Pete Rottier PhD vs. Ali Sina

This what I call taking someone's trip! Kudos to Ali Sina, we ex-Muslims have a lot to learn from you.

"Only by looking at a much broader picture can you understand Islam."

Apparently he believes muhammad is not a prophet of God but goes to tell you can understand islam by looking at a bigger photo. I also listened about another western leftist talking of the quran being an "exciting book with some enlightening insights". Another one in a British perliament praising Hamas evils as "freedom fighters deserving his acknowledgement".

Can anyone see the similarity between islamists and western leftists? The simple answer is that both groups are evil, period. See how this guy use some evil tactic commonly used by islamists, you should "broader view" of islam. Rottier looked broadly at islam yet still dont believe in muhammad to be a prophet but preaching that still islam is worthy. Something similar to Buccaile preaching scientific quran but unwilling to convert in islam himself.

Just evil on a rampage!

"Islam is the only religion that wants to conquer the world by Jihad and terrorism", that's the point, we all have to take time to debate this ridiculous superstition because of the danger some of its believers pose to our lives and liberties. Usually, the ravings of this 7th century bandit and his supporters would be ignored.

Pete Rottier says he is no Muslim and does not believe in Muhammad to be a Prophet of God, yet he was looking for a debate. He got what he deserved, a smashing reply from Ali Sina. He must be wondering what hit him.

Ali Sina says

My problem is that Muslims want to shove their Allah in me by force. You took it in. Congratulations! But I can’t, and no amount of lubrication and sugarcoating helps.

This man must still be reeling under shock......heheee

Actually rijiv12, I am not wondering what hit me since there was little logic in the attack, I was surprised by the juvenile level that the reply was written at--Sina compares anal sex to Islam and assumes I took it up the ass? Grow up! If you wish to just shout at each other that is fine too--I grew up in a blue collar family in a blue collar town and can easily get down to this infantile level if this is what you like. But let's try reason for a little while longer.

I have lived in a Muslim country for over a year, I met many Muslims, none of whom tried to kill me or convert me to their religion. My point is there is a vast difference between the narrow reading that Sina and these commentators have made and the reality, that Islamic culture gave the world many things and only a narrow few promote violent jihad. The Qur'an explicitly states when and why Muslims can go to war and it is always defensive. Before Muhammad died Islam did not conquer outside Arabia and by his death only consolidated approximately 1/2 of the peninsula. Only after Abu Bakr and Omar came to power did Islam begin to advocate conquest, but after it expanded to its fullest, it had to again rethink its position and no longer did its philosophers write about the duty of conquest. These scholars used the same sources that you use to promote peace within their borders and with their neighbors. This is no different than other religions have done. Charlemagne conquered as far as he could justifying his conquests on Catholicism. Does this mean that all Catholics wish to take over the world in a bloody crusade?

I guess I don't understand the comments that because I do not despise Islam that I am somehow defending it. I am simply saying that in the world, the 1.2 billion muslims do not want to kill and convert all non-Muslims. And it is not because they are too stupid to understand their religion, they understand and can find the arguments about living with others equally. All religions have advocated stupid things and have done horrendous things. This group is focused on the reports of Muhammad and his deeds in the 7th century. Why not look at the Jewish zealots and the actions of radical settlers in Palestine who wish to force Palestinians out of their home of kill them? (ethnic cleansing anyone--and yes I know about the Arab atrocities in Darfur and wish that idiocy would stop as well.) Why not look at the actions and deeds of the first Christian Emperor Constantine? Or the writings of the luminous St. Augustine? You know, the part that since Christians now had the power what they should do with those who were not Christian or Christian enough? Or the Spanish reconquista--in 1492 the Spanish forcibly converted the Jews and Muslims of Spain then put them on a ship to sail across the straight to North Africa, when the ship was half way across the Spanish sunk the ship, killing all on board. Why? Because they rationalized that if the ship made it to Africa, the newly converted Christians would recant and then be sentenced to hell--so by killing them while they were still Christians, the Moors and Jews would be welcomed by Jesus in heaven. What a beautiful thought! I know I am an evil leftist who is fascinated with religion and nationalism (which mirrors religion), but if you want to understand something you don't just focus on the sources of its origin, you look at how it manifested itself through history. There is a reason that all major Islamic scholars issued fatwas against terrorism after 9/11. The main reason is that their 'masters' the rulers of their countries asked them to, but more important was their own survival. If some uneducated lunatic like bin Laden can challenge their authority then they will be in trouble. You all are mistaking the forest for the trees. Some of the great prophets of Judaism and Christianity have done horrible things and it is recorded in the Torah and bible. Some adherents of both faiths latch on to these deeds and think that is how 'real' Jews or Christians are suppose to act and they do horrible things. Surely Saudi Arabia, modern Iran and many more despotically ruled states abuse their interpretation of Islam--but few Muslims believe that Wahhabiism or twelver Shiism are correct paths anyway. (Although Shiism has the ability to be much more flexible than Wahabiism.)

Sorry for rambling, please let the hate begin. Call me stupid, ignorant, etc... I know I was brainwashed in those stupid universities, my Muslim friends are probably right now plotting to kill or convert me. They all aspire to be pedophiles--although, Western, white, Christian males tend to have the biggest problem with this. They keep the sex trade alive in third world countries like Tailand--but that is just a tangent.

By the way, even though the hadith literature paints Muhammad as a 'pedophile' no where in the Qur'an does it say that he had sex with young girls. My point was that this was an ideal of the society (not unlike prominent Romans having young boys) and this is projected on Muhammad. In other words, as a historian, there is no good evidence that this occurred. Now forcible marriage, buying of wives, especially young wives, has occurred throughout the world up into the 20th century. But it is ruled much more by culture than by religion. A century ago it was not uncommon for Americans and Europeans to marry off their 12-14 year old daughters. This is still legal in some Southern states in the US. To me this is morally repugnant, but I don't condemn my country because of its past practices.

Mr Rottier

Let us start at the beginning. What sources do you accept as depicting or illustrating the teachings of Islam?

you say things which are contradicted by the normal sources. e.g.

'The Qur’an explicitly states when and why Muslims can go to war and it is always defensive.'

Also you seem to deny that Mohammed had sex with nine-year old Aisha. right? As you know this info is clearly stated in the Hadith. Do you reject the hadith?

thanks

prottier, there was no need for you to tell us that you are not a Muslim. You writting makes it quite apparent that you are not a Muslim and you obviously have nothing to do with Islam. It good to hear a Non-Muslim voice on this Forum which supports a great religion like islam. Its a pity that you have yet to convert to this great faith. Its the only way to Paradise you know, or didnt your Muslim friends tell you about it?
Well it goes like this, all you need to do is to recite the Shahada, the Islamic Testimony of Faith. Once you are a Muslim, you are eligible to enter Paradise. This is something you will never be able to do as a Non-Muslim. Don't believe me, go and ask your non-Muslim friends. They will tell you all about it.

All the best to you!

By the way, even though the hadith literature paints Muhammad as a ‘pedophile’ no where in the Qur’an does it say that he had sex with young girls. My point was that this was an ideal of the society (not unlike prominent Romans having young boys) and this is projected on Muhammad. In other words, as a historian, there is no good evidence that this occurred.

1. Did you not write in your article that quran itself was written later and that it cannot be trusted? Then why do you look for quran testimonials on this?

2. Read verses 33:49 and 65:4 from Quran? I did a grammatical analysis some years before on this verse 65:4 by referring to some published works on Arabic language.

wikiislam.com/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Qur%27an#Detailed_analysis_of_the_verse_in_Arabic

It confirms that Muhammad indeed practiced pedophilia just like others. However how can this act be justified in a man of God? Surely something is rotten n this religion.

3. This evil man Mo was a slave trader and owned sex slaves as per quran.

Al-Ahzab - 33:50

O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allâh has given to you,

It is quite plausible that this fellow was a pedophile too as Sahih hadiths, considered by many Muslim scholars as authentic, confirms the same. Also take a look at point 1 where quran confirms pedophilia.

prottier says

These scholars used the same sources that you use to promote peace within their borders and with their neighbors. This is no different than other religions have done. Charlemagne conquered as far as he could justifying his conquests on Catholicism. Does this mean that all Catholics wish to take over the world in a bloody crusade?

The Crusades did not have a basis in the Scriptures, while Jihad is an integral part of Islam. The Crusades were a result of Muslim occupation of Europe, which were then Christian Lands. This is just one of the reason why the Crusades happened. I am surprised that you as a Non-Muslim have such a biased view of the crusades.

Only after Abu Bakr and Omar came to power did Islam begin to advocate conquest, but after it expanded to its fullest, it had to again rethink its position and no longer did its philosophers write about the duty of conquest.

Let me quote you the following Hadith from Bukhari and Muslim, mind you these are the words of Muhammad and not my own fabrication:

The Prophet said: "The best of people is my generation and then those follow them and then those who follow them, then lies will be widespread." Saheeh: Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 2652) and Muslim (no. 2533 ).

[Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, 3/219]; 'Abdullaah ibn Mas'ood narrated: The Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) said: ((The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter)),

[Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, 3/820]; 'Aa.ishah narrated that: A person asked Allaah's Apostle as to who amongst the people were the best. He said: ((Of the generation to which I belong, then of the second generation (generation adjacent to my generation), then of the third generation (generation adjacent to the second generation).)), [Saheeh Muslim 6159].[more]

Now according to Muhammad the best Muslims were those of his generation and two generations that followed him, which means Abu Bakr who was fom his generation was a good Muslim. In other words he understood islam just like Muhammad did. In conclusion, we can safety say that Abu Bakr was merely following the dicates of Islam when he went around Arabia killing and looting people. Had he still be a pagan Arab, he definately would never have got such ideas. Now if you say that Abu Bakr did something that Islam does not permit, then you also say that he was a bad Muslim and hence Muhammad was a big liar, or shall we say the Apostle of God was fooled by his own Companion.

Why not look at the Jewish zealots and the actions of radical settlers in Palestine who wish to force Palestinians out of their home of kill them? (ethnic cleansing anyone–and yes I know about the Arab atrocities in Darfur and wish that idiocy would stop as well.) Why not look at the actions and deeds of the first Christian Emperor Constantine? Or the writings of the luminous St. Augustine? You know, the part that since Christians now had the power what they should do with those who were not Christian or Christian enough? Or the Spanish reconquista–in 1492 the Spanish forcibly converted the Jews and Muslims of Spain then put them on a ship to sail across the straight to North Africa, when the ship was half way across the Spanish sunk the ship, killing all on board.

The question still remains, was it Christianity which or the NT which inspired these crimes or something else. Maybe Human greed or compulsion, as the situation might have been, but definately not the Christian scriptures. Unless ofcourse you can prove otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that Arabs were big time slave traders and the Quran as well as the Sunnah, had provisions which made it legal for Muslims to have slaves. Had this not been true, Islamic societies would not have entertained slave trade even to this day.

There is a reason that all major Islamic scholars issued fatwas against terrorism after 9/11. The main reason is that their ‘masters’ the rulers of their countries asked them to, but more important was their own survival. If some uneducated lunatic like bin Laden can challenge their authority then they will be in trouble. You all are mistaking the forest for the trees. Some of the great prophets of Judaism and Christianity have done horrible things and it is recorded in the Torah and bible. Some adherents of both faiths latch on to these deeds and think that is how ‘real’ Jews or Christians are suppose to act and they do horrible things. Surely Saudi Arabia, modern Iran and many more despotically ruled states abuse their interpretation of Islam–but few Muslims believe that Wahhabiism or twelver Shiism are correct paths anyway. (Although Shiism has the ability to be much more flexible than Wahabiism.)

And what were these fatwas? can we have some examples, of what kind of Fatwas were issued by the Muftis?

There is a reason that all major Islamic scholars issued fatwas against terrorism after 9/11. The main reason is that their ‘masters’ the rulers of their countries asked them to, but more important was their own survival. If some uneducated lunatic like bin Laden can challenge their authority then they will be in trouble. You all are mistaking the forest for the trees. Some of the great prophets of Judaism and Christianity have done horrible things and it is recorded in the Torah and bible. Some adherents of both faiths latch on to these deeds and think that is how ‘real’ Jews or Christians are suppose to act and they do horrible things. Surely Saudi Arabia, modern Iran and many more despotically ruled states abuse their interpretation of Islam–but few Muslims believe that Wahhabiism or twelver Shiism are correct paths anyway. (Although Shiism has the ability to be much more flexible than Wahabiism.)

I am still wondering where you are trying to reach by saying this stuff. A large percetage of the Arab Paedophiles end up in countries like India and Pakistan, marry girls as young as 9. have sex with them and leave them the ver next day. This is know as a Muttah marriage or legalised Prostitution. Its fairly common in Arab societies.

By the way, even though the hadith literature paints Muhammad as a ‘pedophile’ no where in the Qur’an does it say that he had sex with young girls. My point was that this was an ideal of the society (not unlike prominent Romans having young boys) and this is projected on Muhammad. In other words, as a historian, there is no good evidence that this occurred. Now forcible marriage, buying of wives, especially young wives, has occurred throughout the world up into the 20th century. But it is ruled much more by culture than by religion. A century ago it was not uncommon for Americans and Europeans to marry off their 12-14 year old daughters. This is still legal in some Southern states in the US. To me this is morally repugnant, but I don’t condemn my country because of its past practices.

The Quran does not even describe the prayer method or fasting rules. The Quran is incomplete and hence for instructions people have to turn to hadiths. Without the hadith, the Sira, the Tariqh and the Tafsir, it would be impossible to ascertain so many things about Islam.
As far as marrying young girls is concerned, its the worst thing that any parent can do to a child. However Chritians are not compelled to marry their children young, whereas Muslims are compelled by religion to do so. According to Islam girls and boys should be married (specially girls) before puberty. So that is the difference.

Though I am against the evil of islam ( now I am not proud kareem as he is sleeping right now!), I must admit that there is some truth in what p rete rottier says.
I have also out of compulsion and much against my will in later years, of stay, have lived in sodi barbaria. No sodi tried to convert me and infact a few sodis during ramadan cursed mohammad and allah!
One young sodi said to me in clear terms, only sodi royals are above any form of criticism and then islam and then mohammad and finally allah! This type of heirarchy is clearly understood by sodis.
The sodis do not perceive the kafirs as a threat and they do see the usefulness of the kafirs and treat them accordingly as per the usefulness.They can be mean and cruel to the lowly paid workers, but fairly decent to the higher paid workers.
Beyond this I dis agree with Prete rottier.
The moslems know only destruction of the civilisation that has been conquered.
They know nothing but barbarity.Vast majority of Non Arab moslems do not understand a word of arabic and keep following the mullahs. So out of stupidity and ignorance the moslem who is a non arab does not kill.Given a chance and exposure to the real islam of sodi barbaria, they are equally prepared to kill and die for 72 virgins and 28 boys.If you are just thinking by chance about the 72 virgins and 28 boys, this is your chance.Just repeat after me thrice "la illah hi illallah, mohammadu rasool allah" in the presence of 3 pious rapists and lo and behold, you are entitled for the bounty of allah 72 virgins and 28 boys too, if you are of that inclination.

Yes, while several hadiths would extend and define jihad as a religious war of conquest these were written during the Arab conquests and not during Muhammad's time. As for the accuracy of Muhammad having sex with 9 year old Aisha, this would be the equivalent of believing the old testament bible that Noah was 950 years old when he died. The ideal was that pious followers of God could be practically immortal. The writings on Aisha emphasized a cherished trait, virginity. You do not need to take everything literally in either the Hadith or Qur'an. If you did you would tie yourself in knots as, like the Bible, it contradicts itself quite often.

As for what sources to do I accept as illustrating the teachings of Islam. It is not so much the sources that I am concerned with but rather how they have been interpreted throughout history. Certainly Ottoman Turks--who were newly converted to Islam, relied on the Ghazis--holy warriors--to spread Islam through conquest. They relied on certain Hanifi commentaries that used the Hadith literature to demonstrate that it was the Muslim's duty to conquer. Just as Spanish Conquistadors justified their pillage of the New World as God's blessing and forcibly converted the natives they found (until the Church ruled that converted Christians could not be slaves, then the Conquistadors were not so quick to convert). The gold and wealth taken from the New World was an earthly reward from God. Now I do not think Catholics or even Spanish Catholics think this today, but this is how they interpreted their Christian faith in the 15-16th centuries. Even more gruesome was their subjugation of the Netherlands in the 17th century in the name of religion. All religions have horrible scars, what I am saying about Islam is you need to look at how its leaders have explained different situations whether it is in power or out.

You’re right, Mr. Sina DID reply in a juvenile fashion. For which, I think, he owes you an apology. But in this case I think it is out of very human frustration.

But, in turn, I think you also owe Mr. Sina an apology. You have come onto this site looking for a debate on ‘The Challenge’ without having even had the decency to READ the challenge: or even, seemingly, peruse the site. By doing things as you have, you have demonstrated complete a priori contempt for Ali Sina, this site, and everyone here. This site is NOT about proving or disproving whether of not Mohammed was a prophet of any god; it is about proving or disproving the charges made against him. It is true though that if the charges made against Mohammed are true then the possibility of entertaining even the slightest idea that he is the prophet of ANY benevolent god has to be considered closed. He is, and was not, the prophet of any benevolent god. If the charges against him are true then Mohammed is either lying, insane, the prophet of a demon, or all of them. If the charges against Mohammed are false then the entirety of the Koran, Hadith, & Sunnah are very difficult to explain: because they ABSOLUTELY portray Allah and Mohammed as little better than monsters. Either way Islam is either evil or insane or both. I see no other options.

But so many people come to this site like you do that it’s extremely frustrating to listen to your uninformed ranting, and the expectation to be taken seriously!

You think that what been leveled at you is bad?! You should go back into the archives and see what the Muslim apologists that used to post here had to say? It’s an eye-opening introduction evil.

The minute I first read the Koran and studied, even superficially, the history of Islam: I knew it was evil and false. I rejected the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity and Judaism for the same reasons (though neither is as thick with evil as Islam is). It was immediately apparent to me that Islam is not a child of Judaism or Christianity, but only used those previously established and respected religions (in Arabia itself for many centuries before the sad birth of Mohammed) as an excuse and a convenient base for Mohammed to found his loathsome ideas and give his sick soul some legitimacy by the wearing of stolen robes. I notice that you immediately go to comparisons of Christianity… so what? Does that make the crimes of Islam better? You know decent Muslim? So what? So do I. I even dated a Muslim girl for a while: wonderful girl. But how does that ameliorate what’s in the Koran and the history and aims of Islam? It doesn’t. Several of my brother-in-laws have worked for many in places like Saudi Arabia with multiple contacts with nearly every layer of Muslim society (so they have more first-hand knowledge than you); none of them have even the slightest good thing to say about Islam.

If this site, and what people here say about Islam is so obviously wrong, then why has no one been able to prove that the charges against Mohammed false. Not his alleged prophethood, but the charges against him. Isalm rises and falls on the legitimacy of its single prophet, if he is rotten and evil to the core then the edifice called Islam (the very edifice built by Mohammed and from his example), has to be considered EXTREMELY suspect as well. And almost certainly false.

I don’t know what it is about Islam. Even peripheral contact with Islam brings out the absolute worst in people. It even seems to bring out the worst in non-Muslims. You often get people here on this site sounding like Islam in their inherent intolerance of opposing opinions. I guess the lesson is that you can’t play in the mud (of Islam) without getting dirty yourself. As for hatred, even Ali Sina shows it in his vociferous seeming hatred of Barak Obama; hell, people even gave George Bush a chance to prove himself before they despised him. Sure, Obama may prove to be a terrible President (worse even than George Bush), but he should (at least) be given a chance. He can be defeated in the next election or impeached (though unless he gets a blowjob from someone other than his wife, that’s highly unlikely).

I generally like to stay silent here now for a number of reasons as well as this site and this issue can take over your life and begin to fill your heart and soul with hatred. Hatred seems to be a natural bi-product of Islam.

Sina
Congrates, truly knowledge and the power to reason is the most powerful tool in our human soceity. I wish to ask you what are your plans to extend this your enlightment to the common muslims that may not be priviledge to browze the internet. As an ex-muslim you are aware that Islams strenght is the community and majority are illiterate, semi-literate, poor, ignorate of their religion and world advances. To reach out to this group is surely the end of Islam. We the priviledge few may find solace in your web site but are hostages to these groups, our hands are tied unless we wish to change address, and our social and economic position. Well done

BABUGA

To Northern Bear,

I did not stumble into the site and write without reading the challenge. In fact what caught my eye was the way the challenge was worded of either disproving Sina's claims or proving Muhammad was a prophet. Neither is possible since the way Sina reads the sources is so abstract that they only Muslims I know that read it in this way are the fanatical terrorists who have been condemned in their home countries. (If he (she) disproves my charges or can prove that Muhammad was a prophet of God, both you and he (she) will be rewarded $50,000 dollars each.)

I did not present myself as a Muslim or even a great scholar. I was very forthright in presenting exactly who I was and why I was writing. My simple message is why do you scrutinize the Qur'an and Hadith without looking at how Muslim thinkers and Muslim society itself has used these sources to live in this world for so long? If Muslims looked at these sources that way people like Mr. Sina, Robert Spencer and the like did the religion would have been destroyed long ago because the Arabs were always outnumbered, and were considerably less sophisticated militarily and technologically than those they conquered. At least until the golden age of Islam (10-12th centuries), but by this time the Muslim states had started fighting each other and conquest was largely over. My point is simply that as a historian--not a religious scholar; I look at how Muslims reacted over time. My specialty is not Arabia but Arabs make up a small percentage of total Muslims; it is Central Asia and there were some very despotic Muslim rulers there in the 18-19th centuries. This did not mean that Islam made them that way.

I would say that although I disagree with your conclusions and your claim of my ignorance, I was impressed with your analysis of why and how Islam developed in Arabia. Certainly it was the contact with Jews and Christians that gave it its Abrahamic roots. Muhammad wasn't out to make a world religion at the time, he saw that Arabia was quite backwards in regard to its neighbors and thought this was the result of a lack of unified religion. He set out to create an Arab religion in my opinion he just needed to give it some legitimacy--so he borrowed heavily from the Jewish and Christian traditions. His wife Khadija was already involved with a cult of Abraham so Muhammad used that as his base.

Mr. Rottier, I did not mean to offend you by my comment and I am sorry if I did. Ali Sina is a gifted writer and he puts across his views in an aggressive way. It is his unique style of writing. I was only complimenting him. After reading your post it seems you still want to debate. Well please go ahead. I feel it will be better for you to read Sina`s book before you do so. I feel you are a very naive person.

To understand Islam, see North Korea. See what Kim Il-sung and his son and Kim Jong-il did to approx 2 crore people. Ethnicity wise North South are both same, but in north Mind control is done in such a drastic way that they are hating all world. Luckily South Korea is powerful now and have free mind public and they know the exact problem for North. They are trying hard to have open people to people interaction and the North people can see other kind of life and alternate view of the world, so that they can revolt and break free from the "Juche" religion of Kim II-sung (PBUH). Similarly the Islam followers have put mental barriers and dont want to see the light of enlightenment. They can see the people from most fertile lands of Pakistan and bangaldesh are poor, illiterate and on top of that source of headache for the world. Simialrly middle east is rich in OIL, but using it to spread Mohammedism Virus.

To Jah
Truth is freedom, you feel happy when you say the truth, you feel fulfil when you have done the right thing. Their is no freedom in any religion especially Islam, so where is the truth?

rajiv12, you did not offend me, my remarks about juvenile were directed at Mr. Sina. I personally do not think Mr. Sina is very gifted at writing--his analogy would make many middle and high school boys laugh but I doubt anyone else. Since Mr. Sina's book is not readily at my disposal I can not read it but if his logic in the book is similar to his posting and debates on this site then it is of no concern. Mr. Sina cannot see past the Hadith and tries to apply 7th century Arabic and Persian values to the 21st century. That would be like saying the real Western Civilization is rooted in the dark ages when in fact it is not. It is currently rooted in the enlightenment and the ideals of freedom and equality. Civilizations are not stagnant, they are forced to undergo transformations. This is what makes history so interesting.

As for the accuracy of Muhammad having sex with 9 year old Aisha, this would be the equivalent of believing the old testament bible that Noah was 950 years old when he died.

I do not understand how a Ph.D. holding candidate can argue in such asinine way.

Some person living 950 years is impossible as medical science and our experience shows that body withers away in 60-120 years. So this is pure fiction.

However, pedophilia is not medical miracle.

The ideal was that pious followers of God could be practically immortal.

Did you read quran verses 33:49 and 65.4? It approves of pedophilia and generations of practice among Muslims proves that pedophilia was not looked down upon.

You yourself agreed that pedophilia was practiced in Romans etc.

So if a particular religion and culture says to practice something, how can it be called "immoral" and how can you conclude that "The ideal was that pious followers of God could be practically immortal."

Do you really hold a Ph.D. or is it that particular University is a useless one.

The writings on Aisha emphasized a cherished trait, virginity. You do not need to take everything literally in either the Hadith or Qur’an. If you did you would tie yourself in knots as, like the Bible, it contradicts itself quite often.

Bible may contradict, how does it answer the question regarding Muhammad? For all you know, Quran and Hadith may be literal.

Again note that verse 33:49 and 65:4 from Quran gives directions for followers regarding divorce and incidentally it shows marrying underaged girls is allowed in Islam. This confirms Muhammad was indeed a pedophile, especially when Quran asserts in Muhammad you have good example.

Rottier,
Please go and ask those lebanese christians who are gradually being ethnically cleansed from their home lands.
americancongressfortruth.com/videos.asp

Please ask those kashmiri hindus who were forced to move out not once but many times since muslim rule began in kashmir. Ibrahim can send you more details as he is a witness to this.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=842219646390515565

and no, none of these events took place in distant past. Just last few decades and are still going on.

continuum1,

I do indeed hold a PhD from the UW--one of the best public institutions in the USA. However, I may need to do more explaining here than I normally do for my undergraduates. Immortal does not mean immoral. Immortal means one can live forever--it is the ideal of most religions. When I cited the case of Noah the bible notes that he lived to be 950 years old. My point was exactly what you said, it was impossible. My point, that why do you take the Hadith at face value? Do you or most Christians or Jews take the Bible at face value? Of course not--these are stories meant to make a point. In the case of Muhammad and Aisha, the point was she was pure and this was the prophet's favorite wife (although that in itself contradicts the Qur'an that states all wives need to be treated equally). So I will say that I cannot say for certainty that Aisha was not 9 years old when Muhammad married her. I admit that, can you possibly admit that she may not have been?

As for the sura's you mention please explain how this sura gives direction for pedophilia? "O ye who believe! If ye wed believing women and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon. But content them and release them handsomely. 33:49

Or this one:
"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him." These suras have nothing to do with pedophilia.

To focussed,

Indeed there are many violent episodes occurring today in our world. You name but 2 that have Muslim aggressors and I do not accuse them. There are Jews that think Israel needs to expand to its 'original' borders, however ill-defined and expel all who are not Jewish. The Russians have led devastating attacks against Chechens, Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, has killed thousands of Muslims simply for attending the 'wrong' mosque and China ruthlessly persecutes Uighurs. Why would this convince me that all Muslims are inherent killers or ignorant of their own faith when history does not bear this out?

There is pattern to the debates on this site. From Dr. Walid (a muslim) to Dr.Pete Rottier ( a non muslim?), both raise a question to the authenticity of hadiths which do not suit them.
Why has this cherry picking started?
It seems the muslim world has reached a consensus that the hadiths are far more damaging to them as they are one of the main weapons used by its critics like Mr. Sina. Hence they are trying to blunt the weapons used by the opposition by casting doubts upon its authenticity.For more than a 1000 years these fellows were quite comfortable with it.
---
#17. prottier Says:Neither is possible since the way Sina reads the sources is so abstract that they only Muslims I know that read it in this way are the fanatical terrorists who have been condemned in their home countries.

That is the point. We want to know what drives Islamic terrorism and Mr. Sina's answers are upto the mark. I doubt whether these terrorists have been condemned in their own country. They may have been condemned by the rulers of their home country only because they pose a threat to the ruling establishment. Have they been condemned by the masses of their home country? Who can take an honest opinion poll in those countries?

JAH
Why hate Ali Sina, he, you or any other person on this site are only expressing thier views freely- and that is freedom of expression unless if the Quran or Islamic scholars are against it.

I do indeed hold a PhD from the UW–one of the best public institutions in the USA. However, I may need to do more explaining here than I normally do for my undergraduates. Immortal does not mean immoral. Immortal means one can live forever–it is the ideal of most religions.

My mistake....LOL... I thought you meant "immoral" as it was in the context of pedophilia. Now I understand it was in context of old bible tales about long lives.

When I cited the case of Noah the bible notes that he lived to be 950 years old. My point was exactly what you said, it was impossible.

Is pedophilia impossible? Is that your conclusion?

My point, that why do you take the Hadith at face value? Do you or most Christians or Jews take the Bible at face value? Of course not–these are stories meant to make a point.

You are comparing apples and oranges. One is about 950 year old man tale and another is about pedophilia. Both are not equivalent.

In the case of Muhammad and Aisha, the point was she was pure and this was the prophet’s favorite wife (although that in itself contradicts the Qur’an that states all wives need to be treated equally). So I will say that I cannot say for certainty that Aisha was not 9 years old when Muhammad married her. I admit that, can you possibly admit that she may not have been?

Again, after referring to quran verses 33:49 and 65:4 I cannot admit such a possibility as child marriages and consummation was common at that time. So can you admit that there is a high probability that AIsha was 9 years old when penetrated by 50 year old profiteer.

As for the sura’s you mention please explain how this sura gives direction for pedophilia? “O ye who believe! If ye wed believing women and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon. But content them and release them handsomely. 33:49

1. The above verse says clearly there is no Iddah or waiting period after divorce if one does NOT have sexual contact with his married wife. Hold on to this for now.

Or this one:
“And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him.” These suras have nothing to do with pedophilia.

Did you to go to the link I provided earlier for verse 65:4? Apprently not.

thenoblequran.com/sps/nbq/

And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death].

Now go to the link and read completely for correct grammatical analysis.

wikiislam.com/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Qur%27an#Detailed_analysis_of_the_verse_in_Arabic

2. The above verse clearly states that immature girls have waiting period.

Put together 1 and 2 and you will get that immature girls can be penetrated.

"Mr. Sina cannot see past the Hadith and tries to apply 7th century Arabic and Persian values to the 21st century."

If the problem with Sina's interpretation of the Hadiths is his non-adherence to situational ethics, then can you please tell me what was so wrong with the white Australian policy? Can you please tell me what was so wrong with the Jim Crow Laws? Can you please tell me what was so wrong with the murder of Stephen Lawrence? After-all, using your logic, those who critisized racial segregation or racism had no right to do so because they were applying 21st century aspirations to 20th century American, Australian, British values.

"That would be like saying the real Western Civilization is rooted in the dark ages when in fact it is not. It is currently rooted in the enlightenment and the ideals of freedom and equality. Civilizations are not stagnant, they are forced to undergo transformations."

No, civilizations undergo processes of acculturation, not transformation. If civilizations did transform, then surely by now the term "Islamic civilization" would not be a fixture in Islamic studies because the Islamic civilization is always changing. It is also interesting how you make the distinction between the artificial and real in your description of Western Civilization, perhaps you can tell us how the real Islamic civilization looked like 1000 years ago when Islamic hordes conquered the quondam Christian kingdoms of Jerusalem, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and how the artificial Islamic civilization looks like now, with their vast, empty hinterland of desperate poverty and systemic persecution of religious minorities?

a_comment

I do not cherry pick Hadiths, which is what Sina and others do. As I stated from the beginning I am a historian not a religious scholar. All the historians I know would not use the Hadith literature as an accurate historical source by itself anymore than we would use the bible or Homer's Illiad to understand the Trojan War. If you want to know what terrorist think read their words not Sina's. Even bin Laden condemned the Taliban for misinterpreting shari'a--then again the Taliban were not Wahabi as bin Laden is.

And for your question mark about whether or not I am a Muslim, I certainly am not. I have never attended a mosque, and while I have read the Qur'an found it extremely boring. Then again I don't read Arabic and the English translation are rough on Arabic poetry. Since the Qur'an was initially an oral tradition it is hard to transpose into other languages.

Sorry continuum1,

I surely can not match your rhetorical skills or logic. Most scholars interpret sura
65:4 not as immature but as not pregnant, hence the part in the sura about those with child--proper English would render it to say and those without child instead of courses. But if you want to believe /Pedophilia_in_the_Qur%27an#Detailed_analysis_of_the_verse_in_Arabic
that is your right.

#33. prottier Says: If you want to know what terrorist think read their words not Sina’s. Even bin Laden condemned the Taliban for misinterpreting shari’a–then again the Taliban were not Wahabi as bin Laden is.
Sir, in the beheading videos we invariably hear the chants of allah hu akbar, the justification sent by the terrorists always quote the ayas of the koran which condemns non muslims. The koran is taken as the literal words of allah which orders killing of non muslims numerous times, and the hadiths as guidance from their prophet muham~mad, if you have better explaination I would like to hear.

I surely can not match your rhetorical skills or logic. Most scholars interpret sura
65:4 not as immature but as not pregnant, hence the part in the sura about those with child–proper English would render it to say and those without child instead of courses. But if you want to believe

You are a crazy man... Now I have real doubt you have a Ph.D.

Why don't you read the damn verse fully?

And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months,

and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death].

And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allâh and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him. (At-Talaq 65:4)

Pregnant women are mentioned explicitly and separately from the second category. '

Did you even go to he website? Now for your own sake please do some homework before you argue with Ali Sina.

Mr. Prottier,
I attached my book as PDF file when I informed you to read my response in this page.

Besides where does it say anywhere those with NO CHILD. Which Arabic part says so?

Anti-Jihad,

I am not saying that past racism is okay and I do not say that terrorists are just fine either. So it has little to do with situational ethics. My point was to understand where these ideas come from not to condone them, but to give perspective. My point has been from the beginning that Mr. Sina paints Islam with a broad brush and states that Muslims either all adhere to this fundamentalist philosophy or they are ignorant of their true faith. There is not only more than one reading of how to interpret Islam but it has been interpreted throughout history in many different ways. The Muslims I study from the late 19th and early 20th century in Central Asia certainly do not match Mr. Sina's vision. They were modernists who used the Qur'an and Hadith to demonstrate that women deserved rights, that elections should be held, that progress was part and parcel of Islam. There are many voices like these in the Muslim world and there are the other voices--the bin Laden's who use Islam and his interpretation to promise young men (bin Laden himself said that 15-25 year old young men are the best adherents of his brand of Islam) a great life and future--even though it will be in the hereafter and not on earth. These young men are too stupid and uneducated to know better. If this site were serious about Islamic militancy it would be proposing serious solutions instead of railing against the religion.

Okay, so show me the ignorance of my ways again.

#28: "Indeed there are many violent episodes occurring today in our world. You name but 2 that have Muslim aggressors and I do not accuse them. There are Jews that think Israel needs to expand to its ‘original’ borders, however ill-defined and expel all who are not Jewish. The Russians have led devastating attacks against Chechens, Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, has killed thousands of Muslims simply for attending the ‘wrong’ mosque and China ruthlessly persecutes Uighurs. Why would this convince me that all Muslims are inherent killers or ignorant of their own faith when history does not bear this out"

An interesting aside: you say you come from a blue-collar family, so why you are accusing China and Russia (communist countries that have close rapports with Muslim countries out of their cultural commonality of sharing a common enemy that is Western Civilization) of persecuting Muslims is very strange indeed.

Now, all these "war crimes" you name are different from Muslim-engendered conflicts in 2 ways:

a) they are systematic practises that are NOT part of the official government's policy (as is the case with Israel, where it is not a systematic practice for Israel to kill Palestinians and grab their land because those war crimes are not part of the government's official policy. Contrarily, wiping out the state of Israel is indeed part of Hamas's charter because Hamas doesn't consider Israel a legitimate state. Now whether or not that is the case is a matter of judgment, but that's beside the point, which Muslims share AS MUCH blame as the Israelis for the current Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio.)

b) even if the Russians and Chinese have killed "thousands" of Muslims, did it not ever occur to you that there may be a reason for such episodes of systematic religious peresuction, namely that if the Muslims simply tried to live in peace with their fellow Russian/Chinese brethren, it would not have militated such heavy-handed government crackdowns? Also, do you not find it strange how "persecution" of Muslims is not just happening in the US, but also in countries that which the US sees as their traditional enemies? (Russia, China)

Most scholars interpret sura 65:4 not as immature but as not pregnant,

Who are these so called scholars? Can you list them and give their translations?

[Shakir 65:4] And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.

[Yusufali 65:4] Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.

[Pickthal 65:4] And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him.

islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=65

(65:4) The waiting period of those of your women who have lost all expectation of menstruation shall be three months12 in case you entertain any doubt; and the same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated.13 As for pregnant women, their waiting period shall be until the delivery of their burden.14 Allah will create ease for him who fears Allah.

*13 They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at aII throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consumation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also pemssible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.
The girl who is divorced in the state when she has not yet menstruated and then she starts having the menses during the waiting-period, will reckon her waiting-period from the same mentruation and her waiting-period will be reckoned just like the woman who menstruates regularly.

I hope you read what real Muslim scholars say.

Okay Continuum1
I am going to try to break this down as easily as possible. I did not say that the verse said no child, I said a better English variation would be no child instead of no courses. As I stated earlier, I do not read Arabic--I do read the Central asian Turkic languages for my research. The idea that one would need to read 33:49 and then 64:5 to be instructed that pedophilia was prescribed by Islam is ludicrous. What I said is since sura 64:5 mentions menopausal women and pregnant women it is reasonable to assume that the other type of wife a man would have would be a non-pregnant, non-menopausal one. Instead you assume that it is a pre-pubescent one. Okay, I give up, your argument makes much more sense now that I see it so clearly. There simply weren't any non-pregnant, child-bearing women in Arabia at the time. Thank you for setting me straight.

Prottier,
Indeed there are many violent episodes occurring today in our world. You name but 2 that have Muslim aggressors and I do not accuse them. There are Jews that think Israel needs to expand to its ‘original’ borders, however ill-defined and expel all who are not Jewish.

There are countless others which I did not show. I thought you as a historian will know more. Please plot a map of all violent areas and you will be surprised to see how many areas have muslim populations responsible for that violence.

The Russians have led devastating attacks against Chechens,

Russis is also lead by people who follow a similar ideology.

Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, has killed thousands of Muslims simply for attending the ‘wrong’ mosque and China ruthlessly persecutes Uighurs.

Just goes to show how crazy Islam is. Muslims first kill non-muslims and when there are no more non-muslims to kill, they turn on each other. You have just proved my point with your own example.

Why would this convince me that all Muslims are inherent killers or ignorant of their own faith when history does not bear this out?

There are 57 muslim countries and please go and check the population changes of minorities since islam took over. Can you show me one islamic country where minority population has increased after Islam?

Dr. Prottier,
you are simplifying how Muslims view the Qur'an and Hadith. Especially hadith. Muhammad is an example for any Muslim to emulate for all time. That is what is dangerous about Islam. Muhammad was a pedophile, a mass murderer, a looter,..etc. Islam itself is no more than a fascistic ideology.
I grew up in the middle east. My parents were Greek Orthodox Christians. If you think Islamic communities do not discriminate against other religious groups and against women, you are sadly mistaken.
To "reform Islam" you have to pretty much get rid of most of the Qur'an. Just keep a few good Ayas from the Meccan period, thats all. No Muslim will accept such a mandate.
Let me suggest, in addition to reading Sina's book, that you get M A Khan book "Islamic Jihad". Do not think that Islam spread by peaceful means. it did not. It is one of the most barbaric and evil belief systems I have ever seen. Most Muslims are nice people. This is not because they are Muslims. This is because they are not practicing Muslims. The more a Muslim emulates Muhammad, the more evil he/she becomes.
I am just amazed that you have a PhD, and claim you are not an expert on Islam, then come here and try to defend substantial Islamic creeds. Not only that, you are undermining how Muslims view hadith. If you take the Qur'an to some people of an Island and ask them to practice Islam, did you know that they will not be able to do that without Hadiths to tell them what, when and how to do it?
If you are not an expert on Islam, Islamic creeds, or how Muslims live, there is really no need for you to defend Islam. There is no need to say Sina's claims are not that good. How do you know that if you yourself admit that you are no expert on Islam?
Could it be that you think that his logical arguments are not that good? Well, did you have a course in Logic to start with? Did you know that I can translate the main arguments of Sina in his challenge to a "Modus Ponens" form. His arguments are irrefutable from a logical standpoint. Yet, you come to this forum, and tell us you are not an expert on Islam, then say that Sina's challenge is not worrisome for Muslims. My suggestion is that you stick to your history area of expertise and leave Islam to those who know how to study it. Peace

Anti-Jihad,

Why do you find it peculiar that I would mention Russia and China? Russia has a long history of fighting with Muslims. Chechen itself is a dirty word. I noticed you did not find it ironic that I also named an Islamic country, Uzbekistan for persecuting Muslims. Again, while I am bored writing this, my point is that not all Muslims want to fight a jihad, in fact most do not. Most Muslims in the world admire the west, which is why they migrate their in great numbers. That said, I am not oblivious to the fact that there are some Muslims that hold similar views of their faith as posters to this board and we need to do a better job of preventing this from happening. But simply condemning 1.2 billion people is not at all helpful and not practical and if the goal is to understand the terrorist mindset in order to help defeat terrorism.

The idea that one would need to read 33:49 and then 64:5 to be instructed that pedophilia was prescribed by Islam is ludicrous.

Why? Again did you go to the link which provides commentaries by many Islamic scholars belonging to different times?

Only a Muslim argues in this ludicrous manner as you do.

........ Okay, I give up, your argument makes much more sense now that I see it so clearly. There simply weren’t any non-pregnant, child-bearing women in Arabia at the time. Thank you for setting me straight.

Did you not claim you were a researcher in history? How do you know if some interpretation is true according to tradition? You look for commentaries of traditional scholars.

Now tell me which traditional scholar claims that it does NOT refer to immature girls at all. On the other hand I can show you many traditional commentaries which do talk about immature girls. All those commentaries and Hadiths are given in the link for your reference. However I think you have an agenda and will come up with another new strategy.

altafsir.org/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=65&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months —

altafsir.org/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=65&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months.

altafsir.org/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=65&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi

(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) [65:4]. Said Muqatil: “When the verse (Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart…), Kallad ibn al-Nu‘man ibn Qays al-Ansari said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate and the woman who has not menstruated yet? And what is the waiting period of the pregnant woman?’ And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan> Abu’l-Azhar> Asbat ibn Muhammad> Mutarrif> Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘Those who are too young [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”.

tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54223

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

(and for those who have no courses...) as for His saying;

(if you have doubt...) There are two opinions: First, is the saying of a group of the Salaf, like Mujahid, Az-Zuhri and Ibn Zayd. That is, if they see blood and there is doubt if it was menstrual blood or not. The second, is that if you do not know the ruling in this case, then know that their `Iddah is three months. This has been reported from Sa`id bin Jubayr and it is the view preferred by Ibn Jarir. And this is the more obvious meaning. Supporting this view is what is reported from Ubay bin Ka`b that he said, "O Allah's Messenger! Some women were not mentioned in the Qur'an, the young, the old and the pregnant.'' Allah the Exalted and Most Honored sent down this Ayah,

All the traditional commentators confirm pedophilia being taught in Islam. However useful idiots will go on repeating their nonsense.

Hello Ibn Kammuna,
I did not say I was not an expert on Islam, on the contrary, what I said from the beginning is that I am not an Islamic religious scholar. I mentioned to Mr. Sina that I am not a prominent scholar, someone that has a big name--I tend to write on the emergence of Central Asian nationalism under Russian colonization. But I am formally trained as an Islamic Historian. I worked closely under Kemal Karpat at Wisconsin, he is the author of over 20 scholarly books and 100s of articles on modern Islam. He has since retired. His expertise was the Ottoman Empire. I also do not see myself as defending Islam. I am opposed to Mr. Sina's idea that Muslims are either violent jihadists or ignorant of their faith. Just as I am against the notion that Islam is incapable of reform because it has reformed itself many times--why do you think the jihadists need to flee to Pakistan or Somalia? They had to get out of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other places where they likely would have been executed by now.

" am not saying that past racism is okay and I do not say that terrorists are just fine either. So it has little to do with situational ethics."

No not racism Dr. Rottier, but pedophilia. Can I please so kindly as to remind you of what you said in your e-mail to Ali Sina, in which you said: "You accuse Muhammad of pedophilia but what criteria are you using? I’m sure you will want to chalk this up to moral or situational relevance but it is true that in 7th century Arabia a man’s prominence was directly associated with the number of wives as well as their youth and virginity."

Now if this is not situational ethics/cultural relativism, then I'm not sure what you call it. But now, allow me to refine my question to ask you not just about the Jim-Crow laws, but about black slavery in general: what was so wrong about slavery in Southern-America during the 19th century when "it is true that a man's prominence was directly associated with the number of black slaves he had?"

"My point was to understand where these ideas come from not to condone them, but to give perspective."

Giving perspective is necessarily an act of subjectivity and require compromises in which you condone certain causes behind certain events in certain periods of history at the expense of exaggerating others.

"My point has been from the beginning that Mr. Sina paints Islam with a broad brush and states that Muslims either all adhere to this fundamentalist philosophy or they are ignorant of their true faith."

He is merely giving his perspective on Islam, yes? What makes his perspective more deficient than yours? Also, you are aware of the fact that the fundamentalist/reformist distinction people make about Islam is spurious given how Islam has never undergone a reformation on the same scale and scope as that of the Christian reformation?

"There is not only more than one reading of how to interpret Islam but it has been interpreted throughout history in many different ways. The Muslims I study from the late 19th and early 20th century in Central Asia certainly do not match Mr. Sina’s vision. They were modernists who used the Qur’an and Hadith to demonstrate that women deserved rights, that elections should be held, that progress was part and parcel of Islam."

How are "human rights, elections and progress" part and parcel of Islam if Muslims define themselves in opposition to the Crusades (and, by extension, Western Civilization)? How are these institutions of democratic governance part and parcel of Islam if they are seen as the constitutive parts for the formative whole of America's grand strategy of imperialism in the Middle East? And last but not least, How are they part and parcel of Islam when religious minorities are persecuted in places like Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. on a daily basis?

"There are mhny voices like these in the Muslim world and there are the other voices–the bin Laden’s who use Islam and his interpretation to promise young men (bin Laden himself said that 15-25 year old young men are the best adherents of his brand of Islam) a great life and future–even though it will be in the hereafter and not on earth."

If there are many other branches of Islam, why these branches do not protest the bombings of 9/11? Why they do not comdemn the massacre of the Iran-iraq War, when the Sunni-Shia religiously motivated war was responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people? Why they did not condemn Saddam hussein (by the way, I was not a support of the Iraq War) when he massacre the Kurds and the Sunni minority? How to explain his strange Muslim-on-Muslim violence phenomenon?

"If this site were serious about Islamic militancy it would be proposing serious solutions instead of railing against the religion."

You are missing the point. The root of Islamic militancy is Islam, ergo the solution is to eradicate Islam.

Harry Potter (prottier) has excellent agenda here.

Respected PhD Prottier,
Many people wrote/say that Muhammad (pbuh) raided and stole wealth. Personally, HE (pbuh) is showing us survival skills which is still applicable even for today. Goodluck with your debate and I am eagerly looking for it. I was a fan of a clown name WAHID. I thought that guy knew about quran and science.

Mr. Sina,

I am sorry, I did not realize you attached your book. If it is good could I assign it for one of my courses? In other words, do you mind if I allow my students to view the PDF in a closed forum, meaning I would not freely publish the book for all to see but allow my students to read it. I am teaching an Islamic Civilizations course this summer. While we will not delve into the religious texts, but instead focus on the various societies it is good to expose students to a variety of opinions.

Okay, I give up, your argument makes much more sense now that I see it so clearly. There simply weren’t any non-pregnant, child-bearing women in Arabia at the time. Thank you for setting me straight.

What makes you think that this does NOT include immature girls? I have already provided number of Islamic commentators who all confirm pedophilia above.

You are talking about other classes of women. Even if we assume it can include such women, it DOES NOT preclude immature girls.

Another commentary quouted again for you.

islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=65

*13 They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at aII throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consumation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also pemssible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.
The girl who is divorced in the state when she has not yet menstruated and then she starts having the menses during the waiting-period, will reckon her waiting-period from the same mentruation and her waiting-period will be reckoned just like the woman who menstruates regularly.

"Why do you find it peculiar that I would mention Russia and China? Russia has a long history of fighting with Muslims. Chechen itself is a dirty word. I noticed you did not find it ironic that I also named an Islamic country, Uzbekistan for persecuting Muslims."

The reason why I mention the 2 countries is 2-fold: a) you grew up in a blue-collared family (as did I, if that helps) so by the way you defend Islam, I would naturally think you espouse the egalitarian ideals of communism. b) Russia and China have a natural affinity with Muslims (both countries are ardent defenders of Muslim states like Pakistan and Iran) so as to amalgamate more countries into their anti-Western bandwagoning coalition.

"Again, while I am bored writing this, my point is that not all Muslims want to fight a jihad, in fact most do not. Most Muslims in the world admire the west, which is why they migrate their in great numbers."

It is strange how a people that brands the West as colonialists would now suddenly do an about-turn and then admire them. But anyhow, even if they did admire the West, why they do not try to make their country great in their own countries? They do know how to use the Internet, yes? And then you talk about fighting for jihad, well anybody with even an elementary understanding of Islam would know that Muslims believe Islam is the only true religion in the world, the Qu'ran is the word of God (hence, why you can't reform it) and why in countries where Muslims are in the majority, religious freedoms virtually disappear.

"That said, I am not oblivious to the fact that there are some Muslims that hold similar views of their faith as posters to this board and we need to do a better job of preventing this from happening. But simply condemning 1.2 billion people is not at all helpful and not practical and if the goal is to understand the terrorist mindset in order to help defeat terrorism."

As many people will tell you on this website, nobody is condemning Muslims they are condemning Islam which has turned Muslims into victims of such a blood-thirsty religion. And if you are implying that the radicalization of Muslims can be ascribed to people like Ali Sina who are willing to defend the ideals of Western civilization, if you could tell us what rule is out there that is stopping us from defending the ideals of the West.

Most scholars interpret sura 65:4 not as immature but as not pregnant,

Mr. Harry Prottier,

I am still waiting for your answer.

Who are these so called scholars? Can you list them and give their translations?

Show me a translation which says "not pregnant"? You do not know Arabic, yet you make statements on how it should be translated.

I have a doubt, that this JAH or HAJ may be this prottier guy.

and one of them refers to those women who have no course (not menopause), maybe because of some physiological reasons.

It may be because of being too young and immature. After all, several hadiths and modern/traditional Islamic commentators confirm it is talking about pedophilia.

Sahih Bukhari

sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0071.aspx

XXXVI. "In the case of those of your wives who are past the age of menstruation, if you have any doubt, their waiting-period should be three months." (65:4)

Mujahid said, "If you do not know whether they menstruate or not, in the case of those who have ceased menstruating and those who have not yet menstruated, "their waiting-period should be three months." (65:4)

sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0070.aspx

XXXIX. A man giving his young children in marriage

By the words of Allah, "that also applies to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4) and He made the 'idda of a girl before puberty three months.

4840. It is related from 'A'isha that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, married her when she was six years old and consummated it when she was nine, and she was his wife for nine years.

Anti-Jihad Says:

No not racism Dr. Rottier, but pedophilia. Can I please so kindly as to remind you of what you said in your e-mail to Ali Sina, in which you said: “You accuse Muhammad of pedophilia but what criteria are you using? I’m sure you will want to chalk this up to moral or situational relevance but it is true that in 7th century Arabia a man’s prominence was directly associated with the number of wives as well as their youth and virginity.”

This is true, but you chanced the subject to racism. My point to Mr. Sina is that what is in the Hadith need not be taken literally. Like Bible stories, both the Qur'an and especially the Hadith would exaggerate.

Now if this is not situational ethics/cultural relativism, then I’m not sure what you call it. But now, allow me to refine my question to ask you not just about the Jim-Crow laws, but about black slavery in general: what was so wrong about slavery in Southern-America during the 19th century when “it is true that a man’s prominence was directly associated with the number of black slaves he had?”

There was nothing wrong with this and if I was a slavery historian I would be suspicious about some people's account of the number of slaves they owned. Not unlike Gogol's Dead Souls, where the main character purchases dead serfs to make himself seem more prominant than he was so he would be suitable to marry a certain girl.

Giving perspective is necessarily an act of subjectivity and require compromises in which you condone certain causes behind certain events in certain periods of history at the expense of exaggerating others.

This is true, I assure you I am not trying to skew the picture but by attacking Muhammad, a 7th century figure who should be credited with unifying a group of unruly, warring tribes, based on Hadith literature and then projecting this as murder, rape and theft on all the Muslims of today seems rather absurd to me.

He is merely giving his perspective on Islam, yes? What makes his perspective more deficient than yours? Also, you are aware of the fact that the fundamentalist/reformist distinction people make about Islam is spurious given how Islam has never undergone a reformation on the same scale and scope as that of the Christian reformation?

Perspective and opinion is fine, as long as you have an open mind. Again, painting 1.2 billion Muslims with the same brush is dishonest and uninformed. Saying the people of Saudi Arabia represent 'real' Islam is crazy. As to reform, Islam underwent sequential and small reformations instead of one large reformation like Christianity. There is not hierarchy in Islam, had there been there would have been a reformation by now, but since there is no 'church' to reform, Muslim scholars and reformers constantly adapt to new changes by reinterpreting the sources of law. This is why you can have such extreme differences in Muslim societies from a secular Turkey and Egypt (Turkey is semi-democratic) to a autocratic Saudi Arabia to despotic secular regimes like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and religious states like Iran, although there is a huge youth movement there that wants reform. Islam justifies it all, it is just different interpretations of it.

How are “human rights, elections and progress” part and parcel of Islam if Muslims define themselves in opposition to the Crusades (and, by extension, Western Civilization)?

Why are the crusades indicative of Western Civilization? Many Muslim reformers have fought for human rights. My point was that I have read the writings of 100s of modernist Muslims in Central Asia and throughout the Islamic world who sought to change what Islam was and condemned traditionalists as being un-Islamic in their reading of the Qur'an and Hadith. A good collection in English of these voices is Modernist Islam by Charles Kurzman.

How are these institutions of democratic governance part and parcel of Islam if they are seen as the constitutive parts for the formative whole of America’s grand strategy of imperialism in the Middle East? And last but not least, How are they part and parcel of Islam when religious minorities are persecuted in places like Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. on a daily basis?

Again, you are looking only from the perspective of radical Muslims.

If there are many other branches of Islam, why these branches do not protest the bombings of 9/11? Why they do not comdemn the massacre of the Iran-iraq War, when the Sunni-Shia religiously motivated war was responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people? Why they did not condemn Saddam hussein (by the way, I was not a support of the Iraq War) when he massacre the Kurds and the Sunni minority? How to explain his strange Muslim-on-Muslim violence phenomenon?

Practically every important Mufti in the Muslim world condemned terrorism after 9/11. As I mentioned earlier, it wasn't necessarily because of personal belief but rather they were ordered to by the state in which they resided. But bin Laden condemns Saudi Arabia's conservative ulema because they protect the royal family with fatwas.

You are missing the point. The root of Islamic militancy is Islam, ergo the solution is to eradicate Islam.

This is exactly my point--it is impossible to eradicate Islam, believe me the Soviets tried hard to eradicate Islam in territory they controlled and they could not do so. How do you believe we eradicate Islam? Kill all 1.2 billion Muslims.