Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي

Why Muslims are not free to interpret Koran?

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wanted to share the following thread , please read down up !








I liked your way of sneeking from my specific question.. Samart making my specifics against me..:-) Fine ..let me play your game :-)


Our discission is not about the constitution , you might not agree on the revolutionary aspects of it for now as you said.


Don't you find your self emphasising my point that you are judging my point on your experiences with others. Let me explain.


To proof for your self that your conclusion was right, you added the word COMPLETE to what I mentioned about my defifnition of islam.. If you read mine carefully ,it was "A set" not "COMPLETE set" which is much different. Any society , even the most early primitive ones, has A set. If this set is adequat, is some thing else.There is no COMPLETE one though.


What I was saying about the difference between Islam and Chritianity is that Islam , for historical reasons, went more deep into the system interveaning into the personal economical conducts of people and society. This has nothing to do with good, as per islamists, or bad , as per yours ..I think both of the two are wrong.. We need to deal with Islamic role as it is.. with all good and bad.


Returing back to specifics. today , Shia moderate islamic teachings are playing a critical role in establishing the first real democracy in Moslim history. twenty years ago the Shia radicalism played a critical role in establishing the worst democracy in recent islamic history, the democracy of Welait Alfaquh in Iran. By the way this bad democracy is much better than the SECULAR democracy of our Arab national dictators..




Please read my comment away from your prejudgment













From: ala

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:56:23 +0100 (BST)




This is getting interesting and I like it :-)




You seem to like the specifics and stay with them, never mind that we doing our best to generalise from your specifics not to annoy you but to get closer to some understanding :-)




First you've been reiterating an assumed revolutionary Iraqi constitution that I don’t believe is the case and we are not there yet. The conflict of human rights issues and the statement of “Islam as a main source of legislation” is still there and we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand to avoid seeing it !!!!!




The issue of the superiority of Islam is an obvious conclusion since muslims have been preaching it for centuries and I doubt that the religious groups in the Iraqi government are not different, but I must say that the proof is when we see the rise and fall, in parliamentarian sense, of different Iraqi political parties through the next three elections (i.e. in the next 15 years); that is if we manage to move away from our undemocratic and totalitarian cultural difficulties.




As for your reference to "different and not superior", to me this seems like an avoidance of the real issue. When one suggests that Islam is a complete socio-economic set of rules and regulations to regulate societies what this means is that Islam has the capacity to govern states and that in itself is what I disagree with. Any religion including Islam has no capacity to govern states due to the rigid religious principles that contradict modern needs of human rights.




In your previous emails you've forgotten to mention who said what? , plus you moved into suggesting that those secular figures are pushing for slotting the statement of Islam as a main source of legislation. Now…as for Mutlak and Hamdoon and their grouping pushing of such statement, what you are suggesting is that although the religious majority in the parliament and the committee writing the constitution are not pushing for such a statement in the constitution; and Mutlak and Hamdoon minority are dominating and enforcing the slotting of such statement!!! And the other point is: do the religious groups endorsing secularism and not constitution that contain the article of “Islam as a main source of legislation?




I promise you that I haven’t thought of putting statements in your mouth or profile you yet J




As for my personal experience I still need to use it, it is my treasure and it is quite objective J and you shouldn’t be anxious of using yours J….Salam Ala





From: Safaa




I afraid that you are retuning back to the profiling style :-)


What I was referring to is a specific incident where Islamist and secular Iraqis "including Kurds and Arabs" had come up to a common revolutionary agreement and move of equating islamic Sharia role to the international code of human rights in the new Iraq constitution, nevertheless some secular former bathees "such as Mr. Salih Almutlak and Mr. Hamdoon" and for political reasons put the deman of having Islam as the ONLY source as their priority. So I was refering to this as example that we might ran into some what claim secularity calling for religious domination.


Please let me know how the above is complying with your generic statement that you try to put on my mouth?


Persuing on this style of profiling, you also went with my assesment that the situation is DIFFERENT to put it as saying Islam is superiour! As some Islamist fans usually go for.




Difference doesn't mean better, may be worse!


Please reread my comment and don't reflect your personal experiences with others on my points ..







From: ala



Here we go again another bankrupt arguement "every secular in Iraq is Bathee, what about the Kurds?"....Safaa...not every secular is Bathee and not every religious is mullah and we are not discussiong your prediction of my response or Tahir's response as you said at the start of your last reply; your predictions doesn't validate your arguement which to honest with you is not clear to me.

In the below response you refered to the roots of the problem regarding Islam and I would like to reiterate my perception of the roots of the problems: the roots of the problem are the attempts of muslims to portray islam as a complete socio-economic system that doesn't need any reformation to meet the needs of modern demands of human rights. Muslims' portrayal of Islam in this way (islam is the only complete socio-econmic set of regulatory system) implies that Islam is superior in its dealing with social, legal and economic problems. This claim can not be true because human societies have developed more adavanced social and economical and legal regulatory set of rules and regulations.


Now...if you mean by the root of the problems is to get the Iraqi society into better position, economically speaking, before talking about Islam as a dominant force then I would say this is right and this we need to do, but you know that the nature of the political beast, people are suspicious of the dominance of religous groups as well as the possible dominance of other political groups. Take the 1979 iranian revolution, at the start every Iranian was excited about it, but a couple of years after the revolution Khomaini higjacked and then dominated the poltical arena and eliminated all liberal forces. In Iraq people feels the same, and all this happening due to lack of democractic values in our culture whether it is Iranian or arabic. Bearing this in mind, our culture is one dimensional meaning: when arabs abandoned arab nationalism it has been replaced by acute islamism as an alterantive but not to think of fairer system for everyone, i.e.


democray supporting a wide range of human rights. We have deeply-rooted cultural difficulties with human rights and democracy, we shouldn't forget that....Salam Ala




From Safa :



>As for the “forbidden” comparison, promoted by most Muslims, of Islam and Christianity or other religions what one can say that it is a typical example of placing Islam in a superior position to other religions


Indeed that what I expected as how to recieve my call. That is from Tahir reply and from above.

Please reread my comment more carefully. What I am saying is completely the other way.

I didn't say it is superrior, I said the situation is different. What I am saying that it is too premitive to compare two different idendities. The role of Islam in the islamic societies is not a religious only, as the case with Christianity. If we want to deal with islamic corruption and control on people , we have to deal with the roots. The first is to get peole into better position to demand the change.

Look to what is happening in Iraq today, the constitution is calling for a balanced role of Islam and human rights , the main opposition to this vision were comming from SECULAR baathees not from religious groups even the most idiotic Sadrees!!








From: ala

Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:17:55 +0100 (BST)




Safaa…..I can see a glimpse of the essence of your argument, but what I can say is that people are pushing toward making Islam a complete and ideal religion if it is left on shelves without any implementation because if implemented then the corrupted mind of human will defile it. And whenever the history tells us of bad Islamic implementations people start justifying those historical deeds as man-made mistakes of the implementation of Islam.




As for the “forbidden” comparison, promoted by most Muslims, of Islam and Christianity or other religions what one can say that it is a typical example of placing Islam in a superior position to other religions. The superior position stems from Muslims’ belief that Islam must be the last religion on earth and denying other religions from being equal to it. The same argument is applied when Muslims claim the superiority of Islam via it’s completeness as a socio-economical system. One can argue that having trivial marriage, divorce, heritages and other trivial social regulations coupled with very simple taxing systems such as Zakat, Khums, Gizya, Kharaj economical regulations doesn’t make Islam a complete and an irresistible socio-economical system for modern societies…..Salam Ala




From Safaa :



I think you are mixing two different things. Religion and politics.


Islam and Christianity , just like any other idiology were hijacked by some one. That is happening to any idiology.. Communism, nationalism, globalization, etc..


I agree with you that Islam was hijacked by Khalif rulers through Islamic history. I think the issue with Islam is different than Christianity though both of them got into a corrupted model as you said.


In order for us to deal and analyse better, we need to get into the devil details. Today some one might raise the slogan that we should go same way as westrn civilization did by expelling Islam from controlling our lifes. This is for me a very legitimate call. But how.


Same people don't realise the difference.


Christianity was the make of the state , also westrn society had went into the industrial revolution before get into this.


The first factor , made it much easier in the christianity case. As christianity had nothing to do with people economic life and social relations.


The second factor brough a great fuel to such demand through liberating people from the agriculture mentality and dynamics.




Both factors might be different in our case and we need to find OUR ways to get through









From: Tahir

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:41:22 -0700 (PDT)




I hate to interject here but i could not resist the temptation.

In my opinion, both Islam and christianity evolved into corrupt

entities, as for christinaity until this centurey was a deceitful alliance between

Cesars, Kings etc and the POPE or his subordinates.

In Islam this power is all concentarated in the hand of the Corrupt Kalif using religion as

the main source of power to manupulate and govern.


Whoever said absolute power corrupts abolutely! is absolutely correct.

even Quran condemned the kings and "kalifs".


All along history we read tell tales of High spiritual believes and values

If applied this world would be completely different, but history and experience

tells us It is not these ideals that are wrong or bad , it is the same people who manupulate and get manupulated using the ideals as a source of attraction

to accomplish their goals counting on peoples instincts seeking instant gratification.












From Safaa :



First of all I fully agree with some of your points specially the call to reread Islam under the new human rights current development. I don't agree with your comparison of Islam with Christianity though..


What Islam ,as religion, had been developed into made it completely different than what Christianity had been developed to. Islam is not a religion as per the westren definition.. I think Ilam iis more like a set of social-economic rules based on some specific religious bases. While Chiristianity is more a reliogios beliefs that was based on on some specific culture bases.There is no such thing as Sharia Ahkam"personal conduct ruls" in christianity that deals with people politics and interfere with their economic matters..


I think this is because of the style of developemnt that each one ran under. Islam teachings had created a state, while current Christianity had beed managed by state " I mean the Roman".


There is no such position in Islam as the Cathlic Pop, there even no such thing in Islam as religious man as the case with christian clerics institution sacred members. Mosque in Islam has nothing to do with blessing fellowers as the case with Christian paptism.


From all above applying Christianity development into a pure religious identity might not be correct for islam.







From: ala

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:25:11 +0100 (BST)




Safaa...We know very well that Hilter had used all means and venues to win power during the 20s and 30s great economic depression, and from his speeches he referred to this issue. However I am not trying to prove the opposite but to say that you may have a point in suggesting that people would associate themselves with a particular religion of political creed for their own reasons but not believing in that religion or political creed.




The points I am making are:


Christianity is dead in terms of having influence on western political machine as it used to have during the dark ages. That is because of the relative success of liberal democracies in the West. Liberal democratic constitutions prevented and still prevent Christianity dominating again.

Christianity had its cruel punishments for sinful deeds and crime during those dark ages, but it has no power nowadays to promote or implement those cruel punishments.

Islam via Prophet Muhammad’s hadith and Quranic text has a set of anti-human right cruel punishments for sinful deeds but as it stand now it tries to recreate what Christianity created centuries ago. Unless Islam finds its way out of such attempts it will die as Christianity did. We need a fresh breath in Islam and our thinking of building Islamic states that would a model of cruelty.

I learned that Ayat Ulah Fadel Allah has been attempting to modernise Islamic jurisprudences. And even at some point some radical Muslim issue “Takfeer” against him because he tries to bridge the gap between human rights and cruelty of Sharia.

I see your point of separating Islam from who use Islam as Bakri or others doing, but we know that Islamic Sharia has to be reformed in whatever way………….Salam Ala



From Safaa:



I am not a Hitler's specifics caring but have a look to this.. Hitler might not be a Christian fan, as Mr. Bakri do with Arabism.. The current Pop was accused of joining Nazi org when yought.. That might give some hints.. Also the german church was accused of supporting hiutler is his compaign against jews! that what I heard , may be a conspiracy by Weakened Jews!








Yes weakness extends to every aspect, that is why women have great role in the early islamic earas, such as Khdija, Aesha , Fatima and Zianab.. While women are still struggle in gulf to get driving liecens..!!







From: ala

Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:33:26 +0100 (BST)




I didn't know that Hilter had some association with Christianity. Can you give me some reference for such interesting theme please? This could mean a lot to many people.

Yes I agree that weakened communities or nations fabricate and propagate conspiries more dominant ones, but we shouldn't forget an important question beyond point of weakness: how weak nations such arab and muslim nations are not taking responsibility for their own mess and keep blaming the rest of the world for there misery (dictatorships, oppression of women, anit human rights religious and non-religious practices, deeply seated racism....etc)?...Salam Ala.




From Safaa :





Have a look to Hitler ties to Christianity..


Seems you agreed with me that Conspiracy is related to weakened communities. So Arab during their dominance were not believing it it. While now , conspiracy is their breed and dring!







From: ala

Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:09:49 +0100 (BST)




For Hilter, the only reason we cannot call him Christian terrorist is that he didn't propagate Christian values but fascist values, therefore we can call German fascist or German terrorist if you like.


As for the conspiracy theories and its existence during Muslims colonisation I can only say that when a particular culture dominates then the dominated nations are more likely to generate conspiracy theories and not the domineering nations. Therefore we need to examine the history of the dominated nations and not the domineering ones which propagate its cultural values.


It is less likely that we find evidence from the Muslims' colonisation history to endorse the existence of conspiracy theories because they wouldn't provide evidence that may affect their colonisation to other countries.


As for the American media I don't know what they call those terrorists in Iraq, I personally call them Iraqi Muslim terrorists or Arab Muslim terrorists. I think we shouldn't be fearful of identifying terrorist religion and race; we need be open and not to take such naming as an offence because we share some elements (e.g. religious or cultural) of our identity with them....Salam Ala




Safaa Hasan <safahas@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes you can , you can call Hitler a christian german too!


It is defensive to clear things. Media is a powerful tool to draw backgrounds.. Can you tell me why the libral US media never call Qaeda operatives in Iraq as terrorists, while their cousins in England or US are labeled as such.




Read through the Islamic domination era litriture , you never see such conspiracy theory..











From: ala Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 09:24:06 +0100 (BST)




Ok...call him muslim arab terrorist like Irish terrorist. We should be fearful of refering to such people by their religion or race. If we do then we get into an irrational defensive mode.



Now...I am not sure what you mean by "To prove my point , I don't find any such backgrounds in Muslim Arb litrature in the great Islamic impire eras".....Salam Ala






From Safaa :

Bakri is calling to kill Shia Moslim Arab and Suffi Sunni Moslims too. Why you call him as Muslim Arab?


Better to call him a terrorist,, terrorists have no race or religion but a killing cult..


I agrre with you on the consipiracy theory issue inside Arab-Moslims backgrounds of thoughts. I root this to the natural behaviour of weakend communities. I noticed such think among Balcks in US too and some small communities. To prove my point , I don't find any such backgrounds in Muslim Arb litrature in the great Islamic impire eras..









From: ala


Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:40:34 +0100 (BST)




Bakri is a Syrian Muslim cleric based in Briton who allowed clever Jewish journalist to interview him and documents his radical Islamic thoughts that was ten years ago. Last night the smart journalist show Bakri’s documentary on TV demonstrating the stupidity of a Muslim Arab. This particular example tells us why all Muslim Arabs believe in the conspiracy theories which suggest that there is a Jewish and western conspiracy against them. What Muslim Arabs don’t tell is their stupidity in dealing with situation. There are many similar examples which are interpreted as a western Jewish conspiracies or the strong Jewish lobbying within the American political machine. But the reality is that Muslim Arabs are not capable, as their dictatorships, to work smartly with global politics. Their focus is to produce rotten dictatorships for a rotten social makeup.




Bakri was caught on camera declaring war on the West and suggesting an Islamic domination of the West. At some point he said “it is not necessary to convert all western people but it is necessary that people of this county live under Islamic Briton where Islamic laws are fully implemented”. The most important question is “Does he advocate culture or Islam?” The reason I pose this question is that most Muslim when asked about an Islamic backward practices they refer such backward practices to culture and not religion. One must ask them about the intermingled relationship between religion and culture. Or mention how much Islam has adopted tribal values to maintain its leading position during Prophet Muhammad and how much is still embedded in Muslims’ cultures.




Six weeks ago Bakri escaped London and left to Lebanon hiding in his mum’s home. What a waste he is!! What happened to the huf puf of Islamic revolution? But then Muslim Arabs have the same pattern of behaviour when it comes to solid collision politics. As I said before of my friend who praised Ibn Khaldoon without knowing what Ibn Khaldoon has to done to human….salam…Ala

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
Guest free interpretation an oxymorone

interpretation is the process of backing out the intended meaning from text. Interpretation then shoudl be a system of consistent rules that aid the process of understanding. If one says free to itnerpret meaning have a free hand to see the text in any light, then they are outside the bounds of textual anlysis or Jurisprudence. The two branches of study deidcated to understanding text. The interpretation of any text in the absence of its author needs such rules. These rules prevent the prism through which we see the world from baising our interpretation of the text to the point where the text is completely wiped out and a complete reassignment of meamning to words follow from what might be described as "free to interpret"approach.

Incidentaly I wrote a book on Quranic interpretation. It should be coming out soon. It is called the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interpretation is the process of backing out the intended meaning from text. Interpretation then shoudl be a system of consistent rules that aid the process of understanding. If one says free to itnerpret meaning have a free hand to see the text in any light, then they are outside the bounds of textual anlysis or Jurisprudence. The two branches of study deidcated to understanding text. The interpretation of any text in the absence of its author needs such rules. These rules prevent the prism through which we see the world from baising our interpretation of the text to the point where the text is completely wiped out and a complete reassignment of meamning to words follow from what might be described as "free to interpret"approach.

Incidentaly I wrote a book on Quranic interpretation. It should be coming out soon. It is called the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear All: My inerest in religion has lead to find things that are very interesting. I would like to tell you that my discussion are for the sake of the ruth they are not propaganda of any sort. If you can prove me wrong you are more than wlecome to do so and i will change my article. IF you hcan add to my list or take a bullet point I have nto compelted please let me know.

Sunat Alshaikhain



This historical analysis that shows why the Shia are called Shia and why the Sunnah are called Sunnah. Some have saying the Shia were not present at thetime of the prophet, or that they are a political movement, this maybe a dimension to their existence but I show a moment in history where the divergence between Sunnah and Shia became apparent.


This is an analysis of one of the pivotal moments of Islamic History. Here we are at a session of 5 people to decide who the next caliph after Omar. It is quite an interesting set up. There is a vote and a tie breaker and correct me if I am wrong, the tie breaker is Abu Obeida Amer Ibn Aljarah. The story has it that Omar had devised this system to choose between two people Othman or Ali. When a tie was struck abu obeida chooses using the following question:


“I will choose you if you abide by the kitab(Ordinance)of Allah and the Sunnah(precedence) of the prophet and Sunnah of Alshaikhain.(the precedence of the two sheiks, meaning abu bakr and Omar)”


Ali lost the tie breaker because he said:” I will follow the kitab(Ordinance)of Allah and the Sunnah(precedence) of the prophet and I will do my best to give my opinion.”


Here are some problems I have with this whole set up:


There seems to be some precedence of Omar and Abu baker that has been recognized as a separate body of knowledge. It also is evident that it was a point of departure because it was upon it that the caliph was chosen. In this article I would like to discuss some aspects that have unsettled me about this juncture of Islamic History. Before I start I would like to clarify that:




Proposition 1: The precedence of the sheiks is common law that is consistent with the Quran and prophet’s precedent and only expands on it.


Under proposition one, there is no problem. If one can not find a counter example to this then SUNNAT ALSHAIKHAIN would be simply consisitent with the follwing Hadith:


“upon you my sunnah and the Sunnah of the caliphs the knowing , the guided ones after me.”


Certainly it follows that the ruling of the Quran and prophet himself can not be cancelled this is also by Quranic ordinance :”He does not speak out of the air, it is inspired to him.” Then, we are prepared to accept SUNNAT ALSHAIKHAIN under two conditions:


• They are the guided caliphs the Hadith mentions.(The shia dispute this)

• Their Sunnah does not defy the Quran or the prophet’s Sunnah

Let us assume for a moment that the hadith meant Abu Bakr and Omar are the caliphs mentioned two questions come to mind:


• Is their Sunnah binding religiously or is it simply legal precedence for running the empire. In other words, is this their precedent as heads of state or is it their Sunnah as spiritual leaders?

• If it is only their precedent as heads of state, would it still be binding till today?


Let us ignore these Questions and try to give examples of this body of rulings given by Abubakir and Omar or Alahikhain:


In a lecture by Shiakh Ahmad Yamani, he sites 12 instances where Omar clearly gives a different ruling than that of the Quran and the prophets Sunnah. He claims that these are the basis of a school of thought known as the intentions of the sharia wherein the legistlature attempts to identify the intention of Allah’s ruling and is then able to alter the ruling if the new law achieves the same goal. He claims that this is the basis of Alamaliki school of thought.


So a man claims to know divine intention and alters Allah’s ordinance. This blank check is absurd and allows one to cancel the text under any pretence. While it might applicable to human law it is certainly inapplicable to divine ordinance. Because by definition, the divine is better able o legislate. Rosseau Says: ”the process of law making needs a party that understands the human condition yet unaffected by it.” Rosseau said this fully intending that there is no such party.


Instead of identifying and uprooting the 12 instances where Caliph Omar has defied the Quran and Sunnah, it has been made as an excuse to establish a school of thought to do the same. While Caliph Omar may have acted as a head of state and not a religious authority, under which some of his actions may be sanctioned, a school of jurisprudence based on such aberrations may prove very dangerous. One of the founding fathers(I think Jefferson) said: We must not have all the freedoms to interpret the constitution as to render it blank.


Here is an example of Omar and Abu Bakir possibly acting as heads of state wherein they alter the prophet’s sunnah. Remember that Abu baker became a caliph under the claim that the prophet never named a successor, yet Abu baker named Omar how said in his inaugural speech:”Oh yeah people I have been appointed upon you and I am not the best of you…” This of course means that even though Abu Bakr was voted in and the prophet never named a successor, Abu bakr did. Giving an example of SUNNAT ALSHAIKHAIN.


Another example, is Omar’s complicated system which brought about this inquiry. If the prophet named no successor, an Abu Bakr did, then Omar defied both by appointing an electoral college with a tie breaker. This is then a departure from both the prophet’s precedence and Abu Bakr’s precedence. As I said before, these may not be counted as SUNNAT ALSHAIKHAIN because they might be actions as heads of state not as the guided caliph’s the prophet referred to in his above hadith.


It seems though that there is a group of people who have taken the position that there is no difference between what the caliphs do as heads of state and what they as the prophet’s companion’s. Then SUNNAT ALSHAIKHAIN becomes a body of precedence that cancels either the prophet’s sunnah or the Quran. This frustration of those who opposed recognizing superseding authority to this new body of precedents that defy the Quran and the Sunnah is apparent in Ibn Abbas’s exclamation:” The sky is about to be torn and the earth shakes when I tell you said Allah and said the messenger and you reply to me said Abu Bakr and said Omar.”


It is obvious that this was a point of disagreement between those who follow the SUNNAT ALSHAIKHAIN and those who support Ali’s rejection of canonizing it. The latter were called shia ali those who support Ali’s position. Those who support SUNNAT ALSHAIKHAIN , were called ahlu ilsunnah. What is the Sunnah of shiakahin, and who are those who supported Ali position of its rejection.


An important point, I do not thin that the Abu Bakr and Omar meant to change their beloved religion. Abu bBakr and Omar would mean to defy the prophet’s rulings unless it was what they saw fit as heads of state. Similarly Ali would not have allowed them to change the religion or claim any religious authority. In a speech by Ali he says that both Abu Bakr and Omar did their best to do the best. So people should know that I am not attacking the two caliphs. So what are these departures I know a few but please let me know if you know of an exhaustive list:


Abu Sufian comes to Omar and says give me the money of ilmulafatu Qulubhum. Omar says Allah has elevated Islam. Abu Sufyan says in the Quran this is written and Mohamad gave me it and Abu Bakr gave me it. Omar refused.


The prophet refused to price things for them. People come to Omar to price goods for them he did.


Omar said: Two the prophet allowed and I prevent: the muta’at alhaj and tawaf alnisaa.


Omar prevented bin Thabit from reciting poetry in the prophet’s masjid. Bin Thabit says stay away from ya Omar I have recited here when there was someone better than you here(the prophet).



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...



For many Muslims who read this article, the only comment might be "what is new ! most muslims believe that violance and terror is not related to Islam.

However they way this article making the issue as an islamic one and this lady is trying to cleans the moslim sosciety from that deseas..

I might not need to confirm for most muslims, terror theology and teachings is planted by the west and encouraged during the Afghan war , that plantation found it's nurturing environment in the salafee teachings and through directing the upset of muslims youth toward what look at as unjustice.

aLJEZERA IS DOING nothing here but to emphasis that the terrorist clergy are the face of Islam , ignoring the main stream islamic shool teachings in Najaf and Alazar ..!


I think the right way to fight the terrror is to isolate it's teachings and not to mix papers up. the refrence to Jews here is really unfortunate beacuse it is so easy to accuse a person of being pro Zionist. The argument is not logic for most Muslims. They knows what had heppened to a whole nation of palestinians under the umberalla of Jews sufferings.


The reference might be more effective by reminding those dstorted muslims to what other muslims had done .. remind them of Early Khlaeefs, of the prophet ,of all great messages in Qoran that teachs " killing of one innocent person is as bad as killing all humanity, saving one is as good as saving all".

She need to remind them of the great Ali's say " People are of two kinds. Either your brother in faith, or your brother in creation"!




For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats



Published: March 11, 2006

LOS ANGELES, March 10 — Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.


Dr. Wafa Sultan on Al Jazeera (memritv.org) Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.


In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.


She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.


Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.


In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.


"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.


Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words: "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."


Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."


She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."


She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."


Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We have been discussing with her the importance of her message and trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the organization.


She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported.



DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that — if it is published — it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."


"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."


The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."


Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.


But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.


"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...




In Arabic.. An arab writer is writting on very funny intersting fatwa That brohibt having statues at homes.. The most surprising is that this fatwa is not comming from Iran or Suadi Arabia, it is by The head of religous authorities in Eygipt "A government organization", Dr, Ali Jumaa.

The title was "Be a ware the talaban arrived Cairo"


انتبهوا: وصلت طالبان إلى القاهرة!!

GMT 11:15:00 2006 الإثنين 3 أبريل

د أحمد أبو مطر







الحالة التي تمر بها الشعوب العربية فعلا (لا تسرّ صديقا ولا تغيظ عدوا)، ويسهم في ضبابية هذه الحالة تدفق الفتاوي من شيوخ الدين الإسلامي، التي تتعلق بكافة جوانب حياة المواطن المسلم بما فيها أدق التفاصيل التي لا تمسّ روح الدين الإسلامي ولا أساسيات الإيمان الحقيقي، ويزداد الأمر صعوبة وخلطا عند المواطن العادي بسبب شيوع الأمية التعليمية والدينية، حيث ترتفع نسبة الأمية التعليمية في عموم الأقطار العربية إلى ما يزيد على خمسة وستين في المائة حسب تقارير التنمية البشرية العربية التي أعدها خبراء و مختصون عرب، وكذلك بسبب ما يمكن تسميته (الفتوى والفتوى المضادة)، إذ من النادر أن تصدر فتوى من شيخ دون فتوى مضادة من شيخ آخر، وبالتالي ماذا يفعل المسلم العادي وأية فتوى يتبع ؟؟. وضمن هذا السياق أصدر مفتي مصر الدكتور علي جمعة قبل أيام قليلة فتوى حملت الرقم 68، حرّم فيها تزيين المنازل بالتماثيل، واستند في ذلك إلى حديث الرسول (ص) الذي رواه أبو طلحة: (لا تدخل الملائكة بيتا فيه كلب ولا صورة)، وحديث آخر رواه ابن مسعود (إن أشدّ الناس عذابا يوم القيامة المصورون). وقد أثارت هذه الفتوى جدلا واسعا خاصة في الأوساط الثقافية والصحافة المصرية، شارك في هذا الجدل عدد كبير من الكتاب والمثقفين والفنانين، خاصة أن الصحفي المصري سعد هجرس، طلب من المفتي رأيه في موقف ابنته المتزوجة من نحات، فأجابه: (لا تطلق ابنتك من زوجها وساير العصر)، دون أن يبين المفتي هل مسايرة العصر تنطبق أيضا على التماثيل التي يصنعها زوجها النحات، وإن كان ذلك فلماذا أصدر الفتوى أساسا ليحدث كل هذه البلبلة والخلاف ؟

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Free Muslims Condemn Cab Drivers Who Refuse to Pickup Passengers with Alcoholic



By Kamal Nawash


The Free Muslims Coalition, a national Muslims organization, condemns Muslim cab


who refuse to pick up passengers who carry alcoholic beverages.


Recently a dispute arose over a large number of Somali taxi cabdrivers at the

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who are refusing to take passengers

who carry

wine or alcoholic beverages. These drivers are claiming that Islam prohibits

them from

driving passengers with alcohol. The cab drivers also asked dispatchers not to


them to pick up passengers heading to liquor stores and bars.


The drivers, whose beliefs are not shared by most Muslims, say the airport


accommodate a deeply held religious tenet. Others say the Muslims are


against people of other faiths and attempting to impose Islamic law on



For two years the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which regulates taxi service

at the

airport, had been in discussions with cab drivers about how to accommodate them.


commission said it had agreed to let cabbies use lights on top of the cabs to


drivers who won't transport alcohol so airport employees could direct passengers


alcohol to a willing driver.


However, the proposal created a public backlash by non-Muslims and Muslims who


agree with the cab drivers. Consequently, the commission rejected the proposal.


means those drivers who will not transport alcohol must go to the back of the

taxi line

which can force a cabbie to wait another three hours for a fare.


Most Muslims don’t agree that cab drivers are prohibited from transporting


Islam merely prohibits Muslims from drinking alcohol and those drivers are

seeking to

impose their religious values on others. The Free Muslims Coalition is

disgusted by

their behavior.


When the cab drivers chose to drive a cab they interred into an agreement to

perform a

public service that is essential to the economy of any city. They have no right


refuse a fare because the passenger is holding a bottle of wine or other



The Free Muslims Coalition believes that the cab drivers should be banned all


from picking up passengers at the airport and we would even support the

cancellation of

their taxi permits.


These Somali drivers are choosing to impose a minority view in Islam on the


population and this is simply unacceptable.


Please respond to this article by posting your comments in our Free Speech Zone




Please support the Free Muslims by making a contribution at:



For more information, visit our website at www.freemuslims.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...