PDA

View Full Version : The 'Real' Islam


SF-TX
03-29-2010, 08:57
The 'Real' Islam
Sunday, 28 March 2010 04:36 Arslan Shaukat

Islamists under various labels are trying to sell Islam to ignorant Western non-Muslims as a moderate, peaceful creed. But there is only one Islam, manifesting the life of Muhammad and commandments of the Quran, and there is nothing peaceful or moderate in it. This clever ploy of the taqiyah-tactician Islamists must be exposed, if we are fight Islam effectively...

Presently, the world at large is witnessing a rise in resistance against Islam and Islamism. The battleground has largely been the World Wide Web (WWW). Websites like Faithfreedom.org, Islam watch, and Jihad watch, have proven to be fantastic platforms for liberalists, anti-Islamists, and ex-Muslims to express their convictions about Islam. Also, a handful of people like Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Geert Wilders, Ayan Hisri Ali, and Robert Spencer have effectively utilized international news and print media to express their highly critical convictions about Islam. But, undoubtedly, it has been the WWW that has served as the best platform.

Simultaneously, the Islamic Ummah has gauged this challenge and is busy, more than ever, to discredit, refute, challenge and suppress the elements that are a threat to Islamic theology and its status quo. We are, indeed, witnessing an ideological war between atheists, ex-Muslims, and anti-islamists on one side and Muslim apologists, scholars and the Muslim Ummah on the other. Unsurprisingly, this war quite often turns violent and bloody (i.e. murder of Theo-van-goh, the teddy bear affair, Danish cartoons and attack on Kurt Westergaard, murder of Fanish Masih and incarceration of Imran Masih etc.).

Now, the bulk of debate between anti-Islamists and their Islamist counterparts revolves around a singular issue: What is 'real Islam’? The debate always becomes about the 'real' Islam. When all is said and done, there is only one question: what is real Islam?

I am of the view that using the word ‘real Islam’ in itself is problematic, but for the sake of brevity, I will use two terms to show two views of Islam: ‘real’ and ‘moderate’ Islam.

The ‘real ‘Islam

A set of beliefs or an ideology can be said to be “real”, if it mirrors the original and unadulterated aspirations, convictions, and teaching of its founder. This much all of us can understand. Islam can be said to be 'real' only when it is a manifestation of the teachings of Muhammad, the Quran, and the Hadith.

Thus, ‘real’ Islam is what is stated in the Quran. The ‘real’ Islam is what Muhammad did and said. The real Islam is what is in the authentic Hadiths.

Within the context of ‘real Islam’ as defined above, what are some of its features and characteristics? To go through the entire Islamic doctrine will be impossible in a single article, so I will just concentrate on one aspect of ‘real Islam’ and one key issue: Is Islam religion of peace or religion of war?

Quran

Even a cursory study of the Quran makes it abundantly clear that Islam promotes war and bloodshed.

It orders the believers to wage war.

Quran 9:111: “Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth.'

Quran 49:15: Only those are Believers who have believed in God and His Apostle, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of God: Such are the sincere ones.'

Quran also makes it clear that the nonbelievers are the worst of creatures.

Quran 98:6: “Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikoon will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Quran makes it abundantly clear that Islam must prevail over all other theological systems which are considered false and against the will of Allah.

Quran 61.9: “It is He (Allah) who sent His messenger (Muhammad) with the guidance and the true religion (Islam), in order that it may prevail and triumph over all religions, much to the dislike of the idolaters.”

I have quoted these verses specifically to make it clear that ‘real’ Islam has no intention, whatsoever, to be a peaceful, moderate or a docile religion.

Muhammad

Now let's have a glimpse of a few deeds of Muhammad.

Muhammad, the inventor of Islam was involved in wars, both defensive and offensive. He actively took part in many of them i.e. Badr, Khandaq, Uhud etc. He decimated many a Jewish tribes of Medina i.e. Nadir, Qanuqah, and of course, the genocide of Banu Quraizah was a direct consequence of what Muhammad desired (Life of Mahomet, William Muir).

He broke treaties, looted, massacred with no regards to human rights, compassion or fairness. He took many wives and even raped women captured in these raids. Muhammad gave Muslim men the license to enjoy women captured in wars as many as they can capture or afford to buy, even if they (the captive women) are already married to someone else (Q 4:3; 4:24).

There is hardly anything peaceful or moral about Muhammad's life and what he did or said. Although Muhammadan and post-Muhammadan Islamic history is filled with treacherous and violent episodes of bloodshed, wars and genocide, for the present article, the above few quotations from the Quran and titbits from the life of Muhammad will suffice. These incidents are historical facts recorded in authentic hadiths included in Sahih Bukhari etc.

It’s very easy to conclude that the ‘real’ Islam is a vile ideology soaked with blood, war, lust and greed. It is an all-encompassing dogma that shackles its subjects in a perpetual state of frenzied delusion about the grandeurs of heaven that they will get if they wage war against the infidels. Islam is war. And Muhammad was a warrior (and a very successful one).

Motion of Islam of Muslims and Islamic apologists

It is unfortunate that politicians, scholars, state heads and news & print media seems to have ignored the historical and factual Islam altogether. Instead, we are bombarded with statements such as:

1. ‘Islam is a religion of peace.’

2. ‘Some evil people have hijacked Islam for their own benefits.’

3. ‘Islam encourages brotherhood, coexistence and mutual understanding among all human beings’, and so on.

Also, Muslims and Islamic apologists are busier than ever in proclaiming that Islam is a religion of peace and Muhammad is the best ‘role model’. Of course, their claims are rubbish.

What Islamists are trying to accomplish is forward the idea that there is somehow an Islam that is moderate, enlightened, peaceful and brotherly. They call it the ‘moderate Islam’. Now, manifestly, and as shown in the preceding sections, all such notions about Islam are utterly false.

But how come Islamic apologists can lie so blatantly and unabashedly about Islam. How is it possible that they construe Islam in such a diametrically different manner than what it actually is?

There are a number of reasons:

1. Muslim apologists lie. They do taqiyaah.
2. They are themselves somehow deluded about the real nature of Islam.
3. Islamists are well aware that when a lie if repeated often enough, it can turn into a truth. They are also well aware that, in order to promote their religion, they are allowed to use any means necessary that includes propagandizing the notion of a peaceful and moderate Islam.
4. The Muslim apologists, who came to the West, have accepted many of the liberal and democratic values and sociocultural norms of the West, and they conceive Islam form a uniquely Western perspective. In other words, they themselves have become adulterated with Western ethos and values. This adulteration in turn gets mixed with their conception of what Islam is. And this gives rise to their misplaced notion of ‘moderate Islam’ and belief in the notion of ‘moderate Islam’.

The correct approach to the debate of ‘real’ and ‘moderate’ Islam

Although it’s not completely wrong to use the term ‘real Islam’ as the term stresses the importance of going to the source of Islamic theology (and that is the Quran and the life of Muhammad.) However, it would be better simply to call Islam Islam; nothing more, nothing less. And by Islam, it is to be understood that it is a manifestation of the Quran and Muhammad.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam’. There is just Islam. Islam is inherently not moderate as shown in the previous sections. Islam is a dogma that strives to perpetuate itself through war, terror and subjugation. Islam, when established within a society, becomes the law and encompasses every aspect of the society. And an Islamic society like that of Pakistan, Iran etc. are not moderate in any manner or form. The routine killing, lynching, and burning of blasphemers (in case of Pakistan) are a small example of how Islamic societies actually operate.

‘Moderate Islam’ is a deluded concept concocted by Islamists to fool the masses.

There is no moderation in Islam. There is just Islam in Islam.

What must be done?

Islamists are busy fooling the masses with their rhetoric of a peaceful and moderate Islam. Their attempts should be exposed and stalled. Islam must not be given any chance to be accepted as ‘just another religion’. We, the atheists and anti-islamists must defeat this notion of moderate Islam. The fallacy of the concept of Islam being moderate can be very easy and conveniently exposed by simply stating the historical and Quranic facts.

It’s very important that ex-Muslims, anti-islamists, and atheists squarely challenge this notion of ‘moderate Islam’.

http://www.islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=386:real-islam&catid=105:arslan&Itemid=58

Voronov
06-07-2010, 19:30
If there isn't anything else I admire and hold true to in a quiet professional, it's the ability to take a widely accepted idea, and question it. I remember being one of those who were uninformed and just went along with everything that Fox News threw at me, due to the fact that I didn't know anything about the information provided, and I didn't care to be quite honest.

Actually, I recall a conversation with my old mentor/hero ssg who I had always relied on to "show me the ropes" before I signed my contract in which we discussed his attitude towards Islam. We had been waiting to sign some papers in a government office, and someone with the traditional Islamic stereotype attire sat beside us. Upon leaving, the SSG said "Seeing people like that infuriates me ever since serving..." I asked him why, still under the impression that only Al Queda were the only "bad" muslims. His response was, "well... let's put it this way. No one who didn't believe in Islam under my knowledge has shot a gun at me over there before..."

Well, my Fox News brainwashed mind :rolleyes: did some research and heavy thinking and I came to a conclusion that he's right.

Islam is a cult-like religion that encourages its members to participate in the "shunning of the non-believers" and I think I can stand for all of us when I say that we don't stand for this type of thinking.

T-Rock
06-07-2010, 21:12
Islamists under various labels are trying to sell Islam to ignorant Western non-Muslims as a moderate, peaceful creed.

But how come Islamic apologists can lie so blatantly and unabashedly about Islam. How is it possible that they construe Islam in such a diametrically different manner than what it actually is?

There are a number of reasons:

1. Muslim apologists lie. They do taqiyaah.
2. They are themselves somehow deluded about the real nature of Islam.
3. Islamists are well aware that when a lie if repeated often enough, it can turn into a truth. They are also well aware that, in order to promote their religion, they are allowed to use any means necessary that includes propagandizing the notion of a peaceful and moderate Islam.
4. The Muslim apologists, who came to the West, have accepted many of the liberal and democratic values and sociocultural norms of the West, and they conceive Islam form a uniquely Western perspective. In other words, they themselves have become adulterated with Western ethos and values. This adulteration in turn gets mixed with their conception of what Islam is. And this gives rise to their misplaced notion of ‘moderate Islam’ and belief in the notion of ‘moderate Islam’.

What really chaps my behind is when representatives from CAIR and such get on the tube, and practise al-Taqiyya to satisfy an agenda - as in this interview with Ahmed Soliman ( 2:20 - 2:31 ):> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayM7sE9LNJk&feature=related

And openly quote Surah 5 Verse 32 for western consumption, totally ripping out of context verse 32 which says: "...whosoever killeth a human being (innocent person) for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one (innocent person), it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." - failing to mention that the Kafir, and ALL non-Muslims are GUILTY - all the while leaving off Sura 5:33 entirely - which states: "The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..." (5:33)

The first part, Sura 5:32 sounds like a prohibition against murdering any innocent human being, but the second part, Sura 5:33, permits the killing of Jews and non-Muslims under many circumstances, one of which is Kufr aka unbelief - so what does Islamic Sharia say?

* Kafir - practitioner of Kufr
* Kufr - Unbelief / infidelity
* Apostate - One who denies the ultimate truth of Islam.
* Apostacy - The act of any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, and leaves the faith.

c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment...

(3) and unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and neccessitate stating the Testification of faith (Shahada)...

o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595)

o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed

o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one therby immediately commits unbelief:

(15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent:


(19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law:

o9.6 (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).

o9.8 The caliph (see above) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) - which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral regions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.

**"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden--who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book--until they pay the poll tax out of hand are humbled"** (Koran 9:29)
(pg 602-603)


(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Pages 30-45, 588-595, 595-610).
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728

If Muslims are allowed to rip passages of the Qur'an out of context to satisfy an agenda, why do apologists and Muslims object when critics of Islam quote passages in context ?