Credit Free Muslims - Part 2

Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionTo FFI: From: Isidor Farash May 24, 2006 Mr. Doubtless: It seems you guys at FFI are reformed or self-renounced Muslims. [u]Self renounced anything is generally the most fanatical type, [/u]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 [u]liar, a deceiver[/u] and/or driven by [u]ego mania[/u] 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

---

To Isidor On 5/24/06, Isidor Farash wrote: Mr. Doubtless: It seems you guys at FFI are reformed or self-renounced Muslims. [u] Self renounced anything is generally the most fanatical type, [/u]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]Many at FFI are apostates and have rejected Islam. That is true. I hope that does not make us fanatics. [/i] 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?? [i]You may get somewhat of an answer to that in http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60523.htm When did Islam have a moderate front? I have asked that of many muslims and have asked them of a historical period when Islam had a moderate front and they have all ended up agreeing that the moderate front they were talking about was indeed not very moderate fot the kaffirs among them. Have you read the laws of Dhimma under which the kaffirs had to live in the Islamic empires of the middle east, Iran, and India? If you have not please do and then tell me how moderate was Islam for the kaffirs. Have you ever looked at the law under which the kaffirs have to live in the present day muslim nations? Isidor you betray the same blindness towards the minorities living among the muslims that muslims themselves do. In a globalised world, it is no longer possible for the kaffirs to ignore the demands of Islam. The basic reason that Islam cannot be reformed is very easy to understand. Quran is the direct word of God and not inspired by God, not divined by seers, but literally the word 'gonged' by gibreel directly to an illiterate and uneducated muhammed. The original is in the heavens and is in Arabic and hence the arabic version that exists now is viewed as eternal despite what scholars may or may not say. No one has the authority to change one word of it. Find one error and the whole crumbles because it is no longer the word of allah but that of an illiterate and uneducated 7th century Bedouin. Then the history of muhammed as given by the oldest sources available that is Ishaq and Tabari paint glorification of the barbarity of the 7th to 9th century ethos, and muhammed comes across as an evil raping butcher. Discard these sources and muhammed vanishes and the quran becomes incomprehensible. [/i] 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. [i]For those who need a religion, they are most welcome to adopt anyone of their choice and the world has plenty, or even invent a new one like Ron Hubbard did. Nothing could be worse than islam. FFI is not against people assuming any religion. Please read the link that I have given above. Please spend a little time at the FFI forum and you will find incredible diversity of views, backgrounds, and opinions. I hope we are not intolerant. We are intolerant of lies and trying to hide the truth about Islam. [/i] And back to the core subject: To call Mr. Nawash a [u]liar, a deceiver[/u] and/or driven by [u]ego mania[/u] 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 [i]Isidor, those are just Ali Sina's feelings and perception. I do not belive that Mr. Nawash is intentionally lying or deceiving, but his stance that he can create a "kinder and gentler" islamic ummah is a lie and kaffirs will be deceived if they accepted that. I am unsure why Mr. Nawash is unable to face the truth about his "beloved religion" and to what extent his ego plays a role in it. Having visited his site, I personally think Mr. Nawash is a very nice guy and probably believes that he can save his "beloved religion" but he is deeply deeply wrong, and the kaffirs will be misled if they are to believe that there is a ghost of chance that Mr. Nawash can succeed. I invite you and Mr. Nawash to come and tell us why you think it is possible to reform islam and why your way is better than FFI simply stating the unvarnished truth about islam in a clear and simple way. You may write a rebuttal to Ali Sina's article, and I will urge Ali to provide a link to your rebuttal. How about that? regards, Doubtless member FFI forum. [/i]

---

To FFI May 25, 2006 Mr. Doubtless: I strongly feel Mr. Nawash's work is in everyone's best interest, including yours and your compatriots at FFI. This, to spite the fact that I disagree with him most of the time. Re: Muslim tolerance/moderate: I believe some authority can be found in: Jews, God and History by Max Dimont and Semites and Anti-Semites by Bernard Lewis. Although, I haven't the time just now to quote chapter and verse, I shall endeavor to do so at some point in the near future. (Do you have a personal email address or is this address your personal one?). [i]"Find one error and the whole crumbles because it is no longer the word of allah. . . "[/i] I respectfully draw your attention to your own attitude towards "errors" in your FFI web pages. The $50,000.00 is perpetually safe, only because your management refuses to acknowledge even the smallest error, possibly for the same basic reason as you quoted above. Put this money in the hands of an unbiased 3rd party, see how long it lasts. Islam may, indeed be the most dangerous of all the world's religions (today). However, as I stated in a earlier post, since it also constitutes a pseudo (or surrogate) cultural identity, its not so easy to just renounce and even harder to replace with any other religion, generally associated with another (different) pseudo culture/race. Besides, while probably less dangerous, Christianity is still full of logical conflicts and sometimes worse. To become a Jew is to welcome eternal persecution. One can not become a Hindu (must be born so) and Buddhism is not a religion as much as a philosophy. In the mean time, there is a place in the world (in my opinion) for Muslim people who's preference is to be delusionally moderate and Mr. Nawash is their "poster-child". He does not hurt your cause. To insist so would be fanatical. I will begin the process of constructing a counter-point as you suggest and I thank you for the offer. It might take longer then just knocking-off an email. Sincerely: Isidor Farash

---

To Isidor Farash: On 5/25/06, Isidor Farash wrote: Mr. Doubtless: I strongly feel Mr. Nawash's work is in everyone's best interest, including yours and your compatriots at FFI. This, to spite the fact that I disagree with him most of the time. [i]I never said it was not. I am not sure if I would use "best" to describe it but I am personally not against Mr. Nawash's work. I wish him all the success. I just do not think it will be successful because it does not present a completely forthright analysis of Islam. "Beloved religion" should state it quite clearly for the dhimmis who have had to live the loving part of Islam for centuries. This is from yesterday's pakistani newspaper opinion [b]In Sargodha, a young Christian mechanic was beaten to a pulp by Muslim co-workers attempting to pressurise him to convert. At a Lahore office, staff threatened to resign rather than eat food served by a Christian peon, at a school in Lahore, a young girl was ostracised by classmates because she was a non-Muslim. The examples of such discrimination, and indeed of a violent hatred for those not belonging to the majority religion, are almost endless and seem to multiply by the day.[/b] And this has been going on for 1450 years, Isidor. Have you ever read the laws that zorastrians had to live under in Iran even under the Shah's father let alone under the islamic states before him? If you do not, you should look them up some time. I speak on the behalf of that young girl whose kaffir parents are unable to protect her and have trained her to suffer the insults in silence. I will speak on behalf of the young hindu boy who attempted suicide decades ago because of such "ostracising" and who was abandoned to die by the muslim doctors because they were muslims and he was a hindu. I was a witness to it and I will not pretend it did not happen or wish it away because it is inconvenient to some. I will speak on behalf of the christian "cleaner" who listened to his humanity and worked hours to save that kids life even at the risk of being penalized for having gone against the wishes of the muslim doctors. The papers are writing about the hatred now because the spotlight is upon the behavior of the muslims at present, but these actions have been the norm from the time of muhammed. Please give me an example of a time when the kaffirs were not subjected to such laws under islam. [/i] Re: Muslim tolerance/moderate: I believe some authority can be found in: Jews, God and History by Max Dimont and Semites and Anti-Semites by Bernard Lewis. Although, I haven't the time just now to quote chapter and verse, I shall endeavor to do so at some point in the near future. (Do you have a personal email address or is this address your personal one?). [i]I have great respect for Dr. Lewis and his work but he cannot bring himself to say the truth about Islam openly. His academic persona and carefully cultivated neutral stance won't allow it. I have read his books. Ex-muslims look at Islam from the inside, while Lewis is still handicapped and can only look from the outside.[/i] [i]"Find one error and the whole crumbles because it is no longer the word of allah. . . "[/i] I respectfully draw your attention to your own attitude towards "errors" in your FFI web pages. The $50,000.00 is perpetually safe, only because your management refuses to acknowledge even the smallest error, possibly for the same basic reason as you quoted above. Put this money in the hands of an unbiased 3rd party, see how long it lasts. [i]FFI does not claim to be the direct word of an omnipotent deity. If Allah is wrong once, then he is not allah by definition. FFI can have errors and it can correct them. Ali's challange is not to find one error but to be proven wrong about Muhammed. Isidor I have admitted to errors many a times. After all it is human to err. [/i] Islam may, indeed be the most dangerous of all the world's religions (today). However, as I stated in a earlier post, since it also constitutes a pseudo (or surrogate) cultural identity, its not so easy to just renounce and even harder to replace with any other religion, generally associated with another (different) pseudo culture/race. Besides, while probably less dangerous, Christianity is still full of logical conflicts and sometimes worse. To become a Jew is to welcome eternal persecution. One can not become a Hindu (must be born so) and Buddhism is not a religion as much as a philosophy. In the mean time, there is a place in the world (in my opinion) for Muslim people who's preference is to be delusionally moderate and Mr. Nawash is their "poster-child". He does not hurt your cause. To insist so would be fanatical. [i]Why is Ali's stating his opinion on Mr. Nawashs chasing dreams and ghosts, implying that Nawash is hurting our cause? I do not want to convince anyone to any opinion or any religion or any way of life. I tell the truth as I see it about Islam. If I am wrong, then the reader should ignore me and discount me. I respect the muslims as individuals. I will not attempt to sweet talk them, trick them, tell them half truths, etc. I tell them exactly what is on my mind. I write what I think. I have great faith in humanity and truth. Muslims are not used to hearing the blunt truth about Islam. Islam had developed techniques and mechanisms to prevent truth being told to the muslims. Death penalty for apostacy is only one of those tools. You saw the reaction of the muslims to the cartoons of Muhammed is an example of how any attempts to question Islam are squelched. The new technologies of instant communications allow that truth to be told and to bypass the control of the mullahs. So I rely upon speaking the unvarnished truth and let the reader decide whether he wants to accept it or reject it. It is not my business to try to make a place for one kind of muslim or another. I do not have that kind of power. What place and what role the muslims will have depends on them and how they will deal with the kaffirs of the world. I merely tell the unvarnished truth as I see it about Islam to the muslims as well as to the kaffirs. It is upto them how they integrate my words into their dealing with each other. My judgement is that Islam cannot stand the light of truth being shone upon it. The evil of muhammed as given by the muslims historians themselves, and the hate within the quran as explained by the muslim scholars themselves is sufficient for people to reject it once they get to know about it. I beleive that reflects Ali Sina's position on the matter. How does a muslim integrate into the societies of the kaffirs when Allah commands as follows: 004.144 SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves? 009.123 PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). 005.057 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed). What tales does Mr. Nawash weave to explain the above? And does any muslim any where else believe Mr. Nawash's tales for a split second? What good is there in deceiving ourselves that the muslims will accept the convoluted reasonings that Mr. Nawash likely weaves?[/i] I will begin the process of constructing a counter-point as you suggest and I thank you for the offer. It might take longer then just knocking-off an email. Sincerely: Isidor Farash [i]Take your time. Again the only thing we pride ouselves at FFI is that we let the truth dance and it is the viewers and readers who use their individual judgements to decide what they like or hate about her. regards, Doubtless member FFI forum.[/i] To FFI. This will serve as a counter-point to Mr. Ali Sina’s web article entitled: [b]Free Muslims Against Terrorism, Or More Deception? [/b] http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50726.htm The reader should first know that I disagree with Kamal Nawash (of the Free Muslims) points of view at least 2/3rds of the time. I am also not a Muslim. But I consider myself a keen student of human nature. The first and most profound flaw in Mr. Sina’s position is that he offers no alternative religion to the tens of millions of Muslims he seeks to renounce the faith of their birth. This leaves the Muslim reader with a conflicted choice: Namely, renouncing God along with Islam. Muslims, after all, before they are Muslims are people, with the same basic “wiring diagram” as all other people. Accordingly, this “all-or-nothing” alternative hits hardest against that portion of the Muslim population who we (of different faiths) want and need support from the most. Namely, the “kind-hearted” portion, who are most likely to cling to God, even more so then they cling to Islam. And, despite Mr. Sina’s statements to the contrary, there are kind-hearted Muslims and I have personally known a few. Though I have never met Mr. Nawash, I believe he too is kind-hearted. Essentially, the age-old adage of: “Don’t condemn unless you have a better idea” holds true here. [u]Specifically relating to the exact allegations of Mr. Sina’s article:[/u] He accuses Mr. Nawash of the following: [u]a) Dishonesty (lying) b) (Intentionally) buying more time to permit Islam to “wreak more havoc”. c) Ego tripping.[/u] Mr. Sina concludes his article with: [u]“The war against Islamic terrorism cannot be won with more deceptions and more lies.”[/u] However, one is only lying if they have the [u] intent [/u]to substantially mislead or deceive. This has not been proven and is frankly not indicated here. A victim of terrorism may have tragically lost a family member and might speak of the lost as if he/she is still alive but no one would accuse such a person of being a “liar”. Mr. Nawash, apparently, considers his religion as a [u]victim [/u]of terrorism, more so then a cause of it. That point can be reasonably debated, without going to the unnecessary (and unwarranted) extreme of automatically equating Kamal’s (FMC) position as being [u]intentionally deceptive.[/u] “Ego Tripping” is even more of a stretch. In this example, nothing Mr. Nawash has done would indicate he is ego-driven and in view of the fact that he is risking his very life with his exceedingly controversial and public remarks, that accusation is somewhat shameful. Mr. Sina: If you want to call Mr. Nawash and/or FMC “delusional”, “factually backwards” or, his conclusions “wrong-headed”, you could do so, make your point(s) and spare a well-meaning (and likely kind-hearted) person from unwarranted insults to his personal integrity. Your further (over-reacted) remarks tend to suggest a sense of jealousy at Nawash’s success. Even though you say that Muslims have no use for Mr. Nawash, we (none of us) know how true that point is (including Mr. Nawash) in reality, since we do not know how many web readers (and TV viewers) of his are Muslims and of those, what percent are being positively effected by his positions. I can tell you for certain that there are some far-leftist (non-Muslims) who are doing a positive attitude readjustment, courtesy of Mr. Nawash. That alone constitutes relief--in the same basic direction as your group. I am not here to debate the tenants of Islam with you or anyone. I do not have the training to do so and besides, I consider those points to be somewhat irrelevant to this discussion. I come here to the aid of a decent and well intended-person after being (I feel) excessively bashed. Please reconsider your earlier comments and please issue a retraction (a limited one, if necessary). Thank you. Isidor Farash May 27, 2006.

---

For Isidor Farash (2006/5/27): Credit Free Muslims: Part I Please [url=index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=584]Click Here[/url]