The Original Sin

The Saint wrote: I did not say there are no notable Muslim countries. You did not list any. But I can tell you about a few. Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and so on.Even so these are not perfect examples of Islamic societies.

In what way do you regard these countries as "notable successes"?  (Pakistan??)

But you are only partly right. You know, very well, that western govts force those governments out that do not toe their lines. And bring in through fake or forged elections allied parties to fore with which it has secret arrangements for sharing power. There are two immediate examples that come to mind. Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the record, I was not in favour of invading Iraq, but there is no denying that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who held power by force and not by popular support.  That is why he was forced out.  And we both know the story of Afghanistan and the Taliban.  There is a wide gulf between not "toeing the line" and actively sponsoring terrorism.

In any case, neither country is a notable example of success, before or after the regime change, so I think we can move on.

Very well. Tell me if Islam has not changed why has the Muslim approach to obtaining knowledge allegedly changed? And if it has changed what is the cause for the change?

It hasn't changed, and that's the problem.  It still sees the world through the lens of the Quran, which is stuck in the seventh century.

BTW, Muslims in ME constitute about twenty percent of the Ummah. So, you are wrong on this count as well.

I'm aware of that.  By "Middle Eastern Muslims" I was trying to distinguish them from Western Muslims, who live in progressive secular societies and often have a more progressive outlook toward science and knowledge.  Not all Muslims are stuck in the seventh century, but the ones who live in Muslim theocracies (such as those in the Middle East) often are.

How about all the Sunni/Shia violence that has been going on for a thousand years? Religious wars could not happen without religion. What was the cause of violence that killed millions of people in WW2? Was it Catholic/Protestant differences or something else?

Huh?  The causes of World War II are many, but Catholic/Protestant difference did not play a role as far as I know.  Mostly I think it was a replay of World War I, with Germany unwilling to accept defeat the first time around.  I could be wrong though, it's not an area of interest for me.

I recommend for you a serious reading of this very informative article at http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/articles/muslim-constructive-role.php It might just change your perspective on Islam. It shows that there are so many other ways of looking at qualities and contributions. It may help you deal with your prejudices. Islam also provides solutions to mankind for some of the problems faced by it.

Sorry, I'm not going to comb through a lengthy article and guess at how you think it answers the question.  What benefits has Islam brought to human society?  (Aside from warning us against imaginary dangers, that is.)

He employed outstandingly talented, humble and virtuous people, qualities that are not possessed by you. But you are so right. Animals and birds do sing His praises. I am sure even plants may be doing it. All babies are born Muslim.

See, that's the advantage you have in this discussion.  Whenever I make a factual claim, I feel obliged to back it up with evidence in some way.  But you can just throw out this kind of stuff to support your opinions, and never even try to prove it.  Animals and birds singing His praises?  Would that be in Arabic, or English?  Or can you understand animal/bird languages?  All babies born Muslim?  How do you know that?  Did you hear one of them say the shahada?

No, there is physical evidence out there for the existence of Allah. http://www.islamcan.com/signsofallah/#.VdMejfmqqkp

Oh, I'm glad you drew my attention to this!  I have never seen such a heap of rubbish, or a better illustration of why Islam is incompatible with science.  I obviously didn't read the whole thing (I wouldn't waste my time); but from what I skimmed, 99% of it is stuff that science has already figured out -- but Islam supposedly still sees them as mysterious "signs of Allah".  

Just one example: as long as Muslims believe that a bird is able to remain aloft because "Allah wills it", then they would never look for the real reason.  Western secularism was not satisfied with that (non-)explanation.  We asked the right questions, learned about aerodynamics, and the result is that humans can now fly even faster and farther than birds -- not because Allah wills it, but because science understands it.

Islam never banned slavery but neither did Judaism or Christianity. You, the west, banned it much, much after your Uncle Tom days. In the nineteenth century. Women do dwell in love and security of men in Islam but you exploit women in a millions of different ways. You sell them like flesh. Muslims respect them.

By "we" I don't mean Judaism or Christianity.  I mean western secular values, which usually but not always align with Christianity.  Nobody of consequence in the west would support slavery anymore; whereas, as Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan put it, "Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam."

A miniscule of the total. The KKK,The Christian Identity Movement, The Aryan Nations, The Orange Volunteers, Catholic Reaction Force/Protestant Action Force, Antibalaka, National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, the Oklahoma Constitution Militia, and the Provisional IRA are just a few who didn�t get entries but deserve noting anyway. By now it should be apparent to anyone watching that Christian Terrorism is a thing, it exists, and it�s just as bad and widespread as Islamic Terrorism. The only difference between Christian Terrorism and Islamic terrorism is that Christian Terrorism never makes the evening news.http://aattp.org/here-are-8-christian-terrorist-organizations-that-equal-isis/

Well, almost never; but there was Anders Breivik, for example.  The reason it rarely makes the evening news is that it rarely happens.  Certainly not on the scale or with the same frequency as terrorism inspired by Islam.

So the word �wajada� refers to perception through any one of the five senses.

I don't care if wajada means found, or perceived, or smelled or tasted it.  The point is that it was at the place where the sun sets.  We know there is no such place.

The article you linked to tries to avoid the problem by translating it as "he reached the time of sunset".  It's a nice dodge, but it doesn't have the support of any of the standard translations.  More important, it ignores the parallel wording in verse 90 ("when he reached the land of the rising of the sun") and 93 ("when he reached (a place) between the two mountains").  Verses 88 and 90 could be twisted to refer to a time rather than a place; but 93 clearly indicates a place, not a time.

No, the Quran is clearly describing a place where the sun sets.  There is no such place, whether perceived or found, whether a muddy pool or not.  The only recourse for Quranic apologists is to retreat into allegory, even though it doesn't make sense as an allegory either.

So I come back to my original question: If Islam is the ideal form of society and/or government, why do we not see a single working example of this either in contemporary nations or even in the past half millennium or so?

I did not say there are no notable Muslim countries. You did not list any. But I can tell you about a few. Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and so on.Even so these are not perfect examples of Islamic societies.


A revolutionary is one who promotes a revolution, in this context a change in government. "Radical" means extreme, as I said; and many revolutionaries are indeed extreme. However, once in power, they are no longer the revolutionaries because they are the government. Their ideology remains radical, however.

So, basically, there is no difference between a revolutionary and an extremist. Extremists too, run responsible governments. Actually, I have noticed that the western vocabulary holds extremism and fundamentalism as synonymous. Both are unsavoury to it. Because of its pseudo-secularism. All religious people are fundies for it.

Anyway, semantics aside, my point was that Muslims cannot blame imperialism or colonialism for their extremist governments, when we force one batch of extremists out only to have Muslims themselves vote another batch of extremists right back in.

Oho! We have an acknowledgement here, that accepts the involvement of western govts everywhere, it can flex its muscles!

But you are only partly right. You know, very well, that
western govts force those governments out that do not toe their lines. And bring in through fake or forged elections allied parties to fore with which it has secret arrangements for sharing power. There are two immediate examples that come to mind. Iraq and Afghanistan.

That may have been true a thousand years ago, but look around you today. Among Middle Eastern Muslims at least, "seeking knowledge" usually means reading the Quran and hadith, and little else.

Very well. Tell me if Islam has not changed why has the Muslim approach to obtaining knowledge allegedly changed? And if it has changed what is the cause for the change?

BTW, Muslims in ME constitute about twenty percent of the Ummah. So, you are wrong on this count as well.


And I agreed that western civilzation has many problems; but our successes far, far outweigh our failures.

I agree, there have been many successes. But you have sown seeds of Armageddon and annihilation, too.

How about all the Sunni/Shia violence that has been going on for a thousand years? Religious wars could not happen without religion.

What was the cause of violence that killed millions of people in WW2? Was it Catholic/Protestant differences or something else?

Just one or two, please.

I recommend for you a serious reading of this very informative article at http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/articles/muslim-constructive-role.php

It might just change your perspective on Islam. It shows that there are so many other ways of looking at qualities and contributions. It may help you deal with your prejudices.

Islam also provides solutions to mankind for some of the problems faced by it.

I was not taught by Allah at all. He left it to incompetent and disputatious humans to spread His word. If I had been Allah, people would not receive the Quran as hearsay. The rocks and trees themselves would sing the Quran, and babies would be born with it already memorized.

He employed outstandingly talented, humble and virtuous people, qualities that are not possessed by you. But you are so right. Animals and birds do sing His praises. I am sure even plants may be doing it. All babies are born Muslim. But not one of His creations act in a manner contrary to its nature. There are signs of His glory everywhere. http://www.islamicity.org/5735/allahs-signs-in-the-universe/

Yes, it's called the Tinkerbell Effect. If you believe strongly enough, you will see evidence of your belief. But it works for all religions, not just for Islam. I've had Christians, Buddhists and Hindus all tell me the same thing.

No, there is physical evidence out there for the existence of Allah. http://www.islamcan.com/signsofallah/#.VdMejfmqqkp

We used to think slavery was okay, but not anymore. We used to deny women's rights, but not anymore. Islam still allows slavery, and still places women under the authority of men.

Islam never banned slavery but neither did Judaism or Christianity. You, the west, banned it much, much after your Uncle Tom days. In the nineteenth century.

Women do dwell in love and security of men in Islam but you exploit women in a millions of different ways. You sell them like flesh. Muslims respect them.

The "sources" you cite are just random Web pages, often with anonymous authors, and which do not cite sources themselves. There is no "chain of narration", as your hadith scholars would put it. My sources are either authorities themselves or reputable organizations that provide appropriate citations to recognized authorities.

No, that is not entirely true. Not even partly true now. It is clearly a dodge.Just as you dodge many of my queries and facts.

You're right. It's also the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad, and Al-Shabaab, and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Abu Sayyaf and on and on. A great number of Muslims are like that.

A miniscule of the total. The KKK,The Christian Identity Movement, The Aryan Nations, The Orange Volunteers, Catholic Reaction Force/Protestant Action Force, Antibalaka, National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, the Oklahoma Constitution Militia, and the Provisional IRA are just a few who didn�t get entries but deserve noting anyway. By now it should be apparent to anyone watching that Christian Terrorism is a thing, it exists, and it�s just as bad and widespread as Islamic Terrorism. The only difference between Christian Terrorism and Islamic terrorism is that Christian Terrorism never makes the evening news.http://aattp.org/here-are-8-christian-terrorist-organizations-that-equal-isis/

My no means all, of course, nor even the majority; but enough that it's no mere coincidence. There is something about Islam that encourages fanaticism.

You see other violent/terrorist organizations do not get press. But there is nothing in Islam that incites violence. I challenge you to prove that. However, Muslims do not turn the other cheek, as most christians do not.

I am going to cite the number of countries the US has bombed since 1980.To get a full scope of American violence in the world, it is worth asking a broader question: how many countries in the Islamic world has the U.S. bombed or occupied since 1980? That answer was provided in a recent Washington Post op-ed by the military historian and former U.S. Army Col. Andrew Bacevich:

Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that�s just since 1980. Tell who or what is violent?

The US Has Invaded 70 Nations Since 1776 �
Make 4 July Independence From America Day. http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm. Who or what is violent?

See also: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Because the Quran is supposed to be a message from Allah to all people. It's not supposed to be a personal defense of one man's wife.

It makes absolute sense to defend the honour of the man who carried His message.

You're saying that those who questioned Aisha's integrity were hypocrites and unbelievers? Why? Because they disregarded a scripture that hadn't even been revealed yet?

Because they disregarded the unquestionable integrity of the Prophet PBUH and Hazrat Aisha RA. They were real people who were living amongst them and they knew the couple was of an exalted character. Besides she was the daughter of a highly respected citizen.

The Web site doesn't actually explain the allegory at all. An explanation would tell us what the "muddy pool" is an allegory of. What does it represent, and why? The site makes a great fuss about the translation of the word wajada ("found"), arguing that it can be translated as "perceived". Perhaps it can be, but it makes little difference whether he found it or perceived it setting in a muddy pool.

The site gives the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali above. The word he translated as �found� is وجد i.e. �wajada.� This word is used to describe the perception. See the proof from the Edward William Lane�s Lexicon.

Images

And further he writes;

Edward William Lane�s Arabic-English Lexicon p. 2924

So the word �wajada� refers to perception through any one of the five senses.

It still implies that it was setting in a muddy pool; and the only way to escape that implication is to add the words "as if". But I thought the Quran was complete. Did Allah omit those words?

The occurences of WAJADA وجد throughout the Glorious Quran: No. Please read on: In the Glorious Quran, wajada وجد (found) has multiple meanings, which among them is "to see", as the Noble Verses, below, clearly and indisputably reveal. Wajada وجد here means that the sun disappeared from Dhul-Qarnayn's naked eye, especially since the neighborhood was mountainous (18:93). As Dhul-Qarnayn was looking at the sun, he saw it disappearing inside or behind a murky body/pond/lake/sea of dark/murky water. And of course, as I mentioned below, if the sun were to literally set inside a pool of water, then it would have to rise back again from that location and set into another body of water, which the Glorious Quran makes no mention of, and then rise back again from that body of water and set again in Dhul-Qarnayn's body of water, and so on. This never happened, and nor did the Glorious Quran mention it.

The sun simply does not bounce back and forth between the east and the west on earth, and nor does the moon. The Noble Verses also do not say that the Dhul-Qarnayn went to the east or the west of the earth. No east nor west were mentioned in any of the Noble Verses, and as I mentioned below, neither does the Glorious Quran mention that there are ends of the earth. On the contrary, the Glorious Quran, as I also mentioned below, clearly and indisputably Declares that the earth is Spherical, Round, is Suspended and orbiting in Space, and is rotating around its own axle. See the ample Noble Verses and ample Arabic Analysis for the proofs, in the link. http://www.answering-christianity.com/sunrise_sunset.htm

Now as to wajada's (وجد) meanings throughout the Glorious Quran:

In Noble Verses 43:22-24, 31:21, 26:74, 21:53, 18:93, 12:65, 10:78, 7:44, 7:28, 5:104 and 3:37 the pagans used this word to say "we saw our fathers do idol worship". The English translations use the word "found", but the context of the Noble Verses clearly speak about these people were doing what they saw their fathers do in the past.
   
And if so, then we could play that game endlessly. Was Muhammad's "night journey" also just an allegory? How about the jinns? Satan? Perhaps when Allah said that men are tempted by Satan, He only meant "as if" by Satan. Perhaps the moon did not actually split, but was only "as if" split. Where do we stop with this? Maybe the entire Quran is just an allegory, "as if" revealed by Allah.

Go there: http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm


The Web site also asserts that Muslims have always understood the "muddy pool" as allegorical. Unfortunately, the tafsirs it cites as evidence are from seven centuries or more after Muhammad, which proves nothing.

You would have got your answers by the time you reach here.

No, there is no reason to suppose that Muhammad's contemporaries would have understood this passage as anything other than the sun literally setting at a particular place, in a literal muddy pool, with a people living near it. If it's an analogy, it seems like a pointless one; and if it's an analogy, then virtually everything in the Quran could be an analogy.
Moreover, the verse also says that he reached the place where the sun sets. We know that is impossible, regardless of what he perceived or found there.


There is absolutely no reason to believe that the believers would not understand this passage. Because as explained above, the Quran also explains: As for تغرب في عين (disappear in a murky water), the following points make it quite clear. This point is also discussed in great details throughout this article:

تغرب (taghrub) throughout the Glorious Quran means to disappear, or to cease to be seen.

So تغرب (taghrub) here doesn't necessarily mean the sun is setting. It rather means that the sun disappeared from Dhul-Qarnayn's naked eye, especially since the neighborhood was mountainous (18:93). As Dhul-Qarnayn was looking at the sun, he saw it disappearing inside or behind a murky body/pond/lake/sea of dark/murky water. And of course, as I mentioned below, if the sun were to literally set inside a pool of water, then it would have to rise back again from that location and set into another body of water, which the Glorious Quran makes no mention of, and then rise back again from that body of water and set again in Dhul-Qarnayn's body of water, and so on. This never happened, and nor did the Glorious Quran mention it. The sun simply does not bounce back and forth between the east and the west on earth, and nor does the moon. The Noble Verses also do not say that the Dhul-Qarnayn went to the east or the west of the earth. No east nor west were mentioned in any of the Noble Verses, and as I mentioned below, neither does the Glorious Quran mention that there are ends of the earth. On the contrary, the Glorious Quran, as I also mentioned below, clearly and indisputably Declares that the earth is Spherical, Round, is Suspended and orbiting in Space, and is rotating around its own axle. See the ample Noble Verses and ample Arabic Analysis for the proofs, in the link. http://www.answering-christianity.com/sunrise_sunset.htm

Yes, I do. But you forgot to tell me about your evidence that "the Jews" (whoever they are) did it.

I do not have any justiciable evidence.

If at all they left behind any such evidence it was not reported and would be untraceable now. But there is tonnes of evidence on the Web, some say real. And to prove that I am not the only one who thinks along these lines I did a google, as you so often recommend. Imagine what I got? The search came-up with 60,80,000 entries.

Here's one entry which details the dramatis personae in the conspiracy: When an event occurs that fundamentally changes the dynamics of global geopolitics, there is one question above all others whose answer will most assuredly point to its perpetrators. That question is "Cui bono?"(I am sure, you remember, I had said the same thing: motive - who will benefit?) If those so indicted are in addition found to have had both motive and means then, as they say in the US, it's pretty much a "slam-dunk".

And so it is with the events of 9/11.

Discounting the Official Narrative as the absurdity it so clearly is, there are just two organisations on the entire planet with the expertise, assets, access and political protection necessary to have both executed 9/11 and effected its cover-up to date (ie the means). Both are Intelligence Agencies - the CIA and the Israeli Mossad whose motives were arguably the most compelling. Those motives dovetailed perfectly with the Neocon PNAC agenda, with it's explicitly stated need for "...a catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" [1> in order to mobilise US public opinion for already planned wars, the effects of which would be to destroy Israel's enemies.
This article marshals evidence for the proposition that "Israel did it".

Netanyahu Openly Gleeful of 9/11 Terror Attacks
Apparently Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is so confident in Zionist control and domination that he haphazardly stated publicly that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were "good" for US - Israeli relations, and would generate "immediate sympathy" for the Israeli cause of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians.

The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan:
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."Netanyahu Openly Gleeful of 9/11 Terror Attacks

Apparently Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is so confident in Zionist control and domination that he haphazardly stated publicly that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were "good" for US - Israeli relations, and would generate "immediate sympathy" for the Israeli cause of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians.

The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan:
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

Read all here:

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

Let me know what you think of this evidence.

No, we knew it long before then. The identity of the nineteen hijackers was easily determined, and their links to Al Qaeda were in many cases already known. We probably still aren't sure of the extent of Bin Laden's personal involvement, but as the head of Al Qaeda, the buck stops with him anyway.

Long before when? And did you know all these 'facts'? Any proof that you may want to offer in support of your claims?

You've got to stop thinking of "the Jews" and "the Muslims" as if they were monolithic. No, Muslims in general did not benefit from 9/11, but Muslim extremists certainly did. 9/11 was a great recruiting tool for them.

You say the Muslim extremists benefited. Ask yourself what percentage they are of the total Muslim Ummah? And, didn't their action hurt the Muslims as a whole? OTOH, the Jews, as a nation benefited by demonizing the Muslims. 9/11 was a cunning action to completely antagonize the US against the Muslims. Who gains by that, Israel, or the zionists.

Did you click the link I provided? (As if you didn't know already...)

Why are you dithering to say directly that Boko Haram kidnapped girls as reported in the media. I asked you who or what is Boko Haram and I am asking you again. Who are they? I have already told you that I do not believe everything that the so called media says. You want to know why? Because it is not a novelty, nor is it unusual for an alleged Muslim organization to surface suddenly in the wake of a terrible act of violence or repression, bloodshed or an outrageous act. The west is adept at creating monsters, giving them a suggestive name and then go on to build a reputation for it that would be repugnant.

It tells me that American society offers much more freedom to women than Muslim society, and that freedom does have inherent risks.

No, I do not. But I warn you as a believer that you must fear Allah's wrath. And do not court punishment. Similar to what the people of Sodom did.That must be the understatement of the decade! From an Islamic POV your brand of liberty is creating lasciviousness in your homes and society. Out dating marriage and breaking-up the family unit. Sacred institutions smashed and replaced by generations of ******s, gays, transgenders, drug addicts and alcoholics. Floating populations of fringe elements destroying their mother societies.


But there aren't many American women who would trade their freedom for the "safety" of virtual house arrest, which is how traditional Muslim women are treated.

I have already answered that. If what you are saying was true, why are scores of, women mainly, are entering into the fold of Islam. Just do a google and see what you get.

I will give you a taste of what you may find: Why European women are turning to Islam

By Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor DECEMBER 27, 2005     

PARIS � Mary Fallot looks as unlike a terrorist suspect as one could possibly imagine: a petite and demure white Frenchwoman chatting with friends on a cell-phone, indistinguishable from any other young woman in the caf� where she sits sipping coffee.

And that is exactly why European antiterrorist authorities have their eyes on thousands like her across the continent.

Ms. Fallot is a recent convert to Islam. In the eyes of the police, that makes her potentially dangerous. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1227/p01s04-woeu.html

You don't know that. You know that reports of rape are rare, and the reason is obvious. Unless the woman can get four eyewitnesses (!) to testify on her behalf, the rapist will be absolved and the victim is often the one who is punished.

And that is why rate of rape is low? LOL..........

As I implied, sex with nine year old girls and sex with slaves are both considered statutory rape; and most jurisdictions now recognize that rape can occur within a marriage as well ("marital rape").

Since when? Can you kindly quote relevant legislations? Last century, IMHO!Even within America, various states legislated at different times.

And I see you are deliberately avoiding an answer to examples posted from Judeo-Christian histories. Feeling embarrassed? LOL


Polygamous and temporary marriages can also lead to all sorts of exploitation. In fact the whole treatment of Muslim women under sharia is exploitative, IMHO.

Temporary marriages were allowed for a brief period of time for soldiers who had been away from their wives due to battle. But they were soon banned.

But the constraints against polygamy are so strict that a miniscule percentage marry more than once in Islam. OTOH, jews and christians started dibelieving marriage altogether and today men are marrying men and women are living with women.

Lots of them. As I may have mentioned, western culture and ethics have evolved over time. Muslim ethics are medieval (literally) by comparison.

But still a million times better than that of its western counterparts!

IMHO your "justice" is itself a crime.

LOL......like stoning morally crippled men who give unwanted attention to women?

Rape 'impossible' in marriage, says Muslim cleric
See also the Quran 2:223: "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will."

Read Surah Nisa to dispel your misleading knowledge. Read the whole Surah, if you wish to educate yourself.

Nobody's asking you to approve. Just understand that it's none of your business.

Of course, it is my business. The weakest kind of faith is to murmur a condemnation of a wrong. But the best kind of faith is that which physically stops wrongdoing.

Thanks for your opinion, but you obviously don't know any gay couples. (Probably just as well...)

I am warning you not to copy the people of Sodom. You will be severely punished.

The Saint wrote: And which of these countries do you regard as "notable successes"? None. Even though they are client states with access to western technologies.

So I come back to my original question: If Islam is the ideal form of society and/or government, why do we not see a single working example of this either in contemporary nations or even in the past half millennium or so?

What is the difference between both, according to you? It seems a revolutionary to you is more preferable than a radical? Is it because of the contemporary connotations of these words? Because the dictionary holds them as synonymous!

A revolutionary is one who promotes a revolution, in this context a change in government.  "Radical" means extreme, as I said; and many revolutionaries are indeed extreme.  However, once in power, they are no longer the revolutionaries because they are the government.  Their ideology remains radical, however.

Anyway, semantics aside, my point was that Muslims cannot blame imperialism or colonialism for their extremist governments, when we force one batch of extremists out only to have Muslims themselves vote another batch of extremists right back in.

The Quran and the Prophet PBUH encouraged Muslims to seek knowledge. They sought knowledge and became mathematicians, physicists and surgeons. And they taught other races.

That may have been true a thousand years ago, but look around you today.  Among Middle Eastern Muslims at least, "seeking knowledge" usually means reading the Quran and hadith, and little else.

Don't tell me you forget so soon! Just the other day I attempted to show you a mirror which if you looked keenly in would have made you recoil with horror. http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-greatest-failure-of-Western-civilization

And I agreed that western civilzation has many problems; but our successes far, far outweigh our failures.

As for Islam, tell me of one proven ill that Islam has caused?

How about all the Sunni/Shia violence that has been going on for a thousand years?  Religious wars could not happen without religion.

I can, of course list numerous benefits that Islam has brought about.

Just one or two, please.

What is better? Who decides that? You are incompetent because your knowledge is insufficient. You are not even well-taught by humans what to say of divine knowledge.

I was not taught by Allah at all.  He left it to incompetent and disputatious humans to spread His word.  If I had been Allah, people would not receive the Quran as hearsay.  The rocks and trees themselves would sing the Quran, and babies would be born with it already memorized.

As for Allah's existence, it is seen every where by those who want to see it. The Quran is a divine book and every sentence speaks of ts divine origin. It is a pity you and your ilk are blind to its magnificence.

Yes, it's called the Tinkerbell Effect.  If you believe strongly enough, you will see evidence of your belief.  But it works for all religions, not just for Islam.  I've had Christians, Buddhists and Hindus all tell me the same thing.

You say you learned from your failure but I see no sign of it. In fact, I see that the war and colonialists industry has become even more ruthless and it is now aiming at global dominion through arms supplies and exchange control.

We used to think slavery was okay, but not anymore.  We used to deny women's rights, but not anymore.  Islam still allows slavery, and still places women under the authority of men.

Why the double standards again? When you cite sources, it is proof. But when we do it is not. This IS the attitude that you must change.

The "sources" you cite are just random Web pages, often with anonymous authors, and which do not cite sources themselves.  There is no "chain of narration", as your hadith scholars would put it.  My sources are either authorities themselves or reputable organizations that provide appropriate citations to recognized authorities.

You cannot, because Muslims are not at all like that. the Muslim Ummah is bigger than Boko haram and ISIS.

You're right.  It's also the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad, and Al-Shabaab, and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Abu Sayyaf and on and on.  A great number of Muslims are like that.  My no means all, of course, nor even the majority; but enough that it's no mere coincidence.  There is something about Islam that encourages fanaticism.

Why should it not be? He was a faithful servant of Allah and it was his wife's integrity at stake.

Because the Quran is supposed to be a message from Allah to all people.  It's not supposed to be a personal defense of one man's wife.

There was a very good reason, in fact. Allah SWT wanted to see who were the hypocrites and who the believers.

You're saying that those who questioned Aisha's integrity were hypocrites and unbelievers?  Why?  Because they disregarded a scripture that hadn't even been revealed yet?

Because no one needs substantiation against the best and most authentic substantiation.

You're assuming your conclusion.  How do you know the Quran is "the best and most authentic substantiation"?  Because it says so?

The sun setting "in a spring of murky water" is an allegorical reference.

Which is what religious apologists always say when they encounter a clear error in their scripture.

You may want to read a completely logical explanation to the allegation at:http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/03/sun-sets-in-murky-water-as-per-quran.html

The Web site doesn't actually explain the allegory at all.  An explanation would tell us what the "muddy pool" is an allegory of.  What does it represent, and why?

The site makes a great fuss about the translation of the word wajada ("found"), arguing that it can be translated as "perceived".  Perhaps it can be, but it makes little difference whether he found it or perceived it setting in a muddy pool.  It still implies that it was setting in a muddy pool; and the only way to escape that implication is to add the words "as if".  But I thought the Quran was complete.  Did Allah omit those words?

And if so, then we could play that game endlessly.  Was Muhammad's "night journey" also just an allegory?  How about the jinns?  Satan?  Perhaps when Allah said that men are tempted by Satan, He only meant "as if" by Satan.  Perhaps the moon did not actually split, but was only "as if" split.  Where do we stop with this?  Maybe the entire Quran is just an allegory, "as if" revealed by Allah.

The Web site also asserts that Muslims have always understood the "muddy pool" as allegorical.  Unfortunately, the tafsirs it cites as evidence are from seven centuries or more after Muhammad, which proves nothing.

Moreover, the verse also says that he reached the place where the sun sets.  We know that is impossible, regardless of what he perceived or found there.

No, there is no reason to suppose that Muhammad's contemporaries would have understood this passage as anything other than the sun literally setting at a particular place, in a literal muddy pool, with a people living near it.  If it's an analogy, it seems like a pointless one; and if it's an analogy, then virtually everything in the Quran could be an analogy.