Links, Books, Comments and Other Tidbits
Since I've been somewhat busy lately, both due to work and some extra-blogical writings that I'm working on, I haven't had time to post anything too substantial. However, I have been doing some web-browsing and have posted some rather lengthy comments on this blog as well. Due to this, I just wanted to share some of the useful links and books that I've recently come across — and provide a brief outline of my recent comments as well.
Well I really enjoyed the very funny and creative Why (Public) School is Good for You post that I found via Seeker's Digest. Likewise, I found a couple of interesting articles (1, 2) in The American Conservative magazine and another which discusses a recent travesty of justice in al-Mamlakah al-'Arabiyyah al-Wahhabiyyah. I also came across a very nice French website — with lots of articles, links and books — entitled Saveurs Soufies. I've added about ten more links to the bottom of my LINKS page, so please take a look at them.
As far as books, I've come across some interesting ones on psychology and child development, and two very worthwhile works on Jalal al-Din al-Rumi (1, 2) — and I'm currently reading an informative biography of the often misunderstood mystic Ibn 'Arabi.
In regards to my recent comments, I've posted some clarifications of my view of Pope John Paul II and have clarified my statement that those who reject Islam are "hellbound disbeliever(s)" as well. Some insightful thoughts posted by some readers resulted in some more comments by me in regards to God's forgiveness as understood by Christianity and Islam — and eventually to some details on the influential Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng.
Also, I finally got around to posting some responses to the comments of The Flanstein — an infamous Islamophobe who regularly posts comments on various Islamic blogs. The longest of my comments, which I conclude by asking Flanstein to help promote "what is best and what is just" can be found here. A short exposé of his double-standards and ignorance of Islam can be found here, as well as a follow-up which demonstrates that he was being dishonest in one of his previous postings.
Lastly, I've offered a brief explanation of why I continue to use American English on this blog rather than British English.
Enjoy...
posted by @ 7:50 PM
Comment Guidelines
19 comments
19 Comments:
As-Salaamu 'alaikum
The Independent article has gone private (as they always do after about a week). An article about the same murder can be found here:
http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=6714&grp=18&cat=186
Excellent Updates... Keep it up!
Of course the ridiculous term 'Islamophobia' is used only to shut people up.
Since 'homophobe' works so well, they copied it. Have to find some way of keeping the truth of Islam from getting out - right?
The term is useful to the isllamists, not only to stop open, honest discussion of Islam and it's many faults, but for other nefarious purposes. By making it look like the Muslim is the victim, the silly dhimmis will fall all over themselves asking how to make up for these perceived grievances ...
Salaams
The better term would be anti-Semetic, since Muslims are the overwhelming majority of Semitic people, but of course, that was co-opted by the minority to apply exclusively to them (even though, in some instances, hatred against both groups -- the same rumors, the same myths -- comes from the same people).
Also, American English rawks man.
The better term would be truth-teller, since that's all i've been doing on my blog - telling the truth about islam.
Take a look at the blog - if you can find something that isn't true - point it out
One needn't subject oneself to the blog in order to begin finding the lies... the name alone... "Flanstein".... made up, as he himself has admitted in the past, so that the Muslims he harasses will believe he is a Jew.
"the Muslims he harasses will believe he is a Jew."
Again, how is telling the truth about your belief system "harrassment"?
I took the name Flanstein to show solidarity with the people you oppress, hate and dream about killing - the Jews. In fact, in the struggle between modernity and the black flag of islam - all infidels are Jews...
"the people you oppress, hate and dream about killing - the Jews"
Why would you think that Umm Zaid (and the rest of us if you meant "you" collectively) is guilty of this? Would you please deal with us based on what we actually profess? Since I can't be guity of anyone else's wrongdoing (at least by Islamic standards) I refuse to take responsability for such wrongdoing. If you are concerned about an aspect of "Islam" (I mean either Islam or one of the grotesque distortions used by both Muslims and Non-Muslims) I recommend you at least find out whether that matches the vision of Islam which I or any of the Muslims here espouse. If berating us without doing so is not harassment then what is your goal? If you're outraged at those who oppress and hate Jews, then feel free to direct your outrage at them or those who play a role in this--no one else.
I once read a quote which read: "We will not judge your actions by your religion, but will judge your religion by your actions”. We do not criticize Nazism because of what nazi's SAY it is about, but because of what the nazi's did. Likewise, regardless of how many muslims scream about islam being a religion of peace, all we have to do is look at the violence done on behalf of your religion to realize it is a religion of violence, death and oppression.
Muslims all over the world, when asked about islamic terror claim “It’s the Americans fault”. American foreign policy is the reason that mullahs all over the world shout “Death to america, death to the Jews”. American foreign policy is the reason that muslims all over the world hate Jews. American foreign policy is the reason that Israeli children are killed, Nigerian women are executed and Australian tourists are burnt alive.
Muslims always hold themselves up as the victims, often as they stand around the shattered remains of the infidels they have just killed. You have to stop blaming others when your co-religionists kill. YOU have to start with a fundamental question – “what’s wrong with the way people practice my religion”?
as-salam 'ala man ittiba' al-huda,
Thanks, Flanstein, for the great demonstration on how flawed your thinking is. First of all, to go and compare anyone to the Nazis is rather cheap, easy, cowardly and uncalled for and just serves as another example of your bigoted approach. Anyway...if you had the least bit of fairness you'd realize that all Germans shouldn't be judged for the actions of the Nazis...that's the proper analogy. What you're basically saying is that all Nazis (who everyone today recognizes are bad by definition) are bad because of their actions, rather than only choosing a small subset of them. When it comes to Muslims, however, you say that all Muslims are bad due to the actions of a small minority of fanatical militant so-called "Jihadists". So if you ever start using consistent logic (and I don't have my hopes up), you'd see that based on your statement about the Nazis you'd have to conclude that all Germans are bad due to the actions of the criminal actions of only a minority of Germans (i.e. the Nazis).
However, please don't let this discourage you, since your comments are a wonderful way to document the twisted mentality and sloppy thinking of Islamophobes...and yes, that's what you are. Kind of odd that you used the rather ill-defined label "Islamists" above and also throw around the anti-Semite label quite a bit, but then take issue with "Islamophobe". This term isn't used to "shut people up" any more than the labels you use -- but I thank you for the addition to my collection of "Flanstein's Unsubstantiated Assertions" anyway. Rather, the label in question is applied to a person that adheres to a certain irrational and seemingly paranoid outlook (hence the phobia suffix). If you've earned this label, just accept it and stop blaming everyone else. Also, there are many documented phobias out there, so I'm not sure why you brought up "homophobe" above unless you're somehow obsessed with that one also.
Well many Muslim scholars all over the world do tell Muslims that the sad state of the Muslim World is the fault of Muslims. If you bothered to read what many Muslim scholars -- and not just the ones that conform to your twisted views -- actually say to people, you'd actually find that this is pretty common.
While I'd be the first to agree that there's often way too much whining, finger pointing and conspiracy mongering amongst Muslims, I also recognize that there have been grave injustices committed against the Muslim World. Do you condemn Jews for claiming, in regards to the Holocaust, "It's the Nazis fault", or do you think they should take the blame themselves? I think the answer is obvious, so all you need to do is be consistent: condemn the crimes and injustices that have occurred regardless of who has done them or who they have been carried out against.
You mention "Israeli children", but the Israelis kill more Palestinians each year than vice versa...so where is your logic there? So what about all of the Iraqi children that died due to sanctions that a former U.S. Secretary of State said was "worth the price" (i.e. she didn't deny the number of deaths). What about the hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Muslims massacred by rape-crazed Christian Serbs? What about all of the Iranians who were summarily executed by the Shah's CIA-trained security apparatus? What about the massacre at Sabra and Shatillah? What about the over 100,000 Iraqis have died since their country was invaded?
What about all of the hate filled people like you around the world who are basically screaming "Death to Islam! Death to all Muslims!" -- and cheering while watching bombs decimate yet another target in the Muslim World. You might not be saying such words overtly, but bringing an end to Islam is clearly what you want. The ironic thing is that it's this type of hateful stereotyping and dehumanizing of Jews by Nazi propagandists that eventually led to the Holocaust. Jews were accused of being conniving, corrupt and greedy, thus they were a curse on civilized society that needed to be exterminated. This was often done by using selected quotes from the Talmud and other Jewish writings as "proof" that Jews were morally corrupt Christ-killers. This is very similar to the type of injustice that you're propagating against Muslims, so I hope you know what you're doing. Your writings, which are always full of forced conclusions, unsupported assertions and sloppy logic, clearly show that you're not on the side of truth, but are just blindly trying to put forward your hate-filled and half-baked agenda.
The mere fact that you say: "You have to stop blaming others when your co-religionists kill" shows that you're very selective (or incompetent) in your reading. This is because not only this weblog, but many other Islamic websites and blogs, regularly condemns the actions of militant Muslim so-called "Jihadists" and self-righteous intolerant Wahabis. I know, that places you in a difficult position, since if you recognized this fact you'd have to give up on saying that all Muslims are bad and the hate-filled fantasy world that you're living in would simply crumble away.
Likewise, if you were trying to be reasonable and weren't so blinded by bigotry you certainly wouldn't write "YOU have to start with a fundamental question – 'what’s wrong with the way people practice my religion'?" -- since that's a question that I've addressed on this blog consistently (and please read "Monkey See, Monkey Do" - Not An Islamic Ideal for an example). However, in formulating that question you finally got something right because you recognized (albeit possibly without realizing it) that the problems that the world is facing due to politicized militant Muslim extremism is due to "the way people practice" Islam, not Islam itself.
Speaking of links, I hope you enjoy this new photoblog I've put up, dedicated to the beauty of traditional Islam.
Mere Msulim, thanks for the work you put into this blog. It's absurd for someone to come here of all places and say without clarification,
"Muslims all over the world, when asked about islamic terror claim “It’s the Americans fault”
At least it can be acknowledged that a significant part of your work is directed against the distortion and misuse of Islam by Muslims themselves. I could have missed something but it doesn't seem that you have been apologetic about terrorism at all.
Flanstein,
Regarding your last reply: you quoted "We will not judge your actions by your religion, but will judge your religion by your actions”.
If this means that a religion should be blamed for the actions of those who act contrary to that religion but does so in its name then it seems unfair. Do you blame Democracy for the way African Americans were treated in the United States? However, the statement can mean that a person's true identification with an ideology is demonstrated by his actions even if this contrasts with his words. In this case there might be some merit to the quote.
At any rate, at least in the context of this blog, the Nazism analogy is not compatible. Though I don't read every word posted on this blog, I think it highly unlikely that you will find Muslims here supporting oppression in the name of Islam(it's possible, since the comments are enabled, but I don't think it has happened yet). You said, "We do not criticize Nazism because of what nazi's SAY it is about, but because of what the nazi's did" Again, what did I or Mere Muslim or Umm Zsid or any of the other Muslims do to warrant such a comparison? What "violence" we commit? I don't mean to imply that any of us are necessarily good examples of those who follow Islam's sterling values, but if you'll question our beliefs based on our actions then please be sure to clarify which actions are actually ours.
Due to Flanstein's above request to take a look at his blog and "if you can find something that isn't true - point it out" I decided to take a few minutes and point out some things that are not true. Overall, his blog is just a collection of articles, many of which are about Muslims doing stupid, criminal and barbaric things in contradiction to the teachings of Islam. Coupled with this is an attempt to use these acts to taint the teachings of Islam -- the very teachings that condemn the acts in question. Other articles on the blog attempt to present and analyze the teachings of Islam on certain subjects, but regularly do it in a shallow, literalist and reductionist sort of way. All of these articles and their various slants all feed into his overall goal of trying to taint all Muslims and the entire religion of Islam due to the actions of a few misguided extremists.
To top that off, the overwhelming majority of the articles on Flanstein's blog -- if not all of them -- weren't written by Flanstein. This being the case, I don't plan to wade through all of this rubbish in order to find factual inaccuracies in articles that Flanstein didn't even write. However, anyone who browses around a bit in Flanstein's blog is sure to notice some of the very provocative headlines that he posts. Due to this, and in the interest of time, I'll just point out the places where Flanstein has been, at a minimum, less than judicious in his employment of the truth (and I apologize ahead of time that he made me [sic] so much):
1. Flanstein wrote in a headline: "The religion of peace believes it is a womans [sic] own fault if she is raped", which blames an entire religion for the words of a single person. It might surprise Flanstein that there are Christians and other conservatives in the West who believe that a provocatively dressed woman who is raped deserves what she got. Based on that, is Flanstein willing to start condemning all of Western civilization? Likewise, do we blame everyone in the rather diverse "West" because the Nazis (i.e. a fanatical subset of the "West") believed the Jews should be exterminated? If not, then why does the equally diverse Muslim World get blamed for the actions of a small fanatical subset of its population? And to address the question more directly...the teachings of Islam blame the rapist in any case of rape. Just like we might condemn someone who got mugged while walking through a poor crime-ridden neighborhood with a bag of money in their hand for using poor judgment, we don't say they deserved to get robbed nor do we excuse the robbers. The same logic applies to rape. So the bottom line is that Flanstein posted a headline that "isn't true".
2. Flanstein posted a headline: "Wherever Muslims live in Canada - Jew-hatred is sure to follow...", but beneath the headline pasted the text of a press article (specific source not mentioned) that not only didn't blame Muslims, but didn't even mention them directly. For all we know, it could be neo-Nazis or others such groups committing these anti-Semitic actions. I wonder if Flanstein realizes that the Holocaust took place in a nominally Christian nation that is one of the bulwarks of Western civilizations -- or has someone convinced him that the Muslims did that too? This is not to deny that some segments of the Muslim population seem to be increasingly hostile to not only Zionists, but to all Jews -- which is unfortunate. The bottom line of this headline by Flanstein is that he makes an unsubstantiated assertion that is also factually incorrect. I know plenty of Canadian Muslims who don't hate Jews (and here's the blog of one), therefore Flanstein's statement simply "isn't true".
3. Flanstein put the following headline over an article about adherents of the narrow-minded and intolerant Wahabi sect: "'Moderate' muslims [sic] in america [sic] hate us too...", in which a moderate Muslims aren't even mentioned. Obviously, he's guilty of taking one of the most extreme sects of Islam and arbitrarily labeling them as "Moderate" so that he can cast up a smoke screen that fits his hate-filled and half-baked agenda. So again, the bottom line on this is that Flanstein's headline "isn't true" because extremist Wahabis certainly aren't "Moderates" -- in spite of how much some hate-mongers wish they were representative of the Muslim mainstream.
4. Flanstein posted a cartoon written by non-Muslim cartoonists but uses it as a justification for making the following claim: "In islamic [sic] countries, this seems to be the general consensus - that we in civilization should be killed or subjugated. Religion of peace? Hardly..." Well the fact that he decides that there's a consensus based on a cartoon -- and one drawn by bigots at that -- speaks volumes about Flanstein's intellectual veracity. Again, he makes an unsubstantiated claim since on what basis does he conclude that this is a "general consensus"? The irony of this is that he seemingly fails to consider the consensus that hate-mongers like him are trying to build amongst non-Muslims that Islam should be destroyed. So what makes these bigots any different than the hate-filled Muslim fanatics that use the same such rhetoric?
5. The subtitle to one of Flanstein's posts says: "...some convincing proof that the myth of the moderate muslim [sic] is just that..." and below that he shows a cartoon which implies that there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim -- which is bigoted stereotyping plain and simple. The fact that many experts in various fields recognize that there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim clearly demonstrates that Flanstein's assertion is false. Indeed, everyone from the RAND Corporation to Daniel Pipes has made the recommendation that the U.S. needs to engage moderate Muslims in order to win the war that they're waging against Islamic extremism. However, it seems that Flanstein thinks all of them are misinformed on this point, in spite of the fact that he posts their articles on his blog. It's contradictory actions like this that earn Flanstein's blog the reputation of being half-baked and engaging in ill thought-out mudslinging. So again the short answer is that Flanstein wrote something that "isn't true".
6. Flanstein calls Cat Stevens (a.k.a. Yusuf Islam) "another muslim Jew-hater" --- and that "isn't true" and nothing was presented to support that it's true. While Yusuf Islam might take issue with some of the actions and policies of the State of Israel -- just like a significant number of Jews do as well -- this doesn't make him a "Jew-hater". However, Flanstein's statements, taken as a whole, certainly seem to make him a Muslim-hater.
7. Underneath a picture of a Muslim watching television near a picture of Osama Bin Laden, Flanstein posts the following caption: "A typical muslim [sic] on election night...his osama [sic] shrine in the background". Again, this just begs the question as to how Flanstein can support his assertion that this is "typical". So, yet again, this classifies as an unsubstantiated assertion that is being put forward in order to taint an entire religion due to the actions of a misguided few. While any fair person knows that this isn't a typical scene of a Muslim watching television, just in case Flanstein wants to quibble with this we'll simply request that he provide us with a thousand such pictures in order to demonstrate that he's telling the truth. Since this is only one picture for every million "typical" Muslims in the world, it should be rather easy if true.
Well, there you have it -- after taking only a cursory look at Flanstein's largely cut-and-paste weblog, I've demonstrated that at least some of his material certainly "isn't true".
I’m glad you took the time to walk through some of the articles on my blog. I had hoped the overwhelming volume of muslim crimes, murders and oppression I had highlighted - all done on behalf of your “religion” - would persuade you that these deeds are not done by a small minority of fanatics.
In fact, as my evidence would prove to anyone looking at it subjectively, the small minority are in fact people like you. Too many of your co-religionists interpret your “holy book” literally. Too many read things like:
"And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it and do not break
your oath;" Q. 38:44
and believe it gives them a right to beat their wife and still be a good muslim. Now you can tell me that this is not an accurate interpretation, however, it’s not me you need to convince.
You can tell me this is wrong:
"The prophet gave permission to kill children and women in war" (Bukhari,
Jihad/146; Ebu Davud 113).
…and this is wrong
"O Prophet! make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly
with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate." Q. 66:9
…as is this
…this…
"I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their
heads, maim them in every limb." Q. 8:12
…and that.
"And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be
only for Allah." Q. 2:193
However, all over the world muslims living in different countries and cultures are reading these exact words – and acting upon them. How are they acting you might ask? Your co-religionists executed thousands during the miss world riot while asking some of the victims to recite passages out of the koran. If they could not comply, they were butchered on the spot. The targeting, torture and massacre of schoolchildren in Russia by your fellow Muslims was perhaps the most barbarous act in all of 2004.
Dutch filmmaker and journalist Theo van Gogh was slashed in the neck and shot to death in a terrorist attack by an Islamist in Amsterdam. Muslims cheered everywhere. Then of course there is the massacre in N.Y. (wildly celebrated in muslim countries), the hundreds of Australians BBQ'd in Bali and hundreds more executed in Madrid. Let’s not forget all the innocent people your friends beheaded on video (shouting alla akbar) while they danced around in joy.
I don’t care if the problem is your religion, or the way many people practice it. For those of us who live in civilization, the threat to us is the same. For example, the “tiny minority of extremists”, repudiated and despised as they are by the vast majority of Muslims, (big laugh) is printing the faces of its heroes on trading cards. Children all over the Islamic world are collecting cards showing gunmen and soldiers the way American kids trade baseball cards.
Small minority? Please. More like the sizable majority of Muslims here and abroad either actively support or tacitly approve the violent overthrow and subjugation of the infidel world. Too many of your co-religionists believe this guy:
"Only one ambition is worthy of Islam, to save the world from the curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves on the basis of man-made laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation." -- Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair
All the while your fellow muslims kill more dogs, beat more women, destroy more ancient artifacts and incinerate more Kenyan dancers.
And you STILL have the gall to call yourselves adherents to the Religion of Peace™.
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so freakin’ sick…
I don't think anyone reads Flanstein, other than a few messed-up people like himself. Clearly the man doesn't have a well-functioning life on his own, and sadly he needs a "cause" to give his life purpose and meaning.
I'd rather see Br. Squires continue to channel his time and efforts into creating more positive material that inspires and educates, and that addresses the concerns the average/sincere/open-minded American has about Islam. In the long run, that will do a lot more to make it clearer that the Flansteins of the world are no more sane than the nutty, screaming street preachers you find at busy intersections.
"I don't think anyone reads Flanstein"
Most muslims don't, that is true, perhaps because they are afraid of the truth. Frankly, my blog is for infidels who need to learn the facts about the "Religion of Peace™"
Assalaamu Alaykum,
I agree with Khalid. Sad as it may seem, some individuals are just not worth it. My advice? Ignore or delete.
Assalaamu alaikum,
I'm sorry, but I can't let this go... Flanstein refers to verse 38:44 in the Holy Quran and says that many Muslims will "believe it gives them a right to beat their wife and still be a good muslim."
In fact, the Prophet Job had become angry with his wife during his hardships, and swore to beat his wife with 100 lashes. In this verse, Allah tells him to take 100 pieces of grass and strike her with them at one time, giving him a way to not hurt his wife but also not to break his oath. It's absurd to say that this is giving men permission to beat their wives; it's a sign of mercy instead.
as-salamu 'alaykum
Well Flanstein seems to adhere to the same school of Qur'anic interpretation as the Islamic militants which he abhors: staunch Qur'an-only literalism when it suits their agenda, only arbitrarily appealing to hadith literature and the opinions of scholars for additional details when these conform to their pre-conceived notions.
The bottom line on Qur'an 38:44 seems to be that the Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, who is the supreme example for Muslim behavior, never beat any of his wives. Since the Qur'an calls Muslims to follow his example in many places, there should be no doubt what the high road is in this regard.
Also, we should all keep in mind that the Qur’an is a guide for believers (i.e. Huda lil-Muttaqeen - Qur'an 2:2), whereas it serves as misguidance for hard-hearted disbelievers (Qur'an 2:26, 14:4 and 74:31). Indeed, this is one of its ongoing and manifest miracles. So if non-Muslims seem to stumble and have doubts over some of the various "difficult" passages, well that's just because their hearts aren't in the right place and their priorities are not in order.
As for as ignoring Flanstein's comments...well I think Muslims today are making a mistake in not engaging our critics. Sometimes this has the effect of making it seem as if Muslims are cowardly, intolerant, close-minded and unwilling to engage in intellectual debate -- or that they simply don't have answers. Even though I appreciate the above advice, I also get emails from people requesting me to respond to Flanstein and others of his ilk. Personally, I believe detractors like Flanstein are a dime a dozen out on the street, so I think it behooves Muslims who are involved in any type of da'wah or Islamic outreach, on the Internet or otherwise, to become familiar with non-Muslim criticisms and way of thinking. As I see it, we have far too many people who just want to bury their heads in the sand, but in this day and age where an ideological war is being waged against Islam, we just can't afford to do that. Likewise, in responding to critics, it should be understood that it's not being done solely for their benefit, but mainly for the benefit of other readers.
Due to all of these considerations, and based on the fact that Mere Islam remains a benevolent dictatorship rather than a democracy, I plan to continue allowing comments from our detractors as long as they don't use foul language, post blasphemies or write anything else that is clearly unsuitable. However, I don't plan to remove them simply because they take issue with Islam in general or me in particular.
Post a Comment
<< Home