Egyptian Imams more tolerant than Afghanies.

[TteFAboB]

NOT!

The Taliban got rid of those terrible Bhuddas, in the name of a better, more perfect, Afghanistan, based on the same concept:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...pture#comments

Many attempted to destroy the Sphinx before (even if only symbolically), fine, some were just toying with it, like Napoleon, but perhaps it is the will of Mohammad that Muslims shall be the ones to bring the final destruction to the Icon (since the fatwah is based on the Hadith, the interpretation of the teachings of Mohammad). Why don't the European museums return every last Egyptian relic to the hands of these tolerant Muslims so they can finally fulfill the will of Mohammad and destroy them?

It couldn't be more clear:

Keeping of statues: does Shariah recognize concepts like 'heritage belongs to all humanity' in the case of pictures, images and statues, and Taliban.

1) The keeping of statues in museums and other public places?
1. This is not permissible

2) The keeping of statues as objects of worship confined in places of worship by non-muslim minorities?
2. This is permissible as long as it is not exposed to the public.

3) Is it correct to criticize, Darul Islam, if it decides to destroy all pictures, images, statues and carvings? And what is the position of a Muslim's Imaan if he decides to criticize like this?
3. It is the duty of Darul Islam to destroy statues and idols found in public places. One who criticises them may be a Muslim, but has weak Imaan.

4) Can Darul Islam protect statues and such just for the purposes of culture or heritage?
4. 'Culture' and 'heritage' are no valid reasons for allowing idols to be displayed.

5) Does Shariah recognize concepts like 'heritage belongs to all humanity' in the case of pictures, images and statues?
5. Shari'ah does not recognise such concepts with regards to images and statues.

6) Is it correct to take as a valid argument that Amr bin al-'As Radhi allahu anhu did not break statues during his governorship of Egypt, therefore it is wrong for the Taliban to break statues?
6. This argument is incorrect.

7) Lastly, did the Taliban go against Shariah by destroying images and statues in Afghanistan?
7. It was an Islamic duty for the Taliban to have destroyed the statues. This should have been carried out a long time ago.

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...ac779d3f518768

More on it:

Allah Ta?ala has mentioned the incident of Hazrat Ibraaheem Alayhis Salaam breaking the idols a number of times in the Quráan. Ahaadith Narrated Ibn `Abbas (Radiyallahu anhuma): When Allah's Apostle came to Makkah, he refused to enter the Ka`ba with idols in it. He ordered that the idols be taken out). (Bukhari 2.671) Narrated `Abdullah bin Mas`ud (Radiyallahu anhu): The Prophet entered Makkah and (at that time) there were three hundred-and-sixty idols around the Ka`ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: "Truth (Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished." (Bukhari 3.658) It is reported from Abul al-Hayaj al-Asadi who said 'Ali bin Abu Talib (Radiyallahu anhu) told me: "Should I not instruct you to do as the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam instructed me? Do not leave a statue standing without removing it. Do not leave a grave raised without leveling it." (Naylul Awtaar vol.4 pg.83) Hazrat 'Amr b.

'Abasa Sulami (Radiyallahu anhu) reported: (Before becoming a Muslim) I said to Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam: Who are you? He said: I am a Prophet (of Allah). I again said: Who is a Prophet? He said: (I am a Prophet in the sense that) I have been sent by Allah. I said: What is that which you have been sent with? He said: I have been sent to join ties of relationship (with kindness and affection), to break the Idols, and to proclaim the oneness of Allah (in a manner that) nothing is to be associated with Him. (Muslim Book 4, Number 1812 Chapter 142: HOW 'AMR B. 'ABASA EMBRACED ISLAM ) There cannot be anything more abhorrent in Islam than statues and idols. It was one of the primary duties of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam to destroy idols. He was sent for this purpose. He instructed Hazrat Ali (Radiyallahu anhu) not to leave any statue standing. At the very first opportunity, he demolished the idols found in Makkah Mukarramah.

Therefore, any person with a clear mind, unclouded by ramblings of those that deny Allah, can understand that there can be no place whatsoever for idols in Islam. It is the very antithesis of Islam. The very doctrine of the Deen is in diametrical opposition to the keeping of statues and idols. Most unfortunately, some Muslims of weak Imaan have been put into doubt over such a clear-cut issue.

The primary argument presented is that the destruction of idols is offensive to the religious convictions of certain communities. Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. Answer: It is wrong to say that Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. To respect the beliefs of others means to respect kufr and shirk. This is totally unacceptable. Yes, what we do respect is their right to practice their religion. In other words, despite the fact that we intensely abhor their beliefs, should they wish to practice on those beliefs, we will grant them the freedom to do so. This too is on condition that it does not conflict with our interests. As far as our attitude being offensive, well, if the truth be told, the whole of Islam is offensive to some of the kuffaar. Even our kalimah is offensive to the mushrikeen. Our kalima denounces all deities besides Allah Ta?ala as false. This emphatically implies that the gods of the mushrikeen are false. So are we going to abandon our kalima because it is offensive to some of the kuffaar? Certainly not! In the same light there are numerous teachings of Islam which are offensive to one community or the other. Are we then going to discard these teachings merely because someone is offended? Are we then going to court the pleasure of the kuffaar at the expense of earning the displeasure of our Creator Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta?ala? It is obvious that by acting on the law of Allah Ta?ala we will be earning the rebuke of the kuffaar, for Islam and kufr are two diametrically opposed ideologies.

Egypt, Some have claimed that when Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) conquered Egypt, he allowed statues to remain. Hence they are standing till this day, e.g. the sphinx or the thousands of artifacts on view at the Egyptian National Museum. This indicates that we should not interfere with such statues.

Answer: The fact that these statues "are standing today" does not imply that Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) "allowed statues to remain". Almost all the statues found today in Egypt were unearthed in the last century. Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) conquered Egypt in 20 AH. At that time these statues were unknown of, both out of sight and out of mind.

Thus it cannot be claimed that Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) condoned the display of statues. The only statue that may have been in public display would have been the sphinx. But it would have been impractical to destroy such a huge mass of rock. Consider the size of the sphinx. It is about 20 m (66 ft) high and about 73 m (240 ft) long. At that time there were no modern implements, hence it would have been impractical to remove this rock by mere pick and shovel.

The impracticality can be gauged from the fact that French canons could not demolish the sphinx, but only managed to cause some damage. Furthermore, consider the hard facts. Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) strictly enforced the rule of not allowing non-Muslims to display their religious symbols in public. He refused the Christians permission to display the Cross within the city, even if only once a year. Would he then condone the public display of statues? The assumption that he "allowed statues to stand" is in conflict with his general position, a position attested to by many historical facts. Thus the assumption must be dismissed as baseless.

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...93d9ec56960030

During this quick survey, I came across the execution fatwa, a digression perhaps, but a sign of (lack of)tolerance nonetheless:

The religion of Islam is the most perfect and complete religion. The laws of Islam are flawlessly designed by Allah. These laws of Islam are for the benefit and of mankind.

Islam induces unity and always condemns division and sects.

Once a person accepts Islam, he sees its beauty and perfection. If after seeing the beauty of Islam, a Muslim turns away from it, it means he turned away from perfection towards imperfection, disassociating himself from the unity of the Muslims ummah towards a way that is unacceptable by Allah.

Allah always wishes good for His servants. By one accepting Islam, he will be Insha Allah entitled to paradise. However, after accepting Islam, one turns renegade, it means he has become entitled to Jahannam (Hell). This is not what Allah wishes for His servants. To prevent more people from becoming true candidates of the fire of Hell, Allah legislated a deterrent for it, i.e. the law of execution.

This law of executing the renegade is a unanimously accepted rule according to all Muslims.

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...692572bb8082f0

I don't know about you, but that sounds alot like Borg to me, resistance is futile.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thought of that comparison, look what I found on a trivial Google image search for "Muslim Borg":

"The Borg - Islamic Assimilation. A friend of mine pointed out an interesting observation - the fictional bad guys in Star Trek called collectively as "The Borg" has simliar characteristics to radical Islam. This civilization seeks to absorb and assimilate all existing civilizations it comes in contact with. There is no negotiation - resistance is futile [not entirely true, the step before the war is to attempt to extort taxes from the Infidel and send a convertion ultimatum]. I know this comparison is silly - but what the hell. Regular humans are contaminated by the Borg virus - or nano-technology robots thru the bloodstream. Thru this method regular clear thinking humans morph into being one with the Borg and forget all past memories and relationships.

He pointed out that when people embrace Islam - they change their name, appearance and become mindless drones of their new religious "submission". Individuality and creativity is often supressed and frowned upon - and if you are a woman who is a free spirit thinker - fah-get-a-boutit - you can can be killed if you resist "the rules". If you try and leave the Borg - it's an automatic death sentence - that is santioned by "the collective".

I guess the "prime directive" does not apply here."
http://www.jroller.com/page/grego/20040531


The more I research into Islam, the more difficult it appears for one to become a peacefull, cosmopolitan, 21st century-loving/living Muslim, unless he starts ignoring what doesn't taste good, as I suppose most do. You are constantly bombarded with non-sense, and if you dare to raise your voice in Teheran for example, you certainly won't last long, because you become an apostate, and must be executed.

It seems we don't have enough Muslims raising their voices. Words must be spoken, Imams must be refuted and attacked mercilessly untill they are proven to be wrong, or an alternative reading offered to contrast.

The Bible is a wonderfull book (The Roman Catholic, that is, and some ecumenical when picked by hand), you do not have to have any faith in the Christian religion to appreciate its mystics and historical narrative. This book must be defended from insults such as the Bible version from the "theology of freedom", if we are to keep its principles for future generations. I will always participate when possible in any study to refute these Bibles that twist the proper exegesis into a piece of paper without any theological meaning or value.

The same must be done in Islam. If the Imams quoted previously are currently organized and active in their spread of the Dark Ages, then all the Muslims who do not agree with them must also organize and act against their voice.

Where is the contrasting Islam? Where are the refutals? Where is the opposition? Which Imam will prove me Peace can be put above Jihad, instead of being a mere accomplishment to be fulfilled only when there is no more Dar al-Harb to fight with?

I'm waiting.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

During this quick survey, I came across the execution fatwa, a digression perhaps, but a sign of (lack of)tolerance nonetheless:

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...692572bb8082f0

I don't know about you, but that sounds alot like Borg to me, resistance is futile.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thought of that comparison, look what I found on a trivial Google image search for "Muslim Borg":

"The Borg - Islamic Assimilation. A friend of mine pointed out an interesting observation - the fictional bad guys in Star Trek called collectively as "The Borg" has simliar characteristics to radical Islam. This civilization seeks to absorb and assimilate all existing civilizations it comes in contact with. There is no negotiation - resistance is futile [not entirely true, the step before the war is to attempt to extort taxes from the Infidel and send a convertion ultimatum]. I know this comparison is silly - but what the hell. Regular humans are contaminated by the Borg virus - or nano-technology robots thru the bloodstream. Thru this method regular clear thinking humans morph into being one with the Borg and forget all past memories and relationships.

He pointed out that when people embrace Islam - they change their name, appearance and become mindless drones of their new religious "submission". Individuality and creativity is often supressed and frowned upon - and if you are a woman who is a free spirit thinker - fah-get-a-boutit - you can can be killed if you resist "the rules". If you try and leave the Borg - it's an automatic death sentence - that is santioned by "the collective".

I guess the "prime directive" does not apply here."

In defense of the Bog Collective they at least want to improve themselves. The Borg seek knowledge in their own perverted way. Islam doesn’t seek new technology or knowledge unless it kills infidels, they seek to suppress biological and technological advance in the name of perfection which is the antithesis of the Borg mentality.

[Takeda Shingen]

This is well done. I cannot find a water-holding argument from the apologist's prespective. Islam is what Islam is, and it seems not to be willing to evolve as per Christianity.

[Skybird]

Don't get me started again ... Anger already knocking behind my forehead again...

Your definition of Hadith is not correct, btw, but who cares. they are not interpretations of existing stuff, but supplementingl addons holding advise for situations the Quran does not say anything about. The Sharia for example is completely part of Hadith, not Quran. By ideal, muhammad is understood as a generic blueprint that is sued to copy it's behavior in any situation that blueprint ever experienced itself. Islam should be called more precsiely "Muhammadanism". His mentality and personal goals are reflected all and everywhere in Islam, which is very much a personal cult in that understanding. Since Allah also had been "channelled" by Muhammad, Allah also has little to do with Islam, seen that way. It's all about Muhammad, in a way.

the criterions for a fatwah being obligatory are:
- they must refer explicitly to text passages in the quran that stand beyond doubt (that means, there are no other text passages that limit the meaning of the quote the fatwah is referring to, which often happened in history and thus led to behavior that was in conflict with fatwahs). nfortunately the Quran is overflowing with contradictory passages, and it's interpreters make very opportunistic use of this, sometimes using this interpretation with these quotes, sometimes using that interpretation with those quotes.
- they must be given by authorized authorities, which usually are only high ranking representatives and scholars of top level - not every wanna-be-great boy can give a fatwah: he can, but it is not valid.
- the fatwah must explicitly point out in word for how long it should be valid.

So if you want a trustworthy treaty with Islam that does not run out after some years (Quran encourages that treaties with infidels should not be broken as long as they do not brake them first, but that such treaties should not be tolerated for longer than, I think, ten years at best), then you must not aim for diplomatic treaties, and lip-confessions, conference papers, demonstrations and gestures and declarations of intentions and good will, but valid fatwahs that explicitly include formulations referring to the text basis of the quran on which they are founded, and that explicitly say that they should have this or that duration. If you want them to give a fatwah for banning Islamic terror against infidels or for the acceptance of basic human rights and humanitarism (there is no such fatwah, btw), it must be supported by - at best - a majority of authorized muslim scholars/leaders, at best on global level andundisputed reputation and acceptance, it must beyond doubt and without possible contradiction refer to the text of Quran, and it must explicitly say that this fatwah is irreversible, and shall not be abandoned at any time, under any circumstances. Accept anything less, and sooner or later you are screwed.

Fatwahs are not allowed to hinder the goals os Islam. So there are fatwahs that you may wish for, but that you never will get.

It comes as a necessary consequence that there cannot be any valid fatwah supporting ideas that are not mentioned in the Quran, then (a fatwah MUST refer to the quran and base on it). Certain Western demands concerning values, freedoms and tolerance are unfulfillable, for that reason - this is one of the reasons why I am so bitterly against Islam now.

One problem is that although Islam will respect an existing treaty as long as infidels do not brake it or the treaty does not last too long, the braking of a treaty by infidels could already be the event of "offending Islam" (if that is no meaning of far-reaching understanding), for example by printing a cartoon in a newspaper. I do not know if such event or interpretation even could neutralize the validity of a fatwah. the idea of limited duration is that Islam uses such treaties for the most in times of enforced cease-fires, when it has no potential left to advance versus it's adversaries. Once it is strong enough again to proceed with the project of overturning the infidel world and bring them Islam as a precondition for global peace and unity, treaties are no longer wished for, and even hindering. Islam will no longer honour them, then.

This is information I filtered from various literature over the past years. It is not just my personal opinion, or the way I see things subjectively.

I am not in knowledge in how far Islam can be held responsible for braking a fatwah, in how far compensation for negative effects caused by that could be demanded, and if filing that case i spossible on the basis of that fatwah. I also do not know if and how Sharia comes into play here.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

It seems we don't have enough Muslims raising their voices.

While that is true, the essential problem is the lack of massive numbers of infidel kafir leaders, groups and populations that are not raising their voices, either because they are too PC, they are ignorant or they are afraid.

We have a choice and we're not making it.

[Skybird]

Well said.

[Skybird]

Maybe this has some link to this thread, found it today:

Fitzgerald: The answer is More Islam
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald explains why corruption in states like Egypt is unlikely to result in larger-scale reform, and why Muslims who may oppose attacks on tourists and pre-Islamic monuments seem powerless to stop them:

Islam simplifies the Universe for the Believers: it reduces the world to Islam and nothing but Islam. The ongoing attacks on tourists in Egypt are not merely attacks on Infidels, and Infidel ways. They are also attacks on the Infidel state.
Why is the state "Infidel"? Because Mubarak and his Friends-and-Family plan are corrupt. And for Muslims, everything must be reduced to Islamic terms. In India, a corrupt state governor might simply be called "corrupt"' and not "un-Hindu." A corrupt big-city machine in the United States might be called "corrupt" but there would be no need to identify the corrupt politician as "un-Christian." But in the world of Islam, everything must be reduced in the end to Islamic terms: Islamic and non-Islamic, Believer and Infidel. It is what neatly and simply divides the universe. That is why all rage at government corruption will, in Muslim states and for Muslim minds, unfortunately end up connected to the answer: the answer is even more Islam.


And since that Answer of More Islam has terrible consequences for non-Muslims both within the country in question and without, the effort of Infidels must not be to encourage those who, whatever else they promise, also promise more Islam. And as the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrates, the clerics can be just as corrupt as the Al-Saud princelings and princelettes, or as the chocolate soldiers of Mubarak's army. Instead, efforts should be made to create conditions in which an enlightened despot (Ataturk or Bourguiba or the late Shah of Iran) can find enough support to either ignore or systematically limit the power of political Islam. Ataturk did this, but the beneficiaries (secular Turks) were outmaneuvered, and in some cases simply did not realize what kind of constant vigilance was necessary to foil the permanent threat of a renewal of Islam -- just look at Turkey now).
Bourguiba's Destour Party ruled in Tunisia, where Ben Ali now rules the same kind of quasi-enlightened police-state -- a police-state that is nonetheless freer in many ways than other Muslim Arab states, save possibly for Oman, like Tunisia a place where an enlightened ruler (Sultan Qaboos) is able to keep things reasonably decent.

In Egypt, the sporadic, recurring attacks on tourists and tourist sites manifest several core assumptions:

1) Infidel lives are of no value.

2) Infidels bring corruption.

3) Those involved in serving the needs of Infidel tourists are themselves corrupt and offend against Islam.

4) The corrupt government derives benefits from the tourist trade, so that trade must be diminished.

5) Tourism keeps the minds of Egyptians on the monuments of the pre-Islamic period, monuments which have no value whatsoever -- save that of bringing in mere money. The pyramids, the Sphinx, all those mummies and mastabas, are of no interest.

Were the Bamiyan Buddhas worth preserving after 1,500 years? The Taliban did not think so. The Saudi and Pakistani advisers they called in to help deploy the 100,000 pounds of explosives didn't think so. The Muslims who destroyed everything they could of the Greco-Bactrian civilization of Afghanistan over many centuries did not think any of those artifacts, temples, manuscripts, stupas, monuments, were worth preserving. Why should they? The Muslims in India who built their first known mosque right over a Jain temple they destroyed, and then went on to destroy tens of thousands of Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain sites, did not think that non-Muslim sites were worth preserving. If the odd site has escaped such destruction, that testifies only to local syncretistic conditions or specific circumstances (as in Indonesia, where the predominately Hindu peoples and their civilization were conquered not outright by an invading army but through slow penetration, by military colonies established in the wake of trading outposts, and the conversion of important local rulers -- and hence of those they ruled).

Of course the indifference or hostility to pre-Islamic civilizations in Egypt is modified by the desire for the money that those monuments and artifacts bring in. But Muslims never displayed an interest in those artifacts for other reasons. It was Western students of Egypt's past who created Egyptology -- from the Rosetta Stone to the discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen, from Champollion through Lepsius to Howard Carter. It was Austen Henry Layard and other Westerners, right up to Henry Woolley at Ur, who discovered and recovered and collected and catalogued and studied the artifacts from the pre-Islamic past of Mesopotamia. The museums of Cairo and Baghdad were founded by Westerners -- the Cairo Museum was founded by a Frenchman, and the museum of Baghdad developed out of Gertrude Bell's Department of Antiquities. What museological coherence they now possess (as museums, rather than as mere warehouses) is due to Westerners. Those who have taken up the study of pre-Islamic artifacts (in Egypt, in Jordan, in Iraq) would likely have to be largely indifferent to the teachings and attitudes of Islam toward all non-Islamic things. But even these self-described "secular" or "cultural" Muslims may harbor a loyalty to Islam, either filiopietistic (memories of a pious grandmother or Iftar dinners), or one based on ethnic pride and identification (for the idea of an "Arab" is inextricably linked with the idea of Islam -- something that Arab islamochristians have been made to feel deeply). Will they be able to stand up to the destruction of the monuments, or will their Islamic loyalties dictate their acquiescence?

The answer to that question determines the fate of all Islamic reformers and attempts to clean up “corruption� in Islamic lands.


Posted at May 22, 2006 08:35 AM

[STEED]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

While that is true, the essential problem is the lack of massive numbers of infidel kafir leaders, groups and populations that are not raising their voices, either because they are too PC, they are ignorant or they are afraid.

We have a choice and we're not making it.

Do I find fault with that statement answer no.