Credit Free Muslims - Part 1

Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionFrom: Isidor Farash
To: FFI
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Re: FMC. Here are my commentsThe debate posed by faithfreedom.org is a valid debate. However, to reduce this discussion to a few clever sound-bites, as well as a "black or white" selection is not productive.

For one thing, I think there is a substantial disagreement WITHIN the Muslim community as to true (authentic) scriptures versus REVISED scriptures. That discussion alone would tend to invalidate the main thrust (theme) of the article you referenced. The article also states that no Islamic scripture is quoted on FMC, which is patently untrue.
I happen to agree in that I believe Mr. Nawash is in an inherently conflicted position, trying to morph a religion so fixated on regimentation and (at times) conquest, into a modern-style passive doctrine. But please do get two things strait:

1. KAMAL NAWASH RISKS HIS LIFE EVERY SINGLE DAY BY TAKING THESE VERY RISKY POSITIONS IN HIS COMMUNITY. For that, he deserves FAR MORE RESPECT then is afforded him by the article quoted: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50726.htm

2. While we would all like life to be a flowing and open-ended "essay" style question/answer session, in reality, life is often a multiple choice scenario. Sometimes, we have to create the best possible outcome, within the limited choices we have.

Isidor Farash

---

To: Isidor Farash
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Re: FMC. Here are my comments

On 5/23/06, Isidor Farash wrote:
The debate posed by faithfreedom.org is a valid debate. However, to reduce this discussion to a few clever sound-bites, as well as a "black or white" selection is not productive.


Which debate are you referring to? The link is to the front page of the FFI website.


For one thing, I think there is a substantial disagreement WITHIN the Muslim community as to true (authentic) scriptures versus REVISED scriptures. That discussion alone would tend to invalidate the main thrust (theme) of the article you referenced. The article also states that no Islamic scripture is quoted on FMC, which is patently untrue.


Without the link to the actual article, it is impossible for me to put your comments in proper perspective and hence I cannot comment.

I happen to agree in that I believe Mr. Nawash is in an inherently conflicted position, trying to morph a religion so fixated on regimentation and (at times) conquest, into a modern-style passive doctrine. But please do get two things strait:

1. KAMAL NAWASH RISKS HIS LIFE EVERY SINGLE DAY BY TAKING THESE VERY RISKY POSITIONS IN HIS COMMUNITY. For that, he deserves FAR MORE RESPECT then is afforded him by the article quoted: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50726.htm


I have read the article and I do not see any abuse being heaped at Kamal Nawash. What exactly in the article do you find objectionable?

2. While we would all like life to be a flowing and open-ended "essay" style question/answer session, in reality, life is often a multiple choice scenario. Sometimes, we have to create the best possible outcome, within the limited choices we have.

Isidor Farash
Fort Lee, NJ

Yes, and what does this have to do with what you wrote above. I am sorry for being dense but I could not see the connection.

Doubtless
member FFI forum

---

To FFI
From Isidor Farash
[Isidor's replies text is in blue and red below;]

Which debate are you referring to? The link is to the front page of the FFI website.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50726.htm

For one thing, I think there is a substantial disagreement WITHIN the Muslim community as to true (authentic) scriptures versus REVISED scriptures. That discussion alone would tend to invalidate the main thrust (theme) of the article you referenced. The article also states that no Islamic scripture is quoted on FMC, which is patently untrue.


Without the link to the actual article, it is impossible for me to put your comments in proper perspective and hence I cannot comment. Please see link above.


I happen to agree in that I believe Mr. Nawash is in an inherently conflicted position, trying to morph a religion so fixated on regimentation and (at times) conquest, into a modern-style passive doctrine. But please do get two things strait:

1. KAMAL NAWASH RISKS HIS LIFE EVERY SINGLE DAY BY TAKING THESE VERY RISKY POSITIONS IN HIS COMMUNITY. For that, he deserves FAR MORE RESPECT then is afforded him by the article quoted: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50726.htm


I have read the article and I do not see any abuse being heaped at Kamal Nawash. What exactly in the article do you find objectionable?

Please see the references in RED
Free Muslims Against Terrorism, Or More Deception?
I wish I could believe Mr. Nawash but unfortunately I don’t.
Those who have sympathies are merely nominal Muslims and have no understanding of Islam and its agenda . . .
It is thanks to terrorism that this "beloved religion" of Mr. Nawash expanded from the very start.
a) Mr. Nawash is trying to pull wool over the eyes of the Westerners, by telling them what THEY want to hear and by giving them more false hopes that Islam has a peaceful side as well. In this way he will buy more time for Islam to wreak havoc.
b) Mr. Nawash, taking advantage of the gullibility of the Westerners and their lack of understanding of Islam has found a way to promote himself and this is nothing but a personal ego trip.
The war against Islamic terrorism cannot be won with more deceptions and more lies.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To call Mr. Nawash "in denial" might be fair. To call him a deceiver, a liar and an ego tripper is not fair to a person who daily risks his life to promote moderation, albeit possibly a misguided hope.
It is your own resentment of his work that exposes your own egocentricity. If he (Kamal) were not effective (at least marginally), he would not bother you in your quest to erase Islam from the planet Earth. Shakespeare: "The Woman Protestist too loudly"
For the average Muslim to simply renounce their religion is to expect them to reject their heritage, their family, their culture and to some, their race. While you may be correct in that ultimately, this scenario may be the wisest possible solution, it is as unrealistic as asking a devout Christian to believe that the Gospels were actually a morphed story relating to Jesus' brother James. It may be true but as a practical matter, aint no one buyin it.
The Christian faith had a period lasting hundreds of years (if you include the bent-cross, thousands of years) where conversion was forced by the sword. Even the Jews had a brief period (150-BC -- 100 BC) where forced conversions took place.
You expect tolerance from Muslim people, show some tolerance yourself. You may have a disagreement re: the Nawash strategy but you have unfairly gone too far to condemn his motives.
Isidor Farash

---

To Isidor Farash:

Mr. Farash,

Once your comments in blue are put into perspective and understood properly that the comments in red become clear and need little explanation. When you say "in denial" might be fair, then you may agree that Mr. Nawash's deception and lying may be unintentional. I agree but presenting islam for what it is not, is deception and lying, intentional or unintentional. Personally, I do not doubt Mr. Nawashs intentions of trying to help the muslims moderate their views. I do not think the analysis of Mr. Nawash originates from resentment or egocentricity on Ali Sina's part. That is a serious misread of what Ali Sina has written.
The key point is that Islam cannot be reformed. I strongly disagree that renouncing islam is to reject "heritage, family, culture, and race". That is patently absurd, and the proof lies in the many many ex-muslims. You may want to consider Ibn Warraq's concept of a 'cultral muslim' for instance. To save a cult, cult members will claim anything that they think will 'work'. That does not mean that anyone has to accept such an absurd claim. Regarding comparison of Christianity and Islam you may be interested in reading : http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60523.htm

I do not believe that Ali Sina expects any tolerance from the beleivers of the sunnah of Muhammed and his quran. As Ali Sina makes it clear, the core message of islam is intolerance towards the non-muslim. The world was divided permanently and irrevocably into "us" and "them" by Muhammed into the muslims and the kaffirs, and there is not one word in islam that preaches or even suggests any tolerance for the kaffirs. To even suggest that is a lie and deception, intentional or unintentional. Once you grasp that as true then the statements by Ali Sina in red are true.

I agree that the moderation that Mr. Nawash pushes are probably putting him at risk among many hard core muslims, but the moderation being pushed is the result of an unwillingness to see Islam and its message for what it is and hence it does not resonate with the members of the cult of Islam. Muhammed did set the ideology of terror against the non-muslims into action, and the actions of muhammed clearly put muhammed into the category of "evil". I suggest that you may contact Mr. Nawash, and if he disagrees with this simple truth, then he should accept Ali Sina's challange, prove Ali to be wrong and win the $50,000 as well. Denying the evil of muhammed and presenting a moderate face to that evil is deception and lying, intentional or unintenional. If Mr. Nawash disagrees that muhammed's actions were not evil, then he is lying to himself, and if he agrees that muhammed's actions were evil and he is unwilling to tell that to the muslims for whatever reasons then he is lying to the muslims.

regards,

Doubtless
member FFI forum

---

Mr. Doubtless:

Would you be a lawyer by chance?

Lying requires the intent to lie. Someone, who (for example) lost a child in a horrible accident but still speaks of them as if they are alive is not generally categorized as a "liar". The same with "deception". However, calling someone a liar who has no intent to deceive--is itself a lie.

As I mentioned in my original message, there is significant debate within the academic Muslim community (and elsewhere) as to the authenticity of the modern Islamic scriptures. For example, I can show you at least one instance where a very important verse was recently changed from one meaning to a totally opposite meaning, on the University of Virginia's online Koran. This point falls completely outside yours (and Ali Sina's) description of the overall situation. Another lie, intentionally perpetrated.

"I strongly disagree that renouncing Islam is to reject "heritage, family, culture, and race".

Humans spent almost all of the last 40,000 years of evolution as a collection of TRIBES. Arabs have been cloistered in such a culture for longer then most. In the end, religion (most all modern religions) are virtual TRIBES. Say what you will, if you belong to a major religion, there is a TRIBAL aspect to your observance. It is human nature and somewhat universal. As such, you can not separate "heritage", culture and yes, race from the equation. To assert so would be denial on your part (not a lie but not the truth either). There are some ex-Muslims just as their are some ex-Christians and ex-Jews and ex-Hindus. So what?? A TRIBE, while mostly universal is not absolutely universal. Your point proves nada.

Furthermore, to put this discussion in terms of a $50,000.00 payout is LOW CLASS and a cheap attempt to divert attention from the extremely important points to be raised and discussed on both (all) sides.

If you are so sure of yourself and so proud of your points, why may I not know your name?? You know my name. Withholding one's identity, while not a lie, is doubtless, somewhat deceptive (with intent).

Sincerely:


Isidor Farash

---

To Isidor Farash:

On 5/23/06, Isidor Farash wrote:
Mr. Doubtless:

Would you be a lawyer by chance?

No I am not. Would you be one?

Lying requires the intent to lie. Someone, who (for example) lost a child in a horrible accident but still speaks of them as if they are alive is not generally categorized as a "liar". The same with "deception". However, calling someone a liar who has no intent to deceive--is itself a lie.

A google search for "unintentional lying" yeilded over half a million hits. I reproduce the first two for your examination:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A996942
Everybody lies. Admit it - you do as well. There is probably not a single person who has ever lived who has not once in his life told a falsehood or misrepresented the truth, regardless of whether it was unintentional or if he told it so that someone else's feelings would not be hurt - or if he did it for more sinister reasons.

http://www.vkr.org/book/book.cfm
The point here is to abandon the wrong view of not believing in cause and effect. Having confidence in karma inspires us to be more aware of the actions of our body, speech, and mind. In this way, we don't inflict harm on others and we can actually generate some good, some cause of happiness for ourselves and others. Freedom from wrong view is freedom from carelessness or non-awareness. This includes our unintentional actions, unintentional killing, unintentional lying, unintentionally inflicting harm. While these may not be "fully" unvirtuous actions, they must also be abandoned. We cannot simply say, "Oh, this isn't really killing," and therefore not regret that karma. The point is to relate to our unvirtuous actions and to cultivate their opposites, the ten virtuous actions.

Lying is merely not stating the truth and there are a lot of people, common folks I might add, who do not automatically attach "intention" to the word. So Mr. Farash, I had no 'intent' of lying to you and I did not lie to you.


As I mentioned in my original message, there is significant debate within the academic Muslim community (and elsewhere) as to the authenticity of the modern Islamic scriptures. For example, I can show you at least one instance where a very important verse was recently changed from one meaning to a totally opposite meaning, on the University of Virginia's online Koran. This point falls completely outside yours (and Ali Sina's) description of the overall situation. Another lie, intentionally perpetrated.

There might be "some" debate but to lable that as significant is entirely misrepresenting the level of that debate. The translation of the Quran has been toyed with by many, but I am unaware of any changes in the "original" arabic quran. Some of the translations in english demonstrate the problems of some muslims who wish to avoid facing the truth. Here is

an-Nisa' 004:034
________________________________________
Transliteration Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisa-i bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAal a baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafithatun lilghaybi bima hafitha All ahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna All aha kana AAaliyyan kabeeran
Literal
The men (are) taking care of matters for livelihood on (for) the women with what God preferred/favoured some of them (men and women) on some, and with what they spent from their (M) properties/possession , so the correct/righteous females are obeying humbly , worshipping humbly, protecting/safekeeping to the invisible with what God protected ; and those whom (F) you fear their (F) quarrel (disobedience) , so advise/warn them (F) and desert/abandon them (F) in the place of lying down (beds), and ignore/disregard/push them (F) , so if they obeyed you, so do not oppress/transgress on them (F) a way/method, that God was/is high, mighty/great.
________________________________________
Yusuf Ali
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
Pickthal
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
Arberry
Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.
Shakir
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Sarwar
Men are the protectors of women because of the greater preference that God has given to some of them and because they financially support them. Among virtuous women are those who are steadfast in prayer and dependable in keeping the secrets that God has protected. Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme.
Khalifa
The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.
Hilali/Khan
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husbands absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husbands property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see illconduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.
H/K/Saheeh
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Malik
Men are overseers over women because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because men are required to spend their wealth for the maintenance of women. Honorable women are, therefore, devoutly obedient and guard in the husband?s absence what Allah requires them to guard their husband?s property and their own honor. As to those women from whom you fear disobedience, first admonish them, then refuse to share your bed with them, and then, if necessary, beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further actions against them and do not make excuses to punish them. Allah is Supremely Great and is aware of your actions.[34]
QXP
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women. They shall take full care of women with what they spend of their wealth. Allah has made men to excel in some areas and women to excel in some areas. Men must see to it that women are provided for, and that they are able to stand on their feet in the society. So, righteous women are obedient to Allah's Ordinances and guard their moral values even in privacy, the Values that Allah Commands to be guarded. If you experience rebellion from women, and they stand up against you, apprise them of possible consequences. Next, leave them in their resting places apart from you. And keep admonishing them with examples that they stop rebelling. If they pay heed to you, seek not a way against them. Allah is Most High, Great.
Maulana Ali
Men are the maintainers of women, with what Allah has made some of them to excel others and with what they spend out of their wealth. So the good women are obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded. And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the beds and chastise them. So if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely Allah is ever Exalted, Great.
Free Minds
The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear a desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.
Qaribullah
Men are the maintainers of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have spent of their wealth. Righteous women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. Those from whom you fear rebelliousness, admonish them and desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness). Then, if they obey you, do not look for any way against them. Allah is High, Great.
________________________________________
George Sale
Men shall have the pre-eminence above women, because of those advantages wherein God hath caused the one of them to excel the other, and for that which they expend of their substance in maintaining their wives. The honest women are obedient, careful in the absence of their husbands, for that God preserveth them, by committing them to the care and protection of the men. But those, whose perverseness ye shall be apprehensive of, rebuke; and remove them into separate apartments, and chastise them. But if they shall be obedient unto you, seek not an occasion of quarrel against them; for God is high and great.
JM Rodwell
Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God
________________________________________
Asad
MEN SHALL take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!

Notice how some translators are adding qualifying words in parenthesis, while other are simply ignoring the clear command to "beat them" or "scourge them" that is there in the arabic. Are you aware if there have been attempts to modify the arabic version? I am aware that the Ahameddiays attempted it for one verse, and they have been labeled non-muslims by the muslim states and are not allowed to perform hajj. The submitters or the 19 ers with their silly magic of 19 have attempted it and were completely rejected. I include the translation by Khalifa as well above. Where are the muslims changing the arabic version of the Quran? As far as the overwhelming majority of the islamic world is concerned all the academic debate is entirely irrelevant and the Quran is the unalterable word of allah who guarantees its integrity himself.

If you can produce any attempt to show that either Allah or Muhammed preached tolerance for the kaffirs and that they are not threatened with hell fire and doom at the drop of a pin, then we are talking. Did you not know that Islam is the only religion acceptable to Allah? Are you not aware of the doom and hell fire that awaits the kaffirs?


"I strongly disagree that renouncing Islam is to reject "heritage, family, culture, and race".

Humans spent almost all of the last 40,000 years of evolution as a collection of TRIBES. Arabs have been cloistered in such a culture for longer then most. In the end, religion (most all modern religions) are virtual TRIBES. Say what you will, if you belong to a major religion, there is a TRIBAL aspect to your observance. It is human nature and somewhat universal. As such, you can not separate "heritage", culture and yes, race from the equation. To assert so would be denial on your part (not a lie but not the truth either). There are some ex-Muslims just as their are some ex-Christians and ex-Jews and ex-Hindus. So what?? A TRIBE, while mostly universal is not absolutely universal. Your point proves nada.

Furthermore, to put this discussion in terms of a $50,000.00 payout is LOW CLASS and a cheap attempt to divert attention from the extremely important points to be raised and discussed on both (all) sides.

If you are so sure of yourself and so proud of your points, why may I not know your name?? You know my name. Withholding one's identity, while not a lie, is doubtless, somewhat deceptive (with intent).


The reason you may not know my name is that the followers of muhammed love to behead kaffirs and murtads like Ali Sina and doubtless, videotape the beheading while yelling allah hu akbar in the background. I do hope to see the day when anonymity will not be necessary. Your notion and hypothesis about tribes and its extension to the "Ummah" where the tribe extends independent of geography, race, language, nationality, etc. is very very much in line with the notion of the cultist themselves. I am positive that there is no universal acceptance of your theory and how it applies to religion. I assure you that there is very little tribal feelings among the christians from Latin America, Europe, and Africa for each other. The tribal affiliations can remain the same without necessarily having to retain the religious identity, which I think you were positing in the first place: "muslims cannot be expected to give up islam because of culture, heritage, etc. etc.". Egyptians gave up the ancient Egyptian religion to become Christians and then even their language to become arabized muslims. Through all these changes they remained Egyptians. Tomorrow they will give up Islam without having to give up either their heritage, or family or culture, or tribal practices.

Ali Sina is not a rich man and his offer of the $50,000 is genuinine to demonstrate that he is willing to put his financial well being on the line. I do not find his offer to be low class but then I do belong to the working bumpkin class.

Sincerely:


Isidor Farash

regards,
Doubtless
member FFI forum

---

To FFI:

There is a lot to review and I will be replying in greater detail tomorrow. However, on two points only:
I have placed paid full page ads (ad-itiorials) in several newspapers, containing information that would qualify me as an "infedel" and expose me to whatever effects you are hiding from. My name and town were always visable and guess what? To date: Not a wimper from anyone. Also, FYI:
My first such publication was in June 2001, before the terror attacks now so much a part of everyone's lives. At the time, my friends thought I was nuts and why would I possibly want to stur up trouble for myself and my family. After Sept. 11, these same people went on Paxil and Zoloft.

What was your hobby before 9-11-2001?

You should therefore not be speaking to me like I am a amature or a wannabe crusader.

Point two: I am not a lawyer. More on this tommorow.

---

To Isidor Farash:

I apologise if you have taken offense at my stating my views clearly. I have not found many muslims labeling anyone as "infedels" which seems to be the choice word of some western scribes and story tellers. However, I have been beaten severely as a filthy kaffir many a times in my life by good allah fearing mullahs. I doubt I would be alive had they identified me as a murtad. I still carry scars and cigerette burns on my body as reminders. I am glad that you have never had to face any hostility for your views and I hope that you never do. I have very close family in countries where the followers of islam are far more easily moved than where I am. Dr. Yunnus Sheik was very lucky to have been allowed to come out alive after three years in isolation instead of the death penalty that he had received from the courts. His luck and the intense international pressure saved his life. He was charged with a mere blasphemy for supposedly suggesting that muhammed's parents were not muslims. I do not beleive that I or my family will be as fortunate, and my "crimes" are far more serious than mere blasphemy as well. It is their safety that dictates my cowardice. My hobby began decades ago, when I was attempting to warn against the budding nexus between the narco traders, the jihadis, and the mullah generals of Zia-ul-haq of Pakistan. I have never had the need for Paxil or Zoloft yet and I have spent time serving my country in fairly exciting situations recently.
You may wish to educate Ali Sina and the members at the FFI forum why their view on muhammed are wrong and that moderation of islam is possible while keeping the sunnah of muhammed intact.

Again I wished no offense to you or your efforts.

with regards,
Doubtless

---

To FFI:

In furtherance of my comments, please find additional materials below with my words in GREEN.




Mr. Doubtless:

Would you be a lawyer by chance?

No I am not. Would you be one?

Lying requires the intent to lie. Someone, who (for example) lost a child in a horrible accident but still speaks of them as if they are alive is not generally categorized as a "liar". The same with "deception". However, calling someone a liar who has no intent to deceive--is itself a lie.

A google search for "unintentional lying" yeilded over half a million hits. I reproduce the first two for your examination:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A996942

Dude . . . Your citation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What Is a Lie?
A lie is an untruth, a deviation, big or small, from what is known to be real. It is a false statement deliberately presented as being true, thus misrepresenting a situation or giving a totally wrong impression about something. (emphasis added)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Everybody lies. Admit it - you do as well. There is probably not a single person who has ever lived who has not once in his life told a falsehood or misrepresented the truth, regardless of whether it was unintentional or if he told it so that someone else's feelings would not be hurt - or if he did it for more sinister reasons.
I may have lied a time or three in my life but that does not make me a liar. Nor does it make anything I might now say any less true. Besides, your points are highly rhetorical in nature. The primary question being discussed is NOT if I ever lied, or even if I still lie. The topic of debate relates to Mr. Kamal Newash and if his FMC diatribe was (and continues to be) authored with the INTENT TO DECEIVE, which was the allegation in the article I complained about. You have repeated this allegation several more times but have only managed to prove my point with your own quoted situation, (as if Google is the "Oracle of wisdom" anyway).

http://www.vkr.org/book/book.cfm
The point here is to abandon the wrong view of not believing in cause and effect. Having confidence in karma inspires us to be more aware of the actions of our body, speech, and mind. In this way, we don't inflict harm on others and we can actually generate some good, some cause of happiness for ourselves and others. Freedom from wrong view is freedom from carelessness or non-awareness. This includes our unintentional actions, unintentional killing, unintentional lying, unintentionally inflicting harm. While these may not be "fully" unvirtuous actions, they must also be abandoned. We cannot simply say, "Oh, this isn't really killing," and therefore not regret that karma. The point is to relate to our unvirtuous actions and to cultivate their opposites, the ten virtuous actions.

What the freak are you talking about bud? Back again to basics: There is a fundamental difference between someone who is of a mistaken belief versus someone who actively promotes misinformation that they know to be false. False information is still false, either way. But the person who is mistaken should be confronted as being mistaken, not dishonest. Why has this become a doctoral thesis?? The accusation of dishonesty against someone who is only mistaken is itself dishonest. You also have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for calling Mr. Nawash "ego driven"

Lying is merely not stating the truth and there are a lot of people, common folks I might add, who do not automatically attach "intention" to the word. So Mr. Farash, I had no 'intent' of lying to you and I did not lie to you.

As I mentioned in my original message, there is significant debate within the academic Muslim community (and elsewhere) as to the authenticity of the modern Islamic scriptures. For example, I can show you at least one instance where a very important verse was recently changed from one meaning to a totally opposite meaning, on the University of Virginia's online Koran. This point falls completely outside yours (and Ali Sina's) description of the overall situation. Another lie, intentionally perpetrated.

There might be "some" debate but to lable that as significant is entirely misrepresenting the level of that debate. The translation of the Quran has been toyed with by many, but I am unaware of any changes in the "original" arabic quran. Some of the translations in english demonstrate the problems of some muslims who wish to avoid facing the truth. Here is

an-Nisa' 004:034

Notice how some translators are adding qualifying words in paranthesis, while other are simply ignoring the clear comman to "beat them" or "scourge them" that is there in the arabic. Are you aware if there has been attempts to modify the arabic version? I am aware that the Ahameddiays attempted it for one verse, and they have been labeled non-muslims by the muslim states and are not allowed to perform hajj. The submitters or the 19 ers with their silly magic of 19 have attempted it and were completely rejected. I include the translation by Khalifa as well above. Where are the muslims changing the arabic version of the Quran? As far as the overwhelming majority of the islamic world is concerned all the academic debate is entirely irrelevent and the Quran is the unalterable word of allah who guarantees its integerity himself.

If you can produce any attempt to show that either Allah or Muhammed preached tolerance for the kaffirs and that they are not threatened with hell fire and doom at the drop of a pin, then we are talking. Did you not know that Islam is the only religion acceptable to Allah? Are you not aware of the doom and hell fire that awaits the kaffirs?


Without spending the rest of the day on this subject, because I still have a solid 12 hours of work to do, the Encarta online encyclopedia speaks of the founding origins of the Qur~an as being a verbal only tradition for some time and after it was written, a debate raged at the time as to the accurate version. Today's Arabic version can not be any more accurate then the very early written versions. But aside from that, and yes I am aware of all the various issues you raised above, there is still debate as to the meaning and where a conflict exists, various academic debates exist as to the controlling authority.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Koran.017 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-koran?specfile=/lv2/english/reli...)
17.104: And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment. (the above is borderline hate speak: Judgement)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
17-104. And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd (http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/QURAN/17.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are still other versions of 17:104 which speak in terms of "The Promised Land" and of course, those had to be re-configured because it was impossible to explain away who the "promised land" could of possibly been "promised" to, other then the Jews.

So, there is no disagreement about the factual problems associated with Qur~anic verse, but the same (or very similar) problems exist with the Gospels and the Old Testament. I am not here to defend Islam. I am here to intervene where I feel Mr. Nawash was being wrongly accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors", when he is really a well meaning person AND RISKING HIS LIFE TO DO SO.

You are not risking your life, Mr. "Doubtless".

Islam is also not a "Cancer" for several reasons. The most pronounced reason is that when it was created, the Arabs (of the time) were so generally uncivilized (in many respects) that the religion constituted a step forward in social evolution. While the book limits each man to a maximum of 4 wives, this may sound arcane, nonetheless, at the time, this was nothing less then a feminist revolution because before Mohammed, women were no better then livestock. Of course by today's standards, all these profound (Islamic) inequities have become visible to the simple eye of the modern viewer. So, call it outdated, call it warlike, call it wrong, if you like. A "Cancer"?? Is it the cause of the Arab revolution or merely the TOOL? Because your web site treats Islam as the CAUSE of all the world's problems. I know that a "TOOL" is bad enough but if we cannot correctly identify the cause, we have no hope of stopping the results.

I stand by my statements about religion being a virtual (or surrogate) tribal identity. Even more so with Arab people, who are typically highly tribal. The fact that no religious group sees ITSELF as a tribal entity proves nothing. Why would they? They want the controlling influence to be God, not some deep ancient reptilian-brained tendency for humans to collect in social "clans".

You should retract the defaming statements about Mr. Nawash. I couldn't care less about the $50,000.00. They are unfair and wrong.

Isidor Farash

---

To Isidor,
May 24, 2006

Isidor,

It is obvious that you entirely misunderstood the purpose of my providing you with links from google. It was merely to demonstrate to you that lots of people do not consider intent to be part of lying and I merely provided you with the very first two hits out of half a million that google provided. You obviously have a tendency to misunderstand easily.
I am here to intervene where I feel Mr. Nawash was being wrongly accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors", when he is really a well meaning person AND RISKING HIS LIFE TO DO SO.
I do not think I have ever said that Mr. Nawash was not a well meaning person and that he is not risking his life to do so. That is his choice.

You are not risking your life, Mr. "Doubtless".
And that is my choice, is it not?

Islam is also not a "Cancer" for several reasons. The most pronounced reason is that when it was created, the Arabs (of the time) were so generally uncivilized (in many respects) that the religion constituted a step forward in social evolution.
Many scholars would dispute with you on that. That is the myth that the muslims tend to create with their notion of Jahilliya. But even using their sources it is clear that the lot of women worsened tremendously after Islam. That is another topic and you may want to look into it for yourself some time.

While the book limits each man to a maximum of 4 wives, this may sound arcane, nonetheless, at the time, this was nothing less then a feminist revolution because before Mohammed, women were no better then livestock.
Is that why Mohammeds first wife, a pagan and before Islam, was an independent bussines woman, and could hire muhammed to be her manager? You may want to see what Ali Sina has to say on this as well : http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/women_before_islam.htm
Of course by today's standards, all these profound (Islamic) inequities have become visible to the simple eye of the modern viewer. So, call it outdated, call it warlike, call it wrong, if you like. A "Cancer"?? Is it the cause of the Arab revolution or merely the TOOL? Because your web site treats Islam as the CAUSE of all the world's problems. I know that a "TOOL" is bad enough but if we cannot correctly identify the cause, we have no hope of stopping the results.
Again FFI merely states the truth about Islam. If you find any lie (intentional or unintentional) in the writing of AliSina, please point those out. Personally, I do consider islam to be a sickness that infects the human mind and soul.

I stand by my statements about religion being a virtual (or surrogate) tribal identity. Even more so with Arab people, who are typically highly tribal. The fact that no religious group sees ITSELF as a tribal entity proves nothing. Why would they? They want the controlling influence to be God, not some deep ancient reptilian-brained tendency for humans to collect in social "clans".
You are entitled to your opinion as is anyone else. Arabs constitute about 25% of the muslim population of the followers of muhammed, and yes they are reputed to be more tribal than others, but religion may only be one aspect of their tribal identity and hence it is incorrect to view giving up islam as giving up all aspects of their identity as you had originally postulated.

You should retract the defaming statements about Mr. Nawash. I couldn't care less about the $50,000.00. They are unfair and wrong.
[Mr. Nawash wants to reform and moderate Islam. Ali Sina claims that cannot be done. Ali Sina states in the article that you referred to:

"many Muslims share his frustration about the senseless killing of innocent people in the name of our beloved religion." I wish I could believe Mr. Nawash but unfortunately I don't. Muslims in general do not have much sympathy for the victims of Islamic terrorism. Those who have sympathies are merely nominal Muslims and have no understanding of Islam and its agenda and they are not many. Many Muslim feel the murder of innocent people is perfectly justifiable. The hatred of non-believers and the instruction to kill them is expressed unequivocally in the Quran in hundreds of verses. True Muslims, those who read the Quran and are familiar with the sayings of Muhammad, cannot condemn terrorism because terrorism is Holy Jihad and Jihad is a pillar of Islam. It is thanks to terrorism that this "beloved religion" of Mr. Nawash expanded from the very start. ]

I agree with Ali Sina. Do you understand the concept of a nominal muslim?

[Ali Sina: "On May 14, Mr. Nawash organized a rally in downtown Washington, D.C. to denounce terrorism. According to his own statement "many of the leading Arab American organizations including the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee did not endorse the event." In fact few attended the rally and most of them were the speakers. By all intent and purposes that rally was a fiasco"]

That is a fact, is it not?

[Ali Sina: "By denouncing terrorism Mr. Nawash is not making Muslims more peaceful. To do that one has to denounce the Quran and Mr. Nawash is not willing to do that. In fact he still calls Islam his "beloved" religion and in his website he has stated: "The Free Muslims Coalition does not seek to change the tenets of the religion. However, the Coalition believes that the Koran only provides general principals of governance which leaves the faithful with substantial flexibility to modernize popular Muslim practices and beliefs."
This statement is false and misleading. The Quran says unbelievers are filthy; Allah dislikes them, they will be fuels of hell and it orders Muslims to slay them. There is no equivocation in that and no amount of reinterpretation can change the obvious message of hate of that book. " ]


That is a fact as well. Mr. Nawash is unwilling to condemn the Quran. Does Allah not dislike the kaffirs? Does allah not promise excruciating torture for the kaffirs? Is there or is there not a 1450 year of history and thousand of islamic scholar tracts confirming and telling the momineens to go kill the kaffirs because they are so filthy? Do the highest authorities of Islam, example the present Shia leader in Iraq imam Sistani, compare the non-muslims to filth and rank them as filthy as feces and urine of a dog or not?

[Ali Sina: "Mr. Nawash states: "The Free Muslims recognize that the Muslim leadership in America and abroad has failed in challenging and discrediting the ideology that leads to extremism and terrorism but we are now trying to reverse our past mistakes by aggressively challenging the terrorists and their evil ideology."
Here Mr. Nawash condemns the "evil ideology" of the terrorists. I wonder what ideology could that be? "]

So what evil ideology is it that Mr. Nawash is talking about there, Isidor? That is good that you do not care about the $50,000. But please do address the problems with the "beloved religions" of Mr. Nawash. Millions of kaffirs that have been killed and butchered by the sword of Islam deserve that much at least.
I hope Mr. Nawash will rise to tell Ali Sina and the community at FFI why they have misunderstood the Quran, why the tafsirs by Qutb, Mawdudi, ibn Kathir among others are all wrong, and why the bloody history of Islam is all misunderstood and that islam is really and truly a peaceful religion.


regards,
Doubtless
member FFI forum.

---

To FFI:

Mr. Doubtless:

It seems you guys at FFI are reformed or self-renounced Muslims. Self renounced anything is generally the most fanatical type, only in reverse from their "former life". Former smokers are the ones walking around with scissors and cutting off peoples lit cigarettes in 1/2. Former Alcoholics are the ones who preach the evils of even one Beer. So, I understand the background and dynamics.

I have no love for Islam. But then again, I have my own disputes with the other religions as well. Is Islam more dangerous then Christianity?? Today, yes. Not always. There were hundreds of years where Islam was the more peaceable and tolerant religion of the two. So how do you at FFI explain that? How is it possible that a religion which used to have a moderate front is now, hundreds of years after, impossible to be moderate??

My personal preference?? I think the world needs a new religion entirely and none are more in need then the Moslems. But if your (FFI) solution was the perfect one, it would include a viable alternative, as many people feel naked without the comfort of their religion. In the mean time, as far as I can tell, your group is nearly as intolerant as the Muslims you wish to excise as a "cancer" from the body of humanity.

And back to the core subject: To call Mr. Nawash a liar, a deceiver and/or driven by ego mania is not fair or just or true. He feels that he can create a "kinder and gentler" Islamic "nation". This is not being done (as your web page states) to buy time before the 'final conquest'. He may be wrong. He may be delusional. But you should treat him with respect and disagree with dignity, as partners in the same basic cause. Your web article was wrong both morally and factually. It should be retracted. If you can not see this distinction, you are just as brainwashed as you used to be as a Moslem, only in reverse.

Sincerely:

Isidor

---

For Isidor Farash (2006/5/27): Credit Free Muslims: Part II
Please Click Here>/a>

Average:

0

Your rating: None