&tRecently, I got an email from a friend who told me about an author who wrote that, for many Muslims, there is no more joy in Islam. I believe that is valid. For many people, there is no "sweetness" of faith, like the Prophet (pbuh) spoke about in a famous hadith. Many people will conclude that this is a fault of religion itself, most especially Islam. Yet that is a faulty conclusion.

Religion is supposed to serve the believer. It is supposed to support the believer on his or her journey on this earth back towards their Lord and Creator, where they truly belong. In fact, religion polishes the roughness out of the human heart so that the light of God both shines through and penetrates in. There should be so much joy in this process.

Yet, for many people, the reverse is true. The believer is supposed to serve religion. Religion is master, and the believer is servant. This is flawed, and the Qur'an tells me so:

Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion. (5:3)

The fact that God gave us the perfect law is described as "the full measure of [God's] blessings." Yet, why? Why is religion an enormous blessing for us? Because it helps guide us back to our Lord. That is the ultimate service for us.

When our father Adam (pbuh) slipped in the Garden, he estranged himself from God. Thus, Adam (pbuh) was bidden to live on earth and journey back to Him. This is a tough journey, and God knows this. Yet, He did not leave Adam (pbuh) - and by analogy all of us - completely alone to fend for himself (and ourselves). He sent guidance:

Yet if guidance does come to you from Me, then whoever follows My guidance will have nothing to fear and will not sorrow. (2:38)

And when we follow this guidance we are comforted, and we find happiness and joy. In fact, God calls the believers to enter into peace, which is what we will find when we follow His way:;blockquote>O believers, enter wholly into peace, and do not follow the footsteps of Satan, for he is an open enemy to you. (2:208)Many translators have used the word "Islam" as the translation for the Arabic silm, which is the word used in the verse. But, silm means "peace," and the use of the word seems to be much more broad and encompassing. This means to me that, if we follow God's way, we will have total peace in our hearts, and we will experience joy.

This process, in fact, is one of love. Following God's way is a process of falling in love with God. We get to know Him through knowing and experiencing His signs:

We will show them Our signs throughout the regions of the earth and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness to all things? (41:53)

And once we know Him, we cannot but love Him, most especially because we come to learn that He loved us first. And once we fall in love with the Precious, there is no turning back. We "enter into peace," and we experience joy. That is the essence of religion: the process of falling in love with God and entering into peace by following His guidance.

And, yes, that does include performing the acts of ritual prayer and ablution; abstaining from that which God commands; giving out of our wealth; fasting when God commands us to fast; journeying on the earth back to the Lord Himself. All these things we do because we love Him (because He loved us first).

The fact that someone does not derive joy from these things is not the fault of the religion, it is the fault of the person himself. Nevertheless, there are many Muslims who have begun to question the 'illah, or effective cause or reason behind, of some of Islam's most important religous practices. For instance, what is the 'illah of the five daily prayers? What is the 'illah of the fast of Ramadan? Of the zakah? Of the Hajj?

I do not think there is anything wrong with this type of questioning, so long as the intent behind the questioning is sincere. Truth does not fear investigation. Yet, God has already answered many of these questions already. The beauty of our Creator is that, when He sends forth a command, He usually explains why. In fact, we see that He gives the 'illah behind our ritual practices:

Five daily prayers: I am the God; there is no deity but Me; so serve Me, and practice prayer to remember Me. (20:14) Also read: Recite what has been revealed to you from the Book, and pray regularly; for prayer restrains from that which is abominable and disavowed. And remembrance of God is even greater. And God knows what you do. (29:45)

Fast of Ramadan: O believers, fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you, that you may be conscientious. (2:183) Also read: The month of Ramadan is the one in which the Qur'an was revealed, as guidance for humanity, and demonstrations in the way of guidance and discrimination. So whoever among you is present in that month should fast... (2:185)

Zakah: Take contributions from their wealth, to purify them and justify them thereby; and pray for them. Indeed, your prayer is an asylum for them. For God is all-hearing, all-knowing. (9:103)

Hajj: Indeed, the first temple set up for humankind was the one at Mecca, as blessing and guidance for all beings, in which are evident signs; it is the place where Abraham stood, and whoever enters it is secure. And it is a duty of humanity to God that whoever is able to make a pilgrimage to the temple. And if any refuse, well, God in independent of all worlds . (3:96-97)

The Lord God has also explained why He forbade fornication and games of chance even though He has no reason to do so:

And do not approach adultery, for it is an obscenity and an evil way. (17:32)

Believers - wine and gambling and idolatry and divination are nothing by abomination from the work of Satan, so avoid them that you may thrive. Satan only wants to sow hostility and hatred among you with wine and gambling, and to hinder you from remembrance of God, and from prayer. So will you refrain? (5:90-91)

Even when it comes to believing in His oneness, He never says, "I am One because I say so." No. He takes the time to explain why, even though He has every right to say "because I said so." Take this passage as a prime example:

Say, Praise be to God, and peace upon the servants God has chosen. Is God better, or what they associate with God? Or, who created the heavens and the earth, and rains water from the sky for you? With it We produce orchards full of beauty, whose trees you could not produce. Is there a deity besides God? No, but they are a deviant people.

Or, who made the earth steady, and put rivers in its clefts, and set mountains on it, and placed a partition between the two seas? Is there a deity besides God? No, but most of them do not know. Or, who answers the cry of the one hard pressed, and removes adversity, and makes you heirs of the earth? Is there a deity besides God? You hardly pay attention.

Or, who guides you in the darkness of the land and the sea, and who sends the winds as heralds of divine mercy? Is there a deity besides God? God transcends any association that they attribute. Or, who initiates creation and then repeats it; and who provides you sustenance from the sky and the earth? Is there a deity besides God? Say, "Bring your proof, if you are being truthful." (27:59-65)

See how God goes through a detailed exposition about why He is one God, even though, once again, He needs no reason to explain Himself to us. What an awesome God we have!

Despite these explanations, however, many Muslims seek to discern even further the 'illah behind the various practices of Islam. On one level, this is good, because upon reflection, one may find infinite reasons and benefits of the ritual practices of Islam. This will serve to strengthen the resolve of the believer to keep up the ritual practices out of love for God.

There are some, however, who reflect upon the possible 'illah of the ritual practice in order to invent "designer Islam," to justify their abandonment of the ritual practices. This is quite dangerous.

Thus, a person may say: "The ritual prayer is really a conversation between the believer and his or her Lord." This is true. Consequently, the person concludes, since he or she "talks" to God each day, there is no need to pray five times a day. "That's so seventh century," he or she may say. This same person may say: "Since the reason behind fasting is God consciousness, I do not need to fast because I am so conscious of God." Or, he may say: "My wealth is already pure, thus I do not need to pay the 2.5% Zakah."

This is "designer Islam," and unlike Coca-Cola, it is not the real thing. That sort of reasoning simply does not make any sense. If someone either does not, or can not, keep up the ritual practice, he or she should not justify their actions by coming up with an "Islam Vista." Islam does not need to be "updated," although the thinking and practices of a great many Muslims do.

I know this to be the case because of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He did, in fact, directly talk to God in the highest of heavens, where even the powerful Archangel Gabriel could not venture. In addition, God directly communicated to the Prophet (pbuh) through Gabriel over a period of 23 years. Yet, despite this, he (pbuh) never missed a ritual daily prayer. If anyone were to justify not having to pray because he "talks to God every day," it would be the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Yet, the Prophet prayed five times a day like the rest of us.

There was no human being that walked this earth who was not more conscious of God than the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Yet, he still fasted the month of Ramadan. There was no one who was as generous as the Prophet (pbuh), yet he still paid Zakah when it was due upon him. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) even performed the pilgrimage just before he died.

If the Prophet (pbuh), who was the most God-conscious, generous, pure, and pious man ever to walk the earth, never failed to perform the ritual practices of Islam, how can we even think of trying to justify doing the same by inventing a modern-day "designer Islam"? Yet, admittedly, those who continue to practice Islam as the Prophet (pbuh) practiced the religion are a tiny minority today.

This is immaterial. In fact, to be in this minority is laudable, because, God said that this minority will be among the "forefront" on Judgment Day:

And those in the forefront will precede: they will be the favorites in gardens of happiness, a number of the ancients, and a few of those of later times. (56:10-14)

I don't know about you, but I want to be among that "few."

continued 4

You already have the statement by Ibn Khaldun. Here it is again, with source:
"in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, says Ibn Khaldun, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations" (Muqaddimah, trans. Rosenthal, p. 183).

Here also is a statement by the head sheik of the grand mosque in Mecca, a very important and respected figure in Islam: "The meaning of the term 'terror' used by the media... is Jihad for the sake of Allah. Jihad is the peak of Islam. Moreover, some of the clerics ... see it as the sixth pillar of Islam. Jihad --whether Jihad of defense of Muslims and of Islamic lands such as in Chechnya, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, or Jihad aimed at spreading the religion -- is the pinnacle of terror, as far as the enemies of Allah are concerned. The Muhajeed who goes out to attain a martyr's death or victory and returns with booty is a terrorist as far as the enemies of Allah are concerned... Jihad is the peak of Islam... Jihad, oh believers, is an integral part of our religion. The word 'terror' is used to damage this mighty and blessed foundation." -- Sheikh Wajdi Hamza Al-Ghazawi, Al-Manshawi Mosque, Mecca, October 6, 2001.


Irfy, I am delighted that you disagree with the 14 centuries of Islamic consensus, but please understand that a lot of Moslems do agree with it and act on it. They are the ones who are making all the trouble.

Monte, do you know how long the Muqqadimah is? Have you read it all from start to finish? And did you know it is NOT a work of law? Nor has it ever been used as a work of law? Can you show me one major Sunni legal code or collection of fatawa or legal text which cites Ibn Khaldun as an authority on mu'amalat?

Further, the words you cite from the Sheik of the Grand Mosque in Makkah - who translated these words? And what was the response of his peers and his audience? And how authoritative are his words given that he follows the Wahhabi sect that many Sunnis (and certainly most Shia) regard as heterodox?

Instead of citing Bob Spencer and all the other nasties, why don't you prove your claim that "alot of Moslems (sic.) do agree with it and act on it"?

What surveys have you done on Muslim opinion? Can you show me surveys you have conducted or studies you are aware of that show the majority of Muslims living in the majority of Muslim-majority states agree with your formulation of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims?

And finally, tell me if you have read any of these works you cite in their entirety? Go on. Be honest. Don't try any of that liberal or Christian 'taqiyya' stuff.

Irfy,
I am glad you bring up the argument that says the passages in the Koran and Hadith calling for war against non-Moslems are no longer valid because of the United Nations and international law which arose after World War II. This is the same argument that Sherman Jackson of the University of Michagn Law School makes. It is an interesting argument in that it says that the jihad passages of the Koran are not valid for all of eternity but subject to temporal conditions. That make a certain amount of sense, but it does contradict the basic Islamic assumption about the Koran, namely that the Koran is not bound to historical conditions but is Allah's literal word which valid for all of eternity. This argument by Sherman Jackson (and you) does not seem to have caught on with the Ulema, unfortunately, and Sherman Jackson admits that it is going to be an uphill struggle to get this line of thinking accepted. In any case, this argument by you and Sherman Jackson indeed breaks with the 14 centuries of Islamic consensus which you like to mention repeatedly without telling us just what this consensus consists of.

"I am glad you bring up the argument that says the passages in the Koran and Hadith calling for war against non-Moslems are no longer valid because of the United Nations and international law which arose after World War II."

Where have I made this argument? How did you reach the conclusion that I vere made this argument? And where did Sherman Jackson make this argument? Provide full referencing please.

My argument is that Mawardi wrote what he wrote on foreign policy and in particular on the law between nations and empires, what we now call public international law. This is not the topic of our discussion. Rather, our discussion is about muamalat, a completely different section of the law.

You clearly fancy yourself as a sharia expert. Tell me what Mawardi says about muamalat. Tell me what he says about how Muslims and non-Muslims should behave with each other as neighbours, co-workers, classmates etc.

You are citing numerous works, some of which are not even works of law. I notice you still haven't provided me with evidence of any jurist citing Muqaddimah as evidence for a legal proposition.

I also note you have not advised on what possible authority a Salafi/Wahhabi imam could have on Muslims who regard his sect as heterodox. Or should I start judging Christians by what the KKK teaches?

Irfy,
You mention something about whether a majority of Muslims agree with my formulation of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. First of all, it is NOT my formulation. It is the traditional Islamic formulation. Second, scientific polling data about this question is hard to come by. Third, and perhaps most important, it is irrelevant. To say that only a minority of Muslims believe in the offensive jihad against non-Moslems makes as much sense as saying to a person with inoperable brain cancer that only a minority of cells in his body are cancerous. It it true, but irrelevant. The significant minority are the ones causing all the problems, and because of the Islamic holy texts, there will always be at least a significant minority which takes those texts literally.

Monte, a significant minority of Christians also hold such views, as do a significant minority of Jews. The difference between Muslims, Christians and Jews is that in the Judeo-Christian world this minority are THE RULING CLASS.

You know that GWB says he went to war in Iraq because God told him to. You know that at least 15% of the Knesset are from Jewish extremist parties.

You also know that the West is largely where it is today because of the allegedly civilising (read Christianising) mission of colonialism.

If some Muslims apply this kind of thinking, it's because they're applying the same aberrations of Christian fundamentalism and Jewish nationalism.

You're making claims about what Muslims believe, yet admit that "scientific polling data about this question is hard to come by". You can't consider your case proven just by saying that getting the evidence is too hard.

Evidence of Jewish and Christian extremism becoming the dominant trend is everywhere around us.

The ratio of Palestinian to Jewish deaths during the last intifadeh was at least 40:1. If that isn't the result of extremism, what is? And are you telling me that Israeli army rabbis aren't teaching troops about the alleged Biblical right of Jews to that piece of land?

In Australia, there's ample evidence of links between the conservative government and muscular Christian groups, including the vilest and most anti-Semitic ones. Is this all coincidental?

Scriptures and religious traditions can be manipulated by sick and demented people. The Bible has been used to justify apartheid, genocide and colonialism. There's plenty Biblical text supporting all this.

Your claims have little or no evidence. By your own admission, the evidence is hard to come by. Yes, there are Muslims committing acts of terror. But who make up the majority of its victims?

You might not like this fact, but I doubt Muslims are en masse going to leave their ancestral faiths in a hurry. If you are really concerned about bringing a lasting peace and a world free from terror, you should stop playing theological polemics and start working with people of good will of all faiths.

You might start by reading about the Prophet Muhammad's attempts to build coalitions of goodness. Read about the Hilf al-Fudul. Try and find a modern-day Hilf al-Fudul and work with it.

Irfy,
Your equation of Jewish and Christian extremists to Muslim extremists is just too outrageous for words. When is the last time that Jewish or Christian extremists flew a plane into a crowded building while quoting the Bible? Or blew up a busful of school children? Or blew up a discotheque with dancing teenagers? Or blew up a holiday celebration? or cut defenceless people's heads off while quoting the Bible and proudly taking videos?

As for working with people of good will of all faiths, that's just a sorry attempt on your part to avoid dealing with the problem. You, as a supposedly peaceful and moderate Moslem, need to start working with your jihadist coreligionists including the imams, instead of pretending that they are no different from Jews and Christians in their extremism. What rot!

Monte, you know full well that Prez Bush went to Iraq because God told him to (or so he claims). You know that millions of evangelical Christians were right behind him in that invasion which has cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

I'm glad you mentioned September 11. How many people died there? Around 3,000? A terrible tragedy. Well, in the first 3 months of the Afgan war, the number of Afghan civilians killed excedded this number.

These were wars carried out in the name of God by a President who egularly consults with Franklin Graham.

You need to take responsibility for the chicken hawks in your backyard. We at AltMuslim.com are doing our bit to educate people and innoculate them against extremism. What are you doing to innoculate yourself and your people?

Tell me which country Usama bin Ladin is ruling over today? Tell me which Muslim leader he is advising? Now tell me the difference between UBL and war mongering evangelical Christians who support Israel in every one of its nasty military expeditions?

Monte, why don't you disclose your background? That way, we will at least be in a position to know how black a pot you belong to!

Irfy,
Here's what the greatest Muslim leader of the 20th century had to say about the nature of Islam:
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.... Islam says: whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! the sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other Koranic psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

This was said not by some "Islamophobe" but by Ayatollah Khomeini, the supreme and revered leader of Shiite Islam, who devoted his entire life to studying the holy books of Islam. He was not interested in sugarcoating Islam for propaganda purposes.

As for my background, Irfy, you do not need to know it. You need to deal with the arguments no matter who presents them. So far, you have been either unwilling or unable (or both) to do so.

Monte, you need to deal with your inability to answer simple queries and questions. You need to rise above mere cutting and pasting from evangelical and polemical websites.

You're living in your own dreamworld, a world of denial that enables you to see the speck in your brother's eye whilst ignoring a log that blinds you completely.

Which psalms are contained in the Qur'an? In what sense do you regard Khomeini as the greatest leader? Can a Shia jurist bind Sunnis? What is your source? Who translated it?

And you still haven't answered the numerous other questions about Ibn Khaldun. You also haven't shown even elementary knowledge of muamalat, and you haven't provided statements from jurists on muamalat issues. Instead, you have cited either political polemics or statements on foreign policy and international law. It's a bit like me asking you about constitutional issues and you answering me with quotations from antitrust laws.

Clearly you are out of your depth on legal matters. Accept your ignorance, go and learn and then come back and engage.

Again, Irfy, you weasel out of dealing with the issues by trying to impugn me personally. Have you no counterarguments?
Why in the world should I provide statements from jurists about fiqh muamalat? How does that aspect of sharia law relate to Islam's hostility toward non-Moslems? If you are as learned as you pretend to be, please explain.

Monte, do I have to explain to you how to suck eggs?

Muamalat is about social dealings. It's about people's relations with other people. Here you are, Sheik-ul-Islam, quoting this person and that person and you don't even know what muamalat is!

Are you seriously suggesting that muamalat has nothing to say about relations between Muslims and non-Muslims?

Now the full extent of your ignorance is becoming apparent to me. You clearly cannot answer even the simplest of questions. Such simple questions like:

a. What relevance do quotes from a book of classical sociology (as is Muqaddimah) have to do with sacred law?

b. What possible relevance could medieval works on the law of international warfare have to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the West in 2007?

You've showered us with quotations on the law of warfare when the issues you discuss are muamalat issues. You haven't provided any definitive or coherent argument addressing muamalat.

As if to underscore your ignorance, you don't even realise that sharia limits the extent of its own jurisdiction to Muslims living in non-sharia states.

I guess next you'll be telling me that all Australian tax laws apply to Americans living in the US.

Quit while you are ahead. Your posts are now reaching comical proportions. You're out of your league. Give up before you embarrass yourself further.

Irfy,

You should watch the hearings in the highest courts in any decent country where there is a judicial system. You will see that the higher the court the more they rely on simple and common interpretations of the law - what is generally called common sense. You can ridicule me for relying on common sense but it only shows how easily you are impressed by snake oil salesmen.

The US supreme court judges talk to lawyers in plain english, all the hifalutin jurisprudence is left to the lower courts. Religion is like that also. The more profound the person speaking the simpler he is to understand. The more hot-air he spews the more he is trying to hide and impress. What Monte did was ask simple straightforward questions. When you demanded his reasons, he was good enough to cite his sources - not so much to impress you but to let you know where he found the sources. Instead of answering him, you resorted to demanding how long his beard is!

But the truth is, if there was someone who was saying in simple words 'islam is good' you would be applauding him as a prophet, not questioning his credentials. Like that Baba ali character. On the other hand, common sense questions that demand to know why muslim people follow mindless orders blindly, immediately raises the ire of all muslims, both the alqaida and non-alqaida kind. Like Galileo and the Christians!

In the early part of the rise of Nazism, it was people who were 'moderate' who did not understand the nature of the extremism they were supporting. You can say 1400 years and whatnot, but for a religion, a thousand years is nothing. Egyptian religion reigned for 3000 years (if not more) and where is it today? Greeks? Gone! The only religion still existing from whenever it was born is probably the Hindu religion and we, the so called 'tolerant' abrahamic religions have tried hard to extinguish that too.
Your argument that everything in Islam has already been thought through because it is 1400 years old, is hogwash. Muslims never had to live with other people as they are doing today until a few decades ago. What we are witnessing is a clash of civilizations - or rather the clash of the civilized and the uncivilized. It is up to you to choose your camp.

Weiss, you really should learn some history.

"Muslims never had to live with other people as they are doing today until a few decades ago."

Have you heard of the word "convivencia"? Have you heard of Din-i-Ilahi? Which planet are you living on? Is your understanding of history limited to KKK manuals or Mark Steyn op-eds?

Irfy,
Again, you only engage in name-calling and personal attacks instead of answering questions and providing explanations. You drop the word "muamalat" but you are unable or unwilling to say just what this branch of sharia has to do with attitude towards non-Moslems. Why do you refuse to offer this explanation? You have failed to answer a single argument -- other than to attack me personally. Have you no answers? Have you nothing constructive to offer this discussion?

Also, you seem to deny the relevance of Islamic scholarship before World War II. Are you serious? As I have repeatedly shown by quoting modern Islamic authorities, that pre-WWII Islamic scholarship is still valid -- for Moslems.

So in this con-job or din-din or whatever, it was just like modern America and Europe and muslims lived happily with others who were radically different (as in mini-skirts and women's sexual freedoms)? If it was, then what went wrong? Did the muslims just become retards and go backward in time?

I hope you will write an answer in your own words and not start quoting some pompous ass of a historian...

Monte says: "You drop the word "muamalat" but you are unable or unwilling to say just what this branch of sharia has to do with attitude towards non-Moslems. Why do you refuse to offer this explanation?"

Heck, I know what the relevance is. Just about everyone else who writes on this site knows what they are, as do most readers. You've come here, behaving like some kind of expert, cutting and pasting from other sites without any understanding of context or application.

Surely if you are such an expert, you would know what relevance sharia rules on muamalat would have on muslim and non muslim relations.

Furthermore, what I'm discounting is NOT pre-WWII scholars. Rather, what I'm saying is the scholars you quote are either not dealing with legal issues at all (because, in the case of Ibn Khaldun, they are sociologists) or deal with issues of the law of relations between states and empires or with the international laws of armed conflict.

At the time these works were written, the major empires were divided along religious lines. Today, states are divided along ethnic, linguistic or other lines. What they write has little application to me living down under in 2007.

You also haven't addressed the key area of jurisdiction. This is just one of numerous issues you have failed to deal with.

The onus is not on me to tell you how to such eggs. You came to this site as a troll, posting here and there. You have made claims. Now prove them or be on your bike.

Weiss, I urge you to jump on a plane and come down to Melbourne. Walk along Sydney road, Brunswick on a Saturday afternoon. You'll see girls with names like Ayse and Fatima walking along this busy street wearing mini-skirts. Their sisters or cousins or mums or aunts are wearing hijabs. They work and live amongst other women and men of all different faiths and nationalities. And no conflict whatsoever.

Perhaps, Weiss, what you want is to live in a place where only one culture exists and is imposed. You want to live in a monocultural paradise. Be my guest. Move to North Korea or Israel. Or maybe Alabama.

Irfy,
Again, you claim to know so much, but you refuse to say anything at all of substance about the issues on the table. All you can do is call me names and attack me personally. Haven't you ever learned that argumentum ad hominem is not valid?Other readers, especially Muslims, must be embarrassed by your openly hostile and childish performance. If you know so much about Islam, then say something intelligent about Islam instead of launching personal attacks on me.

As for your dismissal of Ibn Khaldun as a sociologist who was ignorant of Islamic law, that takes the cake. No doubt you know Islamic law better than Ibn Khaldun did. Well, if you are so presumptuous as to claim that, then please show where Ibn Khaldun was wrong about Islam. You have only disparaged him, but you did not challenge his arguments. As a non-Moslem observing Islam from the outside, I would tend to trust Ibn Khaldun rather than you when it comes to learning about the principles of Islam.