Koran only Islam !!

Now wait a minute.Haven't we heard all this disjointed, disoriented brain dead words from moslems scum bags before? Exactly the same? Hmm makes me wonder if the religion of islam has monopoly over idiots.There are billion of them and keep peddling the same.Judgement day blah blah, rasool allah, pimp allah etc.I am yet to come across a brainy moslem who has remained a slave to this pimp and rapist duo.The moment moslems realise the foolishness of qrand and islam, they quietly leave.This lady is obviously a brain dead muslimah

Unfortunately 'Quran only', 'koran only', 'Quranites' etc. muslims are not considered muslims by other muslims. Strange I think. How can one be classified a heretic or a disbeliever when one believes in the Quran, the word of God. But nevertheless that is a the general stance.

"Jasim -
Q: On news groups such as SRI and other I came across group of people who claim they are Quranites (Follower of Quran only) and they reject Hadith and Sunna. Some of them are follower of Khalifa Rashad and some are not. But all of them have non-traditional beliefs; such as they do not consider praying salaat as it is been known among the Sunni and Shia madhabs. Since they reject Hadith and sunna and also reject history they seem to reject certain traditional views held by main stream Muslims, such as salaat and hadj and fasting. They believe salaat can be offered in your heart. Their claim is that since Quran is complete there is not need for Hadith and Sunna . Their attitude mainly has been very insulting to Sunni and Shia. They make fun of Bukhari and any Hadith mentioned in Bukhari or other sources, some time they even go as far as making fun of prophet (pbuh) while refuting Hadith and Sunna. My Question is, Are these group of people Muslim? Should we consider them Muslims?

A: Answer The answer is no, they are not Muslims.

Answered by Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti at islamonline.net

http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=yL86OZ

It would be interesting if the muslim above could share her/hs experiences as to the reaction of fellow Muslims when they learn about her/his hadith rejection and Quran only stance.

In Canada it resulted in an verbal and physical attack on canadian muslim students by other muslims.

In in effect such Muslims are a threatened minority and will have to be cautious with their views. Most such people tend to speak in ambiuity as to not reveal their stance, knowing the threat they put themselves in. So it is about reading inbetween the lines.

Many discussions have taken place online in forums as well as among conferences, where they have been deemed 'kafir' which is horrible. Hadiths are seens as the prophets direct words and actions, thus anybody who does not believe in it, is not a muslim. Quran is not detailed enough they claim. yet they can not explain why the Quran then says "He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail".

They claim that Allah has commanded the believers to follow the prophet. Yes makes sense and so Allah did. but that would be relevant if he was still alive. He is no longer but appareantly the word of the alleged the prophets household, the sahaba, their relevatives and friends, and so on are as reliable as God. Shirk anybody?

I would like to hear from this Muslim as to how she/he interacts with other Muslims as that would be impossible when the other party sees you are as a non-muslim.

Furthermore, this muslim, should contact the major fatwa councils, online or offline, and ask them how they view such Muslims. Because I doubt, it would be different from the above copy/pasted fatwa.

The problem with islam and moslems is simple.Only idiots can follow islam and moslems who follow this idiotic book are spherical idiots.
I mean a fellow moslem who wipes his back side after crapping with toilet tissue can be considered as kafir by a cretin moslem who wipes his with odd number of stones( prophet's sunna) Actually a moslem who wipes his back side 4 stones is considered as kafir by a cretin who wipes with three stones( prophet said you should use only odd number of stones.) How odd indeed

Practicing Muslims have no conscience, they blindly follow the Mentally Retarded Criminal, Mohammed the Son of Satan.... coz it is drilled into their brains from the time they are born dat this Son of Satan (Mohammed) is the Prophet of God and they blame all the ills that befall their world on the Infidels (The rest of the world). Children can be made to believe anything.... The rest of the muslims are just too Ignorant and Illiterate to understand anything about the Rotten Dumb Koran or the Hadiths, etc., (the poor fools are made to memorize the koran in Some crazy dialect of Arabic which most Arabs dont Understand).... Knowledge is the Best weapon against Islam...

Allah is the DEVIL. Muslims are demons. Resist the devil. Resist Muslims. Do not be friends with Muslims.
There is a stone, there is a Muslim behind it. there is a snake, a Muslim is behind it. There is s fool, and it is a Muslim. There are 1.5 fools, and they are all Muslims.

Dearest Editor

In your exchange with this Muslim lady your very first email stated:

"FFI is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. We do not think that we are any better than anyone. We believe in humanity. We believe all humans are equal under the law. You think we believe we are better than Muslims. This is a twisted logic."

And the following is what Dr Ali Sina has just said to me on the "Infidel Task Force Interview" Thread this very morning:

I value the life of non-Muslims a lot more than what I value the life of a Muslims.

I say:

Now, I'll give you £50,000 plus another £20,000 (that's more than your US dollars) if you can show me how BOTH these statements are simultaneously correct.

If that first person was an American Christian, I'm not so sure they had much schooling...which probably explains why they switched. It very well could be, but the grammar usage and omission of certain words leads me to believe he/she is not an english user. Could it possibly be a non-american muslim pretending to be what they are not? Possibly. Either way, good response letters back and forth.

EDITOR WROTE: We do not think that we are any better than anyone. We believe in humanity. We believe all humans are equal under the law

ANSWER:ERMM have you read your your forefront message, we hate islam. If you hate islam you hate the people that follow it. If you hate islam you hate the people that practice it. And than you have the mouth to we belive all humans are equal. Obviously in your pathetic mind you dont consider muslims as humans but seem to class them as a different type of being. It is islam that belives in equality.

ISLAM TEACHES LAW OF EQUALITY IN RELIGION

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

ISLAM TEACHES LAW OF EQUALITY BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN

Quran 3:195 tells us :

"Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you MALE OR FEMALE, YOU ARE EQUAL TO ONE ANOTHER........."

ISLAM TEACHES EQUALITY BETWEEN PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT CASTS:

Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (Not that you may despise each other). Qur’an 49:13

Hadiths that support this

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

ISLAM EVEN GIVES EQUALITY IN PUNISHMENT

2:178 O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder; the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.

2:179 In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) life to you, o ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves.

So editor where these equality laws were set over 1400 years ago. Even today you get racist nations and racism and equality was only established in modern first world countries less than 50 years ago.

EDITOR WROTE: 2. Please note that Hitler was not a devout Christian as you claim. Christ was a pacifist to the core. Hitler was an extreme opposite of that. The same applies to Timothy Mcveigh. he was not a good American as you claim. he was just another criminal. Please check your facts before making grand claims.

ANSWER: This is just showing double standards. One standard for muslim and the other for non-muslims. How do you know bin laden was a devout muslim, he used to be one of the biggest traders with the bush family and america. They used to trade millions and millions of dollars per year.

How do you know saddam hussein was a devout muslim. A devout muslim wouldnt gas his fellow muslim, a devout muslim wouldnt wage war on his muslim brothers over worldly materials, a devout muslim would certantly not sleep with different gals

But you say that these people were extremists because they come from a muslim nation. And there for you classify everyone as islamic extremists. But hitler came from a christian nation, he wasnt a devout religious person so you completely ignor the fact of christianity. But you only fool yourselves as there were many if not all the solders that were fighting were CHRISTIANS.

You dont call the IRA as christian terroists although they are commiting terrorist acts in the name of christianity, which is either catholic or protestant.

You people have pure double standards.

EDITOR WROTE: Let me reword this question in a different way: we know many great stories about Muhammad and his bandits. Let me quote some stories, all supported from authentic Islamic sources. I would like you, if you don’t mind, to read them, and explain to me, and believe me I=2 0am a simple man, how such stories show that “Islam guides to truth”:

ANSWER: Mate why dont you read the hadiths from the start of the story, and not start reading out mid way through whereby you only take out bits that would suit your needs. You really are pathetic in your attempt to try and fool people.

I will give you one example you wrote:

Narrated Ibn Aun:

I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army.

ANSWER: IF YOU READ THE OTHER HADITHS IN RELATION TO THIS STORY YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THESE PEOPLE SOUGHT ALLIANCES WITH OTHER TRIBES AND WERE MOUNTING A SURPRISE ATTACK ON THE MUSLIMS. MUHAMMED FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ATTACK AND THEREFORE ORDERED HIS MEN TO ATTACK.

EDITOR i am 100 percent sure you knew this and I am also 100% sure you know the counter arguments to the other hadiths you mention. But obviously with your heart full of hatred you would want other people to start hating.

Hmm let us take it the moslem way!
First the context is different and you are quoting out of context.
The life of a non moslem is certainly more than the dumb, stupid idiotic cretinoid moslems.Simply because the contribution to the society by a non moslem is constructive and useful.On the contrary the contribution of a moslem to the society is destructive, useless and dangerous.A moslem wants to eliminate all the non moslems and so is doubly dangerous.
Now even if Ali sina has made two slightly differing and contradictory statements in two different places, he is not saying he is god unlike the pimp allah and his rapist pedophile mohammad

Now for the first time mullahs, ayatollahs etc have to debate especially after muslims even coming to the west are creating trouble for the simple non-muslims.
Muhammed was too cunning, as some people started questioning his verses. He put the verses 109.1, 109.2, 109.3 etc also send assasin to kill many.
Also muhammed mixed some good verses in mecca lifted from Bible or other prevalant teaching there.
Why cant they follow Bahai etc other better prophets who never looted, did rape or killed people by hiring assasins?
Due to islam , its sure middle east will face more wars. As population is exploding, water level is decreasing, people are lethargic and cruel, quran teachings making them incapable for rational thinking and huge wastage of time.
Islam is good at teaching hatred and a war mongering book towards infidels. It hardly teaches any other good things like to do business or agriculture etc. Yemen is already facing civil war and hope it spills over to saudi arabia and they should also taste the hatred of quran

To PK:

You said:

Now even if Ali sina has made two slightly differing and contradictory statements in two different places, he is not saying he is god unlike the pimp allah and his rapist pedophile mohammad

I say:

Are you f***ing kiddin me?

How the hell are those two statements "Slightly" different. They are f***ing world's apart from each other. The other thing is the statement's concern a FUNDAMENTAL stance as posited by FFI and This FUNDAMENTAL stance is contradictory!!! They haven't got historical dates wrong! They haven't got the names of people wrong! They haven't got sources wrong!

They have got the very foundational notion upon which FFI is supposed to rally the world wrong!

The f***ing irony is that YOU then call Muslims Blind Followers and Blind Defenders of their faith. There are definately BLIND DEFENDERS on this site, and it sure ain't the Muslim's dude.

I don't think hate is the way. I am however a strong believer in freedom to criticise any ideology, religion and politics or social economics.

What is really ridiculous is when you try to debate with some muslims, they automatically start being abuse claiming, it is there right because by criticising or even taking a critical angel rather than blind faith or merely pointing out the obvious or the contradictions, that the critic has offended 1,5 billion people. Great, who made the single muslim a speaker/representative on behalf of a people who are divided into various of sects and way of faith.

This makes it difficult to practise freedom of speech, through that criticize and thus change things. No wonder the whole Durban II conference was so popular with all muslinms countries and such, because they sought to make the cleverly invented "islamophobia" a crime in the same way as anti-semitism. On one hand this competition with jews and on other hand the sickening hate towards jews (see various of anti semitic hadith asking to kill every single jew) is strange.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808301838/homeland-security/qhadith-of-h...

One can only guess if this hadith had its wording changed with muslim instead of jew, what the reaction would be.

What is notable is the constant assumed "victim role" in order to resist any criticism or any negative views. Either one should agree 100% in order to be "accepted" or disagree and be called a bigot.

No religion is immune to criticism and majority of the "believers" need to understand that. If your faith or religious views can not handle being challenged then they must not be very strong or credible.

Now even in european countries muslim representatives are encouraging and working towards restriction on freedom of speech for Islam, so that neither reform minded muslim nor non-muslim critics may criticize or even attempt to promote other views.

In light of that imagine the muslim who wrote FF, and how quickly her/his voice would be choked because what she/he says (rejection of hadith) would be percieved as an insult (blesphemic towards Islam.

I have no desire to hate anybody but when evil things happen justifed in the name of religion, prophets, holy books and can actually be proven to have a religious link, then it is justified to criticize. I do not believe things can be changed by adopting the victim role and resist criticism. On the contrary.

But unfortunately many western non-muslims are beginning to buy into this whole blasphemy consideration crap too. Politicians, commentators, law makers, media, academics and the common man and woman.

Recently there is the incident at Yale. Book published without cartoons out of fear. So if you scare somebody enough, you get your way. Violence and threats pay - that is the signal being given. Nobody points out the fact that people who threat othes into submission are in fact the wrong doers.

Yale submits to threats:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/KlausenStatement.asp

Threats on Egyptian Muslim feminist due to her support to freedom of speech:

http://meretzusa.blogspot.com/2009/09/threat-over-danish-cartoons-column...

Same said Muslim criticizes Yale's decision:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR200908...

A british soap get critisized when depicting a Muslim Gay kising on the show:

"The Muslim community deserves a character that represents them to the wider public because Islamophobia is so great right now" .."(the soap) lost an opportunity to present a normal friendly Muslim character to the British public"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8072720.stm

Religious minorities in muslim countries are persecuted. Again freedom of speech and the right to be different are under severe threat." (so in effect there are no gay Muslims. Does anybody remember the words of Ahmadinejad when said "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country". From Iran to the UK - the basic idea is the same. Homophobia. But "islamophobia" is of course the real problem to the muslim representatives. The hypocrisy is outstanding.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8072720.stm

Kabirlaw.

I hope you will be unequivocal from now on, when your god says he is the most merciful and cares for his creation I'm sure you take to your bones that god said a factual thing, now when your god promises an eternal B-B-Q for all infidels do you see any contradiction there? an infidel born in the Islam unconquered country is a normal human that is supposed to be Allah's creation, therefore he/she is inclusive in the merciful ways of allah, yet allah will burn the unbelievers as confirmed in his book, this contradict allah's love/mercy for mankind.

Now for your miscomprehension of Ali sina's stance, the two statements are here: one from the disclaimer and the other from Ali sina, the former says " we don't think we are better than anyone so also everyone has equal rights under the law" now this is from the disclaimer, Ali then said "I value the life of a non-muslim more than that of a Muslim" now let me introduce a similar scenario here, if I say "every citizen has the same right under the law" then in another discussion I say "I give more value to my children than Kabirlaw's children" I don't even need to tell people that, how could these two statement be caught wanting, in the first place, "equality" and "value" shouldn't be confused, while Sina believes all human beings are equal and should be treated equally, it is his prerogative to put value on people, putiing more value to people does not negate the right of all people, it is a human primitive instinct to have favorites, but that does not mean he/she will hate others, you personally will put more value on someone who helps you out whenever you are in a dire need of assistance than on someone who shuns you and even hates your guts, yes? another one will be, all destitudes deserve some help, that is, they have equal right to get help, but you may probably choose to help a certain group of destitudes because your conscience pulls you more towards their type of suffering.

Well said Busted Divinity

Peace to all, especially good Muslims out there

BUSTED DIVINITY WROTE: if I say “every citizen has the same right under the law” then in another discussion I say “I give more value to my children than Kabirlaw’s children”

ANSWER: What a stupid answer. Obviously you will value your children over someone elses children. What has that got to do with what ali sina says.

OK who will you value more. Your wife or your mum?
If you said everyone is equal but i value my mum over my wife. hOW DO YOU THINK YOUR WIFE WOULD REACT OR VICE VERSA. STUPID COUNTER ARGUMENTS.

Ali sinas Words are contradicting each other. How can you view everyone equal but than you divide people into scets according to their beliefs.

Its like Hitler saying I view everyone as equals but i value the life of a white person over a black person.
Or i value the life of a christian person over a jew.

Do you see anything wrong with it.

Hey LS
Have you read Mumin Salih's article that the editor at the bottom of this article suggests. It seems that Hadith is much more believable than Koran. How about that ! I don't think that you can refute that. One has to be honest to the truth
Peace brother

LS (1st post) you wrote: "If you hate islam you hate the people that follow it."
That really depends on your mindset. In Christianity there is the saying "Hate the sin but not the sinner."
If a person has that "Christian" mindset (or a similar one for those of other faiths inc. atheism), then your sentence is not a sequitur.
Mind you, I can understand why you said what you said from 2 points of view:
1. Some 'contributors' here do re-post the same (what in UK would be called 'hate-speech') 'comment' ad nauseam in thread after thread.
2. Islam has come pretty 'hateful' things to say about Jews/Christians/non-believers, which certainly has created a viciously anti-semitic (in particular) mindset amongst many Muslims. Thus, I suppose, you might expect non-muslims to feel the same way about muslims.

I think that most people here know muslims that they like and respect. In fact I think that the most common emotion regarding Muslims here is sorrow - because we believe that you are utterly mis-guided.

You quoted K2:256 as evidence for 'equality of religion'. But this is far from all the Koran has to say about religion. eg K9:29 which commands muslims to 'fight the unbeliever' here meaning non-muslim 'until they pay the Jizya and feel themselves humiliated'. There are also hadith such as Muslim 4:4294, Bukhari 53:386, Ishaq 956 that show that non-Muslims only get tolerance for their religion (rather than equality) if they pay Jizya.

You claim: 'ISLAM TEACHES LAW OF EQUALITY BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN' (k3:195)
Well, you certainly have a sense of humour, LS. Or should hat be irony?
There are many verses eg 4:11, 4:34, 4:176, 2:228, 2:282, 24:31 and Hadith eg Bukhari 6:301, 2:28, Ishaq 593 which suggest otherwise.

You state: 'ISLAM TEACHES EQUALITY BETWEEN PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT CASTS:
Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (Not that you may despise each other). Qur’an 49:13'
May I point out that the section in () is an interpolation into the Yousaf Ali text, not supported by either Pickthall or Shakir.

I also have to disagree with you with respect to Hitler.
It is known that Hitler was trying to set up his own religion based on the Ancient Teutonic religions (look at the SS rites). the Editor's point about Christ's pacifism vs Hitler's violence is also valid.
What we are comparing is not just Hitler v Bin Laden (a toss up as to which is worst!) but whether Hitler's actions and Bin Laden's actions are in agreement with their proposed spiritual leaders.
Thus, when we compare Bin Laden v Mohammed we find (at minimum) echoes of the one in the other; when we compare Christ v Hitler their attitudes are opposite.
Now I don't see what relevance Bin Laden's trading with America is. Are you suggesting that only good (or bad) people trade with the USA? Come to that the US traded with Germany right up to the outbreak of WWII, does that somehow exonerate Hitler? I think this line of reasoning is false.

Where I do find myself in agreement with you, LS (yes, really) is with respect to Saddam Hussein.
He never even had the trappings (as Bin Laden surely does) of a 'devout Muslim'.
However, your argument then goes astray when you say 'a devout muslim wouldnt wage war on his muslim brothers'.
Ayatollah Khomeini (a very devout muslim according to his lights) used children as 'living mine-sweepers' in the Iran-Iraq war. Is that the action of a 'good' muslim? He thought so, doubtless promising each young lad his 72 virgins in the after life (even if some were too young to even know what to do with them).

Now in WWII of course the soldiers doing the fighting were Christian. But remember what the Allied side was fighting for: freedom.
the Allies did not fight to impose a belief system on the World (unlike the Nazis), nor to persecute / exterminate 'undesirables (Jews, disabled etc).
Of all the wars in which Christians have participated, WWII is the easiest to defend under the 'justifiable war' concept.
So I think that you picked the wrong target here.

Now the IRA: have you actually read any of the history of this, LS?
If you had you would know that the IRA were fighting for a unified Ireland (Eire). The fact that the divide about Ireland was 'religious' in nature is secondary to the main motives of the IRA.
Catholic versus Protestant was a convenient handle on which to polarise and define the divide.
Neither did the IRA chant "God is great" or "Deus Vult" or "God wills it" when they shot or blew up people.
Certainly they killed protestants at random (and the UDA etc returned the compliment) but the purpose of terror is to terrorise (something with which Mo was familiar I think?). It also proved pointless - as the Good Friday accords showed.
what I don't understand LS is why you used the IRA. Now, if I'd wanted to pick on a 'Christian' terrorist organisation I'd choose the LRA (Lords Resistance Army) the Sudan-backed terrorists operating in Uganda - they make the IRA look like a bunch of pacifists when it comes to simple viciousness.

WIth regard to the story about the Bani Mustaliq LS, which Hadith had you in mind?
I've read Buk.46:717, Sah.4:1101 and 19:4292 and they do not support your claim.

---

Kabirlaw:
On the face of it Ali Sina has made two quite contradictory statements.
'We do not think that we are any better than anyone. We believe in humanity. We believe all humans are equal under the law.'
'I value the life of non-Muslims a lot more than what I value the life of a Muslims.'

Now, if this was a complete quote I'd agree with you. But let's see what Ali SIna said in full in the second quote:
' I value the life of non-Muslims a lot more than what I value the life of a Muslims. Why? It is because the non-Muslims [who] contribute to science and to advancement of human civilization. They are the real humans. Muslims only destroy the civilization. '

Now we see that in the first case he is referring to equality in law and in the second to value in the context of 'benefit/progress' to society.
In other words Ali Sina thinks more highly of non-muslims than muslims because it is his belief that they provide a greater contribution to humanity.

Now, we might argue about whether this second statement of Ali Sina's is correct or not, but he is entitled to his opinion about the value of Islamic contributions to society, whilst still maintaining that Muslims should have equality under the law and/or that they, as individuals, are neither better nor worse than others.

Nice try, Kab, but it doesn't fly.

Koran was never compiled during the life time of muhammad. The same is true with Hadith. However the Hadiths may be more genuine as they were compiled by Historians who collected the reports from die-hard followers of muhammad and they will not lie. All the misdeeds and the acts of bigotry including the killings & intolerence is unfortunately the Sunnah followed till this date by the muslims. Koran on its own is incomprehensible and it needs the crutches of hadith and falsification of previously established doctrines which existed centuries earlier.

To BD:

Whose doing the linguistic gymnastics now?

You so stupidly said:

Now for your miscomprehension of Ali sina’s stance, the two statements are here: one from the disclaimer and the other from Ali sina, the former says ” we don’t think we are better than anyone so also everyone has equal rights under the law” now this is from the disclaimer, Ali then said “I value the life of a non-muslim more than that of a Muslim” now let me introduce a similar scenario here, if I say “every citizen has the same right under the law” then in another discussion I say “I give more value to my children than Kabirlaw’s children” I don’t even need to tell people that, how could these two statement be caught wanting, in the first place, “equality” and “value” shouldn’t be confused, while Sina believes all human beings are equal and should be treated equally, it is his prerogative to put value on people, putiing more value to people does not negate the right of all people, it is a human primitive instinct to have favorites, but that does not mean he/she will hate others, you personally will put more value on someone who helps you out whenever you are in a dire need of assistance than on someone who shuns you and even hates your guts, yes? another one will be, all destitudes deserve some help, that is, they have equal right to get help, but you may probably choose to help a certain group of destitudes because your conscience pulls you more towards their type of suffering.

I say:

Before this post of yours I actually thought that you were an independent thinking maverick. I now am convinced that you are nothing of the sort and have just a small a brain as the likes of Ibnsahr and Pooo. Let me answer your ludicrous reasoning.

The key words are EQUAL UNDER THE LAW and VALUE.

The disclaimer (your words- makes me laugh abit) makes clear that FFI "official" position is that ALL humans are equal under the law. The statement used by the Editor also states "You think we say that we are BETTER than Muslims. This is a twisted logic. And the good old Doctor Ali Sina has said today that he values non Muslim lives more than Muslim lives.

You now throw up a mighty big red herring and you use the concept of a parent's love for his or her child and the natural connection that a parent would feel for his or her own child over the children of others. THIS IS CALLED PULLING WOOL OVER PEOPLE'S EYES.

Equal under the law means equal in ALL respects since the statement does not refer to a parent's love for his/her children but the broader category of HUMANS. Now, if a building was on fire and there were 5 children trapped inside, a mother or father would naturally be more concerned for their OWN child and would give PRIORITY in saving one's own child as opposed to the other children. This is because of an emotional and instinctive bond the parent shares with their own kin. This has NOTHING to do with being EQUAL under the law and this has NOTHING to do with that parent's child having MORE VALUE than the other children. It is a naturally selfish position. UNDER THE LAW AND AS PER THE DISCLAIMER even if the parent prioritises his/her own child's safety DOES NOT MEAN that that particular child has MORE VALUE than the child that was not saved.

Now, Ali Sina is not talking about HIS emotional attachment to HIS children when he made his statement, he has, in fact, made a MASSIVE contradictory statement which he cannot get out of. He was talking about MUSLIMS as compared to NON MUSLIMS. People he hasnt met, talked to or ever seen in his life. HE CATEGORISED people into two distinctive groups and said one group of humans had MORE VALUE to their LIVES than the other group simply because of their faith or lack of it.

I'll put things into perspective for you. If a building was on fire and there was a Muslim child, and a Secularist man trapped inside. Mr Ali Sina does not know any of them personally but he knows that one is a Muslim and the other is a non Muslim. In ALI Sina's nation because of his attaching more value to the non muslims he would be concerned about saving the man and not the Muslim child. Now, when you read the disclaimer or the Editor's statement aren't both people supposed to be equal. (In Islam a child would actually be a priority regardless of faith).

Take even the example of the children you mentioned. The law actually recognises human tendencies. In a court of law a Judge cannot sit in certain cases where the accused or party to a hearing is known to him or her. A Judge cannot sit on a case involving a family member so that these natural familial tendencies do not cloud his/her judgement and the decision is FAIR. This is only in cases of family members and people who are personally known to the Judge. It does not involve cases where the accused may possess a different religion to the Judge because in a secular jurisdiction this is not a factor which bears ANY RELEVANCE and to take faith as a factor in the decision making would render the decision UNFAIR and NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.

Moreover, if the Judge placed MORE VALUE on the life of a non-Muslim then he would be inclined to give the non Muslim LESS of a sentence than the MUSLIM for the same crime simply because the Judge attached MORE value to the life of the non-Muslim than the Muslim's.

So when the disclaimer says EQUAL it made itself very clear it stated that WE DO NOT BELIEVE A HUMAN IS LESS BETTER OR LESS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF FAITH (generally). The Editor goes further than this and confirms that when the muslim accused FFI of partial treatment against Muslims he/she retorted "THIS IS A TWISTED LOGIC" (thus negating the accusation).

You say EQUAL and VALUE are different. Indeed they different words with different meanings. But in this context of fairness and for FFI to stick to its vivid statement to be EQUAL UNDER THE LAW - THERE SHOULD NOT BE A HIGHER VALUE PLACED ON NON-MUSLIMS. FULL STOP. Ali Sina should really not have said what he said if he was genuine about HIS OWN mission statement.

EQUAL UNDER THE LAW MEANS JUST THAT. EQUAL. EVEN THE VALUE IS EQUAL.

More generally:
I have some sympathy with "Quranite" moslems.

let's be frank here: the Hadith are in general are more hate-filled than the Koran.
Whilst I think it is indistupable that the Hadith are very reliable (multiple Isnads to the similar matn show this), what they really provide evidence for is the thinking of 3rd Islamic century Moslems. Whether many/any are truly from Mohammed is debatable, as we have little or no 'paper trail' reaching behind Bukhari and Muslim (except for Malik's 40 Hadith, if I remember correctly - on the Sunni side at least).

Similarly, it is known that Ibn Ishaq just wrote down everything and anything he heard about Mo without any evaluation and Ibn Hisham simply quoted verbatim, although he reduced what must have been an utterly impossibly large tome (esp before printing) to manageable size.

Thus the Hadith are late (~250 years) and therefore probably unreliable and the Sirah, even in redacted form, is too uncritical to provide reliable evidence for what Mo really thought.

the Koran, whatever its faults in compilation, is the earliest source material we have to reflect the 'mind of Mohammed' and as such is the best guide we have available.

Thus the argument can be made that Hadith and Sirah - and hence Sharia - should be ditched as unreliable and a 'reformed' Islam built on the foundations of the Koran alone.

This, coupled with 'reformist' understanding of the Koran driven by genuine and unbaised scholarly apprasal of the text, which might actually allow us a greater understanding of both text and compilation would offer a real hope of reform within Islam.

However, there are numerous problems for "quranites" to grapple with, amongst which are:
1. they must give up many cherished Islamic notions - including such 'core values' as "the Quran is the [literal] word of God" and the 'revelatory' nature of the Koran.
2. they will have to find new ways of defining their ceremonies - these aren't detailed in the Koran.
3. they have 1100+ years of ossified theology to overcome along with deep-rooted legal systems.
4. They will need to make a division between state and Church (here in its original meaning as the "believing people"), since the forms of Islamic governance used are entrenched and extra-quranic.
5. A massive 'de-veneration' of the early Muslims will be needed, right back to and including the "companions", otherwise the 'instantaneous' collapse of 'original Islam' is utterly inexplicable.
6.The risk "cherry-picking" the Hadith etc (this would merely rehash today the exercise of Bukhari et al) in order to bolster their Koran interpretation - a self-defeating approach (but tempting even so).

If this lady was a Christian then she was a Christian in name only.

She is nothing but a mindless drone and can't even think straight.

To Jonc:

You say:

Now, if this was a complete quote I’d agree with you. But let’s see what Ali SIna said in full in the second quote:
‘ I value the life of non-Muslims a lot more than what I value the life of a Muslims. Why? It is because the non-Muslims [who] contribute to science and to advancement of human civilization. They are the real humans. Muslims only destroy the civilization. ‘

Now we see that in the first case he is referring to equality in law and in the second to value in the context of ‘benefit/progress’ to society.
In other words Ali Sina thinks more highly of non-muslims than muslims because it is his belief that they provide a greater contribution to humanity.

Now, we might argue about whether this second statement of Ali Sina’s is correct or not, but he is entitled to his opinion about the value of Islamic contributions to society, whilst still maintaining that Muslims should have equality under the law and/or that they, as individuals, are neither better nor worse than others.

I say:

Mate, He f**ked up. Plain and simple. He DID NOT say "I value the life of non-muslims who contribute to civilisation/society over the lives of Muslims who do not" Which "according to expressing an opinion" COULD be acceptable.

On the contrary, his statement first revealed an embedded pre-supposition and assumption (preconceived notion of the inferiority of Muslims) that Muslims (ALL of them because he did not differentiate between them) DO NOT/HAVE NOT contributed to civilisation/society. His second supposition/assumption was that NON-MUSLIMS DO contribute to civilisation/society. Then BASED ON THIS FARCICAL ASSUMPTION he CONCLUDED that the lives of NON-MUSLIMS (all of them, no matter how shitty) have more VALUE than the lives of MUSLIMS (no matter how contributory).

Even going by your logic are you telling me that the life of a disabled person (who cannot contribute to society because of his disability) who lives on state hand outs is less valuable than the life of a multi-millionaire businessman who pays taxes.

Nice try, Jonc, You know exactly what Ali Sina has done, whichever way you look at it, it does fly.

JONC WROTE: That really depends on your mindset. In Christianity there is the saying “Hate the sin but not the sinner.”
If a person has that “Christian” mindset (or a similar one for those of other faiths inc. atheism), then your sentence is not a sequitur.

ANSWER: What has this got to do with hating islam hence hating muslims. how can you tell me you hate islam an not simultaneously saying you hate muslims since they are the only followers of islam and practise what the islam teaches. They are the only people that are following the guidelines of islam not the jews or christians. You hate the teachings of islam hence you must hate the people who are following the teachings of islam.

If i say I hate the party BNP, because they are facists, they hate blacks, they hate evey single thing about foreigners, dont you think I would hate the people who follow that particular group because they also hate forigners and they are facists and so on.

JONC WROTE: 2. Islam has come pretty ‘hateful’ things to say about Jews/Christians/non-believers, which certainly has created a viciously anti-semitic (in particular) mindset amongst many Muslims. Thus, I suppose, you might expect non-muslims to feel the same way about muslims.

ANSWER: Mate thats where your wrong. Islam doesnt say pretty hate ful things about these particular sects. It only teaches what bad things that the jews and christinas did. Likewise the bible also teaches what the jews did. As a matter of fact this is what the quran says:

[5:82] You will find that the worst enemies of the believers are the Jews and the idol worshipers. And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian." This is because they have priests and monks among them, and they are not arrogant.

So we belive that the christians are the closet people of friendship.

JONC WROTE: g K9:29 which commands muslims to ‘fight the unbeliever’ here meaning non-muslim ‘until they pay the Jizya and feel themselves humiliated’. There are also hadith such as Muslim 4:4294, Bukhari 53:386, Ishaq 956 that show that non-Muslims only get tolerance for their religion (rather than equality) if they pay Jizya.

ANSWER: According to the commentary of the Qur’an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali [1281], “the root meaning of Jizyah is compensation. The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam (Protection against surrounding Christian Crusaders and Pagans) and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State.”

Non-Muslims under the Shariah would pay Jizyah in an Islamic country just as the Muslims give obligatory Zakat. In return, non-Muslims will have the rights of protection of their lives and their properties in an Islamic State. The Jizyah is a small sum of money indeed when compared to the services the Muslim State offers to protect non-Muslims and support the army in charge to keep them safe from others’ assaults.

Moreover, non-Muslims are not obliged or compelled to participate in the Military services. They are exempted from military services. On the other hand, the Muslims in spite of paying Zakat cannot escape the responsibility of military services and activities in an Islamic country and they have to respond to the call as and when called upon to do so.

If a non-Muslim wishes to render any military services voluntarily, then he will be exempted of the Jizyah tax. (Al-Tabari, Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Javir, Tarikh al-Tabari, vol.1, pp, 2497, 2665.) In other words, men of military age, would be excused from joining the army in exchange for paying Jizyah. Infact, in case of failure on the part of the Muslim ruler in protecting the life and property of non-Muslim citizens, he would have to return the Jizyah collected from them. An example in this regard can be given of Khalid bin Walid, an outstanding military genius of Islam. Since Khalid had failed to protect the city of the Christians of Homs (Emesa), as he did not posses the power to repel the attacks of the Christian Byzantine Emperor Heraclius on Homs, he returned to them their taxes. Thus said Khalid to them:

These are statement:

“We accepted (the Jizyah) as a token of your good will and in return for defending you, but (in this), we have failed (you)
(Azzam, Abd al-Rahman, The Iternal Message of Muhammad, Newyork, 1965, p. 62. For further details, see Mabsut, vol. 10, pp. 78-79. )

An example of non-Muslims rights is found in the life of Caliph Umar (RA) who was stabbed by a Zoroastrian (the fire worshipper) named Abu Lu’Lu. In spite of lying on his deathbed, he admonished his successor in the following words: “…I recommend him (his successor) to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (Non-Muslims under the Shariah) of Allah and His Messenger, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities.

(Sahih Bukhari, vol. 2, hadith No. 475)

So to sum it up JONC the non-muslims in muslim territory actually have a much cosier lifestyle than the muslims due to the following reasons
1. THEY PAY NO ZAKAT UNDER MUSLIM RULE WHICH ALL MUSLIMS HAVE TO PAY
2. THEY ARE PROTECTED BY THE MUSLIMS
3. THEY DO NOT NEED TO FIGHT IF A WAR IS WAGED.
4. THEY ARE EXEMPTED FROM THIS TAX IF THEY FIGHT AND PAY ZAKAT.

So now you tell me JONC who has more benfits in muslim territory. The non muslim or the muslim. Who has more freedom and choice. The non muslim or muslim. Please you sensible logic for your answer.

JONC WROTE: You claim: ‘ISLAM TEACHES LAW OF EQUALITY BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN’ (k3:195)
Well, you certainly have a sense of humour, LS. Or should hat be irony?
There are many verses eg 4:11, 4:34, 4:176, 2:228, 2:282, 24:31 and Hadith eg Bukhari 6:301, 2:28, Ishaq 593 which suggest otherwise.

ANSWER: JONC you should actually read the verses in context or you should use common logic to see why the quran states such a thing. I will use the verse verse you state as an example:

[4:11] GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female.* If the inheritors are only women, more than two, they get two-thirds of what is bequeathed. If only one daughter is left, she gets one-half. The parents of the deceased get one-sixth of the inheritance each, if the deceased has left any children. If he left no children, and his parents are the only inheritors, the mother gets one-third. If he has siblings, then the mother gets one-sixth. All this, after fulfilling any will* the deceased has left, and after paying off all debts. When it comes to your parents and your children, you do not know which of them is really the best to you and the most beneficial. This is GOD's law. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

Using common logic and other quran verses:

Generally, the son is responsible for a family, while the daughter is taken care of by a husband. However, the Quran recommends in 2:180 that a will shall be left to conform with the specific circumstances of the deceased. For example, if the son is rich and the daughter is poor, one may leave a will giving the daughter everything, or twice as much as the son.

So jonc try actually reading the verses yourself and dont pick and choose from other websites. Do you see now why the son is given more than the daughter. Ask yourself this question, who will look after your daughter when she gets married and who will take responsibility when your son gets married. So if it was up to you and you left a will, who would you generally give more to. Your daughter or your son, knowing that your daughter is being cared more by her husband but your son is looking after himself and his family.

JONC WROTE: You state: ‘ISLAM TEACHES EQUALITY BETWEEN PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT CASTS:
Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (Not that you may despise each other). Qur’an 49:13′
May I point out that the section in () is an interpolation into the Yousaf Ali text, not supported by either Pickthall or Shakir.

ANSWER: Does it matter if that is added by different translators or not, the first section is there. Which says so that you may recognise each other. Further more its backed by the hadith I stated. You seemed to have completely ignored that. I wonder WHY?

JONC WROTE: Ayatollah Khomeini (a very devout muslim according to his lights) used children as ‘living mine-sweepers’ in the Iran-Iraq war. Is that the action of a ‘good’ muslim? He thought so, doubtless promising each young lad his 72 virgins in the after life (even if some were too young to even know what to do with them).

ANSWER: Well you cant be a devout muslim if you do such horrendous acts can you. You may be devout in some peoples eyes, but what about in the eys of allah considering the quran teaches that killing a person is like killing the whole of mankind.

JONC WROTE: Now in WWII of course the soldiers doing the fighting were Christian. But remember what the Allied side was fighting for: freedom.
the Allies did not fight to impose a belief system on the World (unlike the Nazis), nor to persecute / exterminate ‘undesirables (Jews, disabled etc).

ANSWER: Does it really matter what the allies were fighting for. The war was started by a chrisitian nation. If christianity teaches love and respect, the soldiers of the war should have had love and respect for each other and not blow up each other.

And this just shows double standards. Cause when the afganis and the iraqis are fighting for their land and natural resources from the americans and all the other chrisitian nations who want a bit of the black gold from them they are called terrorist even though they are protecting their land, woman and resources from INVADERS. But when england and other nations are protecting their land and resources from invaders(germany) they are called freedom fighters. What kind of mentality is that.

JONC WROTE: If you had you would know that the IRA were fighting for a unified Ireland (Eire). The fact that the divide about Ireland was ‘religious’ in nature is secondary to the main motives of the IRA.
Catholic versus Protestant was a convenient handle on which to polarise and define the divide.
Neither did the IRA chant “God is great” or “Deus Vult” or “God wills it” when they shot or blew up people.
Certainly they killed protestants at random (and the UDA etc returned the compliment) but the purpose of terror is to terrorise (something with which Mo was familiar I think?). It also proved pointless – as the Good Friday accords showed.

ANSWER: So are you trying to say just becuas they didnt chant gods name its ok for them to kill and blow people up. They are a terrorist group, followed by radical christians. But they are never called christian terrorists. And if they are fighting for unified ireland, why the hell are they bombing england.

i dont get how you people could justify the two quotes an why you are makin attempts to stand correcting people that the two quotes does teach equality. I will just ask one question which i expect a simple yes or no answer. If i was to say that i believe all brits are equal but i value the life of a white brit over a blak brit. Please respond wit yes or no answer. If u see noting wrong with this statement please explain why you think doesnt black brits are inferior to white brits.

Hmm Let us see if the islam becomes any better if the moslem followers use foul language? I guess it's quite natural for moslems to use filthy language because they read and follow the preachings of a pedophile rapist.I would not expect any thing better from a moslem's mouth.Filth they live in and filth they speak.
Having said all that, the next question is will you accept a criminal as your friend? Will any one accept a rapist and pedophile as a friend and neighbour specially with women and children at home? I guess all human beings are equal and so we should let these pedophiles and rapists ( convicted and punished mind you) .Thats where the problem is.Moslems who follwo the example of a pedophile prophet and rapist are certainly lowest of the low creatures and how can they be the same as non moslems? Any moslem who does not follow the rapist and pimp are welcome in to the club of humanity.

London Spirit and Kabir Law,

Allah sent Muhammed to clear up the corruption in the Bible and the Torrah. The same thing now appears to have happened to the Koran, with various interpretations, particularly from the Crazy Infidels. Add to this the corruption in the Hadiths and Sunna. All these things have twisted a perfectly Peaceful Religion into the worst in the World. Wonder why Allah is not sending Muhammed II to clear up this mess ?? Is it because Allah realises that Muhammed II would be the Target of a Drone Missile, if he tried any of the stunts that Muhammad I so successfully implemented on the poor Infidels of his time ???

So let all the abhramic faith ppl explain.... Why God serverly punish ppl who dont believe their god. but pray to some other god? Shouldnt the god be merciful enough for the attempt made by a person who directly not prays to them but attempts to pray in a different way?

Jonc,

I agree to a great extent with some of what you wrote on Quranities. I think an important question to ask, is, who is protecting these muslims? Being considered a heretic, apostate or just plain "kafir" is a profound stigma. There is an illness among majority of muslims, where they seek to judge each other. People who think or interpret differently are immediately slandered, trashed, attempted discredited, and rejected as possibly authority on Islam i.e. Shia versus Sunni, Sunnis vs. Ahmadiyya, Sunnis vs. Quranities, sufis etc. The view on Ahmadiyya and Quranite resembles greatly, although he latter does not believe in any other messenger or prophet then what is revealed in the Quran (unless you include the sub-quranite sect who follows Rashad Khalifa aka 19'ers ).

The issues which you state, quranities must grapple with, actually open the door to many interesting and positive perspectives and interpretations. They are often known as being progressive and pro-reform. You are right, when you state, that without the hadith, they must define rituals, prayer (salah/supplication), etc. But I think that is good. This gives a person liberty to worship his or her God as they deem right while staying withint the framework of the Quran (i.e. no idol worshipping or shirk etc).

Without the hadith the Quran indeed comes across as quite abstract and be default islam, and open to the differences of opinion and interepretation. Yes this would create diversity but that is already happening, except not people can not be up front about it. They must hide it and pretend to do or believe, something they do not. Times have changed and undoubtedly so has man and his/her way of life and some needs. This needs to be taken into consideration rather than having 7th century man-made hear-say tales full of personal bias, which often contradict Quran if not completely innovate things (bidah) and which have no divine authority to back them up, except what people (scholars) have deemed through interpretation. Bias can not be avoided and neither can imperfect, which is why man is and was inferior to God according to the monoteistic beliefs.

There is an interesting hadith, which of course is disregarded by sunni interpreters as not important, which says "The prophet said:’Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Whoever wrote, must destroy it".

One might also point out that the logic of hadith believers is blind and flawed, as the Quran clearly states it has been revealed as fully detailed scripture. If God, by default, is all-knowing, all-being, uncomparable and perfect, then how can tales recorded by men about a man 250 years after his death, without any divine guarantee, be deemed divine or religious law and account for majority of Sharia then the Quran? So by default one is claiming that God is not perfect, he does not know all, and he clearly did not know how to reveal everything seeing as he needs humans to supplement him? Ergo, God is a liar, when he claims the Quran is detail in full. Ergo such a view can not be viewed as anything but blasphemic thus making hadith believers blasphemic. Furthermore hadith believers have a blind uncritical view when it comes to hadith. You dont question it for the most part, especially seeing as no Muslim to date has probably ever read all the volumes of just Bukhari or Muslim. When faced with clearly illogical or unfair hadith such as pro-rape, anti-semitism, racism, femaleinferiority (misogynism), killings of apostates etc, the usual response is well they probably did something to provoke that or other negations or beat around the bush acts. If applied to real life instances, much of such hadith would fall under criminal offences on an international scale.

It is all very interesting but due to the traditional muslim lobbying, nobody of authority is even remotely concerned with such groups of muslims, who are heavily persecuted especially in their country of origin. i.e. Shia ismailis have their mosques (jamaatkhanas) burnt, christians have their churches burnt and girls forced converted and forced married to muslims or worse, raped until they convert, quranities are seens as apostates and well they fate is pretty straight forward, as hadith claim that any apostate must be killed. Unless he/she repents and turns back to Islam. So rather have a hypocrit than a non-believer?

It is disturbing when one reads reader letters of support from normal non-muslim in favour of Muslims and they too have adopted the same mode of traditional mentality, which views muslim minorities such as stated, as being heretics and not "real" muslims. That is worrying. In europe there have been incidents of such both by politicians as well as academics and professors specialized in arabic, islam without being Muslim. The intolerence from major group of Muslims is now also manifesting itself in people who would be expected to display a more neutral view without bias. So the question remains, who is protecting the muslim minorities like quranites. The police wont record complaints and the media won't highlight the issues. Just my two cents.

Interesting debate though:)

To Jonc

I've just realised that you inserted the word "WHO" with brackets into Ali Sina's quote in your above post to me. Nice trick pal, the problem is even if you unilaterally, without permission from Sina, insert that word into HIS sentence it just doesnt make any sense and actually messes up the sentence. You probably know that and so I'm probably just wasting my time here trying to make you people see sense in two quotes that were written in PLAIN English.

You people will stop at nothing to blindly support this guy. No problems though, if you think that Ali Sina meant something else it might actually be an idea to ask him first before you start to meddle with his "golden words." By the way, if you don't believe ME because I'm a Muslim just ask an English language teacher whether what you just changed above makes any sense at all.

Just to refresh your memory, below is Ali Sina's FULL quote:

And yes. just as Muslims value the life of a Muslim more than the life of a kafir, which is actually worth nothing for them, I value the life of non-Muslims a lot more than what I value the life of a Muslims. Why? It is because the non-Muslims contribute to science and to advancement of human civilization. They are the real humans. Muslims only destroy the civilization.

I say:

Now that's pretty plain and simple to me, and to my 3 year old nephew.

How can u depend on the Quran. Imagine reading a Quran without the jews/christian texts and hadiths.

Now can what can be said about Adam, Abaraham, Moses, Jesus or any laws/history. I doubt you can infer anything. So it is inferior in terms of being a Book compared to the Bible or Torah. And isnt it written that the Torah and Gospel was given by Allah ? so Is Allah so stupid to give books which humans allegedly corrupted ? And if not, where are these uncorrupted versions (Allah wasnt able to protect it ?).

Also i dont think any Christian can claim that the Gospels were given to Jesus from Allah. They were recorded by ordinary humans (whose name also appears against each one of them).

So the Quran is like bad poetry by a drunk guy

To Londonspirit

Dont worry about it.

It is EXACTLY what I expected from these people. Do you really think Ali Sina or his fan club are going to admit defeat of his challenge when I challenge him. Not a chance. They cannot even bring themselves to accept that Ali Sina has messed up pretty BIG in words that were written in plain and simple English, let alone them accepting that he has lost defending his challenge.

You should check out crackhead Marie's reaction in the other post!

To All Ya'll

I said this to Marie and I will say it to you. You know what the score is.

FFI and Ali Sina have been caught with their pants down and you dont like the sight of their hairy arses!

Now please dont compel me to spoil the rest of my ramadhan, I shall rendevouz with you people after Eid.

Dear London Spirit,

I only read the coments of the Muslims to know how they are defending the indefensible. Most of the people in this site are saying the obvious. Islam is evil. It does not need explanation - it is evil. It needs lot of skills in order to present evil as noble with explanations.

You have good knowledge of Islam , and I wonder how you are still in it. Do you still believe in Day of Judgement, in Mohammed, in Koran,etc. It is surprising. Don't be adamant. Just do some critical analyses yourself. Question yourself - what if Mohammed was wrong and Ali Sina is right. Muslims have shut their brains. Do you really think the God (if there is any) who knows everything about past and future would choose a controversial man like Mohammed to be his messenger and that too a last one. Just use your own thinking and you will get the answer.

All the best to you.

***I value the life of non-Muslims a lot more than what I value the life of a Muslim***

people who follow islam are animals, because they need to be herded and pulled their lead rope, just to show them where to go, they don't have to use their brain to to find the way.

Why should we value the life of people who belive in god that ordered the killing of unbeliever, advocating violence, promoting extra-marrital, even with right hand posses, degrading value of women.

Kabirlaw, if your big brain not fill with rotten S#it, please tell me what is the divine message out of above revelation. even atheist support coexistence peaceful living with others, why we should value muslim when they try to eliminate us.

***Even going by your logic are you telling me that the life of a disabled person (who cannot contribute to society because of his disability) who lives on state hand outs is less valuable than the life of a multi-millionaire businessman who pays taxes***

disable person is not their choice, what the use of multimillion dollar businessman who support the ideology that will bring society into 7th century arabia dessert?, muslim, they judge and reward with material, whores in heaven, getting jiggy under the tree, by the milk and honey river, what a deluded, shallow minded, gullible person, and your proffesion is?

kabir, im sure you can be respectable man, if you're not a muslim, but the way you defending islam, is nothing, but nonsense that you don't even know. where it says in bible that japan and gerrman need to be attacked during WWII, as like religious link to support elimination of jewish state in quran and like all pedo mo's wars.

what contribution?, look at the news the first subway in dubai, the budget blown up 80% more, only 10 out of 29 station finished, you may talk nonsense but look at reallity

Ls,
[5:82] You will find that the worst enemies of the believers are the Jews and the idol worshipers. And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, “We are Christian.” This is because they have priests and monks among them, and they are not arrogant.

speaking arrogant, what about the killer, pedophile, impostor and don't you ever associate jesus' name with islam, muslim you're pedo mo's c*ck worshiper

Ls
***Non-Muslims under the Shariah would pay Jizyah in an Islamic country just as the Muslims give obligatory Zakat. In return, non-Muslims will have the rights of protection of their lives and their properties in an Islamic State. The Jizyah is a small sum of money indeed when compared to the services the Muslim State offers to protect non-Muslims and support the army in charge to keep them safe from others’ assaults***

how much you pay for being muslim in UK, what about taliban, what protection?, what these poor people under assault from if its not from taliban itself, why don't UK government charge you for protection from BNP and EDL, did you even wipe after you crap, its still in your mouth.

look at the non muslim in indonesia who owned a shop in the market, they got double dip, christmas and ied for extortion money, if you chinese, you got triple dip for chinese new year too, they can only get the idea from fillthy quran, so don't give me the crap

***If i was to say that i believe all brits are equal but i value the life of a white brit over a blak brit. Please respond wit yes or no answer. If u see noting wrong with this statement please explain why you think doesnt black brits are inferior to white brits.***

answer NO, its not wrong, you got to be honest and up straight, does the white let the black in or the black let the white in? you got to give credit to where its belong. of course you goto praise brits for letting you in with no jizya, WHY WE ALLLOWED YOU TO BUILD MOSQUE, BUT YOU WILL NOT ALLOWED OTHER WORSHIP PLACE IN SODI BARBARIA

LS,
regarding question on other thread you don't answer,

which one you said authentic, haddihts or used toilet papers?

what the hell muhamed got something to do with intercession like written in quran, if jesus is the judge?
why quran didn’t give slightest idea about someone who will be the judge on judgement day?
where in quran says he will be the judge and back as muslim?

PROUDKAFIR WROTE: Hmm Let us see if the islam becomes any better if the moslem followers use foul language? I guess it’s quite natural for moslems to use filthy language because they read and follow the preachings of a pedophile rapist.I would not expect any thing better from a moslem’s mouth.Filth they live in and filth they speak.

ANSWER: Now i know for a fact, you people are biased and you have no morals to what is the truth and what isnt. The muslims on this site hardly ever use filthy language. contrary to that fact it is you that use filthy language. You use it to an extent that it has come common language between you guys that you dont even recognise that each one of you are repeating the same foul language over and over again in different posts. So who do you follow to practice such foul language, your mum, dad, ali sina?

INDIAN INFIDEL WROTE: Allah sent Muhammed to clear up the corruption in the Bible and the Torrah. The same thing now appears to have happened to the Koran, with various interpretations, particularly from the Crazy Infidels. Add to this the corruption in the Hadiths and Sunna. All these things have twisted a perfectly Peaceful Religion into the worst in the World. Wonder why Allah is not sending Muhammed II to clear up this mess ?? Is it because Allah realises that Muhammed II would be the Target of a Drone Missile, if he tried any of the stunts that Muhammad I so successfully implemented on the poor Infidels of his time ???

ANSWER: Quran aint corrupted, people translate different words differently as arabic is sensitive language and one word can mean different things. So the word of god is not corrupted. Try learn arabic than do your own analysis. Yes hadith can be corrupted, because they are all narrationas and compiled many centuries after the prophet. So it is a chain of sayings which may be right or maybe wrong. So yes this may be corrupted, but we dont assume the hadiths word of god. The hadiths are what the prophet did and said.

And Allah will send two people to clear these mis understandings up during the ends of time. One will be al mahdi and the other is jesus.

So please mate if you dont know anything about islam, dont criticize. And I assume your a hindu, you should try actually looking at the mess of your own religion before you look at others.

RAMAN WROTE: I only read the coments of the Muslims to know how they are defending the indefensible. Most of the people in this site are saying the obvious. Islam is evil. It does not need explanation – it is evil. It needs lot of skills in order to present evil as noble with explanations.

ANSWER: Mate your pathetic. Now do i need an expalnation to call you a pathetic loser. It seems to me i have no proof of you being a pathetic loser but i belive you are anyway.

Makes any logical sense to you that i am calling you this without any prior knowledge of who you are.

RAMAN WROTE: You have good knowledge of Islam , and I wonder how you are still in it. Do you still believe in Day of Judgement, in Mohammed, in Koran,etc. It is surprising. Don’t be adamant. Just do some critical analyses yourself.

ANSWER: I am still in it because i have good knowledge of islam. If i never had good knowledge I would have left the religion when you people take verses out of context. But becuase i have resonable knowledge and a common sense I can see the errors of your hatred.

RAMAN WROTE: Question yourself – what if Mohammed was wrong and Ali Sina is right. Muslims have shut their brains. Do you really think the God (if there is any) who knows everything about past and future would choose a controversial man like Mohammed to be his messenger and that too a last one. Just use your own thinking and you will get the answer.

ANSWER: ok i will ask myself a question. During my engineering studies i learnt a law of thermodynamics stating energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. Knowing this fact and the fact that the world was created with a big bang I can ask myself the question where did this energy come from to create the big bang. Obviously an immense amount of energy would have been required. Why dont you RAMAN ANSWER THIS FOR ME SINCE YOU BELIVE ALI SINA IS RIGHT AND THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

But any way even if i did assume ali sina is right and muhammed is wrong. Than let me analyze. By following muhammed i am promised pradise but by following ali sinas way when i die i will just turn in to dust and nothing will happen. By not following muhammed i am promised hell fire.

So therefore i have nothing to loose by following islam but assuming ali sina is wrong i am promised hell fire so i have all to loose.

Let me see what my brain tells me to follow?

I can belive everyone is still bypassing my question. So pitiful. I will post it again:

I will just ask one question which i expect a simple yes or no answer. If i was to say that i believe all brits are equal but i value the life of a white brit over a blak brit. Please respond wit yes or no answer. If u see noting wrong with this statement please explain why you think doesnt black brits are inferior to white brits.

ibnsahr i dont no how u have the nerve to tell me i have unanswered questions. How many questions have i asked that have yet to remain unanswered to date. I have asked u many questions which you still aint replied to. Why dont you answer to my question above. Lets see if you choose to ignore it or answer it

IBN KAMMUNA.

Hello there, thanks for all those articles.

Kabirlaw.

Many definitions could be out there, I find these close to the point.

Merriam webster dictionary

Value : something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable

Right: .Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality

Right according to the context of our discussion:

"Certain previlages as being automatically a possession of an individual, entity, group or the likes for being a part of a country or any social settings that offer it"

Now those two closely define the terms as related to the discussion.

Man, I hope your brain works a little better now, in your post above to me, you once again made a mess on the usage of words, the key words in the statements of the issue are "value" and Right" but due to your preconceived notion of what type of person Ali Sina is, you attached an extra -dimension to the argument which is :"hate" the moment you read Sina's words talking about more value for non-Muslims and less for Muslims, you equivocated, you didn't care whether by value the sayer was attaching "desirabilty" or "worthiness" as a connotation.

The disclaimer says eveybody has the same right, to anyone reading this, what comes to mind is most likely one of the two definitions or the contextual one right up there, it is true that evry citizen have the same right, but even your religion places more value on Mullahs, yes???? your prophet decided to name four people with the automatic ticket to Jannah because he/Allah put more value on them than the others, but this does not strip away the rights of other Muslims to get to heaven, be careful not to forbid yourself heaven from blind argument.

In some other place, you suggested a situation where an inferno got caught two kids, one Muslim and the other...well the other, you made Sina the fireman, just because Ali sina thinks the life of a non-Muslim is more profitable to his world view does not make him a fireman with an agenda, how many times have you heard the man saying this on FFI " most Muslims are good people" I'm sure you have read it many times, your analogy would be very fitting if you put a MuslimJihadist/terrorist and non-Muslim in that burning house, I myself will rescue the non-Muslim especially if I can verify the fact that the Muslim Jihadist/ terrorist is among the ones that killed four girls in Afghanistan the other day.

To clear your head one more time, let's say all the automobile companies have a right to sell their products in any country, but surprisingly a certain company records very low figures in a certain country, this does not in any way mean that the citizens of that country do not recognize his "RIGHT" to sell his products in their country, what comes into play here is "VALUE"

On the other side, I find you quite amusing, as Muslims, you and Londonspirit Must believe every word of the quran, the book is bulging with verses dicriminating, segregating, outlawing, forbidding and generally putting a halt to any truly human basic social coexistence between the people of Darul Islam and those of Darul harb, the book instruct the destruction of others, forget about putting more Value to people, you people are hypocrites to the core blaming anyone of hate you know what I mean, ok I know how it feels now, you feel as if you got caught ass hanging loose in a court room with bundle of ingested authority unfriendly substance stuck up there, don't worry, life goes on, an opinion is like an asshole, everyone is entitled to theirs.

BD

IBNSHAR WROTE: how much you pay for being muslim in UK, what about taliban, what protection?, what these poor people under assault from if its not from taliban itself, why don’t UK government charge you for protection from BNP and EDL, did you even wipe after you crap, its still in your mouth.

ANSWER: BNP is a candidate for goverment seating. They are no threat, and the eglish defence league is nothing other than uneducated english people getting drunk on the streets and fighting for a cuase that makes no sense. I dont need prtection from these people and nor do any other person living in the United Kingdom.

I am paying everything the same as a christian and i dont get any additional benfits. I pay council tax and I pay salary tax and i also pay national insurance tax, just like any other brit in the UK. I dont get any protection from foreign invaders and If required I may have to join the army.

What did the non muslims pay, just the jizya, no mandatory zakat was put upon them, and they were not even ordered to fight.

You will be damn right stupid if you think they dont recieve any extra benefits.

AND EVERYONE YOU HEARD IT HERE BY A NON-MUSLIM, IF YOU AGREE WITH IBNSAHR YOUR DAMN RIGHT RACIST. HE SAID

''answer NO, its not wrong, you got to be honest and up straight, does the white let the black in or the black let the white in? you got to give credit to where its belong. of course you goto praise brits for letting you in with no jizya, WHY WE ALLLOWED YOU TO BUILD MOSQUE, BUT YOU WILL NOT ALLOWED OTHER WORSHIP PLACE IN SODI BARBARIA''

SO ACCORDING TO IBNSAHR THE BALCKS AND ASIANS ARE INFERIOR TO THE WHITES. WELL DONE MATE, SHOWING YOUR TRUE COLOURS ARE YOU?

And busted divinity stop giving examples, now about auto mobiles. Answer my scenario

The major problem with Islam as related to hate and love is that the Muslims have already decided on one position, by making sharia the only valid human governing concept the Muslims are rendered hostile, this by befault must yield conflicts with other social groups, it takes patience and mostly a been there done that attitude to separate the two, to understand a Muslim, one needs to be one or a thorough study of Islam, as I wrote on another thread, the whole Muslims oftenly pray for the success of Muslims "fi kulli makanin" whereever they are, they just don't care about the rest, it takes the thorough understanding of a brainwashed brain for FFI members to say" Most Muslims are innocent because they are not aware" Mohammad's life as related to his deceits may contain some instances of generalisation of humanity, but watch his next move, the moment one looks at the big picture which is the present violent state of Islam and the past one, the truth comes out.

It is definitely weird to keep defending Islam after knowing all there is to know about it, I used to carefully watch Kabirlaw and Londonspirit's posts in defence of Islam, the backbone of their posts is faith, the points they make are cherry picked, their counter arguments are mostly a contradictory statement, Mohammad says do not take for friends or helpers among the unbelievers, the apologist will say but our prophet commanded good partnership with them, example this and that, Mohammad killed, and ordered killing, they will tell you Bush also killed, as if Bush is to be followed in every action he did, as if Bush's critics are to be killed, as if Bush's issues and commands are for eternity and unchangeable, it is really sad, I hope this threat will die out without too much suffering

Kabirlaw,

Remember that Muslims are going to be measured by the same standards they apply to Ali Sina, Geert Wilders, Islam-critics. Otherwise there would be double standards. You said that you were not against Jews, but against the Zionist ideology. Islam-critics are against the Islamic ideology. Remember, we agree that all must have equal rights, but do you mean to say that Ali Sina cannot value Non-muslims more than Muslims and you cannot value Non-zionists more than Zionists?

LondenSpirit, I know you can't see that a person can love and respect Muslims but at the same time abhor Islam. But in the propagandawar that is going on on the internet, the World, isn't it in the interest of True Muslims, or Radical Muslims, to portray the Islam-critics as racists who are against all Muslims, their whole persons and well-being? With the hidden goal of defending the faith? Is that also your motive?

But it is of crucial importance to realize that adult believing in Islam is a choice, whereas being born into a race is not. I despise Hitler all the more because he tried to eradicate all the Jews, on the criterion that they were born Jews, children and all. But Islam-critics only hold people accountable for their adult life-choices.

Indian infidel

That's funny man, so Mohammad the second could be a target for the drones, I bet Ya.

Don't you think allah will not let the drones strike because there is a special "value" attached to being a prophet than others, hey everyone is equal under the law in terms of getting laid, sure allah said thisd, women are for your pleasures, but Mohammad the first and the second are of more value to allah, they can have almost a dozen, they need some feminine refreshment to preach faster and better, that is of good value to allah, more converts, I think the prophet understand this a little better than some of his followers.

Demsci.

spot on, always of interest, rationalism got no substitute.

LondonSpirit,

I know that you abhor it when people link crimes against humanity done by Muslims to Islam and that you also refrain from linking crimes against humanity done by Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists etc. to their respective religions or beliefs.

Well, I told you we can break this link between crimes done by believers and their belief-system totally, but then Islam was not effective at all in preventing many Muslims to perpetrate their crimes against humanity. So what good did Islam? What was it meant for and did it achieve its goal in 1400 years? Has it not had its chance by now? Is this not cause for modesty and humility? Or how can it perform better? Maybe by internal opposition among Muslims?

Conversely we could also do the opposite and indeed link all crimes against humanity perpetrated by Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists etc. to their respective religions or beliefs. And we explained often to you that were people to do that, they would almost always immediately see a division among the people of each of these religions/ beliefs, in which a part of them would vehemently oppose another part of them. Opposing vehemently their co-religionists. For instance; If the Germans in WWII were Christians, but so where their deadly enemies the Western Allies, and apartheid in South Africa, applied by whites Christians, was abhorred and stopped in part by whites, Christians.

If Non-Muslims link crimes done by Muslims with Islam, Muslims are welcome to do the same vice versa, and then also to react in the same way as the Non-Muslims, namely by dividing, and internal opposition. So that, when FFI/ IW/ Jihad Watch lodges complaints about crimes perpetrated by Muslims, other Muslims in reaction strive to rectify the situations somehow, instead of rejecting Islams responsibility or pointing to the equivalent faults/ flaws/ shortcomings of the other beliefs.

Coming from you, BustedDivinity, that feels great, thanks! I almost always totally agree with your posts! And like to read them. I hope we are 2 of a kind, both preferring reason over revelation.

I heard yesterday that Richard Dawkins new book is out; The greatest show on Earth!

To BD

I've read your post. Stay tuned for the response. I'll take it slowly. Baby steps this time. I promise.

Wink.

To BD:

By the way are you male or female? Just curious.

LS:
I wrote about hating the sinner but not the sin. You clearly did not understand the concept, for which I am sorry.
WRT the BNP: It is not a religion, so the analogy is poor, but actually I don't hate BNP members - though I revile their attitiudes. Despite all ranting to the contrary - they too are human beings, as are Islamic fundamentalists. Both are 'believers' in a corrupt creed, both misled as to the causes of their problems ('non-whites' and the \West\ respectively) but no I don't hate them.
I'm sorry you can't understand this, but I think that says more about you than me.

Ok, so Christians are the \closet\ [sic] to Muslims. Yet, according to Koran they are \not equal\ to the Muslims (39:09), \perverted transgressors\ (3:110, Ali), under \God's wrath\ (1:7 and Bukhari 56:662), if people reject Islam they are \the worst of creatures\ (98:6) and are like dogs (7:176).
Despite being closest to muslims the Koran tells Muslims not to take Christians (or Jews) as friends (3:28, 3:118, 5:51). [You shouldn't even be friends with members of your own family if they are not Muslim (9:23)]

Nice apologia by Ali about the Jizya, (though its interesting that he assumes the Jizya was set up as a response to \Crusaders\ who didn't even exist until hundreds of years after Mohammed) I'll even grant that at specific times in history it may have worked out that way you/he suggests.
But to somehow suggest that this gives non-Muslims equal let alone superior rights is risible and there is a lot of history to refute this.
Let's consider some of the \superior rights\ non-muslims had in Islamic states in history:
\...The Serbs of Europe were particularly hard hit and often had to hand over their children to satisfy the [Jizya] collector. The children were then converted to Islam and trained as Jihad warriors for use in foreign campaigns (the so-called 'Janissaries'). \
\...In India, well into the 17th century, Muslim tax collectors would also take the wives and children of impoverished Hindus and sell them into slavery for the Jizya requirement. The only way for many to avoid losing their families was to convert to Islam.\
From the Hadith:
\Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- \Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.\ (B53:386) [Note: If I am your master, you cannot be my equal.]

Equality: The context (social, historical or otherwise) does not change the fact that these verses demonstrate an inequality between men and women in Mo's eyes, neither does anything you wrote (even though your translation of the verse is an odd one - I've looked at six translations which only talk about payment of debts and bequests not \fulfilling any will\.)
But all of them state that it is \God's will\ that \the male gets twice the share of the female\.
This is not and can never be equality (or are we being Orwellian here \All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others\?).

Equality between castes? You wrote: \Does it matter if that [the second part of the verse] is added by different translators or not\.
So: it is OK for Muslims to play \fast and loose\ with translations is it? (But of course it doesn't really matter does it? The Koran in any language other than Arabic isn't REALLY the Koran.)
In short, yes it does matter! You admit that this bit is not in the Arabic, remove it and the verse does not support your contention.

The quote about \... killing a person is like killing the whole of mankind\ is a partial quote of K5:32, which starts \We ordained for the Children of Israel ...that killing a person is like killing the whole of mankind.\
Why are you quoting a verse that applies ONLY to the Israelites?

You then mentioned WWI and wrote: \Does it really matter what the allies were fighting for.\
I'm sorry? In a famous phrase \You CANNOT be serious!\ (Or is this your sense of humour again, LS)
Of course the reason for fighting matters. May I remind you of another phrase \For evil to prevail all that is required is that good men do nothing.\
You also wrote: \soldiers of the war should have had love and respect for each other...\
Depends on your definition of love I suspect, but respect sure. For example the \desert rats\ commanders regularly toasted Rommel - out of respect for his brilliant generalship.
So you can fight without hate - though I realise that, from what you have said before, you will find this hard to believe.

The IRA. you wrote: \So are you trying to say just becuas they didnt chant gods name its ok for them to kill and blow people up.\ [sic]
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that they didn't commit (the utter blasphemy of) murder in God's name and were not primarily motivated by religious 'fervour' (unlike Islamic terrorists).
Neither were they \radical Christians\ as you claim. They weren't Christian at all and the Catholic Church condemned their terrorism (unlike the overt support that Islamic terrorists get from \radical\ Islamic preachers and the passive support they get from the \Umma\ that seldom condemns unequivocally).
You also asked \why the hell are they [IRA] bombing england.\
First, they aren't - at least in the present as your post implies. Second, if you need to ask that question (assuming it isn't rhetorical of course) you REALLY need to look into the history of the conflict before you comment on it.

In response to IbnSahr:
you wrote: \...I am paying everything the same as a christian and i dont get any additional benfits...\
Do you think that you DESERVE additional benefits then?
Is there some reason you should be treated as \the best of all people\ and thus more generously than the rest of us? (Oh, yeah, there is, isn't there. Silly me!)

LS, you also wrote: \... the eglish defence league is nothing other than uneducated english people getting drunk on the streets and fighting for a cuase that makes no sense.\ [sic]
Would you then be on the side of the counter-demonstrators? Those demonstrating against the EDL?
Now the \cuase that makes no sense\ is (ostensibly) that they are anti Islamic-extremism. Does this cause make no sense to you, LS?

Kabirlaw:
I stand corrected on this. And apologies to all concerned.
Yes, I put a [who] into Ali Sina's sentence. I'd mis-read it and thought that was required for grammar.
No offence, Ali, but some of your/his writing is un-grammatical (see previous sentence in quoted passage).
In practice the [who] doesn't \improve\ it all and it was my error alone.

Actually, I agree that he \f**ked up\ as you put it. But I think (and hope!) that he \f**ked up\ grammatically.
No humane person should value the life (=existence) of one individual over another because of sex, colour, creed etc.
However one can value the lives (=how you live) of one group in general more highly than another if it is your opinion that a given group has a more positive contribution to society / human progress etc.

You say that the paragraph is plain English.
I say that due to its very iffy grammar it is not. So I wish Ali Sina would issue a clarification.

Wanderer:
thank you. Your points are well taken.
I totally agree that the Koran needs to be opened to new intrepretation (the \door to Ijathid\ needs to be opened again), otherwise Islam will remain with a 7th Cnetury mantality (as you say).
I further agree that even Western \orientalists\ are overly inflenced by \traditional Islam\ - that was what I was saying about non-Muslim scholars.
In fact, what would happen is that the Koran would be subject to a wide variety of critical methods and results. But this is both good and healthy in my opinion as it will allow people to make informed decisions about what they believe.
As to who is protecting \quranite\ moslems, the answer is no-one (regrettably), but I hope they will persevere in secret.

To BD and to those championing him/her:

I thought I might as well respond now since I'm slightly busy tomorrow:

FFI Editors statement is:

"FFI is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. We do not think that we are any better than anyone. We believe in humanity. We believe all humans are equal under the law. You think we believe we are better than Muslims. This is a twisted logic."

Ali Sina's statement is:

"I value the life of non-Muslims a lot more than what I value the life of a Muslims."

The key words are: EQUAL, BETTER and VALUE: (for avoidance of technicalities lets agree that "equal" in this regard refers specifically to equal under the law as per the Editors statement and your position). Now lets see what "Thesaurus.com" has to say about what these words mean (synonyms):

EQUAL:

according, balanced, break even, commensurate, comparable, coordinate, correspondent, corresponding, double, duplicate, egalitarian, equivalent, evenly matched, fifty-fifty, homologous, identic, identical, indistinguishable, invariable, level, look-alike, matched, matching, one and the same, parallel, proportionate, same, same difference, spit and image, stack up with, tantamount, to the same degree, two peas in pod, uniform, unvarying

BETTER:

bigger, choice, exceeding, exceptional, finer, fitter, greater, higher quality, improved, larger, more appropriate, more desirable, more fitting, more select, more suitable, more useful, more valuable, preferable, preferred, prominent, sharpened, sophisticated, souped up, superior, surpassing, worthier

VALUE:

account, bearing, benefit, caliber, condition, connotation, consequence, content, denotation, desirability, distinction, drift, eminence, esteem, estimation, excellence, finish, force, goodness, grade, help, implication, import, importance, interpretation, mark, marketability, meaning, merit, power, preference, profit, purpose, quality, regard, repute, sense, serviceableness, significance, state, stature, substance, superiority, use, usefulness, utility, valuation

I say:

If you look carefully BD, the proof is in the pudding. Right there, staring at you in the face, those last two glorious words on the second line as a synonym for the word Better. Well done! Correct! The words are "more valuable"

Now children;

FFI Editor said that FFI does not consider non-muslims BETTER than Muslims (to emphasise this point the Editor actually used the word twice, once in negation of the accusation).

and

Ali Sina (the founder of FFI) said that Non-Muslim lives are more valuable than Muslim lives.

Now, my little lovelies, can you tell me what a synonym for the word BETTER is? Well done! Correct, "More valuable" is indeed a synonym for the word "Better"

Let's try another one then, can you tell me what a synonym is for the words "MORE VALUABLE" ? Well done again, Correct! BETTER is indeed a synonym for MORE VALUABLE. Your getting good at this children!

So, lets recap children:

When the FFI Editor said non-Muslims are not BETTER than Muslims did he/she mean they are not MORE VALUABLE than Muslims? Correct! The Editor did mean that Non-Muslims are NOT more valuable than Muslims. Why? Because the words BETTER and MORE VALUABLE are synonomous to each other. Well done again!

And when Ali Sina said that Non Muslim lives ARE MORE VALUABLE than Muslim lives did he mean that Non Muslims are BETTER than Muslims? Fantastic! Correct again! He did indeed mean that Non-Muslims are BETTER than Muslims.

You kiddies are getting a lollipop today and I'm going to tell your wonderful parents just how brilliant you've been today.

Peace.

To Jonc:

Thanks for the clarification mate. I appreciate it.