Discussions
"Muslims Against Sharia" - Does Anyone Here Know About This Website?
Posted by Norski • 1/21/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: blog, Islam, muslim, muslims against sharia, website
I have been getting some unusually rude comments from Muslims Against Sharia. MAS has a website, and purports to be a group seeking to reform Islam and educate non-Muslims. ( more at anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/retard-or-how-not-to-make-your-... )
Or, as Muslims Against Sharia calls many of us, "ignorant Westerners."
I have been able to find out very little about Muslims Against Sharia - the mailing address is a post office box in Omaha, Nebraska, and the website's data indicates a 'private registration' service in Washington state as registrant.
My question, actually a request: Does anyone here at BlogCatalog know about Muslims Against Sharia?
I'm starting to wonder who I'm dealing with.
User Comments
-
It's after 1:00 a.m. where I am, and I have to get some sleep. Please forgive me, if I don't respond for the next several hours.
-
Thank you for your awareness, I read your posts.
But unfortunately i don't think i can give any satisfactory answers to your question: "Who am I dealing with?".
All i can say is "As a Sunni Muslim guy and my education on Islam based on the Sufist studies of Rumi and I.Hakki Erzurumi", I do not approve MAS organization which claims that Sharia is wrong and needs to be removed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Hakki_Erzurumi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi
(Beware: There is too much wrong sources about sufism through the internet!!)
The reason why i don't approve is:
My education taught me that
1-) Sharia is the first step of Islam and needs to be interpreted in the right way (not the way it is interpreted today)
2-) The whole 4 steps(degrees) hierarchicaly : Shariat, Tareeqat, Haqeeqat, Marifat (the highest degree)
4-) Hence that the lowest degree(Shariat) is also the essential degree.
3-) If anyone is intended to remove any of these steps, Sufism will be collapsed.
You can also search the objections to sufism.
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080907103719AADPNIT
It's mostly compared with the ideas of Buddhism and Kabbalah and other muslims may claim that it is shirk (sin) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah)
But in my opinion the whole ideas can be hold together without any contradiction. Why do we need to exclude the truths of other religions since they are also mentioned by Quran?
In conclusion, in my point of view, MAS seems to me a moderate branch of a terrorist or a deviated group.-
ophase,
Sorry about that: I hit the wrong button, so my reply is somewhere below, as a comment (I'd link to it, but can't seem to get the URL ). -
ophase,
"...Why do we need to exclude the truths of other religions since they are also mentioned by Quran?..."
Well said. You may or may not have heard of a concept in Catholic thinking called "natural law" - oversimplified, it's the notion that there are moral laws that are as real as the physical laws that ensure that, if you let go of a rock, it will fall.
"Natural law" helps explain why so many of the major religions have so much in common.
And, this is getting seriously off-topic. -
Or it could be the fact that all religions evolved from prehistoric animism. -
voodooKobra,
Stirring the pot again, I see.
Sorry, this "ignorant Westerner" has work to do. -
I'm not stirring anything. I'm just mentioning one of the nontheistic explanations for the similarities between religions.
Animism -> Shamanism -> Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Nontheistic Spirituality -> Naturalism
That's the evolution of religion, in a nutshell.
-
-
This is actually odd. A group with a name like that is supposed to be moderate.
Norski, how rude are these comments ? Sorry I cant access your blog from where I am right now.-
alexmcone,
Compared to some of discussions I've been involved in, not all that much: personal abuse and a rather unimaginative use of common obscenities. I can't be specific about the rudeness, without getting close to violating BlogCatalog's TOS (as I remember it), so - - -
Instead of wading through it myself, copied the comments from two posts containing the dialog, and used word processing software to redact the obscenities. The comments are in the order in which they were written.
The dialog:
From "ISNA, Hamas, Obama's Inaugural, and the Usual Suspects"
Brigid said...
Gosh! I'm part Irish and I visited Ireland! I have ties to the IRA! Nooooooo!
*commence eye rolling now*
January 19, 2009 11:00 AM
Muslims Against Sharia said...
Brigid,
You being retarded has nothing to do with you being Irish.
January 19, 2009 8:23 PM
Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski said...
Muslims Against Sharia,
What gives you the idea that Brigid is retarded?
January 19, 2009 10:58 PM
Muslims Against Sharia said...
Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski,
Her comment.
January 19, 2009 11:26 PM
Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski said...
Muslims Against Sharia,
I see.
Interesting.
Brigid is an artist, my daughter, and has, I will grant, a rather informal way of expressing herself.
She is not "retarded." Unless you are using "retarded" in it's schoolyard taunt sense, as in "you dropped the ball, retard!"
She was clearly showing the ludicrous nature of The Associated Press's, and others, implied claims about the president of ISNA, by comparing that situation to a hypothetical case of her being accused of ties with the IRA, on the basis of her trip to Ireland.
I respectfully suggest that, if this is how you treat your friends, they will have to be very long-suffering.
January 19, 2009 11:48 PM
Muslims Against Sharia said...
OK, maybe retarded was not the proper term. However she so arrogantly displayed her ignorance, it was not uncalled for.
While Ingrid Mattson may not have direct ties to Hamas per se, some of ISNA's high-ranking members do. There is not dispute that ISNA is a front group for Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is being touted as a Palestinian branch of MB. MB is not on the list of FTOs, some of its branches are. Same goes for the IRA. IRA is not on the list, but Real IRA is. Ingrid Mattson has ties to MB not because she is a Muslim, but because she is a president of the MB branch. Ridiculing this notion but saying: "I'm part Irish and I visited Ireland! I have ties to the IRA!" is ... retarded, in a schoolyard taunt sense.
Radical Muslims in America spend tens of millions of dollars every year to paint themselves as moderates. And it obviously works; they get to become a part of the inauguration. Comments by your daughter, however insignificant they may seem, play a role in whitewashing radical Islam. I suggest you explain to her what's at stake. We cannot afford to have another ignorant Westerner jumping on "Sharia is acceptable" bandwagon.
January 20, 2009 9:25 AM
Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski said...
I posted my views of the "retarded" dialog in this post's comments in "Retard! Or, How Not to Make Your Point (January 20, 2009).
January 20, 2009 9:35 PM
From "Retard! Or, How Not to Make Your Point"
Muslims Against Sharia said...
'This assertion may or may not be true, but it is unsupported in Muslims Against Sharia's comment. That is to say, there is no citation of a source which might support the assertion that: "There is not dispute that ISNA is a front group for Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is being touted as a Palestinian branch of MB."'
Are you f***ing serious? Instead of displaying your ignorance, why don't you just ask for citation? As for Hamas being touted as Palestinian branch of MB, go to Hamas website.
Your immediate surrounding must consist of people who are full of s***, but have you seen anyone at MASH making an unsubstantiated claim? I'm sorry I called your daughter a retard, but it doesn't give you the reason to start acting like one.
January 20, 2009 10:13 PM
Muslims Against Sharia said...
"In fact, she is as firmly convinced as ever that sharia law ... [is] inappropriate for contemporary societies."
Really? Then why did she jumped to the defense of the president of the organization that was a signatory to the following statement: '"Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The Process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."'
"Muslims Against Sharia is not at all clear as to what MB branch they suppose Ingrid Mattson to be president of."
ISNA, you dumbass.
"I have decided, tentatively, that the organization, although perhaps well-intentioned, values its own opinion over verifiable facts"
That's because you are a retard. Your stupidity and ignorance of the verifiable facts does not make those facts unverifiable. All you had to do is ask, instead of going on a rant that made you look dumber than you are.
"Such lack of intellectual rigor"
Championing ignorance does not really qualify as "intellectual rigor"
"if this is how you treat your friends"
Friends? You have some perverted notions of friends. My friends, when in doubt, will ask a question instead of making idiotic accusations.
"and more than a little ignorant"
Projecting much?
"...Islamic law (the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed) 'sharia is only applicable to Muslims'; 'under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state' "
One idiot perpetuating another idiot's ignorance. Ever heard of the term "Dhimmi"? It is the status assigned to non-Muslims under Sharia. If Sharia did not apply to non-Muslims, why would this term even exist? Still think Sharia is not applicable to non-Muslims? Go to Saudi Arabia and bring a Bible. Just because you figured out how to use Princeton's WordNet Search, doesn't make you an expert on Islam.
"As I wrote then, I recommend using this blog's search function to search for more commentary on sharia law."
Since your ignorance about Sharia is so easily proven, (verifiable facts, remember?) who in their right mind would think of your blog as a reliable source to research this subject?
"Another syntactic blunder"
Well, at least you know English better than me, which, considering the fact that English is neither my first, nor my second language, I would readily admit. However, your dismal knowledge of radical Islam and your pathetic outrage about your daughter's bulls*** being called speaks volumes.
January 20, 2009 10:42 PM
Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski said...
I was going to let this lie. These comments change that.
January 21, 2009 1:02 AM
Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski said...
The "accusation," as you put it, was not idiotic.
And your conversation, by the standards of the standards of the upper Midwest, where I live, is boorish.
January 21, 2009 1:14 AM
Muslims Against Sharia said...
"And your conversation ... is boorish."
Coming from a f***ing moron whose list of "useful resources for understanding the War on Terror" contains who is who of American Islamofascists, I am not surprised.
"Another War-on-Terror Blog"? What a f***ing joke! Retards like you who promote and defend Islamofascists while pretending to understand the War on Terror are just as dangerous as those Islamofascists that they defend. You are nothing more than an arrogant, ignorant, self-righteous f***. Those Islamofascists that you love so much knowingly working to advance Sharia. However, they would not be successful but for f***ing morons like you. You wanna help the War on Terror? Shut the f*** up and go ice fishing, or whatever the f*** you retards do up there.
January 21, 2009 1:36 AM -
By way of explanation, one point, "... Coming from a f***ing moron whose list of "useful resources for understanding the War on Terror" contains who is who of American Islamofascists, I am not surprised...." is most likely a reference to the blog's blogroll, which contains an eclectic mix of websites and blogs.
The blogroll is headed by: "Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions."
I had hoped that the "Note!" would make it clear that- Do not agree with every opinion of every website or blog on the blogroll
- And, by inference, do not take every assertion made on each as absolute, incontrovertible Truth
- Am following a process common to traditional Western scholarship, at least, of studying all data: not just that what supports my point of view
- It gets a little messy, from time to time, but I still believe that the results are worth the unpleasantness
- Do not agree with every opinion of every website or blog on the blogroll
-
Ouch. They seem like they're going through a real bad day. I've heard of these guys before but never really got to know them all that well.
They sound moderate but from their comments it looks like they have an infinite hatred for Islamic extremists.
Hell if it werent for the name, I'd have thought they were right wing extremists. -
Um.
Do practicing Muslims actually use profanity like that? In my experience, not.
-
-
Sounds very dodgy as in black ops dodgy to me.-
aningeniousname,
I think I see what you mean. The possibility that "Muslims Against Sharia" is, in fact, a covert effort to discredit Islam is one which occurred to me. As attractive as the idea is (I love a good conspiracy theory - just as I love good science fiction, fantasy, and detective stories), there is no way to easily prove or disprove it.
Actually, from the intense emotions expressed, my working hypothesis at present is that I am dealing with one individual, either working alone or as as an agent (authorized or unauthorized) of MAS, who really believes what he is writing.
(Please, people, don't jump on me because I used "he" - the sentence was complicated enough to begin with, and "he" has, traditionally, been the pronoun used in American English to indicate a person whose sex is unknown.) -
Good Lord Norski, do we have to be politically correct with sexual grammer ?
Anyhoo, yes I concur with you. I think someone from the group took offense with what you were suggesting. Hence the outbreak. -
You're probably right it's probably some high school kid who has over dosed on fox news and patriotism and thinks he is James Bond.
-
aningeniousname,
Seriously? You should read FOXNews sometime. ( www.foxnews.com/ ) It's nowhere near as narrowminded, right-wing, hate-filled, homophobic, and otherwise ishy as many seem to think.
I've run into people who are convinced that FOXNews is hopelessly conservative - and who are equally convinced that it's hopelessly liberal. The latter aren't online as much, but they do exist (either that, or I'm lying through my teeth - this assertion of mine would be a trifle difficult to prove, since it is based on my personal experience, and I'm the only expert on me available.
). -
alexmcone,
"Good Lord Norski, do we have to be politically correct with sexual grammer ? "
The last time I went to college, back in the mid-eighties, yes. I have remained rather sensitive to American English's lack of a suitable personal pronoun which is suitable to either sex. Most people use "they" or "their," but I'm too much of a syntactic purist to be comfortable with that workaround.
"Anyhoo, yes I concur with you. I think someone from the group took offense with what you were suggesting. Hence the outbreak."
With respect: 'You think?'
-
Surely all the people who think Fox news is hopelessly liberal died in a bunker on a lovely spring day in Berlin.
-
All people who don't loathe FOXNews are Nazis?
Okay.
I find that almost as hard to believe as the sincerely held belief that lizard-people are ruling the world. (I'm not making that up: apatheticlemming.blogspot.com/2009/01/beware-lizard-people-im-not-making-th... ) -
No. You misinterpreted, Norski.
Nazis were so conservative that they make FOX news seem liberal. That was the implication of Anin's post. -
voodooKobra,
Thanks for the clarification.
Which brings up an interesting point: Since "Nazis were so conservative that they make FOX news seem liberal. That was the implication of Anin's post." - then the people around here (a small town surrounded by pig farms in central Minnesota), who see FOXNews as liberal must be Nazis.
'It must be true:' roughly half the town is German-American.
Sorry: I'm just a little tired of the 'everybody I don't agree with is a Nazi' business. It reminds me rather unpleasantly when quite a few people held to the 'everybody I don't agree with is a commie' mantra.
Both are a bit off the mark, I think. -
[- then the people around here (a small town surrounded by pig farms in central Minnesota), who see FOXNews as liberal must be Nazis.]
False equivalence. You're thinking in fallacies. I doubt that Anin intended anything CLOSE to that.
Also, local FOX news or the national one? There's a difference.
-
-
alexmcone,
As you wrote, "ouch."
It's charitable, I think, to assume that whoever is writing those comments isn't having a good day, as you said.
I wouldn't call any human response "infinite," but that comes from my views on the nature of the universe, and a generally very careful use of words. That said, Muslims Against Sharia does seem to have a rather negative view of "Islamic extremists." And doesn't particularly like "ignorant Westerners" either.
Muslims Against Sharia does have an interesting approach to practicing "Peace / Love / Light" - words which appear in their website's logo, between a crescent and a peace sign.
As for MAS's statements being similar to what an American would expect from "right wing extremists" (I'm not assuming that you're an American - I'm identifying my origins), I see what you mean.
Actually, Muslims Against Sharia, based on this dialog, remind me most strongly of people in my cultural heritage (European) who, over the last thousand years or so, have killed Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and (more recently, in America) blacks.
I've been told that they did so, because God, Jesus, the Bible, and/or some theological expert told them that they should. (Bible-based white supremacists aren't quite as common in America as they seem to have been some forty years back, but I can't believe that the phenomenon has completely disappeared).
Based on my understanding of the Abrahamic tradition that came down through Isaac, the 'kill Jews/Catholics/Protestants/blacks' notion isn't quite what God had in mind. (More, at Catechism of the Catholic Church www.usccb.org/catechism/ at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops - I am not urging, forcing, or attempting to deceive anyone into following that link. Further, I caution any who do that the content at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is openly and explicitly Catholic. (Unlike Adult websites, though, there is no lower age limit. ).) -
ophase,
I saved your comment until last, for a response, in this session, because it is rather detailed and thoughtful, encouraging an equally thoughtful reply.
I'm running out of time, but will reply anyway (a little American humor, there).
First, thank you for reading my posts. I do try to be aware of my surroundings. It's a sort of intellectual 'situational awareness.'
Second, I'll be following up on what you said, and those links. I can't guarantee that I'll agree with everything I read, but at the very least I hope to understand a little more.
About "(Beware: There is too much wrong sources about sufism through the internet!!)" - Even if some of the sources I've found were not obviously flawed by self-referential 'proof' and other blunders, I would take what I read with "a grain of salt."
I am a devout Catholic, and converted partly as a result of a study of the virulently anti-Catholic statements and assertions of self-described 'good Christians.' Please believe me: I do not assume that someone is an 'expert,' or even has a moderately firm grasp on reality, simply because he or she says so.
Short version of that statement: I have a life-long familiarity with propaganda and disinformation. I do try to be careful about what I believe, and don't believe.
About Sharia: What I thought I knew about it, up until about ten years ago, was quite consistent with what you wrote in your comment. Sadly, recent events have made versions "sharia" from around the world the subject of international news.
It isn't a pretty picture.
I am assuming that there is a Sharia which does not identify Mickey Mouse as an agent of Satan (I'm not making that up - Sheikh Muhammad Munajid identified the Disney character as "one of Satan's soldiers" (almost certainly a translation from Arabic into English).
My source article, in the Daily Telegraph (UK), gave enough detail of the sheikh's logic (given the starting premise, his reasoning was quite clear and valid) to convince me that the DT was doing an accurate job of reporting - although the publication did not seem to take the 'death to mickey' teaching very seriously.
I don't assume that the Daily Telegraph, or Muslims Against Sharia, give a full and unbiased view of Sharia: any more than I assume that Tony Alamo and the "Lord's Resistance Army" represent the teachings of Jesus.
However, since Sheikh Muhammad Munajid and Saleh al-Luhaidan, Chairman of the Saudi Supreme Judicial Council ( anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/chief-saudi-judge-death-to-netw... ) do not appear to be members of Saudi Arabia's lunatic fringe, I have to assume that what they say about sharia, Saudi style, are relatively accurate. These, and other curious examples, make some versions of sharia seem, to western eyes, to be at best a little eccentric.
Be assured, though: I have not made my mind up about Sharia, sharia Saudi style, and all the other sharias I've read about in recent years. There's entirely too much apparently contradictory data for that. I may never understand what Sharia is.
But, I'll keep trying to learn.-
Thanks for reading, I was about to start to think that noone understands my english anymore
It also made me quite happy that you searched a lot about the subject.
To be more clear and about "Sharia", I think i can add a few lines more.
- To understand Sharia, I strictly recommend a comprehensive research for the 4 degrees (Shariat, Tareeqat, Haqeeqat, Marifat) of Sufism i mentioned above. Because one can not understand Sharia itself since it's the part of a truth.
- In the past, Scientific researches had been stopped in so many areas bcs of the fetwaas of Islamic Caliphate and Sharia laws in Ottoman Empire.
- Historicaly, Sharia laws have been condenm by Turkish Republic in 1924 since they are quite subjective for governing a nation. And The Caliphate of Islamic World (The Ottoman Emperor) has been sent to exile by Turkish Parliament.
- Briefly, Sharia laws were the reason why an empire(Ottomans) collapsed and those reformist actions could have been only token by Turkish Muslims in the world.
- On the other side, "Tareeqat"s allowed Turkish muslims to live their religions freely. There are several tareeqats in Turkey right now and they can live happily together.(It's like Catholics,Ortodox and Protestans together)
- Instead of Sharia laws Turkey has its own democratic laws. Every Friday fetwaas released by Director of Religious Affairs and he never ban any cartoon of Walt Disney. (He usually celebrates the religious days)
- Interpretation is important for understanding Sharia Laws. Democratic laws can be compatible with Sharia Laws. -
ophase,
(About your English - for what it's worth, it's easier to understand than what many native speakers write. I speak with some authority, as a recovering English teacher .)
Thanks for the follow-up. As for "Democratic laws can be compatible with Sharia Laws." - I am quite willing to believe that. Although It's a bit hard to reconcile what you've said in your comments, with what actually seems to be happening in places like Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
I was quite interested in your references to Turkey. Although I don't wholeheartedly approve of all of the Turkish government's actions (I have never wholeheartedly approved of my America's government's actions, for that matter), I have viewed Turkey and Indonesia as examples which support the idea that Islam, Information Age, and people who aren't all exactly alike, are not incompatible.
-
-
I find it interesting that the commenter repeatedly abuses you for not asking for citations and then fails to provide even one for your edification.-
legbamel,
Yes: interesting, isn't it? -
Perhaps he or she is simply waiting for you to ask, rather than posting them without an invitation. I can see how their good manners could be restraining them from doing so uninvited.
-
-
All,
Muslims Against Sharia left another comment, which I will copy, unredacted. MAS didn't use any naughty words in this one.
However, the rather uncivil tone makes Muslims Against Sharia, in my opinion, an example of 'with friends like this, Islam doesn't need enemies.'
(Good news: This MAS comment does have at least one citations)
Muslims Against Sharia said...
Your girlfriend in her own words:
1) Mattson places loyalty to Islam before loyalty to the United States of America:
If Muslim Americans are to participate in such a critique of American policy, however, they will only be effective if they do it, according to the Prophet's words, in a "brotherly" fashion. This implies a high degree of loyalty and affection. This does not mean, however, that citizenship and religious community are identical commitments, nor that they demand the same kind of loyalty. People of faith have a certain kind of solidarity with others of their faith community that transcends the basic rights and duties of citizenship.
2) Mattson on the possibility that Americans may "rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation":
The first duty of Muslims in America, therefore, is to help shape American policies so they are in harmony with the essential values of this country. In the realm of foreign policy, this "idealistic" view has been out of fashion for some time. Indeed, the American Constitution, like foundational religious texts, can be read in many different ways. The true values of America are those which we decide to embrace as our own. There is no guarantee, therefore, that Americans will rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation; nevertheless, given the success of domestic struggles for human dignity and rights in the twentieth century, we can be hopeful.
3) Mattson denies the existence of terrorist cells in the United States:
There's a prejudgment, a collective judgment of Muslims, and a suspicion that well "you may appear nice, but we know there are sleeper cells of Americans," which of course is not true. There aren't any sleeper cells.
4) Mattson defends Wahhabism:
CHAT PARTICIPANT: What can you tell us about the Wahhabi sect of Islam? Is it true that this is an extremely right wing sect founded and funded by the Saudi royal family, and led by Osama bin Ladin? What is the purpose of the Wahhabi?
MATTSON: No it's not true to characterize 'Wahhabism' that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation. Because the Wahhabi scholars became integrated into the Saudi state, there has been some difficulty keeping that particular interpretation of religion from being enforced too broadly on the population as a whole. However, the Saudi scholars who are Wahhabi have denounced terrorism and denounced in particular the acts of September 11. Those statements are available publicly.
This question has arisen because last week there were a number of newspaper reports that were dealing with this. They raised the issue of the role of Saudi Arabia and the ideology there. Frankly, I think in a way it was a reaction to the attempts of many people to look for the roots of terrorism in misguided foreign policy. It's not helpful, I believe, to create another broad category that that becomes the scapegoat for terrorism.
5) Mattson on the negative effects of the end of the Islamic Caliphate:
CHAT PARTICIPANT: Osama bin Laden made a reference that Muslims have been living in humiliation for 80 years. Did he refer to the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that dismantled caliphates and sultanates?
MATTSON: Yes, he is referring to that, to the overthrowing of the caliphate, which was a plan of European powers for many years. This deprived the Muslim world of a stable and centralized authority, and much of the chaos that we're living in today is the result of that.
If that's not enough, continue here.
I just have one question for you. How stupid or ignorant one should be not to consider Mattson a danger to America?
January 21, 2009 9:43 AM -
Are you talking about this group?
www.reformislam.org/
I am trying to figure out what your blog link has to do with the MAS group other than someone saying they are MAS????-
jafabrit,
Yes: It's www.reformislam.org/
That "someone saying they are MAS" is using the MAS blog, quite consistently. I thought that the MAS blog might be phony, but there are links from the MAS website, to the MAS blog, whose blogger was making those comments. I seriously doubt that MAS and Google's BlogSpot service are in cahoots to discredit MAS - so, since the MAS blogger purports to represent MAS, and links from the MAS website back up that assertion, I'm inclined to think that we've been reading the words of MAS.
I hope that answers your question. -
Are you certain it isn't just a clever smear campaign?
-
voodooKobra,
That's one of the first things I thought of. Particularly since I've received communications and comments from spoofers before, which had the clear intent of discrediting a third party.
And, I doubt that the comments I received were from someone not associated with MAS.
Quoting from my previous reply, "I thought that the MAS blog might be phony, but there are links from the MAS website, to the MAS blog, whose blogger was making those comments. I seriously doubt that MAS and Google's BlogSpot service are in cahoots to discredit MAS - so, since the MAS blogger purports to represent MAS, and links from the MAS website back up that assertion, I'm inclined to think that we've been reading the words of MAS."
Summarizing:
The MAS website has links to the BlogSpot blog, whose author was posting those comments.
The BlogSpot blog purports to support MAS, and appears to express opinions on that blog which are consistent with MAS opinions.
Since the MAS website link to the BlogSpot blog is in the MAS navigation bar, and labeled "Blog" - It appears that MAS claims the BlogSpot blog, also called Muslims Against Sharia, as its own blog.
And, the BlogSpot Muslims Against Sharia blog uses "http://www.reformislam.org/contact.php" as its contact page. (reformislam.org is the URL of Muslims Against Sharia's website).
It is remotely possible that, somehow, someone hacked the MAS website. And that this person has chosen to use MAS's contact page as his/her/their own. But I'd say that is not likely.
Particularly since this set of mutual links has remained for some time, now, with MAS taking no notice. -
Okay, so my skepticism was already answered elsewhere in the thread. My mistake.
-
-
I don't know but I have a list of Muslim blogs I read where you could probably ask that question, if you want it let me know.-
cooper,
Thanks, but I'm still digesting what I've learned here.
And, with respect, if the Muslim blogs are as accurate as too many Christian blogs I've seen, I'll pass on your kind offer - until I know enough to know when to laugh, when to cry, and when to agree.
(My own religious-content blog, A Catholic Citizen in America ( catholiccitizenamerica.blogspot.com/ ), is carefully researched, with links to the cited references - and I try to be very, very, careful about distinguishing between Church teaching, my own opinions, and speculation.)
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
