Beliefs Culture Institutions

Ayaan Hirsi Ali draws criticism from fellow atheists at Yale

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, photographed at the Neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute.

(RNS) A campus appearance by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the outspoken Muslim-turned-atheist activist, is being challenged again, this time at Yale University where she is scheduled to speak Monday night (Sept. 15).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, photographed at the Neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Photo courtesy of AEI

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, photographed at the Neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute.

While her previous campus critics have included members of religious groups, especially Muslims, this time the critics include Ali’s fellow ex-Muslims and atheists.

“We do not believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents the totality of the ex-Muslim experience,” members of Yale Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics posted on Facebook Friday (Sept. 12). “Although we acknowledge the value of her story, we do not endorse her blanket statements on all Muslims and Islam.”

Those statements include calling Islam “the new fascism” and “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.” She has called for the closing of Muslim schools in the West, where she settled after immigrating from her native Somalia, and is a vocal advocate for the rights of women and girls in Islam.

The students’ statement continued: “We believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents a sadly common voice in the atheist community that attacks and provokes, rather than contributes to constructive criticism or dialogue.”

Ali will speak at the invitation of the William F. Buckley Jr. Program, a student organization that describes itself as committed to diversity. Thirty-five other Yale groups have expressed concern over the invitation.

In April, Brandeis University rescinded its offer of an honorary degree to Ali when student groups protested. While no Yale group has officially called for the cancellation of her appearance, several groups have asked that additional speakers be given a chance to counter her presentation.

Reaction from the broader atheist community has been sharp. Commenting on the Yale students’ statement on Facebook, Gregory James, a Milwaukee atheist and humanist wrote, “I am ashamed to hear of this anti-intellectual and absurd position. I expect religiously motivated opposition to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I never expected such a statement from a Humanist group. Shame.”

Writing on his Friendly Atheist blog, author and activist Hemant Mehta wrote, “I hope that these students who would rather she not be invited at all actually attend Monday night’s event. Don’t just protest outside and leave. Listen to her story and respond if necessary. That people are so sensitive to criticisms of Islam is reason alone for why her invitation is a welcome one.”

Others have written in support of the Yale atheist group. “It should be expected that the invitation of a speaker that promotes speech directly against members of the student body should be met with healthy criticism and protest,” Vlad and Alex Chituc, two atheists and former members of Yale Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics, wrote on their blog, Nonprohet Status. ” If anyone should understand that criticism is not the same thing as censorship, it ought to be atheists.”

Ali, 44, is best known in the atheist community for her 2007 memoir, “Infidel: My LIfe,” in which she described her own genital mutilation.

She wrote the screenplay for “Submission,” the 2004 documentary about women in Islam that led to the murder of its director, Theo van Gogh, by a Muslim extremist.

Van Gogh’s murderer pinned a note to his body threatening to kill Ali as well.


About the author

Kimberly Winston

Kimberly Winston is a freelance religion reporter based in the San Francisco Bay Area.


Click here to post a comment
  • Ayaan faked many parts of her life story, and there’s a video on Youtube that shows it. I highly recommended.

  • “Listen to her story and respond if necessary.”

    I hope they’ll respond by pointing out that her aptly-characterized “story” is such a pack of lies, she was expelled from the Netherlands *after* receiving its citizenship and being elected to its parliament. In other words, it’s a real piece of work.

  • After many other ‘ex Muslims’ who have built their entire careers on the back of this title, it comes as no surprise that atheists will question the story of someone such as ayaan. After all, they take pride in questioning everything & for good reason. Ex Muslims such as Ergun Caner, kamal saleem & walid shoebat have all been exposed as frauds. To listen to Ayaan Hirsi blindly would be a shame on everything that atheism stands for.

  • Many people leave the muslim faith because they realize that it doesn’t
    make sense. They say Jesus was just a prophet but no true prophet
    can be revered if they are a liar and so if Jesus wasn’t the Son of God
    He was a liar/can’t be revered or a true prophet so their whole belief
    system falls apart plus they have to earn their way to heaven/have no
    real assurance when they die if they are saved or not. With Christianity
    the Bible says if you Repent/put your trust in Christ as Lord/Savior you
    know you are going to heaven. Bible prophecy predicts the future with
    100% accuracy like Psalm 22 that came true proving Jesus is the Messiah
    and the only way to heaven…Period! Jesus is the only way to heaven!

  • In my experience, all atheists are dogmatic. They especially fight hard against Christianity because it presents so many problems in their arguments.
    It is written: “if one obeys Gods Laws, yet they do not know God, they are a law unto themselves”.
    Can one have morals,if there is no right and no wrong?
    Perhaps this particular speaker is a schill for the muslims,pretending to be an ex-muslim just so she could get an audience with non-muslims,i.e. Christians, atheists , agnostics etc. The old fox in the henhouse.

  • You need to get out more and see more atheists. Your experiences seem to be based on what people have told you about atheists rather than actually dealing with them.

    Most Christians never feel the need to stick to a form of argument in an honest and objective fashion. Goalpost shifting, assumptions, strawman burning, and insult slinging tends to be the norm in their discussions with atheists. If anything atheists just get fed up because they expect more rational, sane discussions and fail to get them.

    Many fight hard against Christianity because it presents so many problems in their lives. Especially when said Christians insist on hijacking government entities to engage in sectarian discrimination. Worse still when they use religious belief to excuse obnoxious behavior to those who believe differently from them.

    “Can one have morals,if there is no right and no wrong?”

    You really are not used to talking to atheists! Atheism is not amorality. Its just not attributing morals to a system of divine punishment/reward.

    To an atheist, the religious believer is the immoral one. One cannot have morals if they are referring to an outside source for their sense of right and wrong, rather than their own conscience. Like those who defer all such decisions to whatever you think God has said on the subject. Hence it is easy to find excuses for repugnant malicious acts if you say God says so.

    If someone has to tell you that maliciously harming people is bad, seek help. You are sorely lacking in the empathy inherent to the overwhelming majority of human beings and probably a psychopath. But that is the way Christians describe their own view of morality.

  • More evidence so-called “liberal” campuses like to squelch people and ideas they disagree with. No wonder even American mainstream conservatives either almost never get invited to give speeches or are afraid of physical attacks if they do speak so stay away.

  • Larry I will have to say that at the least you are able to state your case and cause more eloquently than many I have read comment by.
    That having been recognized we ( you and I ) must also recognize bilateral if not exactly equal proportions of dysfunction in either group.

    Let me be more precise. In the same way that men are rational thinkers statistically, and women more intuitive pattern recognition thinkers ( also statistically) we have a similar dichotomy in the spiritual( chosen specifically rather than the word religious) society and the atheist society. Let me expound. You state that some subset of spiritual person ( christians in your statement,) whom I think might be a subset of christians and not all inclusive though those words are my own and not yours.] “insist on hijacking government entities to engage in sectarian discrimination”. Have you considered the obverse? That one of the most widely perceived ( if not accurate) observations on atheist complaints. ( again I say complaints and not beliefs, rationale, nor all of their actions.) may be described by the phrasing “said atheists insist on hijacking religious entities to engage in sectarian discrimination. One must admit that the discussion is really more of a who is scoring more points sort of debate, rather than a discussion of what works best for and in practical application with respect to our culture, society, and the balanced overall pursuit of American happiness. In furtherance of your knowledge and personal advancement, I give you this response to your statement that the religious(spiritual) believer is the immoral one.

    1. Morals are by definition imposed by society through teaching , law, societal agreement, and accepted practice over a period of time.

    2. Ethics are what a man or woman sticks to when no other entity ( carefully chosen phrase) is watching to the best of their knowledge.

    Please check me against the best of old school dictionaries for accuracy,

    Once you have done so you will find that ONLY by referring to a source ouside your self are you able to be said to be following a moral path. Measuring yourself against yourself in order to judge yourself righteous, honest,correct,true,ore on top of things in any way, would leave us still believing that man cannot fly, the earth is still flat, there just may really BE a Santa Clause, and that the negroid races are less than human,….. Poppycock!
    I invite your comment at my blog , a response at this page. or a dicussion by email. [email protected]

    Thank you for your time.

  • “We do not believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents the totality of the ex-Muslim experience,”

    What kind of standard is that? Who could meet that standard? Are all ex-Muslims who speak anywhere expected to meet it?

    Also, in the interest of “full disclosure,” what relationship, if any, does the organization Yale Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics have with Religion News Service employee Chris Stedman (who serves as Executive Director of the Yale Humanist Community)?

  • from the book of jihad by ibn nuhaas:

    “Jihad is a cure for the individual and the society. It cures the individual by delivering him from the sickness of disbelief to the wellbeing of Islam.
    Disbelieving in Allah is the greatest disease of all and the most destructive on all humanity, while Islam is the complete cure. Jihad cures the society….” it goes on as to why atheists must be killed by muslims so “Allah may prevail”.

  • hasan, what does the hadith that says to push jews and christians to the narrow side of the road mean?

    when the koran equates us to cows, what does that mean?

  • As a separate issue,.. the ability to judge whether something is wrong or right without reffering to god or any other entity above that of human WOULD STILL BRING US TO THE CONCLUSION that the actions of the most visible portion of islam (much like the actions of the most visible portions of PETA, GREENPEACE, THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT, THE ATHEIST MOVEMENT, THE POLITBUREAU, KIM YUNG UN, AND OUR PRESENT DEMANDER IN CHIEF, are leaving us with a bad taste in our mouths. Unless of course you are a rabid my side is right no matter what sort and then of course there is no talking to you any way. Blaming all of Islam for the most radical of its teachings and followers is no different than blaming Christianity for all the actions and all the distortions of its many adherents. Sauce for the goose is gravy for the gander as well. Calling yourself atheist makes you no higher a judge of our morals than any other.

  • yes she lied to get out of the sudan. wait that was the chick the muslims wanted to hang. she lied to get out of somalia. not sure why anyone would do that. somalia is full of muslims and therefore a paradise on earth. lol.

  • To the officers of the Yale Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics.
    Reconsider. It may be your voice, or mine that gets silenced next time. We all should be heard, and yes, we all will not agree.

  • Mike, what is up with the attacks? You are dead wrong, I do not know what outlet media you are getting your information from but the Qur’an does not equate you or any other religion to cows. Just google it instead of making things up. What comes out of your mouth usually equates you to cows!

  • I don’t ever blame Islam for its most obnoxious actors nor blame Christianity for the same.

    In fact most of the times I am on the business end of Islamaphobes for bringing up the POLITICAL background which Islamicism works within. It has little to nothing to do with the actual tenets and teachings of Islam and everything to do with the nature of autocratic governments. I can go into details as to how that works.

  • Every Christian considers themselves “true Christians” and anyone else of the same faith who disagrees with them “false”. The difference only being who is making the statement.

  • “Have you considered the obverse? ”

    Yes, I have. Its more accusation than reality. Many Christians in the US like to pretend they are being persecuted when in reality they are just being told they can’t act obnoxiously towards others.

    “said atheists insist on hijacking religious entities to engage in sectarian discrimination”

    More complaint than reality. Oh no, your religious belief can’t be allowed to be favored by civil government and laws. The horror! We have a government and society which chafes at the notion of being dominated by any given faith or religious belief. One that tries to respect all by not showing favorites.Many Christians ascribe to atheism what secularism or even ecumenialism is the more appropriate belief.

    You got your morals and ethics reversed. Ethics are bound by rules and conventions. I can still act like a nasty minded jerk and still within a professional ethical framework. [I see it on a regular basis in my work]

    Morals are personal beliefs. Morals are layered. They tend to be a sliding scale from self-interest to universal concepts of conscience and empathy. If you avoid exercising your own personal conscience, empathy and connection with fellow human beings, you can justify almost any harmful malicious act as moral.

    Nobody has to tell you murder is wrong. You don’t want to be murdered yourself. You have enough of a connection to other people to know murder is hurtful to others (not just the victim). You know it has consequences beyond just the fear of jail. That is just being human. No God required.

  • I’m sorry Mike, but do you actually know what is the literal meaning of “Jihad”? Of course it is not what you hear on TV channels, please do some research.

  • Larry
    way before you were even a twinkle in your dads eye ..
    God told us why atheists know right from wrong..
    its also in the old testament.. which is also way way before the fist atheist even
    had a type writer..

    Romans 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

  • i didn’t say it equates a religon to cows. it equates atheists to cows. actually it says we are lower than cows. it’s in the koran boss 25:44. Sahih International
    Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are [even] more astray in [their] way.
    [25.44] Or do you think that most of them do hear or understand? They are nothing but as cattle; nay, they are straying farther off from the path.
    what other translation would you like? yusef ali’s? muhammad assad’s?

    have you ever read the koran. also if you read the 2nd surah there is a bunch of nonsense about us being deaf and blind, stumbling to and fro in the darkness.

    you should really read the koran and call 1-800-why-islam. the islamic circle of north america will send you a book called, ‘towards understanding islam’.

    ‘outlet media’? what are you talking about. i’ve made nothing up.

    so with your vast knowledge of islam, what does this hadith mean?
    “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.”

  • don’t tell me you are going to say struggle. you have struggle of the mind, struggle of the lips, struggle of the heart, stuggle of deeds… lol. what are you listening to? bus ads.

    read the book.

    “Definition of Jihad:
    The linguistic meaning:
    • Lisan Alarab: Fighting the enemy. It involves using all effort in words and deeds.
    • Mujam matn al lughah: Jihad is commonly used to refer to waging war for the sake of Al-haqq (the truth)
    In Islamic terminology it means:
    Calling towards the true religion and fighting with one’s soul and wealth against those who reject it. (Al Inayah Sharh al Hidayah (Hanafi))
    Jihad is fighting. (Al Sheerazi in al Muhadhab (Shafi’i)
    Jihad is a Muslim waging war agianst a non-Muslim who has no peace agreement with Muslims and the fighting is for the sake of the word of Allah to prevail. Jihad is also fighting the non-Muslim who attacks Muslim territory and it is also the Muslims attacking the non-Muslims in their land. (Mawahib al Jaleel fi Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil (Maliki))”

  • the rest of that paragraph. adam doesn’t believe me…
    “…by eliminating the source of corruption and oppression. Leaving the disbeliever unharmed increases the disease and strengthens it and allows the cancer to spread. Therefore Islam cannot flourish and Muslims cannot live in peace unless the disease is cured. If it is possible to cure the disease by using a medicine then be it. Otherwise the infected portion must be amputated even though the amputation could cause pain and suffering for the body. But then no one could claim that the amputation cruel or inhumane. It was necessary for the survival of the body. That is precisely the role of Jihad in Islam. First the message should be conveyed through peaceful means. If the peaceful course is exhausted and it did not bear its fruits, the bearers of the truth would need to draw their swords and fight in order for the word of Allah to prevail.”

    sorry, ny bad, not allah may prevail, but allah to prevail.

  • wtf are you talking about. in islam all sins are ‘forgivable’ except to die in a state of shirk (having other gods other than allah. like deifying jesus). and they very much believe in jesus as a ‘true prophet’. they believe allah gave him the power of miricles and that he came from a virgin birth.

    they point to matthew 5:17 as proof he is not the ‘son of god’.

    you are as nutty as they are.

  • Hi Mike

    I appreciate what you are trying to do here which is simply to voice your concern. I am a muslim who has been bought up in the West and I somewhat understand your confusion. Firstly, what is quoted in the Quran is different to a Hadith. A hadith is not necessarily authentic and in actual fact, if the hadith is contrary to what the Quran quotes it is disregarded. You are taking a hadith and a verse from the Quran to be on the same level when they are not. Secondly, from what I read above I can see that you are a learned person which means that you understand that before you judge a verse from the Quran you have to understand the context that it is talking about as well as the history of the Arabia when these verse were revealed. It saddens me that a learned person can be so ignorant. This might lead you to ask the question then why do muslims quote hadiths or why are there hadiths in the first place if they are not authentic? There is more than one answer to this, back in history some fabricated hadiths for a variety of reasons which is outside the scope of this conversation and secondly many hadith books are simply a compilation of all hadiths.

    Also, in relation to gential mutiliation that is not a practice that is accepted in Islam. It disgust me that people associate things like this with Islam when they have little understanding of Islam. In Islam, males are circumcised but under no circumstances is it acceptable for a female to be circumcised, that is by far the most inaccurate accusation.

    I have read some of your other comments above and I will respond as soon as I have time.

    Thank you and have a good day 🙂

  • Hi Karla

    Many people? Really, I would like a statistic that backs your claim up. Do me a simple favour and search up Islam on Wikipedia. Islam is in fact the fastest growing religion in the world, especially among women. It is ironic that someone of a Christian faith critics Islam based on the fact that Jesus been a prophet in Islam makes little sense. I have made numerous efforts to understand the concept of Trinity in the Christian faith. Some of my Christian friends themselves find it confusing. Yes we have to earn our way to heaven, and there is no reassurance. However, that to me is fair, how is it fair that all sins are viewed equal in Christianity? So, someone who kills and someone who steals because they are starving are equal? And how is it that we are born sinful and that we inherit the sin, while in Islam all babies are born sinless? Also, in Islam if someone repents they are also forgiven, I had to state that because I wasn’t sure if you actually knew that.

    And, since we’re on the topic of “how much sense things make” How is it that a prophet in the Christian faith is quoted in the bible to have committed adultery etc? What’s the point of having the prophet, if he such a bad representative of God on earth. Additionally, Muslims and Christians both believe in similar attributes of God such as ” All mighty, All knowning, All seeing, All merciful etc So God is undoubtfully higher than any living being. As humans we are limited to space, time etc… If God is part of three, then he is limited because he cannot be God without the other two components. How does any of that make sense to you?

  • Hello Khadijeh,

    i hope this correspondence finds you well.

    “It saddens me that a learned person can be so ignorant.” lol. how very abrahamic of you. your self contradiction is truely biblical/koranic. but you are right. i do ignore the concepts under islam. i do not believe in allah or that muhammad is a prophet. guess i’m a ‘spreader of corruption’. perhaps i should be crucified, per 5:33? are you sunni? so the four major madhabs all agree on killing an apostate and an adulterer. perhaps you have been in the west too long.

    not sure who brought up FGM, but i’m game. you do know that hanbali and maliki say it is mandatory and hanifi and shafi say it is recomended. i may have shafi and maliki revesred, but none the less all four say it is a good thing.

    so the koran trumps the hadiths? so why have the hadiths? why not but everything in the koran? 1400 years and still trying to figure out the ‘one truth’. that doesn’t strike you as funny.

    i look forward to your other answers.

    but in the spirit of 4:86, Thank you and I hope you have a good night. 😉

    May the road rise up to meet you.
    May the wind be always at your back.
    May the sun shine warm upon your face;
    the rains fall soft upon your fields
    and until we meet again,
    may God hold you in the palm of His hand.

    4am here. i’m going to bed.

  • yes, I I’ve seen it before, she’s one b–ch liar!! Her style is provocative and very subjective all based mostly on the sad reality of a poor country torn by decades of war she lived in; here experience could never be taken for granted, I at least never did!!!!

  • It is because of people like this hate monger in this article that Islam is highly misunderstood, of course, the sheer dumbness of many who judge before seeing and properly knowing contributes to their shameful ignorance .

  • Even pre-Judeo-Christian societies had a conception of certain things being wrong — murder, stealing, etc, with a general duty to others not to do them and a general right of others not to have them done to them. Where they differed was to whom they believed the duty was owed. The Judeo-Christian view, based on the Imago Dei, holds that the duty is owed to everyone by virtue of human birth alone. The older view (and one that we have seen resurface within totalitarian atheist regimes) was that rights and duties derive from social (tribal and national) ties. The natural tendency of fallen man is to dehumanize the other in order to get around the dictates of conscience. This is why both slavery and infanticide have been universals in human society for most of its history.

  • Hi Mike

    First to answer your question no I am shia not sunni so I do not follow any of those four schools of thought and therefore anything you quote from those books I myself don’t follow nor do I agree. Secondly, yes it is very clear lol how you ignore the concepts underlying Islam. However, the reason I mentioned the importance of understanding the context and history in which the verses were revealed was so you can better understand the verses not so you believe. Thirdly, I never said that ALL hadiths are not authentic because hadiths together with the Quran contribute to the overall understanding of Islam. But what I did mention was that if a hadith contradicts the Quran then it is disregarded because some hadiths may have been fabricated over time. Fourthly, I understand that you didn’t mention FGM but I wanted to mention it because it goes against our beliefs as muslims. I can understand you quoting the Quran but please before you quote a hadith make sure you know if it is authentic and from a reliable source.

    Since we’re on the topic of hadiths, you must be familiar with Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib a.s. the cousin of the prophet? He quoted a very popular hadith but somehow it is overlooked by you guys: “A person is either your equal in faith, or your brother in humanity.” As a muslim I follow very closely to this hadith and so to answer your other question no I do not believe you should be crucified lol. In fact, Islam encourages dialogue and the first word that revealed upon the Prophet was “Iqra”, meaning read or seek knowledge.

    On the topic of killing non-muslims, Islam does not condone wanton killing of non-muslims. rather islam elevates the honor and dignity of all life irrespectively. killing, except in one’s defence or in the course of seeking justice, is condemned in the qur’an. the following are representative verses from the qur’an:
    Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

    If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!

    Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

    The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong.

    if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.

    O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.

    Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

    Now, in relation to the the Quranic verses you quoted:

    5:33 lol it is clear that you don’t understand this verse because you used it to justify why it is okay to crucify non-muslims.

    “Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and go about the earth spreading mischief55 -indeed their recompense is that they either be done to death, or be crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off from the opposite sides or be banished from the land.56 Such shall be their degradation in this world; and a mighty chastisement lies in store for them in the World to Come.”

    55. The ‘land’ signifies either the country or territory wherein the responsibility of establishing law and order has been undertaken by an Islamic state. The expression ‘to wage war against Allah and His Messenger’ denotes war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state. It is God’s purpose, and it is for this very purpose that God sent His Messengers, that a righteous order of life be established on earth; an order that would provide peace and security to everything found on earth; an order under whose benign shadow humanity would be able to attain its perfection; an order under which the resources of the earth would be exploited in a manner conducive to man’s progress and prosperity rather than to his ruin and destruction. If anyone tried to disrupt such an order, whether on a limited scale by committing murder and destruction and robbery and brigandry or on a large scale by attempting to overthrow that order and establish some unrighteous order instead, he would in fact be guilty of waging war against God and His Messenger. All this is not unlike the situation where someone tries to overthrow the established government in a country. Such a person will be convicted of ‘waging war against the state’ even though his actual action may have been directed against an ordinary policeman in some remote part of the country, and irrespective of how remote the sovereign himself is from him.

    56. These penalties are mentioned here in brief merely to serve as guidelines to either judges or rulers so they may punish each criminal in accordance with the nature of his crime. The real purpose is to indicate that for any of those who live in the Islamic realm to attempt to overthrow the Islamic order is the worst kind of crime, for which any of the highly severe punishments may be imposed.

    Also, it’s funny how you jump to quote 5:33 yet there’s no mention to the verse that comes after it 5:34 which is related to the above verse. Verse 5:34 quotes:

    “Except for those who repent before you have overpowered them. Know well that Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.”

    If they give up subversion and abandon their endeavour to disrupt or overthrow the righteous order, and their subsequent conduct shows that they have indeed become peace-loving, law-abiding citizens of good character, they need not be subjected to the punishments mentioned here even if any of their former crimes against the state should come to light. If their crime involves violation of the rights of other men they may not be absolved from their guilt. If, for instance, they have either killed a person, seized someone’s property or committed any other crime against human life or property they will be tried according to the criminal law of Islam. They will not, however, be accused of either rebellion and high treason or of waging war against God and His Messenger.

  • Mike, reading your posts through which you arrive at your assertions regarding Islam has been excruciating. Though it has already been attempted, I’ll try and simplify it for you again. The primary Islamic source is the Quran. Secondary sources are Sunnah (what Muhammad(sa) did) and Hadith (what Muhammad(sa) said). These secondary sources are used to support and further clarify the Quran. Where either contradict the Quran, they hold no legitimacy. The secondary sources are reliant on the accuracy, honesty, memory and integrity of narrators and the chain of narration to which they belong. There was, is and will be no absolute guarantee given for the preservation of their authenticity. The yardstick for legitimacy is ultimately always their able to be reconciled with Quranic teaching, the authenticity of which is (from a Muslim point of view) divinely assured.

    “Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We will be its Guardian” – Quran (15:10)

    The opinions of scholars of whatever school of thought within Islam (Maliki, Hanifi etc.), are just that – opinions. These scholars are not ‘sources’ as such. They are bound to interpreting the same sources as the rest of us. Therefore they can be agreed or disagreed with on the same basis that I can disagree with you – reasoning based on the primary or secondary sources. Concluding that something is definitively Islam based solely on opinions, be they those of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Rashid.M or Mike, is to assign an ultimate authority which doesn’t exist.

  • Mike that Hadith should be understood in context to the specific circumstances between the Christians Jews and Muslims at that time. And it’s been a while since I read the Arabic, but force or push them to the narrow side can be misleading. What’s understood when you are taught the Hadith is that, if you and I at that time were walking towards each other, I should keep walking straight, and not veer to the side before you do (like playing chicken), and the reason was so the Muslims who were by some seen as inferior during that time could establish their presence. And the analogy you mentioned of the Cow used in the Quran is clear, and not meant to be degrading only meant to make you think. Email me if you would like to discuss further [email protected]

  • I can think of only two reasons which I would personally regard as legitimate for stopping Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking publicly. Firstly, that allowing her to do so would incite bigotry and hatred. Secondly, that it would incite violence. Though not completely familiar with her opinions and work, I doubt that the case could be convincingly made for either scenario.

    Members of Yale Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics are not it seems calling for her to be banned, but are simply exercising a right to criticise and disagree. They are asking for a ‘right of reply’ so to speak. It’s not surprising to me that atheists, like Muslims, have a diversity of opinions amongst themselves. Why wouldn’t they?

  • so a scholar’s opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine? so why do muslims follow a school?

    the koran is above the hadiths. ok. so what is the penalty for adultry? many hadiths has muhammad stoning people, carrying out the ‘divine punishment of rajam’. yet the koran doesn’t mention it.
    Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: ‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”

    sorry to have made your reading experience excrutiating. you know what i find excrutiating, constant contradiction. so according to your fiqh, when do you put people to death and by what means?

  • Good Morning Khadijeh,

    sorry i do not know the two schools of shia. nor do i plan on studying them. i do know y’all don’t like hadiths from abu huraria (the man with the cat) so i will avoid them. i read my hadiths on and sometimes on the USC website collection. used to have them, but they took them down for some reason.
    yes everyone knows who ali was. the fourth ‘rightly guided caliphate’? or was he the first?
    funny but he is mentioned in the hadith i quoted:
    Narrated ‘Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

    so after all that you are saying you would crucify someone for high treason?

    so we see back to back verses, 5:32,33 saying the death penalty applies to those who spread mischief. so what constitutes ‘mischief’? was salman rushdie spreading mischief? your grand ayatollah khomeni said he should die. sup wit dat?

    yes, i’ve heard that ‘brothers in humanity’. noor, another shia on patheos quoted that for me a few weeks ago. to bad it’s not in the koran. instead the koran says, 5:51 take not the christians or the jews as your friends, they are but friends to one another, and whoever amoung you does surely becomes one of them. and allah does not guide such evil doers.
    the historical context being the 5th surah was revealed shortly before muhammad’s death. is it the hadith of the pen and paper or do you refer to it as the ‘calamity of thursday’?
    that is why i like to hang in the 5th surah. hard for someone to claim abrogation. unlike the 60th surah revealed around the treaty of hudiyyah (whoever you spell that), easily abrogated by verse 5:51.

  • I am not even Muslim and even I know the difference between FGM and female circumcision. Unfortunately, the Media gets it wrong quite frequently, and so does much of the public because of it. FGM is an African practice that has spread around a bit. It has been around since before Islam existed in its current form (it was practiced in ancient Egypt).

    Female circumcision is a removal of only a small layer of skin that covers the clitoris, effectively enhancing pleasure in marriage and allegedly helping a man and woman to be more faithful to each other because she will be less frigid and her husband can then give her greater pleasure with more ease than otherwise. (If the husband is skilled it is unnecessary, by the way, but I understand the thinking behind the practice).

    FGM, on the other hand, is the complete removal of the clitoris and surrounding tissue, along with other grotesque practices such as sewing shut the vaginal passage except for a tiny hole, and so forth.

    You mentioned that certain schools made FGM mandatory. Please list those sources–and do make sure that they are real sources. There are a lot of fake quotes being circulated around the Internet. Or, are you confusing FGM with female circumcision? Even still, real, verifiable references would be nice.

  • who told you all sins are equal in christianity? have you never heard the term cardnial sin? if god can do anything, why would math apply to him. he can be three while being one. hell i hear some people know argueing that hinduism is montheistic. always funny to see abrahamics debate which religion makes no sense.

    so where are gog and magog?

  • Karla, Karla, Karla,
    ” if Jesus wasn’t the Son of God He was a liar/can’t be revered or a true prophet so their whole belief system falls apart”.
    Jesus did not write the Bible. All the stuff you keep quoting was written long after his death, and mostly in a language (Greek) that he likely did not use for his teaching. The claims you cite were not made by Jesus, but by others who were not even born when the events they describe may, or may not, have taken place.
    Just go to the library read a few History Books. Start with Edward Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall Of The Roman Empire” Volume 1, Chapter 15. Here you will find a calm historical account, with no raving or grand claims. Gibbon’s masterpiece, was published in February 1776. …”the reading public eagerly consumed three editions”. His book had a profound and lasting impact on those who founded our country and created its institutions.

  • The father of Abrar Omeish, the Yale student behind this protest, is Esam Omeish, a respected Virginian physician origionally from Libya, who was forced to resign from the Virginia Commission on Immigration after a secret recording of him telling a muslim audience “you have known that the Jihad was is the way to liberate your land,” came to light.

    Omeish was also the Vice President of the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque where he hired Imam Anwar Al Awlaki “a senior al-Queda recruiter and motivator linked to various terrorists, including three 9/11 highjackers. the accused Fort Hood Shooter, and the accused Christmas Day 2009 bomber.”

    Because of America’s traditions of tolerance and individual oportunity Omeish has remained a respected doctor despite this, and his daughter has grown up privilaged and been admitted to one of the most presitigious universities in the country. It is disgraceful that she responded to the tolerence and oportunity that America has afforded her family with a bigoted attempt to silence Ali, a champion of freedom and human rights.

  • Hi Jer,
    “It is written” reminds me of my favorite part of “Game of Thrones”. The savages all chant “It is known, It is known” when they affirm their ignorant superstitions.

  • “God told us why atheists know right from wrong..”

    So feel free to correct Jer on the subject. Jer seems to be under the mistaken impression that atheists have no morality to speak of. 🙂

  • ” The Judeo-Christian view, based on the Imago Dei, holds that the duty is owed to everyone by virtue of human birth alone. ”

    An idea largely ignored by Christians ever since its conception. Given official support by the major Christian churches of sectarian violence, genocide, slavery Thus at best a footnote or an irrelevance.

    “The older view (and one that we have seen resurface within totalitarian atheist regimes) was that rights and duties derive from social (tribal and national) ties.”

    Which got its start with totalitarian regimes with state linked religion. Christian support of dictatorship even to modern times is well established enough to make your claims extremely selective in nature.

    “The natural tendency of fallen man is to dehumanize the other in order to get around the dictates of conscience. ”

    Tendencies of “fallen man” and nothing to do with dictates of authorities, especially religious ones which claim committing harmful acts are forgivable as acting on God’s word. Riiight. This is why you are fully supportive of human civil liberties provided the people are not gay, atheists or some religion besides Christian. 🙂

  • “Omeish was also the Vice President of the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque where he hired Imam Anwar Al Awlaki…”

    It’s too bad the Yale Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics are too myopic to see that they’re teaming up with people who would like to see them executed as heathens. “Interfaith,” indeed…

  • Free speech is at the heart of our cultural divide with Islam. I suggest that everyone who comes to the U.S. be required to affirm in a sworn writing that they will adhere to our laws while here, especially the Constitutionally mandated freedom of speech. It is only too bad we cannot put these “politically correct” college administrators in jail for treason. They should be grateful that that same constitution granting free speech protects them from my suggestion.

  • Hi Rashid,
    Inciting to violence is about asking a present audience to immediately become violent, not about expressing an opinion that others may find objectionable.
    The Constitution guaranties me the right to publicly insult, offend, degrade, demean, and disrespect anyone or anything, sacred or secular, as long as I do it in an orderly way that does not present a clear and present danger to public order. It is shameful that much of our Western culture has become so intimidated by Islam and by political correctness. I fear for our future if we are weak in defending our values.
    You, and those who practice the hundreds of other religions, are welcome, but only if you accept that the rules laid down by the U.S. Constitution are superior to the rules of any particular religion, precisely because they make freedom of religion for all possible.

  • Yes, I have. Its more accusation than reality. Many Christians in the US like to pretend they are being persecuted when in reality they are just being told they can’t act obnoxiously towards others.

    “Act obnoxiously” means to run their own businesses without the interference of attorneys and professional agitators.

  • “An idea largely ignored by Christians ever since its conception. ”

    However imperfectly observed by imperfect people, this is the source of human rights as we understand them today. Sorry if it pinches your little toesies but world history is still world history.

    “Tendencies of “fallen man” and nothing to do with dictates of authorities, especially religious ones which claim committing harmful acts are forgivable as acting on God’s word. Riiight.”

    LOL! Larry, surely you can’t be naive enough to believe that without any authorities life would be paradise?

    All earthly “authorities” are made up of very much fallen people. That is why they are not perfectable.

  • To all the intolerant ignoramuses out there that call her an Islamophobe , suck it up! If anyone has reason to call out the Mohammadanians she does. All those who follow what this sociopath did centuries ago deserve the hell they asked for and no 72 virgins will be waiting for them. This organization CAIR is anti-American and pro-sharia and both enemies from within.

  • You mean engage in business discrimination without pesky laws getting in the way. Like what they used to do in the days of Jim Crow and “Whites only” businesses.

    Yep, as I stated, people claiming persecution when they are being told not to act like raging jerks.

  • >>so a scholar’s opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine? so why do muslims follow a school?

    That’s not quite what I’m saying. The worth (weight) of a scholar to an individual Muslim may depend on considerations of sectarianism, community tradition/allegiance or reputation. Or it may just be that the scholar’s reasoning is considered both erudite and logical to the individual considering it. The point is that there are a variety of opinions and all of them use the same primary source (the Quran) and, to varying degrees of acceptance, the same secondary sources (Sunnah and Hadith). Opinions themselves though are not Islamic sources.

    In the end, the individual (whether they be Muslim or not) has access to the same sources as scholars. If they consider one scholar’s interpretations more valid (for whatever reason) than another, then they will accept the legitimacy of that scholar and possibly the associated school of thought.

    >>what is the penalty for adultry? many hadiths has muhammad stoning people, carrying out the ‘divine punishment of rajam’. yet the koran doesn’t mention it.

    The only authenticated Hadith mentioning stoning for adultery relate to a period before the relevant Quranic revelation. As was the practice of Muhammad(sa), prior to any subsequent revelation, preceding religious law was followed. And subsequent to new revelation, Jews seeking judgement were still often tried according to their own laws. Thus the Hadith mentioning stoning also include instances of the punishment of Jews applied according to the Torah (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22).

    The Quran (24:3) states a punishment of 100 stripes (flogging). But even here the stated requirements of evidence for this are so high as to make the implementation of such a punishment unlikely. Firstly, there must be no fewer than four witnesses to the act itself. Secondly, the witnesses must have a demonstrated record of reliability (truthfulness). Thirdly, they must not have previously received punishment themselves, nor be dependant upon, related to, or an heir of the one they are giving witness for.

    >>sorry to have made your reading experience excrutiating. you know what i find excrutiating, constant contradiction. so according to your fiqh, when do you put people to death and by what means?

    Don’t take it personally, I’m easily excruciated. In hindsight though my ad hominem remark was unwarranted.

    The Quran mentions only two instances where death as a penalty, coupled with an associated provision for forgiveness are possible. Murder, and the waging of war against believers – for being believers. This includes within this context, creating disorder i.e. treason. The means of applying a death penalty are not stipulated.

  • Hi Samuel.

    I deliberately clarified my opinion as being personal, as opposed to (in the context of the US) legal or constitutional. Having said that I struggle to see any substantial difference between what I stated and what is legally permissible. However as a Muslim, if I were in the US, my personal feelings would be irrelevant. I would be legally as well as religiously bound to follow the law of the land and would willingly do so.

    “O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you” – Quran (4:60)

    The authority of the US constitution in the US is incumbent on Muslims living under it. Any implication that to follow it is in contradiction with my practice as a Muslim is false. The implication that Islam does not allow freedom of religion is also false.

    And the assertion that the US’s constitutional superiority over religious teaching must, as some sort of additional prerequisite to residency, somehow be individually and publicly acknowledged, is a constitutional contradiction based on a moot premise. Nor would it necessarily prove anything. My limited understanding of the US constitution is that it governs behaviour not thought. I.e. persons living under it are required to obey it, not attest to its superiority.

    >>…as long as I do it in an orderly way that does not present a clear and present danger to public order

    Like I said, I thought I said much the same. Apologies if that wasn’t clear. It’s a shame if you feel intimidated by the presence of Muslims. Clearly we need to exert greater efforts to dispel such unease.

  • Rashid,
    Thank you for your thoughtful response, but I too struggle to understand.
    “The implication that Islam does not allow freedom of religion is also false.”
    Freedom of religion is understood here as freedom for the individual to change his mind and his practices, abandon one faith for another, or to have no faith or Gods at all. Anything less is not freedom for the individual as understood in our legal system and our tradition. It seem pretty clear to me that Islam has no such understanding, nor do Moslem ruled countries allow individuals to convert to say, Christianity or atheism.
    “It’s a shame if you feel intimidated by the presence of Muslims.”
    We have a local Mosque. During services two police cars guard the entrance. They do not direct traffic, as is normal for larger local churches, but are obviously there solely as security. No other religious group feels such a need. Relations between the Moslem community and the larger society are clearly tense. The headscarfs and other superficial distinctions are just in-your-face reminders that this community intends to remain separate. The path to acceptance is integration. It’s a matter of choice.

  • ah, you are abrogating stoning with verse 24:2, (sorry not 3). one of my favorite verses. so you translate zina as both fornication and adultry, much like muhammad asad. but the sahih international translates it as [unmarried] adultery. and most other translations has it as fornicator. yes i’ve heard the four witnesses agruement many times. 24:4 for those who accuse chaste women and and tehn are unable to produce 4 witnesses, flog them with 80 stripes. i’ve read the 24th surah. hell it starts with claiming “plain terms” and “messages… that are clear..” yet hundreds of millions of muslims support stoning adulterers.

    plus even the whip can bring death.
    ‘and let not compasion with them keep you from carrying out this law of god. and let a group of believers witness their chastisment’. is not pregnancy proof of zina? so an adulterer who has made a vow of fidelity (do muslims vow fidelity to their spouse? well at least the woman?) and a single consenting adult are to be punished equally? how abour homosexual zina?

    so a witness has to have a clean record, never having done anything in the past? did you follow this shooting in ferguson? michael brown’s buddy who ws with him has been convicted of lying to the police in the past. so we should all discount what he says happened? anyone with a criminal record can’t testify in court? how about non-muslims? should their testemony count? should it coun’t less then a muslim’s? so rape is zina, right? do you need 4 witnesses to rape in order to convict?

    how do you date hadiths? one says there are three reasons to but someone to death, murder, apostasy and (you guessed it) adultery.

    but it is good to hear your abrogation. baby steps to civility. sorry for so many questions but last time someone told me about the 4 witnesses was like 3 years ago and a lot has happened since then, leading to alot of question about this ‘wisdom’? did you see the case in the UAE were the norweign woman said she was raped. the accused said it was consentual, so the judge asked her where are your 4 witnesses. lol. she got an extra 3 months for ‘perjury’. i kid you not.

  • you aren’t an america? what are you?

    as not being american i wouldn’t expect you to know, but at one of the muslim day parades in NY a couple of years ago a muslim called for a ‘blasphemy’ law. also, this you should know, the OIC has called for and international ‘blasphemy law’.

    back to america, several states have proposed laws not allowing foriegn or religious laws in their courts. teh muslims have fought back hard against this. they seem to want to impose sharia law in american courts.

    funny, that these guys talk about freedom of speech, but would be the first to eliminate it.

  • Khadijeh,

    I agree with you completely that the doctrine of the trinity is confusing and makes no sense whatsoever!

    There is sufficient evidence in the Bible itself that there is only one true Almighty God, whose name is Jehovah. As Psalms 83:18 brings out:

    “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth.” (King James version)

    After Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and became the Messiah, God himself confirmed Jesus’ position:

    “And lo a voice from the heaven saying: This is MY beloved SON, in whom I am well-pleased (Matthew 3:17)

    Jesus confirmed that he was never equal to his Father, as he told his disciples the following:

    “…If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said “I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

    When Jesus needed strength, knowing he would have to endure suffering before his death, he prayed to his Father (not to himself as a god, but as God’s son) for that strength, and his Father provided him with an angel to accomplish this:

    ” And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast and kneeled down and prayed, saying: Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven strengthening him.” (Luke 22:41-42).

    Jesus also directed us to pray to our Heavenly Father (and not to Jesus) and he outlined those things we should pray for at Matthew 6:9-13.

    Jesus also confirmed that he did not know when the end of this wicked era will come, as told at Matthew 24:36:

    “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father ONLY.”

    The apostles also confirmed that Jesus is the son of God and not equal to his Father:

    “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the HEAD of CHRIST is GOD.” (1 Corinthians 11:3). This confirms that Jesus is in subjection to Jehovah God, his Father, and is not equal to him.

    Jesus is also referred to as the “mediator” between imperfect mankind and God:

    “For there is ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men, the Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5). How can Jesus be qualified to be a mediator between God and men if he is God? This scripture also confirms there is one God, Jehovah.

    It is true that God has put all things under Jesus’ feet as King of God’s kingdom (1 Corinthians 15:27) and that God exalted Jesus and given him a name which is above every name, and that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under earth (Phillipians 2:9,10).

    However, that honor should be given to Jesus as King of God’s kingdom. Our worship should be given to Jehovah, the Most High over all the earth (Psalms 83:18). Jehovah’s name is higher than Jesus’ name, the son of God.

    Finally, as brought out at 1 Corinthians 15:28:

    “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the SON also himself be SUBJECT unto HIM, that GOD (Jesus’ Father, Jehovah) may be all in all.”

    It is therefore obvious that the trinity doctrine is not based on truth or God’s Word, the Bible.

  • L.S.,
    The problem is, that a view know what they are talking about.
    Ayaan Hirsi Ali I know hwr from Holland, Iam Dutch. She is verbally incontinent. Has never read the Quran, so certainly not studied the messages in it. She was pushed into the Dutch VVD political party to make a balance against Geert Wilders who left the VVD political party. To many votes went to Geert Wilders one mans party. Just an paid, ethic empty woman who lives from polarisation. Thats all!

  • >>ah, you are abrogating stoning with verse 24:2, (sorry not 3). one of my favorite verses. so you translate zina as both fornication and adultry,

    It is the Quranic verse I posted which abrogated the punishment of stoning for adultery, not myself. The Arabic word zina means unlawful sexual relations, so in an Islamic sense it means sex outside the covenant of marriage, which includes adultery.

    The Quranic referencing system I use has the verse as 24:3. This is because I accept that the start of chapter 2 (i.e. verse 1) is ‘In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful’. Others, while including this at the start of the chapter, do not reference it as a verse and begin to reference verses after it. Hence the disparity in verse referencing by 1. Here is the translation and referencing I use:

    >>…yet hundreds of millions of muslims support stoning adulterers.

    I don’t follow or accept Islamic practice by gauging popularity. If that were any sort of basis for religious beliefs, I would be Catholic. For myself, Islam is not what Muslims do, but what God says.

    >>is not pregnancy proof of zina? so an adulterer who has made a vow of fidelity (do muslims vow fidelity to their spouse? well at least the woman?) and a single consenting adult are to be punished equally? how abour homosexual zina?

    Pregnancy is proof of sex, some other method of fertilisation or, theoretically at least, parthenogenesis. It could also be proof of rape. In Islam, marriage is a vow of fidelity by both partners. The punishment for zina does not distinguish between married and unmarried persons, with both requiring the same burden of proof. Both the sacredness of marriage as well as the morality of society as a whole are considered to be affected by either form of zina.

    Whilst homosexuality is considered a sin (Quran 7:81), there is Godly but no specific earthly punishment mentioned. In my reading and understanding, zina specifically relates to heterosexual relations. Perhaps the reproductive potential of such relationships is part of the reason for this distinction, though this is just a guess on my part.

    >>so a witness has to have a clean record, never having done anything in the past? did you follow this shooting in ferguson?

    A witness has to have a record of truthfulness since it is their eyewitness testimony which adds weight to the burden of proof. An unreliable witness does not have this weight. A person who themselves has been punished for this crime in the past is discounted on the grounds of moral character. These conditions relate specifically to the crime of zina, not murder, unlawful killing etc.

    >>how about non-muslims? should their testemony count? should it coun’t less then a muslim’s? so rape is zina, right? do you need 4 witnesses to rape in order to convict?

    There is no distinction of witnesses by religion or lack of. A non Muslim of truthful reputation and good character would qualify as an appropriate witness. A Muslim without these qualities would not. In the case of rape, the rapist may be the adulterer if not married to the victim. If he is married to the victim, he is simply a rapist. Common sense says the victim of rape cannot be guilty of adultery in any scenario since zina implies consensuality. If found guilty of rape (i.e. non consensual sex) of someone to whom not married, there would surely be no need to satisfy the burden of proof for adultery (consensual sex). The former confirms the latter.

    >>how do you date hadiths?

    Hadith are authenticated and classified through their isnad (chain of narration). A Hadith with multiple chains of reliable narrators may be classified as strong. A hadith with a single chain containing one or more unreliable narrators may be considered weak. I’m not sure what you mean by date. Every hadith claims, by definition, to be something the Prophet Muhammad(sa) said, therefore claiming to originate from the period in which he lived.

    >>one says there are three reasons to but someone to death, murder, apostasy and (you guessed it) adultery.

    There is no earthly punishment for apostasy, let alone death. Freedom of faith or no faith is both explicit and implicit in the Quran.

    >>did you see the case in the UAE were the norweign woman said she was raped. the accused said it was consentual, so the judge asked her where are your 4 witnesses. lol. she got an extra 3 months for ‘perjury’

    I didn’t see that case. There is no Islamic requirement to produce witnesses to prove rape. Applying the law as I’ve outlined, the accused (male) would be guilty by his own confession of zina. Since he has himself confessed, no burden of evidence is necessary. For the woman to be found guilty of zina, since she denies consensuality, the four witnesses would still need to be produced. This is because she has confessed to being raped, not to participating in zina. The two things are not the same and the conflation of the two has produced the absurdity you mention.

  • >>It seem pretty clear to me that Islam has no such understanding, nor do Moslem ruled countries allow individuals to convert to say, Christianity or atheism.

    “Moslem ruled countries” not upholding the principles of Islam is one of the more common complaints in Muslim circles – at least the ones I move in. Freedom of religion as you’ve outlined (and as enshrined in the US constitution) more accurately reflects the philosophy of Islam on this matter than what so called Muslim rulers (political and religious) choose to allow or proscribe.

    “There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, right has become distinct from wrong; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” – Quran (2:257)

    I would caution against viewing the ‘Muslim community’ as some sort of homogenous mass. The truth is that there is no single Muslim community. There are communities of very diverse and different Muslims. Some of them (like my own, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community) have excellent relations with the broader non Muslim community in their immediate vicinity. The defining characteristics of those communities which do exist in peace and harmony within the broader non Muslim population, is an openness to dialogue and community interaction including a commitment to community service. They also frequently have community events where non Muslims are more than welcome. If you have an opportunity to interact, I would strongly urge you to do so – if only to prove my point. 🙂

  • Re: Ahmadiyya (from Wikipedia)
    “The first article of faith is to firmly believe in the absolute Oneness of God. Acknowledgment of the Oneness of God is the most important and the cardinal principle of Islam as interpreted by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The belief in the Unity of God influences man’s life in all its aspects. All other Islamic beliefs spring from this belief. The denying of God’s Oneness, and the associating of any other with Him (a doctrine termed Shirk, from an Arabic root for “sharing”), is the gravest sin in Islam.[3]…
    So Rashid, If I commit the “gravest sin in Islam” how will I likely be treated. Pardon me if I am skeptical that your representations of Islam are applicable to the problem of our relationship to the Moslem world. It is they, not us who are intolerant. We are merely afraid, and have just cause to be so.

  • Fran, you sound just like a Jehovah’s Witness; are you? I’m going to get back to you, but in the meantime, let me ask you and your fellow J.W.s this: Your organization claims that The Saviour, Jesus Christ, was not Almighty God but He was/is a”god”, right? So…my question is: Was/is Jesus a true god or a false god? Take your time, any J.W.who thinks that they can answer this question in a rational and coherent manner, feel free to try.As for all of you out there struggling with the concept of Almighty God as Triune, get over yourselves. If the True and Living God could be reasoned out by your tiny,truncated,finite minds, He wouldn’t be Almighty God at all; He’d be a god you would have succeeded in remaking in YOUR image.Pick up good book(s) of systematic theology, and educate yourselves. I recommend Wayne Grudem or Michael Horton. Or Dr.Norman Geisler. PEACE IN CHRIST!

  • date: as in the month/day/year. or you might do day/month/year. but short of such a pinpoint date, i’m asking how you can say the hadiths with stoning in them pre-date or happened before the ‘revelation’ of the 24th surah?

    i like most your fiqh, but why can’t y’all just get away from this lashing non sense. did you check that link on the girl being lashed to death.

    so yo are an ahmadi. obviously you don’t go with the masses. ironically though speaking of freedom of speech, one of your brothers in chicago has called for bullying laws to be applied to freedom of speech. you know this qasim rashid character? he’s written a couple of books now. ‘the wrong kind of muslim’ and extremist’. your caliphate with the funny hat officiated his wedding. what are y’all on? your fifth caliphate? you shouls go to in august one of the moderators claimed to find out that the administrator (asif) was an ahmadi. started a friestorm of debate and really just plain old hatred. so a muslim who most other muslims don’t consider a muslim is the only one with the balls to debate anyone. ironic isn’t it. do they have fox in london? kelly file had an ahmadi on to comment about this very subject.

    so was mirza gulman ahmad (however you spell that) the second coming of jesus or the al-mahdi?

  • Fran-Jesus said before Abraham I Am! What did God tell Moses? He
    told Him I Am so when Jesus said before Abraham I Am He confirms
    He is part of God the Father/the Trinity along with the Holy Spirit!
    Jehovah Witnesses are also wrong about hell and the 144,000 and
    many other things in the Bible. Do some research on your religion
    because the Bible is clear that if anyone preaches another Gospel
    that person will be eternally condemned. Jesus warns us about hell
    yet you say that hell is not real which is calling God a liar and that
    is not a very smart thing to do! One mediator between God and man
    is Jesus/there is only one God just as Bible says so that actually just
    proves you are wrong because if there is only one God that must
    mean that Jesus/the Holy Spirit/Jehovah are one in the same with
    all different functions in the Godhead. The Trinity is very real! Who
    else could die for our sins but God? Jesus is not an angel/a created
    being but was there from the start as part of the Godhead/Trinity!

  • Khadijeh-How much sense does it make to follow someone who went into
    a cave and then said he got a revelation/so called vision and said he then
    performed miracles yet nobody saw these miracles? There is a former
    muslim who now speaks around the world because he realized that the
    religion didn’t make sense/your prophet was a fraud. People saw the
    mircales that Jesus performed and people who didn’t even believe in Him
    lied and said the body was stolen after He rose from the dead. Why would
    people that didn’t believe in Jesus lie and say the body was stolen if the
    body was still in the grave? Bible predicts the future with 100% accuracy.
    You really need to do some more research. Bible says even if an angel
    appears to you and preaches something different don’t listen so this
    “angel” that appeared to your prophet was the devil/a demon because
    Bible says the devil appears/poses as an angel of light/so do his demons.
    You base your whole religion on one mans vision but the Bible is written
    over thousands of years by multiple authors who all say the same thing.
    You get 10 people in a room they can’t agree but that many people over
    thousands of years get it right/point to Jesus as the Messiah/predict the
    future with 100% accuracy proving Jesus is the Messiah/who He says He is.

  • >>…short of such a pinpoint date, i’m asking how you can say the hadiths with stoning in them pre-date or happened before the ‘revelation’ of the 24th surah?

    Dating hadith is not a simple matter. Their formal written compilation began a couple of hundred years after the death of Muhammad(sa). Initially many were passed on through an oral tradition. If what you are after is Hadith x was spoken on a particular date and can thus be juxtaposed with the date of revelation of Surah x to determine the correct timeline, I don’t think that’s possible.

    What ‘is’ known is that Muhammad(sa) deferred to Mosaic law on matters not yet specified by Quranic revelation. It is also known that he afforded Jews who came to him for judgement, the choice between Mosaic and Quranic law, both before and after revelations of chapters from the Quran. It is an alleged contradiction of the highest order, the questioning of which is historically unreported/unrecorded, to assert that Muhammad(sa) ignored or disavowed the very teachings (i.e. The Quran) he himself revealed. The evidence for such a grave and blatant action simply doesn’t exist.

    >>but why can’t y’all just get away from this lashing non sense did you check that link on the girl being lashed to death.

    Yes I did. Clearly what occurred, regardless of whether the girl was guilty or not, was not in accordance with the Quranic teaching. On what authority was such punishment inflicted on a child? Where was due process? Where were the four witnesses of reputable character? The Arabic word used in Surah 24 is Jaldatan, Jalda meaning animal skin or hide. There also seems to be some dispute amongst scholars as to the size of this piece of skin and whether the arm of the punisher should be raised above their shoulder. But the purpose of the public punishment is humiliation rather than torture, and certainly not death. The verse immediately following, specifies that such guilty persons should then marry amongst themselves rather than believers, thus eliminating any notion of capital punishment.

    As I said earlier, the burden of proof required, and if adhered to correctly, makes the possibility of such punishment fairly remote in any case. This high standard of evidence as a prerequisite for punishment, appears to be deliberate. Short of public lewdness, circumstances should not arise where such punishment is applied. If it is applied without the stipulated requirements, it can rightly be classified as unjust.

    >>…one of your brothers in chicago has called for bullying laws to be applied to freedom of speech. you know this qasim rashid character?

    No not personally. He offered an opinion and argument based on principles of legality – he is a practicing lawyer after all. Within this opinion he raised considerations of the unique challenges to traditional notions of free speech in an information age, and potential negative consequences perhaps unforeseen.

    Quite aside from whether one agrees or disagrees with him, what followed was a virulent attack on him by some who chose to characterise his opinion as an example of a Muslim, and by extension Islam, attacking free speech. Never mind that he wasn’t giving a religious opinion. And never mind that he prefaced his talk with the words of Southern Baptist Senator Lindsey Graham,

    “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war…during World War II, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”

    The mere fact that he is Muslim was apparently proof enough for many that this was an attack by Islam itself on the US constitution.

    >>do they have fox in london?

    I think in this satellite/internet age, Fox is pretty much available globally if someone wants to watch it badly enough. I don’t know if it’s available in London but I would guess it probably is on some platform. I’m not in London so I’m not sure.

    >>so was mirza gulman ahmad (however you spell that) the second coming of jesus or the al-mahdi?

    His claim, which I accept, is that he is the Messiah (second coming of Jesus(as) – in character not reincarnation) awaited by both Muslims and Christians. He is also the awaited Imam Mahdi (reformer) awaited by Muslims.

    >>”Yes, Mirza is kafir and all his followers are kafir.”

    What would you expect Muslims who don’t accept him to say? Prevailing dominant orthodoxy reacting with dismissiveness, utterly false accusations, attributed fabricated quotations, abuse and/or hostility to a true reformer, is historically par for the course.

  • >>So Rashid, If I commit the “gravest sin in Islam” how will I likely be treated

    By me? The way I generally treat people – as I wish to be treated myself.
    Samuel, what you do or don’t believe is (I believe) a matter between you and God. The consequences of your (dis)belief are also a matter for you alone – I have no say or sway in it. There is no guarantee that I, as a Muslim, will necessarily win God’s favour at the end of my life, simply for being a Muslim. That would be unfair since I was born into it and then brought up one. Nor (according to my beliefs) is it certain that you will not win favour.

    Judgement by God is based on what you know and truthfully recognise (i.e. your conscience), and what you then do accordingly. What more could possibly be expected of you other than sincerely following what you know, and what your conscience tells you is right, refraining from what it tells you is wrong? If your conscience, free from enmity, jealousy, vanity, greed etc, directs you to elevate something/someone to replace or equal the status of one God (i.e. shirk), then logic says that is not the same as one who deliberately does so through selfish or stubborn desire. In any case that judgement is not the preserve of man.

    >>It is they, not us who are intolerant. We are merely afraid, and have just cause to be so.

    I disagree. Your fear simply makes everyone around you uncomfortable, serves no useful purpose, and is largely unnecessary. The ‘them’ and ‘us’ construct is simplistic and false, regardless of who is promoting it. The basic values and aspirations of the vast majority of Muslims is no different to what I assume are yours. Beyond the generalised stereotypes are ordinary people who have no wish to hurt you, or to be hurt by those you fear. I hope you get an opportunity to meet some, because the solution to mistrust is not an either/or proposition. It requires something from all of us.

  • rashid, you are clearly out of touch with the opinions of your fellow muslims.

    from the book, ‘towards understanding islam’, sent to me but the islamic circle of north america.

    Under chapter one, What is Islam? Subtitle; What Does it Mean to Deny God, from paragraph one.

    In contrast to the person who accepts God willingly (and thereby becomes whole in both their body and mind) there is another type of individual. Although he came into this world ready to submit to God, he never used his skills of reason, intelligence and intuition to recognize his Lord and Creator.

    3rd paragraph starts with: Concealment (kufr) is not just a form of ignorance; it IS ignorance, pure and simple.

    5th paragraph ends with: He will always be groping in the darkness and stumbling in the gloom of ignorance.

    6th paragraph” But that is not the worst of it. Concealment is also a form of oppression, the worst form that it can take. How do we define oppression in this instance? It is the cruel and unjust use of force or power. If you force someone or something to act unjustly or to act against its true nature, will and natural inclination, then that is oppression, plain and simple.

    It goes on with talk of rebellion and treachery and one being a traitor. The last paragraph states:

    The result is that people like this will meet failure in every undertaking they embark upon. Their moral, civil and social lives will be in disarray while their struggles for prosperity and family success will fall short, in other words, their whole lives will be in turmoil. Disorder and confusion will emanate from them all over the world. They will, without hesitation, shed blood, violate the rights of others, be cruel to them and oppress them. Through their behavior they will breed disorder and destruction in the world. Their perverted minds, blurred vision, distorted values and self-perpetuating vices will make life miserable both for themselves and those around them. These are the people who will destroy the peace and tranquility of life on earth. Tyranny, arrogance, destruction and mayhem will be sure to follow…..

    and please refer above to my excerpt from the book of jihad.

    or checkout these guys:

  • thought i responded earlier? maybe my two links put it in moderation. anyway, i want to make sure this gets through.

    first you say:
    “The only authenticated Hadith mentioning stoning for adultery relate to a period before the relevant Quranic revelation.”

    then you say:
    “If what you are after is Hadith x was spoken on a particular date and can thus be juxtaposed with the date of revelation of Surah x to determine the correct timeline, I don’t think that’s possible.”


  • Mike,

    you keep asking me to comment on the opinions of Muslims I disagree with. Why? You are free to accept or reject such opinions, as am I. If your point is that there exist Muslims with illogical, outrageous or offensive opinions, then the point is taken. If you are implying that such opinions are proof of what Islam is, I again disagree.

  • Mike, I stand by my original statement.

    Firstly, by authenticated I mean by isnad , not by date. My statement that they (hadith) relate to a period before the relevant Quranic revelation is not based by reference to calendar – as I said, I don’t think that’s possible to prove either way. It is instead based on a logical inference. To me it is logical that Muhammad(sa) would have applied the Mosaic law for adultery upon Jews who wished to be judged by it. This is on the historical record. To me it is logical that he would have applied Mosaic law to Muslims in instances where it had not been superseded by Quranic law. To me it is logical that he would not have ignored or contradicted any of the very laws he himself proclaimed. And to me it is logical that if he had contradicted them, there would have arisen questions and objections etc., and these would be on the historical record.

    This is the basis for my conclusion that hadith mentioning stoning must have related to a period prior to Quranic revelation to the contrary. On the other hand, the only evidence you have presented to suggest otherwise is merely the fact that such hadith exist. But there is neither evidence nor logical explanation to suggest that their existence relates to the period post revelation.

  • Rashid, let me see if i follow your ‘logic’? your all-knowing god tells his ‘prophet’ moses to establish a law that calls for stoning people. then he sends another ‘prophet’, muhammad (like 1500 years latter) who stones people until your god sends an angel to tell him to stop stoning people and start lashing them instead?

    so why didn’t god through muhammad outlaw slavery, with the ‘last divine writ’?

    oh, speaking of logic, do you logically know where gog and magog are?

    as for MY claims of hadiths authenticity and their ‘logic’, i make no such claims. it is muslims who make these claims. i don’t hold up muhammad as someone to be emulated. it’s muslims who do.

  • Lay off the koolaide lady. Letting a book of nonsensical “stories” lead you around by the nose and rule you life is foolish and self-destructive, an enemy of humanity.

  • lol what what does being GOY? mean? ignore the hadith. look at history. the JEWISH GOLDEN AGE OF LITERATURE OCCURED IN SPAIN UNDER ISLAMIC RULE. lol. stop believing zionist propaganda trying to separate us.

  • Right, and the fact that the same people who flew planes into buildings, blow up Jews in bus stops, get on planes with bombs in their shoes and behead factory workers are all Muslims, we are the ones who misunderstand.

  • They may be “atheists” but, first and foremost, they are liberals. Not the Enlightenment kind. The identity politics kind. Anything that is anti-white, anti-Christian and anti-American (like islam) they are automatically for.