Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation


    by Sunny
    2nd March, 2011 at 9:30 am    

    This is very worrying. Leyton Mosque in London has expelled its imam Dr Usama Hasan for holding a lecture titled ‘Islam & Evolution’ and saying the two were not incompatible.

    He has also reported to have said in the past that Muslim women should be allowed to uncover their hair in public. You see read their letter here. (via Padraig Reidy)

    The website MuslimPolitics reports:

    In its announcement, the Mosque stated that the controversy first escalated following a declaration in late 2010 by a visiting Saudi cleric, Shaykh Salih al-Sadlan, that the Mosque congregation should not take part in prayers led by Dr. Hasan.

    Just days before his dismissal from the Mosque, Dr. Hasan published a statement stating that his “Islam and Evolution” lecture was “disrupted by a small mob of fanatics”. He also clarified his views on the subject in order, he says, to answer the “many vicious lies and slanderous statements [that] are circulating in some sections of society.”

    This is deeply troubling because it looks like we have Saudi nutjobs running McCarthyite campaigns against sensible and moderate Imams in the UK. I knew / know Dr Hasan from his time at City Circle. I’m glad he took a robust stance against these people and did not let them shout him down… but the actions of the mosque are utterly cowardly and worrying.

    Update: It seems the letter was ‘premature’ in that the people who wanted him ousted lost the vote to oust him. This letter may be fake… Dr Hasan remains an imam at the mosque I’m told… but there was/is definitely a campaign to oust him.

    Update 2 The Mosque has released a statement saying:

    This is an announcement by Masjid Al Tawhid & Sh[eikh] Suhaib Hasan that both have nothing to do with the so-called ‘Save Masjid Tawhid’ website.

    In other words, that letter was not by them.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Religion






    203 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. sunny hundal

      Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    2. Tamina Mir

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    3. 1st Ethical CT

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    4. Noxi

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    5. Mike Barton

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    6. Amanda Ramsay

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    7. Mike Barton

      RT @sunny_hundal: Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ #islam


    8. Mike Barton

      Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ #islam #ksa


    9. Geoffrey Pearson

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    10. Christian Munthe

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    11. Christine Jongebloed

      RT @June4th: RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    12. Yusuf Yearwood

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    13. Keith Death

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    14. Lucy Proctor

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    15. sue swbk2345

      Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation
      http://bit.ly/i3dhN4 PROOF: ISLAM IS A DANGEROUS THIRD WORLD CULT!


    16. Danny

      RT @Sue_swbk2345: Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation
      http://bit.ly/i3dhN4 PROOF: ISLAM IS A DANGEROUS THIRD …


    17. adrian bonnington

      RT @Sue_swbk2345: Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation
      http://bit.ly/i3dhN4 PROOF: ISLAM IS A DANGEROUS THIRD …


    18. Mohammed Marikar

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    19. Danny

      @number10gov Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation http://bit.ly/i3dhN4 PROOF: ISLAM IS A DANGEROUS 3rd WORLD CULT!


    20. Lord Lindley

      RT @DR_England: @number10gov Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation http://bit.ly/i3dhN4 PROOF: ISLAM IS A DANGE …


    21. We Are The Brits

      Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation http://bit.ly/i3dhN4 PROOF: ISLAM IS A DANGEROUS 3rd WORLD CULT! #EDL


    22. Jacque de Molay

      RT @wearethebritish: Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation http://bit.ly/i3dhN4 PROOF: ISLAM IS A DANGEROUS 3rd …


    23. Miles Weaver

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://bit.ly/eJK5eJ


    24. Peppa pig.

      RT @wearethebritish: Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation http://bit.ly/i3dhN4 PROOF: ISLAM IS A DANGEROUS 3rd …


    25. Danny

      @ericpickles @grantshapps These are the 'moderates'?==> Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation http://bit.ly/i3dhN4


    26. doreen gerrard

      RT @wearethebritish: Leyton Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution & moderation http://bit.ly/i3dhN4 PROOF: ISLAM IS A DANGEROUS 3rd …


    27. Haris bin Ali

      #shared Mosque expels Imam for preaching evolution and moderation http://b1t.it/bzJ


    28. Secularist fascist bloggers support the dictator Imam

      [...] [...]


    29. Naadir Jeewa

      @Londonstani , @abumuqawama Take a look at the Saudi-inspired BS that's been brewing up the road from the 'Stow… http://bit.ly/dEl4Fu


    30. Speak Not Evolution… « Back Towards The Locus

      [...] obnoxious campaign against Usama Hasan, a British imam who has the teremity to cleave to an accepted [...]




    1. Gawain Towler — on 2nd March, 2011 at 9:48 am  

      Sunny,

      Thank you for highlighting this. Dr Usama Hasan should be supported and congratulatyed for his stance, rather than vilified and driven from his post.

    2. boyo — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:14 am  

      “worrying”, but hardly surprising? Bring on the revolution in Saudi soon!

    3. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:14 am  

      How utterly ridiculous. One of the few beauties of Islam is how much the Quran got astronomy spot on (compared to the bible and its ‘first we made the earth, next day we made the sun, and then a sausage came along’ nonsense), and it’s a source of pride just how advanced the scholars of Prophet Mo’s time were in terms of science and geometry – my dad has an ancient arabic astralabe and it’s fucking awesome. When I read the Quran I was dazzled by the references to everything from aliens (Jinns) to the formation of stars from balls of plasma. Read it, it’s all in there.

      Once again, I find myself feeling like how I do when I go to a curry house and wish they’d take a lesson from my mum – these bastard Quran bashers need to learn their shit from men like my dad, educated good men who really might be able to convince the world islam isn’t about hate

    4. Awakening Tempest — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:32 am  

      The bandits that run Saudi Arabia have in the past led campaigns against real truth - With the state of Middle East right now - it wont be long until they go back upto their mountains from where they originated and let the real Arabians run the Hajj.

    5. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:41 am  

      Which reminds me, when the prophet did a runner from the pagans from the mountains of mecca to the mountains of medina, he navigated his way by following the stars. This exile was known as a hijra, a landmark day in the islamic calender, where each month begins at sunset on the day of visual sighting of the lunar crescent. That’s science for ya

    6. damon — on 2nd March, 2011 at 11:09 am  

      How will this go down amongst the regular attendees of the mosque? Any chance that it will lead to debate after friday prayers? If it doesn’t, then it’s a bit of a lost cause and the idea of standing up for him will just be a minority liberal thing.
      I don’t think dismissing an imam for saying things like that would raise much of a murmur in Ireland, as the congregations I have seen here seem pretty conservative, as most have grown up in muslim countries. It’s obviously different in Britain with people who are second and third generation, but I have the idea that he wouldn’t be seen suitable for East London Mosque either.
      If I am wrong (as I’m only guessing) perhaps someone could put me right.

      Is there room for evolution in modern Islam? I thought every word of the Qur’an was deemed to be historical fact and infallible.

    7. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd March, 2011 at 11:25 am  

      Damon, that’s not the case. I swear to you when you read it, it’s written with the same confidence as science, ie not absolute, but encouraging you to accept it because others got it wrong. If you can wade past the obligatory call of all religious tomes to burn non-believers in boiling vats of oil and what have you, the Quran can be boiled down to a treatise, no different to laws set out by scientists through the generations. Even evolution is touched upon when explaining the magic of nature. I’m loathe to be a Quran basher who quotes passages but I’d love it if you gave it a read (get a transliteration that’s made by a scholar rather than a nutter, they tend to wildly different interpretations, which makes a fuckery of the whole Absolute Word craptrap)

    8. cjcjc — on 2nd March, 2011 at 11:47 am  

      “If you can wade past the obligatory call of all religious tomes to burn non-believers in boiling vats of oil and what have you”

      haha - that’s a lot of wading to be done!

      NB “transliteration” is the rendering of text written in one alphabet/writing system into another. It is not translation.

    9. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd March, 2011 at 11:52 am  

      Re: all Qurans have to say ‘transliterated’, whether they’re translated or not. It’s one of those ‘better do it in case I get my arse chopped off’ disclaimers publishers use

    10. Salman — on 2nd March, 2011 at 12:11 pm  

      My my the obsessive Muslim haters are out in force today . Suprise surprise.

    11. cjcjc — on 2nd March, 2011 at 12:16 pm  

      @9 didn’t know that - thanks - though what does that tell you in itself?

    12. cjcjc — on 2nd March, 2011 at 12:19 pm  

      Though eg Penguin Classics seems happy to use “translated”

    13. damon — on 2nd March, 2011 at 12:51 pm  

      Kismet, a simple google of the words ”Islamic views on evolution” has made me more informed now than I was an hour ago. I do wonder though how much that kind of thing is explained to young muslims today. In after school madrassas for example. About how science and astronomy was most advanced in Islamic societies during the medieval period.

      I have had a try at reading the qu’ran a couple of times, but like with the bible, it seems a bit difficult to follow.

    14. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd March, 2011 at 1:06 pm  

      Salman, there really is no need to get offended. No one’s hating on Muslims but actually taking the Quran seriously for once. It’s paranoia like yours that make your breathren so knee-jerk and reckless. Relax. Not everyone has to love what you love blindly. Allah’s a big boy

    15. BenSix — on 2nd March, 2011 at 1:16 pm  

      Is this the Usama Hasan who writes on Comment is Free? I enjoy his columns and am sorry to hear of this. It sure is an indication of the rigour of their thought that they’ve kicked him out rather than, y’know - debating with him.

    16. Sarah AB — on 2nd March, 2011 at 2:38 pm  

      I’d rather, of course, that he hadn’t been expelled. But I suppose there are many US churches where such views would be equally unacceptable.

    17. cjcjc — on 2nd March, 2011 at 2:49 pm  

      Thanks Sarah.

      Now we can all relax. The Christian fundies are just as bad.

    18. joanne — on 2nd March, 2011 at 3:20 pm  

      As imam, he represents and serves those who attend the mosque. If his opinions place him on a collision course with those he’s supposed to be serving,it hardly makes sense for him to remain imam. As such, I support their descision to resign him.

    19. Junaid Bhatti — on 2nd March, 2011 at 3:57 pm  

      @18. joanne

      you are making an assumption that may not be true. it could well be that his opinions conflict with the majority of the congregation. OR it could be that his opinions conflict with the *loudest* of the congregation.

      and seeing as Mosques don’t have any official “membership”, and anyone is able to come in and protest loudly against whatever the Imam is saying, there’s no guarantee that those hounding Usama Hasan were even regular visitors to the Mosque in question.

      the concept of biological evolution is not necessarily in conflict with Islamic scripture. it is only in conflict with the beliefs of those who hold that everything said in the Quran is to be taken as literal, with no space for metaphor.

      there were proponents of biological evolution publicly discussing the subject in Baghdad more than 1000 years before Darwin was born. and no-one demanded their expulsion from the Mosque - which was, at the time, the hub for intellectual discussions by the greatest minds of the time.

    20. damon — on 2nd March, 2011 at 4:11 pm  

      BenSix, yes it’s the same person, and having looked him up on Cif, I now look foreward to reading all his articles he wrote on there.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/usamahasan

      His profile on Cif says of him:
      ”Dr Usama Hasan is a senior lecturer at Middlesex University, fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, former planetarium lecturer at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, and a part-time imam.”

      …. so no wonder he fell foul of conservative tendencies.
      Just see what the websites ”Islamic Awakening” and Islamic Standard said of him.

      http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f17/ia-public-statement-on-usama-hasan-circulation-43071/

      http://theislamicstandard.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/masjid-tawhid-sack-usama-hasan/

      We hope now Inshallah his father Suhaib Hasan now either withdraws his comments in support of his son’s kufr and his right to state it or else follows through on his comments that if Usama goes he will go also as it is not possible to pray behind someone who can defend such beliefs as not being kufr but ta’weel and the ulema have been clear it is not permissable to pray behind someone who believes in evolution or the one who defends it.

      Salman, maybe you could explain to people like me (from outside the faith and community), how the balance of forces and ideas, weigh up in favour of the things that Usama Hasan discusses in public …. and the more general Muslim community.
      Also, are the things he discusses part of a wider debate within Islamic scholarly circles world wide .. in the Middle East and north Africa, and even at events such as the London Global Peace and Unity event?

    21. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd March, 2011 at 4:36 pm  

      “Mosques don’t have any official “membership”

      Hear hear

    22. Sunny — on 2nd March, 2011 at 4:45 pm  

      Junaid - I’ve been told that the letter released was ‘premature’ in that they had planned to send it out after voting him out, but in the end they didn’t get enough votes to oust him.

      So technically he is still the imam of the mosque.

    23. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd March, 2011 at 5:04 pm  

      now that’s what we call an islam dunk result! The losers must be feeling physics in the stomach by the outcome. Good on him, although I’m sure frankly, he doesn’t give an imam

    24. Soso — on 2nd March, 2011 at 5:09 pm  

      One of the few beauties of Islam is how much the Quran got astronomy spot on (compared to the bible and its ‘first we made the earth, next day we made the sun, and then a sausage came along’ nonsense), and it’s a source of pride just how advanced the scholars of Prophet Mo’s time were in terms of science and geometry – my dad has an ancient arabic astralabe and it’s fucking awesome. When I read the Quran I was dazzled by the references to everything from aliens (Jinns) to the formation of stars from balls of plasma. Read it, it’s all in there.

      I’m looking for a recipe for fried chicken, checked the koran and didn’t find one.

      YOu are as unhinged as the individuals who fireed this guy.

      The koran is chock full of errors, flaws and defects. In fact, compared to the core texts of the judeo-christian tradition the koran comes off like some sick poorly written joke.

      Too stupid to be Abrahamic.

    25. Abuz Zubair — on 2nd March, 2011 at 5:10 pm  

      How typically hypocritical of the secularist fascists on this blog to support a despotic Imam, desperately clinging on to power, as his congregation unanimously depose him - at a time when the Middle East is gripped by the fever of revolution against the very regimes, the Western liberal secularist powers were empowering, by selling them weapons and tools for torture.

      When was the last time Tony Blair shook hands with Col Qaddafi?

    26. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd March, 2011 at 5:22 pm  

      Soso, where did you look? Wikipedia? Seriously, don’t be a cock unless you’re as skilled at being one as I am. Read the damn thing. You might learn something

    27. cjcjc — on 2nd March, 2011 at 5:39 pm  

      @25 - that is a brilliant spoof

    28. Tory — on 2nd March, 2011 at 6:29 pm  

      25 is the reason multiculturalism will die a slow and painful death.

      Note how he doesn’t even pretend to give a crap about Sunnys ‘diversity’ and ‘integration’ etc.

      People who recognise scientfic facts are ‘fascists’ and Britain’s entire history of scientic research and religious toleration is treated with absolute contempt.

      Good luck with the integration. RIP Britiain.

    29. Shamit — on 2nd March, 2011 at 6:45 pm  

      I was enjoying this thread until the idiots started coming out of the woodwork - what the hell?

      Idiots like @25 makes me vehemently against all faith schools irrespective of their faith - because science is something you have to prove and cannot be based on faith.

      Faith makes us leap into the unknown and believe something which we cannot prove or disprove - but science is based on facts and facts alone. Faith gives us hope but science does not.

      And also one more thing no faith and no God (no matter what name you call him/her) condones hatred or those who block the pursuit of knowledge.

      AARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH -

    30. Abuz Zubair — on 2nd March, 2011 at 6:47 pm  

      28, Mr. right-wing self-righteous Tory, you didn’t answer the point I raised, and as usual responded with ‘how dare a 2nd generation immigrant p*ki criticise us’.

      I never criticised the level of tolerance we have in the UK, despite of intolerant people like you.

      I specifically asked, when was the last time Mr Blair shook Col Gaddafi’s hands?

      For merely asking a question as simple as that, you’ve brought the integration debate in.

      The situation at the mosque has nothing to do with science or what have you. It is simply a matter of respecting the right of self-determination of a community, which you like to undermining, the way your foreign policy has been undermining the same right for Muslim population overseas.

      Your days of imperialism are over. I hope one day you wake up to that fact and instead of saying RIP Britain, you say: RIP imperialist Britain, and I am sure most would agree with that.

    31. Shamit — on 2nd March, 2011 at 6:49 pm  

      “People who recognise scientfic facts are ‘fascists’ and Britain’s entire history of scientic research and religious toleration is treated with absolute contempt.”

      Yeah pray tell that to the EDL/BNP as well as the idiot @25.

      Aren’t they just a tiny vocal minority whichever faith, race they come from? I think there is lot to be optimistic about Britain

      *******************

      But we also have people claiming on supposedly revered magazines that protests against cuts are equivalent to the uprisings in the Arab world. And our elected leaders are despots.

      Delusion is not a monopoly of any religion, class, race or political ideology.

      True conservatives would agree with that.

      **********************

    32. Shaheen Amin — on 2nd March, 2011 at 6:59 pm  

      The purpose of this article is to support the voice of ‘moderation’.

      Can anyone explain what the voice of moderation is, in the light of ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of religion’?

    33. Don — on 2nd March, 2011 at 7:40 pm  

      Shaheen,

      Could you expand on the question?

    34. Tory — on 2nd March, 2011 at 8:05 pm  

      ’28, Mr. right-wing self-righteous Tory, you didn’t answer the point I raised, and as usual responded with ‘how dare a 2nd generation immigrant p*ki criticise us’.’

      Notice the narrative of false grievances. The unwavering belief of having an absolute right to accuse anyone of anything (including racism) because they don’t agree with his fantasies of religious supremacism. I couldn’t care less if you are far too ignorant to understand evolution. My objection is to a bunch of ignoramuses telling others they aren’t allowed to learn about it. Haven’t you seen the news today? We don’t want Britain to be like Pakistan. Perhaps this country is too scientific and developed for you?

      ‘I never criticised the level of tolerance we have in the UK, despite of intolerant people like you.’

      You are what is most intolerant about this country now. Calling people who believe in science ‘secular fasicsts’.

      ‘The situation at the mosque has nothing to do with science or what have you. It is simply a matter of respecting the right of self-determination of a community, which you like to undermining’

      Sharia has nothing to with self-determination. Its about a bunch of guys getting off on threatening ‘fake muslims’ and kaffirs.

      I like the use of words like ‘community’ and ‘self-determinations’ though. Some of the useful idiots here emight even buy it!

    35. BenSix — on 2nd March, 2011 at 8:24 pm  

      How typically hypocritical of the secularist fascists on this blog to support a despotic Imam, desperately clinging on to power, as his congregation unanimously depose him…

      For the awesome crime of (a) holding a respectable scientific belief and (b) opposing an unreasonable religious belief. Sure, they’ve got the right to kick him out but we’re quite justified in thinking that it’s ludicrous to do so. (I’d assume this comment was a parody but as the linked website insists that Hasan’s sacking represented opposition “neo-liberalism” it’s perhaps sincere. Or is the whole thing a joke?)

    36. Sunny — on 2nd March, 2011 at 8:44 pm  

      While I’m trying to find out what’s going on, a bunch of idiots from opposite sides of the spectrum are arguing with each other with their handbags. Grow up.

    37. BenSix — on 2nd March, 2011 at 8:53 pm  

      In that case I withdraw my comments (though in fairness to we “idiots” there’s no real reason for us to have seen the updates).

    38. Abuz Zubair — on 2nd March, 2011 at 9:09 pm  

      Tory, as usual you continue to ignore my points. Just admit you don’t have the answers instead of parroting Mr. Blair by conveniently brushing them aside as ‘false grievances’. Not only you couldn’t answer the valid points I raised in the first post, you further brought the same old racist Tory rhetoric about immigration and integration into the discussion, in a politically correct way of telling an immigrant to ‘know his place’ and ‘if you don’t like it here, go back to where you came from.’ This is a fact right here on this thread, and not ‘false grievance’.

      We’ve all learned evolution while preparing for our GCSEs, and have agreed to disagree. We don’t even mind discussing or debating evolution within the mosque premises, i.e. giving an atheist the right to sit on a panel and debate why God doesn’t exist - in a mosque. What the community is not happy with is a person leading them in prayers who does not subscribe to their views. It’s like a Church minister leading a Jewish congregation, Tony Blair leading the Tories (or perhaps, that wasn’t a good example?)

      What makes people like the posters on this blog ‘fascists’ is not that they believe in science, but because of their utter disregard for a religious community’s inalienable right to have an Imam of their choice. What makes the secularists hypocrites is that they pretend to be advocates of people’s right to self-determination, whereas in reality, they have been actively supporting despotic regimes and brutal dictatorships, and further supplying them with weapons and torture equipment.

      And hence my question for the umpteenth time, when did the last time Mr. Blair shake hands with Col Gaddafi?

      I tell you what would make the Muslims respect you, despite your secular views, is your sense of justice and honesty. If you really sincerely believed in what you preach here, you would put your hands up and say, “It’s sad that the Imam was expelled for his views, however, the community reserves that right, fair enough”, as poster #18 has aptly said.

      However, there is no such thing as ‘honesty’ in moral-less secular politics where goals justify the means.

    39. Abuz Zubair — on 2nd March, 2011 at 9:22 pm  

      @BenSix - You definitely have the right to think our beliefs are ludicrous, although, justification is subject to perception. Muslims do not mind if others hold beliefs that are contrary to Islam. It is given that non-Muslims must think of Muhammad as an imposter, the way Jewish people would consider Jesus an imposter. But hey, this is what religions are all about, and disbelief in next man’s faith cannot be an excuse for unfair treatment of others.

      At the same time, one religious/ideological community should not impose itself on another community, or dictate its beliefs and values, as it is currently happening with the secular-liberal bullying of the Muslim community in the UK.

    40. Roger — on 2nd March, 2011 at 9:42 pm  

      On top of being an anti-evolution idiot, Abu Zubair wants Usama Hasan dead, in the name of Islam. See for yourself here.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP2ReBIAR_A

    41. douglas clark — on 2nd March, 2011 at 9:52 pm  

      Dear Abuz Zubair,

      There is a serious dichotomy between the evidence based and faith based communities in this country and indeed around the world. It would be wrong to characterise it as a discussion between secular liberals and muslims. It is far wider than that. The true dividing line is probably somewhere between belief and evidence.

      Sadly for me, as I take the opposite side of the divide from you, it is the faith based communities that appear to be in the ascendant these days.

      It hardly needs saying that what does rather upset the faith based communities is that all scientific evidence points to a different history to the Universe than the many postulated by their good selves. And they would really, really prefer it not to be discussed.

      At all.

      I know that many young religious folk are university educated, many in cosmology and astronomy, and I wonder whether they ever struggle with the contradictions they must see between their faith and what they are taught. It would be interesting to read their views. Theologians, not so much.

      Anyway, it is very much to the point to read Sunny’s updates in the OP above. It seems that Dr Hasan is the victim of an attack from fundamentalists, but the fundamentalists lost. Is that right or is it wrong? How did the vote go?

    42. douglas clark — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:09 pm  

      Roger @ 40,

      Whereabouts is the actual quote? I can do stream of consciousness stuff just as well as the next man, but that is a serious allegation and I’d like to hear it for myself, or have you transcribe it, without having to wade through all that jazz.

    43. BenSix — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:14 pm  

      Abu -

      Absolutely. If someone believes that, say, L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet for our Lord Travolta I won’t force them to adopt my view. Live and let live. If they feel it would just for people who divert from their opinions to be, say, executed my opinion might become more complicated.

    44. Abuz Zubair — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:16 pm  

      ‘Roger’, you wish I want him dead to secure my prosecution, knowing full well that I am merely quoting an opinion of a Saudi jurist who your beloved modern ‘Imam’ himself greatly admires, making a point that even according to the jurists the Imam himself refers to and holds in high esteem, his views are considered at odds with religion such that he cannot reconcile between the two.

      @douglas clark, I would respectfully disagree with your view here since you are looking at it as an outsider and perhaps haven’t had much interaction with well educated Muslims and even scientists who see no conflict between science and religion, and see their faith evidence-based.

      While it may be true of other faith communities, the fact of the matter is, Muslim students have been very active at university campuses arranging debates and dialogues with people of various faiths and convictions, including atheists and Darwinists. As I said, Muslims do not find it problematic to have a debate on this topic and share platform with an atheist inside the mosque.

      But Muslims do find it quite antagonising when people question their right to have certain beliefs, or in this case, their right to have, or not to have an Imam of particular persuasion.

    45. Shaheen Amin — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:17 pm  

      Freedom of religion and freedom of choice - all parts of ‘secular liberalism’ with the exception of Islam these days and in the past.

      Do realise that sincere Muslims are well aware of the hypocrisy of the secular liberals when it comes to Islam and Muslims. We have been in the scene ever since the time of Adam, the first man and will remain so.

    46. douglas clark — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:20 pm  

      BenSix,

      Our new friend, Mr Abuz Zubair, should perhaps comment on Rogers’ post @ 40.

    47. Shaheen Amin — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:25 pm  

      Douglas Clark - our brother Abuz Zubayr did not threaten anyone with death penalty. He is a law abiding citizen of our beloved Britain. You do not know him and his voice and you were not at the meeting unlike me.

    48. BenSix — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:25 pm  

      To be clear on Roger’s point, I think the implication of Zubair’s video - for those won’t view it - isn’t that he wants someone to kill Hasan - which, indeed, would be incitement - but that someone else thinks that it would be just if it was in the context of a Muslim state. He doesn’t explicitly align himself with this and if he’d like to disassociate himself from it then fair enough…

    49. Tory — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:28 pm  

      42

      ‘The call to evolution is a call to kufr [disbelief] and apostasy from Islam.’

      ‘Ibn al-Uthaymeen in particular, he was asked this question about a teacher who comes into the classroom and teaches evolution. He said that not only this person, who is in a position of a teacher at school, should be expelled, but even outside of school he should be monitored in terms of his activities and his contacts to make sure he is not misguiding others. And he should be stopped by any means necessary even if it means his execution.’

      ‘Anybody who mocks Allah or his messenger or anyone or any aspect of religion which is known from the deen [religion], by necessity is a kaffir and a murtad [apostate] and is subject to execution because the prophet said “execute the one who changes his religion”.

      There you go.

      Apparently all this is OK because Blair strengthened ties with Libya.

      Lefties, please note the narrative of false grievances. If you don’t get it now, you never will.

    50. Tory — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:29 pm  

      48

      hahahaha

      beyond parody

    51. damon — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:29 pm  

      As for the OP and updates one and two, why does this even matter? If people want to believe in creationism that’s their choice. There’s a Mormon church around the corner from where I live … so what? Why should you care if a synagogue is Orthodox, Conservative or Reform? It’s not my place to worry about other people’s personal beliefs. My nearest mosque lists itself as Salafi. I suppose they don’t believe in evolution either, but it’s not really my business.
      I don’t see why the OP said this was ”very worrying”.

    52. Abuz Zubair — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:32 pm  

      @Junaid who said: “there were proponents of biological evolution publicly discussing the subject in Baghdad more than 1000 years before Darwin was born. and no-one demanded their expulsion from the Mosque – which was, at the time, the hub for intellectual discussions by the greatest minds of the time.”

      Guys, one thing you will find about the liberal secularists within our ranks is that they find this urge to lay a claim to nearly everything that the West should be credited for. One always hears this rhetoric, ‘We invented this, 100s before the West. We discovered such-and-such, when the West was still in the middle ages.’

      I believe credit should only be given where it’s due, and frankly speaking, Evolution is a Western idea, which emerged in the 19th century. Muslims were not discussing it 1000s of years ago! What Junaid might be referring to is Muslim scholarship discussing what’s called ‘The Great Chain of Being’ which was borrowed from the Greeks, perhaps, Aristotle in particular:
      http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Aristotl.htm

      And as you can see it has nothing to do with evolution. This isn’t to say that Muslims didn’t contribute, because they certainly did. We have made other contributions to humanity which we can rightly take pride in, without attempting to shine in other people’s glory.

      Right, Junaid?

    53. Abuz Zubair — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:38 pm  

      @Tory, while you should take note that I have explicitly urged the public not to cause any physical harm to the Imam. So we’re back to square one, and still waiting to hear your answers to our questions.

      Talking of lefties, btw, did you know Muslims have more in common with the tories than lefties? :) Thank about it.

    54. BenSix — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:40 pm  

      Tory -

      hahaha

      beyond trolling

      There’s a difference between claiming that (a) something would make execution just under the conditions of X and (b) execution is just, no? For one thing the latter is illegal.

      And, while I suspect Zubair quoted this demagogue’s opinion respectfully, there’s nothing lost by giving him a chance to prove me wrong. The products of a vague slanging match - such as the one you two played out upthread - are about as bountiful as a flowerbed watered with urine.

    55. Shaheen Amin — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:46 pm  

      Do we have right of ‘freedom of religion’ and ‘freedom of speech’?

      Do you have the right of not being subjected to the torture carried out with the support of the West in the Muslim countries?

    56. Don — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:46 pm  

      Damon,

      You don’t find large-scale well-funded resurgent assertive anti-science religiosity to be worrying? Just in general?

      No reason you should, I guess.

    57. douglas clark — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:49 pm  

      Dear Mr Abuz Zubair,

      You say this:

      ‘Roger’, you wish I want him dead to secure my prosecution, knowing full well that I am merely quoting an opinion of a Saudi jurist who your beloved modern ‘Imam’ himself greatly admires, making a point that even according to the jurists the Imam himself refers to and holds in high esteem, his views are considered at odds with religion such that he cannot reconcile between the two.

      I do not know what you mean by that. I doubt many others do either.

      _____________________________________________

      Do you agree with your Saudi jurist, or do you disagree with him? And if you do agree with him, what’s to be done about it? You have been accused here of incitement to murder. I quote:

      On top of being an anti-evolution idiot, Abu Zubair wants Usama Hasan dead, in the name of Islam.

      I’d like a guarantee that you do not call for death on your enemies, or specifically Usama Hasan, who appears to be quite a reasonable chap.

      _______________________________________________

      I accept that there is a crossover between religion and science, but I’ll be damned if you are allowed to define it.

      I read scientists on this sort of stuff all the time. I know how hard it is for them.

      The Universe is circa 14bn years old.

      It is Abuz, it just is. No amount of hand waving is going to change that general scientific consensus. And, so, faith and reality clash.

      What’s the koran got to say about that, or the bible or the torah? The three abrahamic religions have their faith and nothing whatsoever about reality. It is a desperate leap to bridge the gap between 14 billion years ago and daft wee creationist religions.

      It is also worth mentioning that the fact that science doesn’t know everything is it’s strength and religion’s fundamental weakness. Every last one of you are retreating into ‘god of the gaps’ territory.

    58. douglas clark — on 2nd March, 2011 at 10:53 pm  

      Shaheen Amin @ 55,

      Do we have right of ‘freedom of religion’ and ‘freedom of speech’?

      Of course you do. But so do the rest of us, including the right to mock religious beliefs.

      Do you have the right of not being subjected to the torture carried out with the support of the West in the Muslim countries?

      No-one should be tortured. End of.

    59. douglas clark — on 2nd March, 2011 at 11:09 pm  

      Shaheen Amin @ 47,

      Sorry, you do not understand me.

      I want Roger @ 40 and BenSix @ 48 to actually produce their evidence.

      But I also want him

      Douglas Clark – our brother Abuz Zubayr did not threaten anyone with death penalty. He is a law abiding citizen of our beloved Britain. You do not know him and his voice and you were not at the meeting unlike me.

      to deny the very idea.

      I seems to the point to me that Abuz Zubayr should tell these people that he does not advocate a death penalty.

      Ever. For anything.

      It is a simple enough thing to do.

      Here it is:

      “I, Abuz Zubayr, am completely against the death penalty.”

      Perhaps you will miss the point of the brevity of that.

    60. damon — on 2nd March, 2011 at 11:28 pm  

      Don, I might not welcome it particularly - but that’s what multiculturalism is about isn’t it?
      If you have a society that is open to the world, which we now are, you get what you get.
      A secular person doesn’t really have any say about what religious people believe.

      Usama Hasan himself said this in the Guardian:

      In contrast to their forebears, modern Muslims have a childlike view of science, especially evolution. This needs to change

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/religion.darwinbicentenary

    61. Abuz Zubair — on 2nd March, 2011 at 11:30 pm  

      @douglas clark, I will reiterate myself. As I said in post #53: “I have explicitly urged the public not to cause any physical harm to the Imam.” And for your information, I have also explicitly stated that in my view, it would be a sin and unislamic for anybody to physically harm him, let alone execute him.

      “The Universe is circa 14bn years old.

      It is Abuz, it just is. No amount of hand waving is going to change that general scientific consensus. And, so, faith and reality clash.

      What’s the koran got to say about that, or the bible or the torah?”

      Well, that’s the point. I don’t see how this contradicts my faith. The Quran doesn’t say anything about the age of this universe. We don’t have the dilemmas that many who follow the Jewish and Christian traditions do, which is why I believe it is wrong to paint us all with the same brush.

      In fact, the Muslim theological circles have been very liberal while discussing science. The second generation of Islam had consensus over the fact that the world is spherical, that’s 100s of years before Galileo (I am not saying Muslims came up with the idea first). In fact, Muslims even discussed what could be described as very similar to the multi-universe theory, and that is without accusing each other of heresies and apostasy, and that is because Islamic history never saw the the kind of science vs church battle which Europe witnessed. Muslim people have had a completely different experience with science altogether.

      What this discussion does show is that unfortunately, we know very little about each other as different communities living in one country. Perhaps, that lends some support to Tory’s criticism of multiculturalism, and I must admit that it has not been all good experience. What Britain needs now is more engagement and understanding between different communities, faith groups and ideologies, instead of parallel communities always living in fear (and contempt) of the unknown. And I do believe the Muslims too have a fair share of blame for this. But I don’t think the solution lies in Tory style bullying of minority groups making them toe the line, and creating hostility.

    62. douglas clark — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:10 am  

      Abuz Zubair,

      Fair enough:

      I will reiterate myself. As I said in post #53: “I have explicitly urged the public not to cause any physical harm to the Imam.” And for your information, I have also explicitly stated that in my view, it would be a sin and unislamic for anybody to physically harm him, let alone execute him.

      I am almost willing to see you as a modern human being.

      You will, however, need to explain why your name, as in your name here, links to a lot of nonsense like this:

      http://www.islamicawakening.com/

      You do know what I am going to say, don’t you? That is just as pathetic as Christian beliefs of the early 20th C. Interesting that I seem to recall some ‘joke’ monkey pictures on that web site that aren’t there any more. Perhaps I am wrong.

    63. Roger — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:14 am  

      This is what Zubair says in the video about people who accept and teach evolution:

      Ibn al-Uthaymeen in particular, he was asked this question about a teacher who comes into the classroom and teaches evolution. He said that not only this person, who is in a position of a teacher at school, should be expelled, but even outside of school he should be monitored in terms of his activities and his contacts to make sure he is not misguiding others. And he should be stopped by any means necessary even if it means his execution.

      Upon that Ibn al-Uthaymeen was asked “do you mean that it is permissible to execute him?”. Ibn al-Uthaymeen says “yes, if there is absolutely no other way of stopping this person except execution, then this person should be executed because he is an apostate and apostates are executed.”

      Abu Zubair is just sayin’, innit.

      The man is scum.

    64. Junaid Bhatti — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:20 am  

      @52 - WRONG Abu Zubair

      Here’s some evidence from an independent and respected scientific publication to back up what i said:

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=forgotten-history-muslim-scientists&photo_id=5EA1571B-FF76-2D93-1745EA38E714FA2B

      Of course I can confidently predict that because the link is from a magazine called SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - two words you probably despise with a rabid passion - you will reject this as a valid source.

      Unlike you, Abu Zubair, I make statement based on evidence, rather than random rants I heard from some guy on YouTube.

      Worth adding this too. I don’t have any particular interest in claiming ANY scientific discovery or advance for Muslims. Science is the search for universal truths. So claiming achievements for Muslims that they don’t deserve doesn’t mean anything to me.

      The theory of Special Relativity doesn’t become more true or less true just because it came to us from a Jew. Turing’s achievement are not enhanced or diminished by his sexuality. And theories of natural selection don’t somehow become better or worse because a Muslim discussed them 1000 years before Darwin.

      The truth is the truth, regardless of the gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack of it), sexuality or politics of the person telling it to us.

      Wouldn’t you agree, Abuz Zubair?

    65. Abuz Zubair — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:21 am  

      @douglas clark, In case you got me wrong, I am not here to win anyone over, or get your approval, or to be recognised as a moderate, ‘modern human being’, whatever that means. I am here to open my own eyes regarding views expressed here with hope that you too will endeavour to understand me instead of judging me as modern or medieval.

      Remember, it is very easy to win an argument by labelling people/religions at first opportunity, but this isn’t considered a genuine attempt at changing things for the better.

    66. Abuz Zubair — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:31 am  

      @Roger, scum is the one who doesn’t continue with the quote which explicitly states that this is not to be done. Enough said.

      @Junaid, what you’ve quoted is just a claim which could be write or wrong, unless you believe everything published in Scientific American is the ‘Gospel truth’ :)

      I have read al-Jahiz’s famous work, Kitab al-Haywan. He was a Mu’tazalite theologian whose doctrine was completely based on Greek philosophy. And what he is talking about in the aforementioned book is precisely ‘The great chain of being’, traced back to Aristotle. The book is in Arabic, and available for anyone to read. When you get the time to study Arabic (or even find its translation), please go and have a look yourself.

      I do like the very first comment posted in that URL, though:
      1. mikeorgan1955 11:17 AM 3/2/11

      Isn’t it about time we stopped this ridiculous habit of attributing scientific and artistic innovation to a particular people/religious culture/nationality.

      Fact is that most of the inventions here can be attributed to the Greeks (whoever they were) the Chinese (whoever they were) The Indians (whoever they were).

      ——

      Spot on, I say.

      Anyway, enough said for today. Thank you very much for allowing me to comment on your blog. Apologies to Tory for any offence caused.

    67. Roger — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:48 am  

      this is not to be done

      Yes, you just happened to mention, ever so respectfully, that primitive “exclude him, and if that does not work, kill him” judgment on people who teach evolution.

      Then you added a “disclaimer” which amounts to “please don’t arrest me!”.

      Scum is exactly what you are.

    68. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:55 am  

      It is quite amazing to see the complete lack of awareness regarding Islam and the agreement of science with EVERYTHING (bar none) that the Qur’aan has to say on scientific phenomena.
      Someone here mentioned a specific point that the Qur’aam has nothing on the age of the universe. Well if they had ever contemplated on its meaning then they would have found that the Qur’aan goes furhter then this and actually explains how the universe was formed from stages which included a cosmic smoke and that the unverse is the result of a single lump which was split. This is in exact agreement with what physicists (being an aerospace engineer myself) have come to discover only recently with the advances in optical technology.
      I also remember my lecturer in the ‘Principles of Spacecraft design’ (a brilliant academic professor known as John Stark) mentioned to our class that only in the 1800′s did ‘modern science’ conclude definitively that the Earth was shped rather like an ostrich egg as opposed to a perfect sphere(up until the 1800′s a lot of people still believed it to be flat). However the Qur’aan refers to the Earths shape in such a way that modern science can only submit in agreement to it. When I mentioned this to Mr Stark, I remember the big smile he gave me.
      The Qur’aan speaks in microscopic detail regarding the numerous stages of foetal development, a fact that is given testimony even in amongst the most revered annals of ‘western science’-check ‘Life by Professor Keith Moore, a much respected gynaecologist from Canada.

      I could write volumes on many aspects of science that agree with the Qur’aan
      , but i just wanted to throw a taster in.
      Oh yeah and before I forget, why do people accept evolution as a fact when in favt it is still a theory whos fundamental principals are based on logical jumps? For example, at the most eleentary level of discussion, where is the so called missing link that the whole theory falls apart on? My father is a biologist and even he from his conclusions is a testament to the fact that not all scientists agree on evolution. So then who are a bunch of political muppets to tell me what is what is not scientific fact, especially after highlighting their ignorance?

    69. Junaid Bhatti — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:56 am  

      Really Abuz Zubair? Here is an excerpt from the work of Charles Pellat about Al-Jahiz:


      His chief work in the first category is K. al-Hayawan (ed. Harun, Cairo n.d, 7 vols..) which is not so much a bestiary as a genuine anthology based on animals, leading off sometimes rather unexpectedly into theology, metaphysics, sociology etc.; one can even find embryonic theories, without it being possible to say how far they are original, of the evolution of species, the influence of climate and animal psychology, which were not to be developed till the nineteenth century.

      What’s really interesting here is that you refer to his religious outlook, mentioning that he was a Mu’tazalite theologian. Like I said before, for me, a person’s religious beliefs do not make him any more or less right in their scientific óutlook. I have a suspicion you don’t feel the same way.

      PS For those who are about to Google Al-Jahiz, please be aware that the (current) Wikipedia entry on him is the subject of some controversy, as the claims made about him and the referenced material are not always consistent.

    70. Sunny — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:24 am  

      Roger - in Abuz’s defence, he goes on to say that the ‘execution’ only applies in a Muslim state if/where the imam decides to take it upon himself, and not for people here to take it literally. You’re being a bit disingenuous there aren’t you?

      Anyway - Abuz, you’re not part of Leyton Mosque are you? And the letter above wasn’t sent out by the mosque was it?

    71. Sunny — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:26 am  

      Also, who rusn the ISlamic Awakening site? Is it HuT, , Salafi, Deobandi… mixed? what?

    72. Sunny — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:27 am  

      That said, its a bit obvious Abuz Zubair is a fanatical religious nutjob.

    73. Junaid Bhatti — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:33 am  

      Sunny - So no confirmation yet whether Usama Hasan has or hasn’t been removed from his position at the Mosque? I did try and get a response from him about it, but to no avail (yet).

      I also noticed at least one Islamic Forum online where the discussion about this was deleted, and when I asked why I was told very tersely “There’s too many rumours and not enough facts about what is going on.”

    74. fug — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:37 am  

      Real shame that rather than wondering about creation and Quran, some brothers and their thought leaders have made this a boundary issue. They seem as secular in their epistemological compartments as dawkins. And are as determined to pick up as much christocentric baggage to stab eachother with again and again.

      Kun faya Kun. There is faya between the Kuns, and the trustees should have a good look at the faya.

    75. Junaid Bhatti — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:29 am  

      The Mosque has now issued a public statement on its website saying that the letter claiming Dr. Hasan has been sacked was not issued by the Mosque itself and the meeting where Dr. Hasan was supposedly dismissed was unconstitutional.

      Link - http://t.co/TQsoxjb

      Looks like there was some mischief-making by a few trouble-makers in the Mosque, and a lot of them outside the Mosque community. But something tells me this story is far from over…

    76. Shaheen Amin — on 3rd March, 2011 at 7:03 am  

      Junaid @75:

      Suhayb Hasan is attempting to stay in power by sinister means. I have no reason to believe that the board of trustees of the mosque has acted outside of its powers.

    77. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 8:20 am  

      Welcome to “modern” Britain!

    78. Don — on 3rd March, 2011 at 11:20 am  

      For example, at the most eleentary level of discussion, where is the so called missing link

      Failure to understand evolution at the most elementary level.

    79. shaeen Amin — on 3rd March, 2011 at 11:25 am  

      Darwinism is a product of speculation and not of empirical evidence. It is based on a premise that everything evoloved from a single cell. How did he and those who support it, know that for sure? Any empirical evidence? Of course not. Hence, it is a matter of philosophical speculation which ‘science’ is proud to reject.

    80. damon — on 3rd March, 2011 at 11:37 am  

      I don’t know why this is anybody’s businees other than the people directly involved. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. Same as you would if there was some schism and power play in some other religion or political group. Trotskyist groups were always having those, as did the various protestant christian sects. Even the Anglican church is split over issues of women priests and homosexuality. Who cares?
      Sunny, I think you should say why you think this is important. Adults are free to believe what they want. They have the free choice.
      If you are not a practicing muslim, it’s not really your concern.

    81. jamal — on 3rd March, 2011 at 11:38 am  

      This story seems to be made up and is really a non story.

      But evolution should be discussed both sides of the story for and against.

      And people should examine the evidence use their brains come to a conclusion.

      Sacking people is not the answer even if their views are a bit strange.

    82. Yours truly — on 3rd March, 2011 at 11:40 am  

      This issue is being misrepresented. Usama Hasan wasn’t preaching a ‘moderate’ form of Islam. He was contradicting clear, explicit Islamic texts with no excuse.

      It’s very arrogant of you to consider yourself in a position to tell Muslims what is and what isn’t a ‘moderate’ interpretation of their religion.

      Usama Hasan was not interpreting the texts, he was going against them in a clear manner.

      If he wishes to come up with his own ideas he can invent his own religion. Why should Muslims tolerate his lies against their religion? And who are you, O article writer, to tell them they should accept this nobody’s ‘moderate’ teachings. How much do *you* know about Islam to be giving your opinion?

      If he invented his own religion and began preaching his views, nobody would care less. But he chose to attribute his flawed views to Islam, and therein lies the problem.

      Yours truly,
      Yours truly.

    83. Yours truly — on 3rd March, 2011 at 11:49 am  

      Besides, if the Mosque’s Board of Trustees votes and chooses to relieve one of their staff from his position, shouldn’t that be their right - according to your beliefs??

      If the tables were turned, and it was a board of ‘moderates’ (in your unauthorized opinion) voting to remove the lone ‘extremist,’ you would be applauding it as a ‘step forward’ for Muslims in the UK.

      Why the double-standard? Should all Mosques conform to your opinions, O writer?

    84. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 11:51 am  

      Why should Muslims tolerate his lies against their religion?

      Indeed. Why should this particular crew not be allowed to wallow in their own ignorance?

      Welcome to medieval Britain.

    85. jamal — on 3rd March, 2011 at 11:56 am  

      cjcjc

      i doubt very much you was at the talk, so who are you to judge who is medieval and who is ignorant? You are speaking from a position of ignorance when you was not even there.

      welcome to let me make assumptions britain!

    86. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:12 pm  

      *were* not even there

    87. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:45 pm  

      “there were proponents of biological evolution publicly discussing the subject in Baghdad more than 1000 years before Darwin was born. and no-one demanded their expulsion from the Mosque – which was, at the time, the hub for intellectual discussions by the greatest minds of the time.”

      Yes Mr Bhatti, demanding their expulsion from the mosque would not have been sought in those days, rather the apostasy from Islam that is necessitated throught the holding of such heretical belefs would have demanded something more subtle-their heads perhaps?
      Just because a single person contradicts Islamic concensus does not mean that that persons views represent what is acceptable Islamically-even if he is a scholar and qualified to make legal rulings(the fact is that scholars can be wrong). We have an excellent case in point with Ibn al Arabi, who apostated by adopting the belief of panthiesm and then was summarily executed by the Caliph.

      So Mr bhatti, before you go and make ludicrous conclusions that are not supported by neither historical precedence nor true Islamic jurisprudence, a red herring example of a few people who might not have had the hadd implemented on them (and this could be due to a number of reasons such as their works not gaining enough prominence and henceforth the attention of the Islamic authorities at the time etc) does not really stand up to objective argument.

      ‘What’s really interesting here is that you refer to his religious outlook, mentioning that he was a Mu’tazalite theologian. Like I said before, for me, a person’s religious beliefs do not make him any more or less right in their scientific óutlook. I have a suspicion you don’t feel the same way.’

      The mu’tazili core contradicts the sunni core by miles!
      The reason you conclude that religious outlook doez not affect scientific accuracy must be due (and i’m making an educated assumption by reading deeply into your statements here)to your lack of awareness concerning Islamic theology and how erroneous understanding concerning that theology will reflect a e persons inability to grasp the fundamentals of a subject and then apply it in reality-including the subject of science which is based on a set of given fundamentals. Expanding on this, the mu’tazilites do not take hard facts as hard facts. Rather, they reinterpret Qur’anic text (and Islamic fundamentals)in the light of greek philosophy so that their understanding is close to that of the greek logicians and what is perceived as human logic. So a person who understands a known reality in a way contrary to the actual reality, how can he make objective scientific judgement-becasue science itself is the understanding of reality. For example, If I contradicted the fact that gravity is intrinsically related to the mass of an object and concluded that gravity is independent of it, then I would be contradicting a scientific fundamental and therefore my whole understanding of the gravitational concept would be faulty. This would also reflect the way in which I approach and understand things as being questionable. And thus I would be a mu’tazili of science (if there were such a thing-lol) and rejected by the scientific community because of my complete lack of objective approach and erroneous conclusion. Thus the mu’tazilites lack the capability of understanding fundamentals correctly, I wouldnt 100% trust the scientific judgement of a person who cant accept a fact as fact even when it is staring him in the face. If a mu’tazili caannot accept religious fundamentals and finds the need to reinterpret them, then whats to stop him from twisting scientific fundamentals by way of his warped thinking?
      And you can see this case in point with the greeks, who to their credit did discover SOME things, were fundamentally wrong on their approach to many other aspects of science. That is possibly the reason why science was dead in Greece and thriving in the Islamic world- a world where people were making objective judgements, a methodology of thinking in line with the whole sunni creed which accepts facts and does not try to misrepresent their interpretation

    88. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 12:57 pm  

      and warped thinking is something in common to every disveliever in God. Sure there is benefit in some of what they say and truth in it aswell- however their rejection of the Creator exposes their misunderstanding of what is true science. True science is not only to make a few conclusions based on what one perceives, but rather to think beyond and outside the box in order to extrapolte further and really see the universe from a fact based and objective point of view reflected by solid evidence pointing to that view, Thus true science will lead one to God All Mighty as indicated by Himself (Glory be to Him).

      3:190 Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding

      3:191 Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): “Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire.

      and many other verses which point to how one can use the universe to approach belief caN BE FOUND IN THE BOOK- IF ONLY PEOPLE WERE TO READ~!

      Evolution is not true science, rather it doesnt even pass the condition (a condition that i agree with) that is self imposed by Western secular science -namely being the presentation of hard evidence before a theory is accepted as fact. And indeed that is why in many of the more informed scientific quarters it is still referred to as just that- A THEORY.

      Thus the fact that a bunch of misinformed people who claim to follow the Western thought process want to ram it down my throat as a fact only betrays hypocrisy from those people who cannot even submit to their own principles when they see the juicy catch of bashing religion in their midst. Typical hypocrisy. a hypocrisy at parallel with your leaders who claim to love democracy and human rights, but when they see a temporary benefit for themselves, they are ready to prop up dictators and support them! ~Dont worry though, the hypocisy is not there to last for long and soon the flag of Islam be raised over your heads, lowering some and elevating others.

    89. Rumbold — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:07 pm  

      Dont worry though, the hypocisy is not there to last for long and soon the flag of Islam be raised over your heads, lowering some and elevating others.

      That’s put my mind at ease anyway.

    90. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:17 pm  

      @89 mine too!

    91. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:21 pm  

      Rumbold, Islam brings justice, and the statement you have quoted from me means that those who are unjust and unaccepting of the truth will never be seen in the same light by Islam as those who are the opposite. Even the West subscribes to this. It does not view the unjust in the same light as just-even though the definition of what is just and what is unjust does vary between God and the tory party. If I had to choose my definition, then I would rather go with what God says instead of a bunch of politicians who change laws more then I change my socks!

      At Damon: you mentioned:

      ‘I don’t know why this is anybody’s businees other than the people directly involved. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. ‘

      So then I take it that your directly involved. If not then be true to your own principle and go somewhere else, otherwise your just gonna be like the rest who take principles only when it suits their argument.

      ‘ Even the Anglican church is split over issues of women priests and homosexuality. Who cares?’

      Clearly you dont care. But then why make it your duty to be a thought policeman and assume that everyone should follow your opinion? If you dont care then somebody else might. Yes, the anglican church is contradicting the very bible that it swears by in terms of those hypocrite priests that have thrown the biblical stance on homosexuality behinf their backs.

      ‘Sunny, I think you should say why you think this is important. Adults are free to believe what they want. They have the free choice.’

      Yes and in light of that we have our choice to belive that a Darwinist is thick and should not have the right to lead us in prayer. So what then gave you the right to infringe on OUR free choice? You truly are shooting yourself in the foot Im sorry to say.

      ‘If you are not a practicing muslim, it’s not really your concern.’

      So in light of understanding the opposing implication necessitated by your statement, then it must be a concern if you are a practicing muslim. And thus according to your own admission, Abuz Zubair , shaheen and the other practicing muslims on this forum including myself have a legitimate concern by virtue of us being practicing. So yeah thanks fro agreeing with our concern?

    92. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:25 pm  

      Rumbold and cjcj, I pray that Allah guides you to the truth and admits me, you, cjcj and the others over here to the truth of Islaam and essentiaaly into His pleasure and after that paradise. Ameen. And then we will truly be at ease! (And i say this with a sincere heart and not out of sarcasm)

    93. BenSix — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:31 pm  

      Yours Truly -

      It’s very arrogant of you to consider yourself in a position to tell Muslims what is and what isn’t a ‘moderate’ interpretation of their religion.

      Perhaps, but we can tell people which of their and others’ beliefs we feel are, say, in accordance with some principles of science - though, of course, they needn’t listen - or the fundamental values of society. So, I can tell Abu Turaab that someone would have to remove my head before “[raising] the flag of Islam” above it.

    94. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:42 pm  

      But then Benny (can I call you Benny?), if you truly researched Islam, then you would find that true science (aside from the funny unproven theories) has no contradiction to Islam at all.
      Thus how can you tell us which interpretations are correct or not without having researched the subject in depth. Unless of course you have truly done your research in which case you can bring your contentions to the table and we can analyse them.
      Also, where do you derive your fundamental values from. Is there a standard? Or even limits to what you think the fundamentals should be? I mean in this country only a few decades ago, homosexuality was illegal. And now the fundamnetaLS of society have dictated it not to be so. Thus the fundamentals of society that are based on human whims really are just that, -whims enshrined by establishment and cemented by the law-a law not in accordance with nature or God, but in accordance with your own desires. Aptly manifested in one sense for example through the bombing of third world countries in order to satiate the western desire and appetite for wealth etc. Thus your fundamentals are proven to manifest in oppression. And this is in accordance witht the Qur’aan aswell where it is indicated that ruling with other then the law of God is oppression and for the oppressors. Thus the West, based on its fundamentals, supports oppressors(proven), and forments societies in which people feel oppressed (proven).
      Thus if you value these fundamentals and equate them to the value which you place on your head, then it is sad to see the degree by which people these days value their own lives. I admire your bravery though.Maybe you are a descendent of the Knights in shining armour who defended Richard lol. Anyway, I pray that you see the truth and happiness before a time really does come when your claim of bravery is put to the test.
      Take care Ben- its been a pleasure
      Ciao!

    95. jamal — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:45 pm  

      incident has not even happened according to Sunny’s update and now 93 comments later where into a slanging match, so much for sensible debate!

    96. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:47 pm  

      “I pray that you see the truth and happiness before a time really does come when your claim of bravery is put to the test”

      Wooooooooooooo…

      And I’m sorry to tell you that it is my nature to be homosexual.

      And this homosexual says - f*ck you and your medieval shit.

      (And I say this with a sincere heart and not out of sarcasm.)

    97. Shamit — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:48 pm  

      Ahhh the pearls of wisdom are being showered upon us today - and I feel blessed yet I must confess the religion of the Books (ie Judaism, Christianity and Islam) make me wonder what happened before the garden of eden and what happens after judgement day.

      If God is omnipotent why is there a thing called the Devil - at least in the other major religions that came out from the basic hindu philosophy I do find some answers about the cyclical nature of life and creation.

      Whoever born must die - whatever is created is destroyed - and God does both the creation and destruction.

      The only commonality is the ultimate aim of being one with GOD - however, while the eastern philosophy suggests that there is a purification of soul through many births in many forms - I find the Abrahamic religions rather abrupt.

      Not that I am very religious anyway - but I do believe in God but not in any religion per se - because religion uses God to oppress people and has been the cause of far too many bloodsheds throughout history which continues still today.

      NO GOD whatever religion you may follow showers his blessings on those who shed blood. But more importantly, if we are all God’s children, why the hell do I need a book to tell me how to reach HIM - who is to say what is right and what is wrong - I believe all scriptures are man made with all due respect to all prophets and I include Gita in it - and they are based on contemporary political and socio-economic concepts which are rather out of date in the modern world.

      Be it the Gita, or the Bible or the Koran - many many things said in those books are simply unacceptable in today’s terms. In the Koran, it says women have half the rights of inheritance than their male counterparts because males are responsible for the financial upkeep of their ffamily - hmm. isn’t that odd and inexplicable as well as unacceptable in today’s world.

      So believing any scripture word for word is rather bizzare and I doubt God would have wanted it that way otherwise why would he let us evolve as a society - or are all modern contraptions the creation of the devil.

      So much to ponder yet very few actually do it. And religion has been manipulated by Man not GOD - GOD probaly would not have wanted so many contradictory religions enabling his children kill each other.

      The history of the world and the human race is older than all organised religion - so did God wake up one day and create religion - I don’t know but I am not convinced he wanted religions - especially when the basic teachings are the same and most important messages are about peace and loving one’s neighbours and serving humanity = serving God.

      So Abu the audience here does not like pontification and so maybe you chose the wrong audience to deliver your sermons.

    98. douglas clark — on 3rd March, 2011 at 1:51 pm  

      jamal @ 95,

      It’s what happens when people get all wound up.

    99. damon — on 3rd March, 2011 at 2:11 pm  

      Abu Turaab @91, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m saying you can believe what ever you want.
      Being secular I don’t really get it, but mankind has always had gods, so I guess there’s some primeval need for it.
      Religions and beliefs come in all shapes and sizes, and none should really be given more respect than any other. From the Abrahamic, to worship of the sun gods or groups like the ‘Heaven’s Gate/Hale-Bopp’ cult.

      It’s up to the individual and not my business.
      Although I would be interested to know what percentages of people of a particular faith are actually that dogmatic about it. Do most people who turn up for friday prayers give this kind of thing much thought? And if they don’t, should they?

    100. BenSix — on 3rd March, 2011 at 2:25 pm  

      Abu Turaab -

      You can call me what you like, Bob (can I call you Bob?). I’m open to having evolution disproved - perhaps it can be; I’m not an expert after all. But thus far all I’ve seen from Hasan’s opponents is the bold insistence that it contradists Qur’anic - which might be true or false but says sod all about its scientific merits - and a thread that claims - *titter*, *chortle* - that the guy’s a monkey. This makes Kirk Cameron look like Albert-goddamn-Einstein.

      One of the fundamental values of our society is the separation of church and state. In other words, people shouldn’t be subject to the will of deities that other citizens cleave to. This isn’t always perfectly enacted, no, but we’ve made a start and I’ve got no desire for all that work to be abolished.

      You’re correct that our society is gravely flawed - with, yes, some rather nasty forms of collective decadence and states that have few qualms about the deaths of foreigners. On the other hand, (a) you’re kidding if you think this is exclusive to “the West” and (b) that doesn’t mean I’d like to replace a bad state of affairs with a rotten one. If you think that states that impose Shari’ah are attractive then you’re welcome to them. I, on the other hand, see nothing to commend them to anyone but theocrats and suicidal libertines.

    101. KJB — on 3rd March, 2011 at 2:48 pm  

      Abu Turaab -

      It’s very arrogant for you to tell Rumbold and cjcjc - and Ben - to come round to your way of ‘Islaam’. You probably should preach your ‘funny unproven theories’ and veiled death threats where the people are thick and/or desperate enough to listen to you. Try not to come at the very mention of God’s name on the way out!

      What the fuck makes these people think that draping their ugly statements in flowery faux-poetics is going to make them sound any less bigoted, ignorant and hateful?

      The Islamist infiltration on this thread is really something. They are exactly like the BNP trolls, coming crawling out of the woodwork at the slightest mention.

    102. Sunny — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:10 pm  

      They sound like Hizb ut-Tahrir nutjobs. Thankfully banned from most mosques so I suspect they did the same with these guys.

      But basically, Usama Hasan is facing a sustained campaign of intimidation and harassment from these nutters. The police should definitely look into it.

      Junaid - he has not been sacked. The above letter was leaked in the sense that some people attached to the mosque were planning to send it out after they won - but lost.

    103. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:11 pm  

      ‘And I’m sorry to tell you that it is my nature to be homosexual.’

      Yes in your self imposed twisted nature. a nature where you cant even debate without trying to start a slanging match. Well you seem like a really tough guy so im very afraid now- your hand might just pass the safety of your screen and grab me lol—I love keyboard warriors, they bring so much spice to the discussion.

      Reagrding evolution:

      ‘But thus far all I’ve seen from Hasan’s opponents is the bold insistence that it contradists Qur’anic – which might be true or false but says so all about its scientific merits ‘

      Ok then, from a scientific perspective a simple question—-where is the missing link that evolutionists fantasise about that will bridge the gap between primate and human?
      You should know that the religious argument in itself has science behind it. The fact is that nothing in the Qur’aan can be proved as untrue by science. I studied science for a couple of years and now teach it to to others (including non-muslims)in my spare time.And I wouldnt have come to the religion if I found the true nature of things in the universe to contradict its clear texts.

      @kjb- I quote:

      ‘i’t’s very arrogant for you to tell Rumbold and cjcjc – and Ben – to come round to your way of ‘Islaaam’.

      Says you- and i’m at liberty to disagree. I was inviting to the truth. A truth which will save you from the hellfire- a direction in which you KJB clearly seem to be heading- with your head in the sand.

      ‘You probably should take your ‘funny unproven theories’ and veiled death threats and preach them where the people are thick and/or desperate enough to listen to you.’

      Well by the statistics it seems that Islam is the fastest growing religion in this country in terms of conversion. Thus your ‘thick, desperate’ fellow country men and women either have less intelligence then yourself (which i find hard to believe judging from your inability to respond to arguments with logic and evidence)or you must have a monopoly on deciding what intelligence is. There is no veiled death threat. Take the words for what they are and you will save yourself from looking for hidden meanings. So now put your money where your mouth is. Give me an ‘funny, unporven theory’ form the Quran which has been proved so. If you cant then know that your just releasing hot air and that the proper receptacle for this is not via your keyboard or mouth-constipation can be such a problem !

      ‘What the fuck makes these people think that draping their ugly statements in flowery-faux poetics is going to make them sound any less bigoted, ignorant and hateful? ‘

      I think that was an ugly sentence with an ugly word. The fact is our Prophet (saw) was sent as a mercy to mankind. And in this light we are here and would like to guide you to the truth and thereby allow the mercy of God upon yourselves. However, it is only fair and a duty upon me to let you know that we do hate. We hate disbelief and we hate oppression. So yes we DO have hate. But a hate that is channeled such that we hate what God commands us to hate, unlike yourself who hates what doesnt agree with your ‘i know it all’ mentality. Thus we hate homosexuality and think, rather know of it as abomination that contradicts nature itself.
      And the fact that Islam CAN disprove theories that are false is an evidence that the ignorance is really in the oppositions court, especially when you can only reply with emotion ( what the **** etc)and not fact.
      And yes, if viewing a confirmed disbeliever as a disbeliever who is an enemy of God makes me bigoted then I am proud to say that one of the aims of my life is to be the biggest bigot of all.

      we do hate. We hate your disbelief. And we do believe that the disbelievers who reject the truth are lower then cattle.

    104. Rumbold — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:12 pm  

      Abu Turaab:

      I do hope everyone who deserves it goes to paradise (that is not sarcasm either). Similar to Shamit, I believe in a supreme being, but I don’t accept the need for religion, especially ritual.

      A truth which will save you from the hellfire- a direction in which you KJB clearly seem to be heading- with your head in the sand.

      Actually, I’ll go that way instead.

    105. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:14 pm  

      ‘They sound like Hizb ut-Tahrir nutjobs. Thankfully banned from most mosques so I suspect they did the same with these guys’

      Hizb Ut Tahrir is an organisation whos views i am at odds with. I regularly argue with their misaligned and tunnel vision mentality and I am the same with regards to certain views expressed by Muhajiroun and their funny leaders.
      But thanks for your informed and educated assumption sunny which has lead you to making incorrect conclusions. I must say that I had some respect for you due to your handling of the discussion in a better way then other people on here. (if my respect means anything, maybe it doesnt but thats besides the point).

    106. Rumbold — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:16 pm  

      Abu Turaab:

      Thus we hate homosexuality and think, rather know of it as abomination that contradicts nature itself.

      How can something natural contradict nature? You didn’t choose to be hetrosexual any more than cjcjc chose to be homosexual.

      We hate your disbelief. And we do believe that the disbelievers who reject the truth are lower then cattle.

      Bloody cattle. Always getting above themselves.

    107. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:17 pm  

      ‘I do hope everyone who deserves it goes to paradise (that is not sarcasm either). Similar to Shamit, I believe in a supreme being, but I don’t accept the need for religion, especially ritual.’

      Let me ask you a simple, but rather vulgar question Rumbold .

      do you wipe your backside after going to the loo? If so why? Do you not view this as something that you have to practice in order to become clean? Therefore somewhat a ritual. In Islam we have prayers and other ‘rituals’ to purify our hearts. Maybe certain people only like to clean their backsides (which is a good thing) but we muslims liek to be pure from the inside as well as out.

      And i dont like the work ritual- it empties things of teh aspects of spirituality and fulfilment that can only be felt when worshipping Allah.

      ‘Actually, I’ll go that way instead’

      You to your religion and me to mine then

      http://www.islam-guide.com

    108. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:19 pm  

      “Yes in your self imposed twisted nature. a nature where you cant even debate without trying to start a slanging match. Well you seem like a really tough guy so im very afraid now- your hand might just pass the safety of your screen and grab me lol—I love keyboard warriors, they bring so much spice to the discussion.”

      My self-imposed twisted nature?
      Can one’s “nature” be self-imposed?
      Either way, how charming.
      You’ll have to forgive me if this abomination deosn’t wish to “debate” it with you, whatever that is supposed to mean.

      A slanging match you say?

      “And we do believe that the disbelievers who reject the truth are lower then (sic) cattle.”

      Hahaha

    109. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:22 pm  

      ‘How can something natural contradict nature? You didn’t choose to be hetrosexual any more than cjcjc chose to be homosexual’

      Interesting point. But a point that would mean you know what Cj really thinks inside and what I really think inside. In line with Western Science then , is there any evidence that a person is born a homosexual?
      I mean take George Michale for example. He became homosexual overnight after enjoying cavorts with many many women.

      Jack the ripper used to murder women for instance. Would you then say that because murder is an act that some humans do it is acceptable and doesnt contradict the order of things?
      So why make excuses for homosexuality and not for other crimes Rumbold? Thats a nice name by the way, what does it mean?

      ‘Bloody cattle. Always getting above themselves’

      lol-

    110. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:26 pm  

      My self-imposed twisted nature?
      Can one’s “nature” be self-imposed?’

      Well yes it can. And even for arguments sake it isnt, then your line of thinking could be used to justify things even you dont agree with.

      For example, some have the urge to kill others for no reason at all. If you were to ask them why, they would talk about urges in their soul and their nature. So now we should give them a license to do it should we? Islam teaches you to overcome the evil urges and whisperings in your own soul.

      ”A slanging match you say?

      “And we do believe that the disbelievers who reject the truth are lower then (sic) cattle.””

      Yes - and you probably believe that we are extemists.lol

    111. Shamit — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:28 pm  

      Purity of soul - hmmm - viewing other humans as less than cattle - because GOD wants him to. And he is not a bigot.

      Abu Turaab - can you prove to me that Koran was actually God’s words? I don’t think it was as I said before.

      But it is your faith that tells you it is God’s word - so what gives you the bloody right to question the faith of others.

      God exists but not the cruel unforgiving God that you seem to have created in your head - like the nutters who kills in HIS name.

    112. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:30 pm  

      “Yes – and you probably believe that we are extemists.lol”

      Yes.

      Though judging by the equally charming preachers who get invited over here I do sometimes get the feeling that you’re not extreme at all.

    113. Rumbold — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:42 pm  

      Abu Turaab:

      Therefore somewhat a ritual.

      No, I do it on health grounds.

      In Islam we have prayers and other ‘rituals’ to purify our hearts.

      Yes, but those rituals mean nothing without the right intentions.

      In line with Western Science then , is there any evidence that a person is born a homosexual?

      A fair amount, yes. To put it another way, when did you decide to be attracted to women (I presume you are). If sexuality is a choice, then you must decide to be attracted to certain people.

      I mean take George Michale for example. He became homosexual overnight after enjoying cavorts with many many women.

      No, he came out as homosexual one day. There is a difference.

      Would you then say that because murder is an act that some humans do it is acceptable and doesnt contradict the order of things?

      No, because it is a false comparison. What consenting adults get up to is none of anyone else’s business. When they start to hurt others, it becomes the law’s business.

    114. BenSix — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:42 pm  

      Bob -

      Ok then, from a scientific perspective a simple question—-where is the missing link that evolutionists fantasise about that will bridge the gap between primate and human?

      That’s not a simple question.

    115. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:45 pm  

      ‘Purity of soul – hmmm – viewing other humans as less than cattle – because GOD wants him to. And he is not a bigot.’

      No human is less then me by anything including his colour, looks, disability etc. The only thing that gives me a right to claim my nation as better then others is that we are muslim- and in agreement with the one who created everything in the first place. aND IF YOU LOOK AT EVERY MAJOR RELIGION WHETHER this be that of the non -christian hating christianity, or the goy hating judaism, or even the hindu faith where the leaders fought physical battles against their disbeliving opponents, you can see similariites.

      ‘Abu Turaab – can you prove to me that Koran was actually God’s words? I don’t think it was as I said before’

      Yes I can Alhamdolillah. But before I do that, let me just throw one in and ask if you can prove otherwise.

      Regarding proof then the Qur’aan itself challenges man to produce even one verse like it. (One verse like it in its structure, implication, depth of meaning etc). The best arab linguists have not been able to do this until today. In fact the arabs in the time of the Prophet(saw) were so struck by it that those who chose not to believe called it magic due to the tremendous nature of it. This is because they understood that a human could not come up with something liek this.

      And God gave the challenge in many places including the verses in surah al baqarah (translation):

      23
      And if you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur’ân) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a Sûrah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allâh, if you are truthful.
      24.
      But if you do it not, and you CAN NEVER DO IT, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.
      25.
      And give glad tidings to those who believe and do righteous good deeds, that for them will be Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise). Every time they will be provided with a fruit therefrom, they will say: “This is what we were provided with before,” and they will be given things in resemblance (i.e. in the same form but different in taste) and they shall have therein Azwâjun Mutahharatun [] (purified mates or wives), and they will abide therein forever.

      a challenge whcih still stands- and your welcome to take up the challenge Mr Shamit

      This is just one aspect of the Qur’aan and truly if you understood arabic then you would feel exactly what i am talking about.

      There are many other aspects on many other fronts, including the scientific front which only serve to reinforce that the Qur’aan is from God.
      If you want, you can take a look at the following website which atleast shines a correct light on the science InshaALLAH

      http://www.islam-guide.com

      One man in the desert where people used to worship idols, bury their own daughters and had no unity. In 23 years of his life this nation was transformed into one of monothiesm, who valued the lives of their young ones and became united to the point of taking over a third of the world. Can such change come except from the Truth!

    116. douglas clark — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:48 pm  

      Abu Turaab @ 110,

      I really detest that as a means of arguementation.

      [Jack the Ripper = Serial Killer. cjcjc = homosexual. See the similarity?]

      Well no, I don’t.

      You are clearly a bigot and frankly just love to push the boat out when it comes to winding people up. You are a troll.

    117. Tory — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:50 pm  

      ‘They sound like Hizb ut-Tahrir nutjobs. Thankfully banned from most mosques so I suspect they did the same with these guys.’

      Yes, you would certainly hope so, eh Sunny?

    118. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:52 pm  

      ”Abu Turaab:

      Therefore somewhat a ritual.

      No, I do it on health grounds.”

      Yes but it is something you do without fail. For a man from the forest who doesnt do this, he might view what your doing a s a ritual to satisfy your health requirements.

      rit·u·al
      ? ?/?r?t?u?l/ Show Spelled[rich-oo-uhl]
      –noun
      1.
      an established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite.

      OR OTHER RITE! In other words the rite of health.

      ‘Yes, but those rituals mean nothing without the right intentions.’

      I have to say here Rumbold (and you still havent told me what your name means) that this is an excellent point. We muslims believe that one of the conditions for having a good deed accepted is that it is primarily done for the pleasure of God. I dont want to sound patronising but well done!

      ‘In line with Western Science then , is there any evidence that a person is born a homosexual?

      A fair amount, yes. To put it another way, when did you decide to be attracted to women (I presume you are). If sexuality is a choice, then you must decide to be attracted to certain people.”

      I might have been attracted to men at one point. But I can definitely tell you that this was a result of environment and not anything else from this world. And yes alhamdolillah I am a healthy heterosexual who thanks God for the excellent creation of women. they are absolutely lovely.

      ‘No, he came out as homosexual one day. There is a difference.’

      yes after getting bored of women he move to men

      ”Would you then say that because murder is an act that some humans do it is acceptable and doesnt contradict the order of things?

      No, because it is a false comparison. What consenting adults get up to is none of anyone else’s business. When they start to hurt others, it becomes the law’s business. ”

      So now you decide what makes what a persons business. Howe about in societies where the law dictates that you can be a caniball. would you agree?
      It is not a false comparison when you look at the basis which is that man doesnt always know what is good for him and therefore God has told him what is good and what is bad

    119. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:56 pm  

      ”In line with Western Science then , is there any evidence that a person is born a homosexual?

      A fair amount, yes”

      Can you please direct me to it. And even if there was, it still wouldnt be correct. Remember, the premise is that what a person views as correct may not be the case- this is why i highlighted murder as an analogy-too bad that some people dont get it, or choose not to get it maybe.

    120. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:58 pm  

      ”I really detest that as a means of arguementation.

      [Jack the Ripper = Serial Killer. cjcjc = homosexual. See the similarity?]

      Well no, I don’t.

      You are clearly a bigot and frankly just love to push the boat out when it comes to winding people up. You are a troll”

      I have noticed in my lifetime that people like to throw labels when they cant think of a coherent reply.
      You still dont get the point. The point was that in the same way we dont give rights to murderers to murder, then why do we give the homosexual right to homosexuality. Yes one is a crime (murder) that is greater then the other. However, what has given you the right to define one urge as a crime and not the other? that is the question

    121. douglas clark — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:59 pm  

      Abu Turaab @ 115,

      You quote the translation / transliteration of the koran as follows:

      But if you do it not, and you CAN NEVER DO IT, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.

      Did god really use CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis? If he did he predated screaming nutters on the internet by several centuries. If he didn’t, and I am quite astonished that a cheap internet trick like that would have been something that god might not have thought was, err…, beneath him or something, then you yourself have attempted to improve on the word of god.

    122. Abu Turaab — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:59 pm  

      Its been a pleasure. I have got to get back to work now- but will come back later on InshaAllah.

    123. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 3:59 pm  

      I wipe my bum for the same reason most people do: I don’t want dirty pants.

      However I don’t (despite my twisted nature) regard my soul as being, as it were, full of shit.

      (Douglas et al. - don’t start ! ;-) )

      While like all of us I know I could be a better person, I see no constructive path for achieving this through simultaneously abasing myself masochistically before some supernatural being while hating those who choose otherwise. Quite the reverse.

    124. BenSix — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:02 pm  

      The point was that in the same way we dont give rights to murderers to murder, then why do we give the homosexual right to homosexuality.

      The difference, clearly, is that one causes harm someone who never consented to it and the other causes no harm to two people who did. (The point under a liberal society, of course, is that even if homosexuality was a cause of harm that wouldn’t legitimise its prohibition.)

    125. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:09 pm  

      “but will come back later on InshaAllah”

      InshaAllah, actually please don’t bother.

    126. douglas clark — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:13 pm  

      Abu Turaab @ 120,

      It is usual for crimes to have victims. There were five definite - for a given definition of definite - victims of Jack the Ripper. These are people whose lives were ended. Contrariwise, homosexuality is victimless. I think that that is a fairly substantial difference.

      BenSix - I didn’t crib, honest!

    127. Sarah AB — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:15 pm  

      “They are exactly like the BNP trolls, coming crawling out of the woodwork at the slightest mention.” Maybe they are BNP trolls, KJB, they might as well be!

    128. Rumbold — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:21 pm  

      Abu Taraab:

      He might view what your doing as a ritual to satisfy your health requirements.

      He might, but he would be wrong. It is entirely practical.

      We muslims believe that one of the conditions for having a good deed accepted is that it is primarily done for the pleasure of God. I dont want to sound patronising but well done!

      So that’s another thing for the angel on by right shoulder to note down. Good. My name is a moniker I have taken from a historical figure, But it is not my real name.

      I might have been attracted to men at one point.

      Ahhh… now we get to the root of the problem. Were you ‘cured’ of this purchance?

      No reputable body believes that homosexuality is a choice:

      See this page

      So now you decide what makes what a persons business. Howe about in societies where the law dictates that you can be a caniball. would you agree?

      Once again, consenting adults should be left alone. Most people wouldn’t agree to be eaten by a cannibal. That is the difference.

      Douglas:

      Did god really use CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis?

      Hahahahaha.

    129. damon — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:23 pm  

      It’s not really worth engaging with the passionate islamists in discussion this way IMO. Why not just accept them for what they are and wish them all the best as people? Some of my family are quite into catholic beliefs, but I don’t hold it against them.

      Cjcjc and Rumbold, as for homosexuality being something you were born with, not all progressive people agree. I have yet to be convinced by that argument myself, and that’s why I think Spiked is worth reading because it throws up arguments like this:

      Lady Gaga’s crazy anthem to biological determinism
      The pop megastar’s pro-gay hit ‘Born This Way’ confirms that even this manic queen of reinvention buys into modern notions of fate.

      http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10247/

    130. Dawud — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:33 pm  

      I fail to see whats wrong with kicking out an imam on the basis of his views conflicting with that of the congregation he’s supposed to be serving.

      The onyl reason most of you oppose this is because you believe in evolution. If he was kicked out for beliving in shia islam instead of sunni islam or something you guys wouldnt care.

      What if a priest converted to Islam? Can we complain when his congregation dont want him preaching Islam to them every sunday? Will you all be up in arms over this to. We dont even consider our prayers valid behind one who believes in evolution so why would we still wnat him as an imam?

    131. douglas clark — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:34 pm  

      damon,

      I’ll stand corrected - no I probably won’t - but it is they that engaged with us, for a given value of us. See @ 18 and @ 25.

      You might care to cast a glance over this:

      http://www.suite101.com/content/homosexuality-nature-or-nurture-a343457

    132. Sarah AB — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:38 pm  

      I don’t think it matters if it’s a matter of choice, nature, nurture or whatever. Unfortunately homophobia puts pressure on people to emphasise the biological determinism route. I mean ‘unfortunately’ because it’s a pity people are put in the position where they have to justify themselves.

    133. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 4:47 pm  

      “not all progressive people agree”

      That’s OK. I’m not “progressive”.

    134. BenSix — on 3rd March, 2011 at 5:12 pm  

      Damon -

      It might not be true, for all I know, that sexuality is inextricably entangled in one’s genetics but note that Furedi never bothers to look at the, y’know, science. He’s an ideologue - what’s true is what he’d like to be true.

    135. KJB — on 3rd March, 2011 at 5:13 pm  

      Mmmm… so your comment to Ben:

      ‘I pray that you see the truth and happiness before a time really does come when your claim of bravery is put to the test’

      in response to him saying: ‘someone would have to remove my head before “[raising] the flag of Islam” above it’ isn’t a veiled threat? Riight - and I’m Colonel Gaddafi.

      Bring on the hellfire! I’d rather have my head in the sand than up my own arse.

      Damon, somehow I doubt that most gay people give a flying fuck what Spiked Online or Lady Gaga think about being gay. As one of your ‘progressive people,’ I don’t care if homosexuals were born that way, became that way or inhaled Teh Gay through the atmosphere - I just see them as human and deserving of the same rights as everyone else, and no Islamist or other bigot flavour of the month is telling me otherwise.

      Sarah AB, that was my point. At least the BNP trolls are marginally less disingenuous - they don’t trowel on the sanctimonious BS. I can’t stand cjcjc, but at least he’s direct about what he thinks. With friends like our Islamist trolls praying for you to get the convenient ‘truth’ of thinking like them, who needs enemies?

    136. Rick — on 3rd March, 2011 at 5:44 pm  

      Kismet Hardy, sorry mate but you are way off the mark when it comes to Islam and Evolution. Way off the mark.

      I have discussed this matter with many, many muslims and you do not believe in evolution. If you as an individual do, then I commend you. But Islam does not accept evolution.

      As for science in the Koran, it’s nonsense. Please don’t bundle science with religion. Science, by it’s very nature, is impartial. It has to be objective. As soon as it becomes subjective, then it is worthless. Religion and on the whole religious people cannot partake in transparent and honest scientific work. The reason being is that they will pass any scientific results through their religious filter first to make sure the results match what their good book says.

      It may make you feel all fluffy to believe that Mohammed got things right relating to the cosmos and surely that must indicate he really was THE prophet. Unfortunately people have been gazing at the stars for hundreds of generations before Mohammed and came to mainly the same conclusions. Sorry but Muslim people really need to start looking outside their own culture for answers and realise the Koran cannot solve everything. For me, along with every other doctrine, it solves absolutely nothing and creates bigotry, homophobia and mysogyny. Things we’ve already got in abundance in the UK.

      Looks like the Imam in this story has read a few books and realised. We need the all religious individuals to do the same.

    137. Shaheen Amin — on 3rd March, 2011 at 5:45 pm  

      Going back to the issue of this page - the dismassal of the Darwinist Usama Hasan: Be assured that he will not be allowed to be a cleric in the mosque in question, God willing. The decision is legal and is being enforced.

    138. Rick — on 3rd March, 2011 at 5:54 pm  

      Just to underline my previous point about religious people and science, please refer to your Islamic friends comment about gay people.

      ”In line with Western Science then , is there any evidence that a person is born a homosexual?

      A fair amount, yes”

      Can you please direct me to it. And even if there was, it still wouldnt be correct.

      ———

      So wait, direct me to scientific proof, then if there is proof and that is contrary to the Koran, it’s wrong. Haven’t you got some sheep to herd?

      The gay gene was found about 5 years ago if I remember rightly. Homosexuality is also commonplace in the wild, where we originate from. It’s a natural occurance, unlike circumcision, which is a completely unnatural mutilation of the human body.

      WAKE UP AND GET IN THE 21st CENTURY YOU CRETIN.

    139. Rick — on 3rd March, 2011 at 5:56 pm  

      Going back to the issue of this page – the dismassal of the Darwinist Usama Hasan: Be assured that he will not be allowed to be a cleric in the mosque in question, God willing. The decision is legal and is being enforced.

      ——————

      And why are you pleased about this? Did the naughty man try and wrench you into the 21st century? Nasty Imam, leave the children alone.

    140. cjcjc — on 3rd March, 2011 at 5:57 pm  

      Darwinist!!! - I love it.

      Einsteinist! Bohrist!

      What else?

    141. douglas clark — on 3rd March, 2011 at 6:30 pm  

      Turingist?

    142. BenSix — on 3rd March, 2011 at 6:42 pm  

      I remember someone offering Schroedingerist, which has a certain charm.

    143. Don — on 3rd March, 2011 at 7:03 pm  

      Apparently Abu studied science for ‘a couple of years’ and now teaches it, which makes him a formidable interlocutor in matters scientific.

      I think he may have skipped a few sessions, though. The ones that explained what a theory is, for example, and the whole scientific method in general.

      Regarding proof then the Qur’aan itself challenges man to produce even one verse like it.

      We’ve been here before, argumentum ad LitCrit. What do we expect would have happened to a scholar who concluded that actually many of the verses were derivative, rambling, vague and contradictory?

    144. Don — on 3rd March, 2011 at 7:06 pm  

      I think I’ve heard of Heisenbergists, but I can’t be sure.

    145. damon — on 3rd March, 2011 at 8:18 pm  

      cjcjc:

      That’s OK. I’m not “progressive”.

      :) I shouldn’t use that word really, as I hardly know what it even means any more.

      BenSix and KJB, I don’t really care about your general view of Furedi or whoever … I just think he’s right on this issue (as much as I can understand it.)
      Science I don’t get, but I don’t think that a nominally straight person who has a few gay experiences in their life can only have had them because of some predetermined biology. They might just be broadminded.

      It would be interesting to go along to the Leyton mosque tomorow and ask some of the people there whether they have any views on this.

    146. Imran Khan — on 3rd March, 2011 at 8:52 pm  

      Sunny,

      Although I didn’t want to write here again your post here is troubling and inaccurate.

      Shaykh Al-Sadlan who you referred to as a Saudi nutjob is in fact a respected scholar and if you had done your homework you would know that he listened to both those at the mosque who disliked Usama Hassan’s view and also to both Usama Hassan and his father.

      The Saudi nutjobs you referred to simply said that due to belief which contradicted Islam that people should not pray behind Usama Hassan. They did not make any other judgement and those people you called nutjobs called on Muslims to behave correctly in this matter and not resport to bad behaviour.

      Without knowing the facts you have prejudged a local issue and you fail to mention that Usama Hassan called Shaykh Sadlan himself and the Shaykh spoke to him. Usama argued that the Shaykh did not know science but the Shaykh told Usama that belief in the creation of Adam by God is a central belief in Islam. Usama Hassan’s own father said he did not agree with his sons views so is he also a nutjob?

      Also the people you refer to in unsavoury ways are people who attend the mosque. But here only the views of one man appear to be primary and everyone else has been painted in a negative and for what purpose. They objected to his views which they are entitled to do.

      Just because Usama Hassan is an old acquaitance of yours it does not mean the the opinions of the worshippers at the mosque should be belittled to protect Usama Hassan.

      Calling well-respected scholars nutjobs is in poor tatse especially when the scholar in question spoke to both sides and simply said that people should not pray behind Usama because his views contradicted established Islamic Principles. Shaykh Al-Sadlan spoke to both sides and got called a nutjob.

      Have you bothered to speak to people at the mosque regarding their views and why they are upset prior to the rant above? Shaykh Al-Sadlan at least spoke to both sides before making a simple recommendation regarding worship and he did no more. For that he was called a nutjob so in what sense is he a nutjob?

      This was a poorly piece which is one-sided and doesn’t reflect the emmotive opinions on an issue that is sensitive to worshippers at the mosque who have tried to discuss this with Usama Hassan. Interestingly many of his own supporters in the Muslim Community in London also do not agree with his stance so are they also going to be labelled nutjobs?

      Amongst the Abrahamic Faiths there is not a belief in evolution so yes people do get upset by it and they do not deserve to be portrayed as they have been here especially when they tried to discuss it with Usama Hassan. If you look at the videos of the discussion then both sides do not come out well but Usama is also quite dismissive of the people when they try and discuss with him so what does that say about your friend? His main argument was that he understood science and they didn’t!

      It is up to people who they wish to pray behind which is surely their freedom to decide and not to be painted as something they did not do. Suggest you look at the videos and Usama’s subsequent statement to see how far off you were with this.

    147. Shaheen Amin — on 3rd March, 2011 at 9:07 pm  

      I and others personally urged Usama Hasan to have a debate with Abuz Zubayr about this issue. To our disappointment - he declined.

      I do acknowledge that people who do not share our faith are not expected to agree with us. However, we believe in Islam and expect those who claim to believe in Islam to behave like Muslims. This is especially applicable in the fundamentals of our religion, like the issue of the creation of human beings.

    148. Don — on 3rd March, 2011 at 9:45 pm  

      Damon.

      but I don’t think that a nominally straight person who has a few gay experiences in their life can only have had them because of some predetermined biology

      I don’t claim expertise, but isn’t more of a spectrum than a clear dichotomy? A nominally straight person might incline towards the opposite sex but recognise that they could make an exception. Being broadminded just means accepting that, without feeling the need to harm yourself or the other person in a fit of culturally induced self-loathing.

      It’s not really predetermination, we’re just a bit more complicated than straight/gay.

    149. Shaheen Amin — on 3rd March, 2011 at 10:37 pm  

      Holy Bible Lev 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”

      A Muslims quoting from a book a Muslim does not deny in totality.

      Disclaimer: I have no authority over the Bible and I am not preaching Bible here.

    150. Shamit — on 4th March, 2011 at 12:02 am  

      Shaheen -

      What a beautiful quote isn’t it?

      My parents are both surgeons and duing many weekends in their lives they have been busy saving lives - but the same book you quote says those who work on Sabath should be put to death.

      Now is that acceptable at all in today’s world? No it is not - and I cannot believe GOD is so cruel and vengeful and therefore I firmly believe that scriptures are man made based on their contemporary political socio-economic theories.

      But by no means does the Old Testament hold monopoly over ridiculous and abhorent ideas. The Koran says its okay to marry your first cousin - to most of us it is incest and it is genetically dangerous. The Gita says kill your own cousins for that is righteous - not really they were fighting over a kingdom. And the others weren’t opressive.

      So by quoting Leviticus you have actually proved our point - that it is by no means certain that any of these scriptures carry God’s words despite parts of them being inspirational and insightful.

      Following them meticulously without using one’s judgment is probably not what God intended - but man did.

      And religion is meant to bring people closer to god but all religions have been the cause of bloodshed - and each group has used religious texts as their justification to kill other human beings which goes against the teaching of any religion.

      So how can these scriptures be God’s words unless you are willing to accept that GoD is petty and vengeful rather than all merciful. I believe GOD IS MERCIFUL and Benevolent and not divisive but all the scriptures say otherwise.

      And that is why I argue that all scriptures are man made and not the ETERNAL TRUTH LIKE SOME WOULD LOVE TO BELIEVE.

    151. Sunny — on 4th March, 2011 at 12:24 am  

      Imran - I take the point about the Saudi imam - after some more investigation I’ve got a clearer picture of what’s going on here.

      I’ve amended the post.

      However, you’re downplaying what’s going on here too. Many of the people trying to oust Usama Hasan are ‘nutjobs’ - and I make no bones about using that word.

      More on this coming up soon. I hear tomorrow’s jumma prayers are going to be interesting…

    152. damon — on 4th March, 2011 at 1:29 am  

      Don, I completely agree. I don’t know why people say that sexuality is predetermined. It might be for many, or most, but there’s no need to go through your whole life thinking you must be in some official category in this regard. Stuff happens.

    153. BenSix — on 4th March, 2011 at 12:41 pm  

      As I see that people elsewhere feel my post at 48 was snivelling liberal bullshit: (a) if it’s “bullshit” to want to be clear on someone else’s view it explains a lot of their comrades’ work and (b) what’s the harm in selling someone rope to hang themselves with?

    154. Shaheen Amin — on 4th March, 2011 at 5:28 pm  

      Breaking news: Some confusing retraction from Usama Hasan - the Darwinist:

      http://unity1.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/a-further-clarification-and-retraction/

      A Further Clarification and Retraction
      By Usama Hasan
      With the Name of Allah, All-Merciful, Most Merciful

      A FURTHER CLARIFICATION &
      RETRACTION

      Further to my detailed statement dated 15th February 2011 about evolution, I would like to state, after reflecting on the matter and listening to the advice of others:

      1. I regret and retract some of my statements in the past about the theory of evolution, especially the inflammatory ones.

      2. I do not believe that Adam, peace be upon him, had parents.

      3. I seek Allah’s forgiveness for my mistakes and apologise to others for any offence caused.

      4. This does not excuse the cowardly and fraudulent campaign spreading lies and slander against me over the last two months.

      5. Neither does it excuse those who have continued their mediaevalist, hair-splitting theological and jurisprudential discussions whilst remaining silent about the clear incitement to murder uttered by some in their midst. “Slaughter the people, but worry about killing mosquitos.”

      Usama Hasan
      London, Friday 4th March 2011

    155. Imran Khan — on 4th March, 2011 at 7:51 pm  

      Sunny “However, you’re downplaying what’s going on here too. Many of the people trying to oust Usama Hasan are ‘nutjobs’ – and I make no bones about using that word.

      More on this coming up soon. I hear tomorrow’s jumma prayers are going to be interesting…”

      Sunny I am not downplaying anything. This is why I said that the major scholars in Saudi Arabia told people to behave in a proper Islamic manner and not to resort to unIslamic actions.

      From what I understand the locals were unhappy with his position from a viewpoint of basic belief of Islam. They asked for a public meeting which he agreed to and this was attended by many people including his father. There were troublemakers there from the takfiri type groups who like to label people! He got labelled by them but they often like to stir up trouble but often are not there to face the consequences which shows how brave they are!!

      Usama Hassan was asked if he believed that Prophet Adam (pbuh) was descended from apes and he said that Prophet Adam (pbuh) had near human parents. People walked out and asked for him to be removed as Imam, which is their right as his belief was incorrect, something he has now accepted. His father objected and defended his son but said that he did not hold the same views. Usama Hassan then issued a statement saying he believed in the Qur’an but didn’t say much more. Again I would advise you that the major scholars in the Middle East have made statements about some of those people who helped cause trouble that they should be ignored as they incite people and that is on record.

      I feel there is a wider issue here that people are quick to label any troublemaker a Salafi/Wahabi and also Saudi Salafi as a slur to discredit Middle Eastern scholars. If you read the excellent book “The Wahabi Myth” by Haneef James Oliver then this clarifies many of the myths. These myths are used by the likes of Michael Gove to influence David Cameron.

      Many of these Muslims groups who are lazily labelled by neo-cons in the USA are in fact law abiding citizens who go about their business like other people and do not promote extremism so do they deserve dodgy labels. Dare I say it that Quilliam Foundation to a degree fall into the same trap.

      As Hamza Yusuf said it is a falsehood to claim that senior Salafi scholars did not speak out against extremism, and in fact they were the first to do so:

      http://www.mujahideenryder.net/2007/06/17/shaykh-hamza-yusuf-defends-the-wahhabi-saudi-ulema/

      But people don’t want to hear this.

      A wider issue is that people complain frequently about the inability to discuss Islam and critique and yet they do as well as complaining they can’t!

      Yes there are nutters in the Muslim community but equally many incorrect and infalmatory books have been written about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) so how can it that people can’t debate Islam if such material is appearing?

      Accusations against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are many and yet people fail to look at their own cultures where similar practises were going on up until the late 19th Century in Europe for example.

      This Usama Hassan case is a prime example, he gave his views and despite the few nutters he gave his views and Muslim organisations responded back with a critique.

      Its not all rosy but it is also not all bad. Every community has its issues.

      Dare I say it but the reason some Sikhs are joining the EDL, its miniscule minority I agree, is because of what is being said, possibly taught about partition in the community. But there was indiscriminate killing on all sides so to blame this on the Muslims totally is conspiracy theory and is causing the start of extremism in other religions against Muslims but does this get press attention? No. Does Cameron make speeches about it no!

      Politicians keep saying that Muslims need to engage in the political process and yet they then decide who they want to engage with and this does not happen for any other community.

      I think in the Usama Hassan affair, by and large the community expressed its views well and the myths of Saudi Scholars interferring was incorrect.

      There are problems but again the likes of Anjem Choudary, “Ed” Hussein and even Majid Nawaz were not influenced by Saudi Scholars but by Egptian Sufis such as Hassan Al-Banna and Sayid Qutb as well as the fradulent Omar Bakri Fustuq (Imam for HT at the time “Ed”, Majid and Anjem joined) who was such a major expert that the fool did not realise his surname meant pistachio nut in Arabic and therefore could not be a surname. This was changed later but his deluded followers refused to listen as an Arab would know this, so where did he emerge from. His false claim that he studied at the major Islamic universities is also false and has been quietly withdrawn. So why keep blaming Salafi/Wahabi people for this when they have never followed these Egyptian teachings?

      Wider issues but important ones.

    156. Shaheen Amin — on 4th March, 2011 at 8:16 pm  

      Imran Khan @155:

      It is consensus of the mainstream Islamic scholars that whoever says Adam (as) evoloved from apes - is a kafir. So, I don’t know how one can be following anything other than the mainstream for calling him a murtad.

    157. Shaheen Amin — on 4th March, 2011 at 8:21 pm  

      The charges of disbelief against Usama Hasan:

      Calling to Secularism

      Denial of hijab (head cover) being obligatory

      Belief in Darwinism - his retraction is not clear enough. In any case, the premise of this belief is upon disbelief.

      Mocking the religion of Allah. For example - labelling those who believe in the Quranic version of creation as ‘primary (madrasa)lebel students’

    158. Imran Khan — on 4th March, 2011 at 9:36 pm  

      Shaheen Amin - “It is consensus of the mainstream Islamic scholars that whoever says Adam (as) evoloved from apes – is a kafir. So, I don’t know how one can be following anything other than the mainstream for calling him a murtad.”

      This is similar to the followers of Omar Bakri Fustuq, He who lied about being at University in Makkah, Madinah and Al-Azhar! Are you one of them?

      Takfir of an individual can only be performed by a scholar and not an internet poster. Do you understand the established principles of Takfir? Do you understand the narration of Ibn Abbas regarding Kuffar? From your own writing no.

      Islamically the individual has to be given a chance to repent, so have you done that with Usama Hassan? No.

      The senior scholars in the Middle East who know about this issue have not made Takfir of Usama Hasan so who are you to decide? What is your qualification? Which senior scholar have you spoken to?

      Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee al-Madkhalee, Shaykh Al-Sadlan, Saykh Wassi-Ullah Abbas and many other major scholars who have true scholarly credentials according to Islam have said that Usama Hassan has committed major sin but they have not rushed like you to throw him out of Islam. They said he should not be leader of the mosque and should not be prayed behind because of his views but they said no more. So tell me what is your scholarly credentials and who did you study behind to come to your conclusion?

      As for your other nonsense it is answered by the trials of Imam Ahmad who did not proclaim takfir on the people of the time who said that the Qur’an was created which is disbelief. If you bothered to read the correct history of Islam you’d know that he guided them back to the correct belief and was granted victory by Allah (swt) in his lifetime.

      The mass takfiris like Qutb etc. were given no such victory in their lifetime.

      Making takfir so easily is from the doctrine of Qutb who had no scholarly grounding in Islam and thus he made takfir of entire nations!

      Takfir is a complex issue and he who makes takfir on an individual and is incorrect then it returns to him if he is incorrect according to the hadith of the Prophet (pbuh).

      It is individuals who keep calling people kaffir in violation of Islamic Laws that cause so many problems for Muslims. Kaffir this and kaffir that was exposed as deviant belief by Ibn Abbas when he debated with the deviants in the time of the companions and sadly the devaints of this time are far worse as they rush to proclaim everyone non-Muslim in violation of the established principles of Islam which have 1400 years of scholarly consensus and not the few years from the nonsense of the likes of Qutb, Bakri and Choudry etc.

    159. BenSix — on 4th March, 2011 at 10:52 pm  

      Imran -

      How widespread is the belief that (as with the nasty gentleman Abu Zubair thought fit to quote) takfir is punishable by death? (Or, indeed, punishable in general, by man at least.)

    160. douglas clark — on 5th March, 2011 at 2:49 am  

      What a genuinely depressing thread.

    161. Junaid Bhatti — on 5th March, 2011 at 3:01 am  

      @ 158. Imran

      AOA. Please get in touch with me - contact@muslimpolitics.com

      WS

    162. Boyo — on 5th March, 2011 at 8:18 am  

      Wow.

      Well, I don’t recall the Prophet mentioning evolution at all, and you’d think if he was channelling God then God may have clarified this, existing as he does outside time. Since according to the Islamic faith Mohammed is the final prophet, all the rest is man-made conjecture and presuming the authority of God to declare other men apostate or whatever is surely the highest blasphemy…

      But anyway, the saddest thing about this thread is its exposure of the fundmental design flaw in Islam, and what sent it spiralling from the most progressive, enquiring faith of the 600s to subsequent self-defeating decay. It is ironic that a faith that should have provided an antidote to Christianity’s absurd superstitions has had to invent them. Even the Pope has accepted evolution.

    163. damon — on 5th March, 2011 at 9:34 am  

      Douglas Clark, what’s depressing? This is just religious ‘folk’ (as you say), doing their thing.
      I don’t care that much about SNP internal politics, and you shouldn’t worry yourself about this.

      I think Boyo’s got a point about the flaws in these holy books though. You’d think that this God would have been a bit more forthcomming and have elaborated a bit more and not given us such labyrinthian riddle filled tomes as our only guides to the mysteries of life and the universe.

    164. Boyo — on 5th March, 2011 at 10:01 am  

      LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

      The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

      “They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

      He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”

      As a general rule, when even the Pope is more progressive than you are, you are probably fucked.

    165. douglas clark — on 5th March, 2011 at 10:23 am  

      damon,

      Well, AFAIK, no-one gets veiled threats if they disagree with the tenets, or heavens, leave the SNP.

      Reading these peoples ‘thoughts’ is like being flung into a time machine and taken back to the Inquisition of Galileo. It is frankly sad the hoops that religions expect people to jump through. There is no attempt to engage at an intellectual level, there is only the steamroller of the exercise of petty power on display here. It is pretty discouraging that people can show such enthusiasm for a bluntly anti-science viewpoint. Sure, anyone can believe anything they like, but this is a deliberate systemic blind spot, to put it no more strongly.

      Quite depressing really…..

    166. cjcjc — on 5th March, 2011 at 11:00 am  

      Douglas - your telescope is working! ;-)

    167. damon — on 5th March, 2011 at 11:09 am  

      Well Douglas, maybe it’s a bit of a reality check for you. This is what religions get like. I’m going to make an effort to go to Ian Paisley’s church tomorow. I’ve been meaning to go for ages. They’re a bit mad too I suspect, although I bet many of them are actually nice and kind people.

      Like you, I don’t care for Harry’s Place, but do think that it’s worth reading and using for information.
      Whatever their politics, they do highlight stories that deserve a bit of independent research.
      Maybe you should use it as a starting point for a bit of research too Douglas.

    168. Salman — on 5th March, 2011 at 12:01 pm  

      BenSix — on 4th March, 2011 at 10:52 pm  
      Imran -

      “How widespread is the belief that (as with the nasty gentleman Abu Zubair thought fit to quote) takfir is punishable by death? (Or, indeed, punishable in general, by man at least.)”

      Lol you don’t even understand the terminology -so why bother commenting ?

    169. douglas clark — on 5th March, 2011 at 12:19 pm  

      cjcjc,

      I don’t recall such a concerted attack of narrow minded bigotry being presented as irrefutable truth on here before.

      damon,

      I have been careful not to address this at muslims exclusively, although they have made themselves the flavour of the day on here. Religions do this sort of thing all the time. Best of luck with the Paisleyites.

      salman,

      Is that the best you can do?

    170. Boyo — on 5th March, 2011 at 12:19 pm  

      I think the problem for Islam is that the sentiments you see above have repeated themselves throughout the last thousand years in a cycle of inquisitions and there does not apear a way out of the loop, or perhaps that should be downward spiral.

      No one can deny the Catholic inquisition, but it is now unthinkable. Sadly Islam keeps coming back to - I was going to say first principals, but that is actually very far from the case - let’s phrase it a regressive pattern of thought that is as distant from Mohammed as the Inquisition was to Jesus.

      Partly I think it is Islam’s lack of church. Whereas the majority of ordinary people were opposed to the inquisition - these inquisiatorial memes have the power of the mob in Islam. Again - it’s wonderful potential for equality hijacks itself. A kind of religious blowback…

    171. douglas clark — on 5th March, 2011 at 12:30 pm  

      Boyo @ 170,

      I agree with you.

      It is just depressing to look at people spouting the same crap now as the Inquisition did then. I hope these people only represent themselves, or a very small minority at worst, because their energetic protection of the only thing they seem to care about is “how to be a bigot 101″. Hopefully, they are just a bunch of teenagers.

      Who think it is amusing to call people ‘kaffir’ or ‘cattle’. They seem to find an arrogance in obscurantism and insult.

      Enough said.

    172. Sajn — on 6th March, 2011 at 12:06 am  

      Just a couple of comments on the original post.

      First you are talking about Masjid Tawhid in Leyton, not Leyton Mosque as there are more than one Mosque in Leyton.

      Second, a cleric from elsewhere would not normally have as much influence unless they had a connection with the mosque or congregation. The connection here is that the Saudis are said to have funded this mosque.

      Finally this mosque follows the Ahle Hadith / Salafi school so would it be safe to assume that Dr Hassan also follows this creed?

    173. BenSix — on 7th March, 2011 at 11:42 am  

      Lol you don’t even understand the terminology -so why bother commenting ?

      As far as I know, Salman, it refers to apostasy. And why bother? Well, ‘cos I was interested in the answer.

      And, without much desire to seem outrageously catty, if I have misunderstood a complex theory it is at least in the form of a question rather than - as with the evolution, er - “sceptics” elsewhere in the thread - bare assertion.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.