PDA

View Full Version : 'Muslims have near disdain for human life'



Silver Sparrow
05-01-2005, 09:26 PM
ISLAM, MUSLIMS and TERRORISM

Below are some pages that I have extracted from several Islamic InterNet sites. What these pages show us is an immature, medieval and barbaric religion with near disdain for human life. Some passages may be read in horror!

As with Christianity, Islam was first spread at the point of the sword. But unlike Christianity, Islam never completed a reformation marking it's transition into a mature religion. Instead, a resurgence of the Wahhabiyyah sect of Islam threatens to terrorize the world.

The above is from a shockingly malicious webpage dedicated to slandering the muslims and, so it seems, to create tension and hatred amongst our multifaith communities.

Both myself and brother Usayd have responded to these claims, and wish to continue the dialogue here in an open forum, if Mr Cruzan is willing to participate (which I certainly hope he is)

My original respose

Dear Mr Cruzan
As a British Muslim woman, I'd just like to say how very pleased I am
that you have dedicated a whole section of your site to the Muslims!
Masha Allah!
Although I also believe the Wahhabi/Salafi sect to be a fitnah (trial
and affliction) to the Muslims, the agreement ends there. To label
Islam as a "medieval and barbaric religion with near disdain for human
life" is very ignorant of you. I fail to see how one person, of limited
knowledge on the subject, can judge 1/5 of the world's population from
a handful of people.

You are implying here that Islam =Terrorism.
By analogy, I could say: Christianity = Paedophilia. Yes, nearly every
peadophile I've read about in the news comes from a white Christian
background. What would you reaction be to a website called:
Christianity and Child Porn?
What if this site spoke of priests sexually abusing boys and getting
away with it? What if it described Christianity as "a perverse religion
for people of no morals and no respect for the welfare of children"?
Doesn't seem very fair does it? But if you can judge a whole group of
people, over 1 billion because some people claiming to be fighting for
their religion have commited acts of evil, why can't I lump all
Christians together? I'm trying to make you see how unjust and
insulting you are being. I don't mean to come across as rude, so please
accept my apologies if it seems that way and if I have caused you
offence in any way. Those that commited the twin towers attack were not
representatives of Islam. They were not abiding by Shariah. A true
mujahideen would NOT kill civilians intentionally. An true mujahideen
would not spend the night before a mission at a bar consuming alcohol
and hiring prostitutes. These people were as much a disgrace to Muslims
as they were to you. My own opinion is that this was an inside job. And
by the way, Shaikh Usamah bin Laden denied any involvement in the
attack and whats more he isnt wahhabi either, but a Qutbi who the
wahhabis hate.

You have said: "As with Christianity, Islam was first spread at the
point of the sword. But unlike Christianity, Islam never completed a
reformation marking it's transition into a mature religion."

This is a very very old fairy tale, spread by the pope during the
Crusades. It was Christianity that forced itself on people on fear of
death. If you read an English meaning of the Quran, in Surah 2 (Al
baqarah) you will see Allah has stated: "There is no compulsion in
religion (deen)". Dr Jamal Badawi says:
"The view that Islam was spread by the sword is a myth and now no
serious historian, including Western scholars, accepts this version of
events. One need only read the accounts of early Islam by A Michener,
HG Wells, Bernard Shaw and Toynbee to realise this.

There are, in addition to the above points, several logical points to
be made to a person who thinks that Islam was spread by the sword.
These include the arguments that:
1. Indonesia, with 120 million Muslims, and Russia, with 50 million,
never once had a Muslim soldier on their soil at the time of the great
expansion of Islam.
2. Since a Muslim man may not even force his Christian or Jewish wife
to be Muslim, he cannot force anyone else
3. When the Seljuks conquered the Muslims, they did not impose their
own beliefs on the Muslims, but embraced Islam themselves."


Let's have a look at what some non-Muslims have said about Islam and
the issue of its propagation:
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Mahatma Gandhi writes:
I wanted to know the best way of life, of one who holds, today,
undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind... I became more
than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for
Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity,
the utter self-effacement of the Prophet [SAW], the scrupulous regard
for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his
intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absoulte trust in God and in his own
mission. **These, and not the sword, carried everything before them and
surrounded every obstacle.**

Arthur Gilman writes in The Saracens, London 1887:
It is greatly to his (Muhammad's [SAW] ) praise that on this occasion
(conquest of Makkah), when his resentment for ill-usage might naturally
have incited him to revenge, he restrained his army from all shedding
of blood, and showed every sign of humility and thanksgiving to Allah
for His goodness... Ten or twelve men who had a former occasion shown a
barbarous spirit were proscribed, and of them, four put to death, but
this must be considered exceedingly humane, in comparison with the acts
of other conquerors; in comparison, for example, with the cruelty of
the Crusaders, who in 1099 put SEVENTY THOUSAND Muslims, men, WOMEN
and HELPLESS CHILDREN[capitals mine], to death when Jerusalem fell into
their hands; or with that of the English army, also fighting under the
cross, which in the year of grace 1874 burned an African capital, in
its war on the Gold Coast. Muhammad's [SAW] victory was in very truth,
one of religion and not of politics; he rejected every token of
personal homage and declined all regal authority; and when the haughty
chiefs of the Quraishis appeared before him, he asked:
"What do you expect at my hands?"
"Mercy, O generous brother!"
"Be it so; you are free!" he exclaimed.

GW Leitner says:
Muhammad [SAW] himself never made any claim to infallibility. One one
occasion he had a revelation censuring himself severely for having
turned away from a beggar in order to speak to an illustrious man of
the commonwealth, and he published this revelation, the very last thing
he would have done had he been an impostor, as ignorant Christians call
the great Arab Prophet.
__________________________________________________ _____________________

As stated, these were written by NON-MUSLIMS in order for you to have
an objective look at the noble character of the Final Messenger (SAW).

As for Christianity being a 'mature' religion, and Islam not, is a
claim with little basis. Look back to the Crusades. Look back to the
Spanish inquisition (incidentally, one charge brought against the
Muslims was that they were 'too tolerant of other religions'. Not a
very mature thing to say! ).Take a look at Belfast and the tensions
there. In fact, take a look at your own Bible. It is full of numerous
contradictions (see
http://www.islaminfo.com/articleview.asp?level=6&catID=1). Even
christian scholars have had to admit that it is no longer the
infallible word of God. How much of your religion is based PURELY upon
the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and how much is made up by
man? The message of Jesus (AS) was very simple: Worship the ONE God. No
reference to trinity, no holy ghosts and catechisms and confessions and
popes. I don't wish to go into any more detail here, there is plenty of
info online. I hope that Allah will guide you to the truth, and make
you realise that Muhammad is the very Prophet that your own scriptures
predicted.
Thank you very much for reading all this. My religion is something I am
very passionate about, so again, please forgive me if I have offended
you in away, and I hope you can look beyond the Islamophobic
propaganda, and see Islam for what it truly is: A way of life of peace,
kindness and good deeds. May Allah guide you to the truth AMEEN!
Samira

Silver Sparrow
05-01-2005, 09:31 PM
Brother Usayds reply

Sir,

Samira gave me your E-Mail address and the contents of
your website (
http://users.mo-net.com/mcruzan/terrorism.htm ).

Firstly, sir, my background.

I am Irish. I have seen terrorism, I have grown up
with Terrorism, I know what it's like to live with the
constant threat of terrorism. This terrorism used
Religion as it's Justification. Whether it was the
Loyalist UDA, UVF, UFF, Shankill butchers etc, backed
by reverends and Deacons, killing Catholics to "Keep
Britain [i.e Northern Ireland] 'pure' (Of
Non-Protestants)", or the Republican IRA, INLA, RIRA,
PIRA, CIRA, Provo's, fighting for Catholicism, backed
by priests, to help protect Catholic 'nationalists'.

Britain has been attacked by Christian terrorists well
over 100 times, and not once by the likes of Al-Queda.
(Arabic for "The Base", by the way). Indeed, the
closest to Islamic terrorism Britain has been the
subject of was when the MET found Ricin in a flat
compound, which was used by Muslims amoung other
denominations, enough Ricin to kill a small cat. Yet
in spite of this the Home Office have locked dozens of
Muslims up, without a trial, Judge, or Jury for over a
year. They're crime? Being Muslim. They are
eventually to stand trial, but at the moment only one
of them has, and the case was thrown out of Court for
the flimsy evidence and appalling methods of
interrogation. This man has been left in solitary
confinement for over six months, in prison for almost
two years based on evidence so pathetic it was thrown
out of court. Another was released after several
months. No Charges, he's a free man. His face was
blasted all over the papers when he was arrested. (
This is a BBC page on Belmarsh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3714864.stm )

All this does is promote a climate of fear. Fear for
the sake of Fear. People in the UK and US fear
Muslims, and Muslims fear the police. Ostracizing and
alienating the fasting growing section of our
communities, the Muslim community, is hardly a recipe
for success for future generations of integration and
the celebration of multiculturalism that it brings.
And this fear, this anxiety, this mutual distrust is
promoted by people who, it is hoped, simply do not
know any better.

And this is where your site becomes relevant.

It is simply a BNP, Nationalist Front style attack on
Muslims and Islam. Indeed, the comparisons between
your site's references and the BNP's are far from
flattering, and I'm sure that's not a comparison
you'ld like drawn.

In a nutshell, your site is wrong. Very wrong. It's
opening premise;



"As with Christianity, Islam was first spread at the
point of the sword. But unlike Christianity, Islam
never completed a reformation marking it's transition
into a mature religion. Instead, a resurgence of the
Wahhabiyyah sect of Islam threatens to terrorize the
world."

Well, it's insulting, disingenuous and wrong.

Firstly: Your claim 'Islam was first spread with the
sword', is incredibly wrong. Islam was frist spread
by the word of Allah as told to the Prophet Muhammad
(SAW), the last and seal of the Prophets, Peace be
upon them. The Prophet (SAW) was from Mecca, home of
the Kaabah, essentially the worlds first place of
worship, where pilgrims came to worship their various
Gods and idols. Indeed it was full of idols, with a
new one being added every year to increase attendees
from amongst the various tribal religions. Then
Muhammad (SAW), using the word Of Allah spoke out
against the very idea of Multiple gods, paganism etc,
and gained followers. Not through violence but
through the word. He was attacked, and sent into
exile in what we now call the city of Medina. There
he suffered along with his people, in one year one
third of the first Muslims died. Mostly through
starvation and malnurishment. If Muslims went in
search of food they were attacked, some have bolders
placed on their stomachs and where left to die in the
desert, others searching for water in the deserts, had
boiling hot iron poured down their throats. Muhammads
(SAW) own wife died, as did many of his close friends.
The attacks against him stepped up and the Prophet
(SAW) begged Allah for aid. Finally the lord sent the
angel Jibrael (Gabreal) to give the prophet news that
when he is next attacked to fight back. Then the
battle of Badr happened. A group of 300 or so
starving, Malnurished, thirsty and unarmed Muslims
took of an armed force of 1,000 Meccan soldiers and
won a battle with barely any casualties. From here on
word of the man who was referred to as the Prophet
(SAW) spread and people from all around flocked to
hear him, to see him and islam spread. It spread to
present day Ethiopia, to Persia, to Al-Quds. No
swords, no wars of aggression, it was carrried there
because that was Allah's will. When the Prophet (SAW)
was attaked in Medina, instead of launching a major
war of attrition and killing all he could, he dug a
ditch. When he went home to Mecca he bacame it's
ruler without a single battle taking place.

Secondly: The reformation did not make Christianity a
"mature religion". That idea is insane. The
reformation led to the Spanish and italian
inquisitions, The slaughter and exile of millions of
Christians by their fellow christians (Of a different
sect), Numerous civil wars, the struggle for regional
dominance, especially in Britain, between Protestants
and Catholics as well as new cruel and unusal forms of
torture. I don't want Islam to go through this, it is
an abscenity that people with a common book should
hate each other so very much. The scars from the
reformation within christendom are still visable
today, try: http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp,
http://www.pacinst.com/antichri.htm, etc, and this is
centuries later. The good parts of the reformation,
as I see it, where the ideas. The notion that
questioning authority is a good thing, that the
pursuit of knowledge can exist outside of the holy
scriptures, etc. This were good parts of the
reformation, but they were already inherent within
Islam. Indeed, Ibn Al-Nafis had volumes written on
the Circulation of blood from the heart centuries
prior to the 'Discovery' of his work by Servetus,
Vesalius, Colombo, and finally Harvey. Christian
society was afraid of discovering how a body works
because all forms of perverse superstitions attributed
to dead and dying bodies. Indeed the idea of taking
tablets to cure what ails you comes from Islamic
society. The word 'analgesic' is an arabic one!



Thirdly: Wahhabi'ism is now "resurging", because it
has never surged before. the Wahabbi's, or as most
people refer to them, Saud's, are new to Islam, and
hated by most Muslims. they have destroyed the tombs
of the companions. Those same companions who stood by
the Prophet (SAW) in exile in Medina, having Boulders
placed on them, drinking molten metal, being tortured
and starving. The Wahabbis are striving to eradicate
them from Muslim minds. They are strict, ritualistic
and at times perverse. Usamah Bin Laden is not even
one. he is a Qutbist, a serious member of the Muslim
Brotherhood, dedicated to kickstarting an
international revolution against Selfish Western
Interests which are driven by greed (As he sees it).
His main targets have always been financial. he
believes he can bleed the US dry, the same way he
believes his War against the Soviet union bled the
USSR dry. Even after 9/11, All Islamic terrorism is
still less than that of marxists or Hinduist terrorist
attacks. But Islamic terrorists attack white people,
so to you that constitutes "the world", which is
frightfully narrow minded.

There is an applaing mi-use of quotations in your
sections, and wilfull or otherwise neglect of the
truth.

In short it helps spread fear and ignorance, which
leads to hostility, and this really should be avoided.

Regards,

Silver Sparrow
08-01-2005, 09:30 PM
Mr Cruzan, I'm sure you have received the link to this topic by now, would you like to initiate a dialogue? You wished to make a point to point discussion of my original letter and you may do so here if you wish.

Silver Sparrow
16-01-2005, 09:08 PM
Here I was hoping that Marvin 'call me marv' cruzan was pro-history... till i saw that he is jewish (mr cruzan is atheist).

Well, it seems he is not interested in defending his stance, so if any brother wishes to start a dialogue with him, his email address is on his homepage: [clip]