No shiite. If we weren’t dumb, deaf and blind like the Quran says, we would see the light of Islam and submit. Then we could all be happy and sing kumbaya until the mullah kicks us out of the mosque, or something:
Only Muslim survivor of 7/7 says we must stand together against Islamophobia
The only Muslim survivor of the 7/7 terror attack in London is calling for unity in the face of increasing Islamophobia. Sajda Mughal was 22-years-old and travelling on the Piccadilly Line when four coordinated bombs were detonated by suicide bombers – including one on the train she was one. Now she says we should stand together against Islamophobia in the same way people did against terrorism a decade ago.
As part of a unique initiative, she runs courses for predominantly Muslim mothers on how to spot signs of extremism in their children, teaching them internet skills, how to search web histories and which websites to look out for. In the two years the project has been running, Mughal has helped 200 mothers, and in February she was awarded an OBE by the Prince of Wales.
Mughal’s own life has been irrevocably shaped by terrorism. On 7 July 2005, then aged 22, she was on the same Tube train as Germaine Lindsay, who blew himself up, killing 26 people as well as injuring 340 more.
That evening, Mughal started to hear news reports, first that it was a bombing and that the four men had carried out the attack in the name of Islam. For Mughal, a Muslim herself, this was devastating.
“It really affected me, having been down there and thinking I was going to die, then finding out it was done by men from my religion. Islam states if you take one innocent life it’s as if you’ve killed the whole of humanity – they had gone completely against Islam. . . But I couldn’t shake the questions I had. I was waking up every day thinking that 7/7 should never have happened. I kept asking myself, what could have been done to prevent those men doing that?”
The abuse of this verse explained below.
Now Mughal works tirelessly at the charity – despite receiving regular death threats from people she calls Islamophobes – from 9.30am to 7pm, often staying up until as late as 3am. “There’s always a funding proposal to write,” she says, wryly.
It can be gruelling and distressing work. After the attacks she began researching extremist material online. “It was horrible. Some of the videos are disgusting. But I thought it was important to know what was out there.” She started speaking in schools, where some children would tell her they had sympathy with the bombers.
“I would tell them about my experience of 7/7 and tell them to imagine it was their mother, or sister, or friend down there. It’s important to have a face-to-face dialogue with children and provide counter-arguments, not push them online to find answers.”
When Mughal spoke to a packed hall of mothers at the end of last year, still only four per cent of them knew about Isil. “That is why we need to keep working, to improve education and help save our children,” she says.
But over the last decade she says she has seen an increase in Islamphobioa with attacks on women wearing the veil, vandalism of homes, discrimination in applying for jobs and bullying in schools. She also points to the recent trending hashtag “Kill All Muslims” as an example of how widespread it has become.
(You can tell she is a BS artist if you managed to read yourself through this rubbish, so far…)
“When we speak to young Muslims they tell us they are experiencing a rise in Islamophobia and they are feeling disconnected from society because of that. Extremism to some degree is fueled by Islamophobia, young Muslims are telling us first hand they have experienced it or their family has and that is making them feel alienated and that leaves some vulnerable to radicalisation.
What was poignant for me and what stood out [after 7/7] was how Londoners came together to help everyone that day, regardless of your background, and that is what I would like to see happen today to tackle the issues of extremism and Islamophobia we are facing.”
I’m sorry to have to tell you Mrs Mughal but knowledge once known cannot be dis-known. We know what it says in the Koran now,and the ahadith, and the conduct of Mohammed, that perfect man to be emulated in all things. I’ll assume that you are genuine and mean well. Until and unless Mohammed is treated as a man, flawed and sinful like us all and not a god, then Islam cannot reform into a Godly creed.
Here, educate yourself:
If Anyone Slew a Person (Qur’an 5:32)
Many websites and public figures have claimed that the following verse appears in the Qur’an, and that it denounces killing and equates the slaying of one human life to that of genocide against the entirety of mankind.
However, this verse cannot be found in any printed copy of the Qur’an, regardless of whether or not it is in the original Arabic or in one of its many English translations. The reason for this is simple: the verse in question does not exist.
What is actually presented by apologists is a distorted, out-of-context and misleading paraphrasing of the following verse:
This verse is written in past tense (Ordained, not Ordain) and clearly does not apply to Muslims but to “the Children of Israel” i.e. the Jews who, according to Islam, received an earlier set of scriptures. In fact, it is mistakingly referencing a rabbinical commentary found in the Talmud as if it were the words of Allah.
Also when the clause which allows killing is reinserted and the passage is read in context with the following two verses directed at Muslims (notice the reference to Allah’s messenger and the switch to present tense), what first appeared on the surface to be a peaceful message, is in actual fact a warning to non-believers:
Its Application to Muslims
According to the highly respected Qur’anic exegesis of Ibn Kathir- early Qur’anic commentator and Tabi’un, Sayid ibn Jubayr (who lived at the time of Prophet Muhammad, and was a companion of Aisha), had said:
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Being a companion of Muhammad, Ibn Abbas was present around the time these verses were revealed. Together with ibn Jabr, he went through the Qur’an thirty times and memorised the meanings. Muslim scholars consider ibn Jabr to have the highest reliability.
The Worth of a Non-Believer
So far, it has been ascertained that verse 5:32 is not condemning the killing of a non-Muslim, and that a Muslim must not murder another Muslim, but what of the non-believers? What is the worth of their lives? According to sahih hadith, Muhammad said the life of a non-Muslim is not sacred:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,
“O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”
Furthermore, Muhammad also gave the verdict (fatwa) that a Muslim can not be killed for killing a non-Muslim.
The Meaning of “Mischief”
Putting aside the fact that no Muslim is allowed to be killed for the killing of a non-Muslim, “Murder” is quite straight forward, but what does it mean to “spread mischief”?
In the Tafsir ibn Kathir, Qatada, one of Muhammad’s companions, explained the definition of “Mischief” according to Islam:
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
In the Tafsir ibn Abbas:
Tafsir Ibn Abbas
In the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, by al-Suyuti, the following commentary is found:
This understanding of what constitutes ‘mischief’ in Islam is confirmed by looking to other verses found within the Qur’an. Verse 7:103, for example:
Clearly “mischief” which is also equated to “waging war against Allah and His Messenger” in the very next verse, can and does apply to someone who simply refuses to accept Islam.
According to Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the world’s most quoted independent Islamic jurist:
So what was first offered as the height of moral teachings found in the Qur’an, turns out to be an intolerant call to violence.
In this instance, as in many others, it is the apologists, not the skeptics, who are misinterpreting verses and quoting them out of context. A simple reading of the verse and those that surround it makes this clear.
In the Islamic world, those who propagate their non-Islamic faiths or publicly criticize Islam are often harassed, imprisoned and even executed by their communities or their governments, under laws against “spreading disorder [mischief] through the land” and apostasy.
If verse 5:32 means what some apologists claim it to mean, why are they so reluctant to quote the verse accurately rather than presenting a misleading paraphrasing of what they wished the verse had said? Furthermore, why are moderates unable to silence fellow Muslims on an intellectual level by using that very verse?
They are unable to because their claim is false, and (as proven by the actions of many) anyone who is familiar with the Qur’an already knows this.