//EIF’s patron is Lord Adam Patel and he is supported by a team of ambassadors and advisors. //

Surprise, surprise!

And why the need for telling everyone Islam is the same as western politically loaded normantive concepts - like social justice, women's rights, humans rights etc It begs the question, "Why not just go the whole hog and say we are the same as you - no difference!" That'll make everyone happy...

Letter sent the EIF - will update when I receive a response...

AA

I appreciate the work you are doing in the inspiredbymuhammad campaign, however it seems a little contrived and intellectually naive to try equating heavily loaded politcally and normative terminology with Muhammed(saw) and Islam.

The differences between what Islam brought and western civilisation created through the enlightenment should be highlighted, with solutions from Islam showing society that they are going down the wrong route - eg Islam prohibited interest, wouldn't that have saved us from the credit crunch and hundreds of billions of british debt? Islam requires youth to exhibit freedom and responsibility - look how we look after the aged? We work to earn a living not to dominate the market place and wipe out competition - compare that to every sector dominated by a small number of multinationals concentrating wealth and power etc

I personally think you're going down a wrong route which will lead to you and Islam being discredited, making it more difficult for others (and yourselves) to get the message across to the host society in the long term...

Also not too sure why you need Lords connected to your project - it adds a seedy dimension as most tend to be lackeys who have paid for their lordships (party donations!) as was exposed through the ghulam noon fiasco some years ago!

It would also be better and more transparent if you detailed who is involved in your organisation and details of your funding - as govt pve and other initiatives aimed at manufacturing a new brand of Islam have become so pervasive it is always worrying that new organisations with no particular track record may have hidden links and agendas...

But on a positive note, may Allah reward you for your efforts in doing something that is important at a time where the establishment are attacking Islam from every aspect in their war on Islam...

You wrote:

I think that the west eventually decided on the same values that had existed in Islam and the Muslim world is enough for her to reject them.

A myth.

If you bother to study the enlightenment period of European history, you will find that their peculiar circumstances, feudalism and its relationship with the Roman Catholic leadership in Rome, led to particular philosophies emerging from these political mixtures which in turn led to principles, values and finally detailed systems - these values are not the same as those of Islam and it is naive to think so because of a passing and superficial similarity.

EG
If one considers their view of freedom, it arose from their humanist belief that man in origin was born free (Rousseau famously stating man is born free but everywhere he is in chains) - having established this premise they argue sovereignty rests in him and he should then transfer it to a government (Hobbes' Leviathan!) who will exercise it.
Compare that to the Islamic idea of freedom - Allah created Adam to worship him, his slave, abd allah. Thus the believer is the slave of Allah whose purpose in life is to worship Allah. Allah then allows the slave freedom to undertake things he has declared halal. Man has no sovereignty and is bound by Allah's laws and is forbidden from legislating - he is simply authorised to implement those laws, which he is required to choose one leader (Caliph) to do that.
The two philosophies, values and resulting systems are different at every stage in their key characteristics.

You wrote:

She does not want an islamic world, but a polemic anti-western world.
the hate is strong in this one.

I think it's comments like those of the editor that create hatred and suspicion imho - just read them and all he does is attacks HT and other Muslims he disagrees with. He provides no substantive arguments whatsoever, repating tiered slogans. My posts do not create hatred - they attempt to clarify misconceptions and encourage people to take a more closer look at issues. As Muslims we cannot be superficial - we need to understand matters substantively otherwise we will misapply the revealtion to a badly understood reality.

Blue wrote:

They are trying to teach people a little bit about Islam - starting with the similarities!

A noble objective "teaching people about Islam".

Problematic when you start with similarities - that are not similar. A little bit of research soon highlights that. For example, same sex couples can't marry, women cannot marry non-muslim men, men can only marry muslims or ahl al-kitab, status of women in marriage is to obey the husband, she can't leave the home without his permission, she must provide sex when required even if she does not want to, he can divorce with a simple word whilst she has to buy her divorce or go to court to get it, the hanafis even believe the marriage contract with payment from him is purchasing her! Is that the same as the rights westerner envision from marriage??? No doubt the Islamic laws/rights/obligations have hikma and sense behind them but they are not the same or have the same logic as western laws/rights/obligations associated with marriage.

And if you look at some of the terrible articles it has spawned on line critiquing this "similarity" it soon becomes obvious that it is a double edged sword - far better to be frank and honest about some similarities and the differences than trying to portray an incorrect image of similarities and then be exposed - as it is the fastest way to kill credibility!
http://reasonmusttriumph.blogspot.com/2010/06/exploring-islam-apparently...

It comes back to my point - the idea is good, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. Considerable thought should be undertaken to address as many issues as possible before one runs into the actions of execution...

You wrote:

Its the editor who spreads hate while youonly say things like "I am not calling you a hindu, but you compromise your creed in the same way".

being polite does not make it any less offensive or less takfiri in nature. Hide behind false walls of "I didn't really say that, I merely suggested it" all you want but that is still the case.

Making a comparison is no problem - the editor does not express hatred when making comparisons in an explanation as one is at leisure to make whatever analogies one deems fit and one should not take offence (as the context is that of analogy of a point other than insult), but it is unacceptable to make blatant statements of hate which people can take offence at as their is no other point in the statement!

Nope - it is you who is fighting irrelevant issues - the site's audience is the UK and not the US thus citation of what goes on in the US is irrelevant, especially, as same sex civil partnerships are recognised in the UK.

You also ignore all my other points of differences which oppose your point - which shows your dodgy tactics you employ in discussions! If you want to respond to an argument, you should address all the points, not the one you think is easy to address, as it does not refute the argument!

Blue wrote:

1) it does not mention marriage
2) a loving and understanding husband would know when his wife doesn't want to have sex and wouldn't ask her to

We're not discussing best practices - we're discussing rights and obligations. The wife is obliged to be available for sex if the husband demands it and is sinful if she is not - the husband has a right to sex.

Blue wrote:

3) if a wife gives back her mahr that is immediately a divorce, so no she wouldn't need to go to court or whatever just to get a divorce.

Nope - even if she gives back mahr, he still has to pronounce divorce and until he does that or a court issues the order (in exceptional circumstances!) she is married to him and the contract stands.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Nope - it is you who is fighting irrelevant issues - the site's audience is the UK and not the US thus citation of what goes on in the US is irrelevant, especially, as same sex civil partnerships are recognised in the UK.

"civil partnerships" ... does that website discuss civil partnerships? Does the site say anywhere that islam allows such civil partnerships?

[/quote]

Read the argument above to which I responded before jumping in with irrelevant points - the post stated they are starting with similarities - women's rights! You are addressing something irrelevant!

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

You also ignore all my other points of differences which oppose your point - which shows your dodgy tactics you employ in discussions! If you want to respond to an argument, you should address all the points, not the one you think is easy to address, as it does not refute the argument!

I don't need to refute them all. Your posts are generally long. I just refute the first thing that catches my eye and then move on.

Not really - I believe you cannot refute them as you need a consistent ideology, base upwards, to do so - something you lack!
Whatever the length of your posts, because they are built on modernist corrupt thought, they can be usually refuted in their entirety as they generally go against the classical scholars or have to reformulate Islam.

You wrote:

You can't build a bridge without having supports. take away the supports and the whole thing collapses. You do not need to destroy every brick.

In which case you need to show what you have "allegedly" removed is a support - and that there is only one support and not many. Whch you fail to do - as the "alleged" support you have "allegedly" removed is no different to the other points I cited. This argument again is not the real reason...

You wrote:

besides, I have a cetain distaste in my mouth over all the "I am not calling you a hindu, but well..."

We get to the real argument - as secularists and modernists cannot actually refute arguments, they resort to personality attacks, twisting points out of context, and outright vitriolic hatred. Editor has resorted to the last point - you've begun the first two - just a matter of time before you too join Ed's camp
Don't let the dark side tempt you...

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Read the argument above to which I responded before jumping in with irrelevant points - the post stated they are starting with similarities - women's rights! You are addressing something irrelevant!

Except that it was a point you made - by discussing something that was not even on the site.

You wrote:

They're trying to show that we are people like them, we are not some different species. They are trying to show that Non-Muslims shouldn't be scared of us cuz there's nothing to be scared of! They are trying to teach people a little bit about Islam - starting with the similarities! They are not trying be 'Holier than thou'.

This was the point made by a earlier poster that was responded to and you are arguing some irrelevant imaginary discussion with your nasty comments! If you can't follow a discussion it's best to not participate - even if you do fund the site!

I've not asked you to shut up - you are free to speak - I've asked not to participate in discussions if you're not even clear what the discussion is about! That's quite reasonable in my opinion - but maybe you think otherwise.

Let me break this down for you as you seem to be missing the discussion and going off on tangents:

- the post re-cut and pasted above argued the new site is starting by showing similarities with the west - not an unreasonable approach.
- the argument being show how many Islamic rights that the site promotes are similar to those in the west - most problematic!
- Examples I cited to show they are problematic was: Women's rights, which the site interestingly mentions
- I detailed women's rights in relation to marriage as an example to compare with those in the west
- No similarity emerges!

Your argument is
- their website doesn't even talk about marriage.

See how out of touch you are with the discussion.

You wrote:

but you also decided to bash them on civil partnerships. I didn't argue that they did not talk about gay marriage (you are confusing me with another poster), but that they did not mention civil partnerships/gay marriage and that by bringing it up you are suggesting they are saying something that they did not say.

Rather than confuse the discussion, maybe you can insert your comment in to the argument that I have laid out nicely and simply so that you can follow it.

You wrote:

As for some of your assertions, a separate topic was opened to discuss them.

Nope - there's no discussion of any of my assertions there - just rude demands to provide proof - which when asked to request nicely, were rubbished!