Before I make any conclusions, I'd like to know if he's one of the peaceful moderate "real" Muslims, or one of the radicals who doesn't speak for peace loving true Muslims.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-10-2013).]
IP: Logged
10:24 PM
timmer Member
Posts: 1266 From: langley/surrey b.c..canada Registered: Oct 2002
Originally posted by Formula88: Before I make any conclusions, I'd like to know if he's one of the peaceful moderate "real" Muslims, or one of the radicals who doesn't speak for peace loving true Muslims.
Police and National Guard units across the nation are bracing for mass demonstrations on Monday by most of the country's estimated 3 million Muslims in support of Yasir Qadhi, a Memphis-based imam (Muslim cleric) who is also a faculty member in Religious Studies at Rhodes College, Tennessee.
The demonstrators will be marching under the banner "Burglarize a Christian or Jewish home today!"
Police resources will be doubly strapped because of nationwide events planned in observance of Veterans Day.
from the Pennock's Fiero Forum Alternate Reality News Channel
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-11-2013).]
IP: Logged
01:46 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
1. Contact the President of Rhodes College, William Troutt, and demand to know why Qadhi, who spews hate-speech and threatens violence against the life and property of Christians and Jews, is on the faculty. Here’s his contact info: ◾Address: 2000 N. Parkway, Memphis, TN 38112-1690 ◾Ph: (901) 843-3730 ◾Email: trouttw@rhodes.edu
2. Contact your Congressman/woman and Senators and demand to know why this kind of violent hate speech is tolerated.
3. Write a letter to your local newspaper and, even better, to big national news media and demand to know why they’re not reporting on Qadhi’s violent hate speech.
IP: Logged
09:30 AM
yellowstone Member
Posts: 9299 From: Düsseldorf/Germany Registered: Jun 2003
Can we talk about your drafting process— [Leans in, stage-whispers.] I even believe in the Devil.
You do? Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that.
Every Catholic believes this? There’s a wide variety of Catholics out there … If you are faithful to Catholic dogma, that is certainly a large part of it.
Have you seen evidence of the Devil lately? You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore.
No. It’s because he’s smart.
So what’s he doing now? What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.
That has really painful implications for atheists. Are you sure that’s the Devil’s work? I didn’t say atheists are the Devil’s work.
Well, you’re saying the Devil is persuading people to not believe in God. Couldn’t there be other reasons to not believe? Well, there certainly can be other reasons. But it certainly favors the Devil’s desires. I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament.
Right. What happened to him?
He just got wilier. He got wilier.
Isn’t it terribly frightening to believe in the Devil? You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 11-11-2013).]
IP: Logged
10:33 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36759 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by rinselberg: from the Pennock's Fiero Forum Alternate Reality News Channel
Heh, cute. Funny. Do you know what alternate reality is ? It's what people in the funny farm call normal. You dodged the question. Does that retrobate speak for peace loving true Muslims ?
There are peace loving true moslems WHERE ?? been waiting to hear from them
Never sweat the ranting marxist on this forum,, they are all wind bags who will never pick up thier AK 47,they follow the dictates of the 20,000 north east marxist/socialist & newsmen who are the backbone of the democratic party they love a cause that hurts America ,then call themself activist for freedom they are traitors just like the fifth columnist & quislings in WW2 they all drink the lefty commie KOOL AID.they all hate me, just hope they select the proper size I HATE JESUS panties so they are not constricted more than normal
IN NORTHWEST florida,100 skydiving liberal reds are called skeet
[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 11-11-2013).]
IP: Logged
11:43 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by avengador1: Here’s what you can do about Yasir Qadhi:
1. Contact the President of Rhodes College, William Troutt, and demand to know why Qadhi, who spews hate-speech and threatens violence against the life and property of Christians and Jews, is on the faculty. Here’s his contact info: ◾Address: 2000 N. Parkway, Memphis, TN 38112-1690 ◾Ph: (901) 843-3730 ◾Email: trouttw@rhodes.edu
2. Contact your Congressman/woman and Senators and demand to know why this kind of violent hate speech is tolerated.
3. Write a letter to your local newspaper and, even better, to big national news media and demand to know why they’re not reporting on Qadhi’s violent hate speech.
Yasir Qadhi is listed as Resident Scholar at the Memphis Islamic Center.
The same page lists over a dozen who are Trustee for the center.
I am picturing some random fool saying that my house was now his without due process. WRONG!
Of course. There are many random fools that say many randomly foolish things - especially in "houses of worship" and on the Internet...! If I'd get worked up about every last one of them....
Actually there is an update in the article and as usual with the OP's threads this one is another chicken little story. If only people would learn the definition of a troll and stop feeding him.
Don't worry the scary brown man isn't advocating any such thing.
IP: Logged
08:00 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Actually there is an update in the article and as usual with the OP's threads this one is another chicken little story. If only people would learn the definition of a troll and stop feeding him.
Don't worry the scary brown man isn't advocating any such thing.
Thank you for pointing that out.
From the update:
quote
“This audio clip is a shoddy cut-and-paste job from a lengthy theological series (around 15 hours of audio) I gave many years ago, discussing the reality of the Islamic concept of shirk (associating partners with Allāh). The series had absolutely nothing to do with politics or jihad. Rather, some theological statements from that lecture have been taped together and made to look political. The audio recording as it stands is a complete distortion. Someone literally took sentences from different parts of that series and constructed a very menacing sounding paragraph in my voice. As such, that paragraph in the audio clip is a complete fabrication.[ ...] I am a Muslim theologian and teach (and preach) the theology of Islam, but I have never called for violence against any group or religion.”
I would expect to hear that kind of rhetoric from third world nations. We hear it all the time. To hear it from someone in the US, while unexpected, isn't incredible.
IP: Logged
08:18 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Actually there is an update in the article and as usual with the OP's threads this one is another chicken little story. If only people would learn the definition of a troll and stop feeding him.
There is an update, which I posted above. There also is a second update now, although it isn't much of an update but more like excuses and backpedaling.
quote
UPDATE (Nov. 11, 2013):
In a July 3, 2013 essay titled “Clarification and Notice,” Yasir Qadhi claims to be a victim of malicious fraud. Referring to the above audio clip, he writes:
“This audio clip is a shoddy cut-and-paste job from a lengthy theological series (around 15 hours of audio) I gave many years ago, discussing the reality of the Islamic concept of shirk (associating partners with Allāh). The series had absolutely nothing to do with politics or jihad. Rather, some theological statements from that lecture have been taped together and made to look political. The audio recording as it stands is a complete distortion. Someone literally took sentences from different parts of that series and constructed a very menacing sounding paragraph in my voice. As such, that paragraph in the audio clip is a complete fabrication.[ ...] I am a Muslim theologian and teach (and preach) the theology of Islam, but I have never called for violence against any group or religion.”
If Qadhi is telling the truth in his “Clarification and Notice” essay, then he is a most curious Muslim because the taking of property, including wives and children, from non-submissive unbelievers or infidels is in the Qu’ran and the Hadith. (The latter refers to the teachings of the “prophet” Mohammad.) The following is from an article titled “What Does the Religion of Peace Teach About Stealing“:
Qur’an (48:20) – “Allah promised you many acquisitions which you will take, then He hastened on this one for you and held back the hands of men from you, and that it may be a sign for the believers and that He may guide you on a right path.” Allah promises Muslims that they will profit materially in their war against unbelievers. It isn’t stealing when it’s taken from an unbeliever.
Qur’an (33:27) – “And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things.” Referring again to the property of unbelievers, which is given to those Muslims who defeat them.
Ibn Ishaq (764) – As for taking from unbelievers, perhaps the most illuminating example among many comes from the aftermath of the battle against the Khaybar as recorded by Muhammad’s earliest biographer. The Khaybar were a peaceful community of Jewish farmers who did not even know they were at war until Muhammad led his men against their town one morning, taking them by surprise and handily defeating them.
Not only did Muhammad take much of the town’s possessions and land, but he actually had the tribe’s treasurer, a man named Kinana, tortured until he gave up the location of hidden treasure. Muhammad then beheaded the man and “married” his traumatized widow, Safiyya (who passed through the hands of one of his lieutenant’s first due to the luck of the draw).
Bukhari (44:668) - “We were in the company of the Prophet at Dhul-Hulaifa. The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (as booty)…” Muhammad said that Allah would always provide sustenance for those who believe in him. Stealing from non-Muslims was a legitimate means of fulfilling Allah’s promise.
Ahmad 4869 (also found in the original Hadith of Bukhari and Sahih al Jaami’ As Sagheer 2828) - It is mentioned from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “I have been raised between the hands of the Hour with the sword, until Allah the Exalted is worshipped alone with no associates. He has provided sustenance from beneath the shadow of spears and has decreed humiliation and belittlement for those who oppose my order.” Muhammad’s livelihood is found in the property of those who disobey him – to be seized by force if necessary. ‘Humiliation” refer to the jizya that non-Muslims are supposed to pay Muslims by the mere fact of their unbelief.
Lastly, it should be noted that a Muslim cannot pick-and-choose what to believe or not in the Quran. The Quran promises the most severe of punishments for those who believe in one part of the Quran, but not the other (2:85). There is no such thing as moderate Islam. ”Cafeteria” Muslims are not only disregarding their own religion, but are subject to punishment from true believers for it, since they are hypocrites by definition (see 66:9).
If Yasir Qadhi denies saying that the life and property of non-Muslims, including Christians, are for the taking by Muslims, then he is at best a “cafeteria” Muslim who’s a hypocrite in the eyes of “true” Muslims and, at worst, he was lying.
But then, Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels. It’s called taqiyya.
The last couple of sentences sum it up pretty good. I was going to ask why YOU didn't post it, but I got my answer when I did.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-11-2013).]
IP: Logged
08:22 PM
Nov 12th, 2013
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
The last couple of sentences sum it up pretty good. I was going to ask why YOU didn't post it, but I got my answer when I did.
Yeah the clown that wrote the article sounds about as much of an expert on Islam as many people on here.
A person that follows the same faith frequents this message board and even posted in this thread yet you won't ask him what his faith teaches, nah I guess it's better assume you know by sharing the scary stories from the fringe sites.
IP: Logged
08:28 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36759 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: A person that follows the same faith frequents this message board and even posted in this thread yet you won't ask him what his faith teaches, nah I guess it's better assume you know by sharing the scary stories from the fringe sites.
That person mocked the post. He had a chance, and still does, to correct the thought attributed to the Imam. Then your Imam update, . You have never heard spin, .
quote
The series had absolutely nothing to do with politics or jihad. Rather, some theological statements from that lecture have been taped together and made to look political.
Who are you gonna believe ? A spin master or your lying eyes ? The Imam said it.
That person mocked the post. He had a chance, and still does, to correct the thought attributed to the Imam
Correct the thought? How can anyone know what someone else thinks?
I never said anyone could speak for the Imam but a follower of Islam might be able to shed some light on what is taught to them. But like I said people here seem to consider themselves experts anyways.
Qadhi has been involved in de-radicalization efforts in the US, and was a participant in the U.S. Counter-Radicalization Strategy conference organized by the National Counterterrorism Center in the summer of 2008.
Originally posted by newf: Correct the thought? How can anyone know what someone else thinks?
C'mon man ! I said the thought attribiuted to the Imam.
quote
Originally posted by newf: I never said anyone could speak for the Imam but a follower of Islam might be able to shed some light on what is taught to them.
C'mon man ! I said the thought attribiuted to the Imam. I said he had a chance and still does. C'mon man.
I read exactly what you said.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
I said he had a chance and still does. C'mon man.
Has a chance to do what? To answer a question that hasn't been asked? To explain someone elses thoughts or words? What is it you wish him or anyone else to do?
IP: Logged
09:23 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36759 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: Has a chance to do what? To answer a question that hasn't been asked? To explain someone elses thoughts or words? What is it you wish him or anyone else to do?
I don't wish for him to do anything. What ever he may wish to do I would support/listen to. I have no need to defend my faith and I do not expect him to defend his. I like rinselberg. He gets bashed every time he does speak up but hey, ... freedom of speech only applies to those that have the gonads to use it.
I don't wish for him to do anything. What ever he may wish to do I would support/listen to. I have no need to defend my faith and I do not expect him to defend his. I like rinselberg. He gets bashed every time he does speak up but hey, ... freedom of speech only applies to those that have the gonads to use it.
Wow I thought we were talking about Doni. hahaha
IP: Logged
09:55 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by newf: A person that follows the same faith frequents this message board and even posted in this thread yet you won't ask him what his faith teaches, nah I guess it's better assume you know by sharing the scary stories from the fringe sites.
I can't speak for others, but my question was directed to any Muslim who cared to answer. As I said, messages of hate against America and Christians and Jews are commonplace in some Islamic nations, but we're told that's a perversion of Islam. I expect to hear it from there, but to hear a similar argument from a Muslim in the US is surprising, but believable.
Example: Just this weekend, local news reported an area man was indicted on a charge of trying to provide support to the Iraqi arm of al-Qaida by fighting in Syria's civil war. http://www.wral.com/cary-ma...-civil-war/13099266/
It may be wrong to assume some members of a group mean to do us harm, but it's naieve to assume none do.
IP: Logged
10:33 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I can't speak for others, but my question was directed to any Muslim who cared to answer. As I said, messages of hate against America and Christians and Jews are commonplace in some Islamic nations, but we're told that's a perversion of Islam. I expect to hear it from there, but to hear a similar argument from a Muslim in the US is surprising, but believable.
Example: Just this weekend, local news reported an area man was indicted on a charge of trying to provide support to the Iraqi arm of al-Qaida by fighting in Syria's civil war. http://www.wral.com/cary-ma...-civil-war/13099266/
It may be wrong to assume some members of a group mean to do us harm, but it's naieve to assume none do.
I believe the Imam himself answered to this terrible so called reporting. Do we have any solid evidence that he indeed supports the statement in the OP.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
It may be wrong to assume some members of a group mean to do us harm, but it's naieve to assume none do.
Fair enough but I think you can include a lot more than that one group.
IP: Logged
02:28 PM
Nov 13th, 2013
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
The report from the OP (avengador1) is little more than a copy and paste of a brief YouTube video that was posted on YouTube a few months earlier, on July 1, 2013. It's not a live video recording of Yasir Qadhi. It's an edited audio track, presented (in the usual assclown way) without any explanation of its origin; only this:
quote
U.S.-based Imam, Yasir Qadhi, preaches openly that non muslims lives are forfeit and their property is legal for muslims to take in jihad, (and this would include women as sex slaves) yet no charges are brought against him.
There is no explanation of when the audio content was recorded, or what exactly it represents.
I believe that this short audio track (just 3 minutes) is spliced together from parts of a longer (1 hour) presentation by Qadhi some years ago (2001), possibly one that was hosted by the Islamic Society of Boston. My conclusion about this is in line with Qadhi's own explanation:
quote
This audio clip is a shoddy cut-and-paste job from a lengthy theological series (around 15 hours of audio) I gave many years ago, discussing the reality of the Islamic concept of shirk (associating partners with Allāh). The series had absolutely nothing to do with politics or jihad. Rather, some theological statements from that lecture have been taped together and made to look political. The audio recording as it stands is a complete distortion. Someone literally took sentences from different parts of that series and constructed a very menacing sounding paragraph in my voice. As such, that paragraph in the audio clip is a complete fabrication.
Whatever the context and significance of this presentation (make what you will of Qadhi's description of it), the three facts that I want to underscore are (1) the audio content is from 2001; (2) it's a splicing of various excerpts from a much longer presentation; and (3) neither the report cited by our esteemed OP (avengador1), or the YouTube page that is an earlier source for it, provides the fact that it is from 2001 and that it is a splicing of parts from a longer presentation.
This is called "assclown" journalism, and it works like this:
Pamela Geller: "Hey Frank, could you assclown something for me on Yasir Qadhi? Just find a recording of one of his presentations--I don't care from how many years back--and edit it to make him look like a total assclown. Like we did with the Obama video, where we spliced together every single reference he ever made to "Islam" or "Muslims" over his entire public record, from college student to President, and made it into one video that makes it sound as if he is totally obsessed with this topic."
Frank Gafney: "On it, chief."
Yasir Qadhi went on to explain:
quote
Never have I claimed that Christians need to be prevented from practicing Christianity, or that they are filthy. This is truly a preposterous claim, as even the most basic exposure to Islamic law would demonstrate that non-Muslims are allowed to worship according to their doctrines in an Islamic state. Therefore (and I have made this point many times in my lectures), if this is the case in an ideal and theoretical 'Islamic state', how can anyone claim that Muslims want to ban Christianity in a non-Islamic land?
Qadhi's explanation starts with "Never have I claimed.." I'm not convinced. I think there's a more accurate explanation from Sheila Musaji of TAM (The American Musliim), who just recently (August 2, 2013) blogged "In defense of Sheikh Yasir Qahi":
quote
In 2001, Sheikh Yasir Qadhi gave a speech in which he made anti-Semitic statements, and statements doubting the extent of the Holocaust, and even recommended a book The Hoax of the Holocaust. Those comments in that speech were reprehensible.
However, that speech was a catalyst for Yasir Qadhi to re-examine his beliefs, and it does a great disservice to the man to allow the story to end there.
In a 2008 article on Muslim Matters, GPU ’08 with Yasir Qadhi: When Islamophobia Meets Perceived Anti-Semitism, Yasir Qadhi himself wrote about that speech. He admitted he had made the statements, and that they were incorrect, and he said that he no longer held such views.
This is followed by a long mea culpa from Qadhi, in which he explains how his views about Jews and about the Nazi Holocaust had changed since 2001.
In 2010, Yasir Qadhi was part of an interfaith group, including seven other Muslim imams, that made a visit to the remains of the infamous Nazi extermination camp at Auschwitz:
quote
"The experience was overwhelming," Qadhi said. "It was a very moving experience for all of us imams, in particular myself. I had never seen anything like this. I was just overwhelmed throughout the entire trip. I was just overwhelmed at the sheer inhumanity of it. I could not comprehend how such evil could be unleashed."
Like other imams, he said the historical truth of the Holocaust should not be distorted by the past 60 years of tensions in the Middle East.
"Politics should not play a role in historical facts," Qadhi said. "Whatever happened post-Holocaust should not diminish the evil that was the Holocaust. … The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very complicated. Let's leave anti-Semitism out of it."
With reference to the OP, I am not sure that Qadhi is being forthright when he says that he never ranted in a derogatory way against Christians and Jews as inferior to Muslims. He says that his other presentation (in that vein) was just an inoffensive or objective exploration of certain theological aspects of the Qur'an. What is apparent, however, from these other sources--Sheila Musaji's recent post in TAM and the 2010 Auschwitz pilgrimage, reported in the Houston Chronicle--is that Yasir Qadhi has changed his thinking substantially since 2001, when he made the alleged anti-Christian and anti-Jewish rant that is the subject of the OP.
As further evidence of Yasir Qadhi's post-2001 transformation from Islamic extremist to Islamic mainstreamist, Qadhi authored a longish essay "The Lure of Radicalism and Extremism Amongst Muslim Youth", which appeared on MuslimMatters(.org) on October 18, 2010.
Some excerpts from the Yasir Qadhi of 2010:
The external factor is an almost total absence of voices from within mainstream Islam (of all varieties: Sufis, Salafis, Deobandis, etc.) that speak to and address the concerns and issues that resonate with the Muslims most prone to extremism. When the only voices that address issues of concern are the voices of radical militant jihadis, it is only natural that young and impressionable minds will gravitate to these voices. From the perspective of these disaffected youth, since the mainstream clerics aren't discussing relevant issues, or involved in the discourses that concern them, how then can they be turned to for guidance?
The internal factor is a very warped understanding of Islamic texts and doctrines, and a romanticized view of Islamic history. It is only with such a skewed and idealistic vision that a Muslim can allow radical voices to bypass simple common sense and a pure Islamic heart, filtering all the way to his inner psyche. . . .
With regards to the internal factors, it is not likely that a mind well-grounded in authentic texts and traditions will gravitate towards acts of terrorism. Thus, it is no coincidence that one will be hard-pressed to find senior clerics, of any theological persuasion, who justify flying planes into building or strapping bombs onto one's body in order to blow up innocent civilians.
A radical's mind could only have been exposed to cherry-picked religious texts along with their misinterpretations; typically verses from Surah al-Anfal and Surah al-Tawba (both of which were revealed in specific historic situations very different from our own). Such a mind is only versed in Prophetic traditions of a military nature, sheered of their context and shown in isolation from many other traditions that would help paint a more nuanced view.
However, these are not the only verses and ahadith (the Prophetic traditions) pertaining to the topic of jihad. Many other verses, especially those that seem to conflict with their warped understanding of Surah al-Anfal and Tawba, are simply dismissed as belonging to the 'Makkan' phase of revelation. Many Prophetic traditions which would show that military action is not the only way to fight for the truth are simply bypassed or ignored. For every evidence that they quote, there is an almost surreal attempt to isolate that one verse or hadith from the entire corpus of Islamic texts and law. For these militants, it is as if each verse they cherry-pick was actually revealed for their immediate benefit. For them, it is as if every hadith that they quote was stated by the Prophet directly to them and in support of their world-view. Only a mind completely bereft from the necessary hermeneutical tools of usul al-fiqh (the procedure of deriving laws) and maqasid al-Shariah (understanding the goals of Islamic Law) can be so shallow.
With regards to doctrines, a simplistic, black-and-white understanding of wala wa-l-bara is propagated by the extremists; one that the intellectually-challenged (of the ilk of George W. Bush) would have absolutely no difficulty understanding. “You're either with us or against us”, both Bush and Awlaki [that Awlaki--the one killed by a drone strike in Yemen] pontificate.
Yet, the real world that we live in is not as black and white as these Manichean camps would like it to be. A clear and simple argument can be made that on each and every issue, we should stand with the truth, regardless of which side that truth is on. And it is not uncommon that this truth is not on one side, but somewhere in between.
In the context of the very verses that many militants use to justify their black-and-white understandings of wala wa-l-bara, one verse (8:72) specifically mentions that even if Muslims under attack ask for help, and reach out to you based on religious loyalties, you are not obliged to help them if that help will compromise your political alliances. Extrapolating from this, one can state that while American Muslims are with the Palestinians, Iraqis and Kashmiris in wanting freedom, safety and security for them, at the same time we cannot help them militarily if that help will compromise our own safety and the safety of our families and communities, or if such help would contradict our political alliances. We can still help our suffering brethren in many other ways, for example, by educating our fellow countrymen regarding the dismal plight of these people and how our own government has been, many times, complicit in perpetuating or even causing such predicaments.
The point that I am stressing here is that a more nuanced and pragmatic reading of the Qurʾān can also just as easily be done “ but it takes more wisdom, foresight and moral courage than many of these testosterone-filled youth are willing to undertake (and for the record, I firmly believe that one of the best ways to de-radicalize these young men is to help them get married early and encourage them to have kids, and I mean this in all seriousness).
Muslims need to understand that anyone who approaches the Qurʾān and Sunnah with preconceived notions, wishing to find justification for certain theological or legal opinions, can almost always do so. If one wishes to speak to the texts rather than allow the texts to speak to him, then only his imagination will be a limit to the opinion that he seeks to derive. . . .
It is an awkward position to be in; for some, it appears to be a hopeless battle. How can one simultaneously fight against a powerful government, a pervasive and sensationalist-prone media, and a group of overzealous rash youth who are already predisposed to reject your message because they view you as being a part of the establishment (while, ironically, the 'establishment' never ceases to view you as part of the radicals)?
But there really is no other alternative. We need to protect our religion for our children after us, and we need to preserve what we can of the freedoms this country still offers us. And while I am skeptical that America will ever revert to its innocent pre-9/11 state of affairs; still, despite all that has occurred to change this country, America remains far better than any European equivalent, and we need to appreciate and cherish this fact even as we struggle to balance our loyalties between the requirements of our faith and those that are increasingly being imposed upon us by our country. . . .
Sheila Musaji of TAM concluded her "defense" with this:
quote
The second [mislead] is the recycling of the charge of anti-Semitism based on the 2001 [Qadhi] speech. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller both engaged in recycling this story, as if the 2001 speech was current news. It is curious that two individuals whose entire life’s work revolves around nothing except commenting (negatively) about Islam and Muslims could miss so much actual information (over a decade) about Yasir Qadhi and his change of views.
I can’t help but wonder why the attacks on this particular Muslim scholar at this time? As far as Yasir Qadhi is concerned, he must be on the middle path, as he is being attacked by both Islamophobes and by Muslim extremists [at the same time].
Going back to the OP, the report from the Consortium of Defense Analysts (Threats to U.S. Security) concludes with:
quote
... it should be noted that a Muslim cannot pick-and-choose what to believe or not in the Quran. The Quran promises the most severe of punishments for those who believe in one part of the Quran, but not the other (2:85). There is no such thing as moderate Islam. ”Cafeteria” Muslims are not only disregarding their own religion, but are subject to punishment from true believers for it, since they are hypocrites by definition (see 66:9).
If Yasir Qadhi denies saying that the life and property of non-Muslims, including Christians, are for the taking by Muslims, then he is at best a “cafeteria” Muslim who’s a hypocrite in the eyes of “true” Muslims and, at worst, he was lying.
But then, Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels. It’s called taqiyya.
Is the post-2010 Yasir Qadhi a "cafeteria Muslim"? I call him an Islamic "mainstreamist". He is not cherry-picking from the Qur'an (and the other sacred texts), selecting only what he wants to emphasize. He has learned how to interpret the Islamic texts in a thoughtful and contextual way, learning from the conclusions of previous Islamic scholars, and thinking carefully about concepts like "jihad"--when and where it would be justified by Islam, and how it should be conducted--and not excluding a "jihad" of ideas, as an alternative to a "jihad" of military force, coercion or terrorism.
I have no doubt that this is the way that Mohammed (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) intended. Even in Mohammed's time, many centuries ago, at the birth of Islam, the Prophet (786) foresaw the rise of an intolerant and extremist group of Islamists that would be known as the Kharijites. The literal meaning of the Arabic term ‘Kharij’ is to leave or set apart or move away from something. The ‘Kharijees’ or the ‘Kharijites’ are a people which the Noble Prophet (SAWS) prophecised would appear after his death, look and behave like the best of believers, but would break or move away from the Straight Path of Islam. In a verse from the Hadith (2335) Mohammed (PBUH) warned against such Islamic deviation, or as we commonly say, Islamic extremism:
quote
Verily there would arise from my Ummah [Muslims] after me a group (of people) who would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey, and they would never come back to it. They would be the worst among the creation and the creatures.
In a recent column that appeared in Aljazeera (June 8, 2013), Mohamed Gilan referenced the same verse of Hadith, to illustrate how the Kharijites of many centuries ago have morphed into the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists of today:
quote
Many Hadiths (sayings of Prophet Muhammad) have been transmitted in which Muslims are warned against extremism in religion. In one highly significant Hadith, Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said, "Towards the latter times a people will come who have little knowledge; are deficient in intellect; will speak quoting the best of people; have thick beards; wearing shortened garments; have shaved heads; have good speech but foul actions; claiming to act upon the Book of God but have no relation to it; they recite the Quran but it doesn't pass their throats; and they exit from Islam as an arrow exits from its bow." In another Hadith Prophet Muhammad told his companions that in relation to these people each companion will "belittle his prayer to their prayer, and his fasting to their fasting". Prophet Muhammad said about such a people that they will be ones who will engage in senseless killing of innocents in the name of religion, and so they will need to be sought after and fought.
Finally, to return to the report from the OP (avengador1), an examination of the very last sentence:
quote
Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels. It’s called taqiyya.
Taqiyya (deception) isn't for Islamic mainstreamists. Taqiyya is a specialty of the assclown propagandists (Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Frank Gafney, and many more) who create the Islamophobic spam that is so often circulated with gleeful approval on this forum by the OP (and quite a few others). I think there are four reasons for this:
The first reason, which is reasonable, is that Islamic extremism is offensive and disturbing (even threatening) to us.
The second reason is that not many have learned enough about Islam to distinguish between Islamic extremism and Islamic mainstreamism: a knowledge gap which provides an opening that is tailor-made for perpetual exploitation by assclown bloggers (Geller et al) with Islamophobic leanings.
The third reason is a desire to elevate certain Christian sentiments or allegiances in an artificial and deceitful way, by drawing a contrast (explicitly, or by implication) with a distorted and misleading assessment of Islam; especially, the Islamic mainstreamism that is widely practiced in the United States.
The fourth reason is to perpetuate the canard that President Obama is a "closet Muslim" or has a pro-Muslim agenda. This is often implicit, rather than explicit, in the postings that copy and paste from the Islamophobic websites.
That's a wrap!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-16-2013).]
.
