Monday, April 02, 2007

UN passes resolution protecting Islam, despite atrocities

The United Nations Human Rights Council is evidently more concerned with the protection of Islam against defamation than it is with the very real human tragedies occurring in Burma, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran or Uzbekistan. Despite the ‘gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law’ occurring in these regions, the Council failed to condemn the governments of these nations, preferring instead to express its ‘deep concern’.

In its nine months of existence, the Council has condemned only one country in the entire world for human rights violations: Israel. At this session, the Council passed yet another resolution (the 9th) against the Jewish state.

This interesting fact is illuminated by the Council’s decision to adopt a resolution against ‘defamation of religions’, intrinsic to which is the suppression of perceived offences against Islam. This not only means the UN has issued a resolution effectively banning the term ‘Islamic terrorism’; it has silenced criticism of violence committed in its name. Even more revealing is that the resolution refers to Islam alone among the world's religions.

So how are we to refer to Muslim Arab brutality? What terms are to be used when they behead babies, roast their bodies, and return them to their mothers on a dish of rice? How does the media portray the horrific accounts of Christians being persecuted in Iraq?

It doesn’t. In fact, the media are largely silent on such matters.

Since the invasion of Iraq, Muslim militants have bombed 28 churches and murdered hundreds of Christians. They have beheaded priests, raped girls, and crucified boys.

In this Holy Week, let us remember that the Passion of Christ reverberates in the appalling suffering of Christians in many Islamic countries. The silence of the media makes it complicit, and its blindness is unforgivable.


Anonymous m.d. said...


please, everyone knows that the people who commit such crimes are a terribly small number of brainwashed Muslims who twist passages in the Quran to fit their demented future hell, their bleak vision of harking back to the 7th century to impose Shariah law on the earth. Real bread and butter Muslims, the kind of Muslim you can borrow a cup of sugar from and high-five at the Arsenal match, the kind of Muslim who has that infectious belly laugh and will undoubtedly say something acidicly-witty yet decerningly-astute about Blair whilst sinking a yard of ale in the local watering hole, they are just like you and me sir. They no more want to take over the world, than you or I. That is why we should not say the term 'Islamic Terrorism', such a backwards label which does the subject matter no justice whatsoever. Instead I shall put forward that we all bury our heads firmly in the sand, metaphorically of course my dear!. And call it 'Voldemort' instead, if Harry Potter has taught us anything, it is sometimes better to avoid the reality of a situation, perhaps there are just some names which should not be said out loud...

Hold on, let me just prize my tongue out from my cheek.

nope. it's stuck

2 April 2007 at 12:08  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

The Article you refer to is Linked Here, Your Grace is indeed a man of Cosmopolitan taste in his reading materials.

2 April 2007 at 12:27  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

His Grace had already linked to the article, and applauds the Catholic Herald for raising such issues.

Mr MD,

His Grace yearns for the era when the religio-political wellbeing of humanity depended on the adoption of the term 'homoousios'. Vocabulary has a way of placating or inflaming, and the UN, while cognisant of this, has confused its brief of protecting human beings with protecting 'religion'. The implications are considerable.

2 April 2007 at 12:52  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

You Grace,

Like the objectivity of the UNHRC, I must have missed it. Lapsus Calumni, Lapsus Alumni, Mea Culpa.

2 April 2007 at 14:08  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

I will in no way attempt to justify the barbaric behaviour of such ignoramus people because it is completly unacceptable but, you do realise Cranmer, that by using the phrase Islamic extremism the genreal public will consequently stereotype each and every Muslim as an extremist. I've never beheaded any baby and don't intend to so why should I be labelled or viewed with suspicious eyes as an Islamic extremist each time I walk out of my door?

Furthemore, it can hardly be 'Islamic' extremism essentially because there is nothing 'Islamic' about what these people have done. There isn't a single verse of the Quran or hadith of the Prophet which instructs Muslims to behead babies or crucify 14 year old boys because they're Assyrian. Using religion as a scapegoat does not justify their actions. Islam cannot be blamed for this. If anything, the countries who invaded iraq need to now form a stable Iraq and restore order in society to prevent such atrocious acts from reoccuring.

2 April 2007 at 16:35  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Well Miss Jelly Bean, what do you suggest they be called? Seeing as the terrorists refer to themselves as fighting and killing for Allah, why should we not call them what they claim to be? It may spill over to the rest of the Muslim community, but that should prompt them to actually do something about the rampant extremism which is simmering under the surface of more Muslims than the Government and media institutions such as the BBC care to reveal..

2 April 2007 at 18:34  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Like I said, just because they use Islam as a scapegoat, does not legitimise your use of the term Islamic extremist. Religion cannot be used as an excuse for such behaviour and you agreeing with calling them what they claim to be gives them more reason to continue with what they do.
You're absolutely right, we should as muslims be doing something about this. I don't deny that and there are many who try but due to radical behaviour of such terrorists (burning buildings etc)Muslims who wish to stop this are usually ignored and left in the background.

2 April 2007 at 18:53  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

I don't agree with terrorists but did you ever think that maybe the reason why we have this civil war in Iraq today is because people are feeling desperate and want to be heard in some way. Maybe they just want invaders to get out of their land and leave them alone. But it's too late for that now because the invaders have already done so much damage, if they now left, that might make things even worse. Thus, the people of Iraq are left to deal with this unwanted yet inevitable dilemma.

To do or not to do?

2 April 2007 at 19:19  
Anonymous OIznop said...

Jelly Bean, they use the atrocities committed by Muhammed and his slaughter of thousands of men, women and children as their example. If you think Muhammed didn't do this, you don't know your own scriptures. Since 'The Prophet' sets the example for all mankind to follow, they follow. Religion is not 'the excuse' for this behaviour, they believe they get rewarded for following Muhammed. And WHERE is the voice of Islam which opposes this? If you are right, can you show me ONE Islamic media outlet that condemns this? And you know full well that your opinion doesn't count, because you're only a woman, and that counts for very little indeed in Islam. Islam is a cult, a personality cult, and the central personality was barbaric and cruel.

2 April 2007 at 19:24  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

well Oiznop, if that makes you feel better then by all means feel free to believe what you like. Jelly bean sympathises with your lack of understanding and ignorance.

Oh and by the way, if it's not too much of a bother for you, could you kindly give reference to the assertions you made. You stated that 'the prophet' slaughtered thousands of men, women and children, presumably because Islam and the Quran teaches this. Give me reference of this from the Quran and Hadith, because maybe you're right. Maybe I don't know my own Scripture. And please, don't bore me by repeating the verses communicants used in previous articles about Jihad etc. Be creative, find something new to condemn Islam upon. You should be experts on that by now.

Jelly bean is in the mood to have an intellectual debate with anyone who dares to challenge her! Bring it on!

2 April 2007 at 20:26  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

That's all nice and beautiful that you defend your belief. However, the problem is that human beings have an inborn instinct to favour their own group and wage war on others. Quite a lot research has been done on this subject. Even children and chimps already behave in such a way (see, Furthermore, research has found that the fighting between groups can turn into friendship if both groups are faced with a problem they have to solve and are only able to solve by cooperation.

Now, let's see what this has to do with Islam and the rest of the world.

Sura 5:51 says: "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." In other words, the Qur'an doesn't teach cooperation but apartheid.

Sura 8:55 says: "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe." In other words, non-Muslims are "the vilest of animals" and someone who maintains friendship with them is one of them. Hate is a natural reaction against "the vilest of animals" and certainly not the wish to cooperate with them in order to solve common problems. Not only this but Islamic faithfuls are told to wage war on others.

Sura 9:5 says: "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

In addition, the Islamic warriors are told that they will receive a post-mortem reward if they die in a battle for Allah. In other words, they are told that they can only win either as victor or in paradise. Hence, suicid bombers are happy to die for Allah.

Sura 9:41 demands: "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."

In summary, the Quran calls for maintaining a separate identity, for aggression and conquest against other groups.

And it is not difficult to see why Islamic terrorists explicitly refer to their religion as justification for their actions. You always claim, Miss Jelly Bean, that this has nothing to do with Islam, that you are a peaceloving nice young lady (and you are), but you are guilty yourself. By wearing a hijab you clearly separate yourself from others. Practically, you are telling others every day in the streets of the UK: I am a proud member of my own group and do not belong to you.

Separation is the first step towards confrontation because as scientists have discovered by experiments, when different group identities exist, war is the default position in humans. (see,

You, Miss Jelly Bean, indicate with your highly visible hijab different groups identitities and pave – whether you like it or not - the way for group bellicosity. ” War is endemic amongst tribal peoples, and Charles Darwin reported that “the tribes inhabiting adjacent districts are almost always at war with each other”. And your hijab is nothing else but the sign that you belong to one tribe and not to another.

Tribalism is utterly maladapted to the highly developed modern civilization, which requires a large amount of cooperation and trust instead of suspicion for its functioning. Here a few stories as proof for Islamic tribalism:

Ethnic cleansing in Bradford: ” A controversial BBC report on Hindus being driven out of the northern English city of Bradford by young Muslims in an act the Vishwa Hindu Parishad provocatively describes as "ethnic cleansing", has evoked sharp reactions all around.”

Western Muslims' Racist Rape Spree: ”Islamic men are raping Western women for ethnic reasons. We know this because the rapists have openly declared their sectarian motivations. When a number of teenage Australian girls were subjected to hours of sexual degradation during a spate of gang rapes in Sydney that occurred between 1998 and 2002, the perpetrators of these assaults framed their rationale in ethnic terms. The young victims were informed that they were “sluts” and “Aussie pigs” while they were being hunted down and abused.”

Immigrants are “waging war” against Swedes through robbery: “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.”… It is interesting to note that these Muslim immigrants state quite openly that they are involved in a “war,” and see participation in crime and harassment of the native population as such.” These are just a few examples. I could easily add many more from many different countries.

You will say once again that you have nothing to do with it because you are a peaceloving, hijab wearing, nice young lady. And you are. But the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant: ” I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis" he said,

"but, many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant…

The fact is, that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is, that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The Average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered …

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day …”

2 April 2007 at 21:40  
Anonymous TL said...

As I pointed out on The Difference blog's post on this subject (UN Champions Islam) over the weekend, the UN Rapporteur on the Right to Food is claiming the UNHRC session concluded with good results because developing countries "regained the initiative" and took the offensive "to confront neo-colonialism in the field of human rights"(!) If you are interested in the media's failure to report Christian persecution in Iraq, you might also like to check out another Difference post on persecution in Uzbekistan here.

2 April 2007 at 21:53  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thanks for the link. From there, I came to another article from Russia claiming: "Protestant missionaries are among the most effective disseminators of globalization. They openly say they want to turn this world into one big community resting on Christian values, democracy and the free market. They see South Korea as one of their greatest victories - a former Buddhist country where Christian converts presently make up a majority."

Since I found the latter hard to believe, I checked it out at the CIA Worldfactbook and found: "Christian 26%, Buddhist 26%, Confucianist 1%, no affiliation 46%, other 1%". It seems to be correct.

That should make His Grace happy.

I have to get up early tomorrow morning at 4:30 to catch a plane. So good night to everybody.

2 April 2007 at 22:10  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Miss Jelly Bean, you happen to make quite a number of throw away comments such as: "if that makes you feel better then by all means feel free to believe what you like. Jelly bean sympathises with your lack of understanding and ignorance"

I don't know if you're aware, but this doesn't refute the points made against you in the previous post. you are merely side-stepping the issue and avoiding answering the statements posed to you. When you criticise others for not backing their claims by quoting from the Quran, you highlight a distinct lack of your own Quranic quotes. Perhaps it would better serve your argument if you referenced "your own scripture" as proof of your points too.

But back to the question in hand:

If you deny the use of a descriptive term such as 'Islamic extremism', or 'Islamic terrorism', then essentially you are denying reality. The reality is that these people are commiting numerous acts in the name of Allah, the fact that you disagree with their understanding of certain passages does not make you correct and them wrong, it just acts as a counterpoint to define your beliefs and help offset theirs against yours. Your opinions (or any other Muslim opinion for that matter) are not the benchmark in which to judge other Islamic beliefs. They believe a certain thing, you believe a different thing, neither one of you is above the other, and your extrapolation of passages are certainly not a barometer in which to plot and judge all other understandings of the Quran.

But let's suppose you have suppressed all references to religion when publicly discussing terrorist acts done in the name of Islam, it will not be enough, you will inevitably have to go much further in your censorship.

For example, what about news reports? Should all news reports avoid references to Islam when reporting on such suicide bombings or beheadings? When showing a martyrdom video, should the BBC bleep out what the person is saying because it might make people think that he is doing it for Islam? Not only would this be unfeasible as it would fundamentally alter the truth and nature of the event, but it would be denying people all of the facts. Giving incorrect details about a suicide bombing and leaving out certain details simply because it may cause people to link the two together is madness, and to be quite frank, it smacks of the kind of authoritarianism and forced censorship which characterises Islamic states, perhaps no suprise why you are supporting it. Next stop - Thought Police.

In essence, this proposal is utter insanity, it is Political Correctness gone mad.

Let us not forget that Islamic scholars are quick to bring up 'Israeli terrorism'. Should they be forced to remove the word 'Israeli' because it makes all Israeli's look like terrorists? I know for a fact that all Israeli's are not terrorists, but when you are describing an Israeli who commits a terrorist act for nationalist reasons, then the most succinct and relevant way of describing that person is to say that they are an 'Israeli terrorist'. That is just reality.

The fact is that Islam is linked to terrorism, is indicative of a broader problem. Whenever a non-Muslim hears the word 'Islam' naturally one of the first things they think of is going to be 'terrorism', you cannot change that and indeed it should not change until thousands of Muslims stop killing people in the name of Islam. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why people don't think of anything positive to balance these negative views when they hear the word 'Islam'. Why don't they think 'sociable grouping' or 'good charity work' or 'great community action' when they hear this word? When I hear the word 'Catholic' one of the things I think of is their great work done in the field of adoption and how they have an incredible success rate of putting troubled children in good families. When I think of 'Christians' I think of the many facets of community action which Christians tend to take part in, I think of the hundreds of christian charities which run nationally and internationally for the benefit of all people. Yet when I think of Islam, one of the first things I think of is extremism and terrorism. You may cry that it is the media's fault, they continually show Islam in a bad light. Unlikely, the BBC is currently undergoing an investigation precicely because it is biased towards Palestine et al... What you need to be asking yourself, instead of supressing freedoms, is this: "Why hasn't Islam got anything positive to show in this country which balances out public opinion?"

A tough question indeed.

3 April 2007 at 00:27  
Blogger Topper said...

For a more balanced view of events in the Middle East I suggest you go read Robert Fisk's book, The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.

I'm no defender of Islam against one religion or another but the hypocrisy of a Christian slating the Islamic faith for ir's brutality is quite astounding. Ever heard of the Crusades?

3 April 2007 at 01:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah the great Robert Fisk who even has a verb named after him. Who has to pull stories out of his gluteus maximius to put bread on the table. Fantastic stories actually, among the most recent being Israeli use of depleted uranium in Lebanon of which no evidence was found and his having witnessed the downing of an Israeli jet. This latter day Walter Mitty is of good entertainment value, long may he regale us with his tales of skullduggery in the Levant!


3 April 2007 at 06:54  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The 47 seats in the Council are distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 for the Western European and Others Group.

Thus its membership is in inverse proportion to those who fund the organisation.

I see for 2007 the European component is Finland and Netherlands......and for 2008 France and the UK.

It is another exercise in childishness. The Anglo-Saxons create institutions - indeed most global institutions were funded by the Anglo-Saxons who think they will be a replication of their own constitutional niceties, but in fact forget that much of the world is corrupt, depraved, autocratic, and despotic....and these attributes infect every organisation where the Anglo-Saxons relax leadership

When the Anglo-Americans had a strong Protestant Belief they could lead the world, and now they are Gramscian Relativists they have expended the capital they built up in prior times and let the dysfunctional kleptocracies of the world destry any attempt at order so Chaos may be the triumph of the Lords of Misrule

3 April 2007 at 08:34  
Anonymous Tom said...

You may well have seen this already, but knowing your appreciation of erudite contributions your grace, I thought this might be a useful post in which to share this with communicants -

3 April 2007 at 10:16  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Topper said,

"Ever heard of the Crusades?"

I think we have all heard of the Crusades. I love it when people end a comment with what they think is a devestating one-liner.

Well done on suggesting Robert Fisk, an author which Bin Laden himself said he admired... The word 'goon' comes to mind for some reason.

I'm sure you'll keep thinking whatever Fisk has said until you read someone else like Pipes, then you'll be utterly convinced that terrorism is a Holy War and that Islam is evil.

3 April 2007 at 10:21  
Blogger Topper said...

You wilfully misinterpret if you think I thought I was even attempting to be witty. There is nothing amusing about the state of the middle east and our actions there over a very long period of time.

I'm flabbergasted that someone would slate Islam as brutal when their own religion has history enough of brutality. If we wish to suggest that there is an innate level of brutality among any grouping of people, starting with anything smaller than our species as a whole will always carry the danger of a degree of hypocrisy.

3 April 2007 at 10:39  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

m.d. said...
I don't know if you're aware, but this doesn't refute the points made against you in the previous post. you are merely side-stepping the issue and avoiding answering the statements posed to you. When you criticise others for not backing their claims by quoting from the Quran, you highlight a distinct lack of your own Quranic quotes. Perhaps it would better serve your argument if you referenced "your own scripture" as proof of your points too.

I'm not side-stepping any comments m.d. Oiznop happened to make an assertion and I want him to give me evidence that Islam does in reality teach what he claimed it to teach. So no, I'm not side-stepping, if anything, my comment should have provoked him to retaliate. As for him claiming that Islam is a persionality cult and I'm a supressed woman, blah blah blah... like I said before, feel free to believe what you like because me telling him 'Look I'm a muslim woman and guess what, I'M NOT SUPRESSED', will not change his opinion. Alas! Ignorance is inexcusable. Oh and on your point about me not using the Quran to back my statements...Yes I do! Look at my previous comments on other articles, I've used the Quran so many times to back my views.

Anyhow, getting back to the main discussion at hand, you made some good points about why the phrase 'islamic extremism' should be used. However, I wil disagree with you when you said "They believe a certain thing, you believe a different thing, neither one of you is above the other, and your extrapolation of passages are certainly not a barometer in which to plot and judge all other understandings of the Quran". I would like to clarify m.d, that I don't make-up my judgements on the spot. I'm a Sunni and belong to the Hannafi school of thought which is the largest school of thought, in he largest sect of Islam. There are more Hannafi then there are Shia in the world. My views and judgements therefore reflect the views and judgements of a mass Islamic population. Compare that to the views of a bunch of terrorists, no I think you're very wrong. I think my opinion would take precedence over theirs (beause they're not my views alone).

As for your question "Why hasn't Islam got anything positive to show in this country which balances out public opinion?"

m.d, there are so many islamic organisations across the world who have done so much e.g. the Minhaj ul Quran international which has welfare projects for orphans, educational projects in poor countries, bringing clean water in areas of Kashmir, medical projects etc. It would be pointless naming such organisations like this because there are so many. Now you may argue 'Yes but they hardly do anything in comparison to Christian churches'. Yes but who cares who does how much of what. As long as there are people out there who're doing something for their communities. Why must you assess everything by quantity. Like the Prophet said, even placing your hand on an orphans head would bring you blessings.

You also claimed that things won't change until thousand of muslims don't stop killing in the name of Islam. Well lets also not forget that thousands of muslims are being killed in the name of democracy. But that would obviously justify their deaths because now we're speaking of democracy which is far more important than the lives of a few thousand Iraqis.

3 April 2007 at 10:55  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Colin, you quoted an interesting verse from the Quran: "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other" That is so true! Look at Israel and America today. It's like Romeo and Juliet...Anthony and Cleopatra... Samson and Delilah...

3 April 2007 at 11:01  
Anonymous m.d. said...

I didn't think you were trying to be witty, there was no wit there. One might say it was 'witless'.

Using your logic, we as a nation cannot condemn the modern illicit slave trade as 'brutal' because our forefathers once traded in slaves....

Can a Japanese person not publicly condemn the human rights abuses in Iran because of Japan's history?

Obviously not.

As a Christian I can say that Islam is violent. Facts to back me up: Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Hamas, Hezbullah, Al Qaeda and many more.

As a non-Christian you may say that Christianity was violent 800 years ago. That would just be a fact wouldn't it?

Thus I believe that I can say Islam is 'inherently' violent because it has been violent throughout history, and it is violent on a large scale today - Thus Islam is violent.

You can say that Christianity was violent over a 200-300 year period. The fact that nobody is strapping bomb-belts to themselves in the name of Jesus today, quickly disseminates an equivalent comment about 'inherent violence' in Christianity.

Thus I am not being hypocritical.

3 April 2007 at 11:05  
Anonymous Voyager said...

For a more balanced view of events in the Middle East I suggest you go read

Paul Fregosi "Jihad"

David Fromkin "A Peace To End All Peace"

Karsh & Karsh "Empires of the Sand"

3 April 2007 at 11:27  
Anonymous Observer said...

It's like Romeo and Juliet

I think you should read the play about the Caopulets and the Montagues.......unless of course you wish to imply that Romeo and Juliet were able to set an example to warring tribes that there were values transcendent...

In which case Miss Jelly Bean you are right to show these as examples to a fractious and self-loathing Arab world

3 April 2007 at 11:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there are so many islamic organisations across the world who have done so much e.g. the Minhaj ul Quran international which has welfare projects for orphans, educational projects in poor countries

Yes but ONLY for Muslims....Muslim Charity does not extend to Non-Muslims

3 April 2007 at 11:30  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

I looked back on some of your posts and the most I found was a small list of verse numbers, not actual quotes from the Quran. But, i'll just assume I have overlooked all of your 'quoting posts' for arguments sake.

You said something earlier on the other post which I found remarkable, you said: 'I am glad that there was an Islamic revolution in Iran'.

Are you aware of the irony of your statement? If you said that in Iran -as opposed to a country based on equality- your opinion would carry no weight whatsoever as you are a woman. The very fact that you cannot legitimately make the very comment you have made in the country you are making it about is very amusing to me in a depressing kind of way.

When you say that you are a 'Muslim woman and are not supressed', that is primarily because you are not living in the country to which you are eulogising about.

I liked your argument about majority opinion over the Quran. Would you say that; if in the near future extremist views spread to 51% of all Muslims, the barometer of Islam would switch from you Sunni's to the extremists simply because there are more of them? If so, then it is not as static as you make out. If not, then your majority argument is nonsensical.

The Minhaj ul Quran international is a very strange organisation which only serves Muslim countries, perhaps that is why people in England aren't bowled over by Muslim love in this country. And I think that it does matter who is doing what, if Islam is such a peaceful and loving religion then why do we not see the fruits of such love? Show me the 'grass roots' work that British Muslims are doing in Britain to help people other than other Muslims....

As for democracy in Iraq, many civilians were and are being killed and that is a tragedy. Why are people still being killed? Because Islamic insurgents are trying to cause a civil war in Iraq to further de-stabalize the situations. Can you honestly disagree that if the Iraqi's had been co-operative with the coalition forces, had not fought back (and i'm aware that most of the people fighting back are not your average Iraqi) then there would not be the beginnings of a fruitful, secure state?

3 April 2007 at 11:36  
Anonymous m.d. said...

The very fact that Muslim charities do not extent their 'love' to non-Muslims is just another nail in Islam's coffin, it further strengthens the argument that Islam is at best insolently indifferent towards me and at worst a deadly threat to me.

3 April 2007 at 11:44  
Blogger Topper said...

With Tony and George W the current leaders of UK and US, the heads of predominatly christian nations. I think I can safely say that christianity is no more peaceful today than it was hundreds of years ago.

Both leaders have quite publicly highlighted their own faith as being integral to how they live their lives and and not as something separate or abstract from their current positions as PM and President.

of course we can condemn the slave trade, as for how far we go to right the effects is another matter. There have been a series of programmes recently about it, one of which I didn't manage to see pointed out that we paid out a fortune in compendation at the time of abolition. Not to the slaves but to the slave traders who were losing a source of income. We should be able to hold a mirror up to ourselves and say where we have erred in the past and apologise for it.

I condemn what you describe as Islamic violence, suicide bombing et al. However we would be far better served getting to the root of the problem and it isn't Islam itself. We have been meddling in the middle east for countless years, mostly in this last century for oil. It's time we stopped, be it supporting dictators we like or trying to topple ones we don't.

3 April 2007 at 12:33  
Anonymous m.d. said...

To say that the UK is a predominantly Christian nation is incorrect. It may have been built upon Judeo-Christian values, but sadly these values seem to have been lost while moral and philosphical relativism and atheism have replaced Christianity as the biggest religions.

The fact that G W Bush happens to be a Christian and also happens to have begun a war in Iraq no more makes Christianity implicit in the conflict than it does make his also publicly espoused love for Feta Cheese. Besides, you fell upon your own sword when you quite rightly suggested that most indiscretions in the Middle East are for mineral wealth, not as it were, for God.

There can be a distinction made between Quran-waving murderers and the sovereign decision of a state to go to war. It is a fairly clear distinction I feel.

As for the slave trade, you are wrong again I think. There is no way that I can repent for sins I have not committed. I can feel sorry that it happened, but I did not do it, and just because someone else did, who happened to live on the terrirory I do now, does not mean that I should heap their sins upon my back and carry it around as some king of penance... nonsensical. The slave traders were compensated yes, but as far as I can tell it was what needed to be done to secure the immediate release of the slaves, of course they did not deserve it but it happened, again by people other than myself or you.

You say "We should be able to hold a mirror up to ourselves and say where we have erred in the past and apologise for it" I'll have you know that I have a pretty secure alibi for where I was 200 years ago, I didn't do anything. And unless you can travel back in time, neither did you.

Condemn it yes, apologise... no.

3 April 2007 at 13:08  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Wow m.d. who would have thought that innocent little me would be a deadly threat to you. When we Muslims give aid to people, we don't ask them what religion they belong to. There arn't only Muslims living in kashmir, there are many Hindus also, and if you go to the Northern part of Kashmir, you would find people have tribal religions. They all get aid from Muslims and they arn't asked which holy book they follow or who their God is.

I never said Christianiy is a religion based on violence and not once did I mention the Crusades. The only time I accused Christianity of violence was when we were previously discussing Northern ireland.

I see that you're getting pretty up tight about this m.d. so much that you're not willing to accept a bit of humour from my part about Israel and America. There's no need to get so emotional about this, although I could understand your need to express your feelings with such emotion since as you claimed, Islam is a deadly threat to you.

I would love to continue this very interesting discussion (and believe me, I do take your insults and accusations to consideration, which is essentially why I decided to comment on this so very Christian blog) but, Jelly bean has a lot of revision to do for her A2 exams unlike you clever people who've already got you're degrees and PHDs, Jelly Bean has a long way to go.

I'll still be around, making the occasional visit. Bye Bye!


3 April 2007 at 13:10  
Anonymous Voyager said...

With Tony and George W the current leaders of UK and US, the heads of predominatly christian nations. I think I can safely say that christianity is no more peaceful today than it was hundreds of years ago.

What a silly comment.

As for slavery, I thought when people were deprived of property they had bought they should be compensated for loss of property. Why British taxpayers should pay African natives for being taken prisoner by other tribes and sold to merchants is beyond comprehension.

Do you think the Shona tribe should pay compensation to the Matabele for the way Mugabe massacred them ?

I haven't seen much compensation forthcoming for those children who laboured 16 hours/day in textile mills to give us the industrial prosperity so taken for granted today

3 April 2007 at 13:15  
Blogger Topper said...

It might be open to interpretation but the Queen is the head of church and head of state I do believe.

Much as I'd rather we were a secular nation we are viewed as a christian one. So when we invade a muslim country, albeit for Oil rather than say reclaiming Jerusalim or whatever it can be interpreted as attack from a christian country.

An apolgoy re slavery wouldn't come from you or I, as we bear no personal responsibility but from the state, whilst we have no control on events in the past they do tend to influence the present and the future. It's not beyond the state to apolgise for actions it allowed or tolerated in it's past.

Also if our current prosperity is built on the back of something such as the slave trade would you not feel a little guilty? For example if I knew one of my ancestors made a fortune out of it and now I came from a wealthy background that had made a fortune from the slave trade while I wouldn't feel personaly responsible, I might feel a little sheepish about the privelage it may have directly albeit through quite a few years afforded me.

3 April 2007 at 13:22  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Jelly Bean,

You haven't listened to me. 'You' aren't a threat to me, as a woman your own religion dictates this inequality upon you, sadly the most you can do is meekly walk ten feet behind your 55 year old future husband who is a threat to me. More specifically, his ideals are a threat to the freedoms I experience.

I don't recall being upset by your comment about Israel and the US, in fact I don't remember commenting on any such comment.

Once again you have side-stepped all of the points I have made, perhaps because you cannot answer them, who knows?

Also, I love debating this sort of thing and if anything am in a jovial mood at the moment as i'm eating cake.

It is a shame that you will not be around to answer the questions I have posed to you, perhaps you could think about them though.

Thank's for the blessings of Allah, but i'll be fine without them.

I certainly hope that I haven't insulted you personally and implore you to comment again soon.

3 April 2007 at 13:25  
Blogger Topper said...

That a human being could ever be described as property is quite a sick thought in my book. Why should someone in an immoral trade be compensated? Would you compensate drug dealers for loss if income if only they'd stop?

As you pointed out, it isn't only Britain that was complicit in the trade, well done for being reasonably knowledgable about the history of the slave trade.

As for child labour, well thankfully yes that no longer happens in the UK. We're enlightened enough now to relocate our sweat shops to poorer nations across the globe to do that for us.

3 April 2007 at 13:28  
Anonymous m.d. said...


Alas, the Queen being the head of the Church is one of the few remaining relics of a by-gone era. The fact is we are not a Christian nation any more.

You Said: 'So when we invade a muslim country.... it can be interpreted as attack from a christian country'

Whether or not we are viewed as a country who is made up primariy of Christians does not make it either a fact, nor does it deem all of the actions by said state to have been informed by its supposed religion. If other nations have mistaken our identity, that is irrelevant to our actual identity i.e., just because some have interpreted our attack as one of Christianity, does not make it so. I am confused by the relevancy of your point.

About Slavery:

If I came from a family which had made money from the slave trade I wouldn't feel personally guilty, I would be embarrassed and denounce it publically, perhaps give money to current initiatives such as 'Stop the Traffick' but I wouldn't apologise for a crime I did not commit.

Also, how can the state apologise? Is Tony Blair supposed to apologise for something he didn't do? no.

No one is suggesting that slavery isn't sick Topper.. The fact that traders were compensated is as much out of our control, and has as little to do with us now, as the trading itself.

You Said: "We're enlightened enough now to relocate our sweat shops to poorer nations across the globe to do that for us"

Your comments about sweat shops are completely ridiculous. Modern sweat shops are around because of private businesses who have dodgy ethics, not because of the state. There is no "we" in this, so when you refer to "our" sweatshops you have either included me in a duel sweat-shop business venture with you that I am not aware of (and so would like to see some of the profits) or you have suddenly made everyone complicit in the activities of a few corporate clowns.

3 April 2007 at 13:55  
Blogger Topper said...

I pointed out the apology is not personal, it would not be from Tony Blair the individual but the PM of our country. It's not an acceptance of responsibility lying with those who live now, but from the state which we live in that has been in existence for hundreds of years.

Glad you agree with the analogy i made if you had come from a family directly involved. Is the apology that important, I dunno. Have you ever apologised for the actions of a friend you were with who acted badly somewhere? If we as a nation apoligise for slavery it's not a tacit admission of our personal guilt. No one is suggesting you or I are at fault.

We are all complicit for the ativities of corporate clowns when their behaviour is allowed to go unchecked. The power modern corporations have is something we have allowed to grow over the years. We know many of their practices are wrong and yet we struggle to do anything about them. Many decent people work for corporations that do things that are quite outrageous, it's not necesarily the individual but the system we've created that has allowed the private corporation to be treated with rights of a person.

As individuals in our society we have the right to vote and whatever results is apparantly through the will of the majority. So maybe you do your bit to highlight social injustice and corporate crime, I'd say well done to you and think well of you. But i think we all have a degree of responsibility from the chief execs of big companies, to small shareholders, to average citizens and the worst layabouts for the society in which we live.

Now have a pleasant afternoon, I shall try and drop in here again soon. It's always good to exchange ideas with people who seem to hold quite drasticaly differing points of view. At the very least I'm sure we've both reassured the other to just how strange other people can be and reaffirmed our faith if I can use that word in our own ways of thinking :-)

3 April 2007 at 14:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

That a human being could ever be described as property is quite a sick thought in my book. Why should someone in an immoral trade be compensated? Would you compensate drug dealers for loss if income if only they'd stop?

Are you real Topper or simply spoof ?

In 1807 Britain passed an Act to emancipate slaves in the British Empire - the US did so in 1865 and Brazil in 1888. In 1827 Parliament introduced the Death Penalty for salvers.

The Portuguese ceased transporting slaves by sea - they had managed 11.5 million before they started to breed them in Brazil.

The French abolished slavery in 1794 and Napoleon reintroduced it in 1802.

Saudi Arabia supposedly abolished slavery in 1962, Korea in 1894. Japan used slavery to build a railway through Thailand. China and Russia used slave labour throughout the 20th Century - even the sterring wheels of Lada cars were made in slave labour camps.

Without slavery Soviet Socialism would have been impossible and Stalin had 10% population of the USSR pass through his camps with extra special actions whenever labour shortages occurred.

Russian companies like Norilsk Nickel (now a quoted company) were built with slave labour; and Kolyma goldmines were worked with slave labour on the Highway of Death.

In 1807 it was permissible to own slaves, send children up chimneys, have five year olds operate as bobbin-liggers in mills, and for people to starve to death in most of England and Wales, in Scotland noone has any idea what happened as it was more like Afghanistan with hill tribes and feuding.

In 1807 Britain was at war with Napoleonic France - I think that they took the time to bother about a few African slaves remarkable for a nation in existential conflict

3 April 2007 at 14:51  
Anonymous Voyager said...

We are all complicit for the ativities of corporate clowns when their behaviour is allowed to go unchecked

Rubbish. I am not responsible for your mental state and I see no reason to apologise for it. You are clearly infected with the notions of "collective guilt" and "Society is at fault". It is your tune you whistle it

3 April 2007 at 14:55  
Anonymous Miss Jelly Bean said...

Hello once again! Just taking a break from my revision, I'm being a very good little girl with all the hard work I'm doing.

m.d. stop picking on my poor 55 year old future husband! What did he ever do to you to deserve such insults. You're very mean m.d. and Jelly bean is very upset with you for picking on an innocent old man. (If we were in school, I'd make you go stand in a corner)

P.S. may extra blessings of Allah be on m.d. even though he's been really nasty to my 55 year old fiance. As a Muslim, I'm very forgiving.

3 April 2007 at 16:24  
Anonymous The Recusant said...


I believe what Voyager was saying is that in 18-ought-blob slaves were property, however much you may like bring your 21st century revisionist sensibilities to bear on it, the simple fact is they were seen and treated as property. Just as today MPs can vote themselves the best public service pensions in the UK without recourse to the general public, so they could authorise compensation for themselves and their friends in a similar manner for loss of property vis, Slaves. Voyager is not condoning the actions of bygone practices, just factually representing the 19th century Status Quo, and in doing so chooses not to gush sentimentality in the process. The current practice of bewailing the lot of past generations neither offers succor to the sufferers nor prevents reoccurrence of said practice. Still if you get your reward out of espousing your Liberal credentials all over this Blog, go for it.


“Scotland no one has any idea what happened as it was more like Afghanistan with hill tribes and feuding.”


3 April 2007 at 16:41  
Anonymous Don Juan said...

Hello once again! Just taking a break from my revision, I'm being a very good little girl

What are you revising ? Being a "very good little girl" can lead you astray....

3 April 2007 at 17:47  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

You asked for an intellectual debate and I showed you evidence from the Quran that Islam is a form of tribalism waging war against other tribes. Furthermore, I told you that you are guilty of participation in this dangerous game by hijabing you from the rest of the population. As far as I can see, your response is entirely unrelated to what I was talking about. See for yourself. Here your reply:

"Colin, you quoted an interesting verse from the Quran: "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other" That is so true! Look at Israel and America today. It's like Romeo and Juliet...Anthony and Cleopatra... Samson and Delilah...

The meaning of your reply is dark and unclear. I have to admit that I am disappointed. Neither your response to my nor to M.D.'s comment is logically consistent. Your standard response consists in claiming that you are member of Sunni islam which is benevolent and different from shia. Actually, the majority of Islamic terrorists are from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. All these countries have a Sunni majority.

It is strange that people from Islamic countries like yourself want to tell their host country how to achieve a better life by adopting Islam although they just left a country in trouble because of the civil war of Islamic faithfuls. And strangely they didn't choose to emigrate to another Islamic country ruled by Sharia, e.g Saudi Arabia, but preferred instead to go to a Western country ruled by infidels.

And then they complain that their host countries is not ruled by Sharia as their home countries which they had to leave because of the poor living conditions.

Although, Islamic countries nearly always appear to produce poorer living conditions than comparable countries dominated by other religions (e.g. compare Pakistan and India or Indonesia and Thailand), Islamic faithfuls feel absolutely certain about their superiority and want to convert others to their superior civilization. It looks like blind people wanting to give directions to persons with one eye.

If Islam is indeed superior because God's communication to Muhammed, wouldn't we expect that he his kinder to his believers than to unbelievers? Why then does he reward infidels with a much better life? It doesn't make sense to those who are unwilling to completey abandon reason and logic.

And if God is almighty and merciful, why doesn't he protect his faithfuls on their pilgrimage to Mecca? Here a list of major incidents since 1979:

20 november 1979: more than 500 sunnit extremists occupy the Grand Mosque and take Islamic faithfuls hostage. Result: 300 deaths including 63 beheaded.

septembre 1983: 50 persons are wounded.

31 July 1987: "black friday". 402 deaths (85 form Saudi Arabia and 275 from Iran, 649 wounded.

9 July 1989: two bombs explode in Mecca. One death, 16 wounded.

2 July 1990: 1,426 pilgrims, most of them from Malaysia, suffocated in an accident.

23 May 1994: 270 pilgrims, most of them from Indonesia, killed in a mass stampede

15 April 1997: 343 pilgrims die in an accident in a camp.

9 April 1998: a rush during a ceremony kills 180 pilgrims.

5 March 2001: a rush during a ceremony kills 35 pilgrims.

1 February 2004: a rush during a ceremony kills 251 pilgrims.

5 January 2005: The collaps of a building used a hotel near the Grand Mosque kills 76 pilgrims.

12 January 2006: a rush during a ceremony kills 345 pilgrims and injures 1,000 pilgrims.

The fact that infidels have a better life than faithfuls and that even pilgrims, i.e. fervent believers, do not enjoy any protection is clearly at variance with the claims of superiority. Where is the evidence for such claims? Oh yes, I forgot somebody said so many many centuries ago and we are told that we have to believe what he said despite evidence to the contrary. We don't let us disturb with facts, don't we because our mind is made up. Well, then everything is alright.

3 April 2007 at 23:04  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Wow, Colin... That does seem to be a long list of deaths, good to see a number of beheadings there, wouldn't be an Islamic gathering without a few of those. Crowd-pleasers I think they are known as there. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that to the untrained eye it would seem that God doesn't like them... I know that sounds crass, but I'm just analysing the facts. No insult meant JB.

I thought that Mecca was meant to be a peaceful place where one takes their time to, you know, ponder and be close to Allah. Yet why are so many people rushing around... You'd think that at the begining of a ceremony someone would stand up at the front with a megaphone, perhaps standing on a chair, and say: "Hi, we're just about to have the ceremony, please all enjoy yourselves and that, the fire exits are over there in the corner, er.. oh yes, there will be a lunch buffet at around 1, when you hear the lunch bell, please, and I can't stress this enough, don't rush over to the food tent, as thousands of people could die or be beheaded" "Thank you for your patience, now over to Ahmed for a reading"

They really need an events co-ordinator.

These comments have been carefully ratified by my cat, and he has cleared this message of any religious bias, although he did ask me to say that Miss Jelly Bean was "da bomb", and "mad props to her for bein a Muzzer" I believe that to be a cat compliment of sorts.

4 April 2007 at 00:17  
Blogger Topper said...

"Rubbish. I am not responsible for your mental state and I see no reason to apologise for it. You are clearly infected with the notions of "collective guilt" and "Society is at fault". It is your tune you whistle it."

No. There is however a saying that, "all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing."

I've not looked it up and probably slightly misquoted it but we all have a little bit of responsibility to try and make our society/world a better place, I think. Be it in small ways that go largely unnoticed or on a larger scale. One would like to think primary motivation of a politician is a desire to change things for the better, I don't think that is always the case but it should be.
We don't all have to feel guilty at buying Nike trainers just because they are made in a sweat shop, for one lets face it probably 100% of high street trainers are made in such a fashion but I think it is an example of something we should be trying to change.

The recusant, I do like that name. I may have misinterpreted that post, having read it again I still think the language is ambiguous.

I suppose I am to an extent applying modern sensibilites to an era now quite long past. As for banging on about my liberal credentials, well yes I do consider myself quite liberal and see no reason to be ashamed of that. My only interest in this blog is that well I could alternatively go posting on a Chomsky blog and find views from people more like my own. However I think if are going to hold opinions, if you hold any value in them you should be quite willing to speak to people who maybe won't agree with you.

my very first post probably ended on overly flippant comment that might have been interpreted as inflamatory but I think other than that I'm here to exchange views and not trade insults. And quite a few replies have made a lot of assumptions that aren't really helpful. If you disagree(which i think everyone else that posted probably does), argue your point but lets keep it friendly.

4 April 2007 at 00:37  
Anonymous Voyager said...

No. There is however a saying that, "all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing."

So what inequities have you remedied in your immediate locality?

We don't all have to feel guilty at buying Nike trainers just because they are made in a sweat shop

Take it for granted that ALL textile products are made in a sweat shop and always were...that sweat shops in Leeds at Barras is what brought Michael Marks from Slownim in what is now Belarus like thousands of Jews to Leeds.

Take it for granted that sweat shops exist today in Birmingham and London run by Pakistani "entrepreneurs" exploiting low-wage labour outside minimum wage laws.

Don't buy "Nike" destroy the brand by buying unbranded product as near to cost-price (£5) as possible....boycott branded goods if you are so keen.

So far you are full of righteous indignation about what others should do but seem devoid of individual moral action or insight.

Do you get concerned at 700 babies/day being aborted in Britain ?

4 April 2007 at 07:46  
Anonymous m.d. said...


You could go posting on a 'Chomsky' site but do you really want to speak to a load of spotty know-nothing 19 year-olds who have a poster of Che on their wall and have just read 'Rogue State' and said to everyone they meet "Like, oh my gosh, like, we are sooo a terrorist state, and like, Bush and Blair are like, soooo the same as Bin Laden. Did you like, know that they trained and armed Bin Laden in like the 80s?"

People may insult you here by the tone of their argument, but at least there aren't people regurgitating the words of an MIT professor in every post as if he's some kind of spectacled deity.

4 April 2007 at 10:01  
Blogger Topper said...

I don't think pakistani entrepaneurs as you put it are the only ones circumventing minimum wage laws and despite a quick google about the co creator of Marks and Spencer I'll have to take your word that it was cheap labour that attracted him. Wikipedia is a resource one takes with a pinch of salt but it suggests Leeds was the destination due to the presence of a company known to hire Jewish refugees.

I could take it for granted, but if you think something is wrong why not risk sounding full of indignation and go on about it? Nike and Adidas's of this world have been known to squirm and try and say that they pay fair wages and provide workers with decent working conditions against documented evidence. Ok so it's went on before, it continues now and will probably happen in the future but if you think paying people absolute pennies on something you are making an absolute fortune on is wrong then you should say so and do what you can. As a consumer I can boycott the brand as you say and only other real action one can take is to raise awareness, trust me I bore my friends to. Big brand names are eaiser targets than low profile people in Birmingham and London that I not aware of.

I do my best to boycott branded goods, and browsing online it's not quite as difficult as in the past to find ethical shopping advice.

To address some of your other points, inequities remedied in my locality? I'm no caped crusader but I'll take the time to sign a petition, attend a demonstration if I think it's for a good cause, attend a benefit gig. I like many others could do more, I'm not holier than thou.

As for 700 babies being aborted. Yeah that does concern me, I'm not anti-abortion and I'm not strongly pro abortion. I don't believe that from conception a cluster of cells is a human being. That said from what I've seen, 27 weeks is the current limit for a termination i think that should be reduced by quite a bit. My own partner is the one that knows a bit more about this, she has quite strong views on it and seem sensible enough to me. 12/15 weeks is plenty enough time to realise your pregnant and make what I presume is a very difficult decision for most women and I don't know exactly how far foetus has developed but considerably less than what the law allows for just now.

4 April 2007 at 10:48  
Blogger Topper said...

"You could go posting on a 'Chomsky' site but do you really want to speak to a load of spotty know-nothing 19 year-olds who have a poster of Che on their wall and have just read 'Rogue State' and said to everyone they meet "Like, oh my gosh, like, we are sooo a terrorist state, and like, Bush and Blair are like, soooo the same as Bin Laden. Did you like, know that they trained and armed Bin Laden in like the 80s?"

People may insult you here by the tone of their argument, but at least there aren't people regurgitating the words of an MIT professor in every post as if he's some kind of spectacled deity."

Do I dive in with both feet here? I've read a bit of Chomsky as you might not be surprised, there is a bit of cult of Chomsky around him, but surely that doesn't invalidate anything he says. Before I even think about debating him, do you even remotely agree with anything he has ever said?

The USA did support the Contras in Nicaragua. Terrorists who targeted civilian targets. You might not be keen on the policies of the Nicaraguan gov't of the time and I don't think they were quite lily white(who is?) but it has been US policy to unsettle and overthrow democratic regimes in the past. Not including Iraq in that section, was that first time USA tried to topple a dictatorship, probably not but I'd need to look it up.

Did arm and train Bin Laden as you say albeit with tongue in cheek, because he was fighting in Afghanistan at the time and it suited foreign policy at the time, much as it suited selling to Saddam in the 80's also. It's not exactly a revelation but it is basicaly true.

4 April 2007 at 11:00  
Anonymous m.d. said...


I agree with many of the things he says, he is biased of course, but who isn't? I do get very frustrated by people who only read those kinds of pop-politics books of authors like Chomsky, Zinn, Pilger and Fisk etc.. These readers are almost always quoting the well thumbed pages of 'Understanding Power' as if it's the 'Anarchist's cookbook', ready to be used as dynamite on the campus debate circles. Oh and Nicaragua always comes up.

They usually don't know anything about politics theory, just reel off facts about the US.

If you want to read some interesting books go for the classics, Machiavelli, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel etc... Then read other stuff, I tell you it will give you more of a rounded view of international politics.

4 April 2007 at 11:33  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I don't think pakistani entrepaneurs as you put it are the only ones circumventing minimum wage laws and despite a quick google about the co creator of Marks and Spencer I'll have to take your word that it was cheap labour that attracted him.

Toppe I begin to lose patience with you.

Michael Marks came to Leeds from Slownim, like many Jews from The Pale he went to Barras which ran a sweat shop making up clothing not to place orders for the multinational store he had brought in his suicase but to find WORK

Why you find the term "Pakistani" in association with sweatshop so upsetting is because you know nothing of the rag-trade and who is operating such making-up shops in Britain.

Your education is factually deficient and you would do well to temper your opinions with facts, and facts are not to be fashioned in line with your prejudices, which seem to be blatant

but I'll take the time to sign a petition, attend a demonstration

rolling your sleeves up perhaps to make a credit card donation ?

4 April 2007 at 11:54  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It was Barran in Leeds and he came from Slonim near Grodno....

Eventually the Leeds making-up factories were owned by Jewish families employing thousands of women as seamstresses

The Burton tailoring factory - the largest in Europe - employed 16,000 people at its peak in the mid-20s. While they escaped large-scale assault, 200 buildings were destroyed by bombers during WWII.

John Barran. Barran came up with the revolutionary idea of off the peg, ready-made clothing.

Armley Mills sewing room In the 1850s Barran applied new technology to the industry introducing Singer sewing machines and, more innovatively, a new type of band knife made by Leeds engineers, Greenwood and Batley. The industry flourished in Leeds with a number of companies involved who later became household names, such as Burtons and Hepworths.

The big clothing factories were supplemented by large numbers of sweatshops where Jewish immigrants, driven from Russia and Poland after 1881, provided a cheap workforce. The importance of the industry can be gauged from the fact that by 1911 a quarter of women workers in Leeds were employed in the clothing industry.

4 April 2007 at 12:01  
Anonymous Voyager said...

t was Barran in Leeds and Marks came from Slonim near Grodno....

4 April 2007 at 12:02  
Anonymous m.d. said...


'rolling your sleeves up perhaps to make a credit card donation ? '

Very amusing indeed!


Don't feel threatened by the people on this site. I got much the same response when I rocked up here, just take a swing, if it misses, then it misses, you may get hit or even OK'd every now and then, but is it not better to spar with people who you may learn from rather than group-hugging in the Chomsky lounge?

4 April 2007 at 12:03  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

o.k. Colin, you're right,I wanted an intellectual debate, so let's have one.

You first quote from the Quran was:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Before i go on to analysing the actual verse, I would like to stress that the Quran does not teach Muslims to not take non-muslims as friends. If anything, it teaches the complete opposite.

"Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as 'wali'). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9)

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.] (Al-Ma’dah 5 :8)

Thus the Quran urges all Muslims to deal kindly and justly with non-muslims.

As for the verse you quoted to me, well it doesn't actually say that Muslims should not be friends with non-muslims. There has been a slight misinterpretation from you. Allow me to clarify. In the verse you quoted, the word 'awliya' is used, the singular for which is 'wali'.Most people have this common misconception that 'wali' means friend. It doesn't mean friend, it means someone who is close and intimate to you, like a guardian or protector. Someone who would guide you. In Islam, we have sheikhs and other spiritual teachers who act as 'guardians' to whom we do 'bayyat' and after doing 'bayyat', they become our spiritual guide or teacher of islam.

In the Qur'an this word is used for God, such as [Allah is the Protector (or Lord and Master) of those who believe. He takes them out from the depths of darkness to light…] (Al- Baqarah 2: 257)

There are many other references in the Qur'an that give this meaning. The same word is also sometimes used in the Qur'an for human beings, such as [And whosoever is killed unjustly, We have granted his next kin "wali" the authority (to seek judgement or punishment in this case)…] (Al-‘Isra' 17 :33)

The correct translation of the verse in Surat Al-Ma’idah is: [O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.] (Al-Ma'dah 5: 51)

It is obvious that Jews patronize the Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This verse is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other.

In his Tafsir, (Qur’an exegesis) Imam Ibn Kathir has mentioned that some scholars say that this verse (i.e. the one you referred to) was revealed after the Battle of Uhud when Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (See Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)

Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. A Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says: [O you who believe! Take not for protectors ('awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers.] (Al-Tawbah 9: 23)

In a similar way, the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslims's duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from oppression. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that he himself will defend a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non-Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. Allah Almighty says, [Let not the Believers take the unbelievers as their patrons over against the Believers…] (Aal-'Imran 3: 28)

He Almighty also says: [O you who believe! Take not for patrons unbelievers rather than Believers. Do you wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?] (An-Nisaa’ 4:144)

I would also like to point out, that during the time of the Prophet, Christians who needed a place to worship, were given permission by the prophet himself, to pray in the 'masjid-al-nabvi'. THAT'S LIKE THE POPE ALLOWING ME TO PRAY IN THE VATICAN! (I don't think that'll ever happen).

I hope this has helped you understand this verse of the Quran.

You also mentioned Colin, that "By wearing a hijab you clearly separate yourself from others. Practically, you are telling others every day in the streets of the UK: I am a proud member of my own group and do not belong to you".
So I do, what's your point? I'm not against integration in society Colin, but you can hardy expect everyone to wear exactly the same form of clothing, like some sort of uniform, in such a muticulturred/ multi-religious society. When I wear a hijab, I don't do it to stand out or make a statement to others who don't wear the hijab? (Please clarify if I've misinterpreted your point).

As for the verse you quoted from Surah 9: verse 5, well as you may recall, we have already discussed this verse and I'm not going to repeat myself again.


You essentially made 3 important points which were:
1)"Are you aware of the irony of your statement? If you said that in Iran -as opposed to a country based on equality- your opinion would carry no weight whatsoever as you are a woman. The very fact that you cannot legitimately make the very comment you have made in the country you are making it about is very amusing to me in a depressing kind of way".

2)"When you say that you are a 'Muslim woman and are not supressed', that is primarily because you are not living in the country to which you are eulogising about".

3)"I liked your argument about majority opinion over the Quran. Would you say that; if in the near future extremist views spread to 51% of all Muslims, the barometer of Islam would switch from you Sunni's to the extremists simply because there are more of them? If so, then it is not as static as you make out. If not, then your majority argument is nonsensical".

I would first like to answer the 3rd point you made. You’re absolutely right m.d. if tomorrow extremist views spread to 51%, then yes the barometer of Islam would switch. I don’t however see how my majority argument is nonsensical. Do elaborate.

As for your first and second point, I think an Islamic revolution in Iran was excellent and I don't regret it in the slightest. Allow me to explain. I can understand that you find it ironic that as a woman, I'm standing up for a form of government which according to you suppresses my rights as a woman. Firstly, I do not completely disagree with you because there are many areas in Iran were women are suppressed however, I would like to clarify that this is not the case for the majority of women in Iran. Even so, I don't think your main problem is with women in Iran, I think it's concerning all Muslim women, no matter what country they're from. I'm afraid you obviously lack knowledge in this field of Islam, as you don't have any awareness of the rights of women in Islam. Allow me to educate you on this.


Socially Islam gives women four different statuses:

1. as a Daughter
2. as a Wife
3. as a Mother
4. as a Sister

1. Daughter
i. Islam prohibits infanticide or killing of female infants. This is considered a serious crime of murder.

Surah Al-Takvir Chapter 81, Verses 8 and 9 (81: 8-9)

“When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned, for what crime she was killed.” (17:31), (6:15)

In pre-Islamic Arabia killing of female infants was very common and very often the moment a female was born she was buried alive.

Islam not only prohibits female infanticide, but it forbids all types of infanticide, irrespective of whether the infant is a male or female. It is mentioned in Surah Al-Anam chapter 6, Verse 151 (6:151).

“Kill not your children on a plea of want. We provide sustenance for you and for them. Come not near shameful deeds, whether open or secret. Take not life which Allah has made sacred.”

A similar guidance is repeated in Surah Al-Isra Chapter 17, Verse 31 (17:31).

“Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.”

After the spread of Islam in Arabia, thankfully, this evil practice has been discontinued for the last 1,400 years but unfortunately it is yet prevalent in India.

In a BBC documentary film titled “Let her die” shown in the programme “Assignments”, the statistics of female infanticide was given by Emetic Buchanan. According to the statistics compiled by them, everyday more than 3,000 foetuses are being aborted in India on being identified that they are female. If you multiply this figure with the number of days in a year (365 days) more than one million female foetuses are aborted every year in India. It is practised maximum in the state of Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan.

ii. Islam not only prohibits female infanticide but also rebukes the thought of rejoicing on the news of birth of a male child and not rejoicing on the news of the birth of a female child.

Surah Al-Nahl (Chapter 16), Verses 58 and 59 (16:58-59)

“When news is brought to one of them of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkness, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on (sufferance) the choice they decide on?”

iii. In Islam the girl child is entitled to support, and upbringing and good treatment.

According to an authentic hadith related in Ahmed, Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) said, “Anyone who brings up two daughters properly they will be very close to me on the day of Judgment.”

According to another hadith whoever brings up two daughters properly and treats them kindly and justly shall enter paradise.

iv. There should be no partiality in bringing up of sons and daughters.

Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) always spoke about justice and kindness towards a child whether it be a daughter or a son. Once a person in the presence of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) kissed his son and put him on his lap and did not do the same for his daughter who was with him. The Prophet (Pbuh) objected and told the man that he was being unjust and that he should have also kissed his daughter and placed her on the other lap. The Prophet (Pbuh) not only preached about equal justice to sons and daughters but also practised it himself.

2. Wife
i.a. Islam does not consider “Woman as an instrument of the devil” as considered by the Bible. But rather the Qur’an calls her “Mohsana” - a fortress against Satan, because a good woman by marrying a man helps him keep a straight path in life.

b. Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) declared that there is no Monasticism in Islam. He further ordained, “Oh you young men - whoever is able to marry should marry for this will help him to lower his gaze and guard his modesty” (Al-Bukhari). c. It is narrated by Anas that the messenger of Allah (Pbuh) said, “when a man marries he has completed one half of his religion!”

And no, this doesn't mean that if you marry twice you will complete your full religion. The Prophet (Pbuh) considered marriage for a Muslim as half of his religion because it shields him from promiscuity, fornication, homosexuality, etc, which add to half the evil in society.

Secondly, only after you marry do you have an opportunity to become a husband or wife, a father or a mother and thus perform your duties as either as a husband or as a wife; as a father or as a mother. Whether you marry once or twice you are yet fulfilling only half your 'deen'.

ii. a. According to Islam marriage is a blessing and bounty on both men and women.

In Surah Al-Rum Chapter 30, Verse 21 (30:21)

“And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts)”.

b. In Surah Nisa Chapter 4, Verse 21 (4:21)

The Qur’an refers to marriage as a “Misaq” that is a sacred covenant or agreement between husband and wife.

iii. a. In Surah Nisa Chapter 4, Verse 19 (4: 19)

“Oh! You who believe, you are forbidden to inherit women against their will!”

b. Islamic law requires the consent of both the parties before marriage. In matters related to marriage a woman cannot be forced by anyone including her father. Parents can help and advise the daughter on marriage but cannot impose or force his will. There have been cases where Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) had given the choice of continuing or invalidating certain marriages where the consent of the daughter was not taken (Ibn Hambal No.2469).

c. Ibn Abbas reported that a girl came to the messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) and she reported that her father had forced her to marry without her consent. The Messenger of God gave her the choice (between accepting the marriage or invalidating it _Ibn Hanbal No.2469).

In another version, the girl said : “Actually I accept this marriage but I wanted to let women know that parents have no right (to force a husband on them)” (Ibn-Maja, No.1873).

iv. Woman in Islam is considered to be a home-maker and not a housewife because she is not married to the house.
v. In Islam, when a woman is married to a man it is not that she is married to a master so that she should be treated like a slave but she is married to her equal and should be treated like a partner with love and dignity.

The Prophet (Pbuh) said the most perfect believers are those that are best in character and behaviour and those that are best to their families (that is to their wives) (Ibn Hambal No.7396).

vi. a. The rights of husband and wife are equal in all respects except in the aspect of leadership in the family.

In Surah Al-Baqarah Surah 2, Verse 228 (2: 2228)

“And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable but men have a degree of advantage over them.”

Here a degree higher does not mean in superiority but refers to responsibility. The Qur’an has stated in Surah Al-Nisa Chapter 4, Verse 34 (4 :34).

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given one more (strength) than the other because they support them from their means.”

The Arabic word used is “Qawwam” which many a time is mistaken for superiority but is actually derived from “Iqama” meaning to “stand up for” in the same fashion as Iqama is given before prayers that is “standing up for prayers.”

Therefore men are not one degree higher in superiority or dictatorship but one degree higher in standing up for responsibility.

b. According to the commentary of Al Tabari the word ‘Qawwam’ means a degree higher in responsibility and service and not superiority. Therefore it is the duty of the man to see that he provides security and maintenance to women and this should be carried out with mutual consent.

vii. Even if there is lack of affection or liking between husband and wife this is not a justification to be unjust and not compassionate.

In Surah Al-Nisa Chapter 4, Verse 19 (4:19)

“Live with them (wives) on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing Allah brings about through a great deal of good.”

viii. There is a system of divorce in Islam which is to be applied only in extreme cases where the problem between the husband and wife is too grave to be solved and the continuation of married life would be counterproductive. The method of divorce is clearly spelt out in the Qur’an in Surah -Al-Talaq in Chapter 65 and in Surah Al-Baqrah Verses 227 to 242.

According to Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh), among the permissible things in Islam, the most hated in the sight of Allah is divorce. It is as though the heavens shatter (metaphorically).

There is a great deal of misconception and myth about the system of divorce in Islam, not only among the non-Muslims but also amongst the Muslims, who think that men have the exclusive right to give divorce.

Following are the ways of dissolution of marriage in Islam.
a. By the unilateral will of the husband.
b. By the unilateral will of the wife (if the marriage contract so specifies).
c. By the judgment of a Muslim judge (Kazi). After a reasonable complaint lodged by a wife against her husband on grounds such as ill treatment, lack of support, etc., or any other legitimate and satisfactory reason.
d. ‘Khula’ where even if the husband is not at fault and if the wife does not like staying with the husband. She need not specify the reason for seeking a ‘Khula’. An incident of Khula had taken place during the time of Prophet (Pbuh) where he commanded the husband to give divorce.
e. Many westerners have the misconception that Polygamy is compulsory in Islam and that Islam ordains that all Muslim men should marry four wives.

The true fact is that monogamy is what is preferred in Islam. The Holy Qur’an is the only religious book on the face of the earth which has the following phrase in its directives to men, “marry only one”.

3. the rights of a mother

The only thing above respect to Mother, is the worship of Allah (SWT) - It is mentioned in Ch.17, Verse No.28-29

It says that… ‘Allah has ordained for you - that Allah has ordained for you, that you worship none but Him, and to be kind to our parents

And if any one or both of them reach old age do not say a word of contempt or repel them but address them with honour, and speak to them with kindness, and lower your wing of humility and pray to Allah (SWT) -‘My Lord, bless them as they have cherished me in childhood’

Surah Nisa, Ch. No. 4, Verse No. 1 says… ‘Respect the womb that bore you’.

Surah A’nam, Ch.6, Verse No.151, says… (Arabic)…

That… ‘You have to be kind to your parents’.

Again in Surah Luqman Ch.31, Verse No.14

It again says the same thing that… (Arabic)…

‘We have enjoined on the human beings to be kind to his parents

In travail upon travail, did their mother bore them and in years twain was their weaning’

A similar thing is repeated again in Surah Ahqaf, Ch.46, Verse No.15


That… ‘We have enjoined on the human beings to be kind to his parents

In pain did their mother bore them and in pain did she give them birth’.

According to a Hadith related in ‘Ahmed’, as well as in ‘Ibn-e-Majah’ - It says ‘Paradise lies at the feet of the mother’.

That does not mean that if my mother is walking on the road and if she steps on muck and filth - that thing becomes Paradise

It means that after you fulfill your basic duties, if you respect your mother, if you are kind to your mother, If you are honorable to your mother, you will Inshaallah enter Paradise.

Another Hadith related in Sahih Bukhari in Volume 8, Ch. No. 2 Hadith No. 2, as well as in Sahih-Muslim - It says that a man asked the Prophet… ‘Who requires the maximum love and respect and my companionship in this world?

The Prophet replied – ‘your mother’

‘Who is next’? – ‘your mother’

‘Who is next?’ – ‘your mother’

The man asked for the fourth time, - ‘Who is next’

The Prophet replied ‘your father’

75% of the love and respect goes to the father, sorry goes to the mother and 25% of the love and respect goes to the father

Three fourth of the better part of the love and respect goes to the mother – One fourth of the remaining part of the love and respect goes to the father

4. rights of a sister in islam

According to Surah Tawbah, Ch. 9, Verse No.71, it says... (Arabic)…

That… ‘The men and the women they are maintainers and supporters of each other’

The word ‘Auliya’ here means ‘supporters’ and ‘maintainers’ - they are supporters and maintainers of each other

In short they are brothers and sisters unto each other, unless otherwise

Prophet Muhammed (may peace be upon him) he said, ‘The women are the ‘Shakat’ -‘Shakat’ means sister’

It also means ‘half’, as humankind has been divided into two halves - men and women - It refers to as ‘half’, also as ‘sisters’

* the Educational rights given to the women in Islam

The first 5 verses which were revealed of the Qur’an Shareef were from Surah Alaq, or Surah Iqra, Ch. 96, Verse No. 1 to 5 which says - (Arabic…)

‘Read, recite or proclaim in the name of thy lord, (Arabic…) Who has created the human beings from a congealed clot of blood, a leech like substance

(Arabic…) - Read, thy Lord is most bountiful

(Arabic…) - Who has taught the use of the pen

(Arabic…) - Who has taught the human beings that which he knew-not’.

The first guidance given in the Qur’an Shareef to the humankind was not to pray, was not to fast, was not to give charity - It was read - Islam pays utmost importance to education.

The Prophet ordained the parents, the father and the mother, to see to it that they gave Religious education to their daughter

And after a lady married, it was the duty of the husband to provide her with the Religious education

If he couldn’t do it himself, and if she wanted, he should allow her to go somewhere else to acquire the education

According to Sahih Bukhari, the women were very enthusiastic to acquire knowledge, and they once told the Prophet… ‘You are usually surrounded by men - why do not you give us one particular day so that we too can ask you questions’ - And the Prophet agreed.

Beside he himself going, he sent many other of his Sahabas to the women, to give them education

Imagine, 1400 years ago, when the women were ill treated and were only used as chattels - leave aside being educated, Islam asked the women to be educated

We have examples of several Muslim women who are scholars

And the best example I can give you is of Ayaisha (may Allah be pleased with her), who was the daughter of Hazrat Abubaker, the first Khalifa of Islam, (may Allah be pleased with him), and the wife of our beloved Prophet Muhammed (may peace be upon him)

She gave guidance even to the Sahabas and to the Khalifas - One of her famous student Urwah-Ibn-Zubair

She said that… ‘I have not seen a greater scholar than Ayaisha in the field of learning of the Qur’an, in obligatory duties, in lawful and unlawful matters, in literature and poetry, in Arab history’

She was not only expert in the Religious field, she had profound knowledge of medicine - Whenever the foreign delegates came to the Prophet and discussed, she used to memorize the remedies

She was well versed in the field of math, and many times the companions came to her to ask problems of ‘Mirath’ that is, ‘Inheritance’ - And how much share could be divide how much share should be given to the each individual

She has - she is said to have guided all the four Khalifas, including the companions.

And she also gave guidance, many a times to Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) and she herself has narrated 2210 Hadiths.

According to AbuUmm... according to Abu Moosa, who was a famous Jurist, he said that… ‘Whenever we companions had lack of knowledge on a matter, we went to - we went to - Hazrat Ayaisha (May Allah be pleased with her), and definitely she had knowledge about it’.

She is said to have taught more than 88 scholars - In short, she was a scholar of the scholars.

There are several examples, even of Safiya (may Allah be pleased with her) who was the wife of the Prophet, who was an expert on Fiqah Islamic Jurisprudence.

And according to Imam an Nouvi ‘She was the most intellectual women of that time’.

Another example is Umme - Salma (may Allah be pleased with her) who was the wife of the beloved Prophet

According to Ibn Hajar… ‘She has taught 32 different scholars’.

There are several examples - Fatima-Binte-Kais, she is said to have a discussion on Fiqh, for a full day with Hazrat Ayaisha and Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), and still they could not prove her wrong

According to Imam an Nauvi, ‘she migrated in the early days and she had profound knowledge’

Other examples like Umme Salim, who was the mother of Anas - she is said to be very well versed in the field of Dawah.

Other examples are Saeeda Nafisa, who was the grand daughter of Hasan and she also said to have taught Imam Shafi, who was the founder of the one of schools of thought.

There are several examples - Even Umme-Ad-darda, who was the wife of Abul -Ad-darda, she is said be an expert in science

And even Imam Bukhari has said that she was an expert in her field - You can give several examples

At the time when the women were ill treated, at the time when women were buried alive, when they were born, at that time Islam had women scholars, in the field of medicine, in the field of science, in the field of Religion

Because Islam tells that every woman should be educated, - Will you call such women’s right’s in Islam as modernizing or oudated?

* the legal rights given to a woman in Islam

According to the Islamic law, men and women are equal - The Shariah protects the life and property of a man and woman both.

If a man murders a woman he too will receive the ‘Hurth’ punishment – That is Capital punishment of ‘Kisas’

According to Surah Baqarah Ch. 2, Verse No.178 and 179, ‘he too shall be killed’.

Like wise if a woman murders, she too will be killed

According to the Islamic law of ‘Kisas’, men and women - irrespective the injury be of the eye, of the nose, of the ear, of the body - both receive equal punishment

And if the guardian of the murderer, even it be a woman - If she says, that forgive the murderer and she accepts ‘Dia’, that is compensation - her opinion cannot be rejected - They have to accept it

And if there’s difference of opinion between the relatives of the person whose murdered - And some say that the murderer should be killed and some say that he should be forgiven and ‘Dia’ should be accepted - people should prevent the relatives from killing that murderer.

And irrespective whether the witness or the opinion is given by a man or woman, it has same weight.

According to Surah Maida, Ch.5, Verse No.30 - It says… ‘As to the thief, whether he be man or a woman, cut off his or her hand as a punishment for his crime, an example from Allah (SWT)’.

Means, if a person robs, irrespective whether he is a man or a woman his or her hands should be chopped - The punishment is the same

According to Surah Nur, Ch.24, Verse No.2, it says ‘If any commits fornication, be it a man or a woman, flog them with 100 stripes’

The punishment for fornication in Islam irrespective whether it is a man or a woman, it is the same - Flogging with 100 stripes.

The punishment for men and women, is the same in Islam.

In Islam a woman is allowed to give witness

Imagine, Islam gave right to a woman to be a witness, 14 centuries ago

Even now in as late as 1980, the Jewish Rabai, they were considering that whether the women should be given a right to act as a witness or not - And Islam gave that right 1400 years ago

In Islam for a small crime, you require 2 witness - for a big crime you require 4 witnesses

Accusing a woman falsely is a big crime in Islam, therefore you require 4 witnesses.

Islam gives utmost importance to the chastity of the woman

When a lady marries, she normally adopts the name of her husband

In Islam she has the option of either keeping her husband’s name, either adopting the name of the husband, or maintaining her maiden name

And maintaining the maiden name is recommended in Islam - And we find in several Muslim societies that women, even after they get married they maintain their maiden name, because according to the Islamic law men and women are equal

Will you call such rights in Islam modernizing or oudated?

Let us analyze the political rights

According to Surah Tawba, Ch.9, Verse No.71, which I quoted earlier, which says.


Which says… ‘The men and the women they are supporters of each other’. *** 06 Sec

Supporters not only Socially - even Politically – Politically, men and women should support each other

Islam gives women the right to vote

If you read Surah Al Mumtahina, Ch.60, Verse No.12, it says that… ‘O Prophet when the believing women come to thee with an oath of fealty’.

Here, the Arabic word is ‘Bayan’ - And ‘Bayan’ means much more than our modern, present day election, - because Prophet Muhammed (may peace be upon him), he was not only the messenger of Allah, but he was also the head of the state

And women came to the Prophet and they agreed with him being the head of the state.

So Islam gives the woman even the right to vote

Women can even take part in law making

And according to the famous Hadith in which Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), he was discussing with the Sahabas, and considering putting an upper limit on the ‘Meher ’, since young men were discouraged from getting married - a lady from the back seat she objected and said When the Qur’an says in Surah Nisa Ch.4, Verse No.20 that… ‘you can even give a heap of treasure, a heap of gold in ‘Meher’, when Qur’an puts no limit on ‘Meher’, who is Umar to put a limit (may Allah be pleased with him)

And immediately Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) he said… ‘Umar is wrong and the lady is right’

Imagine, she was a common lady - If it would have been a famous lady, the name of the lady would be mentioned in the Hadith

Since the Hadith does not mention the name of the lady, we can understand that the lady was a common lady

Means, even a common lady can object to the ‘Khalifa’, the head of the state

And in technical terms it would be called that – ‘she is objecting to the breach of the constitution’,- because Qur’an is the constitution of the Muslims - That means a woman can even take part in law making

Women have even taken part in the battle fields

There is a full chapter in the Sahih Bukhari mentioning women in the battle field - Women gave water - they give first aid to the soldiers

And there is a particular mention of a woman by the name of Nasiba, who were among the few, who protected our beloved Prophet during the battle of Ohud

Because the Qur’an says ‘Man is the protector of the ‘Woman’

Under normal circumstances, the women should not go to the battle field. It is the duty of the man

Only when required, under necessity are women allowed - and they should go to the battle field - Otherwise no

Otherwise you’ll have the same position as you are having in the USA.

There... women were allowed to join the battle since 1901 but they were not allowed to take active part - They only played the part of a nurse

Later on after the ‘Feminist Movement’ had started in 1973, the ‘Feminist movement’ demanded – ‘Why aren’t women allowed to take active part in the battle field?’

So the American government allowed - After 1976 women, were allowed to take active part in the battle field

And last year according to a report of the defense department, of the defense department of America, which was released on the 23rd of April, 1993 it said that - ‘90 people were sexually assaulted in a convention, of out which out of which 83 were women and 117 officers were charged with in disciplinary action’ - Imagine in one convention only, 83 women sexually assaulted.

What was the crime of those 117 officers?

They made the women run and they snatched at their clothes - They made them parade absolutely nude without even covering the genital parts - They were made to have sex in public

Is this what you call ‘Women’s rights’?

If you think that this is what is ‘Women’s right’, then you can keep your rights to yourselves

Islam does not want sisters, daughters or mothers to be sexually assaulted.

So Islam allows women to take part in the battle field only when required

But there also they should maintain their Islamic Hijab and the Islamic ethics, and their modesty.

Islam believes in equality between men and women - Equality does not mean identicality.

Suppose in a classroom 2 students, student ‘A’ and ‘B’, during an examination both come out first - Both secure 80% marks - 80 out of 100

Out of the hundreds of students, 2 come out first ‘A’ and ‘B’

When you analyze the question paper, the question paper has 10 different questions, each carrying 10 marks.

In question 1 student ‘A’ got 9 out of 10, and student ‘B’ got 7 out of 10 - So in question 1 student ‘A’ was higher than student ‘B’.

In question 2, student ‘A’ got 7 out of 10 and student ‘B’ got 9 out of 10,
- Student ‘B’ was higher than student ‘A’ in question number 2.

In question 3 both of them got 8 out of 10, both were equal

So when we add up the marks of all the ten questions, both student ‘A’ and ‘B’ got 80 out of 100

So in short, student ‘A’ and student ‘B’ are over all equal

In some question ‘A’ is higher than ‘B’, in some question ‘B’ is higher than ‘A’, in others both are equal

In the same fashion, taking the example that since Allah has given man more strength - Suppose a thief enters the house will you tell, ‘I believe in women’s rights - I believe in women’s rights’ - will you tell your mother, your sister and your daughter, to go and fight the thief?’

No, but natural you’ll fight him - If required they may interfere - under normal circumstances since Allah has given you more physical strength, you have to go and tackle the thief.

So here, in physical strength, man is one degree higher than the woman

Let us take another example where it comes to respecting the parents - The children are supposed to respect the mother 3 times more than the father.

Here the women have one degree higher than the men - Over all both are equal

Woh, that took a lot of research! Most info taken from lectures of Islamic Scholars (sorry i didn't reference in my comment, would have taken too long) As for referencing the quotes taken from the Quran and hadith, that i have done in my comment)

Have a nice life, Bye bye!

4 April 2007 at 13:02  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

some of the info may be muddled up and there might be some spelling mistakes also. I didn't get time to read through and I was using many websites at the same time. Please accept my humble apologies for mistakes. Now I must go and continue my revision. My politics teacher is very intimidating and I don't think he likes me very much so, must go revise about the EU.

Don't bother replying if you don't want to.

4 April 2007 at 13:07  
Blogger Topper said...

Who says I find it upsetting, maybe it's a sign of this PC age we seem to live in that I wondered if the quotation marks around entrepreneurs was your way of highlighting a degree of disapproval and was it pointed only at one section of society, or a possible irritation at a perceived double standard?

Remember I don't know you and you know don't know me whatever assumptions we might have about each other. I'd rather be seen to make a stupid point than carry on in ignorance. Your reply suggests that you would be quite outraged at the suggestion of a racial bias and well don't take offence just as I said make your point.

I'm factually deficient you say, tell me who isn't? Are you a font of all wisdom or do you have areas of specialist knowledge only? I appreciate the background to the Marks and Spencer chain not that I couldn't find such information in a few moments on the internet.

A distinct lack of substance to some, not all of the replies I've had here. "Oh Nicaragua always comes up." What sort of reply is that, excuse me for committing the crime of being picking something dreadfully obvious, curse my lack of imagination. A faux pas obviously.

I do intend to read more, you reccomend Machiavelli, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, some fine works no doubt. Hegel I had to look up i not to proud to admit as name didn't ring a bell. I had intended to look at Rousseau after reading about the French Revolution recently. Power by Bertrand Russell was reccomended to me, I'll get to those once i've finished my latest, Fisk, Chomsky, Pilger, lefty type stuff first obviously!

I could be wrong but I'm detecting ah that's just the way the world works cynicism in some replies and well you know sweat shops might be bad but look it all turned ok here, look at Marks and Spencers what a success that was. Call me a hopeless idealist but I'd like to see us as a species strive for better.

Is that the general concensus here regarding low wage labour, that well it is just an unfortuante necessity? Economics pressures and all that?

4 April 2007 at 13:14  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

In fact, come to think of it, Jelly bean shall take a permanent leave from this blog. As much as she likes discussing her religion with you clever people, something tells her she is not really liked by other communicants. She feels lonely and left out being the only Muslim, and doesn't want any of her Christian (or athiest)friends to be hurt by any of her comments. it was nice whilst it lasted though!
Don't worry, I'm sure another muslim will sooner or later come across this wonderful blog ofCranmer's and you can penalise him/her when that happens.
salam alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh! (Peace be with you all)

4 April 2007 at 13:18  
Anonymous The Recusant said...


I can hear it now "Get your Rosaries off my Ovaries" Oh the poetic metre, the cadence almost, dare I say neoclassical verse, what sublime feminine caesura, bordering on the dactylic hexameter.

I have another saying for you topper "Cobbler, stick to thy last" ignore M.Ds reading list, stick to reading the Da Vinci Code, after all a book with so may big words in must have a grain of truth.

4 April 2007 at 13:54  
Anonymous Voyager said...

"entrepreneurs" is the word politicians and media use in a derogatory fashion. Personally i consider James Dyson an "entrepreneur" but not one who runs a sweat-shop. For my money it is about doing something better, a better product, a better process - not working out how effectively to exploit another's misery.

Michael Marks never worked for Barrans - he went to Leeds because of Barrons - but met up with Dewhurst instead who traded with him and extended him credit to be a retailer - Dewhurst's clerk Spencer went into partnership......Dewhursts were suppliers to M&S until McKinsey broke the link and M&S sourced from Morocco and Indonesia and China about 5 years ago and Dewhursts went under as a consequence as did S R Gent

Hegel is not very exciting - go read John Locke instead and Robert Nozick "Anarchy, State & Utopia"...much more fun

4 April 2007 at 15:25  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

Thank you for at least trying to refute the points raised by me.

In regard to the quran, you basically said that a certain Arabic word translated as friend is not correct and that the meaning of the suras is the opposite. Your interpretation is clearly in contradiction with the three main translation of these suras by islamic scholars (see, the links given by me), with the interpretation of imams preaching hatred against non-Muslims in Mosques(videos made in the UK and in Germany, some still available on Youtube) and with the killings of infidels by a minority of fanatic Muslims. While your intentions might be honorable, the results of Islamic teachings appear to be dangerous, indeed. The bombings in New York, Madrid, London, Bali, Mumbai, beheadings of infidels on the internet and riots against our basic freedoms speak all a clear language. At present, Islamic believers are outstanding in their agressiveness. It can hardly be surprising to you that the proposed victims of the Islamic quest for world dominance are not welcoming their self-proclaimed oppressors with open arms.

Your second point was about your right to wear a hijab. Certainly, you have the right to wear whatever you want, at least in this country, a hijab, a swatiska, a bikini and so forth. Nevertheless, the association of hijab with Islam and the latter with Islamic fanaticism and terrorism is unavoidable.

You were most welcome, at least from me, and I very much enjoyed discussing with you. However, is it really surprising to you that we don't listen full of admiration to the words of wisdom from Muhammed, a man who lived at the beginning of the Middle Ages. If his words make you happy, that's fine but why should we slavisly follow his teachings although everywhere we mainly see disastrous results.

Despite your young age, you were accepted as equal on this blog. But you weren't satisfied with this and aspired for more, for becoming our teacher. The reaction was predictable. I wish you success with your exams although learning at school seems to be a complete waste of time for women considering that her role is limited as you wrote to 1. a Daughter, 2. a Wife, 3. a Mother or 4. a Sister. Thus, best wishes for your future roles as wife and mother or whatever you like.

5 April 2007 at 00:07  
Anonymous Observer said...

As much as she likes discussing her religion with you clever people, something tells her she is not really liked by other communicants. She feels lonely and left out being the only Muslim

No "discuss" is not what you are doing; there is no discussion. This is to misunderstand what discussion is; you seek conformity of viewpoint not to understand divergence.

5 April 2007 at 08:33  
Blogger Topper said...

Please I have never read a book by is it Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci code. Disagree with me, think ill of me, but please that is beyond patronising me!

11 April 2007 at 13:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The World is heading towards Dictatorships, the EU, The NAU...

Christianity is to be supplanted by Islam as a further repression.

Which is why they want to Appoint the Lords, to get rid of the Bishops and their Influence.

5 Min read on the 50+ Yr EU Conspiracy to Subvert and Conquer Britain.
PS the reason the Socialists want to have an Elected Lords is to get rid of the
Bishops who have an automatic seat.
It's completely illegal, Our rights PREDATE Parliament.
The curse of Political Correctness
Here is Europol, Military Transnational Police with Diplomatic Immunity NOW.
Internet Shut down. , presumably health, Enforced Bankruptcy.Denial of Public services ? Health care ?

22 October 2007 at 18:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older