimes met with mob retaliation). This is not the case in premodern Christian societies however where Jews were not granted a legitimate position in society and were what Mark Cohen called “marginal” as opposed to being part of the fabric of society, albeit of a lower hierarchical class, as with Islam. And note: "dhimmitude" is ironically a neologism from the Christian concept of "perpetual servitude", so to give the impression they were similar (in other words a Christian sin is imposed on an Islamic concept). For a good comparison on this difference see this lengthy article: www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/

But numerous verses also extol offensive jihad – specifically against non-Muslims. For instance: VIII, 12, ‘I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then.’ VIII, 39-42 says, ‘Say to the Infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients.’ IX, 39 reads, ‘If you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your place.’

This is a clear example of Murray’s ignorance or dishonesty. He quotes Qur’an 8:12 as a mandate for "offensive jihad" – but anyone can check 8:12 which is about God "inspiring to the Angels" this command at the Battle of Badr (i.e. a historical battle) – it is not a command to Muslims at all! Also 8:39-42 does not say “if they desist from their unbelief” but simply “if they desist” which is in reference to “fitna” – persecution or temptation away from religion. Besides none of these verses are the common verses used by jihadists for proof for an all-out war besides a defensive one. There is dispute in this regard in classical Islam because the demands of the political reality of that time meant an expansionist view should be adopted but the Qur’an supported a reconciliatory one which is why many in the early period advocated the latter approach (e.g. Malik, Thawri, Sahnun, Ibn Abd al-Barr, Ata ibn Abi Rabaha and others). Books have been written on the topic e.g. Majid Khadduri's Rudolph Peter's, Reuven Firestone's, John Kelsay's and other scholars'. For a detailed discussion based on these sources, see: allahisalmighty.blogspot.com/2009/10/violence-in-judaism-christianity-and.html

Finally, there is the fundamental incompatibility at the heart of sharia of the system of punishment known as ‘hudud’. Sharia punishments range from lashing and beating, to the amputation of limbs (including the amputation of an arm and a leg on alternate sides of the body) whilst death sentences include death by stoning, beheading and crucifixion. Last December the Hamas government in the Gaza reintroduced hudud punishments, including crucifixion, in the territory.

Hamas denied ever having intrduced such a punishment. As is the case with a number of other claims Murray makes in this article, he offers no evidence - e.g. he wrote "Islamic cultures throughout history have proved otherwise" regarding Abdul Bari's claim that the strictures of proof for determining adultery or similar crimes were near impossible; for his dismissal however, Murray offers no proof from Islamic history.

In speeches on Islamic websites [Suhaib Hasan] calls for ‘the chopping of the hands of the thieves, the flogging of the adulterers and flogging of the drunkards.’ This, he says will allow the launch of a jihad: ‘Then jihad against the non-Muslims, against those people who are the oppressors.’

This is a clear concoction. Suhaib Hasan's views are on record. He does say hudud laws would be a better deterrence if applied in Britain, but he never connected this to a "jihad" - see how Murray dishonestly says "this he says will allow the launch of jihad" and then quotes a sentence made in a completely different context (i.e. in the context of Muslims occupied by invading forces e.g. in Chechnya, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir and Muslims ruled by dictators). This is the kind of dishonesty that has acquired popular acceptance.

And to this day all schools of Islamic law agree that those who leave Islam – apostates – must be punished with death

This is another apparent lie. There is no central authority in Islam. And major scholars throughout the world (today) have taken the opinion that apostates should not be killed (for dozens see: apostasyandislam.blogspot.com/ ) and the classic juristic opinion should be interpreted to mean apostasy combined with high treason and violent acts of rebellion (hiraba) – for which there is large support in the classical texts; see this nuanced scholarly discussion: www.lamppostproductions.com/files/articles/PRESERVING%20THE%20FREEDOM%20FOR%20FAITH.pdf

This is not to deny some major scholars today still believe in execution for apostasy e.g. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, but even Qaradawi accepts there is a difference of opinion in the classical law e.g. he says Umar the Second Caliph of Islam did not believe in death for apostates but believed apostates should be given time to rethink their view by being offered scriptural knowledge; of course if the apostates rebelled (as with the Ridda wars), that is a different matter.

See this detailed article on Islamic apostasy laws: www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/apostasy/

In 2007 the Grand Mufti was reported to have said in a Washington Post – Newsweek discussion that people should be free to choose their religion. This would have been unprecedented from such an authority, meaning among other things, that the traditional sharia punishment of death for apostasy from Islam could be debated and perhaps overturned.

Again another brazen lie. The Grand Mufti of Egypt from many decades ago, Mahmud Shaltut (d. 1964), said punishment for apostasy no longer applies, and Azhar issued a fatwa in 1958 which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area. Ali Gomaa has also reiterated this. So this is certainly not unprecedented.

As for one of his main points about Islam's treatment of women which he contrasts with Judaism:

The treatment of women is fundamental to this way of looking at the world. Sharia mandates, for instance, that women accord to strict dress codes. It also rules that they should inherit only half the wealth of their brothers and sees their testimony in court as worth only half that of a man. In sharia a man is allowed four wives, but a woman only one husband. And while a man can divorce his wife with great ease, it is exceedingly difficult for the woman to leave her husband. All this is laid down in the Koran.

He claims such problems are not present in Jewish law (or modern Jewish law). Let's look at some examples of Halakha in practice which should cause us to question the Beth Din in the same way (but for some reason, does not).

Women do not have any authority to divorce in Judaism, unlike in Islam where they have the ability to annul the marriage (although not technically divorce) - www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm . This article describes how women suffer in Israeli society because of these divorce laws: www.jewishdivorce.com/html/divorce.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=600&width=800

Nick Lowenstein kept his wife waiting to be divorced for 15 years and all the Beth Din in London could do was to issue some statements about the case to the media: www.hamhigh.co.uk/textonly/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=textonly&tCategory=hnhtext&itemid=WeED07%20Apr%202005%2014%3A56%3A33%3A193

Orthodox Jewish women who are being held in marriages against their will have started protests outside the home of a man who has refused to grant a religious divorce to his ex-wife for nearly 40 years: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/jewish-women-in-marriage-law-protest-679073.html

A mother in London (Beth Din) is divorced against her will becaused she "dressed provocatively" www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/the-council-house-single-mother-seven-divorced-against-her-will

Beth din does not recognise converts: www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/1423_beth_din_bad_decisio.htm

If Islamic law grants women only half the inheritance of her male counterparts, Jewish law does not grant her anything (unless she is the only heir), based on Numbers 27 - www.amstertrusts.com/Jewish_Law.html

Rabbis involved in child molestation, a rising concern: nymag.com/news/features/17010/ ; 26 arrests this last year for Rabbis molesting children: www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/nyregion/14abuse.html

Haredi Rabbis approving "kosher cellphones" in Israel that cannot text or take photos (because they are immoral): news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7636021.stm

"Jewish Taliban" in Israel stoning cars who "disrespect" the Sabbath and Yom Kippur and attacking women who dress immodestly: www.thefreelibrary.com/The+rise+of+the+Jewish+Taliban.-a0190379262

Rioting because a parking lot was opened on the Sabbath: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/04/AR2009070402286.html

Jews stoning buses because they are not segregated: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sinful-city-buses-stoned-by-ultraorthodox-jews-1631370.html

Israel Justice Minister wants Jewish law to be binding: www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/yaakov-neeman-israeli-jus_n_384385.html

For the failure of similar attempts to contrast Shariah Courts from Beth Din, see these rebuttals to Daniel Pipes:

www.loonwatch.com/2009/10/weak-sauce/
www.loonwatch.com/2009/10/weak-sauce-2/

Jan 11, 2010 17:17:07 GMT krkey1 said:

I want to note that unlike Muslims, Jews do rarely resort to violence.

This article shows Jewish settler violence in the West Bank is understated:

The attacks aren't always with Molotov cocktails; sometimes Jewish settlers throw tear gas canisters, simply spray a Star of David on a wall, or cut down trees owned by Palestinians. In other incidents, settlers have shot and killed a 16-year-old boy, fractured the skull of a 7-year-old girl with a rock, set a dog on a 12-year-old boy, and shot dead an Arab man but let his companion go when he identified himself as Jewish. These are not egregious, isolated cases of mayhem; they're just a few random examples of what's happening all too often on the West Bank. To see how depressingly common such violence is, just Google "West Bank settler violence" for yourself.

It's easy enough to see what the violence looks like too, since a lot of it has been captured on video. And this is just violence against people. The violence against property is far too common to begin to catalog.

www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-chernus/palestinian-violence-over_b_220957.html

Only recently settlers attacked a west bank mosque and burned Muslim books: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6953281.ece

Also, a gunman several months ago opened fire at a gay youth centre killing two and injuring ten: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8180069.stm

Furthermore, Rabbis funded by the Israeli state endorsed killing civilians (including women and babies) in the Gaza massacre last year (when over a thousand civilians were killed in under a month) - www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126890.html - this is a consequence of stories in Joshua and Deuteronomy and other places that sanction the killing of women and children (which Islamic law clearly forbids)

and comparing the number of arson attacks against Jewish religious buildings and community centers with attacks against Muslim religious buildings and community centers in Britain after the 7/7 bombings

I didn't quite catch that. Where is the comparison of the arson attacks against Muslim and Jewish institutions?

[zameel]

Jan 11, 2010 22:12:39 GMT krkey1 said:

Just out of curiosity Zameel

You are obviously a Muslim and live in the UK. Your profile says you are 21.

Where you born in the UK or did you immigrate and if so where from? How old were you?

Have you ever visited a Muslim country as an adult? If so where?

thanks in advance

Yes I was born in the UK, and I've visited Egypt (for 3 months), Jordan (for a week), Saudi Arabia (for a week and a half), Qatar (for just over a day) and Bangladesh (for several months).

[zameel]

An important new study from Duke and North Carolina Universities on Muslim terrorism in America reveals the characteristics of typical Muslim extremists: www.sanford.duke.edu/news/Schanzer_Kurzman_Moosa_Anti-Terror_Lessons.pdf

"This study identified 139 Muslim-Americans with a linkage to terrorist violence between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2009, an average of about 17 people per year. The dataset contains information about both the offenders and the nature of their activity. All but one of the offenders are men. Their average age is 28. Almost two-thirds (65%) are under 30.

This research confirmed what has been observed in other studies of Muslim terrorists: most of those who engage in religiously inspired terrorism have little formal training in Islam and, in fact, are poorly educated about Islam. Muslim- Americans with a strong, traditional religious training are far less likely to radicalize than those whose knowledge of Islam is incomplete."

Also see: Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/

[krkey1]

ok I will post more later.

Zameel would you accept any legal system that made you a second class citizen in the UK or anywhere? Let say somehow Christian Fundies took over that country and made something similar to the best of Sharia that you keep telling us about. Would you willingly live under it?

[zameel]

Jan 12, 2010 0:18:44 GMT krkey1 said:

Zameel would you accept any legal system that made you a second class citizen in the UK or anywhere?

No, and I don't think most modern interpretations of shariah would like to see non-Muslims in a Muslim society as "second-class citizens". E.g. see Qaradawi's view on the equal treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries: www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1209357797171&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout (Qaradawi is an important, if controversal and often maligned, Muslim scholar who has strong affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood; nor is the Brotherhood as extreme as some make it out to be, see their official website: www.ikhwanweb.com/ )

This is not without precedent. As many scholars have noted including Majid Khadduri the Prophet Muhammad in "the Medinan constitution" in 622 AD gave the Jews equal rights with Muslims; there was no discrimination (according to John Kelsay the Medinan Constitution is "striking in its stipulations of parity between Muslims and Jews" (John Kelsay, Arguing the Just war in Islam, p. 25)). And until the end of his life, the only added element was the "jizya" (the tax) (see Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, pp. 178-9) - and all citizens in modern countries pay taxes, so there's nothing extraordinary about that. Furthermore, Umar b al-Khattab devised the "welfare state" where the poor from Muslims and non-Muslims would be funded by the state, and the jizya tax was not applicable to those non-Muslims who participated in the military. The early attitude to non-Muslims in the Muslim empire was one of tolerance and respect; it was during times of unease and public unrest that new discriminatory rules came into place, particularly under the rule of al-Mutawakkil (d. 861). These later discriminatory rules, sometimes enshrined in a document called "The Pact of Umar" (although Umar had nothing to do with them), were rarely enforced (see "Mainstream Muslims Did Not Generally Enforce the Discriminatory Conditions in the Pact of Umar" here: www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/#refMAINSTREAM ). For these reasons, many modern ulama including the renowned Indian scholar Husain Ahmad Madani (d. 1957) believe/d equality better accords the spirit of the shariah. As Majid Khadduri wrote about premodern discriminatory practices:

‘These vexatious measures and practices, however, hard as they must have been on many individuals, should not obscure the original objective of the law which reflected a genuine spirit of toleration and provided safeguards for the non-Muslim subjects who preferred to follow their own scriptures and practice their own rites. If a spirit of intolerance had at times been show, it was a symptom of a growing oppressive rule which caused the Muslim populace at large to suffer no less than the non-Muslims. Mob violence may have been at times focused aginst non-Muslims, but mob violence indicates a dissatisfaction and unjust rule under which neither Muslims nor the dhimmis could live with prosperity and security.
If certain caliphs and governers were harsh and brutal, others were inclined to show magnanimity and generous spirit. Under reckless rule, the dhimmis may have suffered persecution, but the Muslims were not much better off.’ (Khadduri, pp. 200-1)

[penguinfan]

I didn't quite catch that. Where is the comparison of the arson attacks against Muslim and Jewish institutions?

Then you must not be reading links.

1 January 2002
Créteil (Paris suburb)
A classroom of the Jewish “Ozar Ha’Torah” school was destroyed by a fire started by a Molotov cocktail.

6 January 2002
Goussainville
(Paris suburb)
Rocks and firebombs were thrown at the oratory; no one was injured.

29 March 2002
Lyon
A fire was set in the 9th Arrondissement “La Duchère” synagogue.

31 March 2002
Strasbourg
The doors of the “Cronenbourg” neighborhood synagogue were burnt Saturday
near midnight; no victims.

1 April 2002
Marseille
A synagogue in the 11th Arrondissement was burnt to the ground near midnight.
No victims, but some Torah scrolls were destroyed in the fire.

3 April 2002
Marseille
Two men threw two Molotov cocktails at the 14th Arrondissement synagogue,
despite the policemen on guard.

4 April 2002
Aubervilliers
(Paris suburb)
A school bus and a car from the local Jewish school were burnt during the night
in a parking lot only 100 yards away from the school, despite the reinforced
police surveillance around Jewish sites in the town.

4 April 2002
Montpellier
Several Molotov cocktails were thrown against one of the three local
synagogues.

4 April 2002
Kremlin-Bicêtre
(Paris suburb)
Several firebombs were thrown against the local synagogue.

4 April 2002
Garges-les-Gonesse (Paris
suburb)
Several Molotov cocktails were thrown against the local synagogue during the
night.

5 April 2002
Toulouse
Several Molotov cocktails were thrown in the night against the local “Maccabi” Jewish athletics association.

6 April 2002
Marseille
Four Molotov cocktails were thrown against the local synagogue.

6 April 2002
La Courneuve
(Paris suburb)
Four Molotov cocktails were thrown against the local synagogue during Shabbat services; no casualties

7 April 2002
Marseille
The cellar of the “Gan Pardess” nursery school in the 13th Arrondissement was set on fire.

9 April 2002
Paris
Three Molotov cocktails were thrown at a local Union of French Jewish Students (UEJF) office inside the Jussieu University, causing a fire in the building.

www.kintera.org/atf/cf/%7BDFD2AAC1-2ADE-428A-9263-35234229D8D8%7D/franceattacks.pdf

The attacks only include arson attacks and I have not included a bomb attack, a drive by shooting and other forms of vandalism against Jewish targets.

The article only goes through to May 12th of 2002, so the number of arson attacks against Jewish buildings is severely underrepresented. Despite this, there were far more arson attacks against Jewish buildings in France in the first four months of 2002 than there were against Muslim buildings for all of 2006 in Britain - in a country whose Muslim population is larger than France's Jewish population.

But in any event, this is simply a diversion for Zameel to avoid answering the questions which were directed to him on previous pages. Among those questions was why French Muslims were more tolerant and less prone to terrorism than their British Muslim counterparts *despite* the fact that French Muslims are more marginalized in French society than British Muslims are in British society - Britain has bent over backwards to accommodate their immigrant communities and, as far as I know, there aren't 'ghettos' in Britain like there are in France.

[penguinfan]

As many scholars have noted including Majid Khadduri the Prophet Muhammad in "the Medinan constitution" in 622 AD gave the Jews equal rights with Muslims; there was no discrimination (according to John Kelsay the Medinan Constitution is "striking in its stipulations of parity between Muslims and Jews" (John Kelsay, Arguing the Just war in Islam, p. 25)

Another example of selectively copy/pasting history. This is similar to the thread on Islam and warfare you posted in which you claimed that Muhammad never launched raids against the southern Christian tribes.

Then I quoted Montgomery Watt showing that Muhammad did indeed attack Christian tribes in the Yemen. Your response - 'Well, those were 'only' a few raids'. I mean, what kind of response is that? (That's also ignoring that the policy of attacking non-Muslim tribes not under any alliance with Islam was further implemented by Abu Bakr - a policy that any and every tribe not under alliance with the Muslim state was attacked)

Now, as for your post that I quoted, what happened to the Jews of the Hijaz and the Christians of the Najran? Weren't they eventually 'relocated' (after they were first attacked and conquered) under orders from Muhammad that two religions should not live side-by-side in the Arabian peninsula? (And yes, I know what Bernard Lewis says, that there is some archeological evidence that not all of the Christian and Jewish communities were immediately relocated under Caliph Umar)

[krkey1]

Zameel

You still miss the basic problem of Sharia. It considers Islam to be true and other religions to be false. Now it would be nice if it would agree forever to treat non Muslims as legal economic political equals etc but it won't. They very nature of religious law is the favorite religion is assumed to be true and deserves special recognition. Even if it didn't start off giving special status to the religion in question, eventually it would.

Consider Secular law now. It is supremely indifferent to what religion you belong to. Basically as long as you pay your bills and obey the law it doesn't care. Which offers better protection of religious freedom, a law which assumes one religion to be true and others just tolerated at best, or a system which doesn't care one way or another about religion.

Let me use the example I used early again. Imagine if Christian fundies overthrew your government and created a system of Sharia just like the one you advocate. Would you feel safe knowing it could easily change down the road.

If you are uncomfortable with such a scenario you can see why non Muslims want nothing to do with Sharia.

[penguinfan]

Also 8:39-42 does not say “if they desist from their unbelief” but simply “if they desist” which is in reference to “fitna” – persecution or temptation away from religion. Besides none of these verses are the common verses used by jihadists for proof for an all-out war besides a defensive one.

Well, I probably don't read as much jihadist literature as you do. But high ranking Saudi clerics have cited verse 8:39 of the Koran to support the Islamic concept of offensive Jihad warfare:

Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah has enjoined jihad for His sake upon the Muslims, for the great benefits that result from that and because of the harm caused by abandoning jihad, some of which are mentioned in Question no. 34830.

Some of the reasons why jihad for the sake of Allaah is prescribed in Islam are as follows:

1 – The main goal of jihad is to make the people worship Allaah alone and to bring them forth from servitude to people to servitude to the Lord of people. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allaah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allaah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zaalimoon (the polytheists, and wrong-doers)”

[al-Baqarah 2:193]

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they do”

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/34647/jihad

[eckadimmock]

Jan 12, 2010 0:03:39 GMT zameel said:

This research confirmed what has been observed in other studies of Muslim terrorists: most of those who engage in religiously inspired terrorism have little formal training in Islam and, in fact, are poorly educated about Islam. Muslim- Americans with a strong, traditional religious training are far less likely to radicalize than those whose knowledge of Islam is incomplete."

Also see: Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/

I have seen other psychologists and scholars make the same point, that terrorists are not especially devout, but more interested in identifying with a group. Nor are they poor or oppressed, by and large. Some of the current crop of Islamists were Marxists in the 1970s.

I noticed this article which makes a similar point. www.slate.com/id/2241119/

Sociologists like Max Weber suggest that people will do almost anything to feel they belong to a group.

[zameel]

Jan 12, 2010 15:54:09 GMT penguinfan said:

This is similar to the thread on Islam and warfare you posted in which you claimed that Muhammad never launched raids against the southern Christian tribes.

Which is true.

Jan 12, 2010 15:54:09 GMT penguinfan said:

Then I quoted Montgomery Watt showing that Muhammad did indeed attack Christian tribes in the Yemen

He didn't. As Montgomery Watt says there were only three expeditions to the south (one was Khalid b Walid’s with 400 men to Najran in Yemen that involved no violence). "These expeditions", however, "were small…and should perhaps be regarded as intended to give a slight backing to diplomatic activities" (Muhammad at Medina, p. 123) and he writes "the accounts of the expeditions make it clear that Muhammad did not regard the south as a suitable sphere for military activity" (p. 124). He explains "In various ways, then, Muhammad was interfering 'by letter and by envoy' in the affairs of the southern tribes. Not merely factions within a tribe but whole clans and even tribes were becoming associated with Medina. This meant that they were being incorporated within what might be called the 'Medinan security system' or Pax Islamica" (p. 121). For example, Muhammad recognised the Persian governer of Yemen, Badham.

He also made a treaty with the Christians of Najran (some who visited him in the mosque in Medina): "A treaty of peace was made in which it was agreed that Muhammad would not interfere with their ecclesiastical affairs or property, that the people of Najran would make an annual payment of 2,000 garments of stipulated value, and that they would become allies of the Muslims and receive protection" (Watt, p. 127). Here is the text of the treaty to Najran: "if some of what was lent to my messengers had been destroyed or perished, [Najranites] will be compensated. They shall have the protection of Allah and the promise of Muhammad, the Apostle of Allah, that they shall be secured in their lives, properties, lands, creed, those absent and those present, their families, their churches, and all that they possess. No bishop or monk shall be displaced from his parish or monastery and no priest shall be forced to abandon his priestly life. No hardship or humility shall be imposed on them nor shall their land be occupied by [our] army. Those who seek justice shall have it; there will be no oppressors nor oppressed" (from Baladhuri quoted in Majid Khadduri's War and Peace in the Law of Islam, p. 179)

Jan 12, 2010 15:54:09 GMT penguinfan said:

I mean, what kind of response is that?

An honest one. Watt wrote "The most important feature of this 'southern policy' is the extensive use of diplomatic methods. Before the conquest of Mecca, expeditions would of course have been impracticable; but even after that event Muhammad made no great show of force in the south." What the Prophet Muhammad did do in the south was "successfully intervene in local quarrels". The Arab tribes were constantly warring with each other; as Fred Donner writes "In this [Arabian] society, war (harb, used in the senses of both an activity and a condition) was in one sense a normal way of life; that is, a 'state of war' was assumed to exist between one's tribe and all others, unless a particular treaty or agreement had been reached with another tribe establishing amicable relations". Muhammad united the tribes mostly by "diplomacy" and "administrative skill" according to Watt.

Bearing in mind Arabia was split into warring tribes, Muhammad's only major battle against the nomadic tribes was Hunayn ("Hunayn was the major encounter during Muhammad’s lifetime between the Muslims and the nomadic tribes" (Watt, p. 72)), and the death toll in this battle was just over a hundred on both sides. And the reason for the war was the bitter rivalry between the Thaqif and Hawazin tribes against Quraysh the new allies of Muhammad (after the bloodless conquest of Mecca); "it is unlikely [Muhammad] planned an attack on them" (Watt, p 71) and "it was self preservation rather than hope of booty that made the pagan Quraysh go out with him to Hunayn" (p. 71).

Jan 12, 2010 15:54:09 GMT penguinfan said:

That's also ignoring that the policy of attacking non-Muslim tribes not under any alliance with Islam was further implemented by Abu Bakr - a policy that any and every tribe not under alliance with the Muslim state was attacked

The Ridda wars as they were called was the result of those factions already in alliance with the Muslims preparing to war with them after the Prophet's death; many false prophets appeared at this time (Musaylama, Tulayha and al-Aswad in the Yemen) and they rebelled against Abu Bakr. Can you provide evidence for your claim that Muhammad or Abu Bakr had "a policy that any and every tribe not under alliance with the Muslim state was attacked" from historians like Watt? Far from being selective, it appears you make conclusions that none of the scholars you cite do.

Furthermore, according to a conservative theologian like Ibn Taymiyya, the Prophet Muhammad did not initiate any battles. He wrote "[The Prophet's] biography demonstrates that anyone who signed a pact from the non-Muslims did not fight him whether from the polytheists of the Arabs or others. This is documented in the biographical literature, and the narrations, Quranic exegesis, jurispudence, tales of prophetic battles speak of this. This is mass transmitted from his example; the Prophet never initiated war with anyone from the non-Muslims." (quoted in Wahba Zuhayli, Athar al-Harb, p. 105).

Jan 12, 2010 15:54:09 GMT penguinfan said:

Now, as for your post that I quoted, what happened to the Jews of the Hijaz and the Christians of the Najran?

Historians are unclear about the Christians of Najran as there is evidence that Najranite Christians continued to persist until the ninth century, so it may have been a backward projection of the intolerance of al-Mutawakkil and others in this period (this is mentioned in J. Spencer Trimingham, Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic Times p. 307).

As for the Jews, they were expelled from Arabia, but not because of any pre-planned policy. In fact the Constitution of Medina in 622 AD was "striking in its stipulations of parity between Muslims and Jews" (John Kelsay) (and many modern Muslim jurists, including Husain Madani, the Shaykh al-Islam of India, have used this as evidence that Muslims should live as equals with their non-Muslim neighbours under the law); but this parity did not exist for long when the Jews of Medina chose to break the treaty and join the stronger "Meccan grand alliance" against the Muslims, starting with the Battle of Badr in 624 AD.

Jan 12, 2010 16:18:12 GMT penguinfan said:

Also 8:39-42 does not say “if they desist from their unbelief” but simply “if they desist” which is in reference to “fitna” – persecution or temptation away from religion. Besides none of these verses are the common verses used by jihadists for proof for an all-out war besides a defensive one.

Well, I probably don't read as much jihadist literature as you do. But high ranking Saudi clerics have cited verse 8:39 of the Koran to support the Islamic concept of offensive Jihad warfare:

Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah has enjoined jihad for His sake upon the Muslims, for the great benefits that result from that and because of the harm caused by abandoning jihad, some of which are mentioned in Question no. 34830.

Some of the reasons why jihad for the sake of Allaah is prescribed in Islam are as follows:

1 – The main goal of jihad is to make the people worship Allaah alone and to bring them forth from servitude to people to servitude to the Lord of people. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allaah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allaah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zaalimoon (the polytheists, and wrong-doers)”

[al-Baqarah 2:193]

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they do”

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/34647/jihad

My comment was not to deny the persistence of this view amongst some conservative scholars (like the Deobandis, Salafis and Wahhabis). But there are two points that should be remembered: all of these scholars (including the Saudi ones) have condemned al-Qaeda and other similar groups for 1. suicide terrorism and 2. targetting civilians (non-combatants) and 3. attacking outside Islam's borders without the permission of an elected Imam. Secondly, the prevelant opinion amongst more traditionalist scholars (like those of Azhar, Damascus and others) have argued jihad is a "just war" only based on the Qur'an and the classical scholars. For a clear description of the evolution of military jihad (in both its defensive and offensive types) and its relationship to the Islamic texts and the early and late divergence of opinion, see this article I just put up: allahisalmighty.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-islam-essentially-violent-response.html

[penguinfan]

What's interesting is that Zameel takes the time not to address the actual questions and links provided to him but, once again, go off topic discussing his views on the military conquests of the early Muslims.

I'm more than happy to address the claims that Zameel has made, but that is for another thread so Zameel does not become any more distracted and can stay on topic.

I'll simply copy what I wrote previously to make sure there is not any actual confusion over what the discussion of this thread is actually centered around:

The article only goes through to May 12th of 2002, so the number of arson attacks against Jewish buildings is severely underrepresented. Despite this, there were far more arson attacks against Jewish buildings in France in the first four months of 2002 than there were against Muslim buildings for all of 2006 in Britain - in a country whose Muslim population is larger than France's Jewish population.

But in any event, this is simply a diversion for Zameel to avoid answering the questions which were directed to him on previous pages. Among those questions was why French Muslims were more tolerant and less prone to terrorism than their British Muslim counterparts *despite* the fact that French Muslims are more marginalized in French society than British Muslims are in British society - Britain has bent over backwards to accommodate their immigrant communities and, as far as I know, there aren't 'ghettos' in Britain like there are in France.

Have any comment on the number of Jewish buildings that were subject to arson attacks in France for the first four months of 2002?

[krkey1]

Simple question and I would like an answer. Please explain to me, why as a Non Muslim I should remotely support Sharia when Western Law treats me as equal in rights without regards to my religious beliefs? How would Sharia benefit me as an agnostic?