By Mohamed Faizal –
Mohamed Faizal
Over a year ago, there was violence unleashed upon the Muslims of Aluthgama and Beruwela, resulting in loss of Muslim lives and damage to Muslim properties. This was not inter-communal violence. This was violence upon the Muslim community.
(I am emphasizing the religious identity of the victims here. Whenever any kind of violence is reported anywhere in the world, a lot of the people immediately assume that the perpetrators are Muslims. The impact of propaganda against Muslims has been so devastating. So, let us remind ourselves that the victims of the racial violence in Aluthgama and Beruwela were Muslims; they weren’t its perpetrators.)
It is well known that BBS was behind this despicable violence, and spoiling of the over-a-millennium long cordial relationship between the Muslim and Sinhalese communities in Sri Lanka.
BBS has had problems with halal meat; Muslim men wearing beard, and visiting Masjids for their daily prayers; and Muslim women wearing the Hijab. It now has another addition to the long list of ‘Muslim things’ that the Buddhists in this country should be very fearful of and react violently against. That is the ISIS!
The media recently reported the death of a Sri Lankan Muslim in Syria. He had joined the rank of the ISIS. This was delightful news for the BBS. Delightful; not dreadful! For no one, not even BBS, genuinely believes that ISIS is a world conquering force that would soon swallow up the “Buddhist” Sri Lanka. It is just politically beneficial for the evil ones to portray them as such.
BBS had previously – very successfully – used Muslim men’s facial hair, a piece of a Muslim women’s black cloth and even a (halal) chicken wing, to bring about Aluthgama. Imagine what they can achieve with the news of the death of a Sri Lankan ISIS member!
So this news need to be put into perspective!
ISIS has been well exposed as a western creation that helps the colonial west to further their colonial agenda in the Muslim world. (We need not to re-state the evidences here). It is the new bogeyman, the danger of which can only be confronted if the whole world would seek sanctuary under the arm-pit of America and her western allies. You may remember George Bush telling the world that Crusades are still on, and those who are not with the Americans are with the terrorists.
There are dark forces in Sri Lanka who are using this news (of the dead Sri Lankan Muslim with the ISIS) to sell the very same western narrative to the unsuspecting Buddhist masses: No country in the world is safe from the threats of ISIS. It has now arrived in “Buddhist” Sri Lanka, and therefore we should all listen to the Americans and their allies. ie, The Terror War on Muslims must now include Muslims in Sri Lanka, too. BBS would happily supply the necessary foot soldiers.
We live in a globalized world, and everything that happens everywhere affects everyone everywhere. So, what happens in Syria cannot be ignored by those who live in Sri Lanka.
But, unlike what these dark forces would have us believe, the real threat to Sri Lanka is not the physical entity of the ISIS. The real threat lies in the news about* the ISIS, and the perceptions and fears it creates in Sri Lanka. Portray Muslims of Sri Lanka as loyal and sympathetic to this much dreaded ISIS, and you have another Aluthgama – multiplied many fold in every dimension. God, forbid!
The possible repercussions of this news is well understood by the Muslim leadership here. Hence they rushed to condemn the ISIS, and assure the authorities that they would be at the forefront of fighting the ISIS if it should ever take root in Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, the way they have tried to pre-empt the danger to the Muslim community in Sri Lanka is not comprehensive enough.
Muslim leadership need to understand that the west is waging a war upon Islam and Muslims. (They call it the War on Terror, which is a misleading label.) In this War of Terror, no Muslim will be spared. Not even those living in Sri Lanka.
The west never misses an opportunity to accelerate its Terror War upon Muslims. They readily grab any excuse that may present itself in the form of stupid Muslim reaction to western aggression. If no such excuses ever naturally emerged, they would construct one. It has now been exposed that ISIS, like the now-non-existent Al Qaida before, is one such construction.
So the most effective way to pre-empt the danger to peace in Sri Lanka in general, and threat to Muslim security in particular, is not just to dissociate ourselves from every crazy terror group that the media informs us of. But to educate the people of the reality of the Terror Wars of the west upon the Muslims. There are indeed some terror groups in Muslim countries, and they are an incorrect reaction to the western terror upon them. There are others, like the ISIS, who are simply western creations that facilitate the western imperial agenda.
Failure to highlight the western terror, and only condemning the terror groups in the Muslim world, only presents a distorted picture. It doesn’t address the cause of the threat.
The western Terror War upon Muslims is colonial in nature. It has, and continues to kill, maim and plunder. It creates terror groups in the Muslim land as a necessary tool to be used against Muslims. These wars also create the necessary conditions for the emergence of such reactionary terror groups. Therefore, unless we expose the western terror upon Muslims abroad, Muslims in Sri Lanka won’t be able to expose, and thereby avoid, the western terror that awaits them in Sri Lanka, in which BBS and their ilk are only proxies.
We live in a globalized world. The news about ISIS et al. isn’t simply going to go away. We just need to educate the masses on their true realities.
Now, everyone who attempts to do it would simply be bundled together with the ISIS and the like.
Real Lankan / July 28, 2015
If this article was so biased the writer would have had an impact on the reader but no. Its understandable coming from the writer’s Religion. Mind you I have no hate towards the religion, in fact I have respect for some of the laws in your religion. Only some. And this is just… What I described.
/
Amarasiri / July 28, 2015
Mohamed Faizal
RE: BBS, ISIS & The Real Problem
“It is well known that BBS was behind this despicable violence, and spoiling of the over-a-millennium long cordial relationship between the Muslim and Sinhalese communities in Sri Lanka.”
“It now has another addition to the long list of ‘Muslim things’ that the Buddhists in this country should be very fearful of and react violently against. That is the ISIS!”
“The media recently reported the death of a Sri Lankan Muslim in Syria. He had joined the rank of the ISIS. “
Well, Well, what is the underlying reason?
Expose, Expose and Expose, ISIS, the Iblis Agents and their supporters and clones and BBS, the agents of Mara who opposed Buddha.
To begin with, the ISIS, “I” is Not Islamic. It is actually Iblisic. Iblis is the Satan, Shaitan, Devil, Lucifer, Mara who is against God and Good. Iblis is the same Satan in Heaven who fooled Adam and Eve in Heaven, and now fooling people in Najd, the new Trojan Horse, or rather the Iblis Horse.
Muslims and Buddhists should take one step further, and call a Spade, a Spade, call ISIS, Iblis, Satan. Devil and Buddhists must call BBS Mara, who opposed Buddha.
Here is why.
1. The so-called ISIS,”Islamic” Sate of Iraq and Syria and ISIL are Not, “Islamic:, but “Iblisic”, is derived from Iblis, Devil, Satan, Shaitan, Licifer and Mara, the Ugly part of humanity.
2. ISIS is a direct translation of what they call themselves in Arabic, State Islamia Iraq and Syria, ot ISIS in English.
3. ISIS is another Clone of the Wahhabis and Salafis, who follow the teachings of Abdul Wahab, and who learned from Ibn Taymiah from the 12th Century. They All are inspired by Iblis, Devil, Satan, Shaitan
References: ISIS and MaRa
1. Hadith of Najd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Najd
The Hadith of Najd is a famous hadith with several chains of narration about three geographical locations. While all Sunni Muslims accept the group of hadith as authentic, the exact location of the area referred to as “Najd” is disputed.
2. Scholar from al-Azhar: Wahhabism is a Satanic Faith, the Horn of the Devil that Muhammad Predicted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufxTUFapy1w
So, the Sri Lankan ISIS. Idiot, Moron, Imbecile was tricked by the Iblis, Devil, Satan, Shaitan, by training in Pakistan by the Wahhabi funded Schools and Madrasas to be an Idiot, Moron and Imbecile for the Iblis.
So, Abu Shuraih Sailani, aka Abu Iblis Shaitani, will now rot in hell being alternately toasted in Hel fire and Iblis laughing at him and saying Moron, Idiot, Imbecile, you deserve it along with the other ISIS who wanted 72 Virgins.
Didn’t the Quran warn over 25 times about Iblis and Shaitan, Satan?
The ISIS Iblis will not get 72 Virgins. They will not not get even 72 Raisins either.
3. BBS , Mara and Buddha. BBS is a reincarnation of Mara, coming to destroy Buddha, in the same guise of saving Buddhism, just like what ISIS and the Wahhabis and their clones are claiming, in the guise of Saving Islam.
ISIS = Mara = BBS= Iblis=Satan= Devil =Lucifer = Shaitan= Bad = Ugly = Deception
The Buddha’s Encounters with Mara the Tempter
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/guruge/wheel419.html
Buddha – The Great Battle (The Life of Buddha)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUiw4IVPU3M
/
Alahakoon / July 28, 2015
Start of the article is good but later Faizal sounds like another BBS Gnanasara… I suggest you should stop writing Faizal.. I remember your article about Jaffna rape case too.. I think now you are making more damage than good to the people you love…..
/
Jim softy / July 28, 2015
DON’T COMPARE ISIS AND BBS. YOU PEOPLE SHOW HOW DISHONEST YOU ARE AND HOW MISLED YOU ARE. ALL THE MUSLIMS ARE MISLED BY THEIR RELIGION.
Top ten reasons why Islam is NOT the religion of peace
Violence in Muhammad’s life and the Quran
10. Muhammad nicknames his weapons.
Tabari (AD 839-923) is an early Muslim historian who is considered largely reliable by scholars today. In fact, the State University of New York Press selected his history to be translated into 38 volumes. (We use The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala, 9:153-55.)
In the context of the list of Muhammad’s assets at the end of his life (horses, camels, milch sheep, and so on), Tabari records the nicknames of Muhammad weapons.
Muhammad nicknames three swords that he took from the Jewish tribe Qaynuqa after he banished them from Medina in April 624: “Pluck Out,” “Very Sharp,” and “Death.” Two other swords from elsewhere are named: “Sharp” and “That is wont to sink” (presumably into human flesh). After his Hijrah or Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622, he owned two swords called “Sharp” and “Having the vertebrae of the back.” This last sword he collected as booty after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March 624.
Next, Muhammad took three bows from the Qaynuqa tribe and named them as follows: “Most conducive to ease, or wide,” “white,” and “of nab wood” (species of tree from which bows are made).
The name of a coat of mail implies “ampleness” or “redundant portions,” probably because Muhammad was portly (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 383).
Finally, even Muhammad himself has a nickname. After Tabari lists the positive ones, he matter-of-factly provides one that is not so positive: “The obliterator.”
Muslim apologists may object that Tabari is not authoritative (except when he shows Muhammad as heroic or victorious) and that he is not on the same level as the Quran and some hadiths (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). This is true. But Muslim apologists still must answer why such a tradition of naming weapons developed about Muhammad. After all, later, unauthoritative traditions about Christ developed, but they do not show him even owning weapons, let alone naming them. The answer to this question about Muhammad is found in the next nine reasons.
This article explains Christ’s attitude about swords more thoroughly, as does this one. Certainly he never fondled swords or nicknamed them, displaying them proudly, delighting in them.
Thus, violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
9. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.
24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, New York: Oxford UP, 2004)
The supposed historical context of this sura occurs during a raid of a tribe in December 627 or January 628, on which Muhammad brought his favorite and youngest wife, Aisha, also the daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand lieutenant. After the Muslims’ victory, they journeyed back to Medina, one hundred and fifty miles to the north. On their last halt, Aisha answered the call of nature, but lost her necklace in the dark, just as the army was setting out from their encampment early in the morning. She left her litter, returned to look for the necklace, and found it. Meanwhile, the man leading her camel assumed she was in her curtained litter and led the animal away by the halter. Returning, Aisha saw that she was left behind.
However, a handsome young Muslim named Safwan saw her and accompanied her back to Medina, though both the Muslims and Muhammad’s opposition wagged their tongues at seeing the two youngsters entering the city together. Eventually, revelation came that Aisha was not guilty of any immorality.
Sura 24 thus establishes some ground rules against adultery, of which flogging one hundred times is one of the rules. Amazingly, 24:2 exhorts the accusers and judges not to let compassion keep them from carrying out God’s law.
Moreover, early and reliable traditions depict Muhammad and his Muslims stoning adulterers and adulteresses, as recorded by the two most reliable collectors and editors of the hadith, Bukhari (AD 810-870) and Muslim (c. AD 817-875):
Umar said: God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book [Quran] to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what God most high sent down. God’s messenger [Muhammad] had people stoned to death, and we have done it also since his death. Stoning is a duty laid down in God’s Book for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Muslim no. 4194)
Umar was Muhammad’s right-hand lieutenant (along with Abu Bakr), and even shortly after Muhammad’s death he tried very hard to get a verse allowing stoning into the Quran, but he did not succeed (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 684). Be that as it may, this and the next hadith are sufficient for many Muslims today to endorse stoning, as seen here: [1], [2], [3], [4].
Perhaps the most gruesome hadith is the following. A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification (by being punished for her sin). He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted that she was pregnant as a result of fornication. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community and ordered the woman’s death by stoning.
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her … (Muslim, no. 4206)
It is true that Muhammad told Khalid to be gentler, but how gentle does one have to be when one throws a rock at a woman buried up to her breasts? Is the rock required to go only 30 miles per hour or 40? Perhaps Muhammad was ordering Khalid not to curse her. In any case, the prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? They should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Even if some Muslim apologists today do not accept these hadiths, then they still have to answer why the true God would send down the harsh punishment of lashing in the Quran (Sura 24:2), when the New Testament says nothing about this. Christians should therefore rightly reject this verse, for Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to go and sin no more (John 8:1-11). He showed us the better way and taught the will of the true God.
For more information on this early punishment and how it is applied today, refer to this article, which also answers Muslim apologists and explains John 8:1-11 more thoroughly.
Thus, cruel violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
8. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.
4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem)
Written in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (March 625), in which Islam lost 70 holy warriors, this verse belongs to a larger collection of verses that outlines laws for the family, such as how to divide the inheritance and to how to oversee the assets of orphans (vv. 1-35).
Plainly said, Sura 4:34 specifies that husbands may beat their unruly wives if the husbands “fear” highhandedness, quite apart from whether the wives are actually being highhanded. This puts the interpretation of the wives’ behavior squarely in the husbands’ judgment, and this swings the door to abuse wide open. This verse embodies a gigantic cultural and social step backwards and should be rejected by all fair-minded and reasonable people.
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Bukhari reports this incident about the wives in the early Muslim community in the context of marital confusion and an odd remarriage law:
Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari, emphasis added)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand Companion:
“He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.” (Muslim no. 2127)
For a more thorough analysis of this hurtful practice, refer to this article, which has many links to modern discussions of this policy (scroll down to the end).
This article, though long, offers a clear analysis of wife-beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics. This mid-length article answers a Muslim defense. This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses. Finally, this article written by an Arab Christian is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics, offering many translations of 4:34.
Thus, domestic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad and his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
7. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
Three passages in the hadith interpret Muhammad’s policy and provide its context. This is a quick compilation taken from Bukhari and Muslim:
Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported the Prophet saying, “A thief’s hand should be cut off for only a quarter of a dinar and upwards.” (Bukhari and note two other hadith below this one).
A dinar, a word taken from the Roman denarius, was not a small sum, but not exorbitant either, yet one-fourth of a dinar merits the loss of a hand in Muhammad’s view.
Ibn Umar said the Prophet had a thief’s hand cut off for a shield worth three dirhams. (Bukhari and note the three hadith below this one)
The shield was fairly expensive. The poor in Muhammad’s armies could not afford one. But is a shield equal to a hand?
Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, “God curse a thief who steals an egg and has his hand cut off, and steals a rope and has his hand cut off!” (Bukhari, see this parallel hadith here)
Some commentators are quick to say that an “egg” is really a helmet, and the rope is a ship’s rope, which is sizable and costly. However, the translation above is usually accepted, and this means that the penalty could be imposed for trivial thefts. But even if the more expensive items are in view here, they still do not measure up to a hand.
For more information on this gruesome practice and its historical context, consult this article, which answers Muslim apologists who seek to defend this practice and which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. Suffice it to say here, Christ never endorsed this. And Paul the Apostle says that thieves should work with their hands in order to share with those in need, not get their hand cut off (Ephesians 4:28). So Paul excels Muhammad.
Thus, harsh and excessive punitive violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
/
Amarasiri / July 28, 2015
Jim softy
“DON’T COMPARE ISIS AND BBS. YOU PEOPLE SHOW HOW DISHONEST YOU ARE AND HOW MISLED YOU ARE. ALL THE MUSLIMS ARE MISLED BY THEIR RELIGION.”
Your Reference is by James M. Arlandson, Islamophobic who wants to Distort History.
ALL THE FAITHFUL ARE MISLED BY THEIR RELIGION. INCLUDING SINHALA BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
Example: Trinity 1 in 3 and 3 in 1. The Inquisition killed people over it.
1+1+1 =1. 1x1x1 =1, and 3×1 =1
It is the same thing, same beliefs, only difference in degree only.
Did’t the Sinhala Buddhist Kill Tamil Hindus? What did the Mahanayakas and Monks say? Do They Follow Mara as well?
“Religion is the Opium of the Masses” – Karl Marx.
“It takes Religion to make Good People to do bad things” Srephen Weinburg, Nobel Prize Winner.
Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
Published on Nov 20, 2011
Excerpt from the 2007 Christopher Hitchens vs Alister Mcgrath debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism., Judaism., Hinduism., All fall into the Same Category, Religion.
What is Religion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.
Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of a deity, gods, or goddesses), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[1]
The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or set of duties;[2] however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is “something eminently social”.[3] A global 2012 poll reports 59% of the world’s population as “religious” and 23% as not religious, including 13% who are atheists, with a 9% decrease in religious belief from 2005.[4] However, their 2015 poll found that only 22% of the world population is not religious and only 11% were “convinced atheists”.[5] On average, women are “more religious” than men.[6] Some people follow multiple religions or multiple religious principles at the same time, regardless of whether or not the religious principles they follow traditionally allow for syncretism.
/
Jim softy / July 28, 2015
6. Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses.
These two poets represent others in early Islam.
March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt
Uqba mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell,” retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.
March 624: Asma bint Marwan
Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the prophet heard what she had said, he asked, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.
The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, “because they saw the power of Islam,” so conjectures an early Muslim source that reports the assassination.
In addition to the sources that recount these and other assassinations, the Quran also supports harsh punishments for mockers and insulters (Suras 3:186; 33:57; 33:59-61; and 9:61-63).
However, even if Muslims reject the early non-Quranic sources where these assassinations are found, they still must answer these questions: Why would such a tradition grow up around Muhammad in friendly Islamic sources? What was it about Muhammad that produced such reports? Why are these friendly sources eager to present their prophet in a “positive” way?
For an in-depth analysis of Muhammad’s assassinations of poets and how they justify assassinations of artists today, like the one of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, refer to this article, which also answers the Muslim apologists who try to justify Muhammad’s deadly policy, and which contrasts early Christianity with early Islam—Jesus assassinated no one, neither did he order this in the Gospels.
Go here, here, here, and here for more information on three of the assassinations of poets, along with other assassinations of non-poets. This page has some links to articles about how Muhammad dealt with his personal enemies.
Thus, bullying and murderous violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
5. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.
5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment. 34 Except for those who repent before you overpower them. Know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Merciful. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004)
According to the hadith, the historical context of these verses runs as follows and clarifies “fighting” and “corrupting” the land.
Some Arab tribesmen visited the prophet, but fell sick in the uncongenial climate of Medina, so he recommended an old folk belief: drinking the milk and urine of a camel. Subsequently, they are reported to have felt better. However, for some reason, after departing from Medina, they killed some of Muhammad’s shepherds, turned apostate, and drove off the prophet’s camels.
This news reached him, and he ordered them to be hunted down and brought before him. He decreed that their hands and feet should be cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their bodies thrown upon stony ground until they died.
For more information on this policy that punishes people today based on Sura 5:33, even on ambiguous charges like colonialism, racism, and the disintegration of family relationships see here, and for a reply to Muslim apologists, refer to this article, which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. This shorter article explains the background of these verses and this gruesome law. Muhammad tortured people.
Thus, gruesome violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.
A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids.
W. Montgomery Watt, a highly reputable Western Islamologist who writes in favor of Muhammad and whose two-volume history of early Islam (Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina (1956)) has won wide acceptance, tells us why geography matters:
The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base. (Muhammad at Medina, emphasis added, p. 2)
It must be emphatically stated that the Meccans never sent a force up to the doorstep of Medina at this time—they did later on when they were fed up with Muhammad’s aggressions. It is true that the Meccans gathered forces to protect their caravans, but when Muhammad confronted them, they were many days’ journeys away from Medina, often more than eighty miles. (Medina and Mecca are around 200-250 miles from each other, taking seven to eleven days of travel by foot, horse, or camel.)
Hence, two Muslim scholar-apologists are misleading when they assert that the caravans “passed through” Medina, adding that the Muslims haphazardly sought for whatever spoils they could get, whereas the Meccans mobilized for war (Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1986, 134). Rather, it is more accurate to say that the Muslims were aggressively harassing the Meccans.
To complete the picture of expeditions, raids and wars in Muhammad’s life from 622 to 632, Watt totals up the number that Muhammad either sent out or went out on: seventy-four (Muhammad at Medina, pp. 2; 339-43). They range from negotiations (only a few compared to the violent expeditions), to small assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, and to the confrontation of Byzantine Christians (who never showed up), with 30,000 holy warriors to Tabuk (see below).
For a fuller account of these six early aggressive attacks against Meccan caravans, go to this article, which explains more thoroughly why these attacks are not defensive.
Thus, aggressive military violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
/
Jim softy / July 28, 2015
3. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.
Throughout the Quran, Muhammad promises the men in his fledgling Muslim community that if they die fighting for Allah and for him, Allah will reward them with a “virgin-rich” Garden (Suras 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78).
In the following Quranic passage, representing others (Suras 4:74, 9:111; 3:140-143), the Arabic word “jihad” (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.
61:10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph. (Haleem)
These verses are found in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (625), in which Muhammad lost 70 of his fighters. Thus, he must make the loss of life appear worth the sacrifice, so he frames their deaths in an economic bargain (note the word in bold print). If his jihadists trade in or sell their lives down here, they will be granted Islamic heaven—it is a done deal.
For an in-depth analysis of Islamic martyrdom and how Biblical martyrdom opposes it, consult this article. Christ’s “Martyrdom” on the cross opens the way to heaven so that Christians do not have to die in a holy war to reach heaven.
Thus, deadly, ‘heavenly violence’ sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
2. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.
After the Battle of the Trench in March 627 (named after a trench that the Muslims dug around parts of Medina) against a large coalition of Meccans and their allies, Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan, Qurayzah, his third and final Jewish rivals (he banished the Qaynuqa tribe in April 624 and the Nadir tribe in August 625). The Qurayzah tribe was supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear. They were judged guilty by one of their Medinan Muslim allies, though Muhammad could have shown mercy, exiled them (as indeed they requested), or executed only a few.
The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (some Islamic sources say 900), and enslavement for the women and children (he took a beautiful Jewess as his own prize). Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by his fellow Emigrants from Mecca and lasted the whole night.
The prophet says the following in Sura 33:25-26 about the Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayzah:
33:25 God sent back the disbelievers along with their rage—they gained no benefit—and spared the believers from fighting. He is strong and mighty. 26 He brought those People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them down from their strongholds and put terror into their hearts. Some of them you [believers] killed and some you took captive. 27 He passed on to you their land, their homes, their possessions, and a land where you had not set foot. God has power over everything. (Haleem)
Now this atrocity has been enshrined in the eternal word of Allah—and the Quran seems to celebrate it. But these questions must be answered: Is intriguing with the enemy equal to slaughtering 600 men and enslaving the women and children? Who decides? The Arab tribal chief with the most powerful army? Muhammad said around the time of his Hijrah in 622 the following:
16:126 If you [people] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast. (Haleem)
Any reasonable and fair-minded person would judge that Muhammad was not making his response (execution) proportionate to the breach of the agreement. The Qurayzah tribe never attacked the Muslims, and even if a few were to have done so, the punishment does not fit the crime. Therefore, Muhammad was being excessive and disproportionate because he used an irreversible penalty to express his human wrath.
For a fuller account of this atrocity, refer to this article. This one explores Muhammad’s relations with the Jews, answering the standard replies by Muslims for their prophet’s indefensible atrocity (scroll down to “Politics, Warfare, and Conquests,” no. 5). See this series of articles for more information about Muhammad’s atrocity against the Banu Qurayza. This online index provides other links.
Thus, anti-Semitic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
1. Muhammad launches his own Crusades.
In the following verse, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (root is q-t-l), which means warring, fighting, or killing:
9:29 Fight [q-t-l] those among the people of the Book [Christians] who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively. (Fakhry)
The two most interesting clauses in this violent verse are (1) People of the Book (Christians in this verse late in Muhammad’s life) are to be attacked if they do not profess the true religion: Islam. This leaves the door wide open for terrorists today to attack and fight Christians because they do not adhere to Islam; (2) Christians must pay a tax for the “privilege” of living under the “protection” of Islam—submissively or in humiliation.
The historical context of Sura 9:29 finds Muhammad preparing for a military expedition against the Byzantine Empire in 630, two years before his ordinary death of a fever in 632. Indeed, some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones.
Muhammad heard a rumor that the Byzantines amassed an army some 700 miles to the north in Tabuk (northern Arabia today) in order to attack Islam, so he led an army of 30,000 holy warriors to counter-strike preemptively. However, the Byzantines failed to materialize, so Muhammad’s belief in the false rumor was misguided and his expedition was fruitless, except he managed to extract (extort) agreements from northern Christian Arab tribes that they would not attack him and his community. An army of 30,000 soldiers from the south must have deeply impressed the northern tribes, so they posed no real threat to Islam. They are the ones who paid the “protection” tax mentioned in Sura 9:29 (and so do tribes and cities after Muhammad’s death). Therefore, Muhammad’s forced tax was aggressive and hence unjust, not defensive and hence just.
Muhammad’s military expedition qualifies as an Islamic Crusade long before the European ones. After all, in 638, only six years after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies conquer Jerusalem. Today, Muslims should never again complain about European Crusades, unless they first come to grips with their own.
For more information on the Muslim Crusades after Muhammad’s death and their atrocities and motives, refer to these articles (one, two).
Thus, crusading violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran—and beyond, even reaching to today’s western world. Islam is therefore not the religion peace.
What the ten reasons mean for us today
These ten aspects of violence that have burrowed into the hemorrhaging heart of early Islam have eight implications for us today. The first three are theological; the rest are practical.
The theological implications are as follows:
First, as each reason in this article has hinted at and the links explain more thoroughly, Christ never, ever engaged in such violence. For example, he never assassinated opponents, whipped adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or launched his own Crusades (what the Medieval Europeans did is not foundational to Christianity). Christ expresses the love of God. Therefore, Christians and all fair-minded persons have the right to question whether the true God would reveal the Quran when it contains such violent verses that conveniently support Muhammad’s violence, whereas the New Testament does not have such violence.
Second, Muslims believe that the New Testament is corrupted, whereas the Quran is inerrant. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that these claims are true (but they actually are not), then why would reasonable seekers of the truth prefer the “pure” but violence-filled Quran over the “corrupted” but peaceful New Testament?
Before Muhammad is allowed to throw around unsubstantiated charges about alleged New Testament corruption, he and his Quran must pass a down-to-earth test regarding his dubious, violent practices. But he and it fail the test badly, as this article demonstrates, whereas Christ and the New Testament pass with a perfect score. Therefore, if Muhammad is so wrong about down-to-earth matters like whipping adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves and beating wives, then he is likely wrong about unresearched accusations of New Testament corruption—and factually he is wrong.
Please refer to the articles listed on these pages for more information: [1], [2].
Third, since Muhammad who claims divine guidance is so wrong about practical matters, why should we believe him about theoretical matters like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, both of which he denies? Clearly, he was not divinely guided in practical matters because the true God would not degrade religion by endorsing such gruesome violence six hundred years after Christ came—the historical span is critical. Christ and the New Testament do not have even one example of such violence. Again, if Muhammad first fails the down-to-earth test, then he likely fails the theological or theoretical test—we have no reason to believe him in such high doctrines, especially since he was no theologian and his revelations are now empirically suspect.
The practical implications of the top ten reasons are as follows:
Fourth, nominal Christians who no longer take their faith seriously, but who are tempted to convert to Islam, must stop to think a second time. Christ the Son of God demonstrates the love of God (Matt. 3:16-17), not the wrath of an ordinary, self-described human messenger (Sura 3:144). Why would they trade in the religion of God’s peace and love for Allah’s human religion of violence?
Fifth, fanatical Muslims today are simply carrying on their prophet’s mission. Why should we be surprised if they want to conquer the West, in order to impose Allah’s will on non-Islamic societies? They are still working out Muhammad’s Crusades and trying to put a halt to the reality embodied in this simple logic:
(1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
(2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis).
(3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.
This logic eats away at the heart of fanatics, especially premise two, even if they are not conscious of it in this logical form. What is stopping the endless expansion of Islam, according to the fanatics? Their answer: the US and even the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel in the heart of the Middle East. The fanatics have yet to uproot the Jews, despite three wars, which the Arabs lost. This tiny non-Islamic, Jewish State in their neighborhood slaps them in the face every day. How could Allah let this happen? Hence, premise two is the deepest reason that they have been launching attacks on the US and the West and Israel for the last two decades and why Osama bin Laden ignited 9/11. For more information on three Quranic verses that predict the worldwide dominance of Islam and that provide the motives for fanatics, refer to this article. And for more information on bin Laden’s motives specifically, go here.
Sixth, as noted in the introduction to this article, Muslim apologists who have access to the national media and who constantly assert that Islam is the religion of peace must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners. Factually, Islam is not the religion of peace. True, it had peaceful moments, but not for very long. Muhammad sent out or went out on seventy-four expeditions, raids, and wars in only ten years (622-632), most of which were violent.
Seventh, western civilization must never accept the lie that Muhammad’s life, the Quran, and sharia (the law derived from the hadith and the Quran) are benefits to society. Rather, Islam represents many gigantic steps backwards, culturally and socially. One of the most tragic events in the western world in recent years—and one of the most underreported—is the existence of an Islamic court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia, as well. The Canadian government should promptly shut it down, and Australia should never allow one. And such a court must never be allowed to exist here in the US or elsewhere in the West. Sharia does not benefit society, bluntly stated.
Eighth and finally, Islam should never be taught in our public schools, K through 11. Perhaps grade 12 is acceptable, but only on one condition. If school administrators insist on teaching it, Islamic violence must be included in the lesson plans because it is part and parcel of early Islam and Muhammad’s life.
Of course, Muslim apologists assert that Christianity is filled with violence, citing the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Medieval Crusaders. However, to repeat, they are not foundational for Christianity—only Christ and the New Testament are. And he and the New Testament authors never practiced or endorsed such violence.
On the other hand, Muhammad and his Quran are foundational for Islam, and violence fills his life and its pages.
Therefore, for ten clear and verifiable reasons, Islam is not the religion of peace.
/
Tambapani / July 28, 2015
Cut and Paste job from http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/ten_reasons.htm
Clearly Softy is not capable of rational unbiased thinking.
/
Jim hardy / July 28, 2015
Haha..jim softy has outdone himself..his cut and paste skills are so fabulous…sad to say that none of the above is even remotely true but sure some pseudoscholar has done a fine job of using dubious sources to bolster their own preconceived prejudicial arguments.
/
Socratis / July 28, 2015
ISLAMIC LOGIC:
According to your religion I have the freedom to practise my religion. According to my religion I have the freedom to kill you. Therefore according to your own religion I have the freedom to kill you.
/
AVB / July 28, 2015
What a great logic.. Socrates has reborn in SL.. it is a bless.. but in the reboring process, Socrates forgot how to spell his name…Just kidding .. But I would never analyse and publicise my views on other religions.. ..
/
Amarasiri / July 28, 2015
Socratis
RE: “ISLAMIC LOGIC:”
1. CORRECTION.
This is NOT Islamic Logic. It is IBLISIC LoGIC, Practiced by Wahhabis and Their Clones, who Follow Iblis, Satan, Shaitan, Devil and Lucifer.
This is Similar to the BBS logic and Sinhala Buddhism Logic, ads expressed by Monk Mahanama in Mahawamsa..
2. Scholar from al-Azhar:
Wahhabism is a Satanic Faith, the Horn of the Devil that Muhammad Predicted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufxTUFapy1w
So, this Idiot, Moron, Imbecile was tricked by the Iblis, Devil, Satan, Shaitan, by training in Pakistan by the Wahhabi funded Schools and Madrasas to be an Idiot, Moron and Imbecile for the Iblis.
So, Abu Shuraih Sailani, aka Abu Iblis Shaitani, will now rot in hell being alternately toasted in Hel fire and Iblis laughing at him and saying Moron, Idiot, Imbecile, deserve it along with the other ISIS who wanted 72 Virgins.
Didn’t the Quran warn over 25 times about Iblis and Shaitan, Satan?
They will not get 72 Virgins. They will not not get 72 Raisins either.
“Religion is the Opium of the masses”-Karl Marx
“Good people do Good things. Bad People do Bad things. It takes Religions to make good People do Bad things”- Steven Weinburg, Physics Nobel Prize winner.
True for ISIS, BBS, Wahhabis, Sinhala Buddhists, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians etc.
/
Ahfzll / July 28, 2015
Jim Softly impresses me with the wealth of knowledge in Islam and historical facts as stated by Al-Tabari and others.
However, he seems to be quoting rather than having researched that knowledge for himself.
The reason why I state such is if he had studied by research he is quoting – he would have found much good in the religion of Islam, as well as the good qualities of the Prophet Muhammed. However, he seems not to be aware of them.
A good indication that he is quoting (out of context) and has not done any research by himself!
Tabiri and crowd lived almost 300 years after the death of the Prophet. Hence the grey areas would probably be accepted from the contemporaries understanding of the events mentioned. Time distorts History, depending on who is in power!
At this day and age, he should realize that even after Mahinda Rajapakse openly declaring that he was NEVER completely above board – there are people willing to give up their lives for him with the belief that he is still a VIRGIN when it comes to corruption.
So much for illegitimacy!
/
Ronali / July 28, 2015
Though there are good Muslims, many are extremely dangerous as their religion is not the religion of peace. Since many of them are not intelligent, they follow whatever their religion says. Because of their practices they have become a threat to the world.
/
AVB / July 28, 2015
Dangerous?? Same goes with Sinhalese Buddhists, in my eyes worse than Muslims in SL…Then she goes on saying my Muslim brothers are not intelligent… Holy cr…p This person must be from Down South and related to Gnanasara…
/
Shihab / July 28, 2015
That intelligence factor you refer to, pls don’t generalize it to all Muslims. I know you hate to say anything good about Muslims, especially since you are under the influence of Gnanasara’s Cobra venom. This was the same way you treated the Tamils until they broke away and declared an all out war and called it fight for Ealam. Now you are pushing the Muslims against the wall, and in the process, inviting the ISIS to fight a proxy war without understanding the ramifications. All I can say is don’t provoke the situation whilst we can still sit and talk before it gets to a point of no return.
/
Navin / July 28, 2015
Ronali
Do you know of any Muslim personally who has threatened or tried to harm you?
If you do, have you then complained to the Police?
Ha, ha.
Now you and I both know you have itchy fingers compulsively reaching for the laptop. There are much more enjoyable things that can be done with itchy fingers.
/
Amarasiri / July 28, 2015
Ronali
“Though there are good Muslims, many are extremely dangerous as their religion is not the religion of peace.”
What is Religion?
Opium of the Masses?
1. “Though there are good Muslims, many are extremely dangerous as some of them Follow Iblis, Satan, and Iblism religion is not the religion of peace.”
2.. Though there are good Christians, many are extremely dangerous as their religion is not the religion of peace, and many Follow Satan. Ask the Victims.
3.. Though there are good Sinhala Buddhists, many are extremely dangerous as their religion, Sinhala Buddhism, is not the religion of peace, as they follow MaRa Ask any Tamil.
/
Jim softy / July 29, 2015
Quran is highly vulnerable to be interpreted by by the reader. that is why there are peaceful versions as well as very violent versions.
Muslims cannot be intelligent and they are not allowed to be intelligent because if they do that, they go against the non-existing Allah.
Mohomad has explained everything for 23 years saying that Almighty did it. If anyone goes against the quran means, they face the death.
So, muslims stay dumb until the death.
They don’t about that because it is haram.
/
Dr.Goebells / July 28, 2015
Mr. Mohamed Faizal
The word ‘terror’ became synonymous with plane hijackings and other acts of violence against innocent civilians in the 70’s carried out by some groups sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
‘Terror’ took a new dimension after 9/11 . As expected, the US launched a massive
war on terror- primarily to make her ‘citizens feel safer at home’ . The consequences are harsh and unforgiving . Sadly, violence begets violence , and it appears to be an unending cycle.
/
Navin / July 28, 2015
9/11 was a false flag operation jointly carried out by the Zionists and the CIA in order to manufacture an enemy for the USA, to provide an excuse for aggression. See “The Great Deception”:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9%2F11+the+great+deception.
Of course you knew that, Dr Goebells. You lied, just like your namesake the Nazi.
/
baludeen / July 29, 2015
[Edited out]
/
Amarasiri / July 29, 2015
Dr.Goebells
“The word ‘terror’ became synonymous with plane hijackings and other acts of violence against innocent civilians in the 70’s carried out by some groups sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.”
Comment 1:
The word ‘terror’ became synonymous with Sinhala Buddhist Riots against Tamils and other acts of violence against innocent Tamil civilians in the 50’s, 60s, 70s, 80s, ans so on carried out by many groups sympathetic to the Sinhala Buddhist Racist cause with State Sponsorship.
The word ‘terror’ became synonymous with Terrorists and other acts of violence against innocent civilians in the 70’s, 80’s. 90’s and 2000’s carried out by Tamil Groups such as LTTE groups sympathetic to the EElam cause.
The word ‘terror’ became synonymous with Terrorists and other acts of violence against innocent civilians in the 70’s, 80’s. 90’s and 2000’s carried out by TIblis Wahhabi Groups such as ISIS, Al-Queda, Taliban etc groups sympathetic to the Iblis-Wahhabi cause.
/
soma / July 28, 2015
Dear Mr Faizal,
PEACE LOVING MUSLIMS
Can you kindly tell the CT readers why the Muslim writers about Aluthgama incident NEVER talk about the incident in Beruwala where some Muslims killed two other Muslims INSIDE A MOSQUE (over ideological differences!)
Doesn’t this give us a clue as to the under currents in the area prior to Aluthgama incident?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RXSO3RR_FA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFs875MaAYg
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_email.cfm/blog_id/22244/Two-killed-and-many-injured-in-fight-between-two-Mosques-in-Sri-Lanka
Please let us have your valuable comment.
Soma
/
ela kolla / July 28, 2015
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/
/
ela kolla / July 28, 2015
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/
/
baludeen / July 28, 2015
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/
/
cholan / July 28, 2015
No worries Allah `s soldiers ISIS will come here to save converted Tamil-Hindus so called Muslims …soon you can see Muslims youths wear ISIS marked T-SHIRTS and cry allah hu akbar …
Remember fanatic Taliban have blasted age old Buddha statue in Afghanistan ???
What else you can expect from these fanatics ??
Cheers
/
cholan / July 28, 2015
ISIS was created by the new thug called State of Qatar to show their power in M.E don’t twist the truth.
Cheers
/
gfd / July 28, 2015
Please do refresh my memory. What exactly brought about those unfortunate events in Beruwala and Aluthgama?
/
Ahfzll / July 28, 2015
In reply to Soma’s query:
Can you kindly tell the CT readers why the Muslim writers about Aluthgama incident NEVER talk about the incident in Beruwala where some Muslims killed two other Muslims INSIDE A MOSQUE (over ideological differences!)
The Reason why is given at the tail end of my comment after establishing the parameters of the topic:
What the Muslims who comment on these matters are trying to convey that Islam is NOT a religion that propagates hate BUT a religion which has successfully eliminated RACISM, BIGOTRY; HATRED; LEWDNESS; to name just a few human failures by calling upon the MOST STRICT penalties to be meted out to offenders – Thereby calling for a society where EVERY ONE has equal rights.
Before you misunderstand the above statement let me continue by saying that NOT all Islamic Caliphs or Political statements have adhered to the strict Islamic code of ethics demanded by Islam and hence the mayhem.
We are now learning that most of the Chaos attributed to Muslims in the past decade(s); Centuries; have been false flag attacks on Islam by connivance. One of the main reason(s) being the banning of Interest (Usury) of any sort.
The Banking community has been and still is monopolized and dictated by the Jews. If you have had the privilege of the knowledge contained in the Talmud and Torah – the Jewish Religion considers that the are the chosen people because the Talmud gives the Jews a license to do the most despicable things to non-Jews (GOYIM), Including Rape,murder and pillage – They still utilize that license and according to them its the Word of the GOD.
With such animosity for the past 1400 years, The code-of-Ethics that Islam insists upon is taken out of context to make it seem like Islam is a Religion that propagates violence – WHICH IT DOES NOT.
Under these circumstances, People have written about this ( Izeth Hussain) has written about this on CT and Groundviews.
Many others have NOT written publicly – because as you rightfully state – it is violence over ideological differences between different sects in Islam.
Having said all that there is a new breed of violent Muslims who are at best mercenaries acting against the tenets and code-of-ethics in Islam ably supported by the Americans and the Zionist – that have brought about the ISIS.
It is in plain sight – for decades ISIS has been the acronym for the ISRAELI SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE and that is the group that have been responsible for fueling the Chaos in the Middle East today.
The Wahhabi & Salafi sects that have recently originated from Saudi Arabi teach a version of Islam that goes against the tenets of Islam and propagate that they represent the purest form of ISLAM – that is absolute nonsense.
So the answer to your question is:
Under these circumstances, People have written about this ( Izeth Hussain) has written about this on CT and Groundviews.
Many others have NOT written publicly – because as you rightfully state – it is violence over ideological differences between different sects in Islam.
/
Jim softy / July 29, 2015
How about muslims mistreating other muslim group such as sufis, ahmadias etc. ?
/
Singhala_Muslim / July 28, 2015
It never used to be this way. The Muslims always got along well with all communities within the shores of this country until BBS Gnanasara came along and poisoned the minds of his people, bull pitting them against Muslims. With the advent of Taliban, Al-Quaeda and now ISIS, they want to capitalize on their chances of entering parliament using the ISIS bogey wagon, which has now turned out to be their only claim to fame, and not based on the practices of their own ideology of Buddhism, which is to establish good, clean and honest lives in accordance to the teachings of their great Master, Lord Buddha. If these are the same thresholds that the people of this country have come to expect, then Lo and behold Buddhism in its pristine form is a goner, as it will only be in recorded books, but can never be witnessed in public practice. It may well be the beginning of the end of Buddhism in this country, and thats a worthy prophecy to foretell.
/
Ram / July 28, 2015
BBS may be a wretched entity, but to compare it to ISIS is beyond the pale. The utterly deplorable, despicable activities of ISIS, murder, rape, destruction of historical artifacts etc in the name of religion, make the headlines everyday. What is difficult to understand is the fact that some of these criminals were ‘educated’ professionals in good jobs in the West.
/
TinPotJihadi / July 28, 2015
The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, “fitna”, can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). According to the verse, Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill others in his cause.
Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
/
MYM Siddeek / July 28, 2015
Whoever created, Islamic State is not Islamic but barbaric.
/
xlntgson / July 28, 2015
I’m against ISIS but I condemn @jim softy, who is an islamophobe and a x’tian apologist, a rare mixture, to justify x’tian crusades and inquition says they are not x’tian foundational, (x’tian fundamentalist?) he talks about Mohamed (pbuh)’s swords, defending stockpile of mass destruction weapons and pre-emptive strikes makes mockery, zionism a religion of peace? By default it exists but never a happy nation dreaded eternally. For your long historical distortion call church of nativity and get cross checked. Not invariably for all, the stoning beheading amputation lashes meted out, how many were pardoned edited out otherwise who thus forcibly converted could have been easily reverted! @baludeen @elakolla @cholan edited out, why shamelessly still trolling?
/
TinPotJihadi / July 28, 2015
[Edited out]
/
vas / July 29, 2015
The blame for this whole sinhala muslim conflict must be laid at the feet of the rulers and the communalism practiced by muslim leaders. The other communities feel threatened by the exceptionalism of the muslim community. There is no control on the erection of mosques in every nook and corner sponsored by muslim countries, the call for Sala is disturbing every other community, the rest of the population does not go about dressed exceptionally from the rest of society,the rest of the communities do not go round establishing villages like the saddam Hussein village in the east added to that of course the behaviour of muslim ministers is unacceptable to the majority of people giving out govt land, creating problems like kuragala etc and blatant pro muslim policies. There are many more instances. The fault lies in the so called buddhist leaders who look the other side whilst all this is going on. What idiot would allow the establishment of a wahabi university in the east when wahabism is considered an extreme form of Islam,But that has happened in the east. Poor governance , lack of a rule of law and communalism of the muslim ministers are to be blamed for this unfortunate conflict. BBS was right when they said that the sinhala buddhist have no leaders He said one had no brains but had a spine and the other he said had brains but no spine.
/
xlntgson / July 29, 2015
An islamophobe writes in muslim name in vain rather he can go like a muslim in disguise to see for himself whether muslims are rich or poor whether they are anti social or anti national whether they have genuine problems in education and job to get radicalized and leave shores to join these dead end organizations, what is the rationale? Without subtantial proof islam haters marginalize and neglect them. Chasing them in to the folds of death cults and then seeking good muslims is a pretence. They want to eliminate all muslims but they miserably failed. Their new methods will also fail. Which muslim nation is peaceful they ask inciting sectarian violence as if Israel is very peaceful full of fearless living people!
/
Omar Mohammed / July 29, 2015
This news about Shafraz Shuraih Muhsin first appeared on a blog called “Jafna Muslim” the blogger himself is well known for spreading false information. The source was facebook for this blogger. On facebook even my grandmother can be leading the ISIS. There is no credible information this guy joined the ISIS or died in Syria or that he was relief worker in Syria There is also information that he migrated from Sri Lanka 2year ago with his family to Pakistan. So is this news true ? Is this guy in fact a Sri Lankan ? Is this and MR comeback stunt ?
Why have you guys got your knickers in a twist ?
/
Navin / July 30, 2015
Dear President Sirisena,
Muslims of Sri Lanka were and are patriotic citizens. But how much hate and scorn poured on them on a daily basis without rhyme or reason can a human being endure?
Gnanasara’s vitrol is personified in the comments to this Article by Jim softy and TinpotJihadi. That speaks to Gnanasara’s success in creating chaos and bloodshed.
When a mean antisocial cobra like Gnanasara is permitted to freely spout its venom without let or hindrance by the Government, how can a small reacting segment of the population be blamed for thinking that the Government of Sri Lanka is their enemy.
If those in Government want to advance the long term interest of Sri Lanka, let them take two actions:
1. Shut the mouth of Gnanasara. And punish him for the misdeeds of Aluthgama.
2. Bring in legislation banning hate speech personally, politically, in social discourse, and in the media.
If you as the Head of the Government are unwilling to take any of the above actions it only means, the Government permits the Sinhala Society to treat the Muslims in any derogatory manner they wish. Are the Sinhala people and the Government prepared to face the consequences for the country? A death is a death. The grief is of equal intensity, whether it is a Sinhala or a Muslim. It does not matter whether it is ten Sinhala versus thousand Muslim deaths. The pain is the same. Before you embark on an adventure, remember also that there are international criminal consequences for wiping out a community of 2 million people, part of the 1.2 billion world wide.
President Sirisena, this is the best advice you have been offered through the Media up to now, regarding the potential ISIS threat to Sri Lanka, thanks to Colombo Telegraph. Do not worry about losing votes. You will lose the votes of only the vicious cobras. You dont need them. Take action on Item 2 above immediately under Emergency Regulations, which you are entitled to. Strictly hold the Police responsible for enforcing the ban on hate speech. As of now 90 percent of Sri Lanka’s population will support your action. It may change if you take no action NOW, and may lead you into the abyss of no return, to start killing thousands of Muslims at random.
/
Ahfzll / July 30, 2015
Well said Navin,
As in Singapore, comparative religion is banned in public.
CT should start the ball rolling by editing the comment section – where the comments do NOT relate to the article in which the comments are made.
CT should also edit personal vandetta’s on the comment section.
Some of the commentators are hell bent on insisting on their point of view without rational substantiation.
CT please spare us from the repetition of your regulars points of view on their personal preferences.
/