Posted on 02/05/2005 4:28:19 PM PST by Pikamax
February 06, 2005
Muslims warn parties on hate bill
BRITAIN’S Muslim leaders are threatening to withdraw support from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties because of their opposition to the incitement to religious hatred bill, writes Abul Taher. The leaders, who are from some of the most influential Muslim organisations in the country, say that they may tell their communities to “take into account” the stance of the two parties on the bill when they cast their votes in the general election expected this year.
The Muslim Council of Britain, the country’s biggest Islamic organisation, has sent letters to Michael Howard, leader of the Tories, and to Charles Kennedy, leader of the Lib Dems, reminding them of the importance of the legislation for Muslims. The letter is believed to warn Howard and Kennedy of the negative impact that opposition to the bill may have.
The Muslim council has also sent a letter to every MP in the country asking for his or her support for the legislation as the three parties prepare to debate the bill tomorrow in parliament.
Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim council, said: “We are clear that incitement to religious hatred will remain central to our campaign as we approach the election. We feel that any opposition will be seen by the Muslim community as not being supportive of issues affecting them.”
Islamic groups have been campaigning for incitement to religious hatred to become law for more than 10 years. They feel that such a law is required to protect their communities from Islamophobia, especially from far-right groups.
what does the bill say or do????
Obviously they hope to avoid the law when it applies to
their hatred of jews and christians, just more islamophobia
will be the cry.
Will passage of the desired law muzzle the likes of "Captain Hook" and other ranting Imams, or will it simply be used to squash their critics ?
There is but one way to muzzle an Islamo-fascist.
Ping.
I say the Brits should convert Big Ben into Islamic shrine where Muslims can call for daily prayers when Big Ben chimes. Ah... diversity.
Example of 'Islamophobia".......connecting the dots between Islamic doctrine and the ritual execution of Coptic Christians in NJ.
"Why I left Islam", by Dr. Ali Sina
"...the real Islam is not what its philosophers and mystics have inferred but what is in the Quran and that is the Islam of the fundamentalist and the terrorist. The real Islam is the Islam that abuses women, that allows men to beat their wives, that imposes penalty tax on the religious minorities, that wants to dominate the world by subduing all the non-Muslims, that calls for Jihad and killing the non-believers until Islam becomes the only dominant religion of the World.""The enemy is Islam and that is the target of my attacks. I do that, despite knowing that I have become the magnet of the hatred of fanatical Muslims and my own life could be in danger.
Yet I know that by eradicating Islam we can save the world from the dangers of a catastrophe that otherwise is looming over our heads and could cause more disaster than the 1st and 2nd World Wars combined."
This law simply gives them the right to slaughter nonbelievers and seek protection because they were defending themselves against religious hatred.
"Far-right groups" seems to be Europress and Euromuslim speak for anyone who
a) realizes Muslims terrorist walk amongst them and
b) are appalled, therefore suspicious, when "main-stream" Muslim don't denounce these maniacs.
Substituting "common-sense" for "far-right" would be more accurate.
Ah. Well, 'tis with love, not hatred, that I hope to help them meet allah.
May he wallow in the dung of swine and praise the privelege.
Pass the law, use it to shut down the Finsbury Park mosque, then repeal the law.
 |
Home |  |
|
Books | |
|
Reviews | |
 |
Forum | |
|
Urdu |  |
|
Contact |  |
Order | |
Bazm Forum
Re: "Prophet of Doom" By Craig Winn
Posted By: Mubashir Inayet
Date: Wednesday, 26 November 2003, at 9:06 p.m.
In Response To: To brothers Mubashir & Abdul (*DR. SHABBIR*)
Mubashir's reply to Craig
Craig,
Thank you for your comments. The way you want to go about the Qur’an is your choice and you are welcome to it if it makes sense to you.
My comments are given below:
Mubashir Inayet
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Winn [mailto:craig@winnmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 8:29 AM
To: Mubashir Inayet
Subject: RE: Hello!Mubashir,
I have never seen any value in someone else's intrepretation of source material. I can read and think as can you. If I were interested in a Qur'an commentary, the only one I'd consider would be Tabari's as well as Ishaq's commentary as they were the first to interpret it. As with any doctrine or religion, the words and deeds of the original founders count. All others are just offering their opinion.
{Mubashir replies)
But you are picking and choosing interpretation any way. Why not consider all sources? Let us be honest to ourselves here.
The Qur’an is best understood by the Qur’an it self and by the use of the vast parameters and intricacies of the Arabic language. Some Interpreters of the Qur’an have done so and I find those satisfactory and rational. Tabari’s history is what it is history based on hearsay and his own opinion. He was not even alive when Muhammad passed away. Ishaaq’s commentary lies in the same category. None of these men were alive in Muhammad’s time to be eye witnesses to events. They were born much later.
Craig:
However, without the Sira, most of Islam falls apart. You can't do as it commands nearly 100 times--obey Muhammad. You can't follow Muhammad's example. You can't perform the Hajj. You can't perform the prayer. You can't pay the zakat. You don't know how to fast. You don't know which contradictory verses were abrogated as you don't know which surahs came first and which came later. You can't make excuses for the Qur'an's command for men to fight. There is no way to justify the Qur'an's fixation on hell, demons, and punishment with its 1000 repititions. There is no way to justify the 400 repetitions of the eye witnesses acquising Muhammad of being a demon possessed liar, plagiarizing scripture. Without the information contained in the Sira, Islam doesn't exist.
Mubashir
We do not reject history of the era of Muhammad entirely. To do so would be a fallacy. However, we believe in history of that era as verified by the Qur’an and not vice versa. If we find details in history that help us fulfill some rituals and do not go against the Oneness of God, we do not mind accepting it. Whether Muhammad was possessed or not is again history and not the Qur’an.
Craig:
Moreover, my friend, the Qur'an has but one voice--Muhammad's. You are trusting your soul on the notion that he was telling the truth. Yet he claimed to be a liar, he approved lying, and his god said that he used deception. That's a real problem. What's more, your Qur'an specifically orders you not to do what you are doing. You are told not to engage anyone in discussion who rejects Muhammad and the Qur'an and you are to flee from them. You are told that those who question the Qur'an will lose their faith.
Mubashir:
We trust the Qur’an because we believe God tells us so. We find the proof in the pudding. Muhammad was only a Messenger. Can you show me where the Qur’an orders me not to engage those who have a bone to pick with Islam? We are, on the contrary asked to preach to non Muslims in a polite and decent way. However, we are advised to move on when a discussion turns into a cyclical debate and waste of time. Can you show me where we are told that those who question the Qur’an will lose their faith. In fact we are repeatedly told to ponder and think. Not to accept things blindly and in one particular verse we are told that those who fall blindly at the verses of the Qur’an are dumb like animals.
Craig:
While I have given you much to think about, this line alone shows that Muhammad and his Allah cannot be trusted: Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.” This next one is as bad: Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’” And this one may be the worst of all: Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”
Mubashir:
With respect to 66:1 If an oath is taken in jest and runs counter to what is right and just there is no harm in breaking it once you realize your mistake.. Example: I may, out of rage take an oath that I will not talk to my wife for 30 days. Later, when I realize my stupidity, there is no harm if I break my oath. With respect to what Bukhari said 270 years after Muhammad passed away from hearsay, sorry, Bukhari’s book is history and not Scripture. The Qur’an is not talking about breaking treaties as a nation with other nations.
Craig:
Bukhari:V4B52N268 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘War is deceit.’”
Mubashir:
Not reliable as not the Word of God.
Craig:
Qur’an 4:142 “Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah. He shall retaliate by deceiving them.”
Mubashir:
Alternate translation by Muhammad Asad: “Behold, the hypocrites seek to deceive God – the while it is He who causes them (by His Law of cause and effect) to be deceived [by themselves].
Mubashir's concluding remarks:
Craig I could go on and on. You seem to think the Muslims have just discovered Qur’an and Hadees. Remember, the Qur’an is the Criterion. Rest is history or commentary which may or may not be true. If it agrees with the Qur’an it could be true, otherwise it can be safely scrapped.
It is hoped that you will study the Qur’an it should; not by history but by the method I recommended and beautifully explained in the introduction to QXP (The Qur’an as it explains it self) that I sent you as attachment in one of my previous emails.
The net effect of your book will be either outright rejection by those Muslims who are blind followers. It may cause some to stop and think and come to a rational interpretation of Qur’an like myself and scores of others. Some could walk away, sure but history of publication of books critical of Muhammad has shown that the Muslims will either ignore them or seek serious answers rather than dumping Islam wholesale.
You could join hands with moderate Muslims to promote a rational view of Islam (www.galaxydastak.com, www.islamicdawn.com > http://www.free-minds.org/ >
www.mostmerciful.com > and others who do not subscribe to terrorism or fanaticism.
The last paragraph fills us in:
Islamic groups have been campaigning for incitement to religious hatred to become law for more than 10 years. They feel that such a law is required to protect their communities from Islamophobia, especially from far-right groups.
IOW, Muslim-Brits are demanding censorship of any speech deemed "offensive" to Islam, plus the benefit of a legal shield and alibi should Muslims engage in the verbal or bodily threats and attack of non-Muslims.
Gays have demanded the same thing of the Canadian government.
thanks for the info
I can think of some areas (see map below) where such legislation is needed, but not Britain.
Fool's interpretation: "Christians will love us if we're their enemies! See, it says so in their Bible!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.