Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on June 10, 2006, 07:32:24 AM
-
Woof All:
This thread seeks to continue the conversation begun by Sitbatan on the "Intro to Gun, Knife and Emtpy Hand" thread nearby triggered by Gabe Suarez and I wearing "Infidel" t-shirts with a gun range target behind us of a "jihadi" type person.
Sitbatan wondered whether I was exhibiting anti-Muslim animus. ?In my initial response there I listed all the ways I could think of off the top of my head that the US has acted with and/or for Muslims countries. ?
In his response, the following was cause for me to reflect:
"Please understand from my point of view... I have taught other foreigners here, are they going to use their knowledge to kill my fellow muslims??? Is it that the true peaceful Islam has been buried under extremism?? Radicalism??"
What communicates in his words which I quote is a frame of mind in which it is more important whether someone is a Muslim than whether he is a good or a bad person. ?Is this the case Sibatan? ?
Thus I begin with this question: what is your reaction to our killing of Zarqawi? ?Are you sad/angry that we have killed a "fellow muslim" or are you glad that we have killed a fascist who targetted innocents? ?If you had known where he was, would you have told us?
The Adventure continues,
Crafty Dog
PS: ?The subject matter of this thread is particularly combustible, yet the need for honest communication seems to me to be as obvious as it is profound-- so I remind all who participate in this thread of the code of this forum "Be friends at the end of the day." ? A special note to my fellow infidels-- any Muslim who comes here probably will be quite outnumbered. ?Play fairly!
-
Salam to all,
Since I guess I opened pandora's box.... I will take full responsibility for my response... this does not reflect the sentiments or thinking of other muslims....only my view.
As for terrorists, criminals, pirates....they should recieve all that is coming to them...inshallah...God-willing....and God is the best of Judges.
As for the DBMA... I'm all for it. It is a positive in the FMA family.
As for using muslim looking target dummies... I guess I can only control my actions and it is beyond my control. I cannot and will not infringe on your freedom to shoot muslim looking paper targets.
I have taught White, Christian Foreigners (although many muslim teachers will not share their art with foreigners) and they all seemed very nice and courteous. I have not discriminated against them and I have taught them like my own kin. I just hope my kindness will not go in vain and those techniques return to my descendents as punishment...warwok.
Peace to all and God Bless..Sitbatan
-
First off let me state that I am in full agreement with Crafty on being ?Friends at the end of the day.? Don?t take this post as an attack, simply a statement.
As for using muslim looking target dummies... I guess I can only control my actions and it is beyond my control. I cannot and will not infringe on your freedom to shoot muslim looking paper targets.
First off When I see that I do not think Muslim, I think terrorist, an extremist. I can?t see one inch of his skin let alone his religious beliefs and for all I know he could be a white half German mutt like myself that joined a terrorist organization. Breaking it down to even simpler terms I see a ?bad guy.? I strongly hope that this is not how Muslims view Muslims (dressed up in camouflage pointing AK?s at someone). Is this a valid concern?
Gruhn
-
Greetings Sibatan:
Thank you for engaging in conversation with me.
I confess to utter bafflement as to why you see that target as "Muslim".
Surely the figure there is not how you think of the meaning of Muslim?
Why not see the target as the bad people we fight?
Who fights us now in Iraq? Basically two groups: Al Qaeda types such as Zarqawi and Baathist Saddamites.
For me, AQ is evil. I look at 911 and ask myself what would have happened if Flight 93, the one heroically brought down by the passengers, had been crashed by its AQ pilot into the nearby nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island? Thousands of square miles of my homeland would have been radioactively contaminated for centuries. This is not fanciful. This risk is quite real. Osama Bin Laden has specifically called for using nuclear and/or radioactive devices against the United States. I don't care what religion any group seeking such a thing is, I do care that it, its members, and those that give sanctuary to such efforts are stopped.
Zarqawi of AQ who often dressed as you see in that target was fighting us in Iraq. He seized innocent people and beheaded them on TV. He bombed weddings (of Muslims by the way). He killed those who sought to build a democractic Iraq (mostly Muslims by the way). He, and AQ specifically stated that democracy was against Islam (nevermind mostly Muslim examples like Turkey and Indonesia) I truly do not get why you worry that our being against such a man means we are against Muslims.
Lets look at the Baathist Saddamites now.
SH and his followers brutally suppressed the Kurds (Muslims by the way) and the Shiites (Muslims by the way) of Iraq and sought to conquer his neighbors (Muslims by the way). He supported terrorism, including paying $25,000 a hit to the families of suicide mass killers who specifically targeted women and children and other innocents in Israel because they were Jewish. Now that SH is done for, his followers fear the consequences of Iraqi democracy, a democracy for which many millions of Iraqis (most of whom are Muslims by the way) have voted at great personal risk! They too also target innocent civilians (most of whom are Muslims by the way).
Once again, I truly do not get why our fighting such people gives you the idea we are against Muslims!
Indeed, why do you not express support?
Please help me understand.
The Adventure continues,
CD
-
Salam to All,
The terrorists, murderers, and criminals must be brought to justice.
I can only speak from my understanding, from what I see that target you are shooting is dressed like the Moro freedom fighters here in southern Philippines. It is a very common sight here to see that, like seeing a police officer or someone of authority in the west.
To you I guess it represents something else... 9-11 or AQ.
There are two sides to each story and we are on opposite sides of the earth. What we do share is love for the FMA and as long as you love the FMA... I will continue to be your brother in the Art.
Peace and God Bless.
-
I did not know that this type of dress was found in the Philippines. I associated it with the Arabic world.
-
Yes Guro Crafty the ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) like Indian Reservations in the USA... we have our own Military or Militia that dresses like that... they are our protection from vigilantes and our moro country's self-defense....like Moro Police...they only stay in our area.
Check out http://www.freewebs.com/tausugchat/ or http://bangsamoro.com/.
-
I have thought long and hard before adding anything to this thread. Anyway, my exposure to the Muslim culture is mostly middle eastern and east Africa. I have broken bread with many families and find them to be gracious hosts and good hearted people. Now after saying that I will add. Would I trust them to watch my back in a fire fight. NO. Why because in their eyes I am part of a invading/occuping army thats only mission is to kill Muslims.
Recent history reveals that in almost every major terror attack on the U.S. was engineered by extreme Muslims. These extremist take great pleasure in killing and degrading the corpses of "The Great Satin". I have been called and Infidal more than once because I do not follow the Koran.
IMHO we in the west are exposed to the most extreme part of Islam. Only because the moderate and peace loving Muslims fail to speak out publicly against the acts of the terrorist. I have seen Muslims commit horrendous acts of violence upon fellow Muslims. Their only crime was helping the Infidals. I believe this act of Muslims killing Muslim is forbidden by the Koran.
The most life changing act and what made me what I am today. Happened in 1972 when a saw a man wearing a ski mask at the Munich Olymipics.
Would I use the FMA to kill an Islamic terrorist. Yes.
Myke Willis
-
Salam XtremeKali
Yes the peace loving muslims are mostly overshadowed by extremist because like me.... I am busy working full-time teaching FMA / self-defense and running a school with children and busy raising my own family. I have no time for politics or thinking of anything but my familie's welfare.
I believe the extremists are mostly young men, full of testosterone, and are gung-ho....invincible because they have no responsibility.
Believe me most Muslims are like me....busy, busy in business, work, or school.
I'm sorry but can you influence the local thugs? I can't either...it is the job of the police. As far as Criminals, Terrorists, or Pirates... the Government is responsible to stop them...as a citizen with all my busy, busy self...what can I do?? even my fellow muslim... tell me what can I do??
It all falls down to the Governments they have to deal with it...set up laws and enforce them. My duty as a Muslim is Pray, Pay taxes, and Raise my kids well...like most human beings regardless.
Peace and God Bless
-
I'm sorry but can you influence the local thugs?
I think the difference is that there isn't a one main group of thugs that the ?local thugs? associate themselves with. While there are many larger groups of gangs and such in the US, few of them are fighting for god such as terrorists say they fight for. This is where the accepted United States association with religion and terrorists comes into play.
Gruhn
-
Salam Sitbatan,
When I hear what can we do about thugs, that it is up to Governments to take care of the problem. I would agree to a point if it where a local problem. The terrorist activities are not under any one Government. But under God. So IMHO if the moderate and peace loving Clerics took a more active stance against car bombing, the killing of inocent people then maybe more young people would listen. But by their silence then they let the religion be controled by madmen filled with hate. We did not want this holy war but it was thrust upon us. We reacted in self defense.
Like most Mulims we Americians want to work, go to school and raise our kids. But as Americans it is our duty to get involved no matter if we are for or against.
It is good that something like the FMA can at least bring a small group of people together.
Myke Willis
-
Salam to all,
Actually the truth is alot of us muslims who attend the Sabbath or "Church Service" are only there half asleep thinking about other than what the preacher "imam" is preaching about... And most of the time the topic is about stuff only a Religiously learned person can understand....ie not the majority of attendees.
Do not think that because one is a muslim that he is religious...it is an individual thing.... most are not.
Believe me these extremists are not the majority of us...like the majority of White people are not nazis and the majority of blacks are not gang members. The media has alot to do with stereotyping.
Just some things to ponder on... peace.
-
Sitbatan,
Christians and Muslims are alike after all. :lol:
Myke Willis
-
True true... we are all the same, just don't believe the hype.
Peace and God Bless. Sitbatan
-
EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION
-
Bryan,
I am glad that you have found a way of life that has brought you inner peace. I too have found peace in the ways of the my grandfathers (Apache).
First, As a Vet I want to thank you for your service to our country. I too have spent many a cold night sitting on some isolated air field waiting to go to some place unknown. I have also spent many nights in the Middle East doing the biding of Uncle Sam. As a soldier/contractor it is not my place to make policy.
I feel the hostility coming from your post. Maybe the cartoon was in poor taste. It is not my place to defend someone elses work. But as you can see the actions of 9/11 have certain effects on different people. I maybe wrong, and please correct me if I am, but it seems you take issue with certain freedoms that we have. I can understand this to a certain extent coming from a people that the U.S. commited genocide against. That made everything we believed and praticed "against the law". Forced us to pray to their God and forced us to learn their english. Know after saying this I will get to the point.
I will share a few things that I have a hard time with that your Islamic brothers/sisters have done. Burning and cursing our flag, hanging and setting our public figures in effigy, flying planes into buildings full of innocent civilians, boarding buses full of women and childern and blowing themselves up and watching such actions of cowards being celebrated, ect...
Marc, I will apologize to you and the rest if I have overstepped the "be friends at the end of the day" rule.
Myke Willis
-
Edited for clarification
-
Bryan:
Its 0430 and several mosquito bites have woken me up, so I may not be at my most lucid here, but OTOH in this moment I have the time to answer.
A brief review of the context of the "apology" which has upset you, culled from the Buy Danish thread.
BEGIN
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the conservative daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, contacted 40 cartoonists and asked them to draw the prophet as they saw him. This was meant to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer K?re Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about the Qur'an and Muhammad.
The cover of K?re Bluitgen's children's book.Artists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims. Rose eventually received twelve entries from different cartoonists and published them alongside an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech.
The foreign ministries of eleven Islamic countries demanded action from the Danish government, and several Arab countries eventually closed their embassies in Denmark in protest after the government initially refused to intervene or apologize.[4]
A group of Danish Imams lobbied decision-makers in the Middle East. A consumer boycott was organised in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries.[5] Rumours spread via SMS and word-of-mouth.[6] The foreign ministers of seventeen Islamic countries renewed calls for the Danish government to punish those responsible for the cartoons. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark and EU introduce blasphemy laws.[7] For weeks, numerous huge demonstrations and other protests against the cartoons took place worldwide. On February 4, 2006, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze, with no injuries. In Beirut, the Danish Embassy was set on fire,[8] leaving one protester dead.[9] Altogether, at least 139 people were killed in protests,[10] mainly in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Several death threats and reward offers for killing those responsible for the cartoons have been made,[11] resulting in the cartoonists going into hiding. Four ministers have resigned amidst the controversy, among them Roberto Calderoli and Laila Freivalds.[12]
END
BEGIN
Tehran, Iran, Feb. 28 ? A senior Iranian cleric has approved attacks on foreign embassies in Tehran over the publication of insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in European dailies, a website belonging to the office of hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reported.
END
As for the prohibition on the depiction of the Mohamed, it looks like
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/book_covers/
shows this simply to be not the case.
I have also seen apparently serious articles doubting the claim about the alleged Koranic injunction against depicting Mohammed. Can you give a specific citation?
Whatever one thinks about the cartoons, a couple of points need to be kept in mind:
In the west, we are allowed to blaspheme, especially in the context of political speech-- and here there was a massive worldwide effort, including the 17 Muslim governments to suppress free speech and in many, many cases to intimidate with violence including by high ranking government officials.
Where is your outrage when Jews are regularly called "monkeys and pigs" by top level Muslim clerics in Islam's homeland of Saudi Arabia and through out the Middle East? Where is your outrage when official Saudi media and official media in other Arab countries report as truth that Jews take the blood of Arab children for religious ceremonies? Where is your outrage when Egyptian TV produces a series based upon the well-known fraud "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Where is your outrage when a Muslim who converts to Christianity is sentenced to death (as called for by the Koran) in Afghanistan? Where was your outrage when the Taliban dynamited Buddist statues? Where is your outrage when other religions are prohibited by in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam? Where is your outrage that the whole country of Denmark is blamed for the polticial speech of a handful of its citizens? One could go on at length with many such examples.
IN THIS CONTEXT a hearty "fcuk you" by those whom these religious fascists intend to intimidate seems to me well less than a cause for outrage.
Because your second post clarifies that the "fcuk you" is your real problem, I will pass commenting on your rather odd conspiracy allusions to the Clintons (whom I loathe btw) in Arkansas.
A couple of additional questions if I may:
Were you a Muslim at the time of the events you describe in 1986?
All members of the US Armed Forces take an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. The First Amendment of the US Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. As you tell us, you take your Islam quite seriously, and Islam calls for a union of church and state. How do you reconcile this discrepancy?
The First Amendment also calls for free speech. Yet you seem to think the cartoonists were "asking for it". Would you flesh this out please?
Thank you for your participation here.
-
Edited for clarification
-
Bryan:
I will be glad to answer your questions, but would you first please finish answering mine?
"Were you a Muslim at the time of the events you describe in 1986? (and more specifically when did you become a Muslim?)
All members of the US Armed Forces take an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. The First Amendment of the US Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. As you tell us, you take your Islam quite seriously, and Islam calls for a union of church and state. How do you reconcile this discrepancy?
The First Amendment also calls for free speech. Yet you seem to think the cartoonists were "asking for it". Would you flesh this out please?
Thank you,
CD
-
EDITED FOR CLARIFIATION
-
see final post
-
see final post
-
see final post
-
I don't post here often as my time is very scarce these days. Marc D is my good friend and dare I say, brother in arms.
Interesting thread.
I think that the Marine Commandant is probably following orders from above him. Believe me that there are plenty of people who would set him straight if he was not. POTUS wants to cultivate allies not enemies.
Was this right or wrong to do? Not my call as I am not a Marine.
I have my ideas about what this entire war is all about, but that is for another time.
I think the gist of the thread is that Muslims are being treated with less than courtesy by some people (ie. the Danish cartoons for example). Well, that may be so. But I hardly need to remind anyone that the sum total of all terrorism against Americans in that past 25 years excluding McVeigh has one common thread running through it. Moreover, I didn't see many Orthodox Rudssians, Episcopalians, or Presbyterians rioting when Christ was depicted disrespectfully in turn. Nor have I seen or heard of Israel bombing a mosque when an Israeli flag gets burned again. Call me crazy maybe, but actions speak far louder than any words.
The biggest step that "Mainstream Muslims" could take in order to change their "image", is for their religious leaders to come out and condemn publically and totally the acts of terrorism being committed by Hamas, Al Queda, etc. And to keep doing it continually. And for the masses in these islamic countries to do likewise.
As of now, there have not been many loud exclamations of this, and that contributes to the distrust. Well, no intention to throw a grenade into the works, just my .02 on the issue.
-
Bryan:
Sorry for the delay in my response, but I have been busy with finishing the "Die Less Often" DVD, helping some students prep for the Gathering of the Pack, and sundry other matters. I will see if I can get to this tomorrow.
Marc/CD
-
EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION
-
EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION
-
In the interest of the USMC? Yes, I believe the decision was for that reason. As to orders, I believe he was following orders. He may easily have been ordered to do the reverse. Nothing happens without a tactical thought process behind it. I don't suspect that he simply made a choice and never cleared it with anyone. I don't know, for certain of course, but I suspect this was discussed at length.
On the "Big Picture", I think there are plenty of people who have a pretty big picture Bryan. Few of us get our info from CNN or FOX, but rather from operators who are there...and other places. At one class recently I had three Special Forces operators attending. I have old friends who are working secretive jobs here in CONUS. Trust me, our info is as current as it can be. Did you know for example that there are several cells inside CONUS planning terrorist activities as we speak?
Incidentally, what do you think about GITMO? Zarquawi's death? Our presence in Iraq and eventual invasion of Iran?
Today people are suspicious of Muslims. Right or wrong, this is reality. This will stop as soon as terrorism is no longer used as a tactic by those who have highjacked your religion. As well, when the mass of world muslims condemn Zarquawi, Bin Ladin, et al as terrorists and murderers, and leave Israel alone, this will no doubt stop.
The collective silence, however, is deafening. It is even getting quieter with the new focus on Iran.
As I said, I have my ideas about what this entire war is about. Israel is the focal point. As long as we support Israel, we will be targets as well. Certain alliances both political and military are made in war for various reasons.
Being a private citizen, although I try to be fair and "live in peace with everyone", I do not need to develop alliances I don't want, nor watch what I say for any reason other than being polite. In fact, I can be as politically incorrect as a leoprad skin coat at an animal rights convention if I wish to. Few animal rights activists are found as my students and clients.
Well....this being Crafty's house I will stand down now. Besides, I have a class to prepare for.
-
see final post
-
I've been hesitant to chime in here as my experience is that these sorts of conversations rarely lead productive directions and indeed some current posts create a cognitive dissonance I expect will prove difficult to surmount. As that may be, my first exposure to the breadth of this gulf occurred while I was living in married student housing at the University of Wisconsin during the First Iraqi War. We were watching TV one evening when a special report announced that several Scud missiles, perhaps carrying chemical warheads, had been lobbed at Israel. While digesting the news, and wondering if perhaps WWIII had broken out, the Jordanian family across the hall began cheering wildly, and continued doing so whenever a new attack was announced. Something about a family cheering as a fascist dictator tried to incite the entire Middle East to war by randomly dropping missiles on Israeli population centers didn't sit right with me.
Indeed, where Israel is concerned the options I've heard when speaking to most Muslims range from drive all the Jews into the sea to harangue them into giving up territory until they are left with an indefensible piece of land and then drive them into the sea. The venom and fervor that arise during these conversations strike me as unreasoned, and though I understand there is a long list of grievances against Israel, there is plenty of Shia v. Sunni, Jordan v. Palestinians, Syria v. Lebanese, et al violence that eclipses the claims made where Israel is concerned. Therefor I ask right off the bat: can we agree that Israel has a right to exist in peace with its neighbors? If not, then I've no reason to expect further dialog will prove fruitful.
I'm also having trouble with the implicit defense of the violence occurring in the wake of the publication of the Danish cartoons. Perhaps the brush was broad and the images insensitive, but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of horrors that have been perpetrated in the name of Islam, and other religions for that matter. As such it isn't particularly surprising that graphic representations inspired by the dissonance of holy violence emerged. Angered that brutality in the name of religion inspired said illustrations, more religious brutality broke out. And somehow the prime lesson we are supposed to draw from this is that sensitivities must be minded lest barbarity is unleashed? If that's the construct then I'd say the editorial doodlings are the least of our worries here.
For me it boils down to a willingness to let people find their own path to salvation or perdition. There are a lot of ways to be a human being, I've never met anyone convincingly demonstrating he's in possession of the unilateral truth, so I'd just as soon err on the side of letting people find their own way through the fog. If you can allow others the same kind of latitude, or if you can merely avoid evangelizing when encountering those you are sure are on the path to hell, then we can most likely chat productively. However, if you've got a single point of reference that doesn't allow you to give fellow travelers the respect you demand then there is very little likelihood fruitful conversation will ensue.
-
Gabe writes:
I think the gist of the thread is that Muslims are being treated with
less than courtesy by some people (ie. the Danish cartoons for
example). Well, that may be so.
Let's at least be honest in that the cartoons were a deliberate provocation of
Muslims and not simply "less than courteous" treatment. If the editor
of a newspaper in Alabama published an obviously racist caricature of
Martin Luther King on MLK day (and a dozen other US newspapers
reprinted it citing "freedom of speech"), I'm guessing there'd be some
riots here. That's not to say the violence would be justified, but
that editor would have to be a complete moron to not know he was
asking for trouble.
The biggest step that "Mainstream Muslims" could take in order to
change their "image", is for their religious leaders to come out and
condemn publically and totally the acts of terrorism being committed
by Hamas, Al Queda, etc. And to keep doing it continually. And for the
masses in these islamic countries to do likewise.
How exactly do you envision this happening? It's not like there's
some official leader of the Muslim world or equivalent of the Pope who
speaks for all Muslims. Are CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. going to find
all these anti-terrorism Muslims and give them 15 minutes during
prime-time to condemn terrorism to your satisfaction?
If the Muslim world doesn't see George W. Bush coming out to condemn
"collateral damage" that has resulted in thousands of innocent Iraqi
deaths, should they assume he fully approves of it?
-
Never mind. Its a battle I don't wish to fight here.
-
Salam to all:
As much as I would like to tell the bad guys / terrorists, pirates, criminals to stop what they are doing...as some of the people here are telling us to do, I don't personally know of any...as many other regular muslims or any regular / common people don't associate with people outside their social circle.
It is the responsibility of the Governments local and international to handle this, not the common citizen. I express my support, but as an individual Father, working to put food on the table, and raise my children who are innocent to the world.....please tell me what can i do??
Protest? I am not an activist...
Most common muslims have about as much contact with these Terrorists, Criminals, and Bandits...as let's say a hard-working whtie American family to the KKK, or hard-working Catholic Latino family to the Latin Drug Lords of south america... you see?
I am part of the mainstream muslims you see around you... work, work, mind my own business, and live. I dress contemporary and my religion is personal. The media shows the Extreme of everything... extreme sells, common is boring... just learn to see what is behind what is front of you....war is deception.
Peace and God Bless... Sitbatan.
-
Bryan:
I am having a hard time composing a response to you because to me it reads
like you are jumping all over the place: debating with posts made on other
forums; making vague and confusing references to conspiracies in Arkansas
and with regard to the well-deserved American actions against Libya in 1986
and so forth. I have no idea what these passages mean or have to do with
the subjects at hand.
I also see that you have edited your posts-and so I perforce am working from
memory when I say that your original posts stated that you do not feel that
you are protected by our Constitution, and that as part of being a Muslim
you seek Sharia becoming the law of the land.
Why would you delete these honest expressions of your beliefs?
As best as I can tell, these are the pertinent points:
America is not the Christian nation that you say it to be. It is a free
nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. The divinely inspired
Christian men who wrote our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution
and our Bill of Rights were given by our Creator (note that they did not say
"Jesus" even though they were Christian) to transcend to a higher level than to seek to impose their way
upon others. They recognized that free men and women of this nation (and
any other!) are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.
Amongst these rights are free speech, and freedom of religion-which mostly
certainly excludes the merging of church and state sought by Sharia.
Contrary to your assertions, this means that writers, cartoonists and
citizens have the right to write whatever they d*mn well please without
intimidation-including from religious fascists.
You make reference to not going into black neighborhoods and using the word
"nigger" and the natural response being violent and vigorous. What this
argument misses is that there are Nazi publications in America referring to
"kikes" and "niggers". And when those Nazis wanted to march in Skokie,
Illinois precisely because it was full of Jewish holocaust survivors, Jewish
lawyers for the ACLU fought for their right to do so in the American courts
that you depreciate (not that your words in this regard are not quite
accurate on occasion) and the Nazis marched and the Jews of Skokie respected
that right. WHY? BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA.
Other examples abound. The singer Madonna (whom I dislike by the way) whose
stage name itself is a blasphemy, can make videos of herself cavorting in
her lingerie and humping an actor portraying Jesus. Surely this qualifies
as blasphemy? Yet all this goes without the Vatican or Jerry Falwell
issuing fatwas calling for her death or the bulk of the Christian majority
nations calling for boycotts of America unless our government shuts her up.
No howling mobs in the street either.
The actor Mel Gibson, whose father denies the Holocaust, can make a movie
about Jesus (whom by the way is regularly drawn, painted and portrayed by
actors with nary a burp from anyone) and portray the Jews so badly that
special dispensation was made for the movie to be shown in Saudi Arabia
because it did such a good job of showing "what the Jews are really like"--
yet we do not see the "worldwide Jewish conspiracy" going on a rampage or
sending its children to commit mass murder of gentiles by suicide.
The "Da Vinci Code" surely blasphemes the Catholic Church, but , , , no
fatwas from the Pope. And surely you have seen the blistering commentary
and scathing satire about the Catholic Church's problems with pedophiliac
priests and the institutional cover-ups thereof. Again, no fatwas. No
world-wide howling mobs of Catholics burning our embassies. No boycotts.
The only reaction was some articles taking exception to the movie, some
sermons, and some invitations to the curious to "come on in and find out the
truth."
In the western world in which you and I live, in the America of which we are
both blessed to be citizens, we the people have the right to disrespect
power the powers that be. That right most certainly includes the right to
blaspheme-- and that includes Islam and its symbols. ISLAM IS NOT ABOVE
OTHER RELIGIONS AND GETS TREATED JUST LIKE THE REST. If howling mobs the
equivalent of Mussolini's brown shirts seek to intimidate when there is a
mocking of something Islamic, it is our duty as a free people to make it
clear that they can go f*ck themselves.
I am quite aware of the existence "fighting words" doctrine in our law see
e.g. the Supreme Court case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. Working from
memory, the holding in Chaplinsky sought to distinguish personal insults of
a fighting words nature and free speech. This is quite far from the
proposition for which you seek to use it-to justify fascist intimidation of
the obviously political speech in question here.
Concerning your professed tolerance in matters of religion, it simply is
inconsistent with your now deleted expression of desire for Sharia to be the
law of America. In the homeland of Islam, Saudi Arabia other religions are
prohibited. This brings to mind your now deleted reference about not being
protected by the US Constitution. You can be a Muslim here because of our
Constitution, but trying being a Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a
pagan, etc in Saudi Arabia or many other Muslim majority nations-- let
alone imagine them having a synagogue for Jews in their armed forces :lol: Sharia,
which even your post-edited post tells us you like, calls for Jews and
Christians to be taxed as a sign of Islam's dominance.
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they
prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion
of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax
in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
(9.29)"
Why do you, who tell us "Islam is My religion, Its always with me, I begin
my days with it, I live my days with it, I end my days with it, I dream it
in my sleep," wish this for America? Why do you wish the subjection of
other religions and to tax them?
And how does this square with your oath as a member of our armed forces to
uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and
domestic? When I asked you this before you said, "I will always protect the
office of the President of the United States and the American Embassies
anywhere in the world in any country and consider it a honer (sic) to do so".
This is quite a bit less than what is required by your oath!!! It sounds
like your interpretation of your religion is in conflict with your oath.
Please feel free to clarify.
Which brings me to my turn to clarify-- although I think it is
already clear to you because you have been surfing the "other forum" so no
doubt you have been running into my posts there forthrightly challenging and
condemning the juvenile and sometimes hateful comments that do not
distinguish between fascist Muslims and those such as Sibatan
sometimes found there.
(You also have my posts here-including for example the one of
March 8th in the "Danish" thread in which I bring attention to Islamic
groups in India separating themselves from the fatwas.)
As I have repeatedly said on the other forum, President Bush's
strategy for America in the War with Islamic Fascism (the "War on Terror" is
such a mealy-mouthed name) rightly seeks alliance with good Muslims
everywhere. I have repeatedly said on the other forum that to turn all
this into a war on Islam would be both wrong and a mistake.
As for your posts about the Marines building an Islamic prayer center, that
simply seems to me to be the normal course of affairs in America. Any
Muslim in our Armed Forces who fully believes in his oath to uphold and
defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic has my
gratitude. THAT SAID, I SEE NO REASON FOR YOU TO BE DEBATING HERE
STATEMENTS MADE BY SOME INDIVIDUALS IN ANOTHER FORUM.
American blood is spilling as we speak so that the mostly Muslim people of
Iraq are free to choose-and choose democracy they have-three times they have
voted in the face of Al Qaeda's murderous hatred and denunciations of
democracy as "anti-Islamic".
(Would you obey an order to go fight in Iraq? From your statement about
"protect(ing) the office of the President of the United States and the
American Embassies anywhere in the world" it appears otherwise.)
I have already listed the many ways and times America has stood with Muslims
(please go reread this) -so the issue is not as the Islamic Fascists and
those deluded by their lies (a delusion enabled by the absence of a free
press) claim-- that we are "against Islam".
Like America, I am not for or against Islam-and given what you already know
about me do not see good reason for you to get indignant over page two of some
website I posted. OF COURSE the statement is overbroad because it is
directed at ALL Muslims per se! But who assumes that someone has read every
page of every URL they post?!? My post of the URL that you question was
made on March 5 and it is now June 20th. To the best of my recollection, I
posted it as a source of the cartoons in question so that people could make
up their own minds what all the fuss was about.
I am FOR freedom and respect. I am for freedom of speech. I am for
separation of church and state-and regard it to be a profound error to merge
the two as you seek to do to the point that it would change the nature of
what it means to be America and to be American.
The Adventure continues,
Marc/Crafty Dog
========
Sibatan:
Good to see your post.
Marc/CD
-
PS: Due to extreme problems with my wireless connection I was barely able to post this morning and in my frustrations with doing so missed seeing the posts of yesterday entirely (wonder what those deletions were?) -- sorry if there is any non-responsiveness in my post as a result.
-
see final post
-
see final post
-
The only one here who knows me is Crafty Dog, from another group that we participate in. I seldom visit here, but after seeing the current set of posts, I just had to speak up. My comments are not meant to be personal. They will be general observations about the actions and motivations of Muslims in general.
A bit about me. Former military. AF Cop with terrorist and hostage situational training in Europe. Never been in combat, but had small support roles. Stay in touch with some AF personnel still.
Having communicated with CD for three years, I know without a shadow of a doubt that he recognizes the difference between Muslim and Islamist. As we all know, Muslims represent 90% of the faith, and the remaining 10% are the Islamic Facists. With one billion Muslims in the world, 10% is one hundred million, not a few or a small number. That is 1/3 the population of the US.
In the old Soviet Union, there were probably only 10% true communists, but look what they did. Same goes for Nazi Germany. It seems to me that to suggest the actions of the Islamist as being only the actions of a few is to downplay the threat. Yet that is a prevalent argument.
I don't buy the argument that it is the responsibility of the government to handle the threat and diffuse it solely. It is each and every person's responsibility. If there is a problem in the local neighborhood and the police can't stop it or are unaware of it, does one just let it grow larger and get worse? Or does one take aciton.
The Muslim communities and leadership can do much to stop this violence. They can come out against it forcefully and in public, renouncing it time and again. Instead, they remain silent until someone says something negative about the religion or Mohammed, and then they rise in an uproar claiming racism or worse. And Fatwa's get issued to kill the "offenders of their religion".
Why won't they come out against the violence? Fear? Or support? If it is fear, then does this not indicate that there is more to the threat than what is portrayed?
The local community Muslims can report suspicious activities by their fellow Muslims instead of just pretending that they know nothing about what is going on. And many in the community know what is going on. Look at the number of people who had some indication that something would happen on 9-11. Silence is complicity.
The complaints about targets and other things is symptomatic of a major problem in the US and the world today. Many people look to take offense at anything that they can. If it involves misinterpreting, misrepresenting, or anything else, it does not matter. As long as they can take offense to make someone else feel guilty. This so that they do not have to acknowledge the underlying issues that are the basis for the issue.
Any critique of Islam resulting in a promoting hatred argument, this is just another diversion by many, taking offense again, to avoid looking at the real issue.
As to Quantico and the Prayer Center, this is pure catering to the Muslims, nothing else. If there is so much interest in fairness, why not open a Buddhist Temple? How about a Wiccan area? Hindu Worship Center? Get my point?
GITMO and Abu Ghraib. This whole issue is another red herring with every anti GITMO group making claims without any real basis in fact about the detainees.
The detainees have not been identified so who can know what they did or did not do?
Several have been released for "lack of evidence" and then have been killed or captured back on the battlefield. But maybe they only took up arms after their GITMO experiences......yeah...right. And this goes for Abu Ghraib
AQ manuals say to immediately claim torture when captured because it will have negative reactions in the public to US policy.
Geneva Convention does not apply to these combatants for a number of reason.
Finally, compare the "torture" to beheadings and especially the two soldiers captured and killed over the weekend. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
Enough for now.
Pat
-
Salam to all,
My friend please tell me what to do?.... I understand it is a "Generalization Post" and I am listening. I am from the so-called complacent, mind my own business, and working hard to put food on the table common muslims. I am open minded...please let me know. If I get up 5am and work until night, should I go outside and tell the local thugs to behave? How about on my day off should I attend anti-terrorist / crime rally? How about after a grueling day of work and raising a family, should I go do a citizen's arrest of some local criminals??
.........would you?
That's why there are local and international PROFESSIONAL institutions to handle this... ie, Police, Soldiers, Government Agencies...FBI, CIA...etc.
It's easy to generalize and point the finger, but hard to do what you are saying I should do. I personally don't know any terrorists....and if there were some in the community, I don't think they would tell me.
.........Do you know any?...personally?
Maybe it's my fault for minding my own business and worrying about the rent. Maybe all the hard-working muslims should quit their jobs and worry about politics....who cares if we don't eat dinner? who cares if the kids don't have clothes on their back, food in their belly? ....of course us parents, regardless of Creed.
O well, I'm waiting for a realistic, practical reply.... peace and God Bless.
-
Sib,
Not to seem harsh or too aggressive, but your comments tend to prove what I say. You have taken a defensive position of "what can I do"? Assume that every Muslim takes this position and nothing will ever change.
The government, the military, other institutions, can kill as many thugs and terrorists as they can find, but it will not make any difference until the "common" Muslim steps up to the plate and takes action.
Change occurs in a society from both a top to bottom and a bottom to top perspective. A consensus must be reached that something is wrong and then the leaders and the common person, working together, must take the actions that will cut out the rot and build anew. In the case of the Islamist, the actions must be a massive comdemnation of the polices of the Islamist, a re-education and reformation of true Islam that meets today's society, and aggressive action to eliminate the problem. This has not happened yet.
As people must acknowledge, the return of the Calphiate is the goal of AQ. The methodology to retain control is the practice of 7th Century Islam.
The return of the Calphiate is nothing more than a desire for power and money among those who wish this goal. AQ and others desire that power to control the actions and practices of the Muslim communities, while trying to restore the glory of the Ottoman Empire. By the restoration of the Empire, they can then place into effect the practices of the 7th Century. But, it again is all about power and money.
(This is also true, albeit in a different way, with many of the born again Christians. They desire a certain way of life and use the Bible to justify it. These Christian fanatics would bomb abortion clinics, take away certain rights and much more, all in their desire to control. The difference between them and Islamist fanatics is the willingness to kill to achieve their goals.)
You will of course take notice that I mentioned reformation. This is a very real issue that must be confronted. People tend to forget what the true purpose of religion was. It was to establish a moral code that people could live by in the absence of strong authority and a lack of codification of laws. It was also to explain things that were unable to be explained in that day due to a lack of science.
The problem is that as knowledge and culture advances and changes, religion must change as well to take in these advances and changes. Christianity has had its reformation. So have other religions. Now it is time for Islam to address the issue. Perhaps what we see today is the true beginning of that reformation.
Please forgive me if I offend. It is not my intention.
Pat
-
Sib:
I am on my way out the door for a full day of teaching and so must be brief.
I think it would be of tremendous help for connections between all people of good faith, if we infidels had a sense that Muslims of good faith such as you seem to be, valued more highly whether someone was a good person than being of your religion-- in other words, that good faith Muslims were willing to act with us infidels against bad faith Muslims.
For example, recently in Canada a terrible conspiracy to commit massive bombings and decapitate the Prime Minister was uncovered. It was discovered that the fascist muslims behind this were watching Chechnyan jihadi videos in their mosque-- yet no one in the mosque said anything about it to the authorities or even took the lesser step of disiniviting them from the mosque.
As I stated in an earlier post of mine to you, I would act to stop those who plotted evil against Muslims and asked if you would do the same against Muslims who plotted evil against infidels. You did not answer at that time. Maybe now?
For example there is a now virtually defunct organization called the Jewish Defense League that is shunned by everyone because they have descended into hate. A couple of years ago, some of them plotted to bomb a mosque here in California. How were they caught? If I remember correctly (and someone please correct me if I am wrong)some of their own people were offended by the evil of the plan and went to the authorities.
Anyway, off to the joys of teaching (and thus, learning)
The Adventure continues,
Crafty Dog
-
From Captain's Quarters and Ed Morrissey. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
Hamas calling for the overthrow of the US and European countries by Islamists. Again, where is the voice of reason in the Muslim world? Only silence.......
June 22, 2006
Hamas: Islam, Islam Uber Alles
Palestinian Media Watch notes a new video Hamas has posted to their web site, one that calls for the overthrow of the United States by Islamists. The governing political party of the Palestinian Authority predicts that Israel, Britain, and Europe will also fall before the onslaught of Islam and exhorts their followers to maintain their defiance against international pressures (via Michael van der Galien at TMV):
A Hamas video just released on their web site focuses on the broader Palestinian Islamic ideology, promising the eventual conquering and subjugation of Christian countries under Islam. The way Israel "ran" from Gaza after terror is presented as the prototype for future Israeli and Western behavior in the face of Islamic force. ...
The following is the transcript of selections from the Hamas video:
"We will rule the nations, by Allah's will, the USA will be conquered, Israel will be conquered, Rome and Britain will be conquered ? The Jihad for Allah... is the way of Truth and the way for Salvation and the way which will lead us to crush the Jews and expel them from our country Palestine. Just as the Jews ran from Gaza, the Americans will run from Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians will run from Chechnya, and the Indian will run from Kashmir, and our children will be released from Guantanamo. The prisoners will be released by Allah's will, not by peaceful means and not by agreements, but they will be released by the sword, they will be released by the gun".
The video shows a rather strange exhortation by the former head of Hamas' terrorist wing, the al-Qassam Brigades. Ghalban got killed in the internecine fighting in the Palestinian territories, one particular event he did not predict. However, this new statement by Hamas shows that they have no intention of transforming themselves into a peaceful political force. Indeed, the video explicitly states that the fall of the West will not come through agreements but by force of arms. They link themselves very clearly to the fighting in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya, and the standoff with Iran.
The US and our European partners should abandon hope for the so-called prisoner's declaration, the NCD, as a vehicle for moderation of Hamas. For one thing, as I wrote at the above link, nothing in the NCD even hints at an acceptance of Israel. Instead, it proposes a union of Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad -- presumably to pursue the long-term goals stated in their latest video release. The call for Islamist attacks on the US, Europe, and India clearly show that Hamas has aligned itself with the Islamofascist terrorists, and a refusal to acknowledge that will be interpreted as a cowardly retreat -- as the video itself makes clear.
We need to start laying down ultimatums to the Palestinians in the territories. If they continue to support terrorists, then we will abandon them completely and cut off all funding and outside assistance. They elected these terrorists to power, and the Palestinians have to assume responsibilty for their actions. If we seriously intend to wage a war on terrorism, we cannot feed the people who support it.
-
And to reinforce my thoughts about some Muslims knowing things and not doing anything. As long as there is knowledge of Islamists plotting or advocating violence and the Muslim community ignoreing the problem, there will be no possibility of resolving the issues. Where does it end?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23027
The Complicity of Muslim Silence
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 22, 2006
We have heard many times that the vast majority of Muslims in the West are decent, law-abiding citizens who do not engage in jihad terrorism. That is manifestly true: most Muslims in the West are not engaging in terrorist activity. Many no doubt have no intention of ever doing so. But the recent arrests in Canada have raised questions about to what extent Muslims in Canada and other Western countries who are not engaging in terrorist plotting actually disapprove of such plotting ? and how many passively allow it to continue under their noses either out of fear or because the ideological kinship between them and the plotters is closer than most Western authorities would like to believe.
In a meeting with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police just after the arrests, one Canadian Muslim leader asked Canadian officials why they hadn?t informed Muslim leaders about the plot, so that those leaders could have stopped it.
But there is mounting evidence that many Canadian Muslims did know ? and yet did nothing to notify Canadian authorities of the plot. The Toronto Star reports that another suspect, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, actively spread the jihad ideology at the Ar-Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education in southern Ontario. Indeed, his ?outspoken Wahhabist views? had ?alarmed? some of the directors of the Islamic center. But by the account of mosque officials, because Jamal unlocked the mosque for daily prayers and they valued his services as a caretaker, they did nothing to stop his preaching. The Washington Post reports unironically: ?He cleaned the rugs and took out the trash at the mosque. For those services, the directors tolerated his vitriolic speeches that portrayed Muslims as oppressed by the West, according to people familiar with the mosque.? No mainstream media outlet seems to have asked Ar-Rahman Islamic Center officials why they thought taking out the trash was a sufficient counterbalance to preaching hatred and violence. Sidestepping the fact that Jamal had been allowed to preach freely, Center Imam Qamrul Khanson said of those arrested: ?I will say that they were steadfast, religious people. There?s no doubt about it. But here we always preach peace and moderation.?
Yet another imam in Toronto, Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin, noted that three of the plotters, Saad Khalid, Zakaria Amara and Fahim Ahmad, ?would enter into the mosque to pray, and they would pray in a very aggressive manner, and they would come in military fatigues and military touques and stuff. It looked to me that they were watching a lot of those Chechnyan jihad videos online and stuff.? Amiruddin said that they were influenced by jihadist material from Saudi Arabia, including Qur?ans with inflammatory explanatory notes: ?In the back of these Qur'ans that are being published in Saudi Arabia, you have basically essays on the need for offensive jihad and the legitimacy of offensive jihad and things like that. Very alarming stuff." According to the CBC, ?Amiruddin said many mainstream Muslim organizations in Canada are really part of the problem, standing by as extremist propaganda spreads in the mosques.? But while Amiruddin points out that these young men would attempt to win others over to their point of view, he says nothing about having done anything to stop them, or about resisting jihadist recruitment in general -- much less working with authorities to help them apprehend jihadists.
Also according to the Star, some of the plotters belonged to a school Muslim association in which they ?discussed at an association gathering whether suicide bombing was permissible in Islam. Their views were so violent that the other association members threatened to have them banned.? But they apparently did not actually have them banned, or alert anyone to their violent views.
Likewise another Toronto Muslim, Mohammed Robert Heft. Heft said that one of the plotters, Fahim Ahmad, ?believed the 19 people involved in the World Trade Center bombings were martyrs and he was handing out DVDs openly of wills and testimonies of those 19 people suggesting what they did was right.? According to the CBC, Heft asserted that ?a lot of young Muslims are angry and extremism is prevalent in the Toronto area.? Heft claimed that he was dedicated to combating this ?extremism?: ?For the last two years I?ve been involved in this mentality. I was dealing with it on a grassroots level. All it takes is a little education and sorting out who to take religion from.? Yet he too apparently did nothing to alert Canadian authorities to Ahmad?s views.
And after all this, Canadian Muslim leaders complain that authorities did not go to them.
Canadian authorities, and officials in all Western countries, have been supine in the face of all this kind of thing for far too long. The jihad arrests in Canada should focus scrutiny not on the alleged misbehavior of Canadian law enforcement officials, but on the Muslim communities tolerance of the jihadist evil they profess to abhor. Law enforcement authorities in the West should call Muslim communities in their countries to account on this, and quickly -- or risk the successful execution of a jihad plot planned and executed under the noses of silent and supposedly moderate Western Muslims.
-
From Captain's Quarters and Ed Morrissey. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
Hamas calling for the overthrow of the US and European countries by Islamists. Again, where is the voice of reason in the Muslim world? Only silence.......
How exactly do you envision this happening? It's not like there's
some official leader of the Muslim world or equivalent of the Pope who
speaks for all Muslims. Are CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. going to find
all these anti-terrorism Muslims and give them 15 minutes during
prime-time to condemn terrorism to your satisfaction?
If the Muslim world doesn't see George W. Bush coming out to condemn
"collateral damage" that has resulted in thousands of innocent Iraqi
deaths, should they assume he fully approves of it?
-
Rogt,
I used that article to simply point out that there is a strong fanatical element of Islam and that the rest of the Muslim world is not denouncing the fanantics.
Are you implying that the Western media would not carry denunciations? Perhaps you are right. But if the local leaders would denounce it to their own communities, use other media outlets to get the word out, utilize the written word and other methods, then perhaps there would not be this perception that they endorse the actions through their silence.
BTW, Bush has said that he regrets the loss of innocent lives in Iraq. But I do not see a moral equivelence between the two positions. Yes, some innocent lives have been lost due to US actions, but there are many times more lost by the terrorists attacking their own people.
-
see final post
-
Bryan,
I am not sure how much of your post was meant for me or for CD. I will say this however.
If comments are to be based solely upon personal experience, then anyone without personal experience is being excluded from the topic and also being censored. If third party sources or media sources cannot be used, then again, censorship is being engaged. The discussion is severely limited tok a point of being useless.
As to hearsay, I have never been bitten by a rattlesnake. Does that mean that I could not talk about how it could be deadly? Censorship once again.
Now, what word or name would you allow to be used to describe the fundamentalist Muslim who supports and engages in terrorism? Wahabi only covers a small sector of these people. Salafist in just another small group. Hamas a small group. Is there a name that we could agree upon?
-
see final post
-
Why do you not answer questions when they are posed?
What is a good name to describe that 10% of the Muslim population who supports the fanatics and/or participates with them. That would be a way to differentiate the good versus the bad.
Why does any criticism of the Muslim fanatics mean that one is smearing all Muslims?
Why is it that anyone who questions the religion has an ignorant view of the religon?
Why do we not hear Muslims condemning the actions of the fanatics? Are they afraid of the fanatics?
Why when someone like Rushdie writes a book, he is condemned to death by Fatwa?
Why is it that when one reads the passages of the Koran concerning treatment of infidels, the reaction of the Muslim is a claim that their religion is being blasphemied and misrepresented? Yet Muslims quote the Bible with similar types of passages and it is okay for them to condemn Christians and Jews. You don't, but large numbers of your religion do.
The problem is that the Muslim religion has a group of people who defile their religion, yet the common people and the leadership refuse to take a stand. Instead, they claim racism against Mulims, a lack of understanding of the religion, and any excuse that they can come up with to change the topic and put the critics on the defensive. I am not saying that they are with the fanatics, but I want to know why they will not take a stand against the fanatics.
" Tell me something you know or you have experianced from American Muslims that warrents the kind of things that are said about us when we are linked by a religion to what foreign nationals choose to do having no personal involvement. The old inaction eqauls justifiable inclusion argument is a toothless one, That standard has never been held to any American of any race or religion. "
Oh really? What about the Italians and the Mafia? The difference however is that the Italians tried to distance themselves from the Mafia. I don't see much of that occurring among Muslim leadership.
BTW, I often deal with Muslims in my business. I find them like almost all Americans . They want a better life for your kids and their family like I and everyone else wants for their families.
There is one occasion that I have run into the opposite, but all other times they have been ashamed of what the defilers of your religion do. They also understand the depth of feelings that is occurring right now among the population of the US. And they do understand that when they read an article posted by LGF and other websites or articles, that the person is referring to that 10% of the Muslim population who are fanatics. Most also wonder why the Muslim leadership does not speak out.
Again, you propose talking only from personal experience. How can you divorce that from what is happening in current events today? The arrest of the terrorists in Canada. The attacks that continue to happen all over the world. Hamas statements. You are trying to engage in censorship with this attitude.
I just want to understand why the leadership and commom Muslims will not speak out about the 10% fanatics.
-
With our DB Gathering of the Pack coming up on Sunday, I am very busy at the moment and do not have the time to compose extended thoughtful replies, so please forgive the fragmented and perhaps abrupt nature of my replies.
1) Reference to politics and WW3 is inevitable, but I suggest we all seek to focus on human relations.
2) Bryan wrote:
"Crafty and Gabe, I will address the two of you together if you don?t mind."
Actually I do mind. Gabe and I are friends and we share a deep concern for the dangers of Islamist Fascism. That said, each of us is his own man. If you have a problem with him, take it up with him.
That said, I confess to being plenty irked at being lectured by you for spreading hate. You have been told by others that I have contradicted hate against Muslims when no one was watching and when everyone was watching. I have answered you questions here in this regard plainly, openly and without reservation. Yet still you seek to paint me with this brush. I disrespect this.
Do you do this because I read many sources?
I seek Truth-- indeed this very thread is part of that search. I readily admit to knowing little-- that is why I seek to rectify it! If something negative about Islam seems fair to me, I will consider it. If something positive about Islam seems fair to me, I will consider it. It is all very simple. I search for truth.
In this search for truth I have asked you some questions. So far you have simply avoided and parried some very specific questions from me about the contradictions between your desire for Sharia for America (and its oppression of other religions) and our First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion and about the contradictions between your military oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign and your evasive answer. You have not answered my question about willingess to serve in Iraq.
So my search for truth leads me to consider the hypothesis that for you there is a contradiction between Islam and our First Amendment. Similary, I consider the hypothesis that you entertain mental reservations about your oath to our nation's armed forces.
Well, my good friend Lonely Dog has just arrived from Switzerland and so it is time for me to go.
Marc/CD
-
see final post
-
Salam to all,
Obviously there is an anger towards us mainstream, complacent muslims that we aren't doing enough to thwart terrorism, banditry, criminals, and Piracy.
Here is my personal Condemnation to those bad elements of our society....i.e. terrorism, banditry, criminals, and Piracy....rapists, thugs, drug dealers, Bad dudes.....I condem you and I support the Established Authories to stop them by paying my governments imposed taxes that finance the local police, soldiers...etc. etc.
There now... is that enough? BTW if I hear about any Terrorist I'll call the Cops... any plots I hear ... I'll call the police. OK, is that ok?
By paying my taxes, I give the power of the money to buy bullets to put in Cops guns, who are specifically trained to fight the bad dudes... not the regular citizen. I personally don't own a gun... I do have a stick....Do you want me to stop the gangsters, thugs, drug dealers with my stick? Or should I fight the terrorist and kidnappers with my stick too?
Peace and God bless.... BTW I surfed on this... check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQod2Ih_IEg
-
see final post
-
Sit,
Thank you for your personal comdemnation.
My concerns have really been about why the leadership of Muslim communities throughout the world have not condemned such actions. Some groups such as CAIR who make excuses for what happens and accepts funding from to say the very least, dubious sources.
IMHO, a massive outpouring of condemnation would go a long ways towards offsetting perceptions resulting from the images and news reports that we see daily. The Muslim on Muslim attacks in Iraq. Homegrown conspiracies to attack targets in their own countries. Attacks on schoolchildren in Russia. Hostage taking. Beheadings. The FATWA's.
One must admit that these are powerful images that form a vivid image of Islam as something other than what it is. One cannot just keep repeating that Islam is a "religion of peace" without taking further action to show that this is true. The offsetting images are just too dreadful and disturbing.
I hope that you can believe that I have no grudge against the true Muslim community. I believe that most people are just like me....we want a better life for ourselves and our families than what our fathers and grandfathers had. My problem is with the 10% that want to force their beliefs and practices upon everyone else.
BTW, I am not religious. I was born and raised Catholic. Studies of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, have made me question much of what was written. Especially when viewed from the cultural aspects in place at the time each was written. Plus how much was certainly taken from previous religions.
I will stand up for a person's right to believe what he wants.....as long as it does not harmfully affect others. If a person wants to believe in Wahabi and practice it for himself, fine. But when he starts to enforce his beliefs upon others, I would be the first to protest.
I.E
Currently, we have a friend of my wife's from long ago staying with us to help her out financially. She calls herself Christian. Studies the Bible continuously and accepts evey word of it as truth. I allow her to do so in my home, UNTIL she begins to preach it to me, the wife, or others in my home. At that point when she begins to interfere with our beliefs, I step down on her hard. If she continues, I offer her the door. But, as long as she keeps it to herself, she can practice it all she wants.
Yet, at the same time, if someone walks into my home and attacks her for her beliefs, I will take her side to believe as she wants. If it makes her a better person, so much the better.
-
Sit,
My concerns have really been about why the leadership of Muslim communities throughout the world have not condemned such actions.
For whose benefit are these condemnations you see as so essential? Are Americans supposed to see them and become more tolerant of Muslims? Are Muslims supposed to see them and think "yeah, terrorism really is bad"? I'm just not sure what your expectations are.
I can understand how a lot of Muslims would view these calls for more condemnation from them as an attempt to blame them for the actions of a relative few extremists.
IMHO, a massive outpouring of condemnation would go a long ways towards offsetting perceptions resulting from the images and news reports that we see daily.
On what exactly do you base this opinion? This isn't like the movies where all that needs to happen is for some appropriately influential preacher to make a speech before his congregation and the right thing somehow happens as a result. "Footloose" comes to mind.
One cannot just keep repeating that Islam is a "religion of peace" without taking further action to show that this is true. The offsetting images are just too dreadful and disturbing.
It seems like Islam catches a disproportionate amount of static over this claim. Had some Jewish or Christian "extremists" pulled off some kind of 9/11-style attack, wouldn't you expect other Jews/Christians to somehow argue that their religion doesn't endorse those kinds of actions? Judaism and Christianity can hardly claim to be "religions of peace" either.
FWIW, I was raised Jewish and am now pretty much non-religious.
-
The best way to understand the nature of Islam and Muslims is to read the Qur'an. Then study the life of Muhammed.
Bryan, I must admit I have very little contact with the American Muslim community. My personnal experience comes from my dealings with Muslims in the Middle East, Eastern Africa and Southwest Asia.
I have said before I have broken bread with many families and found them to be nothing but gracious. I have personally seen the good and
experienced the bad. In these dealings I have found that when it comes to "believers and non believers" that the believers will look the other way and mind their own business as to avoid conflict with fellow Muslims.
Muslim speaking against Muslim, Muslim killing Muslim in strictly prohibited. The terrorist kill their Muslim brothers becaus they see them as working with the Great Satan so they are viewed as tratiors to Islam.
This conflict has been around since the Crusades. Will it get any better?
Only when both sides decide to stop trying to convert to other to their ways of thinking.
Myke Willis
-
Sibatan:
I am sorry you are feeling testy on all this, but I hope you will take a moment for a deep breath and re-find your center.
Because the nature of the subject matter in this thread, I want to take the time to write with the care that is merited and so for the moment post only to let you know that I look forward to continuing our conversation.
The Adventure continues,
CD
-
Rogt,
Many of the complaints that Muslims have towards the US population is that there is a lack of understanding of Muslims and the religion. The only exposure to what is happening in the Muslim world is the terror attacks, suicide bombers, Muslim on Muslim violence in Iraq, AQ, Hams, and the ongoing violence in Israel and directed towards Israeli's.
As a result, probably most Americans have a colored perception of Muslims and Islam as a whole. They see the violence and hear the speeches of OBL and others which just reinforces that peception. Then they hear very few people speak out against the fanatics and that too serves to reinforce the perception.
What I am saying is that the Muslim world must change that peception. Muslims must be willing to take a stand against those of their religion who defile it. Not ignore their actions or side with them against the infidels as the Koran says. Until the Muslim world starts to change that perception, the American population will not understand the difference between the various Muslim beliefs.
It has been suggest that to understand the religion, we must read the Koran and read about the life of Mohammed. Is this REALLY such a good idea? After all, the Koran has some pretty "interesting" quotes.
Yes, Christianity has had violent times. But it has pretty much passed that era behind. There are some Christian fundamentalist who will attack doctors who do abortions and bomb abortion clinic, but this is such a tiny percentage of the toktal population. And when such attacks occur, there is almost univeral comdemnation of the act. Even from most fundamentalists. I don't see this happening in the Muslim world.
-
see final post
-
All:
I noted this exchange:
=============
BRYAN: No problem, You are polite and hospitable, That is all it takes for people to get along, that and a little understanding,
XTREME KALI: I have said before I have broken bread with many families and found them to be nothing but gracious. I have personally seen the good and experienced the bad. In these dealings I have found that when it comes to "believers and non believers" that the believers will look the other way and mind their own business as to avoid conflict with fellow Muslims.
BRYAN:
Looking the other way is a complecated issue, It is also something that happens everyday in America. Crime happens and people just dont want to get involved for many reasons, lazy, fear, and a host of things.
The big thing is when youve had personal interaction you have been treated with dignity, respect, and fed good food.
===============
Good personal interaction is profoundly important for all concerned. That said, this question of looking the other way I think is a really important one for many of us infidels. Its why I was so relentless on it with Sibatan for example. It reads to me like I annoyed him by so doing, (not my desire) but perhaps the following article will help him and others understand why this point is so important to us and why "Why are you bothering me about this-- I'm a good person-- and what can I do?" as an answer leaves many of us still , , , uneasy.
This article also gives an example of why it leaves many of us wondering about the foreign (often Saudi) nexuses with domestic Islam. I certainly appreciate that there are many variations within Islam-- that's why we're having this conversation!- but if we cannot count on the mainstream here to speak up about the fascists in their midst and there is much language to suggest that Islam strongly teaches loyalty to other Muslims, perhaps above all other things-- then there is a real problem for the security of our nation that will require more than hospitality and good food.
In this plot, the amount of bomb material sought was triple that of what was used to blow up our federal building in OK :shock: and credible plans were made to decapitate the Canadian Prime Minister :shock: attack the Parliament :shock: and assassinate various figures :shock: . The Canadians are our very good friends, our neighbors, and an attack upon them is an attack upon us.
Marc/CD
================================
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/08/amiruddin08062006.html
Teacher witnessed transformation of some bomb-plot suspects
Last Updated Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:06:10 EDT
CBC News
A Muslim religious leader in Toronto who knows some of those charged in
the suspected bomb plot says the young men underwent rapid
transformations from normal Canadian teenagers to radicalized introverts.
Alleged bomb-plot suspects in a Brampton courtroom on Tuesday. (John
Mantha/CBC)
Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin got to know Saad Khalid, 19, and some of the
other alleged conspirators at a local mosque.
Khalid was arrested last Friday at a warehouse, where he and another
suspect allegedly took delivery of what they thought was ammonium nitrate,
a fertilizer, and the same substance used in the deadly Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
Fifteen others are also facing charges connected to the alleged plot.
Entered mosque to pray
Amiruddin says Khalid used to come to his mosque to pray, sometimes in the
company of Zakaria Amara and Fahim Ahmad, two of the alleged ringleaders.
"They would enter into the mosque to pray, and they would pray in a very
aggressive manner, and they would come in military fatigues and military
touques and stuff. It looked to me that they were watching a lot of those
Chechnyan jihad videos online and stuff."
Amiruddin is a teacher of Sufism, a traditional brand of Islam that
rejects the ideology of jihad. Amiruddin says the group was seduced by hardline
propaganda financed by the Saudi government and promoting a strict, Wahhabi brand of Islam.
He says the Saudis have flooded Canada with free Qur'ans, laced with
jihadist commentary.
"In the back of these Qur'ans that are being published in Saudi Arabia,
you have basically essays on the need for
offensive jihad and the legitimacy of offensive jihad and things like that. Very alarming stuff," he said.
Amiruddin said many mainstream Muslim organizations in Canada are really
part of the problem, standing by as extremist propaganda spreads in the mosques.
He cites the Al-Rahman centre in Mississauga, Ont., which he links to the
Al-Maghrib Institute, which runs a popular educational website. It's
nominally run out of Ottawa, but Amiruddin says it's really a Saudi
operation. , , , "
-
see final post
-
That said, this question of looking the other way I think is a really important one for many of us infidels.
Why do you keep referring to yourself as an "infidel?"
-milt
-
My apologizes if this is fragmented but I am heading out the door for a training session. This is what I have been exposed to. It is not my intention to degrade or insult anyone. I spoke of breaking bread only to make a point where I have seen and taken part or a culture. The good and the brutial.
The reality is that the mainstream Muslim population is not going to speak out. For whatever their reasoning. Why? Basicly in the extremeist point of view the people that support my enemy are my enemy.
For whatever internal troubles they have to take the "Infidel" side is against how they believe. Unless it benifits them in some way.
Here is a example of what I mean. In the Muslim community of the Middle East there is no love lost when it comes to the Palestinians. The Palestinians are in the eyes of most just a little a head of Israel. They could care less if they get a home land. But as long as they are willing to kill Israelis then they will receive all the help and support they want.
When the U.S. decides to pull our troops out of Iraq within six months to a year there will be civil war. Why, because you cannot force feed democracy to a country that has no concept of what it really is. You have to want to earn these freedoms for yourself and it is too hard for those who are use to being told what to do, what to think. Look at the former USSR, they are not flourishing without the comminist regime. Most would like the old ways to return.
Myke Willis
-
Milt,
An infidel is a "non believer" one is not of the Islamic faith. Just like a heathen is not of the Christian faith.
Myke Willis
-
Milt,
An infidel is a "non believer" one is not of the Islamic faith. Just like a heathen is not of the Christian faith.
Myke Willis
I know what it means. I'm curious about why Marc keeps using it in this discussion. He's the only one doing it.
-milt
-
see final post
-
As to why the term "Infidel" keeps appearing, perhaps the first line of the thread . . .
"This thread seeks to continue the conversation begun by Sitbatan on the "Intro to Gun, Knife and Emtpy Hand" thread nearby triggered by Gabe Suarez and I wearing "Infidel" t-shirts with a gun range target behind us of a "jihadi" type person."
. . . has something to do with it.
-
Two things.
Marc continually uses the word infidel because according to the Islamic faith, those who do not believe in Islam are infidels. That too is how the Islamic fascists see things.
Myke, your point about Muslims "who support my enemy is my enemy" is most telling.
With the Islamic faith, it is wrong to kill innocents. Yet, when Muslims fascists do kill innocents, the rest of the faith, in order to be faithful, must side with the fascists or be considered the enemy as well. Isn't this a contradiction?
Where is the "morality" and "compassion" in this? What about the logic in this?
When people of other faiths see this occurrence, how are they supposed to interpret it? Just let it go by and ignore it?
Doesn't the silence imply agreement?
I understand the original 7th Century thinking behind this. When Mohammed was trying to unite the clans, the tribal warfare was so extensive that he had to find a way to overcome this. So when he embarked upon conquering other nations and taking their wealth, he used this methodology to surpresss the "natural" hatred of the clans towards each other and to channel their violence towards the nations he attacked. Plus, he shared the wealth with the clans buying their loyalty.
Now, isn't it about time that modern day Muslims renounce this attitude?
Pat
-
see final post
-
Bryan:
Just in from our After-Gathering dinner. I look forward to composing a serious post in the next few days.
In the meantime, you have a number of serious and thoughtful questions on your plate. I look forward to your answers to them.
CD
-
see final post
-
See final post
-
Bryan:
I have spent the last couple of days in the altered "higher consciousness"
space that comes after one of our "DB Gatherings" and now return to this
thread. :cry: Please forgive me for not limiting myself to five questions as requested, but instead asking more.
1) From my post of June 17th:
All members of the US Armed Forces take an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. The First Amendment of the US Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. As you tell us, you take your Islam quite seriously, and Islam calls for a union of church and state. How do you reconcile this discrepancy?
2) From Buzwardo's post of June 20th:
Can we agree that Israel has a right to exist in peace with its neighbors?
3) From the same post of Buzwardo:
I'm also having trouble with the implicit defense of the violence occurring
in the wake of the publication of the Danish cartoons. Perhaps the brush was broad and the images insensitive, but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of horrors that have been perpetrated in the name of Islam, and other religions for that matter. As such it isn't particularly surprising that graphic representations inspired by the dissonance of holy violence emerged. Angered that brutality in the name of religion inspired said illustrations, more religious brutality broke out. And somehow the prime lesson we are supposed to draw from this is that sensitivities must be minded lest barbarity is unleashed?
4) From my post of June 21st:
Concerning your professed tolerance in matters of religion, it simply is
inconsistent with your now deleted expression of desire for Sharia to be the law of America. In the homeland of Islam, Saudi Arabia other religions are prohibited. This brings to mind your now deleted reference about not being protected by the US Constitution. You can be a Muslim here because of our Constitution, but trying being a Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a pagan, etc in Saudi Arabia or many other Muslim majority nations-- let alone imagine them having a synagogue for Jews in their armed forces Sharia, which even your post-edited post tells us you like, calls for Jews and Christians to be taxed as a sign of Islam's dominance.
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they
prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion
of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax
in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
(9.29)"
Why do you, who tell us "Islam is My religion, Its always with me, I begin
my days with it, I live my days with it, I end my days with it, I dream it
in my sleep," wish this for America? Why do you wish the subjection of
other religions and to tax them?
I have read your answer that states:
"Its easy for me, I am not a citizen of a Muslim country. Therfore I am
rquired to abide by the laws of my country the United States. Contrary to
poular belief we dont sit around planning to take over the world but we are the fastest growing religion in the world. "
In other words you are saying that should Muslims ever do become the majority that you will participate in seeking the end of our First
Amendment. Yes?
(As for not "planning to take over the world"-- please! get serious!
Considerable proof to the contrary on the part of many Muslims, well
supported by passages in the Koran, exists.)
5) From my same post:
"(H)ow does this square with your oath as a member of our armed forces to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and
domestic? When I asked you this before you said, "I will always protect the office of the President of the United States and the American Embassies anywhere in the world in any country and consider it a honer (sic) to do so". This is quite a bit less than what is required by your oath!!! It sounds like your interpretation of your religion is in conflict with your oath.
In response you stated:
"Since George Bush is the single most hated man in the Muslim world my
earlier statement that I would defend the Office of the President "which
means him" anyplace anytime and all Embassies "Including those in Muslim Countries", . Thats about as big a statement as I can make on the issue and I highly doubt you could get most of the people talking smack about my religion to put their a$$ on the line for him."
Your Commander in Chief has issued orders for acts substantially beyond
defending his a$$ and our embassies. To state the matter plainly, this
reads like you have substantial mental reservations about defending the US Constitution from domestic and foreign enemies who are Muslim because they and you are both Muslim. If you were to receive an order to pick up a rifle and go to Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere and shoot fascist Muslims, would you obey that order?
6) Myke Willis posts on June 23:
"In these dealings I have found that when it comes to "believers and non
believers" that the believers will look the other way and mind their own
business as to avoid conflict with fellow Muslims. Muslim speaking against Muslim, Muslim killing Muslim in strictly prohibited."
Your previous answer of "While it appears on the surface that all Muslims
defend each other this is just not the case, Sunnis and Shias have a long
and dark history of murdering each other. I as a American have a entirely seperate view than someone who was raised and is a citizen of Pakistan or Indonesia on these matters." is non-responsive on the essence of the question-- whether believers will look the other way to avoid conflict with fellow Muslims over what they do to non-Muslims, either through fear or sympathy.
Now I turn to answering your five questions:
1. Within Dog Brothers Martial Arts do you have any active Muslim members?
I have no idea. I do not ask the religion of those who sign up.
2. In your cell phone do you have the phone number of any Muslim? Or do you have Muslim friends or even interact with any Muslims in daily life?
I have no phone numbers in my cell phone-- such technological skill exceeding my humble doggie abilities -- I do have the number of a Muslim friend in my phone book though. While it was still in business, I regularly ate at a neighborhood Palestinean restaurant for several years.
3. Have you ever gone to a Mosque for a afternoon and actully saw what goes on there and asked people questions about what they believe and how they live?
No. That said, I have no doubt that Islam has much merit to it-- especially when one deletes its hateful passages such as this:
Disbelievers and infidels
"Therefore We will most certainly make those who disbelieve taste a severe
punishment, and We will most certainly reward them for the evil deeds they used to do." (41.27)
"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life
for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain
or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward." (4.74)
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they
prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion
of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax
in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (9.29)
"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends;
they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend,
then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the
unjust people." (5.51)
"And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should
be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do."
(8.39)
"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates." (47.4)
"They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that
you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until
they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize
them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper." (4.89)
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and
strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be
murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on
opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous
chastisement" (5.33)
Friends with Infidels
"Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the
faithful-he that does this has nothing to hope for from God-except in
self-defense" (3:28).
"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will
spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their
hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal" (3:118).
"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were
given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a
pastime" (5:57).
"They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in
the hereafter" (2:114).
"[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the
scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate" (2:126).
"The East and the West are God's. He guides whom He will to a straight
path" (2:142).
"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from
which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . f they attack
you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if
they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until
idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist,
fight none except the evil-doers"(2:190-93).
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may
hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is
bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216).
"They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to
renounce your faith-if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have embraced the Faith, and those that have fled their land and fought for the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy" (2:217-18).
"Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to
unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition. . . .We will put terror
into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home"
(3:149-51).
"Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own
good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them" (3:178).
"You see many among them making friends with unbelievers. Evil is that to which their souls prompt them. They have incurred the wrath of God and shall endure eternal torment. . . .You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: 'We are Christians'" (5:80-82).
The following quotes are excerpted from a sermon broadcast on Palestinian TV by Dr. Mustafa Najem, Dec. 6, 2002:
"The Jews...are the brothers of monkeys and pigs...Allah has warned us
against their evil and their arrogance, and has said: 'You will find that
the most brazen among mankind, with hatred towards the believers, are the Jews and the Idolaters.' [(Quran 81:5)]...The Jews are Jews, and we are forbidden to forget their character traits even for a moment, even for a blink of an eye. O Servants of Allah! The Jews are those who tried to murder your Prophet in order to expunge the call (to Islam)....Prayer and blessing to the Imam of the Jihad fighters, Mohammed, who waged a Jihad against the Jews...The Jews...are Idolaters, heretics, whose faith is false."
This bit about pigs and monkeys has been around for a while now. In the Muslim Aghlabid dynasty (9th through 11th century, North Africa) Jews were forced to wear a patch that had an image of a monkey, and were also forced to affix the same image to their homes. For Christians, the image was that of a pig.
A May 2006 study of Saudi Arabia's revised schoolbook curriculum discovered that the 8th grade books included the following statements:
They are the people of the Sabbath, whose young people God turned into apes, and whose old people God turned into swine to punish them. As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the keepers of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christian infidels of the communion of Jesus.
Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship devil, and not God.[15]
7) I understand that you are American and do not necessarily hold the same views as in the parts of the world where Islam rules. Will this be true should Islam come to rule in America as you hope for us? I am confused because in your deleted post you spoke of living, eating, breathing and dreaming Islam and supporting Sharia-- including punishments such as chopping off hands -- which you proffered as proof your being a "real Muslim". A large % of Muslim preachers here are educated in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and similar countries, and my understanding is that most mosques here and in Europe are funded, supported, and guided by the clerics of Saudi Arabia. So it is hard for me to know what you believe, and given your belief that to have hard questions is offensive and to offend means one deserves fascist thuggery for being offensive, , , , well for me to come to know what you believe requires an above-average willingness to take chances.
I am fully aware of hateful passages in the Bible so no need to tell me about them. As best as I can tell, hardly anyone takes them seriously-- and virtually everyone has no problem in denouncing them as ridiculous.
In other words, I CHOOSE what I believe.
Do you?
Or are do you follow what seems to be the path of most Muslims, foreign or American, who believe that one must take the Koran unchanged?
4. Do you wish to include Muslim members within your organizaion?
Forgive me the moment of levity, but you must have me confused with a
Democrat. (For the record, nor am I Republican.) I believe in merit and truth. There is no place in my path for
affirmative action, quotas and other such tomfoolery. When government
forms ask me my race, I answer "human" and when they ask for my religion
I tell them "None of your business".
As is readily seen by all members in our Association in the vigorous threads on the Association forum, one is free to think President Bush a vile idiot, our strategy in the War on Islamic Fascism profoundly wrong, and so forth. We have gung ho Christians and pinko-liberal San Francisco types. But, ANYONE who seeks theocracy, who seeks to overturn our First Amendment, who seeks harm to America most decidedly is not welcome. Anyone who teaches hate, including that of Muslims, is not welcome (By the way, we discontinued our relationship with one European person when we discovered he had a poster of Mussolini on his wall). And, an American soldier unbelieving in his oath to defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic without mental reservation is not welcome.
5. If you do include Muslims do you believe any of them would be interested
with your current position on the cartoon issue which includes promoting them when you have been told they are offensive?
As has been clearly explained to you already in this thread, I do NOT
promote them. As is quite common in a free society such as ours, I let
people know where they could find them so that they could see what the
world-wide Islamic uproar was about. This is American Civics 101. But I'll go further and say that any American so prissy as to get his panties in a bunch about them would probably find us to be a bunch of infidel dogs across the board-- and I'd say the same to anyone who sought to justify/explain/rationalize/call for violence against those who blaspheme Christianity, Jeddaism, Buddism, Hindism, Paganism, Animism etc. THIS IS AMERICA.
In closing, I'd like to make two additional points.
1: The importance to me of whether a Muslim is willing to speak up about Muslim fascists is completely consistent with what I have always been about. Many of those who know me have heard me speak of the influence on me of the Kitty Genovese case when I was a boy in NYC in the early 60s (Goggle the name and you will find out about how a woman was raped and murdered in the street while people safe in their homes, safe to call the police, closed the windows and turned up their TV sets to drown out her screams.) It is not morally different when a "good" Muslim remains silent over fascist plotting in his/her mosque-- exemplifed in the article about the Canadian case that I posted in this thread-- yet it seems to be common Muslim doctrine to never work with the infidels against a "fellow Muslim".
2: Most of my points here have spoken of my deep doubts about Islam. I would also like to make clear that I have no doubt that a religion that appeals to so many must have deep merit. I contrast the spam that arrives in my email box about seeing "Well-hung black dwarves anally deflower underage blond lesbian virgins" and what I felt when I was overnight in Indonesia on my way back from the Philippines. I think of the spiritual look on the face of a Muslim teenager in her hijab I saw in a picture in the newspaper here in LA in an article about the challenges of following Islam in modern America. I think of a calm, centered peaceful aura that I have sensed in some Muslims I have met.
If you choose that part of Islam, all is well. If you choose to reject and condemn that part of Islam that seeks to intimidate, suppress, tax and lie to those of other religions, then all is well. If you choose our First Amendment over theocracy and fatwas, intimidation and thuggery for impermissable speech, then we stand together.
I understand more than you know that it must be a major drag to be a "fcuking muzzie" to the bigots and the fearful amongst us. That said, if you can understand that at this point in time it is natural for Americans to have deep questions about Islam and the locus of loyalty of the Muslims amongst us, then perhaps instead of getting all in a snit you will be able to simply converse and share what you know. Maybe some of us will learn, and maybe you will learn too. This too is America.
The Adventure continues,
Marc/Crafty Dog
PS: Here is a typical article that gives one pause about Muslim attitudes:
What Muslims think
Daniel Pipes, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 27, 2006
To find out, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press carried out a large-scale attitudinal survey this spring. Titled "The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other," it interviewed Muslims in two batches of countries: six of them with long-standing, majority-Muslim populations (Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey) and four of them in Western Europe with new, minority Muslim populations (France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain).
The survey, which also looks at Western views of Muslims, yielded some dismaying but not altogether surprising results. Its themes can be grouped under three rubrics.
A PROCLIVITY to conspiracy theories: In not one Muslim population polled does a majority believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The proportions range from a mere 15 percent in Pakistan holding Arabs responsible, to 48 percent among French Muslims.
Confirming recent negative trends in Turkey, the number of Turks who point the finger at Arabs has declined from 46 percent in 2002 to 16 percent today. In other words, in every one of these 10 Muslim communities, a majority views 9/11 as a hoax perpetrated by the American government, Israel, or some other agency.
Likewise, Muslims are widely prejudiced against Jews, ranging from 28 percent unfavorable ratings among French Muslims to 98 percent in Jordan (which, despite the monarchy's moderation, has a majority Palestinian population).
Further, Muslims in certain countries (especially Egypt and Jordan) see Jews conspiratorially, as being responsible for bad relations between Muslims and Westerners.
Conspiracy theories also pertain to larger topics. Asked, "What is most responsible for Muslim nations' lack of prosperity?" between 14 percent (in Pakistan) and 43 percent (in Jordan) blame the policies of the US and other Western states, as opposed to indigenous problems, such as a lack of democracy or education, or the presence of corruption or radical Islam.
This conspiracism points to a widespread unwillingness in the umma to deal with realities, preferring the safer bromides of plots, schemes, and intrigues. It also reveals major problems adjusting to modernity.
SUPPORT FOR terrorism: All the Muslim populations polled display a solid majority of support for Osama bin Laden. Asked whether they have confidence in him, Muslims replied positively, ranging between 8 percent (in Turkey) to 72 percent (in Nigeria). Likewise, suicide bombing is popular. Muslims who call it justified range from 13 percent (in Germany) to 69 percent (in Nigeria). These appalling numbers suggest that terrorism by Muslims has deep roots and will remain a danger for years to come.
BRITISH AND Nigerian Muslims the most alienated: The United Kingdom stands out as a paradoxical country. Non-Muslims there have strikingly more favorable views of Islam and Muslims than elsewhere in the West; for example, only 32 percent of the British sample view Muslims as violent, significantly less their counterparts in France (41 percent), Germany (52 percent) or Spain (60 percent).
In the Muhammad cartoon dispute, Britons showed more sympathy for the Muslim outlook than did other Europeans. More broadly, Britons blame Muslims less for the poor state of Western-Muslim relations.
But British Muslims return the favor with the most malign anti-Western attitudes found in Europe. Many more of them regard Westerners as violent, greedy, immoral, and arrogant than do their counterparts in France, Germany, and Spain. In addition, whether asked about their attitudes toward Jews, responsibility for 9/11, or the place of women in Western societies, their views are notably more extreme.
The situation in Britain reflects the "Londonistan" phenomenon, whereby Britons preemptively cringe and Muslims respond to this weakness with aggression.
, , , ,
Overall, the Pew survey sends an undeniable message of crisis from one end to the other of the Muslim world.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=115088586574...JPArticle%2FShowFull
-
I am fully aware of hateful passages in the Bible so no need to tell me about them. As best as I can tell, hardly anyone takes them seriously--and virtually everyone has no problem in denouncing them as ridiculous.
Like the parts about homosexuals being an abomination? I think we can agree that more than "hardly anyone" in the US takes those parts very seriously.
As is readily seen by all members in our Association in the vigorous threads on the Association forum, one is free to think President Bush a vile idiot, our strategy in the War on Islamic Fascism profoundly wrong, and so forth.
So we're free to think the war is wrong, but your use of the term "War on Islamic Fascism" implies what exactly, if not that thinking it's wrong makes one pro-Islamic Fascism?
These kinds of loaded terms (as well as your references to non-Muslims as "we infidels") only project needless hostility, and send the message that you aren't really interested in a meaningful discussion.
-
Crafty, When I came to your website and took the time to address you I did not come here to convert you to my religion or personal beliefs. I came as A American who felt that you promoted ignorance about my religion and personaly insulted me in the process.
I have seen some dumb dogs in my day but you truely take the big biscuit. You simply dont get it, You who bragged of being at woodstock and of being a lawyer. Ive never heard you brag of military service, Did you simply smoke away the Vietnam war or take a deferment on your patriotism until it was over or convenient? I dont believe your bullshit! Nor do I believe you are a patriot, You like many are a seller of videos and t-shirts. The "How to Kill" videos which could just as easily be used by those who would kill Americans but let your freedoms that my families blood bought and paid for with real American Patriotism protect you and your free speech even if it endagers innocent Americans at home and abroad you hypocrite.
By now you know exactly who I am so I will give you a lesson on Americanism 101. If you want to say fukk you to someone dont do it from behind your momas apron get right on up in their face and let them know exactly who your talking to, Thats the American Way. So on behalf of my religion and your offending it and me I step right up and say "Fukk You Marc!"
I came, I saw, and I stepped in dog shit as the owner has failed to keep the place clean enough for guests. Bryan Lee
-
Hi everybody!
First I'm not going to comment on the last reply in this discussion as I think that everybody here is grown up enough to make up his own opinion.
All I want to share here are a few experiences I personally had with moslems, making absolutely no reference to the media or political actions done by any government.
I am aware that what I write here is generalized, simplified and, of course, subjective.
I live in a place where it?s easy to meet many Moslems (Berlin in Germany) as well as people of other religions. Most moslems are Turks, Kurds, Arabians and North Africans. I had many conversations with several of these people on a variety of subjects, including religion.
One commonality was that none (of the men) considered they could ever be of any other religion, which is fair enough in my eyes since I as both, an infidel in the moslem sense and heathen in the christian sense, feel the same about my own religion. But what kind of bugs me is that many, but not all, expressed opinions that Islam is the only true religion and everybody should be part of it to make the world a better place. The first two who said so did by themselves while others just agreed when I brought it up myself. Two (not the first two) took that as an opinion to try and convert me. One I recall as being an Egyptian actualy threatened me with Allah to judge me when I die and send me to hell for eternal punishment if I don?t follow the only true way. The other, who was a Saudi, tried to discuss it and convince me.
Another thing is that when politics come up, pretty much everybody seems willing to condemn violence in general but when we?re talking about terrorism in the name of Islam most react in an evasive way while a few even go as far as claiming that the West, especially the US and Israel, leave the islamic world with no other choice.
Very few would discuss the actual contents of Islam. Why that is I?m not sure but I got the impression that many don?t really know much about it and Islam is something like a habit. I might be wrong there.
Perhaps an explanation can be given by a Turkish father I know who wouldn?t send his children to islamic school for (quote:) ? there they only get taught to hate everybody else?.
One of the almost-fights I had was with an asumed Turk who had an argument with his girlfriend and threatened to beat her. That happened in the underground train and I only include it here because he called me an ?unbelieving pig? who shouldn?t interfere when he?s arguing with ?his? (yes, he repeatedly stressed that word in the pronunciation) woman.
One Tunesian I met had am interesting conspiracy theory concerning 9/11, because "Moslems would never do such a thing". He was convinced that it was the Germans and the attack was not against the US but against the Jews and their economic power represented by the world trade center. All evidence for Moslems being behind it was faked later.
These are just a few of my experiences with Moslems. I have also had good experiences, which have nothing to do with Islam, but the overall picture I get is the following:
I rather don?t trust them when it?s about their fellow believers or when there is an argument between ?them? and ?us?, even when I?m not convinced that ?we? are right. (I am aware that this sentence is extremely generalizing and simplifying.)
I could write so much more but I don?t know why I should and want to keep this brief.
I also hope I didn?t offend anybody but if so there is nothing I can do about it. I won?t appologize for my experiences or the conclusions I draw from them.
As a final word for this entry I want to say, that I will stick to treating everybody as an individual first and a member of a group second.
Nuff? said
Blain
-
Woof All:
Rogt wrote:
"Like the parts about homosexuals being an abomination? I think we can agree that more than "hardly anyone" in the US takes those parts very seriously."
My comment was made with many other passages in mind, but I must acknowledge that this is a rational argument. I would point out that this very point is vigorously contested within the various Christian groups and by non-Christian groups as well, without threats and violence.
Rogt quotes me:
"As is readily seen by all members in our Association in the vigorous threads on the Association forum, one is free to think President Bush a vile idiot, our strategy in the War on Islamic Fascism profoundly wrong, and so forth."
He answers:
"So we're free to think the war is wrong, but your use of the term "War on Islamic Fascism" implies what exactly, if not that thinking it's wrong makes one pro-Islamic Fascism?"
Please read the sentence again-- I said "our STRATEGY in the WOIF". To think we follow the wrong strategy does not make one in favor of our enemy. A simple point really.
Which brings me to the key point: THERE IS AN ENEMY.
In my opinion, there is no quitting in Iraq and going back to the way we used to think things were. This enemy is out there and continues to try his best to do us harm. This enemy uses terrorism to target civilians, here in America, in Spain, in England, in Spain, in Holland, in Russia, throughout Europe, in Canada, in Australia, in Bali, in Thailand and, it is worth noting, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This enemy is trying to kill our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. This enemy has openly declared that democracy is "against Islam" and targets civilians (fellow Muslims) there who work towards democracy. This enemy seeks weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, to use upon us. This enemy is perfectly willing and capable of flying a jet airliner into a nuclear plant so as to leave the surrounding country glowing for centuries.
As I see it, this is the point of the Jihadi target in the foto.
Let?s review a point I made previously:
?Until then, my questions for you-- why do you assume that all Muslims are the intended target instead of only the fascists amongst you? Did not the United States stop England, France and Israel in 1956 from retaking the Suez Canal? Have we not had close military alliance with democratic Turkey for many decades? Did not the United States strongly support Afghanistan when it was invaded by the Soviet Empire? Did we not stop Saddam Hussein from conquering Kuwait and threatening the entire Arabian Peninsula? Did we not institute "no-fly zones" when he went to obliterate the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south of Iraq? Did we the United States not save the Muslims of Yugoslavia while Europe dithered? Did we not free Afghanistan from the religious fascism of the Taliban? (Whither Afghanistan now is of course a separate question.) Has not Iraq had three elections and does it not now have its own government? Do we not spill our own blood so that this can succeed? Did we not help the people of Indonesia after the terrible wave? Did we not help the people in the mountains of Pakistan after the terrible earthquake??
Unwilling to limit himself to persuasion, that fellow in the target there targets the majority of Muslims of Iraq, be they Kurds, Shiites or Sunnis, who want to have democracy. That fellow there in the target does the same to the Muslims of Afghanistan. That fellow there in the target calls us "infidels" and targets us.
I think the following piece from the highly respected British magazine ?The Economist? gets the big picture right.
May 29, 2005
'No god but God': The War Within Islam
By MAX RODENBECK
THESE are rough times for Islam. It is not simply that frictions have intensified lately between Muslims and followers of other faiths. There is trouble, and perhaps even greater trouble, brewing inside the Abode of Peace itself, the notional Islamic ummah or nation that comprises a fifth of humanity.
News reports reveal glimpses of such trouble -- for instance, in the form of flaring strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in places like Iraq and Pakistan. Yet the greater tensions, while similarly rooted in the distant past, are less visible to the wider world. The rapid expansion of literacy among Muslims in the past half-century, and of access to new means of communication in the last decade, have created a tremendous momentum for change. Furious debates rage on the Internet, for example, about issues like the true meaning of jihad, or how to interpret and apply Islamic law, or how Muslim minorities should engage with the societies they live in.
What is unfolding, Reza Aslan argues in his wise and passionate book, ''No god but God,'' is nothing less than a struggle over who will ultimately define the sweeping ''Islamic Reformation'' that he believes is already well under way across much of the Muslim world. The West, he says, is ''merely a bystander -- an unwary yet complicit casualty of a rivalry that is raging in Islam over who will write the next chapter in its story.''
Amid the surge of Western interest in Islam since 9/11, other quiet voices have argued similarly that the historical process we are witnessing is less a clash of civilizations than a working out of suppressed internal conflicts. Aslan's contribution to this line of thought is threefold. He traces the dogmatic splits in Islam to their historical origins. He provides a speculative but well-reasoned look at how Muslim beliefs are likely to evolve. And he does all this beautifully, in a book that manages to be both an incisive, scholarly primer in Muslim history and an engaging personal exploration.
Aslan does not shy from controversy. Conservative Muslims will certainly challenge some of his bold assertions -- among them, that there is scant support in authentic Islamic tradition for the veiling of women; that laws are created by people, not God; and that, as he puts it, ''the notion that historical context should play no role in the interpretation of the Koran -- that what applied to Muhammad's community applies to all Muslim communities for all time -- is simply an untenable position in every sense.''
Yet even the most hidebound traditionalists would find it hard to refute the main thrust of his argument, which is that the original message of Islam, egalitarian, inclusive, progressive and liberating, has been twisted and diminished over time. Aslan is at his best in trying to explain and recapture what was initially inspiring about Islam and what remains powerful -- things that can be hard for outsiders to see these days because of what some do in the name of their faith.
By carefully drawing in the social and political setting from which Islam emerged, Aslan presents a persuasive case for viewing the religion as very much a product of its age. He notes the appearance in the region of Mecca, during the prophet's youth, of religious fashions like iconoclasm and the fusing of faiths into one embracing doctrine, ideas that were to become central to Muhammad's message. Not just outsiders but Muslims themselves need reminding that during Islam's first centuries, the Torah was often read alongside the Koran. Both Muslims and their detractors also often forget that the Koran calls specifically on Jews, Christians and Muslims to ''come to an agreement on the things we hold in common.''
Aslan's wish to emphasize the tolerant, merciful side of Islam can lead to pitfalls. It is not particularly comforting to learn that when the prophet triumphantly returned to Mecca, the city of his birth that had rejected him, there were no forced conversions and ''only'' six men and four women were put to the sword. The killing and enslavement of Jewish tribes at Medina receives a similarly light gloss, although Aslan may be right to point out that their ''Jewishness'' may have been rather vaguely defined.
Whatever the case, he is clearly correct in stating that the more damaging influences on the faith were yet to come. Over the 14 centuries that followed Muhammad's 22 years of revelation, Muslim kings and scholars distorted its tenets to serve their own narrow interests, and then cast these accretions in stone. Not only were the words of the Koran reinterpreted, but so were the hundreds of thousands of traditions and sayings collected by the prophet's contemporaries. As one example, Muhammad's comment that the ''feebleminded'' should not inherit was taken by some to mean that women should be excluded from inheritance, despite the clear Koranic injunction to grant women half the portion of male inheritors.
Immediately after Islam's glorious early years of expansion, a great intellectual clash pitted rigid literalists against more rationalist interpreters. That the rationalists essentially lost is a subject of lament for Muslim modernists, particularly Western-educated intellectuals like Aslan, an Iranian-American scholar of comparative religion. His arguments for reintroducing rationalism, for accepting the utility of secularization and for contextualizing the historical understanding of the faith all put him in distinguished company among contemporary Muslims.
The Syrian reformist Muhammad Shahrour, for instance, proposes an elegant solution to the question of how to apply the controversial corporal punishments specified by most understandings of Islamic law, or Shariah. Instead of taking what some see as God's rules literally, he suggests that things like hand-chopping should be viewed as the maximum possible penalty. Anything more severe would contravene Islam, but it would be up to a secular, elected legislature to determine what lesser level of severity to apply.
Sadly, the dominant voices in Islam are still those that see the faith not simply as a path of moral guidance but as a rigidly prescriptive and exclusive rule book. Ferment is certainly in the air. If the Osama bin Ladens of the world have achieved one thing, it is to force Muslims to confront some of their demons. Even archconservative Saudi Arabia is slowly evolving. In April, its top religious authority declared that forcing a woman to marry against her will was an imprisonable offense. A full-blown ''reformation'' in the heartlands of Islam, however, is still a long way off.
Max Rodenbeck is the Middle East correspondent for The Economist.
-----------------------------------
Cancer in its midst'
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By M. Zuhdi Jasser
March 30, 2006
During the dark days of our Revolution, Thomas Paine wrote, "That these are the times, that try men's souls." As an American Muslim, I feel the sentiment of these words like a red-hot brand on my brain.
I have watched horrified as assassins have read out the words from my Holy Koran before slitting the throats of some poor innocent souls. To my non-comprehending eyes, I have seen mothers proudly support their sons' accomplishment of blowing up innocent people as they eat or travel. It shatters some part of me, to see my faith as an instrument for butchery.
It makes me hope and pray for some counter-movement within my faith which will push back all this darkness. And I know that it must start with what is most basic -- the common truth that binds all religions: "Do unto others, as you would have them do onto you." The Golden Rule.
But that is not what I am seeing taught in a great deal of the Muslim world today, and, unfortunately, in America it's just not much better.
Night after night, I see Muslim national organizations like the Council for American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, cry out over and over about anecdotal victimization while saying and doing absolutely nothing about the most vile hate-speak and actions toward Jews and Christians in the Muslim world. It is the most self-serving of outrage.
The question I ask myself in the darkness of my own night is, "How did my beautiful faith become so linked with such ugliness." To me, the answer is both deep and simple. A spiritual path must be only about the spiritual while a worldly path must be about this world. When the two get mixed together, it brings out the very worst in both.
Much of what passes today for religious thought and action is actually political. When I hear a sermon in a mosque about the horrors of Israeli occupation, I know that the political arena has taken over the spiritual one. When I see the actions of suicide bombers praised or excused by religious leaders, I know that this politicization is complete. But the current Muslim leadership in groups like CAIR and others want only to talk of victimization. So, it is now high time for a new movement by Muslims in America and the West.
We in the Muslim community need to develop a new paradigm for our organizations and think tanks which holds Muslims publicly accountable for the separation of the political from the spiritual. Gone should be the day where individuals and their organizations can hide behind the cloak of victimization as a smoke screen for what they really believe.
I do believe that religions have cycles that they go through. Christianity was once a highly intolerant faith. Jews were labeled as "Christ killers" and the colored peoples of the Third World were people whose native faith was like ragged clothes to be torn off their bodies.
Thank God those days are over. Now my faith community must do the same. It should be the true test of a Muslim, not so much how he treats a fellow Muslim but how he treats someone of another faith.
Time is not on our side and the volatile radical minority of Muslims could strike again at any time. But, while true change among Muslims may take generations, our history teaches us that once we start the ideological battle, nothing can counter the power of freedom, pluralism and the desire for human rights.
There are some small signs that my community is finally beginning to wake up to the cancer in its midst. We are learning something that was the central lesson of World War II -- that once aroused, evil never stays self-contained.
For many in my faith, it was all right to blow up innocent Israelis as they sat in their cafes and pizza parlors. Through some tortured act of logic, these suicide bombings were seen as some sort of legitimate religion-sanctioned acts. (All the while, notice how few Muslim organizations like CAIR will denounce Hamas by name). But, as evil always does, it migrates, and soon radical Muslims were blowing up little children in Russia, commuters in Spain and worshippers in one of Iraq's holiest mosques.
Maybe our first true wake-up call was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's homicide attack on the wedding party in Jordan. Because now, the evil unleashed on the occupying Jews had landed on the doorstep of Muslims as they partook in a joyous wedding day.
That is the lesson that we in the Muslim community are now learning. Do evil to anyone and eventually it will boomerang on you. Perhaps, that's a good place to start. Let the barometer of our faith be how we treat our Jewish friends, because in the end, that is how we will eventually treat ourselves.
M. Zuhdi Jasser is chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. A former Navy lieutenant commander, he currently is an internist in private practice in Phoenix.
-------------------
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
AIFD Commentary
The Synergy of Libertarianism and Islam
May 6, 2006
M. Zuhdi Jasser
Vital Speeches of the Day, May 2006
Vital Speeches of the Day
AFFAIRS OF RELIGION AND AFFAIRS OF STATE
Address by M. ZUHDI JASSER, Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Delivered to the Economics Discussion Group of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona, October 19, 2005
When it comes to libertarian ideology and its synergy with Islam, mine is a minority opinion within the "current" Muslim community. My prayer is that it is a majority opinion within the Muslim conscience.
It is my belief as a Muslim that libertarianism is a prerequisite for piety and for a pure unadulterated relationship with God. Faith must be personal in order to be "faith". Moreover, what is faith?-but a belief in that which cannot be proven but does exist and for which one may be held accountable? Islam as I know it and practice it is a personal faith without encumbrance external to my own physical being, to myself. It is unencumbered by clergy, or a man-made hierarchy.
It is my belief as a Muslim that liberty is necessary for religion and religion is necessary for liberty.
The independent nature of this relationship is at the core of the success of both ideologies-a virtual covalent bond.
What is Islam as a religion? What is Islam to me?
Islam is derived from the root term selama, "to surrender or submit" to God. Thus, in reference to the relationship of the soul with God, the almighty creator, the soul is only at "peace" [selam] if it has completely submitted to the will of God. One will achieve the ultimate free will-the purest of liberty and truth-if a Muslim has submitted to God. The crux of the matter is thus what is exactly meant by this submission. I could elaborate ad nauseam about what this concept is "not". But today I will only focus on what it "is" to me. I will focus on what my faith is, in forming who I am as a libertarian Muslim.
Interestingly, while we may have a few quibbles on whether I tow the line of libertarianism in areas of a forward foreign policy or accepting government payments in my medical practice, I believe the area in my life in which I am a strict uncompromising libertarian is in my relationship with God. This relationship is unidirectional. While I am a creation of God, my understanding and manifestation of that relationship is entirely created by me and enacted by me. The vehicle of internal harmony which I utilize to achieve peace in my relationship with God is one based on the Truth that my perception of God is that He is real and all encompassing, omnipresent, omnipotent, and all empowering in a divine humility. In the absence of a belief in a Creator and the free will He (the Creator) placed within me to choose to believe in Him, I am left inexorably with the emptiness of self-worship (this is a binary formula similar to many other binary choices in life). The presupposition of His creation is initiated with Free Will (Liberty).
In the Koran, God tells Muslims-"If I so desired to I could have forced you to believe, but I did not." Thus to believe in God and his faith is to believe an individual's choice is his or hers alone and must be free of coercion or else the entire faith is abrogated and irreconcilable. The purity of this choice, this liberty to believe, is unequaled in life for it is this choice over which all else is measured and over which I believe, as a believer, I will be judged in the Hereafter. The existence of a Day of a Judgment by the creator establishes the binary nature of life. Good and bad, joy and sadness, or pleasure and pain without both we know neither.
The decision, or any of our exercises of freedom and free will, are meaningless if they are not finalized with a judgment or an observation from the Creator. Joy is meaningless without pain. Love is meaningless without hate or apathy. This choice and final arbitration is the ultimate chance and the ultimate test of liberty. While we always seek to understand life, to understand God is to have that comfort of an explanation for all that in life which defies explanation no matter how hard I try. This is the submission. With liberty as the core truth upon which we all agree, the variation of that Truth whether the God of Abraham through Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, or any other faith is very personal with all being possibly the 'right path'.
Relevant historical landmarks of the Islamic faith
The religion of Islam was brought to this world from God, Muslims believe through a revelation transmitted by the angel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammed beginning in 610 C.E. and ending in 633 C.E. This revelation intermittently was compiled to form the Muslim holy book-the Holy Qur'an. The faith was not revealed to Jews or Christians in order to convert them, but rather to the pagans of Arabia who had no moral code, and wallowed in materialism, arrogance, ignorance, and tribalism.
In the Qur'an, God retells many of the stories of Judaism and Christianity to the Muslims of Arabia from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Jesus.
Mohammed wore many hats, and in reading the Qur'an one notes that it is very clear in the passages when God is referring to Mohammed as His Prophet, as His Messenger, or as the head of state. This shared role certainly stretches one's ability to purely separate the concepts of religion and state. But in the scheme of history, the revelation of Islam had been a profound step forward in the journey toward liberty and in the journey to separate that of this world from that of the next. The creation of the city-state of Medina and its compact with the many tribes of various faiths in the region rests in history as one of man's greatest steps forward in establishing an example of pluralism and a governmental contract guaranteeing liberty and freedom from government and of religion regardless of faith. This was based upon a foundation of Islamic law, the sharia. So a knowledge of the legal processes of the faith of Islam was prerequisite.
For centuries this foundation became the basis of a new global liberty. Many in fact fled Europe to escape the persecution of medieval Christianity of the time in exchange for the open society of the Islamic world. Paul Johnson, in the History of the Jews refers to this period in the 12th Century as the Golden Age of Judaism. Islamic renaissance brought forward Greek philosophy, new sciences of algebra, applied mathematics, astronomy, advanced medicine (Avicenna's Canon of Medicine), and a cumulative experiential law based upon local precedents with little central authority.
The positive contributions to the world of Islamic society from 650 to 1500 are numerous and are the subjects of treatises. But, what followed is also a complicated history which through a number of stages led to the deconstruction of the Muslim community.
With the Ottoman Empire closed were the days of religious ijtihad-the interpretation of Islamic scripture in light of modern day understanding. The independence of religious centers of higher learning was a thing of the past. The dynamic nature of religious law in a precedent system similar to that of western courts of today was no more under the militarized Ottomans. This culminated in Ataturk outlawing the Arabic language and stifling any ability for attempts at ijtihad.
The Twentieth Century brought Muslims a colonial change, a change which distanced them even further from a modern interpretation of their faith. After the World Wars the abrupt withdrawal of foreign forces left some hope for democracy and freedom, but the vacuum and demilitarization of the people empowered coups and installed dictatorships across the Middle East. These dictatorships and oil monarchies ultimately completed the destruction of Muslim civilization, institutionalized corruption, and brought much of the community back to pre-Islamic tribalism, and moral vacancy. The only religious institutions fostered were those which catered to the despots and fostered radicalism. Witness the spread of salafism, Wahhabism, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the litany of other fundamentalist ideologies and their offspring militant organizations. The exploitation of the religion of Islam for political divisiveness spread throughout the Muslim world. Political Islam (Islamism) was born and remains the primary affliction of the Muslim world.
That which is sacred is above the scientific and the rational which is open to critique and deconstruction. As Abdelkarim Soroush, author of Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam: the Writings of Abdelkarim Soroush states, "religious geometry or religious thermodynamics are possible in only as far as one presupposes that the world has a common source of truth otherwise the 'religious' is separate from science." He further asks, "How can human beings fraught with error create 'infallible' governments or churches?"
Dr. Soroush further states, Religion in Islam from the Qur'an is "a language of duties not rights". Humans are simply being given commandments by a supreme authority in a language of sharia' (rules of God transmitted to Muslims no different from 'mitzvot" of Judaism). But yet it remains that the ultimate acceptance and governance is still divinely individual-in point of fact libertarian.
If one were to sit down and write rules for one's own home, even though there is a strict set of rules, it would still be libertarian since the introduction, acceptance, continuation or the end of the rules would remain voluntary. While much of the Qur'an is rules, the acceptance of them is purely individual and is to be left inviolable by society.
The Muslim concept of sin and forgiveness as it relates to liberty
To a Muslim, infants are born pure and sin-free without need for baptism. In fact, it is felt in Islamic theology that children who die before the age of reason, age of true choice or liberty, are not judged by God negatively for any reason and are believed to go to heaven by His decision as a result of their purity. Once beyond the age when the superego and the soul understand right from wrong, at death an individual awaits God's judgment.
Muslims believe that life's actions are the ultimate barometer of faith on earth. In the end, Muslim theology imparts that God will judge these actions in a "bal?anced" fashion with an all-encompassing assessment of our good and bad deeds of our life. The only beliefs judged are those in regards to Him. The others are opinions related to this earth and are part of the shades of gray of human interac?tions. On earth it is not obligations but a measure of gain and loss as measured by a number of issues form one's intentions to the final arbiter-God.
Thus, individuals choose alone, and sin alone. No one else, not even the parent will be there on the day of Judgment to bear the sin (thus the major deviation from Christianity over 'salvation' or 'Jesus taking on our sins' or 'the assurance of heaven based only on salvation-there is no assurances of heaven in Islam regardless of what some may say). Confes?sion or absolution of sins by a third party is antithetical to Islam. The need for baptism to wash away sins of birth is also not in line with the essence of Islamic concepts of faith, liberty. The analogy of Adam choosing sin and thus we are all born to sin is also antithetical to Islamic concepts of sin and purity at birth.
As I stated at the outset, it is my belief as a Muslim that liberty is necessary for religion and religion is necessary for liberty. The independent nature of this relationship is at the core of the success of both ideologies-a supernatural covalent bond. In the first, as I mentioned, the loss of liberty negates actual faith and God's tests or challenges of free will then become rote actions of coercion. In the second, religion brings with it the definition of a value system or morality which forms the superego and allows society to function in security in the absence of the 'state'.
Now 'Godless' individuals can have a similar value system as a utilitarian argument. However, it is my belief that engrained within free will is an arrogance, a vacuum of humility, which without reigning in by religion and by a 'fear' or put more precisely a 'respect' for God, could not otherwise lead to a globally moral society. We have seen this in the pagan societies before Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is in a way absurd to assume that the freedom, and liberty of today's society and our great advancements came from anywhere else other than as a result of a pious Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture albeit after wresting control away from religion (but still in the ever-presence of religion and its values). To say that atheism or paganism can now be successful whether or not moral, is like allowing the Chinese to claim a benefit from globalization and then saying that their communism created the success of their free markets.
Complete Equality of all human beings
Islam has no 'church structure', no institutional, hierarchy: all human beings are equal (even the Messengers of God)
This lack of institutionalization is certainly not obvious to a student of the so-called Muslim world, but as a devout libertarian Muslim, it's the only way I see my faith. The Koran is the only direct communication of the creator with Muslims and nothing else represents him. Thus the communication was one way via our messenger just as prior messengers and now we communicate personally in the other direction through prayer. This communication, this relationship would be inexorably altered if an intermediary were to step in with constricting rules as to the mechanism or 'permission.' In the end if it is clear that God will judge individuals on Judgment in isolation from anyone else, then they must be free of any hierarchical control or interpretative leadership.
In fact, in my own tradition of Sunni Islam (as compared to Shia) it is felt that 'ceremonial' practice is discouraged since it empowers a pseudo-clergy which may in the end interfere in this liberal relationship between an individual and God. From this innate close relationship comes the need to maintain its pure monotheism. Thus, in Islam one finds a distinct differentiation or theological disagreement with the Christian concept of the Trinity. The supernatural power and nature of God in his spirit is acknowledged but never separated from his oneness (tawhid). The Qur'an strictly describes that God begets none and is not begotten. This variant understanding of Jesus Christ as messenger of God in Islam versus son of God in Christianity is the primary theological difference between the faiths.
Thus, one understands the prohibition in Islam of giving God a human characteristic and also the prohibition of a picture of any of the prophets or deification of individuals no matter how great or pious.
The Legal Tradition of Islam
The sharia evolved in Islam as a legal framework from which to enact the moral guidance of God as enumerated in the Qur'an. This was lent to over centuries by scholars and jurists schooled in the religious law. The evolution was similar to the development of any precedent based juristic law. Just as our own American law evolved side by side with the original U.S. Constitution, religious law can evolve similarly side by side with the Qur'an. Its dynamic modernization is reflected off of the original intent of the primary document and its current understanding. This is with the most important caveat that these two legal systems should remain completely separate.
This separation is the essence of the conflict between the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world of the twenty-first century. I am an originalist in U.S. law and separately and similarly a classically liberal originalist and modernist in my own interpretation of the Holy Qur'an.
Accepting and rejecting Islam
While history of the spread of Islam is rife with assertions of the meanings of 'jihad', in today's world it is clear that this word, jihad is one of a militaristic coercion of religion. Based on the libertarian ideology of faith which I practice, any individual who expresses vocally let alone physically a need to change another individual has violated his own faith. Faith is simply limited to God's role with that individual. Any interference by any other individual violates the whole premise of faith in God.
In my understanding of my own faith of Islam, even the correction of minor transgressions of religious law are forbid?den between individuals for our moral behavior teaches us to honor individual independence and teach by subtle example not by coercion or even suggestion.
Free markets and Islam
The very nature of Islamic banking is free of collectivism and inherently decentralized. Profit-making, the invisible hand, and the 'virtue of selfishness" are all precepts to which I find no conflict within my faith and in fact I find encourage?ment within my faith.
I am going to use an analogy to the Islamic injunction against clergy. God states in the Qur'an, that he created natural needs of hunger, thirst, and intimacy and the clerical need to remain celibate is unnatural and violates the virtue of the sanctity of marriage. Free markets are the same. As long as we utilize our wealth in moral ways investment in capitalistic institutions is very Islamic and encouraged.
Some cite the prohibition of interest as anti-capitalistic. First of all, it is strictly usury which is discussed. Since lower interest rates could be interpreted as fees by simple semantic changes. But the intent of the theological argument is that all parties in a financial capital risk in fact share the risk. There should be no involved parties insulated from risk in the free market. For example, Islamic charity is prescribed to be 2.5% of one's savings (assets). Thus, the more one spends and the less one hoards, the less charity God commands us to spend. This seems to be a resounding endorsement of the free market and concept of 'virtue of selfishness'.
It is interesting to also note that Rose Wilder Lane in her book, Islam and the Discovery of Freedom cites the period of the introduction of Islam into the Arabian peninsula as one of the three major revolutions in man toward capitalism and free markets.
Libertarianism and Islam
Is Islam, is this a system of government? Islamism most certainly is while Islam most certainly is not. Islam does carry a set of laws and thus has an inherent rule of law which is inherent also within that which we understand as classical liberalism or libertarianism. But this is separate and without government.
Religion is negated by the abrogation of free will to the state. Actions prescribed by God, once they are prescribed by the state no longer become actions of faith but are actions of slavery imposed by a state. From charity to civic service to morality in dress and conduct, freedom and liberty allow one to exercise a moral faith. Just as libertarianism is abrogated by governmental control so to is a pious individually practiced Islam.
The concept of inalienable rights is a deeply religious one which without this foundation one could argue we should rather have a Darwinian society of the survival of the fittest rather than the freest.
Predicated upon the Muslim belief of God passing judgment is that this judgment is not only over the test of life's challenges and of one's moral failures and successes as an independent soul but upon the specific utilization of an individual's gifts. Society if it were to make rules could never create a situation other than in complete liberty where an individual's gifts from God are tested without encumbrance.
The actions of prayer, fasting, paying alms to the poor, pilgrimage to Mecca, and bearing witness to one God must be entirely free in order to be real. Coerced virtues are no longer virtues.
A society based upon liberty and free markets is predicated upon the presence of a moral code and the inherent trust of all of the participants (as Fukayama eloquently writes about in Trust). Thus, the more individually pious a society is, the more able they are to practice a libertarian philosophy within the society. The less pious and thus, the less ethical they are, the more autocracy they may need.
Working within the acts of this earth-studying this earth and its sciences is equivalent in Islam to reading the book of God. Both are in fact felt to be a form of communicating with God, the God of Abraham. This stimulation of human creativity is at its depth very free market, very libertarian and very Muslim. For Muslims are taught that creativity in science, nature, technology, art is equivalent to communicating with God.
This is one Muslim's view of his own faith. It is not only of interest because it is compelling to me, but the spread of a libertarian ideology within the Muslim community, the ummah, is one of the primary issues of the day. As we look at the threats to American and western security, the radical Islamists do not hate the west because of our affluence or of our free markets. They have been able to form an image of America and the west which the rank and file Muslim views as "godless".
The Islamists of the Muslim community (perhaps the majority of the ummah) have equated the separation of religion and state with the absence of religion. I believe it is rather the contrary-the most pious system for a society. They have equated the separation of religion and state as immoral. I believe it is rather the contrary-the most moral system for society. They have equated the separation of religion and state with a distance from God. I believe there is no society which permits a closer more genuine un-coerced relationship with God than one founded upon libertarian principles.
It is for this reason that my parents fled the oppression of the Syrian government in the 1960's in order to come to America and live the American dream. I was raised believ?ing and experiencing the fact that in no other place on earth do I have the freedom and the liberty to practice my faith unencumbered by government as I do in the United States. While we do see a sadly increasingly interventional government into our daily lives, the fact is until this very day, that scriptural and theological argumentation are not part of our governmental lawmaking in America. We simply use the logic of our human interactions to enact our values. It is this system which political Islam detests and it is this system which I as a freedom-loving classically liberal Muslim love.
My hope is that other libertarian Muslims wherever they may be wake-up and realize that their day has come now to be accounted and lead the ideological battle waged by Islamists against Muslims who separate the affairs of religion from the affairs of the state.
Thank you for your time and attention.
This speech was delivered to the Economics Discussion Group of Phoenix, Arizona on October 19, 2005.
It was published recently in Vital Speeches of the Day, May 2006, VOL. LXXII, No. 14-15. Subscriptions and copies can be obtained from the publishers website.
________________________________________
New Muslim leader wants Mideast democracy
http://ads.thestar.com/image.ng/site...esc=w indowadBy Jon Wells
The Hamilton Spectator
(May 1, 2006) The new president of the Muslim Association of Hamilton is showing that he's not afraid to wade in on controversial topics.
In an interview with The Spectator yesterday, Ejaz Butt indicated he supports replacing dictatorships with democratic regimes in the Middle East.
"If (U.S. President George W. Bush) really went into Iraq to bring democracy, I would like him to go into other countries, too, if that is the real intention," he said. "Dictators are in most of our countries, and democracy should be brought to every Muslim country, and as a matter of fact the whole world."
When asked for his views on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Butt supports Israel's right to exist as a sovereign country.
"I have a lot of respect for the Israelis, and they have a right to defend their own country. But I also want to have an independent state of Palestine -- a democratic one."
Butt was acclaimed yesterday by the association as its new president. The challenges are considerable for the association in the post 9/11 world.
"I'm an ex-military man, I can face any challenge," said Butt with a chuckle. "I'm ready for it."
Prior to coming to Canada in 1987, Butt was a soldier in the Pakistani army for 12 years. There, as a major, he worked for a time with a lieutenant named Pervez Musharraf -- now president of Pakistan.
Javid Mirza recently stepped down as association president. Butt plans to carry on Mirza's legacy of trying to build better relations and understanding between religious faiths in the community.
He is also determined to have the first traditionally designed mosque built in the city. The mosque where he was to be acclaimed was once a racquet club.
Butt, 53, is married and has two sons -- Atis is a soldier in the Canadian army and Asim is a Hamilton police officer. He said if Atis is called on to serve with Canadian troops in Afghanistan, he will support it.
"That's why you put the uniform on, you do not disobey orders when the crucial time comes. But Afghanistan is a very dangerous place, it's a very difficult mission ... When I hear of a Canadian soldier's death, they are like my own children, it brings tears."
--------------------
(This Muslim American did not harbor any mental reservations about defending America and its Constitution from all enemies, domestic and foreign)
Army Pfc. Angelo Zawaydeh, 19, San Bruno; Killed in Iraq
From the Associated Press
April 23, 2006
When Angelo Zawaydeh of San Bruno, Calif., first told his parents that he wanted to join the military, they refused.
Not only were they worried about the dangers of their teenage son going to war, but they also had concerns about Zawaydeh, whose father is Jordanian, participating in a Middle Eastern war.
When Zawaydeh first brought up the idea to his parents when he was 16, the answer was simple, said his mother, April Bradreau. But two years later, he made his own decision. When he joined the Army, she said, "we asked, 'Why didn't you go to college?' And he said, 'I can't sit in the classroom anymore. I need to get up and do something.' "
Zawaydeh, 19, was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry, 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Ft. Campbell, Ky., and sent to Iraq in September.
On March 15, the private first class was manning a machine gun atop a tank at a Baghdad traffic control point when he was killed by a mortar shell that struck him in the neck.
Kevin Campos said his best friend, a graduate of Terra Nova High School in Pacifica, Calif., and others had vowed to enlist after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "We decided that America was worth fighting for," Campos said. "We thought if we're going to live in this country and raise our families here, we had to do something before we started our lives."
But Bradreau, who with her husband, Akram Zawaydeh, received the news of their son's death on the eve of their 21st wedding anniversary, said her son had grown disillusioned with the war over time. "He thought we could let them [the Iraqis] fight their own battles from now on over there," she said.
Bradreau remembered her son as a respectful young man who always was willing to lend a helping hand.
"He died like he lived," she said. "He gave his life for others."
--------------------
(Another Muslim American who harbored no mental reservations)
Serving Was Soldier's Mission
Sudan Native Killed in Iraq Did 'Good Deeds'
By Martin Weil
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; A13
Ayman Taha, a Berkeley graduate who was described as athletic, a speaker of many languages, and a friend to all who met him, had only to write his dissertation to earn his PhD, his father said.
But three years ago, Taha, a budding economist and the son of a Northern Virginia couple, Abdel-Rahman and Amal Taha, joined the Army to serve in the Special Forces. About a year ago, he was sent to Iraq. On Friday, as Staff Sgt. Ayman Taha, 31, was preparing a cache of munitions for demolition in the town of Balad, the explosives detonated and he was killed, the Pentagon said yesterday.
It is "a very terrible thing," Abdel-Rahman Taha said. "He was a son, and a very special son."
The father added: "If you believe in God and you realize that this is God's will . . . it makes it a lot easier."
There is also consolation, the father said, in feeling that "this is something Ayman wanted to do."
A family friend, Nada Eissa, agreed. "No, he didn't have to do it," she said. "This is something he wanted to do."
Ayman Taha was born in Sudan, into an academically accomplished international family. Both parents hold doctorates. When his father worked for the World Bank, Ayman attended elementary school in McLean. He went to secondary school in England, then received a bachelor's degree from the University of California at Berkeley and a master's in economics from the University of Massachusetts, where he was working toward a PhD.
"He lived in many cultures," his father said, and spoke English, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese. More important, his father said, were his personality and character.
"If he has a five-minute conversation with you, that would be the beginning of a lifetime relationship," the father said. "I never heard anybody who ever complained that Ayman did something wrong to him.
"He was just that type of character," the father said.
About three years ago, Ayman Taha told his father, "Dad, I have been going to school since I was 5 years old. I want to take a break."
The father said he suggested that his son "try something in the World Bank . . . or Merrill Lynch." But one day, "out of the blue," his son told him that he had signed the papers that would take him into the Special Forces.
He said his son was "definitely" patriotic and believed "in the mission."
"He strongly agreed that what they were doing is good and that they were helping people in the Middle East to get out of the . . . historic bottleneck" that had confined them.
Since boyhood, those who knew him recalled, Ayman Taha had taken an interest in military matters, which showed itself in the books he read and the toys he played with.
Joining the Special Forces was "something he felt compelled to do," said a friend, Hisham Eissa, who lives in Los Angeles and is Nada Eissa's brother.In economics, Taha's interest was in development. "He felt very strongly about making a difference," and "I think he felt that people like him" were needed for it, Eissa said.
"Everyone whose life he touched loved this guy," Hisham Eissa said. "There isn't a single person who knew him who isn't torn up about this."
The Pentagon said Taha was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group, based at Fort Campbell, Ky. His wife, Geraldine, and child Sommer live near the base. One sister, Rabah, is a special education teacher in Fairfax County, and another, Lubna, attends Marymount University.
His father said Taha was a devout Muslim who believed that "the message of Islam is very simple . . . to believe in God and do good deeds."
"He believed that what he was doing were the good deeds Islam is asking for."
=====================
In summary, I reject hatred of all Muslims. I believe that Islamic Fascism attacks us, both abroad and at home, and that we must defend ourselves. I believe that good Muslims here should stand up to the fascists in their midst and report them to the relevant authorities and should support our efforts in the War on Islamic Fascism. I believe that, just like Christianity struggled greatly in achieving its reformation, that Islam struggles with its reformation now. Those victorious in reformation will believe in free speech, separation of Church and State and personal conscience in matters of faith.
Its too bad that Bryan doesn't seem to get this and regards what I say as he does, but this is America and that is his right.
This thread is titled a Dialog with Muslims. I repeat my invitation to any and all Muslims to come dialog with us. If I say something that is wrong or something that is untrue, show me and I will adjust accordingly. If there is something I should know, then please educate me.
Marc/CD
-
Crafty,
I'd like to echo "Bryan's" sentiments by saying your mother wears combat boots and if you don't roll over and run this website as I'd have you do it I'm gonna hold my breath and turn blue.
I hope the rest of the list will forgive me if my reference to "mother" dredges up any Old Testament connotations that have yet to be progressively addressed in today's society. And use of the term "Old Testament" isn't meant to force one to embrace a pro-New Testament identity. And I'm not trying to be hostile to anyone except Crafty, who deserves it, and I really am interested in a meaningful discussion, so long as Crafty avoids certain terms, accepts all my premises, ignores my non-responsiveness, and gracefully accepts all inanities I point his way.
So there, you big ratfink you.
-
By the way, I just noticed that Sibatan posted this clip's URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQod2Ih_IEg
The assertions in this clip apparently are quite common in much of the Muslim world. Would anyone care to offer a calm and reasoned assessment of this clip for Sibatan? This seems to me a perfect subject for dialog.
-
Woof All:
I see that Bryan has deleted all his posts except for his good bye. Oh well, we'll just have to struggle on , , ,
The Adventure continues,
Marc/CD
-
Although I have heard internet gossip about this group, the following statement seems pretty straightforward and manly to me:
http://www.mubai.cc/smiterrorism-statement.htm
SMI's Offical Statement on Terrorism and Related Criminal Activity
Recently there have been many requests from individuals interested in knowing our official status regarding the issue of terrorism. Being one of the largest organizations in the world promoting Traditional Muslim Warrior Culture and Chivalry to Muslims and Non-Muslims, it is our duty to address this very serious issue publicly and clearly. Please read the official statement of Ustaz Hussein Udom, Khalifa of Silat Mubai International.
Dear SMI Members and Friends,
The issue of terrorism is a very serious one that can not be ignored without paying a heavy price. There have been many people of late who have paraded themselves around as "Mujahideen", Muslim Warriors, then go on to take part in hideous crimes against their fellow human beings. This kind of hypocrisy and foulness is the exact opposite of what our Warrior Tradition and Chivalry has taught for centuries. SMI strives to teach people the authentic Military Traditions of the Warrior Prophet Muhamad, peace and blessing be upon him, and therefore we can never allow ourselves to take part in or support any actions that are outside of the spirit of this tradition. Even if that action is against an enemy force. The specific targeting of civilians in combat operations, offensive or defensive, has been clearly prohibited by the Prophet Muhamad (pbuh) himself on multiple occasions and we are transmitted these traditions from authenticated (Sahih) narrations of his companions. These have been the standing rules of engagement for the Muslim Army (Jaysh) and Fedayeen (Special Operations Forces) for centuries and will never change.
Any and all individuals who go against this ruling and who specifically target civilians are no longer acceptable under the banner of the Warriors. They fall short of the main requirement necessarry to be considered a true Warrior, Honour. Therefore they should be treated like any other criminal and brought to justice in one way or another. SMI completely supports justified combative action against an enemy as long as the Warriors respect the Military regulations of the Rasool of Allah Muhamad Ibn Abdullah, peace and blessing be upon him. Unjust wars against innocent people are a sure ticket to perdition and a shameful mockery of the great Military legacy the Muslim Warrior Traditions have been famed for and dedicated to preserving.
May we all remain on the straight path.
Ustaz Hussein Udom Al-Hanafi Al-Qadiri
Khalifa/Keeper of the System
Chief Tactical Instructor
Silat Mubai International
-
Here's a lengthy rebuttal to the 9/11 conspiracy if Sibatan is interested:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/loose-marbles-i.html
-
Marc,
I know nothing about SMI. With SMI condemning terrorism of innocents, I must ask the question, "Does SMI follow all the teachings of Islam, especially in regards to the posts excerpts of the Koan from above"?
Seems to me a relevant question?
-
Salam to all,
In reply to the ongoing Quoting of the Holy Quran, I have to say it is being interpreted out of context. There are interpretations of the Holy Quran available and one can see that the revelations sent to Prophet Muhammad "Peace be Upon Him" by the ArchAngel Gabriel was during his struggle against the Pagan, Idol Worshippers of Mecca hundreds of years ago to re-establish the original religion "One God" of the Prophet Abraham, which was forgotten and replaced with the Pagan religions of thousands of gods, goddesses, godlings...etc.
That black stone square building you see them circling during the pilgrimage is the First house of Worship built by prophet Adam "peace be upon him" and then destroyed in the time of Prophet Noah by the flood. It was rebuilt in the time of Prophet Abraham by prophet Abraham and his son Ismael.
For more info on Islam check out http://www.islam101.com/
Peace and God Bless. Sitbatan
-
Good to have you back with us Sitbatan.
Please allow me to clarify that I did not think myself to be interpreting the passages I quoted-- only reading them to mean what they seem to say. If there are additional contexts or passages that flesh out their meanings to be other than their seemingly plain meaning, then please help us understand. I know I threw a lot of quotes out there-- please feel free to take them one at a time.
I have just taken a quick look at the website URL you have shared with us and have flagged it for further reading. Thank you.
I see on its front page it quotes Muhammad thusly:
About 1400 years ago, in his last sermon, Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) said:
?All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white ? except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet Allah and answer your deeds. So beware: Do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.?
I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but this sure sounds like he is saying that it is OK to take from us infidels. Please help me understand.
At http://www.islam101.com/terror/toleranceftf.htm it says:
BEGIN
Tolerance, Respect and Safeguard for Non-Muslims
The following excerpts are mostly from Dr. Ahmad Sakr's book, "Muslims and Non-Muslims, Face to Face" (isbn: 091119-31-9).
A deputation from the Christians of Najran (Yemen) came to see Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) in Madina. They came into the Prophet's Mosque (Masjid Nabawi) as he prayed the afternoon prayer. The time of prayers of Christians having come, they stood and prayed in the Prophet's Mosque, and the Prophet said that they were to be left to do so. (see The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume).
During the life of Prophet Muhammad, the Jews in Madina had a synagogue and an educational institute, Bait-Al-Midras. The Prophet preserved the institute and gave protection to the Jews.
The Prophet respected the autonomy of the Christian churches. The nomination and the appointment of bishops and priests was left to the Christian community itself.
Prophet Muhammad promoted cooperation between Muslims and Christians in the political arena as well. He selected a non-Muslim, 'Amr-ibn Umaiyah-ad-Damri, as an ambassador to Negus, the King of Ethiopia.
The Prophet sent a message to the monks of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai:
"This is a message written by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they (Christians) are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the world."
March 28, 2002
END
How does this square with the passage I quoted about taxing and submitting jews and gentiles?
Thanking you in advance for your reply,
-
Sitbatan, I have a question for you.... Abraham had a son with the handmaid of Sarah (Hagar). The son was Ishmael.
Abraham was a Jew, Hagar was an Egyptian.
How do you feel about Ishmael being half Jew?
TG
-
Folks:
I know lots of us have a lot of questions, but please lets be sure to keep in mind that we have only one Muslim with us at the moment and not overwhelm him with too many questions at one time.
yip!
CD
-
Woof All:
With the gracious permission of Suarez International, I reproduce part of an interesting dialog from 2004 on its Warriortalk forum with the names, except for that of Ustaz Hussein Udom deleted.
The thread began after some WT posters saw a clip on UHO's site which included footage of what looked like using hostages as shields. This naturally got things off to a rocky start and same suspicious and some angry posts where made. I pick up from UHO's first post and delete several posts in the thread according to my best judgement.
Woof,
Crafty Dog
Hello Everyone,
I am Ustaz Hussein Udom, the admin for the website www.mubai.cc and the Head
Instructor for Silat Mubai International. I randomly peruse this forum and
enjoy the insight that is given by the members and Mr.Suarez. Sadly, the
content of this thread has really made me feel sick and disgusted at the
total lack of intelligence and respect displayed by members of this forum.
"Terrorist website", "enemy muslims", "global terrorist training
operations", what kind of nonesense is this? Have any single one of you even
taken the time to read the information on our website before slinging mud
against us because of our religion?
Do you know that I have people from the US Military training in my family's
art, and others from the Western world who train and work with us on a daily
basis to advance their skill in the combative arts and take part in our
Warrior Traditions. We spend sweat and hard work to provide decent human
beings with the skill necessary to protect themselves and their families
from violence.
You are suppossed to be "religious" men, Christians, and you judge me so
harshly without knowing a bit about me other than I am a Muslim. Is every
Muslim a criminal for you?Despicable and truely un-Christian behaviour. Is
it not Jesus (pbuh) himself who said "judge not others lest yee be judged".
You have all judged me wrongly and degraded the endless work my colleagues
and I have put into establishing a respectful environment to learn the
fighting arts and TRUE Chivalry. Those in our organization like yourselves
who are LEOs, Military and Security Officers, Prison Guards and Private
Citizens who have bled to protect others from the evil of a deadly few.
I challenge any person in this forum to provide one shred of information
from the RCAG Online Commercial website or the Silat Mubai International
website that in any way supports anthing other than the Godly virtues of
respect, warriorship and honour. Show it to me.
It is a sad day when truth and falsehood become one, and good men can no
longer recognize each others faces in the sea of corruption.
Goddam the terrorists who have desecrated the Classical Warrior Traditions
of Islam and Dame those who believe the lies of terrorists and other
brigands.
Lastly, for the gentleman who asked "why Taiwan?" - My wife is Chinese and
we happily moved here to improve our language ability in Mandarin. There are
almost no Muslims here so I guess my master plan of setting up terrorist
cells among the Bhuddist nuns will have to come into effect soon.
Sincerely,
Ustaz Hussein Udom
Khalifa/Head Instructor
Silat Mubai International
www.mubai.cc
=======================
Ustaz Hussein Udom,
Thank You for posting your true name. Not everyone can do this nor wishes to
do this. I want to answer some of your points. I think we must, and can,
keep it to a political discussion as we will never agree on spiritual
issues.
1). "Terrorist website", "enemy muslims", "global terrorist training
operations", what kind of nonesense is this? Have any single one of you even
taken the time to read the information on our website before slinging mud
against us because of our religion?
Sir, we are at war. This is not a war with the soldiers of another nation,
but with the followers (some followers) of a faith. We were attacked by men
representing (right or wrong) your faith, and they were praised by religious
leaders of your faith. A prudent man, after seeing this, would naturally be
suspicious of men from your faith would they not?
2). You are suppossed to be "religious" men, Christians, and you judge me so
harshly without knowing a bit about me other than I am a Muslim. Is every
Muslim a criminal for you?Despicable and truely un-Christian behaviour. Is
it not Jesus (pbuh) himself who said "judge not others lest yee be judged".
Sir, we are Christian Warriors and our faith is in The Lord Jesus Christ.
Christ was no pacifist. In fact He advised His men to arm themselves againts
the evil of the world. In war, there is only conflict and the seeking of a
favorable end to that conflict. There can be mercy, but no tolerance,
friendliness, or equality. I'm certain a study of your own religious
hiostory will reveal that.
3). You have all judged me wrongly and degraded the endless work my
colleagues and I have put into establishing a respectful environment to
learn the fighting arts and TRUE Chivalry. Those in our organization like
yourselves who are LEOs, Military and Security Officers, Prison Guards and
Private Citizens who have bled to protect others from the evil of a deadly
few.
As I said, sir, we were attacked. This was not by Norwegian Presbyterians,
but by Muslim men, later praised by religious leaders, wielding knives.
Until this conflict is resolved, I would expect some suspicion and
catgorizing by Christian men of action.
4). I challenge any person in this forum to provide one shred of information
from the RCAG Online Commercial website or the Silat Mubai International
website that in any way supports anthing other than the Godly virtues of
respect, warriorship and honour. Show it to me.
Well, I'll go one better. If you would publically condemn the cowardice of
terrorism, the cowardice of Osama and his minions, and the cowardice of
those who hijack airplanes - explode themselves among children, attack women
for dressing like women, and commit other such acts in the name of your
religion, and condemn the false religious leaders who support them, the
opinions of many Christian Warriors would change.
5). It is a sad day when truth and falsehood become one, and good men can no
longer recognize each others faces in the sea of corruption.
I agree there!
__________________
==========================
Pleasure to meet you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings Mr. X
I am very happy that we could discuss this directly and leave aside any and
all excess fluff. I am not interested in slandering you or sending you
honeyed words of friendship. I am speaking to you as one Warrior to another
and I am asking you to stop insinuating that our organization is affiliated
to terrorism. As professsional Instructors we can both keep our distaste for
each other quiet and have some simple form of respect.
"we are at war."
Yes we are Sir. We are at war with terrorism, criminality and ignorance. The
venomous ingredient that holds together everything that we both believe is
evil. America is fighting the war against the same people it trained and
equipped in the Al-Qaeda organization, not Islam, and surely not the
authentic Warrior Culture and Chivalry of our Prophet (pbuh). Your people
have been fighting for two years, the Muslim nation has been fighting these
extremists for two hundred. The same extremist sect (Saudi Arabian
Wahabites) that was supported and is still supported by the American govt
until this day and was helped into existence by the British Empire two
centuries ago. Please feel free to confirm what I say with an Encyclopedia
Britannica.
"There can be mercy, but no tolerance, friendliness, or equality. I'm
certain a study of your own religious hiostory will reveal that."
Even the worst of enemies must respect each other Mr.Suarez. Laying a foul
tongue on a man and slandering him is no correct way for any Warrior
regardless of the situation. Doing this to an entire group of people is far
from what any religion could call right. As for my religious history, any
high school level teacher can elucidate which was the more sanguinary, Islam
or Christianity.
"As I said, sir, we were attacked. This was not by Norwegian Presbyterians,
but by Muslim men, later praised by religious leaders, wielding knives.
Until this conflict is resolved, I would expect some suspicion and
catgorizing by Christian men of action."
America is no innocent nun Sir. You were attacked and so were we many times
before. Caution is warranted on both sides but disrespect is not.
"Well, I'll go one better. If you would publically condemn the cowardice of
terrorism, the cowardice of Osama and his minions, and the cowardice of
those who hijack airplanes - explode themselves among children, attack women
for dressing like women, and commit other such acts in the name of your
religion, and condemn the false religious leaders who support them, the
opinions of many Christian Warriors would change."
The entire website and focus of SMI is to promote the traditional Muslim
Warrior Culture and Chivalry. I have no time for the stupidity and false
teachings of ANY terrorist organizations or criminal enterprises whether
they be Muslim, Christian or anonymous. The idea of terrorism and murdering
non-combatants is non-existent in Islamic Military Code, never was and never
will be. The Prophet Muhamad (pbuh) himself witnessed the assasination of
his uncle and then later met the assassin who killed him as a prisoner of
War and pardoned him as the killing of POWs is forbidden in Islam. This man
later became a Muslim and repented for his sins. This Prophet (pbuh) gave
the last food on his table to the poor people as they were driven out of
Mecca together while he starved and ate nothing. This is the action of a
Muslim Warrior and the standard to which ALL of us aspire to.
Do not judge us all by the actions of a few craven cowards, a Warriors mind
is a profound one and should be used to see deeper than the superficial.
Sincerely,
Ustaz Hussein
===================================
Ustaz Hussein Udom,
Thank you for replying. Thank you also for condeming those who use your
religion to justify evil.
The problem as we see it is that there are very few Muslims who are willing
to do so. I agree that the "Muslim Terrorists" are but a small percentage of
all Muslims but it seems that the majority of Muslims are "sitting on their
hands" (if you understand my analogy) and not doing anything one way or the
other. That concerns us.
==============
Hello Gentleman,
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this further as that shows you are
interested in dialogue and understanding rather than just name calling.
Mr.S: I truly feel for your position and understand your anger at people
who "sat on their hands" while criminal terrorists defiled Islam in their
midst. Remember Sir that like the many Americans who shut up when big
brother tells them to, these people are weak minded private citizens. I am a
Fidai, a Muslim Warrior by blood and oath, and I don't silence easily for
anyone and neither do my brothers. What these criminals are doing, blowing
up kids, women, and other crimes are effective slaps in the face of Islam.
If and when we have the opportunity, it is only a matter of time, the TRUE
Fedayeen Warriors will gut these animals and reveal their intestines to the
light of wisdom. Their are too few Fedayeen in the world today who uphold
the old codes established by the Prophet Muhamad (pbuh), but what is left of
us is working tirelessly to correct the wrongs in our nation.
Mr ST: Please feel free to ask anything you wish to my friend. I am duty
bound and obligated on my honour to answer you as concisely and simply as I
possibly can.
Mr.M: I can see that you are impressed with the vast intelligence that
is your mind. But please refrain from speaking about Islam in a Muslim
bashing fashion unless you have the knowledge to back up your claims with
proof. As is clear and evident from your post, you have no knowledge of
historical facts from which to debate from and even lesser knowledge of
Islam. Please return to the discussion when you have something more
intelligent to offer than maledictions.
Thank you to Mr.Suarez , , , for letting me voice my opinions and
defend that which I believe in. God willing, this dialogue will prove to be
useful for all of us.
Ustaz Hussein
========================
suppose you are going to deny that the Quran says to either convert all the
infidels to Islam or kill them? You must read a different one than I've
seen.
----------=========
Hello Mr.M.
Please don't flatter yourself into believing that I need to lie and play
word games with you. I am not a terrified civillian Muslim afraid of the
"evil" Americans. I am a full blooded Fidai with a direct lineage of
Chivalry to the Prophet (pbuh) himself and I don't mix words for anyone. My
honour and reputation are at stake with my answers so feel free to verify
them as best you can.
Ustaz Hussein
=====================
Mr. Hussein,
To answer your points.
1). I am asking you to stop insinuating that our organization is affiliated
to terrorism. As professsional Instructors we can both keep our distaste for
each other quiet and have some simple form of respect.
I'm not insinuating anything at all. A brother found your site and was
concerned about it sufficiently to bring it to our attention. We've
discussed the issue and presented opinions about what we saw. There is no
insinuations, but rather perspectives based on our life experience.
2). Yes we are Sir. We are at war with terrorism, criminality and ignorance.
The venomous ingredient that holds together everything that we both believe
is evil. America is fighting the war against the same people it trained and
equipped in the Al-Qaeda organization, not Islam, and surely not the
authentic Warrior Culture and Chivalry of our Prophet (pbuh). Your people
have been fighting for two years, the Muslim nation has been fighting these
extremists for two hundred. The same extremist sect (Saudi Arabian
Wahabites) that was supported and is still supported by the American govt
until this day and was helped into existence by the British Empire two
centuries ago. Please feel free to confirm what I say with an Encyclopedia
Britannica.
I am well versed in world history (I majored in History in fact), especially
the alliances between the Saudis and the English and all that came from it
up to and including the conflict involving the state of Israel. I also am
aware of the political goings on between the leaders of the Arab nations and
their connections to terrorist groups (overt and covert). I have contacts in
many places.
Because we are Americans does not mean we agree with, nor even like our
government. But just like the family that hates each other uniting when
attacked by an outsider, we are now united. Where this goes only God knows.
3. Even the worst of enemies must respect each other Mr.Suarez. Laying a
foul tongue on a man and slandering him is no correct way for any Warrior
regardless of the situation. Doing this to an entire group of people is far
from what any religion could call right.
It is a common tactic in my country for the com-libs (communist liberals) to
argue a point by getting totally off topic. Because I am suspicious of you,
and suspicious of your activities does not mean I am "laying a foul tongue"
on you. In our present situation it is not only a correct way for a warrior
to act, but I would say if he acts otherwise he is a fool.
4). As for my religious history, any high school level teacher can elucidate
which was the more sanguinary, Islam or Christianity.
And I am not certain what that has to do with our discussion now? Christians
killed Muslims 1000 years ago. Muslims (or those claiminmg to be Muslims)
are still killing Christians today...in many countries....simply for
believing in Christ. I am not sure the death toll in American mosques is
anywhere near that of Christian churches in the Sudan today.
In context, - "In battle there can be mercy, but no tolerance, friendliness,
or equality. I'm certain a study of your own religious history will reveal
that." There is a time for war and a time for mercy. Knowing the right time
is the job of the wise man.
5). America is no innocent nun Sir. You were attacked and so were we many
times before. Caution is warranted on both sides but disrespect is not.
I do not know any innocent nuns. They will be in the same line as all of us
on judgement day. If you were attacked, then you have a right to be
suspicious of the nationalities and faiths of those who attacked you. I see
no problem there. But understand this, because I do not like you does not
mean I disrespect you.
6). The entire website and focus of SMI is to promote the traditional Muslim
Warrior Culture and Chivalry. I have no time for the stupidity and false
teachings of ANY terrorist organizations or criminal enterprises whether
they be Muslim, Christian or anonymous. The idea of terrorism and murdering
non-combatants is non-existent in Islamic Military Code, never was and never
will be. The Prophet Muhamad (pbuh) himself witnessed the assasination of
his uncle and then later met the assassin who killed him as a prisoner of
War and pardoned him as the killing of POWs is forbidden in Islam. This man
later became a Muslim and repented for his sins. This Prophet (pbuh) gave
the last food on his table to the poor people as they were driven out of
Mecca together while he starved and ate nothing. This is the action of a
Muslim Warrior and the standard to which ALL of us aspire to.
But yet your religious leaders praise, support and promote such activity.
And very few...if any actively go against such teachings. Could it be that
there is one standard for "believers" and another for "infidels" in some
circles??
Now I am not flattering myself here. Just so you understand. One brother
wrote "Islam tenets state that they will either convert everyone to Islam or
kill them". If this is true (and the versions of the Quran that I have read
contain it), please understand that no one here will see things your way.
Americans (which you must understand ARE NOT THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT) will
not turn from Christ and convert to your faith. Thus, if what I have read is
true, leaves you one choice.
We respect you in the way an adversary respects another, but understand that
we do not fear you....nor will we ever. You were upset about our opinions
about your organization. Yet in the current state of the world, I would not
expect anything to change. So where does that leave us? In the same place
where we began. We are not both right. Perhaps one day we will find out.
__________________
==========================
Ustaz Hussein,
Perhaps I can ask M's question a little differently.
What does the Quran (Koran?) say about how you should treat those of the
Christian and Jewish faith who live along side you?
==================
Ustaz Hussein welcome to our Forum.
I spent almost five years between Japan and Philippines while growing up as
a military brat. I enjoy studying history and military history especially.
From personal experience I've seen "Christians" (Very close geographically)
who did not act Christ like at all, who with tongues could rip a person
apart verbally as well as any AK-47 on full-auto. They themselves make a
VERY BAD impression of a Christian. I've been a Christian most of my life
and try to live according to the Bible. It's been no easy task when flak is
coming from all points of the compass.
Personally I'd love to learn both Silat and Krav Maga because they deal with
Martial Science not Art. That will have to be later though. Look at Mushai's
Five Rings.
This life is a journey and hope you'll see Christ as your Lord and Savior
but only you can make the choice yourself, not your wife, family members,
friends, or enemies. Each of us individually must make that choice and live
with it eternally.
I've tried to live peacably with all people until cause is shown by the
individual/s to part ways preferably peacefully alas it don't work that way
when said person wishs to enslave me or my family. I may not live by the
sword but I keep it close by.
What one butcher said puts it very well: "One person's death is a tragedy, a
million people dying is only a statistic." Stalin said it.
May you help those that are not Al Qaida, etc. I wish you well.
======================
I've checked out this website. I make these following points not in a
defense of Mr. Hussein, but rather as a definitive guide to the distinctions
between Sufi Muslims and Neo-Salafi Al-Qaeda bastards:
1. Silat is an important element in Indoensian society. Silat is martial art
that emphasizes the knife and manipulating your body's skeletal structure to
defeat opponents in unarmed combat. Each village has its own style of Silat
and the men of a village wear different colored sashes to represent their
village and style of Silat. Silat "jurus" or other dance forms are performed
at weddings, holidays and parties. Silat is a cultural expression, spiritual
expression as well as being a martial art.
Indonesia was converted to Islam by Sufi Muslims. Indonesian Silat
practitioners have synthesized Silat philosophy and movement with Sufi
concepts and Islamic religious expression.
Mr. Hussein, appears from his website, to be a Sufi or someone who supports
Sufism. Sufism and particularly the Sufism of the South Pacific and Silat
practitioners is a different expression of Islam. It bears no resemblance to
the neo-Salafi Islam of Al-Qaeda.
2. Al-Qaeda is a neo-Salafi based organization that rejects Sufism. Salafi
means something like "veneration of ancestors" or veneration of the first
three generations of Islam. Al-Qaeda rejects any form of Islamic religious
or philosophical expression that comes after the "Salafi" period of Islam.
The term "neo-Salafi" is a description of Salafi Muslims that support
violence as the quickest and ultimate way to achieve their goals. An
al-Qaeda manual stated, "These young men realized that an Islamic government
would never be established except by the bomb and rifle."
Most Sufis, reject violence as a way to bring about change. They concentrate
on the "spiritual renewal" of the people and government as a way to bring
about change. Their process of change is a slow one. Al-Qaeda is impatient.
They want change now, thus the emphasis on violence. Or many Sufis are just
concentrated on their own spiritualism and could care or less about changing
anything.
Al-Qaeda considers Sufis heretics because: (1) The Sufis orders began after
the "Salafi" period; (2) Sufism is mystical. Sufis are known to pray or pay
homage to Sufi "Saints" and nature. Al-Qaeda rejects any form of respect,
prayer or homage to images of men or nature. Many Muslims can be seen
praying at Sufi Saint Tombs. This is heretical according to different sects
of Islam; (3) Sufism is based on a secretive esoteric/exoteric religious
order. Sufi practitioners get "closer" to God or express their love for God
by twirling in dances (the infamous Whirling Dervishes), meditation,
chanting the same sounds over and over again, philosophical reflection and
if they are into Silat, Jurus or other forms.
The Sunni, neo-Salafi based Muslims reject these practices. For them the
only way to get closer to God is through the original Five Pillars of Islam,
mainly prayer and violent Jihad.
3. Greater versus Lesser Jihad: THE BIG DIFFERENCE
The biggest distinction between the Sufis and the neo-Salafi Al-Qaeda
bastards is this: The debate between the Greater versus Lesser Jihad. The
main Hadith (Words and Acts of the Prophet, Hadiths are the Second greatest
Islamic legal source next to the Quran) which makes a distinction between
the two jihads states the following:
"A group of Muslim soldiers came to the Holy Prophet [from a battle]. He
said: Welcome, you have come from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad. It
was said: What is the greater jihad? He said: The striving of a servant
against his low desires."
The greater jihad is associated with internal spiritual renewal through
submission to God and deep reflection on Quranic law. The lesser jihad
references the striving against external enemies of Islam. The lesser jihad
is sometimes called the "jihad of the sword" and is associated with war
against the enemies of Islam/unbelievers. The external Jihad becomes very
important in prosecuting wars against unbelievers who do not allow Muslims
to practice their religion.
The Sufi Orders of Islam always EMPHASIZE the GREATER JIHAD which is INWARD
SPIRITUAL RENEWAL. It is about conquering the slavishness and selfishness of
the lower self that tears men away from God and his law.
Al-Qaeda and its MINIONS EMPHASIZE THE LOWER JIHAD. THE EXTERNAL JIHAD
AGAINST THE UNBELIEVERS. Note the difference.
I believe that Mr. Hussein is a dedicated Sufi (or one who adheres to Sufi
Type concepts) and is completely the OPPOSITE of any Al-Qaeda bastard, given
this statement: (Note his distinction between Greater and Lesser Jihad.
Emphasis on Greater Jihad.)
"If you are a Muslim and follow the Muslim Warrior traditions, it is also an
indispensable part of your religious obligations. As Jihad or struggle
against the evils of the Nafs (lower self) become a daily thing, and
external actions against the purveyors of evil wishing to abuse the weaker
peoples of the world are thought of constantly. This understanding is in
sharp contrast to the loathsome modern terrorist interpretation of the word.
External Jihad in the classical understanding of the Muslim Warrior
tradition is confined to and directed against enemy combatants, never
civilians. The cowardly targeting of civilians by self propelled terror
groups like Al-Qaeda or state sponsored terrorism as is the norm for the
Israeli government, is the mark of glazed sociopaths, not real Warriors."
http://www.mubai.cc/articles/art67.htm
No one but a dedicated Sufi or Muslim who follows the idea that the Greater
Jihad is actually "greater" than the lesser Jihad would state this publicly.
Make no mistake, my friends, an Al-Qaeda tango asshole would kill a Sufi
Muslim just as he would an American. And kill a Sufi with more vengeance
because they are a "perversion" of Islam.
Yes, many of us disagree with his statement on Israel, Nevertheless he has
established himself in this statement as being directly against the ideology
of Al-Qaeda and those of the Neo-Salafi tradition.
Again, I am not defending Hussein, only pointing to the established and real
differences between these two factions of Islam. Hussein's website and
articles on Sufi Islam are in league with other articles and written beliefs
of Sufi Silat players I have come across.
4. The Intellectual Mentors of Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Why Al-Qaeda
sees the Lesser JIHAD as the GREATER JIHAD.
The intellectual mentors of Osama Bitch Laden, Hasan- Al Banna, Sayid Qutb
and Abudllah Azzam all denied the distinctions between lesser and greater
Jihad. For them, the external Jihad against the unbeliever is the ONLY
JIHAD.
Al-Qaeda is a splinter group of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim
Brotherhood or the Ikhwan was founded in the 1920s as a group that opposed
British colonialism.
Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Ikhwan, questioned the authenticity of the
Hadith about the Lesser and Greater Jihads. . Al-Banna stated, "The belief
is widespread among many Muslims that fighting the enemy is the lesser jihad
and that there is a greater jihad, the jihad of the spirit." He commented in
reference to the Hadith about the greater versus lesser Jihad, "This
narration is not really a sound Tradition..."
The concept of greater jihad versus lesser jihad is said to be found
directly in a number of Hadiths and inferred from some Quranic verses.
Muslims like Al-Banna have questioned the authenticity of the Hadiths that
make a distinction between greater and lesser jihad.
Al-Banna stressed the lesser jihad. He wrote that supreme martyrdom is
brought to theone who, "slays or is slain in the way of God." Al-Banna's
view of the lesser jihad as
actually being the greater jihad influenced the Ikhwan's later generations.
Al-Banna also called for war against Jews and Christians: He wrote, "there
is a clear indication of the obligation to fight the people of the Book, and
of the fact that God doubles the reward of these who fight them. Jihad is
not against polytheists alone, but against all who do not embrace Islam."
Sayid Qutb was a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood. His writings emphasize
revolution and infer that violence is quickest way to renew Islam. Sayid
Qutb denied that the lesser jihad was fought solely for defense of the
physical self or property. He argued that Muslims derived spiritual
'wealth' from engaging in a jihad against the jahiliyya or pagan world.
Jihad against the jahiliyya benefits a Muslim spiritually as it removes the
negative human institutions that prevented Muslims from practicing Islam or
non-Muslims from becoming Muslims.
Abdullah Azzam, another Muslim Brother and the real creator and intellectual
mentor of Al-Qaeda, called the Hadith about "Greater" versus "Lesser" Jihad
as inauthentic.
Al-Banna, Qutb and Azzam differed in some ways on the legal and spiritual
nature of Jihad. But they all concurred that the External Jihad against
enemies is the GREATEST JIHAD. Many followers of these freaks believe that
the lower self is conquered through the External Jihad or making war on the
enemies of Islam.
Bitch Laden was educated by Sayid Qutb's brother and studied under Azzam. He
also believes that the "Lesser" Jihad or waging war on the enemy of Islam is
the most important duty of Muslims. Another freak, Former Ikhwan member and
radical Egyptian Jihad leader Abdessalam Faraj declared that the sixth
pillar of Islam is jihad.
The Neo-Salafis hate Sufis. They disagree with them on the Lesser vs.
Greater Jihad.
=============
Hello all,
Back from work and relaxing, hope you are all doing well also.
"The Sufi Orders of Islam always EMPHASIZE the GREATER JIHAD which is INWARD
SPIRITUAL RENEWAL. It is about conquering the slavishness and selfishness of
the lower self that tears men away from God and his law."
Mr.Blade: Nice post Sir. One thing I would like to add is that the Sufi
orders didn't stress the greater Jihad, the Warrior Prophet (pbuh) did. We
just follow the orders he left for us. Tassawuf is not a "faction" of Islam,
it is just one of the traditional sciences within Islam. The Wahabi/Salafi
school is not a problem to Tasawuf but rather a problem to traditional
Islam, as it is entirely legalistic, lacks spirituality. Traditional Islam
is very spiritual and we see the root of problems with the self and not with
others, and we focus on fixing ourselves before fixing others. Some
Wahabi/Salafis are better than others, but it is hard to find one that will
denounce the kind of violent behaviour Al-Qaeda propels its followers
towards.
"Former Ikhwan member and radical Egyptian Jihad leader Abdessalam Faraj
declared that the sixth pillar of Islam is jihad."
In Classical Islamic thought Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam, Sayid Faraj
did not invent this. Jihad is the foundation of Islam, but in the Classical
thinking the Jihad is inner as well as outer. That is why it is the
foundation, because one struggles (Jihad) first with the self and then with
outer entities. Without knowing what is correct and what is not (inner
development and Jihad) it is impossible to ascertain who is a true enemy and
who is not. Sayid Faraj sadly chose to forget the total meaning of the word.
"The Neo-Salafis hate Sufis."
Some do and some don't, depends on who their teacher was. But most of them
do not agree with the science of Tasawuf for sure. Regardless, as long as
they are respectful they are always welcome with me and I with them as far
as my experience has been.
Mr.ColdWar: I can pull out all the violent aspects of Christian and Jewish
scripture and make it look like savage religions also. Islam is a religion
of balance between war and peace, and for every instance that there is a
passage mentioning war their will be a counter that will tell you to try and
seek peace in the conflict if it is in any way possible.
regards,
Ustaz Hussein
PS. If I see an Al-Qaeda "Tangos" I will be sure to take them out for you.
=================
Objective reading of Islamic "Just War" Codes resemble Western Just War
Codes. Islam condemns those who "transgress" to far in war. Many Islamic
Scholars condemn and argue against the killing of civilians. I am not
stating this because I "love" Islam or because I am defending it. Just the
facts.
People like Osama Bin Laden, do pervert, Islamic just war codes when they
call for civilians to be killed.
Rumor has it, that Abudullah Azzam was against "terrorist tactics" or the
targeting of civilians. Thats one the reasons why Bin Laden killed Azzam in
a car bomb.
Islam says to respect the people of the Book. But also points out places
where Muslims made war on the people of the book. Many Muslims practice a
thing called "abrogation." Abrogation is the idea that later Surrahs or
statements in the Koran contradict or surpass earlier statements.
So if there was an early statement saying, "Protect the people of the book,"
This earlier statement would be repealed or abrogated by a later statement
saying "make war on the unbelievers."
I believe Hasan al-Banna may have been using the concept of "abrogation"
when he said to make war on Christians and Jews.
Not all Muslims practice the concept of abrogation. I can conjecture that
these Muslims would be the ones who would respect the statements of Islam
that the, "people of the book," are supposed to be protected.
I have met many Muslims who have shown great respect for Christianity. I've
met some that dislike Jews and call them "prophet killers." Some disliked
Israel Jews while they like the local Jews that lived in their country.
People are truly people. When you break down the religious barrier, most
Muslims I've met are good people to hang around with. They have never
compelled me to their religion or said their religion is better than mine.
If you say, "You weren't hanging around real Muslims." I would beg to
differ. They were pretty damn pious about their religion and would as soon
put a shank in an Al-Qaeda bastard's eye socket as I would. They all told me
how sorry they were about the Trade Center. This does not include the
pompous ass Saudis I have come across. My bud just beat the crap out of a
Saudi military officer for mouthing off to him in a far away place. Good
going man.
Radical "National Liberation Theology" is the real connection, the real
enemy. Liberation Theology is Marxist Born and has found itself being
adopted by Christians and Muslims alike.
Liberation Theology is the bridge between our radical communist, Maoist and
Muslim enemies. It has infested Christianity, primarily the Catholic wing,
and Islam.
Pro-Liberation Theology-Christian
http://www.landreform.org/boff2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8420/liberation.html
Sandanistas and Catholic Priests on the Path of Liberation Theology
http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/mmartinjesuits.html
Palestinian Christians On the Path of Liberation Theology
http://www.sabeel.org/
Islamic Liberation Theology
http://www.iifhr.com/Global%20Fellow...ellowPaper.htm
Liberation Theology sounds pretty much the same form wherever it comes. Its
just respun through different religious matrixes. Liberation Theology hates
capitalism, the West and the best damn country that ever existed, the USA.
Liberation Theologians are not the pacifist types either. They are commie
revolutionaries or radical anti-capitalists that want to put a bullet in my
capitalist free market head.
I think this thread has probably got way off topic in a way: So here are
some other Sufi Silat sites for perusing. One of the
Sufis is a white boy.
Sufi Silat Fighting
http://www.umich.edu/%7Esilat/pencak...riamu da.html
http://www.umich.edu/%7Esilat/pencak...onharimau.html
White Boy Sufi
http://www.gerakansuci.com/curriculum/index.htm
===================
Hello guys,
"Islam says to respect the people of the Book."
Now here is an important point and I'm going to answer Mr.S's
question at the same time, "how does Islam view and teach people to treat
Jews and Christians".
Simple. Those Jews and Christians that live amongst us or anywhere
else and do not war against us are our neighbors and are to be respected. If
they war against us then they can be fought and killed like any other enemy.
But as usual in the Qur'an, when there is talk of war and killing the enemy
viciously, somewhere close by there will be a verse saying work towards
peaceful resolution of the conflict and do not transgress the limits set by
Allah, i.e. war againt people who have done no wrong. The instances of war
against the Jews in the Qur'an refer to a problem with a specific tribe that
either betrayed a friendship pact extented by the Prophet (pbuh) or allied
with the enemies of the Muslims. It does not mean war against Jewish people
in total. At the moment the only justifiable war against the Jewish people
would be in Israel. The Jews there are a foreign occupation force oppressing
the native Muslim Palestinians. Some might not agree with this because of
brainwashing againt the Palestinian people. But I assure you Warrior
Americans, if anyone invaded California you would war against them just as
the Muslims fight against the Jewish foreign invasion army which has settled
in their country and called themselves "Israeli" rather than Polish or
Russian.
In my last explanation to Mr.S I stated an account from history, I
will do so again briefly. Spain was under Muslim control for many centuries.
It was common practice for Muslim rulers to have Jewish and Christian
ministers, doctors, and advisers. This very common practice from the time of
the Ummayad rulers who came directly after the four righteous successors of
the Prophet (pbuh) died, helped to make the Muslim empire one of the
strongest in its time. The teachings of the Qur'an to respect the Jews and
the Christians, the people of the book, was for a moral reason as well as a
practical one. Many of the Arabs were Christians or Jews before Islam and
had family members who were Christian or Jewish still. Why kill your own
family and friends if they don't want to harm you? Also the practical reason
being these people were skilled at various things the Muslim nation needed,
you kill a doctor because he is Jewish? what happens when you need medical
knowledge? better to make him a friend and a teacher to service and further
the needs of the nation. See the idea here, moral reasons as well as
practical ones.
"Many Muslims practice a thing called "abrogation. Abrogation is the
idea that later Surrahs or statements in the Koran contradict or surpass
earlier statements."
Blade, only the most ignorant Muslims advocate this erroneous
practice, or those with an agenda i.e. making the wrong right. If people
start abrogating parts of the Qur'an they don't like then anything goes and
we can find ways to abrogate everything that doesn't support our personal
objectives. Alot of the extremist types engage in this practice to further
their aims, but again in classical Islamic thinking abrogating is ludicrous.
Take Care Guys,
Ustaz Hussein
PS. For those of you who are thinking terrorism in relation to the
Muslims in Palestine, think again. The same rules of conduct for Muslim
Soldiers apply to them, and if anyone of them intentionally targets
civilians that person is outside the correct teachings of warfare in Islam.
=============
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ustaz
You wrote: "At the moment the only justifiable war against the Jewish
people would be in Israel. The Jews there are a foreign occupation force
oppressing the native Muslim Palestinians. Some might not agree with this
because of brainwashing againt the Palestinian people. But I assure you
Warrior Americans, if anyone invaded California you would war against them
just as the Muslims fight against the Jewish foreign invasion army which has
settled in their country and called themselves "Israeli" rather than Polish
or Russian."
And you see that is always going to be last kernel of corn in the pot
after all else is said. In the Bible God says, "I will bless those who bless
you and I will curse those who curse you". America is a Christian nation (as
hard as it is to believe at times), and we believe God. Thus we will always
side with Israel. I suspect that until Christ returns, we will be in
conflict with you over this issue in one form or another.
You mentioned to my friend Mark about Spain. I've been there many
times. I've visitied the Alhambra and other very impressive sites. Our tour
guide, a member of the elite Spanish Legion said as we were touring the
Alhambra, "The Moors who built this wonder cannot be same people who blow
themselves up in schools". I agree with him on this.
He has also told me of Spanish women walking in the streets of their
own land being attacked by Algerian muslims because they are not dressed
like Muslim women should be. One of our friends once sent several of these
men to the emergency room because they disrespected his wife. Are those the
same sort of men who built the Alhambra? I don't think so. Something has
changed.
Ustaz, listen to me. We will never agree on who God really is, nor on
the issue of Israel. But I suppose we can agree on this. Men of action and
honor are the same all over the world.
If men calling themselves Christians were running around blowing
themselves up and carrying on like the madmen we see today allegedly
claiming to be from your faith, we real Christians would spank them
violently and hard...perhaps permanently...for the sake of the faith and for
the sake of those poor ones that they would mislead.
So you have articulated that there is a difference between the real
Islam and the Islam of the Osama Bin Ladins and others like him. You,
perhaps more than us, then have a sacred duty to take back what is yours and
stop men such as these.
__________________
Hello Gentleman,
"The Moors who built this wonder cannot be same people who blow
themselves up in schools". I agree with him on this.
Mr SS: You are so right in this Sir. Somewhere along the
line in history their was a change of focus and a slow rotting process in
the Muslim world. Now the same Muslims who once fought to preserve the
integrity of Christians and Jewish neighbors are attacking them and
brutalizing them.The quality of Islam in the last three hundred years has
definitely gone down. There was a gentleman who said we shouldn't waste too
much time in history. I don't agree with this, without the historical
perspective clear we can never know what is truly correct and what is not.
No matter, it is clear that Muslim people have to concern themselves with
their own affairs first and not spende time blaming others. Essentially this
is the internal Jihad we were discussing earlier in the thread with
Mr.Blade. The internal Jihad is the essence of what Islam was and should be,
but it has been hijacked and replaced with furious mini maniacs determined
to destroy the correct way.
" We will never agree on who God really is, nor on the issue of
Israel. But I suppose we can agree on this. Men of action and honor are the
same all over the world."
Totally true. Men of action and honour are one and the same. We
just have to work together to kill the "tangos" amongst us. I love that
word.
"You, perhaps more than us, then have a sacred duty to take back
what is yours and stop men such as these."
That is essentially the mission of our organization. To re-teach
the Muslim people about their true Warrior Culture ad not the false
terrorist one. As well as to teach non-Muslims about our arts and Chivalry.
We have helped so many young Muslim who wanted to join extremist groups to
understand the Classical Warrior thinking and see the difference between
Al-Qaeda type operations and real Fedayeen. Beieve me brother the extremist
groups hate us much more than you hate them, we steal their human resources.
The more the people start to meet the real Fedayeen of Islam the more
dedicated they are to the destruction of these groups and we give them the
physical and mental tools to get the job done.
That is why our Silat seems to violent, because we intend to use
it against extremely violent people. The young men and women who join our
organization feel that we have the ability to lead them properly. The
command structure in the Muslim world has broken down, now there ar so many
countries. Before there was one ruler and everyone obeys, extremists were
hunted down and publicly executed by government Fedayeen. This doesn't exist
anymore and we work from what we have at hand. The terrorist groups have
vast wealth and influence, so they can brainwash entire groups of people
effectively.
"Why should the Jews and Muslims fight over the land they were
promised? Why can they not live in peace? I would be willing to bet that
Israel would gladly make peace with the Palestinians and share the land with
them."
Mr.Steve: The Muslims always lived together peacefully with the
Jewish people. when they turned out from all corners of the world, thery
sought refuge with us more times than not. No ghettos, mass murder or
bondage. They did quite well in Muslim countries, Morrocco has one of the
best examples of old Jewish communities thriving in Muslim countries. The
problem is not the Jewish people wanting to return to Israel, the problem is
more on how they are effecting that return. Subjugating and occupying
Palestinian forcefully and killing any and all opponents is kind of hard to
take. I don't know of any Muslim I have met who has a problem with Jews in
Palestine, Arab Jews and their families were always there. The problem is
the occupation of the Muslim people is the price to create the state of
Israel.
Also, please be careful of labeling Hamas a "terrorist" group.
Some devoted Fedayeen among Hamas will never engage in civilian attacks, but
they will blow up a bus full of Israeli Soldiers. Valid target. Those
extremists among them who target civilians should be dragged into the public
Souk (market) and decapitated with a most glorious stroke. Resistance
against occupation is not terrorism, and retaliation from the Israeli govt
against Hamas is not terrorism either, they are justified to fight. But
throwing women and children in the street and bulldozing their house,
killing their sons and torturing their fathers is as evil an act as a
Palestinian opening random fire on a group of Isaelis in Tel Aviv.
Evil is evil, and it stinks. Regardless of which dirty hole it
gets pushed out of.
Take Care,
Ustaz Hussein
======================
Well, several anwsers to questions since I asked mine ,and still
no responce,
Yours and Blabe Docs explanations on the form of Islam
followed,was very thoughtfully put forth. Although i tend to disagree with
Docs thought output about the corruption of Mother Church,but heck I was for
a while a Jesuit ,
But lets get back to my question , Mr.U you have said and posted
now several times that the non military civilians are not to be harmed ,as
long as them harm you not.
So explain your lesson 37,on your site where it talks about
useing civilians as human shields, to escape or evade a fight.
Because as far as I was taught there is a vast difference
between what Doc posted he was about to do, compared to what I see in your
posted lesson 37.
And your last comment, Lets not call HAMAS a terriroist
group,because just a couple are supposed to be true warriors, says more then
you'll ever know
============
Hello Mr.J,
"So explain your lesson 37,on your site where it talks about
useing civilians as human shields, to escape or evade a fight."
Sir I don't know where you are getting this from. There is no
place on the SMI website or the RCAG Online website that states using
"civilians" as human shields. I routinely teach using enemy hostiles as
human shields and making them "travel friends". Could this statement be
where the confusion is coming from? I am most definitely talking about enemy
hostiles in multiple assailant engagements, not civilians.
"And your last comment, Lets not call HAMAS a terriroist
group,because just a couple are supposed to be true warriors, says more then
you'll ever know."
Sir, Hamas like the Israeli govt has many wings. Military,
political, civilian oriented and others. Within the Israeli govt, like
Hamas, there are factions that are opposing each other. Some extremists on
both sides would love to lash out every minute and kill as many civilians as
they could, other factions do not want this. Isn't that simple to
understand? Hamas at the foundation is a resistance movement and some people
within Hamas support targeting civilians and some don't. Those who do are
wrong, those who don't are justified in fighting the resistance against a
foreign occupying power.
Hamas just like the Israeli govt is both good and bad, so if you
want to call Hamas a terrorist group then you can just as well call the
Israeli govt terrorists. Extremists on both sides are the problem and are
using terrorist tactics, not the legitimate Warriors fighting each other. No
decent Soldier will kill civilians whether he is Muslim or Jewish.
Regards,
Ustaz Hussein
=====================
Originally Posted by Ustaz Hussein
That is essentially the mission of our organization. To
re-teach the Muslim people about their true Warrior Culture ad not the false
terrorist one. As well as to teach non-Muslims about our arts and Chivalry.
The problem is not the Jewish people wanting to return to
Israel, the problem is more on how they are effecting that return.
Subjugating and occupying Palestinian forcefully and killing any and all
opponents is kind of hard to take. I don't know of any Muslim I have met who
has a problem with Jews in Palestine, Arab Jews and their families were
always there. The problem is the occupation of the Muslim people is the
price to create the state of Israel.
I must say that seeing someone discuss the Muslim faith and
Chivary in the same sentence is interesting and refreshing.
The question I wished to ask you about Israel is this. What is
the alternative for them?
The UN created Israel by mandate in 1948 (though by what "right"
the UN has to "mandate" anything is certainly open to question). But like it
or not Israel is there to stay.
They were faced by attackers from within and outside their
borders from their moment of inception by groups that threatened to push
them into the sea.
So what are they to do? Negociate? While it might be possible
with some of the surrounding countries those that control the Arab lands in
Palastine are not interested in negociating anything that does not call for
the destruction of Israel.
I am sure that there are those that would be willing to come to
some sort of agreement with Israel but they are in the minority and must be
careful about speaking up or they themselves might be targeted.
So I guess I am asking what is Israel to do?
==============
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Mr.S,
Nice to hear from you again Sir.
"I must say that seeing someone discuss the Muslim faith and
Chivary in the same sentence is interesting and refreshing."
True Islam as taught by the Prophet (pbuh) is nothing but the
road of Chivaly (Futawa). The problem is the Wahabi group. I will stop
calling them Salafis because the Salaf are the people who lived the first
200 years after the Prophet, not now. The Wahabis have infiltrated the minds
of ignorant Muslims and infused them with an Islam that is legalistic,
non-spiritual and totally devoid of the Chivalrous characteristics the
Prophet (pbuh) taught from the Qur'an. Mr.Suarez was dead on when he said
that something changed from the time of the Muslim Empire in Spain.
Traditional Islam got hijacked by these heretical cults and supported by not
very decent outside influences wishing to sow discord in our nation. I will
state again that I believe 90% of the problems within the Muslim Nation are
our own doing, but the Wahabi issue is a direct result of western
interference. Now we are all paying the price in blood and tears.
"The question I wished to ask you about Israel is this. What is
the alternative for them?"
Israel is a strong country, they do not need to negotiate for
anything with anyone except for their own conscience and soul. We don't need
to play word games and silly politics when people are dying around us. The
Israelis know very well that the land they inhabit is the land the
Palestinian people were living on before and have a right to live on now. If
they control the land and call it Israel and Palestinians control their land
and call it Palestine, that is the best negotiation. We have lived with the
Jewish people for centuries before anyone ever heard of Tel Aviv or the UN
Mandate, they are not new to us or us to them. The most important thing to
do is stop the occupation of Palestine, routine and brutal subjugation and
murder, and give the Palestinians a reason to live and a reason to make
peace.
The Israeli Military has the highest suicide rate among
Militaries in all the world, this is not because Soldiers are having a bad
day with the wife. It is because they don't even know what they are fighting
for anymore. Their "protection" of Israel has turned into a full blown
occupation and subjugation of millions of people. The Soldiers are being
forced to take part in something they know is wrong. I have met so many
Israeli Soldiers, Special Ops and Regular Soldiers. Until now I have yet to
meet one who doesn't just wish the whole nightmare could end and the two
groups could live together in a safe environment. They are tough men and
will fight to the death for their country, but most of them hate the
occupation as much as we do.
So in conlusion, what I think they can do is seriously try to
negotiate and create a Palestinian state, with the Al-Aqsa Mosque, that will
live side by side with the Jewish people peacefully as we did for a
millenium and then some.
I hope this clarifies my position a bit.
Sincerely,
Ustaz Hussein
=====================
I've got some long posts on Al-Qaeda. I thought about starting
another thread in the Roundtable. But thought the posts continue with the
flow of this thread on explaining the differences of Islam and Islamic
interpretation of Jihad. I am going to break them up for easier reading.
------------------------------------------------------------
My analysis of Al-Qaeda is that it is a product of three strains
of thought: 1. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Violent Splinter Groups;
(2) Wahhabism and (3) Liberation Theology.
1. Hasan al-Banna -Founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood or
Ikwhan (Created in 1920s)
Read Here:
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/hasan_al.htm
Al-Banna is a complex figure. Al-Banna was a political visionary
that launched the first successful mass based political-social Muslim
organization of the 20th Century. Al-Banna came from a Sufi Order in Egypt
(There is debate about his Sufi roots, but that is another topic for
academic study). Whatever his traditional roots are, he was the one of the
main Islamic thinkers of the modern time to strip away the meaning of the
Greater Jihad and emphasize External Jihad. So if he was a Sufi, he turned
on one Sufism's or traditional Islam's main tenets.
Al-Banna was an Islamic revivalist social reformer, a
humanitarian and anti-Western. He blamed Western educational institutions
and schools in the Islamic world for corrupting Islam. Al-Banna saw Islam as
a complete way of life. He formed the Brotherhood's structure so that it
would also permeate life in every aspect. Al-Banna cre
-
FWIW, I have just found an answer to one of the questions I asked Sitbatan on Usatz Hussein Odom's site:
QUOTE
--(Why should I) pay a tax for my right to be different?
You are referring to the Jizya... I took this little article from the forum of mubai.cc and it was taken from the islamonline website...
I recently had a discussion with a non-Muslim friend about the jizyah (ransom) that non-Muslims have to pay in Islamic states. Is it discriminatory? Why do non-Muslims have to pay such a tax? Who has to pay it and how is it calculated? Thank you.
Thank you for your question.
Before addressing this question, we need to differentiate between actions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that were carried out based on some specific (in this case, political) situation, and other actions that are considered as essential part of the divine message of Islam, without which the message would be deviated.
There is a verse in the Qur'an that mentioned this tax, jizyah. The verse says what means:
*{Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizyah (tribute, tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.}* (Al-Tawbah 9:29)
The verse has a historical context, however, which is a certain battle at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and this tax was indeed taken from the defeated people after the battle. However, it is important to ask two questions here:
What is the wisdom behind that tax, which was the reason behind legislating it?
Does this verse and its related story make that kind of tax part of the Islamic law? In other words, is this tax an Islamic obligation?
The wisdom behind the tax/jizyah paid by non-Muslims to the Islamic state was fairness. This is for two reasons:
First, Muslims were paying zakah (the annual charity) to the Islamic state, which was used for all sorts of services and social welfare. Zakah is an Islamic act of worship, but it is only for Muslims. It was fair to make non-Muslim citizens of the same state pay a similar (in fact, smaller) amount as a tax, since zakah is not taken from them as it is taken from Muslims. Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway.
In addition to that, this tax was paid in exchange of protection of these non-Muslim communities (i.e., military protection) and exemption of their men from joining the Islamic army. At that time, this was a necessary and fair measure given all the wars that the Islamic state was going through based on religious divides. It was not fair to ask these non-Muslim citizens to fight with Muslims against fellow believers of their same religion.
Then, do all the above make jizyah an eternal Islamic obligation, exactly like zakat? The answer is no! We need not to confuse between Islam as a civilization and Islam as a religion, to make a general point.
The interpretation of such verses that dealt with certain historical contexts should take into account that historical context, based on which scholars decide whether that context should or should not be extended to our context now. Given that this ruling was in particular political circumstances, it actually served a pure practical purpose. And if these circumstances and purpose no longer exist, then the ruling ceases to exist, too.
I have to stress that this applies to the area of politics and similar areas of policies, if you wish, and not the areas of `ibadat (acts of worship) and tashri` (legislation), which are eternally universal and abiding. In these areas of policies, the tradition of the Prophet (peace be upon him) teaches us higher values like fairness, justice, and compassion, rather than specific measures and procedures such as taxes, organization of the government or the army, or the division of provinces and states.
The historical context of the verse made it extendable to other similar situations throughout the Islamic history. Thus, similar taxes were taken from non-Muslims during the caliphates that followed the prophetic era. However, the concept of citizenship has developed in our current political culture to include people from all religions and it is no longer purely based on religion. Therefore, scholars no longer apply the rule of jizyah or exempt non-Muslims from serving their countries? armies. The context now is different and therefore, the ruling differs and jizyah no longer applies.
If one calls for applying this ruling of jizyah nowadays, then one would miss the point and purpose behind the ruling, for which it was originally made, which is fairness!
The Khilafah (Caliphate) will most probably uphold the jizya... If a non-muslim refuses to pay it or to live under the protection of the Khilafah, it is up to him/her/them... They are free to leave the safety of the Khilafah WITHOUT harm...
============
This almost sounds reasonable. Then one runs across this , , ,
============
Why the Jews Were Cursed
by Muhammad Alshareef
Rasul All?h?s wife, Umm Al-Mu?mineen Safiyyah bint Huyayy - radiallaahu 'anha - was the daughter of one of the Jewish leaders of Madinah. After her Isl?m, she informed the Prophet - sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - when she had first felt the rays of Isl?m enter her blessed heart.
It was the day that Anas - radiallaahu 'anhu - describes as the most radiant day to every come upon al-Madinah - the day Rasul All?h - sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - entered it. All the Ansar men, women and children gathered to greet him, cheers of praise to All?h filled the air.
Amongst the gathering were 2 men; as much as the Ansar and Muhaajireen revered the Prophet, they despised him. It was the father of Safiyyah - radiallaahu 'anha - and her uncle.
She was only a youngster as she looked into the darkness and gloom that had enveloped their faces when they returned home that day. Her Jewish uncle 1400 years ago asked, ?Is it him? Is it the Prophet that our scriptures speak of?? Huyayy lowered his head and said, ?Yes. It is him.? ?Then what shall we do?? Safiyyah?s uncle continued. Huyayy looked into his eyes, ?Till the final day we shall be his bitterest enemies!?
From the very first raka?ah of Taraweeh we read the verse in the opening S?rah: [Guide us to the straight path - The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked (Your) anger! ...]
Adiyy ibn Hatim asked Rasul All?h - sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - who it was that evoked All?h?s anger? He said, ?It was the Jews.? - Tafseer Ibn Katheer
When I was in high school, studying in journalism class, our teacher had placed on the wall a statement that I spent many days contemplating. It simply said, ?Freedom of the press (speech) belongs to those that own the press!? Who owns the press? Well, you can believe me when I say that it is not the god fearing beloved of All?h.
It is this same press that molds and programs the aqeedah of a huge section of our Ummah. Many of our brothers and sisters are illiterate to the words of All?h and the guidance of Rasul All?h - sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, so it is with little doubt that their ideas are subconsciously molded by what Seinfeld tells them at 8 pm every Wednesday evening.
It is this same brother or sister that asks the question, ?I don?t understand why the Jews were cursed. Seinfeld is funny. What did he do??
This khutbah is our media and insha? All?h we shall learn in these few moments only samples of what carried the Jews to evoke All?h?s anger.
In the opening verses of Surat Al-Baqarah, All?h invites the Children of Isra?eel to come back - to remember the favor and blessing He bestowed upon them - and to fulfill the promise that they would follow the Prophet when he was sent to them.
[O Children of Israel, remember My favor that I bestowed upon you and fulfill My covenant upon you that I will fulfill your convenant (from Me) and fear only Me.] - S?rah al-Baqarah 2/40
All?h saved them of their slavery to Fir?own, he saved them from sea and drowned Fir?own and his army. All?h selected them to receive food from the sky. All?h sent them Prophet after Prophet from amongst themselves, and sent the Holy scriptures - the Towrah and the Injeel. All?h preferred them over all others at their time.
[...And that I preferred you over the worlds (i.e. people).] - S?rah al-Baqarah 2/47
How did they reply these Blessings of All?h?
(i) They Followed Only What They Wanted to
When a Prophet came to them, if what he taught did not appeal to them they either rejected that truth or slit the throat of the Prophet and followed what was to them appealing.
[We had already taken the covenant of the Children of Israel and had sent to them messengers. Whenever there came to them a messenger with what their souls did not desire, a groups (of the Messengers) they denied and another party they killed.] - al-Maa?idah 5/70
And we must remember here that this is not the commentary of some human journalist who claims to be neutral. This is the Lord of the Universe telling us - in verses to be read till the final day - the deepest secrets that lie in the pits of Judaism. [And who is more truthful than All?h in statement!] - al Nisaa? 4/87
(ii) They Changed the Words of All?h
There was groups of Jews that would change the words of All?h - adding something here, deleting there - to pound the truth and keep the flock in servitude to what they desired.
[And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, ?This is from All?h,? but it is not from All?h. And they speak untruth about All?h while they know.] Ali-Imran 3/78
(iii) Their claim that they are the beloved children of God
Ibn Abbas narrates: Nu?maan ibn Aasaa, Bahr ibn ?Amr and Shaas ibn Adee (3 Jews) came to All?h?s Messenger - sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam. He sat with them and invited them to All?h and warned them of All?h?s anger. They replied, ?Why are you trying to scare us O Muhammad? By God, we are the children of God and His beloved ones!? At that the verse was revealed:
[And the Jews and the Christians say, ?We are the Children of All?h and His beloved.? Say: ?Then why does He punish you for your sins?? Rather, you are humans from among (all the others) that He created.] Al-Maa?idah 5/18 ~ Ibn Katheer 2/36
(iv) Their Blasphemous Statements
There came upon the Jews a time of poverty, so they went to Shaas ibn Qays and questioned him. He said, ?Your Lord is stingy, he never provides.? All?h revealed in the Qur'?n:
[And the Jews say, ?The hand of All?h is chained.? Chained are their hands and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills.] Al-Maa?idah 5/64
(v) Their Murdering of the Prophets
One of the most horrific sins that they performed was the slaughtering of their Prophets. This was one of the major reasons they were struck with humiliation.
[And they were covered with humiliation and poverty and returned with anger from All?h (upon them). That was because they (repeatedly) disbelieved in the signs of All?h and killed the Prophets without right. That was because they disobeyed and were (habitually) transgressing.] - Baqarah 2/61
Not only did they try to kill their Prophets, but they attempted to assassinate Rasul All?h - sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - himself. RasulAllah went with some companions to meet with the Jews of Banu Nadheer. While he waited for them at the side of a building, they climed the roof with a boulder to crush down upon the head of Rasul All?h. Jibreel warned Rasul All?h - sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - of their plan. He stood up without saying anything, left for Madinah, and came back with an army. This was the cause of Banu Nadheer?s expulsion from Madinah - Mukhtasar Seerat Ibn Hisham 159
And the list goes on - They did not command the good or forbid the evil, they did not accept the ruling of what All?h revealed upon them, they disbelieved their book, they received food from the heavens but rejected it, they challenged their Prophet to show them All?h in this life, they took Angel Jibreel as their sworn enemy, they took the graves of their Prophets as symbols of worship ... and the list goes on and on in the Qur'?n and Sunnah.
Part II
There are some verses in the Qur'?n that spoke about those that do not judge by what All?h has decreed is a transgressor. Some students of Ibn Abbas - radiallaahu 'anhu - asked him, ?Were these not revealed for the Jews and Christians?? He said, ?Subhan All?h! Are all the glad tidings in the Qur'?n for us and all the admonitions for them? If our we do what they did, our end will be their end.? Rasul All?h - sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - said, ?"You will follow the wrong ways, of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of a lizard, you too will go there." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?" He replied, "Whom else?" - Bukhari
The Qur'?n tells us of snakes in the grass that bit the Jews. All?h tells us this so that we may take warning of what led them to evoke All?h?s anger and not be bitten by the same snake.
Let us take an example from the following verse:
[And there followed them successors who inherited the scripture (while) taking the stock of this lower life (i.e. Haram gains and whims), saying (regardless), ?We will be forgiven.?] - A?raaf 7/169
So many Muslims take this Qur'?n as something inherited, the real power of All?h?s word?s has not penetrated the hearts. How many of our young Muslim youth understand the language of Cobolt and A++, spending years to understand, but do not comprehend a single sentence in the Quran?
Have we desisted from the Riba that All?h made Haram upon us? In the years of 1973 to 1976, when the Muslims went out to challenge Israel, the entertainment armies were summoned. Female singers were brought, belly dancers hired, and soap operas dedicated to the encouragement of our fighting Muslims. The songs were drenched in nationalism and Arab pride.
In conclusion, a fundamental part of our Deen is Al-Wala? and Al-Bara? (wala? - love and loyalty / Bara? hatred and disownment). It would be profitable for us to reflect on the implementation of our Wala? and Bara? in regards to the Jews:
Firstly: We should not take them as our close allies.
All?h commands us in the Qur'?n: [O you who have belied, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed All?h does not guide the wrongdoing people.] - Ma?idah 5/51
Secondly: We should not Imitate them
The forbiddance of imitating the Jews and the Christians applies to those things that have become icons of their customs and falsehood. So for example, if someone wore a white collar on his neck, everyone would assume he was Christian. This is because the white collar has become a symbol of theirs.
The ruling is more general than just clothes. Rasul All?h - sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - said: [Act differently then the Jews.] - Saheeh Abu Dawood
Thirdly: A Muslimah may never marry a Jewish or Christian man that remains in his beliefs.
All?h declares in the Qur'?n: [They are not (i.e. the Muslim women) lawful wives for them, nor are they lawful (husbands) for them.] - Mumtahinah 60/10
Is all this a death sentence on the Jews? Nay, All?h?s infinite Mercy has left the gate open for ANYONE who wishes to come back to him.
[And if only the People of the Scripture had believed and feared All?h, We would have removed from them their misdeeds and admitted them to joyful Gardens] - Ma?idah 5/65
O All?h guide us to the straight path - the path of those who You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked (Your) anger, nor of those that went astray. Ameen.
Muhammad AlShareef
Student of Knowledge
(Graduate of Muhammad Bin Saud University, Madinah SA, in Isl?mic Law)
Currently teaches at Al-Huda School in College Park, Maryland
Retrieved from http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/jihaad/0006.htm
-
Sitbatan, I have a question for you.... Abraham had a son with the handmaid of Sarah (Hagar). The son was Ishmael.
Abraham was a Jew, Hagar was an Egyptian.
How do you feel about Ishmael being half Jew?
TG
Hi TG,
Peace! From my knowledge the word Jew describes those descendents of the tribe of Judah...ie Jewish. In the Prophet family tree, Judah, the son of Prophet Jacob (peace be upon him), was the Great, Great Grandson of Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him); so therefore Prophet Abraham couldn't be a Jew, nor could any of his sons (being Judah's Great Grandfathers).
Here is my reference...peace. http://www.isnacanada.com/prophets/
-
greetings all,
i've been monitoring this thread with interest and have finally decided to contribute.
This controversy, as i understand it, originated with the Dog Brothers and associates using the image of a person dressed in Arab dress for target practice.
Arab style dress is becoming more and more popular here in Indonesia, I believe it's because some people assume that because Islam comes from that part of the world, that they must become like Arabs culturally to feel like complete moslems.
Islamophobia: Who is to blame for bad image?
Mohammad Yazid, Jakarta
To create the impression of being a Muslim, an older man driving a Toyota Kijang puts his prayer rug on the dashboard and hangs a string of prayer beads inside the windshield. The long-bearded man already wears a cap and Arab-style shirt, but he seems to lack the feeling of being a "true" Muslim. So he puts the words "Muslim car" on the rear window.
The question arises: Is this a Muslim car? Of course, the answer is no, because Indonesia's favorite Toyota Kijang is a product of Japan, which obviously is not a Muslim country. His behavior provokes comment. Some say, "He's trying to be a good Muslim but he looks strange." Others maintain, "He's free to do what he wants as long as he doesn't bother anyone."
Actually, the man does not mean to create an odd impression, but he is confusing Arabic culture with Islamic teachings. Thus the long beard and Arabic shirt, which create a strange and misleading image for some in the Muslim community. He is trapped in symbolic language and cannot distinguish between making himself Arabic and developing his own Islamic qualities rooted in Indonesian culture. He thinks he follows the Prophet's words, while some opponents of Prophet Muhammad, such as Abu Lahab, also had a long beard.
Various opinions regarding Islam in Indonesia have emerged in line with the diverse views of Islamic groups. The Islamic image is certainly inseparable from influential Muslim figures such as Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, who has been branded a radical, Habib Rizieq with his Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), Abdurrahman Wahid with his Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) base, and Amien Rais with Muhammadiyah. The other models are reflected in such parties as the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), the Crescent Star Party (PBB) and the United Development Party (PPP).
Even many long-standing Muslims become confused by this complex array of choices, let alone those who have just become acquainted with Islam. There are also groups that actively spread their beliefs but often spark conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims as they mix group interests with personal stakes.
The different standpoints of these groups are legitimate. They become a problem when the groups bind themselves rigidly to their beliefs. This attitude eventually makes them exclusive and intolerant. They become closed to other truths that can be found in other parts of the world or in non-Muslim communities. This narrowness contradicts the abundant universal values of Islam.
They ensnare themselves in self-justification by choosing Koran verses that support their point of view. In high spirits they claim to be defenders of Islam while they are actually destroying the image of Islam. The rest of the Muslim world, let alone non-Muslims, are angered by their anarchistic acts, such as suicide attacks under some misinterpreted notion of jihad or holy war.
"We are enjoying a communal victory, but we experience a doctrinal failure," the late Muslim intellectual Nurcholis Madjid is quoted by Sukidi in the book Teologi Inklusif Cak Nur (Nurcholis's Inclusive Theology). According to him, we succeed and win in communal terms but we lose in doctrinal terms. Some of religion's great ideals are not turned into reality.
Several world incidents linked with Islam have occurred, such as the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings, the 2004 blast in Kuningan, South Jakarta, and several church bombings at Christmastime, all claiming numerous lives. Naturally the cumulative effect of these occurrences is to create a bad image of Muslims among non-Muslims.
Muslims will find it wiser to respond to this negative impression by looking within themselves. Islam's peace-loving stance should come to the fore, rather than the urge to defend these attacks with long explanations.
An honest attitude will offset all these misunderstandings. There is no need to be ashamed of acknowledging that amid the waves of globalization, Muslims have fallen far behind in promoting the modern ethical values long practiced by non-Muslims. These values include democracy and the ethos of diligence and discipline, all of which improve human existence.
The time has come for the Muslim community in Indonesia to reflect on the fact that as the majority of the population they actually have no role to play in politics. On the contrary, they have become "easy prey" for a number of political parties in every general election.
The bad image of Muslims is understandable, but it can be avoided if they show tolerance on the basis of strong fraternity. Non-Muslims should be aware that they are not the only victims of terror; Muslims themselves are its victims too. All elements need to acknowledge Indonesia's pluralist society and declare "war" on terror and anarchy.
Non-Muslims would also be wise to avoid being trapped by the kind of unreasonable fear associated with ghosts and haunted places. If they fail to face this challenge, the words of Nur Hidayat Wahid, Speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly, will prove true: that Islam-phobia is now emerging, under the exact meaning of the word "phobia" in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: "inexplicable and illogical fear".
The writer is a staff member on The Jakarta Post's Opinion Desk. He can be reached at yazid@thejakartapost.com.
Arabs are apparently idolized by Non-Arab moslems not for their individual or collective accomplishments, but simply for their heredity. Recently, the Vice President of Indonesia was questioned about promoting widowed and divorced women to potential tourists from the middle east (for the purpose of 'legal prostitution' through the use of temporary marriage contracts which are halal). He remarked that any resulting children would be beneficial: "The children resulting from these relationships will have good genes. There will be more television actors and actresses from these pretty boys and girls"
Examining state identity, Islam and social justice
Juwono Sudarsono, Jakarta
In recent weeks some Islamist groups had alarmed minority and non-Islamic communities with their fervent call for adherence to a stricter Islamic code of social, economic and political conduct by pushing for an all-encompassing official ban on "amoral and lewd" behavior, giving rise to fears among non-Muslims communities that they may be subjected to legal norms contravening their respective personal and public code of conduct.
Several regional governments have issued edicts applying sharia for public behavior. The Home Ministry is reviewing some of these edicts, which may directly contravene basic provisions of the Indonesian Constitution of 1945.
The Declaration on Indonesian-ness which was read in front of President Yudhoyono and Cabinet ministers on the June 1, 2006, drew reactions from a member of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), who derided the petitioners of 'Indonesian-ness' as being "overly fearful of Islam" and of propounding "outright secular-nationalism."
The fact of the matter is that on June 1, 1945, Sukarno affirmed that Indonesia's state identity would not be overly secular (as in India), nor would it be strictly theocratic (as in Saudi Arabia). Sukarno appealed to Islamic participants in the Preparatory Committee to Prepare Indonesian Independence in mid-1945 to accept the fact that the Indonesian state was to be established based on "an agreement on fundamentals" embraced by all ethnic, racial, provincial as well as religious groups across the former Netherlands East Indies.
They had after all fought together for the independence of the Indonesian Republic. Sukarno also emphasized that there will always be an enduring "mythical quality of unity" in the consciousness of all Indonesians and that diversity was an important feature of "being Indonesian". Nationalist, Islamist and all other beliefs and faiths would be united through a "sublime union of all Indonesian culture and tradition".
Being an Indonesian Muslim, therefore, necessitates a tolerant expression of one's sense of being an Indonesian citizen, with all its rich nuances arising from family, ethnic, provincial and racial heritage including the "enrichment of Islam through understanding the beliefs and precepts of other faiths."
Among Muslims in Indonesia, therefore, there would remain diverse interpretations of precepts, applications and rituals of Islam among the Javanese in Central and East Java, just as there would be variations among the Sundanese, Minangkabau/Padang, Makassar and Bugis -- as indeed among the proud Acehnese.
Likewise with Indonesian Protestantism (Batak Church, Baptist, Methodist) and the significant though less pronounced variations of Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, as well as Confucianism. Eclecticism and syncretism were the underpinnings of healthy pluralism and mutual tolerance.
It is worth remembering that Indonesia, although the country with largest number of Muslims is not an Islamic state, a distinction clearly made when Indonesia was accepted as a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference. (Indonesians take note of the fact that the OIC was never set up as an organization in which each member state had implanted the Islamic faith as its sole basis of state identity, hence the nomenclature of "conference").
In the event, the recent debates resurfaced on the question of emphasis. Non-Muslims and minority groups' adherence to the "plurality and tolerant values" is seen as affirming the need to remind Islamist groups of the basis of Indonesian identity. Islamist groups, on the other hand, perceive increased "market globalization, secularization and loss of moral values" as corrosive encroachments on their notion of the central message of their faith, which is social justice and to which Islam "provides outreach, comfort and solace to the poor and the desperate".
My own feeling is that the rehashing of philosophical and values debates urgently need to be followed by things more concrete and tangible. Interfaith dialogs, including matters relating to "Islam-West relations", have had considerable play in many forums across the Middle East, North America, Europe and Asia.
How about following up these forums with "projects on interfaith employment" funded jointly by Islamic and Western multilateral aid agencies and donor governments. After all, when all is said and done, what young people -- especially poor Muslims across the developing world -- really need are jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs will regain their sense of identity and reawaken their dignity.
Social justice and employment will reduce their sense of marginalization and humiliation. Social justice and employment will enhance their sense of individual self-worth. More justice and jobs among Indonesia's youth would ease the strains imposed on the security services who otherwise may have to crack down using the full force of the law against those who are too desperate and too despondent to care or to be aware of the rule of law and human rights.
The writer is the defense minister of Indonesia. The above article reflects his personal views.
-
All:
I am about to begin a busy day and probably will not have time to contribute to the substance of the conversation here until this evening or later tomorrow, but would like to take this moment to welcome Nasigoreng to the conversation and to express my pleasure that we seem to be achieving the more intelligent, educated and gracious level of discourse that I have hoped for with this thread.
Marc/CD
PS: Concerning the foto in question-- please note that the figure in it has an automatic weapon in his hands. For us he represents those who attack both us (AQ type Islamic Fascists, secular Baathist Saddamites, etc) AND the Muslims whom we support in their struggle for freedom, democracy and opportunity.
-
Greetings Nasigoreng:
I have come downstairs to my computer with my heart pounding a bit-- our four year old daughter got past the child-proof bottle cap on some Tylenol medicine (which is very hard on the liver) and for a moment we feared having to take her to the hospital to have her stomach pumped. Fortunately a call to the hospital with a description of how much she had consumed allowed them to calculate that for her body weight that there was no need for concern.
Such things are good for reminding one where internet conversations rank on the scale of importance in life!
But I digress , , ,
I would like to thank you for the two interesting pieces which you share with us.
The "Islamophobia" piece by Mohammed Yazid is quite refreshing in its candor and encouraging in that it manifests open dialog. It is also discouraging in what it describes.
For us here in America, the role of Arabic influence and guidance on Islam around the world seems to be important in coming to understand Islam. Somewhere in my files I may have a copy of a very interesting article making the argument that what is now happening in the mid-east is not a clash with Islam, but with a Pan-Arabic dynamic. IF I do still have it (I'm currently struggling to overcome the death of my previous computer) it may be of interest here.
This question Arabic influence and guidance seems to relate to the comments of Usatz Hussein in the thread from WT quoted by me a couple of posts ago concerning the diversity of Islam and the differences between Sufi and Wahabbi types of Islam. If Arabic influence and guidance is becoming stronger, this would seem to bode poorly for the prospects of interfaith respect in your part of the world. I and no doubt others here would be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
When Yasid writes
"The time has come for the Muslim community in Indonesia to reflect on the fact that as the majority of the population they actually have no role to play in politics. On the contrary, they have become "easy prey" for a number of political parties in every general election.
The bad image of Muslims is understandable, but it can be avoided if they show tolerance on the basis of strong fraternity. Non-Muslims should be aware that they are not the only victims of terror; Muslims themselves are its victims too. All elements need to acknowledge Indonesia's pluralist society and declare "war" on terror and anarchy."
it seems to me that he identifies perhaps one of the most important issues for us here in the West-- Islam's goal to merge government and religion i.e. to create theocracy. For us here in America, one of our most important precepts is precisely the separation of the State and religion. The State is Force itself, and to mix it with Religion is as profound an error as can be. The efforts referenced in the Defense Minister's piece at imposing Sharia upon everyone exemplify western/American fears about the nature of Islam.
Yasid seems to me to be quite on target that Muslims too are the victim of terror and fascist thuggery. Indeed this is one of the points I seek to make in identifying who that jihadi foto target is in our cover shot which started the brouhaha which started this thread. It is precisely my point that that he, be he Al Qaeda/Wahhabi or a Baathist Saddamite, attacks Muslims as well as us infidels.
(I admit to some bafflement as to why this point is so poorly heard by so many-- perhaps the slander that the US is "against Islam" is due to the absence of a free press in many Islamic countries?)
Thus it seems key to me whether those Muslims whom also are attacked will see Muslim solidarity with their Muslim attackers as more important than standing up for mutual tolerance and respect.
I also appreciated the Defense Minister's passage that read:
"The fact of the matter is that on June 1, 1945, Sukarno affirmed that Indonesia's state identity would not be overly secular (as in India), nor would it be strictly theocratic (as in Saudi Arabia). Sukarno appealed to Islamic participants in the Preparatory Committee to Prepare Indonesian Independence in mid-1945 to accept the fact that the Indonesian state was to be established based on "an agreement on fundamentals" embraced by all ethnic, racial, provincial as well as religious groups across the former Netherlands East Indies.
They had after all fought together for the independence of the Indonesian Republic. Sukarno also emphasized that there will always be an enduring "mythical quality of unity" in the consciousness of all Indonesians and that diversity was an important feature of "being Indonesian". Nationalist, Islamist and all other beliefs and faiths would be united through a "sublime union of all Indonesian culture and tradition".
Being an Indonesian Muslim, therefore, necessitates a tolerant expression of one's sense of being an Indonesian citizen, with all its rich nuances arising from family, ethnic, provincial and racial heritage including the "enrichment of Islam through understanding the beliefs and precepts of other faiths."
Perhaps the point is obvious to you, but we Americans are often ignorant about many parts of the world and I felt like I had learned something about Indonesia by reading it.
Looking forward to your additional comments , , ,
The Adventure continues,
Marc/CD
PS: Please forgive me if I appear the fool, but is your "internet name" Nasigoreng the name of an Indonesian food? There used to be an Indonesian restaurant in the neighborhood (a favorite of both my wife and me) and I could swear that one of our favorite dishes was called nasigoreng , , ,
============
PPS: Here is one example of concern over the influence of Saudi Arabia over Muslims elsewhere:
Senate Will Probe Saudi Distribution Of Hate Materials
BY MEGHAN CLYNE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 5, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/20998
WASHINGTON - The American government is demanding that Saudi Arabia account for its distribution of hate material to American mosques, as the State Department pressed Saudi officials for answers last week and as the Senate later this month plans to investigate the propagation of radical Wahhabism on American shores.
The flurry of activity comes months after a report from the Center for Religious Freedom discovered that dozens of mosques in major cities across the country, including New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, were distributing documents, bearing the seal of the government of Saudi Arabia, that incite Muslims to acts of violence and promote hatred of Jews and Christians.
A Washington-based group that is part of the human rights organization Freedom House, the Center for Religious Freedom also found during its yearlong study that the Saudi-produced materials describe democracy and America as un-Islamic. They instruct recent Muslim immigrants to consider Americans as enemies and the materials urge new arrivals to use their time here as preparation for jihad. The documents also promote the version of Islam officially embraced by Saudi government and several of the September 11, 2001, hijackers, Wahhabism, as the only authentic Islam.
In response to the Freedom House report and as part of the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005 sponsored by Senator Specter, a Republican of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee - of which Senator Specter is chairman - will be holding hearings into the hate materials on October 25, a spokesman for the senator, William Reynolds, said yesterday.
The Accountability Act, introduced in June, says its purpose is "to halt Saudi support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure fully Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents." The legislation is highly critical of the House of Saud for its support of terrorist activity and cites the January Freedom House report as evidence of the kingdom's complicity in the spread of radical Islamist ideology. As part of the
Accountability Act, Senator Specter has in the past held Judiciary Committee hearings into Saudi financing of terrorism and Saudi Arabia's role in injecting ideology into textbooks for Palestinian Arab schoolchildren.
Many of the details of the Judiciary Committee hearing later this month, Mr. Reynolds said, are still being arranged, including a final witness list. In the meantime, the committee expects testimony from the State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Freedom House, and terrorism experts. The committee will press to determine whether the Saudi government has taken steps to stop the distribution of the materials, and will cull from witnesses recommendations to prevent their future dissemination, Mr. Reynolds said.
Also demanding answers about the hate materials is the State Department's undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, Karen Hughes. During a high-profile trip to the Middle East last week, Ms. Hughes said American representatives had addressed the propagation of Saudi hate material in America during private meetings with government officials.
In a State Department briefing held en route to Ankara, Turkey, from Saudi Arabia last Tuesday, Ms. Hughes was asked why she had raised the issue that day during a public meeting with Saudi journalists, becoming the first American official to do so publicly. "We had been raising the issue privately," Ms. Hughes said, "and as part of raising difficult issues that we need to discuss, I felt it was appropriate." The undersecretary did not elaborate on the results of the private meetings, but the degree to which Saudi Arabia is making efforts to stop the propaganda will be a subject of the Senate hearings, Mr. Reynolds said.
Requests for comment from the Embassy of Saudi Arabia yesterday were not returned.
============
This from a former president of Indonesia may be of interest:
Right Islam vs. Wrong Islam
Muslims and non-Muslims must unite to defeat the Wahhabi ideology.
BY ABDURRAHMAN WAHID
Friday, December 30, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
JAKARTA--News organizations report that Osama bin Laden has obtained a religious edict from a misguided Saudi cleric, justifying the use of nuclear weapons against America and the infliction of mass casualties. It requires great emotional strength to confront the potential ramifications of this fact. Yet can anyone doubt that those who joyfully incinerate the occupants of office buildings, commuter trains, hotels and nightclubs would leap at the chance to magnify their damage a thousandfold?
Imagine the impact of a single nuclear bomb detonated in New York, London, Paris, Sydney or L.A.! What about two or three? The entire edifice of modern civilization is built on economic and technological foundations that terrorists hope to collapse with nuclear attacks like so many fishing huts in the wake of a tsunami.
Just two small, well-placed bombs devastated Bali's tourist economy in 2002 and sent much of its population back to the rice fields and out to sea, to fill their empty bellies. What would be the effect of a global economic crisis in the wake of attacks far more devastating than those of Bali or 9/11?
It is time for people of good will from every faith and nation to recognize that a terrible danger threatens humanity. We cannot afford to continue "business as usual" in the face of this existential threat. Rather, we must set aside our international and partisan bickering, and join to confront the danger that lies before us.
An extreme and perverse ideology in the minds of fanatics is what directly threatens us (specifically, Wahhabi/Salafi ideology--a minority fundamentalist religious cult fueled by petrodollars). Yet underlying, enabling and exacerbating this threat of religious extremism is a global crisis of misunderstanding.
All too many Muslims fail to grasp Islam, which teaches one to be lenient towards others and to understand their value systems, knowing that these are tolerated by Islam as a religion. The essence of Islam is encapsulated in the words of the Quran, "For you, your religion; for me, my religion." That is the essence of tolerance. Religious fanatics--either purposely or out of ignorance--pervert Islam into a dogma of intolerance, hatred and bloodshed. They justify their brutality with slogans such as "Islam is above everything else." They seek to intimidate and subdue anyone who does not share their extremist views, regardless of nationality or religion. While a few are quick to shed blood themselves, countless millions of others sympathize with their violent actions, or join in the complicity of silence.
This crisis of misunderstanding--of Islam by Muslims themselves--is compounded by the failure of governments, people of other faiths, and the majority of well-intentioned Muslims to resist, isolate and discredit this dangerous ideology. The crisis thus afflicts Muslims and non-Muslims alike, with tragic consequences. Failure to understand the true nature of Islam permits the continued radicalization of Muslims world-wide, while blinding the rest of humanity to a solution which hides in plain sight.
The most effective way to overcome Islamist extremism is to explain what Islam truly is to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Without that explanation, people will tend to accept the unrefuted extremist view--further radicalizing Muslims, and turning the rest of the world against Islam itself.
Accomplishing this task will be neither quick nor easy. In recent decades, Wahhabi/Salafi ideology has made substantial inroads throughout the Muslim world. Islamic fundamentalism has become a well-financed, multifaceted global movement that operates like a juggernaut in much of the developing world, and even among immigrant Muslim communities in the West. To neutralize the virulent ideology that underlies fundamentalist terrorism and threatens the very foundations of modern civilization, we must identify its advocates, understand their goals and strategies, evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and effectively counter their every move. What we are talking about is nothing less than a global struggle for the soul of Islam.
The Sunni (as opposed to Shiite) fundamentalists' goals generally include: claiming to restore the perfection of the early Islam practiced by Muhammad and his companions, who are known in Arabic as al-Salaf al-Salih, "the Righteous Ancestors"; establishing a utopian society based on these Salafi principles, by imposing their interpretation of Islamic law on all members of society; annihilating local variants of Islam in the name of authenticity and purity; transforming Islam from a personal faith into an authoritarian political system; establishing a pan-Islamic caliphate governed according to the strict tenets of Salafi Islam, and often conceived as stretching from Morocco to Indonesia and the Philippines; and, ultimately, bringing the entire world under the sway of their extremist ideology.
Fundamentalist strategy is often simple as well as brilliant. Extremists are quick to drape themselves in the mantle of Islam and declare their opponents kafir, or infidels, and thus smooth the way for slaughtering nonfundamentalist Muslims. Their theology rests upon a simplistic, literal and highly selective reading of the Quran and Sunnah (prophetic traditions), through which they seek to entrap the world-wide Muslim community in the confines of their narrow ideological grasp. Expansionist by nature, most fundamentalist groups constantly probe for weakness and an opportunity to strike, at any time or place, to further their authoritarian goals.
The armed ghazis (Islamic warriors) raiding from New York to Jakarta, Istanbul, Baghdad, London and Madrid are only the tip of the iceberg, forerunners of a vast and growing population that shares their radical views and ultimate objectives. The formidable strengths of this worldwide fundamentalist movement include:
1) An aggressive program with clear ideological and political goals; 2) immense funding from oil-rich Wahhabi sponsors; 3) the ability to distribute funds in impoverished areas to buy loyalty and power; 4) a claim to and aura of religious authenticity and Arab prestige; 5) an appeal to Islamic identity, pride and history; 6) an ability to blend into the much larger traditionalist masses and blur the distinction between moderate Islam and their brand of religious extremism; 7) full-time commitment by its agents/leadership; 8) networks of Islamic schools that propagate extremism; 9) the absence of organized opposition in the Islamic world; 10) a global network of fundamentalist imams who guide their flocks to extremism; 11) a well-oiled "machine" established to translate, publish and distribute Wahhabi/Salafi propaganda and disseminate its ideology throughout the world; 12) scholarships for locals to study in Saudi Arabia and return with degrees and indoctrination, to serve as future leaders; 13) the ability to cross national and cultural borders in the name of religion; 14) Internet communication; and 15) the reluctance of many national governments to supervise or control this entire process.
We must employ effective strategies to counter each of these fundamentalist strengths. This can be accomplished only by bringing the combined weight of the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, and the non-Muslim world, to bear in a coordinated global campaign whose goal is to resolve the crisis of misunderstanding that threatens to engulf our entire world.
An effective counterstrategy must be based upon a realistic assessment of our own strengths and weaknesses in the face of religious extremism and terror. Disunity, of course, has proved fatal to countless human societies faced with a similar existential threat. A lack of seriousness in confronting the imminent danger is likewise often fatal. Those who seek to promote a peaceful and tolerant understanding of Islam must overcome the paralyzing effects of inertia, and harness a number of actual or potential strengths, which can play a key role in neutralizing fundamentalist ideology. These strengths not only are assets in the struggle with religious extremism, but in their mirror form they point to the weakness at the heart of fundamentalist ideology. They are:
1) Human dignity, which demands freedom of conscience and rejects the forced imposition of religious views; 2) the ability to mobilize immense resources to bring to bear on this problem, once it is identified and a global commitment is made to solve it; 3) the ability to leverage resources by supporting individuals and organizations that truly embrace a peaceful and tolerant Islam; 4) nearly 1,400 years of Islamic traditions and spirituality, which are inimical to fundamentalist ideology; 5) appeals to local and national--as well as Islamic--culture/traditions/pride; 6) the power of the feminine spirit, and the fact that half of humanity consists of women, who have an inherent stake in the outcome of this struggle; 7) traditional and Sufi leadership and masses, who are not yet radicalized (strong numeric advantage: 85% to 90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims); 8) the ability to harness networks of Islamic schools to propagate a peaceful and tolerant Islam; 9) the natural tendency of like-minded people to work together when alerted to a common danger; 10) the ability to form a global network of like-minded individuals, organizations and opinion leaders to promote moderate and progressive ideas throughout the Muslim world; 11) the existence of a counterideology, in the form of traditional, Sufi and modern Islamic teachings, and the ability to translate such works into key languages; 12) the benefits of modernity, for all its flaws, and the widespread appeal of popular culture; 13) the ability to cross national and cultural borders in the name of religion; 14) Internet communications, to disseminate progressive views--linking and inspiring like-minded individuals and organizations throughout the world; 15) the nation-state; and 16) the universal human desire for freedom, justice and a better life for oneself and loved ones.
Though potentially decisive, most of these advantages remain latent or diffuse, and require mobilization to be effective in confronting fundamentalist ideology. In addition, no effort to defeat religious extremism can succeed without ultimately cutting off the flow of petrodollars used to finance that extremism, from Leeds to Jakarta.
Only by recognizing the problem, putting an end to the bickering within and between nation-states, and adopting a coherent long-term plan (executed with international leadership and commitment) can we begin to apply the brakes to the rampant spread of extremist ideas and hope to resolve the world's crisis of misunderstanding before the global economy and modern civilization itself begin to crumble in the face of truly devastating attacks.
Muslims themselves can and must propagate an understanding of the "right" Islam, and thereby discredit extremist ideology. Yet to accomplish this task requires the understanding and support of like-minded individuals, organizations and governments throughout the world. Our goal must be to illuminate the hearts and minds of humanity, and offer a compelling alternate vision of Islam, one that banishes the fanatical ideology of hatred to the darkness from which it emerged.
Mr. Wahid, former president of Indonesia, is patron and senior advisor to the LibForAll Foundation (www.libforall.org), an Indonesian and U.S.-based nonprofit that works to reduce religious extremism and discredit the use of terrorism
-
Woof All:
I continue to have hopes for this thread. The ever-growing number of reads tells me that there is strong interest in people communicating across the apparent divide-- and the absence of posts this past week raises the possibility that people are afraid to do so. If such is the case, then that in an of itself speaks volumes.
I re-iterate the invitation to all to come to participate. Obviously at the moment Muslims are substantially outnumbered and any Muslim who comes will face vigorous questions. This does not mean IMHO that "there is more baiting (on this thread) than on a fishing boat" as was wisecracked by one lurking here on a forum elsewhere. :lol: It means that many infidel people are genuinely confused and concerned by what they are reading about Islam and its varying schools of thought and action and have probing questions that they wish to ask.
It also means that the more conscious amongst us are willing to entertain the possibility that the infidel side has made its own contributions to "the gathering storm" that threatens to engulf us all.
The idea here is not like some chattering class yack-fest on TV or some Patrician vs. Demagogue debate in Congress, but a CONVERSATION.
I'm thinking we should be hearing phrases such as:
* I can understand why X would appear like that to you, but allow me to offer another interpretation for your consideration , , ,
* That's interesting. I hadn't thought of that and will think about it.
* I agree. On this point we stand together.
* The reading to which you are exposed in your culture may not include XYZ. , , , If you find this to be true, will you change your mind?
* That's a fair point. I think it outweighed by XYZ, but I acknowledge that to be a fair point.
* I find that persuasive. I'm changing my mind. :o
The Adventure continues,
CD
-
It means that many infidel people are genuinely confused and concerned by what they are reading about Islam and its varying schools of thought and action and have probing questions that they wish to ask.
It also means that the more conscious amongst us are willing to entertain the possibility that the infidel side has made its own contributions to "the gathering storm" that threatens to engulf us all.
IMO, as long as you insist on keeping up this juvenile "infidel" BS, you're not going to be taken seriously.
Imagine if someone who claimed to be curious about Judaism constantly refered to themselves as "we goyim" or "the gentile side" in any discussion. It's funny the first time, but after a while it gets irritating and comes off as patronizing, whether that's your intention or not.
-milt
-
I would have no problem with someone referring to himself as "goy/goyim" or "gentile". In conversations about WW3 I sometimes call myself a "chickenhawk warmonger". Gabe and I call ourselves "the Christian gun nut and the hippie jewboy bookworm" and now in the context here I call myself an "infidel".
Opinions are like , , , noses-- everyone has one and you are entitled to yours.
-
Greetings to all here, My name is Michael Blackgrave of San Antonio Texas, I am a long time student & teacher of the martial ways with an emphasis on South East Asian methodologies (Pekititersia Kali, Malay silat, Silat Mubai) I also study Wing Chun at the present time and teach my blend of what works known as Silat Askari. I am also a veteran of the U.S. Army having served proudly and discharged honorably. I am also a tactical weapons advocate.
I know of Mr. Denny through reputation only and from acquaintances we both share, Pekitiville is a very small berg! I am also the so called lurker..LOL..Mr. Denny made reference to in his aforementioned post, me thinks Mr. Denny lurks a bit to...LOL...but its' all good.
Now before I go any further I will answer the questions that Mr. Denny asked of another brother here:
1. what is your reaction to our killing of Zarqawi?
@ I was elated, he is a piece of shit who deserved worse than what he got...PERIOD!
2. Are you sad/angry that we have killed a "fellow Muslim" or are you glad that we have killed a fascist who targeted innocents?
@ SEE ABOVE
3. If you had known where he was, would you have told us?
@ Hell yes....in a SKINNY MINUTE...not only to rid the world but that cash would definitely come in handy...ahh the American Way! Gotta love it
4. Were you a Muslim circa 1986?
@ hmmm , NOPE I was a hard partying, no good S.O.B. I reverted to Islam and more into Sufism in the early spring of 05 ( as my Shaykh tells me, you are not Sunni or Shia they are political factions we are SUFI so shut up and just be as good as you can be...LOL or as I tell people I am a better Sufi than I am a Muslim..LOL...Now watch the Salafi minded jump on that band wagon..yeehaw come on!
Now I know my answers may be taken with a huge guffaw by our more traditional Muslims who view this thread and I may be deemed a heretic but to be honest who gives a dang? Certainly not me! I am a member of the Qadiri Rifai Sufi order headed by Shaykh Taner Ansari. Shaykh Taner is a very wise man who understands that we live in 2006 America as opposed to 568 a.d. Mecca and he teaches accordingly. Shaykh Taner himself is a former Turkish infantry soldier and a very good martial artist in his own right, he guides his people with common sense and stresses practicality and moderation over all else, his pet peeve is Muslims who try to act like they still live in the archaic times of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) this is something he does not advocate. He once told me to learn about Islam as an American middle aged man not an Arab, not a Filipino etc. his words were profound "If you cannot understand your religion or any religion as who you are, then how can you ever expect to grasp the goodness it contains", this to me seems to be the crux of so many problems that not only plague Islam but also religion as a whole.
OK onto the oh so controversial photos of the Prophet (pbuh). The sad thing about this is the mere idea that these photos would get under peoples skin (soft skinned for sure). I do not find them amusing nor would I find a painting of the POPE doing something nasty or a pic of Jesus doing the electric boogaloo funny, in all senses I take those pics for what they were intended, a premeditated act to gain a response from an over the top fundamental crowd and guess what? IT WORKED, these dip shit fundamentals did exactly what they were supposed to and proved this cartoonist and the subsequent writer of what ever rag RIGHT!, SHAME SHAME, it is my humble opinion that the worst part about Islam is the Muslims...LOL, they, the fundamental ding dongs have as much MANA (spirit) as Dick Cheney has hair on that oh so pointed dome.....LOL
As for Mr. Denny and Mr. Suarez wearing the infidel shirt....once again, WHO GIVES A DANG? Certainly not me, I could care less if they sport pink loafers and a tutu, it isn't any of my business, if one were to see my daily wear you would think I am straight out of Woodstock, sporting my CHE T-shirt and my oh so combat ready flip flops and a baseball hat saying Indianapolis Colts ( I assure you here in Texas the hat alone can cost you an ass whooping seeing that this is COWBOYS country..LOL) you see folks it is all small shit...why worry about it? In the grand spectrum of ones life does it truly matter what Mr. Denny or Mr. Suarez wear? Does it have an impact on your life? Do you stay up late at night plotting the demise of people who wear goofy clothes? (If so I'd have been whacked years ago) DO NOT SWEAT THE SMALL SHIT!
As for the target...hmmm I can see where a thin skinned bloke may find that offensive but personally speaking, it does not bother me in the least...the target isn't a person it is what it is, a target, if one wants to make them look like a terrorist, black panther (yes you can still get those bad boys down south) or Larry Flynt for that matter it doesn't matter it isn't going to make you any better with the weapon LOL. So get over this woe is me, that is my brother depicted there crapola...unless your brother is a 3 x 5 target made out of paper you don't have a gripe!
Now I saw on here that a few folks were talking about all this history of Islam etc. etc. etc. personally it reads to me like any other history...I wasn't there so I do not know and to be honest nor do I care it holds no bearing on my day to day life so I choose not to debate it. I find it funny that people always bring up the old BACK IN THIS TIME HE SAID THIS AND THEN HE SAID THAT crapola....how do you know? How does anyone know? Surely one doesn't believe every word that was written in a history text or a Hadith or a Bible or a Koran etc. etc.? Surely an intelligent human being understands the methods of selective history? Our books are built on it!...LOL
Now onto the Israeli vs. Palestine issue. This my friends is a quagmire of shite plain and simple and you and I are not going to make much of a difference. These two entities have been battling ever since the country of Israel was formed and guess what? Nothing is gonna change, no matter how much protesting, no matter how many petitions are signed, no matter what...It is what it is..a quagmire of shite, just be damn glad you do not have to live in it! As for HAMAS and all these other pseudo wanna be Governments over there all I have to say is one thing...YEAH RIGHT...you can bullshit the blind but those who truly see know you don't have to get close to shit to know it stinks!
I saw where some folks on here were asking "where is the outcry from the Imams on all of this , where is the fatwas condemning this? etc." honestly the good pious Muslims have spoken up at times and others haven't but guess what it isn't a big deal if a few speak up ..the world as a whole better start understanding one simple thing...WE ARE AL LHUMAN BEINGS BEFORE WE ARE ANYTHING ELSE...and until we as HUMAN BEINGS stand up and say a loud hardy F**** YOU to this type of BS it wont change and in BS I mean all this crapola that is shit kicked in to this world and excepted as the norm..everything from terrorism to famine, to gun running, to drug pushers, etc. ...DO YA FEEL ME?
Oh yeah here is my personal condemnation on all of this...Any and all of these SOB's who back terrorism and who act out terrorism on innocent people of all races, colors, creeds , and religions should be taken out PERIOD! A short rope and a long fall is what they deserve.
Now don't get me wrong here folks I am no fond admirer of the going's on in Bushville a.k.a. the Presidential administration, my personal feelings are simple on that matter and I will suppress them for the sake of arguing a moot point where nothing more than rhetoric will be used to fuel fires.
On to Iraq....yeah that's right I-freaking RACK...I support the U.S. troops 100%.. do I agree with all that rocks over there? Hell NO, do I agree we should have gone in? Nope...should have concentrated on Afghanistan and if I would have had my druthers Saudi Arabia would have been on the hit parade....NOW there is a hypocritical nation if ever one existed! Here again this is my opinion and most Salafi minded folks will once again roll their eyes and scream kill him , kill the Sufi heretic...LOL..and that is the truth...I am not popular at masjids...something about having sleeved arms of tattoos that throw the hard liners off..LOL..but oh well..they should perhaps check their selective history and they will find out that many people in Islam have tattoo's especially when your dealing with the indigenous folks who have mixed in their old tribal customs into Islam ( and I am .25% Shawnee on my Pops side & those ways he taught me will never die or be taken from me)..but SHHHH those people aren't real Muslims..LOL..! So as far as Iraq is concerned do your business the best you can, watch your six and lets get this over with so everybody on both sides can get on to something better in their life.
Somewhere in this thread I also saw something about the Koran being filled with violence as is the Bible and any scripture for that matter, one should understand something about this. These books were written by men in archaic times where violence was a part of the every day plan, one can choose to see violence or he can choose to see good things it is up to the individual, if one choose to always see violence I would be suffice to say he will see it in everything not just scripture (perhaps a compassion check would be in order). In my opinion life is way to short and way to precious to subjugate yourself to constantly seeing ugly and violence.
One last thing here, I saw mentioned about my good friend Ustaz Hussein of Silat Mubai...if I may I would like to tell you guys about this man. He is always chastised and lied about by so many people who judge him on his site. Yes he has pictures that may to some seem fundamental but no more than what this discussion is about i.e. Mr. Denny and Suarez with the INFIDEL T shirts and the target etc. It is sad that many folks do not get to know him better. He is a very intelligent man a man who dearly loves his wife and child, a man who works his ass off to support them, a man who loves his martial craft and gives freely of his knowledge to all folks of all religions, walks of life etc. He is a man of faith who happens to believe in his religion ISLAM, he understands that there are entities that seek to destroy it and I know he would give his life to save a fellow warrior no matter the faith if he were fighting for a just cause. He is a very honorable fella and funny as a freaking crutch once you get to know him. OKAY enough of that...Gees if he reads that he will think I've gone loco...LOL But anyhow folks that is all I got to say on the matter of the infamous T-shirt and Target issue....so in closing thanks for the vine and the time..I hope you can make sense of these words...I am definitely not a writer!...and have a great evening, weekend and life..because in the end folks it's all good!...Yeehaw, Out from Tejas
P.S. Crafty obviously knows how to bait a hook..LOL..got my lazy ass in here after all. :D
Oh yeah I forgot this, on my bookshelf sits the Bible, Koran & Torah as well as the Adi Granth ("First Book", also known as the Guru Granth Sahib) of the Sikh scriptures also books on Hindu scripture, books on Taoism, Buddhism, Shamanism etc. I enjoy reading all of these and find things in all of them that ring true and bring comfort...I guess I just believe and with that being said if one were to ask me my religion I would have to say I am human being my personal choice is non consequential it matters only to me and mine. Have a nice night folks
-
Woof Michael6343, I'am a Christian and in your statement Quoted here:
I find it funny that people always bring up the old BACK IN THIS TIME HE SAID THIS AND THEN HE SAID THAT crapola....how do you know? How does anyone know? Surely one doesn't believe every word that was written in a history text or a Hadith or a Bible or a Koran etc. etc.? Surely an intelligent human being understands the methods of selective history? Our books are built on it!...LOL
You state that one doesn't believe EVERYTHING thats written in the Bible. Sorry to inform you that is incorrect. I for one do and so do also most all of the members of the church that I attend.
As a Christian I can not pick and choose the parts that fit what I want, but have to decide is it truth or is it not.....What I mean is all of it.
How conveniant it would be if I were allowed to just take the parts of the Bible that suited my need and was able to discard the rest.
That is quite silly if you ask me.
Concerning yourself......I might ask you a like question.....Do you beleive what the Koran says or not.
It is one thing to say you don't live in ancient Mecca, as neither do I but the Bible is relevant for todays times, is not the Koran?
Your post appears to suggest to me that your faith is based on convenience more than anything and you onley choose be beleive what it is that tickles your fancy.
Which is fine but would most Muslims agree with you?
I also am well aware that there are a lot of watered down Christians walking the earth, that I would not agree with.
Most of the time, their issue is a lack of devotion to faith and understanding of the Bible and what it teaches.
Are you a devout reader of the Koran?
SB
-
Hello Tom, I'll start by answering your last question first.
1. Are you a devout reader of the Koran?
@ No I am not, like I said I have the Bible, Koran, Torah etc. on my book shelf, I don't read them on a daily basis but I do from time to time read them.
You also stated this and I quote" Your post appears to suggest to me that your faith is based on convenience more than anything and you only choose to believe what it is that tickles your fancy"
...My faith is my faith and how I choose to believe is my business as yours is to you. What may suit my fancy may indeed be looked down upon by many people but in the long run does it truly matter? Is anyone going to be with me on judgement day? NOPE, so rest assured I'm definitely cool with my ways.
2. Would most Muslims agree with you?
@ Nope....but like I said it is none of their business. I am not here on this rock to please all of humanity, if they don't like my ways so be it, to be honest with you I do not like theirs either but they are entitled too believe how they want.
3. The Bible is relevant for today's times, is not the Koran?
@ In my opinion both are relevant depending on the way the individual sees it. When I read scripture from any book I deliberately look for the good, the positive. If one were to totally abide by your belief that every ounce of the Koran or Bible should be revered as truth and acted as such then I would shutter to think of the BS that would be going on. Obviously these Wahhabi minded terror mongers who see nothing but evil and violence take that fact to heart.
4. Do you believe what the Koran says or not?
@ I read the Koran with an open heart and an open mind if something doesn't sit well with me I reread it and try too find the good in it. G_d gave us a mind, to analyze to internalize and to seek truth in everything we do. If I cannot make heads or tales of it I ask my Shaykh who is much more knowledgeable then I and he definitely steers me on the right path and breaks it down in very deep, meaningful, positive ways.
Tom says:
You state that one doesn't believe EVERYTHING that's written in the Bible. Sorry to inform you that is incorrect. I for one do and so do also most all of the members of the church that I attend.
That's fine Tom, that is you and the folks that congregate at your house of worship I have nothing to say about that, to each their own as G_d intended. Have a great day...
PS Although these conversations are at times interesting I can't help but too recall my granddads words " To debate religion is as useful as a fart in a whirl wind because at the end of the day everybody is gonna believe how they want, and all your gonna get is a headache"
-
Woof Michael 6343, I can for the most part agree with what you say, and have no problem with it.
Most certainly it is your faith, and most certainly you are right come judgement day you will stand alone before God.
It is really not my intention to get into your personal business, and I really have no desire to get into any religous debate.
You state again this:
When I read scripture from any book I deliberately look for the good, the positive. If one were to totally abide by your belief that every ounce of the Koran or Bible should be revered as truth and acted as such then I would shutter to think of the BS that would be going on.
For me If I don't beleive that the entire Bible is truth then I make God to be Liar. Which even in stating sounds absurd, as God is holy and is incapabable of lying.
You may say the Bible was written by men....... True, but as inspired by the holy spirit of God.
2nd timothy chpt. 3 vs 16-17 says:
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
So obviously as a Christian I need to beleive the Bible is the word of God and is truth.
There again how you believe is truly your business.
A question If I may ask.
What is it that makes yourself different from any other person that walks the earth?
Another......IF I may? :D
What is it that will get you into heaven?
TG
-
Greetings once again Tom...
Tom asks:
What is it that makes yourself different from any other person that walks the earth?
@ My right to be so. I feel that every person is different, unique in their own way. I also feel that it is a good thing, can you imagine if we were all the same, damn what a boring existence that would be...gotta have a bit of oddity to keep the pot stirred, makes for a better life in my opinion.
I understand this question is extremely easy to misconstrue etc. and I know that a pat answer would be something like...BECAUSE G_D MADE ME SO but I find it is much deeper than that on an individual basis.
Tom asks:
What is it that will get you into heaven?
@ I do not know..to be straight up I don't know if I will make it that far, I do have a very turbulent past that I am not particularly proud of and if I am judged accordingly on some of those deeds then perhaps somewhere farther south may be better suited. I definitely hope that my atonement and good deeds that I have done hence forth will aid me when that day comes. I know my intention is now on the right track. In the end all I can do is my best!
-
Woof Michael6343, I'am somehwat suprised and saddend by your response. I'am also appreciative in your transparent and seemingly genuine honesty in your dialog. I thank you for it.
I will speak strictly for myself and as a Christian and answer my own questions to you.
I too come from a turbulent past to say the least. The thing that makes me common with all people that walk the earth is that I'am a sinner. All have at one point in their lives committed a sin.
The thing that makes me different is that my sins are forgiven. I have accepted that holy sacrifice of Jesus Christ Gods own son on the cross and am washed in his shed blood.
The Bible teaches that without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin.
God made a way for all mankind in giving his holy unblemished pure son, the lamb of God, that who soever should believe in him will not perish but have everlasting life.
So what makes me different......I'am a sinner saved by grace through faith. There is nothing that I could do on my own, but to recieve the gift of God.
No way can I redeem myself.
What will get me into heaven.......Covered by the blood of Christ. God being holy cannot look at sin, yet God can look at me through the blood.
Again left to myself no way can I enter into God presence. Imagine me in all my sins and failures attempting to dwell in heaven with a perfect God.
Would I not contaminate heaven itself if I were allowed in my present condition?
I have great hope and peace in the fact that, I don't have to do anything except recieve Christ as saviour and God takes care of the rest.
The nice thing is its simplicity...... It is also one thing that makes Christianity different from all other religions. A Christian does not have to wonder if they will get to heaven, If they are saved they know for sure and are promised by Gods word.
TG
-
Woof Michael:
Thank you for coming to play.
The joys of family for me today. I will try to compose a worthy post tomorrow or Tuesday.
The Adventure continues,
CD/Marc
-
Greetings good people. :)
I've been following this thread with great interest since its very beginning.
I have not posted previously as I felt that I did not have anything of sunstance to contribute to the dialog.
I still don't actually, but I just wanted to say that I've learned lots thru your posts and I wanted to express my gratitude for it.
So... Thanks.
Regards,
S.
PS: I like seeing the great level of civility expressed by most posters.
-
For me If I don't beleive that the entire Bible is truth then I make God to be Liar. Which even in stating sounds absurd, as God is holy and is incapabable of lying.
You certainly know more about the Bible than I do, but how can it be possible that there is only one "correct" interpretation of it?
What exactly does it mean to say that the Bible "applies" to today's world? In some parts, the author makes it crystal-clear that women are basically the property of men. Can you not call yourself a real Christian unless you subscribe to this view?
That's not to say that I consider the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. to be completely without merit. But come on, these books were written hundreds of years ago, at a time when humans didn't know nearly as much as we now know. Give these volumes credit for the positive things they add to your life now, but it's not like everything we ever needed to know was discovered 2,000 or so years ago.
-
Woof Rog, Please tell me where in the Bible it is made crystal clear that women are the property of men.
Also will you please give me an example where something in the Bible is subject to more than one interpretation.
Do these things if you will and I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.
TG
-
Michael:
Sorry for the delay. I have had a heavy writing load to deal with the past few days and I confess to being distracted by the apparent commencement of open war in the mid-east.
I will get to this , , , eventually.
The Adventure continues,
CD
PS: Roger & Tom: Knowing you two as I do, please forgive me for pre-emptively asking you make sure to bring your tangent back to the main point in the not too distant future.
-
Woof Michael:
I finally had a chance to sit and reread your post. How refreshing that there is no hesitation or equivocation in your resposes to simple questions! You seem like a reasonable guy with whom one could enjoyably break bread.
Question: In that you read holy books from many religions, why do you think of yourself as a Sufi Muslim? What is it about its beliefs that appeal to you? Which of these beliefs do you see as universal, and which do you see as distinctive to Islam/Sufi Islam?
Question: It sounds like you feel free to interpret the Koran according to your inner voice. Of course for the fundamentalist, this raises concerns of a "slippery slope" nature-- once one gets started interpreting and picking and choosing, how does one decide? Who knows where it will lead? etc.
How do you feel about all this?
Question: Where is Sufism predominant? What % of Muslims in the Arab world are Sufi? In Iran? In Afg? In Pak? In India? In Indonesia/Malaysia? In Europe? In the US? Is your thinking typical of Sufi thinking?
The Adventure continues,
Crafty Dog
-
Hello all, Crafty thanks for the kind words and breaking bread is a favorite past time of mine...LOL. I will answer the following questions to the best of my ability.
why do you think of yourself as a Sufi Muslim?
As I said in my opening post I see myself as a human being before all else and I believe that being so transcends religion in all it's forms. I study Sufism for one simple reason, it makes sense to me, it deals with the simplicity of oneness and it being a solitary path makes it a personal journey of truth.
What is it about its beliefs that appeal to you?
The appeal is very simple, it is based on what I see as truth as it relates to that question of G_d. Now I understand that most hard line fundamental Muslims will say that Sufism or Tasawwuf if you will is a lie a false science etc. etc. but one must understand that Sufism was here way before the organized religion of Islam as a matter of fact Christianity and Judaism have their own mystical ways such as Gnosticism and Kabbalah. I also understand that some Sufi's will say that you cannot have Sufism without Sharia and or Sunnah etc. this is where I totally disagree, if Sufism transcends religion then these fundamental thoughts will never apply it is in fact the exact opposite of what Sufism is and to assume that an individual does not have the mental or spiritual capacity to embrace Sufism because he or she doesn't choose to call himself Muslim is an absolute falsehood.
Which of these beliefs do you see as universal, and which do you see as distinctive to Islam/Sufi Islam?
Personally I do not see Sufism (as I know it) distinctive to Islam or any other religion, I understand that Sufism is a part of Islam and that it has many faces. I am a student of Sufism as a western man, I see it from a western perspective that alone changes my view of what it is supposed to be according to fundamental thinking and in the long run it is a very personal journey.
The beliefs that I find are universal are very simple common sense:
1. freedom to believe how you want
2. love over hate
3. giving of yourself freely
4. to keep your beliefs in your heart
5. the oneness with your beliefs
And as Shaykh always says "smile it warms your soul as well as someone else's" so you see I just look at it in very simple terms, no need to delve into areas that I myself are unclear about or to be honest hold no relevance in 2006 America.
Crafty says: It sounds like you feel free to interpret the Koran according to your inner voice. Of course for the fundamentalist, this raises concerns of a "slippery slope" nature-- once one gets started interpreting and picking and choosing, how does one decide? Who knows where it will lead? etc.
I do interpret Koran & the Bible and all scripture I read with an open mind and an open heart (I would hope all people do) and yes it is a slippery slope and looked down upon among the box dwellers of Islam and fundamental mindsets in general. It is an easy decision I make to do so, I choose to see good not bad, I choose to use my mind in conjunction with my heart to decipher what I find to be truth..if this is wrong then so be it I am wrong but my heart and conscience are clear..I wonder if the fundamental mind and heart truly is?
The decision to read and interpret with my own heart is obvious, it is my right as a human being to do so and if more people would choose to see the good over the bad we may have less of a shit storm in the world. Hopefully it will lead to more tolerance for all and for everyone to soften their hearts just a bit...but personally I think that is a long, long way away.
Crafty asks: How do you feel about all this?
Well at first I thought it was a bit of a set up but I admit that I was 100% wrong, perhaps I judged before understanding...(I am human and fallible)but I do see now that it is a very important discussion and I hope my words may make sense to people if not that's understandable as well and a bit sad to. You asked why I consider myself Sufi/Muslim? I have been contemplating that greatly....I am a student of Sufism (my personal path) as far as being Muslim hm mm I guess to some I am to others I am not but to me I am a human being before all else. I believe Christianity and Judaism and Islam all have portions in their scripture that I agree with and there are portions in each that doesn't ring true in my heart but one thing for sure is if one chooses to look deep enough you will find they have more in common than one wishes to see.
I am unsure about Sufism in other parts of the world..I do know that in southeast Asia Sufism is a very big part of their ways.. and in many of the Silat systems Sufism plays an integral role....The Wali Songo etc. as for the middle east hmm to be honest with you I do not know...I tend to have a very skewed view of the middle east and it's ways, very skewed as in WHAT the F**** are they thinking over there? I think many people have that same view...LOL...Until next time..I hope these answers suffice...take care.
Michael
-
Woof Michael:
Thank you for your thoughtful posts. Please feel free to continue doing so.
CD
---------------------
All:
I recommend viewing this documentary about Islamic Fascism:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&hl=en
The focus of this thread is Dialog with Muslims. We will be particularly glad to hear Muslim reactions to this documentary. As it notes in its conclusion, the words and deeds of the Muslim world in response to this Fascism are key.
The Adventure continues,
CD
8/11/08 edited to add: For some reason :-P this video seems to be no longer available
-
Woof,
If a bunch of people were to start calling abortion opponents "Christian Fascists" or Israeli settlers "Jewish Fascists", I suspect a lot of Christians and Jews would be offended. But if any Muslims are offended by your favorite term, I guess that's their problem.
Rog
-
If a bunch of people were to start calling abortion opponents "Christian Fascists" or Israeli settlers "Jewish Fascists", I suspect a lot of Christians and Jews would be offended. But if any Muslims are offended by your favorite term, I guess that's their problem.
So you are setting up a syllogism where those who object to the killing of unborn humans are held similar to those who advocate walking into a crowded subway station and blowing themselves up? That comparison is silly on more levels than I'm willing to sit down and list.
If you have a term that describes those Muslims who use the tools of fascism to impose their ends by violence let's hear it. If that term bears some relationship to reality without treading upon your sensibilities I'll consider using it. My guess, however, is that those who think sawing the head off of an abused kidnapping victim on camera and then distributing the video widely while citing the glory of Allah worry not at all that some call them by their true name.
-
Woof,
If they're fascists, then why not just call them fascists? Is the "Islamic" part necessary to avoid confusion with some other group of fascists?
Is it OK for me to use the term "Christian Fascists" even if I give a disclaimer that I only mean abortion clinic bombers and KKK members? If a lot of people still think I really mean *all* Christians, then at some point my conscious use of the term becomes deliberately inflammatory.
Rog
-
Utility is my grail so I tend to choose terms that further that end. I think it can be clearly demonstrated that the folks in question claim an Islamic ethos and use fascist political and military tactics, so the term works for me.
If you think the term "Christian Fascists" describes a group in a useful manner, by all means use it. I'd argue that there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between abortion clinic bombers and Muslim terrorists, and my guess is that those differences will prevent parallel terms from being widely adopted outside of places like the Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos.
Though I understand political and rhetorical ends can be served by adopting parallel terms, in this instance I suspect many will see it as equivocation that fails to serve any purpose but a political one.
-
I'm just saying that however appropriate of a description you consider the term to be, it's seen as an insult to a lot of people. If that's of no concern to you, fine, but then maybe the title of this thread should be "Muslim punching bags wanted for inflammatory discussion" instead of "an invitation to dialogue with Muslims".
-
If accurate terms have to be sacrificed to foster some lukewarm debate then I'm not particularly interested in participating in it in the first place. As you've doubtless surmised during our various exchanges, I don't lay awake at night worrying I've damaged any tender sensibilities, and indeed believe some embrace tender claims as it is easier than defending blatant foolishness.
Back when this thread began I stated:
I've been hesitant to chime in here as my experience is that these sorts of conversations rarely lead productive directions and indeed some current posts create a cognitive dissonance I expect will prove difficult to surmount.
I think my concern has largely proven true, not because a term has hurt feelings, but because simple premises like "Israel should be allowed to exist in peace" can't be agreed to. The result are exchanges that obfuscate rather than illuminate, warts and all. To my mind you seek to further embrace obfuscation, while I only find discussions that illuminate worth bothering with in the first place.
Bottom line is if calling someone who ballyhoos Islamic scripture while brandishing fascist tactics an Islamic Fascist makes informed debate impossible, I guess I'll have to live with it.
-
Howdy from Tejas
I watched this documentary very closely, it is so odd that these radicals who spout contempt for western ways, ideologies etc. borrow a page from just that, NAZI Germany. The old saying still applies "if you forget your history you are doomed to repeat it" this is oh so true and is very visible in this documentary. Okay on with my rant:
These idiots who buy into this ideology and brainwashing are so lost it is truly sad, but with that being said a lost soul is one of complete denial and willing to do great harm to see that his masters bidding is done (a dangerous path indeed), personally speaking I am 100% against these bafoons and what they stand for, if they choose to do me or mine harm or my nation then I will fight them every inch of the way, I have no qualms with unleashing the dogs if that is what it takes to insure the sanctity of my beliefs, my way of life, my constitution and the safety of my nation and it's citizens no matter the race, color, religion or creed. I believe all Americans and westerners in general need to speak up more and come to each others aid in these times no matter the religion. The saddest part of this documentary is the children and the hate filled words that spewed from their mouths, that to me is the biggest crime in existance, we will deal with these youth as they grow into young adults with hate manifested times infinity and our only solution will be one of violence unless of course these ways change and true education and teachings of love and tolerance take root in these societies, which is hard for me to see...sad but oh so true. I really have no answers to any of this, I know that this is a world wide crisis and for some reason people still do not wish to open their eyes to it, why I do not know and for someone like Michael Moorer to open his pie hole and spew his rhetoric that we do not have to be worried is so typical of the left that it truly is freightening. Now I am not saying that we as Americans have to walk around with code red stamped on our foreheads but we better wake up to some degree and understand that this problem can touch us, and we need to prepare ourselves to some degree to be able to deal with the onslaught, godforbid that it finds us as an individual. We are at a very difficult time in our lives, a time of great violence throughout the globe a time of extreme changes which do not always reflect the goodness that exists in this world, we must be prepared to do what is necessary to keep our families, selves and way of life safe not to mention the greatest country on this rock the U.S.A.....so in closing keep the faith and do whats right, be a good person, learn to tolerate all of mankind who are deserving (not these dip shits in the vid..LOL) and drive on and no matter your religion, color, creed I will be there to back your play because my friends this is America and those who come to destroy it will have a rude awakening....Take care!
Hillbilly Sufi
Michael B.
-
If accurate terms have to be sacrificed to foster some lukewarm debate then I'm not particularly interested in participating in it in the first place.
"Christian wacko" may be a perfectly accurate term for Christians who bomb abortion clinics or burn crosses on black families' lawns, but because it's needlessly insulting (and I don't want to have to explain exactly who I mean every time I use it) I no longer use it in political discussions with Christians. If you can't express yourself without insulting people, then yeah, you probably shouldn't participate in the discussion.
-
I can express myself more than adequately and have yet to hear from anyone other than you--who I presume is not an Islamic Fascist--that they find any term I use insulting. Frankly I think it's kind of insulting to assume all Muslims take umbrage when Islamic Fascists and their acts are condemned, but have better things to do than quibble about who's feelings are perhaps maybe hurt the worst by the way a term is applied or not.
But hey, why bother having a substantive discussion when you can dither endlessly instead dictating the PC terms for debate? There is no shortage of folks out there willing to take gross offense over most anything; I'm not going to stand mute because they like to warble about injuries real, or more likely imagined, particularly when I feel the end is to quash debate rather than move it forward.
BTW, do you feel Israel has a right to exist in peace? Or is the issue too concrete to discuss at this critical semantic juncture?
-
BTW, do you feel Israel has a right to exist in peace?
I'd say they have a right to live in peace, but not unconditionally. As the saying goes, everybody wants peace on their terms. My issue with Israel is not that they're wrong and the Palestinians/Hezbollah are right, but that they take US support as meaning they don't have to negotiate or treat their adversaries with any respect, which they would have to do if left to deal with this on their own.
We constantly hear about how Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. deny "Israel's right to exist", that they want to "destroy Israel", or "exterminate all Jews". The source is a statement (in Arabic or Farsi) supposedly from the Hamas charter. It would be interesting to see a US news agency interview an actual Hamas leader, tell him how this statement is being interpreted in the US, and ask him directly if this is what they really mean.
-
Gentlemen:
Forgive me the intervention, but I'd like to steer this back to the subject of this thread: dialog with Muslims.
CD
-
Time to weigh in...
Although I find myself without subscribing to any faith (oh how i long for an age of reason), there are many things that I find beautiful about religion. There are many things about Islam that appeal to the best of man and as a religion it provides serenity and comfort for hundreds of millions of people. I'll echo Sibatan and say yes I also believe the majority of people want to live their lives, provide for their families, etc.
I have met many Muslims who have emphasized that Islam is a religion of peace and practice it as such. I would venture to guess that most muslims were shocked and disgusted that 9/11, bali, spain, london, etc.
were done in their name. If you look at various editorials, etc. from muslim countries you can see a strong resistence to those claims. However it seems to stop there. Either the voices calling for Islam to emphasize it's peaceful teachings aren't loud enough, are unwilling, or they don't know what next step to take in confronting militanism.
Having lived in a Muslim country (Bangladesh) and having visited others (Malaysia, Indonesia), it becomes clear that Islam has many varieties. Personally I wonder how much national identity and culture affect the practice of Islam in any one area. How is Islam different in say South Asia and North Africa? How is is different than in the Middle East? Or are the things that i personally find disageeable (i.e. the perspective and treatment of women) a function of national culture or religion?
Earlier Rog made a post on whether or not we were seeking out comfort by searching for moderate voices to codemn terrorism. I think it's necessary to start a dialogue on certain ground. There are people out there who place Osama Bin Laden stickers on their walls, wear t-shirts depicting 9/11, have posters of Saddam, sell Osama Bin Laden action figures, call their stores Jihad, etc. Personally it gives me the willies and it isn't easy to engage with people (thankfully not the majority) who start out discussions with "Bush bad, Osama good." I dont think it's unreasonable to ask for people to start on the ground that terrorism is bad. From our side I also think it's important to demonstrate that there isn't a big western conspiracy against Islam, which is why voices demonstrating differences in American opinion or people seeking out meaningful dialogue are important.
woof.
-
Woof All:
Bjung (a.k.a. Porn Star Dog-- because his last name is JungwiwattanattaPORN folks :lol: ) thank you for that post.
Moving along, this sounds like dialog to me:
http://oasisofpeace.org/about_village.htm
This does not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmnpMXOpaM4&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM-XeaIn06g&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=19mpJRq11Hg
8/11/08 Edited to add that the thrid video has been removed for "violating terms of use". Pre-emptive dhimmitude perhaps?
The Adventure continues,
CD
-
From today's NY Times about Muslims in the US military:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20060723_MARINES_FEATURE/blocker.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/nyregion/07marines.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
By ANDREA ELLIOTT
Published: August 7, 2006
Few people ever see Ismile Althaibani?s Purple Heart. He keeps the medal tucked away in a dresser. His Marine uniform is stored in a closet. His hair is no longer shaved to the scalp.
Faith and War
One Brooklyn Family
This is the first article in an occasional series looking at the experiences of Muslims in the United States military. Other articles will deal with the challenge of recruiting Arabic speakers and one woman?s efforts to enlist and serve.
It has been 20 months since he returned from Iraq after a roadside explosion shattered his left foot. He never expected a hero?s welcome, and it never came ? none of the balloons or hand-written signs that greeted another man from his unit who lived blocks away.
Mr. Althaibani, 23, was the last of five young marines to come home to an extended family of Yemeni immigrants in Brooklyn. Like the others, he grew accustomed to the uneasy stares and prying questions. He learned not to talk about his service in the company of Muslim neighbors and relatives.
?I try not to let people know I?m in the military,? said Mr. Althaibani, a lance corporal in the Marine Corps Reserve.
The passage home from Iraq has been difficult for many American troops. They have struggled to recover from the shocking intensity of the war. They have faced the country?s ambivalence about a conflict in which thousands of their fellow soldiers have been killed or maimed.
But for Muslim Americans like Mr. Althaibani, the experience has been especially fraught.
They were called upon to fight a Muslim enemy, alongside comrades who sometimes questioned their loyalty. They returned home to neighborhoods where the occupation is commonly dismissed as an imperialist crusade, and where Muslims who serve in Iraq are often disparaged as traitors.
Some 3,500 Muslims have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan with the United States armed forces, military figures show. Seven of them have been killed, and 212 have been awarded Combat Action Ribbons.
More than half these troops are African-American. But little else is known about Muslims in the military. There is no count of those who are immigrants or of Middle Eastern descent. There is no full measure of their honors or injuries, their struggle overseas and at home.
A piece of the story is found near Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, where two sets of brothers and a young cousin share a singular kinship. They grew up blocks apart, in the cradle of a large Muslim family. They joined the Marines, passing from one fraternity to another. Within the span of a year and a half, they had all gone to Iraq and come home.
Ismile?s cousin Ace Montaser sensed a new distance among the men at his mosque on State Street. He described it as ?the awkward eye.?
Ismile?s older brother Abe, a burly New York City police officer, learned to avoid political debates.
Their cousin Abdulbasset Montaser took a different approach. He answered questions about whether he served in Iraq with a feisty, ?Yeah, we?re going to Yemen next!? He has helped recruit for the Marines and boasts about his cousin?s medal to the neighbors.
?I want every Muslim in the military to be recognized,? said Mr. Montaser, a corporal. ?If not, people will feel they?re not doing their part.?
Their service bears some resemblance to that of Japanese and German immigrants who fought for the United States in World War II. But for Muslims of Arab descent, the call to serve in Iraq is complicated not only by ethnic ties, but by religion.
Islamic scholars have long debated the circumstances under which it is permissible for Muslims to fight one another. The arguments are intricate, centering on the question of what constitutes a just war.
In Brooklyn, those fine points are easily lost. Here, many immigrants say that killing Muslims is simply wrong, and they cite the Koran as proof. Their opposition to the war is rooted as much in religion, they say, as in Arab solidarity.
The same week that Abe Althaibani headed to Iraq with the 25th Marine Regiment, his wife joined thousands of antiwar protesters in Manhattan, shouting, ?No blood for oil!?
?It was my people,? said his wife, Esmihan Althaibani, a regal woman with luminous green eyes. ?I went because it was Arabs.?
===================
Few people ever see Ismile Althaibani?s Purple Heart. He keeps the medal tucked away in a dresser. His Marine uniform is stored in a closet. His hair is no longer shaved to the scalp.
This is the first article in an occasional series looking at the experiences of Muslims in the United States military. Other articles will deal with the challenge of recruiting Arabic speakers and one woman?s efforts to enlist and serve.
It has been 20 months since he returned from Iraq after a roadside explosion shattered his left foot. He never expected a hero?s welcome, and it never came ? none of the balloons or hand-written signs that greeted another man from his unit who lived blocks away.
Mr. Althaibani, 23, was the last of five young marines to come home to an extended family of Yemeni immigrants in Brooklyn. Like the others, he grew accustomed to the uneasy stares and prying questions. He learned not to talk about his service in the company of Muslim neighbors and relatives.
?I try not to let people know I?m in the military,? said Mr. Althaibani, a lance corporal in the Marine Corps Reserve.
The passage home from Iraq has been difficult for many American troops. They have struggled to recover from the shocking intensity of the war. They have faced the country?s ambivalence about a conflict in which thousands of their fellow soldiers have been killed or maimed.
But for Muslim Americans like Mr. Althaibani, the experience has been especially fraught.
They were called upon to fight a Muslim enemy, alongside comrades who sometimes questioned their loyalty. They returned home to neighborhoods where the occupation is commonly dismissed as an imperialist crusade, and where Muslims who serve in Iraq are often disparaged as traitors.
Some 3,500 Muslims have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan with the United States armed forces, military figures show. Seven of them have been killed, and 212 have been awarded Combat Action Ribbons.
More than half these troops are African-American. But little else is known about Muslims in the military. There is no count of those who are immigrants or of Middle Eastern descent. There is no full measure of their honors or injuries, their struggle overseas and at home.
A piece of the story is found near Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, where two sets of brothers and a young cousin share a singular kinship. They grew up blocks apart, in the cradle of a large Muslim family. They joined the Marines, passing from one fraternity to another. Within the span of a year and a half, they had all gone to Iraq and come home.
Ismile?s cousin Ace Montaser sensed a new distance among the men at his mosque on State Street. He described it as ?the awkward eye.?
Ismile?s older brother Abe, a burly New York City police officer, learned to avoid political debates.
Their cousin Abdulbasset Montaser took a different approach. He answered questions about whether he served in Iraq with a feisty, ?Yeah, we?re going to Yemen next!? He has helped recruit for the Marines and boasts about his cousin?s medal to the neighbors.
?I want every Muslim in the military to be recognized,? said Mr. Montaser, a corporal. ?If not, people will feel they?re not doing their part.?
Their service bears some resemblance to that of Japanese and German immigrants who fought for the United States in World War II. But for Muslims of Arab descent, the call to serve in Iraq is complicated not only by ethnic ties, but by religion.
Islamic scholars have long debated the circumstances under which it is permissible for Muslims to fight one another. The arguments are intricate, centering on the question of what constitutes a just war.
In Brooklyn, those fine points are easily lost. Here, many immigrants say that killing Muslims is simply wrong, and they cite the Koran as proof. Their opposition to the war is rooted as much in religion, they say, as in Arab solidarity.
The same week that Abe Althaibani headed to Iraq with the 25th Marine Regiment, his wife joined thousands of antiwar protesters in Manhattan, shouting, ?No blood for oil!?
?It was my people,? said his wife, Esmihan Althaibani, a regal woman with luminous green eyes. ?I went because it was Arabs.?
==========================
(Page 3 of 5)
?You see what?s going on over there,? said Esmihan Althaibani, 26. ?The casualties on both sides. Iraqis speaking for themselves, saying, ?We didn?t want to get invaded.? They would hold dead babies with their heads blown off.?
One afternoon in May, the television filled with the image of a blood-soaked sidewalk in Baghdad.
?Look, look,? said Sadah Althaibani, 65, a petite woman with a stubborn frown. ?They?re cleaning the blood off the ground.?
When Mrs. Althaibani talks about the war, she sounds like other American parents upset by their children?s service. She laments that her sons had to fight while President Bush ?was playing with his dog.? She has no doubt that the occupation was driven by a quest for oil.
But among Yemeni immigrants, Mrs. Althaibani found that she could not speak openly about her sons? deployment. Muslim Americans have been vehemently opposed to the war: Of roughly 1,800 surveyed by the pollster John Zogby in 2004, more than 80 percent were against it.
Mrs. Althaibani told people that her sons were working as translators, not as marines in combat. On her television, she had seen reports of Shiites fighting Sunnis, but she clung to the idea that Muslims should not kill each other.
?It?s a sin,? she said. ?Nobody kills other Muslims. They?re like brothers.?
After Combat, Questions
The question that shadows the Montasers and Althaibanis is whether they killed anyone. The same question haunts any soldier returning from combat. But for Muslims, the reckoning is different.
Abdulbasset Montaser, 23, a slim, soft-spoken man, said he fired his weapon only in self-defense, and never at targets he could distinctly see.
?I never had to kill anyone face to face,? he said.
He believed that battling with the insurgents was justified because they were not following the rules of Islam. What disturbed him were the civilians caught in the cross-fire.
?It?s not that I feel guilty going out there, but you?re fighting your own people in a way,? he said.
Of the five cousins, no one saw heavier combat than Ismile (pronounced ish-MY-el) Althaibani, who was stationed in Falluja in the fall of 2004, during the American offensive against the insurgents there. He worked in convoy security with the First Marine Division.
?If you?re out there ? no matter your culture, your religion ? and somebody shoots at you, what do you do?? Mr. Althaibani said. ?It?s either him or me. That?s how I come to terms with it.?
Still, he was troubled by his belief that Islam prohibits killing.
Over dinner at an Italian restaurant one evening last month, Mr. Althaibani sat hunched at the table, spinning his cellphone like a top.
Abdulbasset Montaser sat across from him. They were the only ones in their family to enlist after Sept. 11, when deployment to the Middle East was a clear possibility. They never expected the war that followed.
When asked if he was proud of his service in Iraq, Mr. Althaibani thought for a moment.
?It?s mixed feelings, right?? he said, looking at his cousin. Mr. Montaser nodded silently.
Mr. Althaibani was awarded a Combat Action Ribbon, in addition to the Purple Heart. He did not want to talk about whether he killed anyone, or about the violence he witnessed.
?You just try to forget,? he said.
A Marine Transformed
The oldest of the group, Abe Althaibani, came home with much of his former character intact. He had the same easy laugh. He still cleaned his plate at dinner.
But there were hints of change. He was more on edge, his mother noticed. He had acquired the habits of his comrades: he smoked Marlboro Reds and took to dipping tobacco.
What struck his wife was something less common among marines: Mr. Althaibani spoke Arabic with a new Iraqi accent.
He told his relatives little about his role in the war. When prodded, he would sometimes say that he served in ?civilian affairs.?
In fact, Mr. Althaibani had worked on secret missions around Iraq with two counterintelligence teams.
=========================
Page 4 of 5)
He had been trained as a rifleman. But soon after he arrived at his base in Nasiriya in April 2003, he became a full-time interpreter, going on raids, assisting with interrogations and working undercover to cultivate sources. To fit in, he grew a beard and wore a long, checked scarf popular among Iraqi men.
The irony of Mr. Althaibani?s evolution did not escape him: He assumed, by outward appearances, a more traditionally Arab identity with the Marines than he ever had growing up among Yemenis.
The greatest challenge of his service, he said, was ?the acting.?
?It?s like you gotta be somebody you?re not sometimes in order to get information,? he said. ?It?s basically like you?re a fake, you?re a fraud. But you have to think you?re doing this in order for good things to happen.?
Mr. Althaibani, 28, wanted only to unwind when he came home five months later. Other marines he knew had struggled to readjust to civilian life.
?It?s hard,? he said. ?You?re out there giving people orders, and you come here and the lady at the checkout is giving you attitude.?
He eventually became a police officer, taking a path that three other marines in his family plan to follow.
One sunny afternoon in June, Mr. Althaibani guided his black Nissan Maxima through the Carroll Gardens section of Brooklyn. Frank Sinatra?s ?Fly Me to the Moon? floated from the speakers. The playgrounds, schools and cafes of Mr. Althaibani?s youth passed in slow sequence.
As he drove, Mr. Althaibani began recounting the crowning achievement of his team in Iraq: the capture of a suspected Baath party official who was believed to have taken part in the deadly ambush of Pfc. Jessica Lynch?s convoy.
?I felt like I was doing something,? he said.
The Iraqi captive, Nagem Sadoon Hatab, was detained at Camp Whitehorse near Nasiriya in June 2003. During an interrogation, he would accept water only from Mr. Althaibani, the marine recalled.
Two days later, another marine dragged Mr. Hatab, who was covered in his own feces, by the neck outside his cell and left him lying naked in the heat, according to court testimony. He was found dead hours later. An autopsy showed that he had suffered a broken neck bone, broken ribs and blunt trauma to the legs.
A Marine Corps major and a sergeant were charged with assaulting Mr. Hatab. Both were acquitted of the charge, though the major was found guilty of dereliction of duty and maltreatment in the case and the sergeant was convicted of abusing unidentified Iraqi prisoners.
Mr. Althaibani testified at the sergeant?s trial. He spoke about the case later with a shrugging detachment, saying he had witnessed no abuse and believes that the prosecutors were intent on ?crucifying the Marines.?
Looking back on the war, he feels the greatest loyalty toward his fellow marines.
?I wanted to get out there, do what I had to do and get home,? he said. ?I had no choice. Even if there was a choice ? you?re going to train with these guys and leave them??
The Marine Corps is ?like a cult,? he said. ?You went together and you come home together.?
No Looking Back
It is difficult to picture Ace Montaser at war. He has a boy?s face, with flushed cheeks and aqua eyes that dance about.
When he rolls up his sleeve, the image hardens. Sprawled across his arm is a tattoo of the Grim Reaper. Below it, a ribbon of letters spells ?Brooklyn,? and across the top are the words, ?Trust no one.?
He got the tattoo when he came home from Iraq. It signaled his entry into another kind of battle, one between him and the traditions of his family.
From the time Mr. Montaser was 12, he remembers his mother telling him he would marry a girl from Yemen. He never liked the idea.
?They say you just build love,? he said.
A bride had also been chosen for his brother, Abdulbasset, and the family began talking of a dual wedding before the two men left for Iraq, with different units, in the spring of 2003.
While he was away, Mr. Montaser, 25, served mostly as a translator in Nasiriya, training the Iraqi police and rebuilding schools.
Iraq felt strangely familiar. He studied the streets, the cars, the way people dressed, and kept thinking of Yemen, where he had spent stretches of his youth.
In young Iraqis, he saw himself. He would look at them and wonder, had his father not moved to Brooklyn, would his life have been so different?
He was most haunted by the children, those who begged in the street and others who lay dead in a hospital he visited.
?I just saw how precious life was,? he said. ?To come back alive, I feel I have the right to do whatever I want to do.?
Soon after he returned that September, Mr. Montaser fell in love with a woman from the Bronx. She was Muslim, but did not cover her head. She was of Arab descent, but not Yemeni.
Their relationship was not the first rebellion staged by Mr. Montaser, who prefers the nickname Ace to his birth name, Abdulsamed.
His parents went ahead with the original wedding plan. Nine months later, they persuaded him to fly to Yemen, where they own a house in the capital, Sana.
The night before the wedding, he plotted his escape.
====================
Page 5 of 5)
He quietly packed his camouflage Marine bag. At midnight, he slipped out of the house. On a dresser, he left a note saying that he had gotten cold feet and was traveling south to the port city of Aden.
?That?s the good thing about being a marine,? he said. ?You plan. You?re made for these situations. That?s how I got out.?
He hailed a cab to the American Embassy, where a Marine staff sergeant ushered him inside. The next day, he flew back to New York.
?What he realized is the Marine Corps is his other family,? said Gunnery Sgt. Jamal Baadani, an Egyptian immigrant and a mentor of Mr. Montaser.
A week later, Mr. Montaser married his girlfriend, Nafeesah, at City Hall. They live in the Bronx with her parents.
Mr. Montaser is now studying to become a radio producer. For a long time, he did not speak to his parents. He is trying to mend the relationship, but has no interest in returning to Yemen.
?I don?t care what I left behind,? he said. ?There?s nothing for me there. Everything?s in America.?
A Quiet Return
Ismile Althaibani was the last to come home. He arrived at his parents? doorstep without warning on Thanksgiving day in 2004, leaning on a pair of crutches.
They answered the bell and embraced him. He knew there would be none of the balloons and signs that welcomed a Puerto Rican marine in the neighborhood.
?It?s just decorations,? Mr. Althaibani said.
Nine days earlier, on Nov. 17, Mr. Althaibani was in Falluja, riding in a predawn convoy to pick up detainees. He had said a prayer before the trip, reciting the Koran?s first verse. If he survived, he promised God, he would become a better Muslim.
Suddenly, a bomb planted by the insurgents exploded under his truck.
Shrapnel flew into his face and dug deep inside his left foot. Blood trickled from his ears. A friend dragged him from the wreckage, and soon he was on a helicopter to Baghdad.
Mr. Althaibani almost never tells the story of his injury. Few of his relatives know what happened. When he was awarded the Purple Heart at a ceremony at Floyd Bennett Field, in Brooklyn, he invited only his brother Abe and a couple of friends.
His mother does not know the name of his medal.
?You can?t say ?purple heart? in Arabic,? said Mr. Althaibani.
But word traveled. About six months after he returned, Mr. Althaibani was standing outside Yemen Cafe on Atlantic Avenue, sipping tea. A stranger walked up, shook his hand and asked him, in Arabic, if he had killed Iraqis.
None of the marines in Mr. Althaibani?s family welcomed the attention. But for Ismile, it was especially uncomfortable.
A lean man with brown, searching eyes, Mr. Althaibani is always standing off to the side. He is quiet by nature, but returned from Iraq even more withdrawn, his relatives observed. He smiled less, and smoked often.
One afternoon in May, he sank into a couch in his family?s living room. His father, who is a maintenance foreman at a building in Manhattan, sat across from him.
?Iraq is wrong ? 100 percent,? his father said, speaking in English to this reporter. ?Nobody support the war in Iraq.?
Ismile looked away. He had never asked his father what he thought of the war.
Weeks later, the young man stood in a park in Downtown Brooklyn, smoking a cigarette.
?He?s proud of me,? he said of his father. ?He don?t express himself a lot.?
His foot had finally healed. He had been attending a local mosque, and would soon begin training at the New York City Police Academy.
The physical traces of his time in Iraq were all but gone. His hair fell loosely over his forehead. A soft goatee shaded his face.
The only hint of his service hung from two silver chains that disappeared beneath his shirt. They held the aluminum tags of his military identity: name. Blood type. Social Security number.
Stamped across the bottom, in the same block letters, was the word ?Muslim.?
-
August 22
By BERNARD LEWIS
August 8, 2006; Page A10
During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.
It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.
Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
* * *
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.
Muhammad's night flight on Buraq.
Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.
The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights -- the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.
A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.
The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians -- but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent -- the threat of direct retaliation on Iran -- is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.
In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.
What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."
In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead -- hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
-
An article from the UK:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2300423,00.html? ?
The Sunday Times? ? ? August 06, 2006
Muslim integration has come to a halt
Jon Snow found a worrying trend towards separation among the young?
when he toured the country to test Muslim opinion
I recently went on a journey around Britain to make a film about one of the most difficult and?
controversial questions facing our country today: to what extent do Muslims pose a threat to?
Britain and its values??
We were attempting to delve behind the results of the most comprehensive survey to date of?
Muslim opinion in Britain. Conducted by NOP for Channel 4?s Dispatches, one of its most
startling results suggested that Muslim integration into British society has effectively come to?
a halt.?
Immigrants have usually tended to become more secular and less religious than their parents?
by the second generation. But the survey shows Muslims have gone in precisely the opposite?
direction.?
Although many of the first Muslim immigrants did not speak English well, they were desperate?
to assimilate, driven, in part, by the desire for jobs and prosperity. The language barrier and?
other factors created a sense of separateness, but it was not of their choosing.?
By contrast, today?s young British Muslims are less liberal and more devout than their parents.?
Their beliefs render many of them determined not just to be different but also to be separate?
from the rest of the nation. The issues that bring them into direct conflict with Britain as a?
whole include freedom of speech and how the ?war on terror? is being fought at home.
In short, the effects of Britain?s foreign policy are far more profound than for any other?
section of the population in determining their identity.?
This sense of separateness is developing even in places like Stoke-on-Trent, where Muslims?
comprise only 3% of the population, reflecting exactly the ratio of the 1.6m Muslims to the rest?
of the UK. Stoke is no ghetto, but a conversation with young Muslims playing football showed?
how out of step their views are with wider public opinion.?
These young men simply did not believe that 9/11 was the work of Islamic terrorists, but rather?
an American conspiracy. One young man remarked in all seriousness that George Bush and?
Osama Bin Laden could be sitting together, sipping champagne. The reason Bin Laden had not?
been caught, he said, was that it would be ?game over and they?ll have to leave the Middle East?.?
A sizeable number of British Muslims to whom I talked were convinced that Princess Diana was?
killed because of her relationship with a Muslim, a view reflected in our survey of 1,000 Muslims
? not just angry young men, but the elderly, women, the poor and wealthy businessmen. Half?
of those polled believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US and Israel, while one in four think?
Diana was murdered to stop her marrying a Muslim.?
The evidence that integration has stopped comes from comparing our survey with previous studies,?
most notably one conducted in 1993 by Tariq Modood, professor of sociology at Bristol University,?
who says political identification with Islam has grown disproportionately among the young since then.?
It is generally assumed potential radicals come only from deprived areas, but Modood confirms that?
the well-off and educated are drawing away just as much. Many youngsters from Bradford are?
going to university and in a sense having it both ways ? benefiting from this country?s facilities but?
taking with them core beliefs that sometimes lead to separateness.?
Indeed, a 19-year-old Muslim studying biomedicine at a London university explained that the very?
fact of his education had led him to think the way he does. At one point I asked him and his two?
friends: ?You?d like me to become a Muslim, wouldn?t you?? They said I?d be much better for it,?
and talked about the positive aspects of converting.?
An overwhelming number of British Muslims believe free speech should not extend to insulting their?
religion, and one-third would rather live under sharia law, as laid down by the Koran. A 29-year-old?
of Turkish Cypriot origin told me: ?I feel that democracy altogether isn?t working as a system.?
I believe that man-made laws aren?t really the answer.??
The standards such teachings embody are non-liberal, though these are not without attraction to?
people on the conservative end of British life, who, like these young Koranic students, view?
homosexuality and drunkenness in public places as wholly unacceptable.?
I had an interesting discussion on an east London housing estate with Heena, an articulate young?
media studies student who seemed integrated, with her iPod and western dress, yet could not have?
been more damning when we got onto the question of homosexuality.
However, the vast majority share the attitude of Sheeryn, a teacher of Koranic studies in Bradford,?
who said she felt comfortable in Britain and had close British friends. ?I think I have a place for?
these people and a place for my religion,? she said.
?
Other views are less reassuring. In our sample, almost one in four said the July 7 bombings were?
justified in the light of Britain?s support for the war on terror. Those under the age of 24 were?
twice as likely to believe this as those over 45.?
For the moment, British Muslims are on side. Eight out of 10 we questioned said someone who?
knew of a terrorist act and did not report it would be equally to blame as the terrorists themselves.?
What I encountered was a story of separateness, rather than extremism. Only eight out of the?
1,000 people polled maintained a very hard line throughout all the answers. The others were?
inconsistent, to the extent that while some might justify the July 7 bombings, they were moderate?
on other issues.?
The clearest conclusion is that they are deeply affected by external events in which they see their?
fellow Muslims being killed. They have a litany of instances all over the world in which they feel?
the British government is either complicit, active in, or tolerant of mistreatment of Muslims.?
We had just finished the programme when Lebanon blew up. I have no doubt it is adding to?
the Muslim community?s sense of anger and alienation.?
Making the programme gave me a degree of contact with domestic Muslims I?ve never had?
before. I found them to be a very dynamic community. In mainly Muslim markets in London?
and Bradford, people bounded up to me eager to talk about the issues of the day. They were?
much more interested in current events than the rest of the population.?
Separatism breeds fear, misunderstanding and intolerance on both sides. I sensed a real need
for the rest of us to reach out and engage. Restarting any sense of integration is going to require?
real dialogue and understanding of what Muslims think if the deepening divide is to be bridged.?
Jon Snow presents Dispatches: What Muslims Want on Channel 4 at 8pm tomorrow.?
He was talking to Stuart Wavell
-
*Muslims aim to weed out black sheep
RSS Feeds<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/rssfeeds/-2128936835.cms>|
*SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates*
MUMBAI: A section of Muslims in Mumbai, India has saluted the British Muslim who
alerted the authorities about the alleged plot to blow up US-bound flights
in London.
Using it as an example, it has favoured similar steps from within the
community to isolate terror suspects.
Disturbed at the growing demonisation of Islam and Muslims in the wake of
7/11 blasts, many ulema (religious scholars) have started citing the example
of the British Muslim who helped the authorities foil a terror plot that
could have caused unimaginable devastation mid-air.
"I salute the Muslim who tipped British police about the terror plot. I have
been telling fellow Muslims here to watch out for the black sheep who bring
infamy to the whole community," said Maulana Athar Ali of Majlis-e-Shoora, a
socio-religious body.
"Islam discourages killing innocents and any conspiracy for such heinous
crime should be disclosed and the conspirators handed over to the
authorities," added Maulana Athar, who was part of a delegation of prominent
Muslims that met police commissioner A N Roy on Thursday.
While complaining about the alleged "selective" detention of Muslims after
7/11, the leaders assured the police commissioner of full cooperation in
investigations.
"I don't think any local Muslim would have been involved in the blasts. But
if there was any local support, he should be found and punished,'' said
Maulana Mehmood Daryabadi of All India Ulema Council, a body of religious
scholars.
He added that Muslims have to be careful and inform the authorities if they
see any suspicious behaviour of anyone. Significantly, the community has
sought the services of imams of different mosques to reiterate love for the
country and prevent any possible radicalisation among the youth.
"The prophet said love for your country is part of your imaan (faith). A
true Muslim cannot be a traitor,'' said Maulana Abdul Jabbar Azmi, imam of
the Hindustani mosque in Byculla.
Maulana Jabbar, who also heads the All India Sunni Tanzeem Aima Masjid, the
association of imams of Sunni mosques in the country, has sent letters to
thousands of imams across the country to stress Islam's message about
nationalism in their Friday sermons.
"One cannot be a good Muslim unless one is loyal to his motherland.
Terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are
harming the name of Islam. Muslims have no sympathy for those who perpetrate
crime in the name of Islam," said Maulana Jabbar who was one of the speakers
at a multi-faith peace meeting held at Nehru centre earlier this week.
-
Woof All:
Well, not much dialog going on here. So until there is, here's my second post of the morning.
Of the many interesting points in this piece, this one caught my attention in particular:
"?Among younger Brits in urban areas, which is where most British Muslims live, we drink more alcohol faster, sleep around more, live less in long-lasting, two-parent families, and worship less than almost anywhere else in the world,? the writer Timothy Garton Ash argued in The Guardian recently. ?It?s clear from what young British Muslims themselves say that part of their reaction is against this kind of secular, hedonistic, anomic lifestyle.?"
CD
-------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/world/europe/13muslims.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Many Muslims in Britain Tell of Feeling Torn Between Competing Identities
LONDON, Aug. 12 ? As a Muslim, Qadeer Ahmed says, he believes that violence against civilians is never justified. But as a British Muslim, he is not surprised to find the country once again at the center of a reported terrorist plot by homegrown extremists.
James Hill for The New York Times
Taji Mustafa, of Hizb ut-Tahrir, at a news conference Saturday in London?s West End. He said his group?s principles do not breed extremism.
?When people say it?s Bush and Blair against the world, it?s difficult to argue with them,? said Mr. Ahmed, 37, a leader of the largest mosque in High Wycombe, where half a dozen young British Muslims were among the 24 arrested Thursday in what the authorities said was an elaborate plan to blow up planes on trans-Atlantic routes.
Despite government efforts over the last several years to reach out to community leaders ? a tricky proposition, given that Muslims hardly speak with one voice ? many Muslims have hardened their resentment of their country.
British policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now in Lebanon, are just the most recent in a long list of grievances ? cultural, economic and political ? among Muslims here. For a few, that has manifested itself in extremism and violence. For many others, it has meant a sharpening of a continuing struggle between two competing identities.
In a recent poll of Muslims in 13 countries conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 81 percent of those surveyed in Britain said they considered themselves Muslims first and Britons second. That contrasts with Spain, where 69 percent of those surveyed considered themselves Muslims first and Spaniards second; Germany, where the comparable number is 66 percent, and even Jordan, with 67 percent.
Britain has never aspired to be a melting pot, and even second- and third-generation immigrants in England are likely to identify themselves ? and, more significantly, be identified by the English ? as belonging to their family?s country of origin.
?In the U.S., people routinely talk of Irish-Americans, Portuguese-Americans, You Name It-Americans, but have you ever heard the English talk that way?? asked Roger Ballard, director of the center for applied South Asian studies at the University of Manchester. ?The English have always had, since the days of the Reformation, this strong commitment to homogeneity.?
For Muslims, with their adherence to religion in a country that is aggressively secular and their feelings of brotherhood with Muslims in the Middle East, the feelings of alienation are particularly acute.
?The war on terrorism is the war on us,? said Mohammed Mowaz, 29, a computer engineer interviewed outside the Queen?s Road Mosque in Walthamstow.
Nazim Akram, 23, an accounting trainee, said in an interview outside the mosque that he was skeptical about anything the authorities said, particularly after the botched raid by 250 officers in the Forest Gate section of London in June. After shooting a Muslim suspect, destroying his house, and arresting him and another Muslim man on suspicion of making chemical weapons, the police released them and said they had made a mistake.
Similarly, Mr. Akram said he believed that the suspects in the recent bombing case were ?just normal guys.?
Those who study Muslims in England say the current generation of young people ? those whose fathers moved here in the 1960?s to work in the textile mills in the Midlands and the north ? is more inclined to be at odds with British society.
Many of the first wave of immigrants were from rural Pakistan, spoke poor English and never integrated much. But the generation that is coming of age now is caught between the traditionalism of their parents and the Western ideas they have been born in to, and the result can be toxic.
?They are deeply confused, because they have been brought up in Britain and are actually very Westernized,? Mr. Ballard said. ?They?re seeking to discover an Islam through Western ideas.? And, he said, they are rereading in literal terms.
Muslim ties to tradition are reinforced by frequent visits to where their families came from, and by arranged marriages to cousins who are likely to come from small Pakistani villages.
Feeling apart from mainstream society, finding it hard to get work in the depressed former mill towns near Manchester and Birmingham, some young men turn to local mosques ? often run by imams who have moved from rural Pakistan themselves ? as social, religious and educational centers.
Khalid Mahmood, a member of Parliament from Birmingham, said Muslims found it all too easy to shrug off the radicalization of some parts of their culture, particularly among young men.
?They are reluctant to discuss what reality is and come to terms with it,? he said.
Mr. Mahmood is a friend of the family of Tayib Rauf, one of the suspects whose arrest was announced Thursday, and he said that the Rauf family was comfortably off and not in any way fundamentalist. He suspected, he said, that Mr. Rauf had become radicalized in college, perhaps by listening to a speech from a visiting speaker.
In a country where, for instance, Muslims were free to raise placards denouncing freedom of speech during a demonstration protesting the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, Mr. Mahmood said British tolerance had allowed extremism to flourish. ?We?ve been reluctant to curb freedom of expression or religious rights,? he said. ?We?ve played host to people who weren?t allowed in their own country of origin.?
Some British Muslims are repelled by what they see as the decadence and libertinism of Western society, particularly obvious in Britain.
?Among younger Brits in urban areas, which is where most British Muslims live, we drink more alcohol faster, sleep around more, live less in long-lasting, two-parent families, and worship less than almost anywhere else in the world,? the writer Timothy Garton Ash argued in The Guardian recently. ?It?s clear from what young British Muslims themselves say that part of their reaction is against this kind of secular, hedonistic, anomic lifestyle.?
But Taji Mustafa, a spokesman for the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a nonviolent group advocating a unified Muslim government in Muslim countries, said rejecting Western permissiveness in the name of Islam does not breed extremism.
?People say, ?Oh, he became more religious,? ? Mr. Mustafa said in an interview. ?What does that mean? Well, instead of spending time at the pub, he may spend more time with his family. When someone says, ?I?m Muslim first,? does that mean, ?I want to go bomb the Underground?? Nonsense!?
If some Muslims see themselves as apart from British society, said Massoud Shadajares, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the feelings are cruelly reinforced by the British.
As an illustration, Mr. Shadajares described how at the time of the World Cup tournament in June, a secular Muslim friend from Nottingham ducked in to a pub to find the England team?s latest score.
?He walked in and said, ?Hey, guys, how are we doing?? ? Mr. Shadajares said. ?And one of the English guys said, ?I didn?t know that Pakistan was playing today.? ?
By the same token, when Sajid Mahmood, a cricket star of Pakistani descent, took the field with the English team this week against Pakistan, fans of Pakistani descent booed him and called him a traitor.
-
http://www.myspace.com/city_of_los_angeles
1. the U.S. has the only military in the world that can reach out and touch someone.
2. there are many authoritarian regimes in the world, who kill/abuse/torture the people under them.
3. the U.S. is responsible for putting many of those regimes in power (i.e. Saddam, Mubarak, the Saudi family, a few dictators in Asia, and a few more in Africa, and some in South America).
4. when we let those regimes continue to oppress their people, these people get pissed off (either because they know it's the U.S. that's supporting their dick-tators, or because the U.S. won't do anything to help them).
* Zarqawi was from Jordan, Zawahiri is from Egypt, and bin Laden from Saudi Arabia, all countries the U.S. supports, all are authoritarian (actually Jordan is less so nowadays)
5. when the U.S. takes a "we don't wanna do anything cuz it's not in our best interest" stance, or "we don't wanna impose our own culture~if they wanna beat up their wives and teach their kids only the Quran, it's fine with us" stance, this policy as we saw first hand on sept the 11th, blew back in our face.
6. the U.S. is the only military in the world capable of doing the greatest GOOD (caveat: without re-training/vision, probably the greatest EVIL).? the U.S. military along w/ diplomats, students, volunteers, the media, etc. now have the responsibility to bring the FREE flow of everything (goods, ideas, education, people, etc. etc.) to EVERYONE else.
you are right, the U.S. has been misrepresented in the world by soul-less corporations whose only purpose is profit, by sex tourists, pedophiles who fly all the way to countries like the philippines/cambodia to feast, by hollywood, by the porn industry, by all the apathy and meaningless-ness shown in MTV,
but we all know America has so much more purpose, and now DUTY...
what to do?
* re-train the military, so that every soldier starts thinking more like a police officer (i.e. fairness, knowledge of culture, be able to balance violence and compassion, diplomacy, information gathering w/ in the constitutional framework~consensual, resonable suspicion, probable cause, etc.)
* start teaching anthropology and languages from elementary to college (the more languages a person speaks the more cultures, and with that understanding)
* increase funding for study abroad programs (to off set the global misrepresentation of Americans, to show the world that we are not just a bunch of drunken monolingual idiot sex tourists hell bent on putting a McDonalds or Starbucks at every street corner, FUCK corporations!)
* start regulating corporations, so they don't just suck all the resources of poor countries just to be wasted here in the west (becuz this PISSES alot of people too, especially me)
* increase funding for the Peace Corps, Americorps, USAID, etc. since these are the only gov't entities that seem to understand the bigger picture at hand
* lastly, get everyone to start smoking pot, the U.S. gov't was once responsible for growing the best pot in the world, when they were experimenting with pot as healing/pain killing agents awhile back, they stopped that program around the same time Reagan declared wars on Drugs...
*********************************************************
hizballah kidnaps and kills a couple of israelis, the state of israel responds with fire and brimstone.? hizb has been stockpiling weapons in southern lebanon since israel pulled out of that area.? the new lebanese gov't for the past couple of years has been urging hizb members to join the lebanese military (every faction in lebanon from the maronites to the druzis have their own armies, the end game was to consolidate arms under a 'lebanese' military).? the state dept has always been uneasy of hizballah's arsenals.? hizballah needed to be castrated, period.? the u.s. gave the green light, and israel got to play.
what everyone is forgetting though, is the bigger war: the war on terror (or the war against muslim fundamentalism).? the bigger war is to win the hearts and minds of the moderate muslims, eastern christians, and other minorities in the middle east.? although, the disarming of hizballah (and the 'democratization' of iraq for that matter) seems to make sense, we are losing focus of the end goal.? instead of seeing the benefits of western modernity, the people in the mid east are seeing only destruction (dismembered little girls, rape, etc.).
hizballah is shiite and represents a form of islamic fundamentalism.? the other form is salafi islam, which is sunni.? there were only 2 islamic nations, nations which practiced the shari'a or islamic law, iran/shiite and afghanistan/salafi under mawdudi (keep in mind saudi arabia is a kingdom, egypt/syria/iraq are secular dictatorships).? in retrospect, we should've just stayed in afghanistan and made an example of that country.? put a 7-eleven and starbucks at every corner, open up stipjoints, introduce in-door plumming, the bikini, brazilian wax, and made it our 51st state.?
instead, the u.s. went for saddam's regime which would have made a great ally, since it was secular and hated the fundamentalists as much as we did.? now, iraq will become part of iran.? syria is another example of another potential ally.? when asad, an alawi, took power in the 70s he formed a faction (his power base) of syria's minorities, i.e. christians, druzis, alawis, assyrians, and shiites.? syria is close to iran because of how asad treated the shiite minority in syria (a diplomatic move).? the current regime in syria can just as easily turn its back on iran, if given the right incentives.
bashir al-asad, president asad's opthalmologist son from england, seemed now more than ever a likely ally.? he is westernized, secular (eastern christians, from assyrians to armenians to greek orthodox enjoy the greatest freedoms in only 3 countries in the middle east, syria, lebanon, and israel). syria shares our aversion with islamic fundamentalism (hama in the early 1980s is a great example).? but, without our backing syria will fall to the islam re-interpreted by savage idiots (the muslim brotherhood is fast gaining strength in egypt, iraq will fall to iran).?
we are losing the people we need so much to win over, because they are seeing their women and children killed on tv.
-
http://www.myspace.com/city_of_los_angeles
2. there are many authoritarian regimes in the world, who kill/abuse/torture the people under them.
3. the U.S. is responsible for putting many of those regimes in power (i.e. Saddam, Mubarak, the Saudi family, a few dictators in Asia, and a few more in Africa, and some in South America).
4. when we let those regimes continue to oppress their people, these people get pissed off (either because they know it's the U.S. that's supporting their dick-tators, or because the U.S. won't do anything to help them).
This is an accurate (if a little simplistic) assessment. Some people in these oppressed countries may hold some pretty messed-up views, but they're not stupid. A lot of Americans can't believe it (or excuse it) when you tell them we actually do support some pretty nasty and corrupt regimes (like Saudi Arabia), but this is no secret to the typical Saudi or Egyptian citizen. Without granting any political legitimacy to 9/11 or any other such actions, it's only natural that the fundamentalist/terrorist view has a lot of appeal for people deprived of any means of changing their situation in a positive way.
6. the U.S. is the only military in the world capable of doing the greatest GOOD (caveat: without re-training/vision, probably the greatest EVIL). the U.S. military along w/ diplomats, students, volunteers, the media, etc. now have the responsibility to bring the FREE flow of everything (goods, ideas, education, people, etc. etc.) to EVERYONE else.
you are right, the U.S. has been misrepresented in the world by soul-less corporations whose only purpose is profit, by sex tourists, pedophiles who fly all the way to countries like the philippines/cambodia to feast, by hollywood, by the porn industry, by all the apathy and meaningless-ness shown in MTV,
It seems like up until the early 1990s, anything American was considered super-cool throughout the world. Everybody wanted to wear American clothes, listen to American music, etc. and now it's pretty much the exact opposite. The USSR was pretty messed-up in a LOT of ways, but it's existence was also the only thing that kept the power-hungry elements of our leadership under control.
what to do?
* re-train the military, so that every soldier starts thinking more like a police officer (i.e. fairness, knowledge of culture, be able to balance violence and compassion, diplomacy, information gathering w/ in the constitutional framework~consensual, resonable suspicion, probable cause, etc.)
* start teaching anthropology and languages from elementary to college (the more languages a person speaks the more cultures, and with that understanding)
* increase funding for study abroad programs (to off set the global misrepresentation of Americans, to show the world that we are not just a bunch of drunken monolingual idiot sex tourists hell bent on putting a McDonalds or Starbucks at every street corner, FUCK corporations!)
* start regulating corporations, so they don't just suck all the resources of poor countries just to be wasted here in the west (becuz this PISSES alot of people too, especially me)
* increase funding for the Peace Corps, Americorps, USAID, etc. since these are the only gov't entities that seem to understand the bigger picture at hand
Or at least start with teaching the ideas that we're not special just because we're American/Christian/Jewish and that people in other countries deserve to be treated with the same respect as we do...
* lastly, get everyone to start smoking pot, the U.S. gov't was once responsible for growing the best pot in the world, when they were experimenting with pot as healing/pain killing agents awhile back, they stopped that program around the same time Reagan declared wars on Drugs...
No argument from me here!
we are losing the people we need so much to win over, because they are seeing their women and children killed on tv.
This is the bottom line right here. In the case Iraq, they're seeing it right in front of their faces. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to kill the people they see killing their friends and families? We Americans would do the exact same thing if we were in their shoes.
-
Iran paper plans Holocaust cartoons
Monday 06 February 2006, 20:00 Makka Time, 17:00 GMT?
Ahmadinejad says the slaughter of Europe's Jews is 'a myth'
Iran's largest selling newspaper has announced it is holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.
Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper, which is published by Tehran's conservative-run municipality, said on Monday: "It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust."
He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.
"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.
Iran's anti-Israeli government is supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as well as other groups during the second world war has been either invented or exaggerated.
Systematic slaughter
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, prompted international anger when he said the Holocaust was a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel.
Mortazavi said Tuesday's edition of the paper will invite cartoonists to enter the competition, with "private individuals" offering gold coins to the best 12 artists - the same number of cartoons that appeared in the conservative Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Last week the Iranian Foreign Ministry also invited Tony Blair, the British prime minister, to Tehran to take part in a planned conference on the Holocaust, even though the idea has been branded by Blair as "shocking, ridiculous, stupid".
Blair also said Ahmadinejad "should come and see the evidence of the Holocaust himself in the countries of Europe", to which Iran responded by saying it was willing to send a team of "independent investigators".
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FCE073DD-7F1B-4714-95F0-DD1F354F1D9A.htm
Israel Launches SEO Contest Against Iran Holocaust Cartoons (http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholocaustcartoonsisraelseo48480207.html)
Danish Pastries Taste Better Than Explosives From Iran (http://www.israelpr.com/iranholocaustcartoonsdenmarkseocontest.html)
-
Capt:
I think the Holocaust cartoon contest should be a non-event.
All:
Some of the recent posts here have drifted off topic. Here's to staying on topic:
CD
=============
Today's NY Times op-ed page:
Muslim Myopia
E-MailPrint Save
By IRSHAD MANJI
Published: August 16, 2006
New Haven
LAST week, the luminaries of the British Muslim mainstream ? lobbyists, lords and members of Parliament ? published an open letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, telling him that the ?debacle? of both Iraq and Lebanon provides ?ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.? In increasingly antiwar America, a similar argument is gaining traction: The United States brutalizes Muslims, which in turn foments Islamist terror.
But violent jihadists have rarely needed foreign policy grievances to justify their hot heads. There was no equivalent to the Iraq debacle in 1993, when Islamists first tried to blow up the World Trade Center, or in 2000, when they attacked the American destroyer Cole. Indeed, that assault took place after United States-led military intervention saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.
If Islamists cared about changing Iraq policy, they would not have bothered to abduct two journalists from France ? probably the most antiwar, anti-Bush nation in the West. Even overt solidarity with Iraqi suffering did not prevent Margaret Hassan, who ran a world-renowned relief agency in Baghdad, from being executed by insurgents.
Meanwhile, at least as many Muslims are dying at the hands of other Muslims as under the boots of any foreign imperial power. In Sudan, black Muslims are starved, raped, enslaved and slaughtered by Arab militias, with the consent of an Islamic government. Where is the ?official? Muslim fury against that genocide? Do Muslim lives count only when snuffed out by non-Muslims? If not, then here is an idea for Muslim representatives in the West: Go ahead and lecture the politicians that their foreign policies give succor to radicals. At the same time, however, challenge the educated and angry young Muslims to hold their own accountable, too.
This means reminding them that in Pakistan, Sunnis hunt down Shiites every day; that in northern Israel, Katuysha rockets launched by Hezbollah have ripped through the homes of Arab Muslims as well as Jews; that in Egypt, the riot police of President Hosni Mubarak routinely club, rape, torture and murder Muslim activists promoting democracy; and, above all, that civil wars have become hallmarks of the Islamic world.
Muslim figureheads will not dare be so honest. They would sooner replicate the very sins for which they castigate the Bush and Blair governments ? namely, switching rationales and pretending integrity.
In the wake of the London bombings on July 7, 2005, Iqbal Sacranie, then the head of the influential Muslim Council of Britain, insisted that economic discrimination lay at the root of Islamist radicalism in his country. When it came to light that some of the suspects enjoyed middle-class upbringings, university educations, jobs and cars, Mr. Sacranie found a new culprit: foreign policy. In so doing, he boarded the groupthink express steered by Muslim elites.
The good news is that ordinary people of faith are capable of self-criticism. Two months ago, 65 percent of British Muslims polled believed that their communities should increase efforts to integrate. The same poll also produced troubling results: 13 percent lionized the July 7 terrorists, and 16 percent sympathized. Still, these figures total 29 percent ? less than half the number who sought to belong more fully to British society.
Whether in Britain or America, those who claim to speak for Muslims have a responsibility to the majority, which wants to reconcile Islam with pluralism. Whatever their imperial urges, it is not for Tony Blair or George W. Bush to restore Islam?s better angels. That duty ? and glory ? goes to Muslims.
Irshad Manji, a fellow at Yale University, is the author of ?The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim?s Call for Reform in Her Faith.?
-
Concerning the term Islamofascism, for which Rogt has taken me to task, I bring this piece, first posted by Buzwardo in the "Rants" thread over to here:
-------------------
What Is 'Islamofascism'?
By Stephen Schwartz
"Islamic fascists" -- used by President George W. Bush for the conspirators in the alleged trans-Atlantic airline bombing plot -- and references by other prominent figures to "Islamofascism," have been met by protests from Muslims who say the term is an insult to their religion. The meaning and origin of the concept, as well as the legitimacy of complaints about it, have become relevant -- perhaps urgently so.
I admit to a lack of modesty or neutrality about this discussion, since I was, as I will explain, the first Westerner to use the neologism in this context.
In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama'atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.
Political typologies should make distinctions, rather than confusing them, and Islamofascism is neither a loose nor an improvised concept. It should be employed sparingly and precisely. The indicated movements should be treated as Islamofascist, first, because of their congruence with the defining characteristics of classic fascism, especially in its most historically-significant form -- German National Socialism.
Fascism is distinguished from the broader category of extreme right-wing politics by its willingness to defy public civility and openly violate the law. As such it represents a radical departure from the tradition of ultra-conservatism. The latter aims to preserve established social relations, through enforcement of law and reinforcement of authority. But the fascist organizations of Mussolini and Hitler, in their conquests of power, showed no reluctance to rupture peace and repudiate parliamentary and other institutions; the fascists employed terror against both the existing political structure and society at large. It is a common misconception of political science to believe, in the manner of amateur Marxists, that Italian fascists and Nazis sought maintenance of order, to protect the ruling classes. Both Mussolini and Hitler agitated against "the system" governing their countries. Their willingness to resort to street violence, assassinations, and coups set the Italian and German fascists apart from ordinary defenders of ruling elites, which they sought to replace. This is an important point that should never be forgotten. Fascism is not merely a harsh dictatorship or oppression by privilege.
Islamofascism similarly pursues its aims through the willful, arbitrary, and gratuitous disruption of global society, either by terrorist conspiracies or by violation of peace between states. Al-Qaida has recourse to the former weapon; Hezbollah, in assaulting northern Israel, used the latter. These are not acts of protest, but calculated strategies for political advantage through undiluted violence. Hezbollah showed fascist methods both in its kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and in initiating that action without any consideration for the Lebanese government of which it was a member. Indeed, Lebanese democracy is a greater enemy of Hezbollah than Israel.
Fascism rested, from the economic perspective, on resentful middle classes, frustrated in their aspirations and anxious about loss of their position. The Italian middle class was insecure in its social status; the German middle class was completely devastated by the defeat of the country in the First World War. Both became irrational with rage at their economic difficulties; this passionate and uncontrolled fury was channeled and exploited by the acolytes of Mussolini and Hitler. Al-Qaida is based in sections of the Saudi, Pakistani, and Egyptian middle classes fearful, in the Saudi case, of losing their unstable hold on prosperity -- in Pakistan and Egypt, they are angry at the many obstacles, in state and society, to their ambitions. The constituency of Hezbollah is similar: the growing Lebanese Shia middle class, which believes itself to be the victim of discrimination.
Fascism was imperialistic; it demanded expansion of the German and Italian spheres of influence. Islamofascism has similar ambitions; the Wahhabis and their Pakistani and Egyptian counterparts seek control over all Sunni Muslims in the world, while Hezbollah projects itself as an ally of Syria and Iran in establishing regional dominance.
Fascism was totalitarian; i.e. it fostered a totalistic world view -- a distinct social reality that separated its followers from normal society. Islamofascism parallels fascism by imposing a strict division between Muslims and alleged unbelievers. For Sunni radicals, the practice of takfir -- declaring all Muslims who do not adhere to the doctrines of the Wahhabis, Pakistani Jama'atis, and the Muslim Brotherhood to be outside the Islamic global community or ummah -- is one expression of Islamofascism. For Hezbollah, the posture of total rejectionism in Lebanese politics -- opposing all politicians who might favor any political negotiation with Israel -- serves the same purpose. Takfir, or "excommunication" of ordinary Muslims, as well as Hezbollah's Shia radicalism, are also important as indispensable, unifying psychological tools for the strengthening of such movements.
Fascism was paramilitary; indeed, the Italian and German military elites were reluctant to accept the fascist parties' ideological monopoly. Al-Qaida and Hezbollah are both paramilitary.
I do not believe these characteristics are intrinsic to any element of the faith of Islam. Islamofascism is a distortion of Islam, exactly as Italian and German fascism represented perversions of respectable patriotism in those countries. Nobody argues today that Nazism possessed historical legitimacy as an expression of German nationalism; only Nazis would make such claims, to defend themselves. Similarly, Wahhabis and their allies argue that their doctrines are "just Islam." But German culture existed for centuries, and exists today, without submitting to Nazi values; Islam created a world-spanning civilization, surviving in a healthy condition in many countries today, without Wahhabism or political Shiism, both of which are less than 500 years old.
But what of those primitive Muslims who declare that "Islamofascism" is a slur? The Washington Post of August 14 quoted a speaker at a pro-Hezbollah demonstration in Washington, as follows: "'Mr. Bush: Stop calling Islam "Islamic fascism,' said Esam Omesh, president of the Muslim American Society, prompting a massive roar from the crowd. He said there is no such thing, 'just as there is no such thing as Christian fascism.'"
These curious comments may be parsed in various ways. Since President Bush used the term "Islamic fascists" to refer to a terrorist conspiracy, did Mr. Omesh (whose Muslim American Society is controlled by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) intend to accept the equation of Islam with said terrorism, merely rejecting the political terminology he dislikes? Probably not. But Mr. Omesh's claim that "there is no such thing as Christian fascism" is evidence of profound historical ignorance. Leading analysts of fascism saw its Italian and German forms as foreshadowed by the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S. and the Russian counter-revolutionary mass movement known as the Black Hundreds. Both movements were based in Christian extremism, symbolized by burning crosses in America and pogroms against Jews under the tsars.
The fascist Iron Guard in Romania during the interwar period and in the second world war was explicitly Christian -- its official title was the "Legion of the Archangel Michael;" Christian fascism also exists in the form of Ulster Protestant terrorism, and was visible in the (Catholic) Blue Shirt movement active in the Irish Free State during the 1920s and 1930s. Both the Iron Guard and the Blue Shirts attracted noted intellectuals; the cultural theorist Mircea Eliade in the first case, the poet W.B Yeats in the second. Many similar cases could be cited. It is also significant that Mr. Omesh did not deny the existence of "Jewish fascism" -- doubtless because in his milieu, the term is commonly directed against Israel. Israel is not a fascist state, although some marginal, ultra-extremist Jewish groups could be so described.
I will conclude with a summary of a more obscure debate over the term, which is symptomatic of many forms of confusion in American life today. I noted at the beginning of this text that I am neither modest nor neutral on this topic. I developed the concept of Islamofascism after receiving an e-mail in June 2000 from a Bangladeshi Sufi Muslim living in America, titled "The Wahhabis: Fascism in Religious Garb!" I then resided in Kosovo. I put the term in print in The Spectator of London, on September 22, 2001. I was soon credited with it by Andrew Sullivan in his Daily Dish, and after it was attributed to Christopher Hitchens, the latter also acknowledged me as the earliest user of it. While working in Bosnia-Hercegovina more recently, I participated in a public discussion in which the Pakistani Muslim philosopher Fazlur Rahman (1919-88), who taught for years at the University of Chicago (not to be confused with the Pakistani radical Fazlur Rehman), was cited as referring to "Islamic fascists."
If such concerns seem absurdly self-interested, it is also interesting to observe how Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, dealt with the formulation of Islamofascism as an analytical tool. After a long and demeaning colloquy between me and a Wikipedian who commented negatively on an early book of mine while admitting that he had never even seen a copy of it, Wikipedia (referring to it collectively, as its members prefer) decided it to ascribe it to another historian of Islam, Malise Ruthven. But Ruthven, in 1990, used the term to refer to all authoritarian governments in Muslim countries, from Morocco to Pakistan.
I do not care much, these days, about Wikipedia and its misapprehensions, or obsess over acknowledgements of my work. But Malise Ruthven was and would remain wrong to believe that authoritarianism and fascism are the same. To emphasize, fascism is something different, and much worse, than simple dictatorship, however cruel the latter may be. That is a lesson that should have been learned 70 years ago, when German Nazism demonstrated that it was a feral and genocidal aberration in modern European history, not merely another form of oppressive rightist rule, or a particularly wild variety of colonialism.
Similarly, the violence wreaked by al-Qaida and Hezbollah, and by Saddam Hussein before them, has been different from other expressions of reactionary Arabism, simple Islamist ideology, or violent corruption in the post-colonial world. Between democracy, civilized values, and normal religion on one side, and Islamofascism on the other, there can be no compromise; as I have written before, it is a struggle to the death. President Bush is right to say "young democracies are fragile ... this may be [the Islamofascists'] last and best opportunity to stop freedom's advance." As with the Nazis, nothing short of a victory for democracy can assure the world's security.
Stephen Schwartz is Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081606C
-
Capt:
I think the Holocaust cartoon contest should be a non-event.
Crafty Dog:
On the contrary, in a thread about dialog we should talk about dialog and cartoons are a way of speaking.
The Iranian cartoon contest is a response to the Danish cartoons about the prophet, the series of cartoons that provoked mayhem in some Muslim sectors, mayhem that the west, in the name of freedom of speech, deplored. The Danish cartoons, according to the west, are protected speech.
There is a law in Germany prohibiting the denial of the Holocaust. This is a priori censorship and quite contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment.
Having been there and having lost close family, I know from personal experience that the Holocaust was very much a reality. But how does a law that prohibits denying the Holocaust help us? All it does is to curtail freedom of speech and maybe it soothes Germany's sense of guilt about the Holocaust, a sense of guilt that also happens to be very real.
Strange as it may seem at first sight, wouldn't a cartoon war be better than a real war with blood and gore? What if we teach Islam to fight with ideas, with cartoons, as opposed to fighting with weapons including nuclear bombs?
-
I'm just saying that however appropriate of a description you consider the term [islamofacist] to be, it's seen as an insult to a lot of people. ?If that's of no concern to you, fine, but then maybe the title of this thread should be "Muslim punching bags wanted for inflammatory discussion" instead of "an invitation to dialogue with Muslims".
What term would rogt use?? I believe there will be resistance in the muslim world to any term coined by westerners.? I can see how muslims can feel subjugated to western terminology (western hegemony) so to promote two-way dialog, can rogt explain to us his terminology for groups taking a literal interpretation of the koran ( stoning, amputation, jihad in context of martydom)? ? and seeking violent confrontation with the western world. Can Islam be expressed successfully within a pluralistic democracy?
What responsibilities, as a muslim , does rogt feel in confronting such groups and denouncing their terrorist tactics?
btw... i'm not offended by the term 'christian wacko'.? I'm sure I've used the term myself. It all depends on context doesn't it?
-
Kenneth Dickerman for The New York Times
Pakistani immigrants and their American-born children flock to Devon Avenue in Chicago because of its traditional restaurants and goods.
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
Published: August 21, 2006
CHICAGO, Aug. 18 ? The stretch of Devon Avenue in North Chicago also named for Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, seems as if it has been transplanted directly from that country. The shops are packed with traditional wedding finery, and the spice mix in the restaurants? kebabs is just right.
Kenneth Dickerman for The New York Times
Businesses on Devon Avenue in Chicago, like an Islamic bookstore, attract a large Pakistani clientele.
Similar enclaves in Britain have been under scrutiny since they have proved to be a breeding ground for cells of terrorists, possibly including the 24 men arrested recently as suspects in a plot to blow up airliners flying out of London.
Yet Devon Avenue is in many ways different. Although heavily Pakistani, the street is far more exposed to other cultures than are similar communities in Britain.
Indian Hindus have a significant presence along the roughly one-and-a-half-mile strip of boutiques, whose other half is named for Gandhi. What was a heavily Jewish neighborhood some 20 years ago also includes recent immigrants from Colombia, Mexico and Ukraine, among others.
?There is integration even when you have an enclave,? said Nizam Arain, 32, a lawyer of Pakistani descent who was born and raised in Chicago. ?You don?t have the same siege mentality.?
Even so, members of the Pakistani immigrant community here find themselves joining the speculation as to whether sinister plots could be hatched in places like Devon (pronounced deh-VAHN) Avenue.
The most common response is no, at least not now, because of differences that have made Pakistanis in the United States far better off economically and more assimilated culturally than their counterparts in Britain. But some Pakistani-Americans do not rule out the possibility, given how little is understood about the exact tipping point that pushes angry young Muslim men to accept an ideology that endorses suicide and mass murder.
The idea of a relatively smaller, more prosperous, more striving immigrant community inoculating against terror cells goes only so far, they say.
?It makes it sound like it couldn?t happen here because we are the good immigrants: hard-working, close-knit, educated,? said Junaid Rana, an assistant professor of Asian-American studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an American-born son of Pakistani immigrants. ?But we are talking about a cult mind-set, how a cult does its brainwashing.?
Yet one major difference between the United States and Britain, some say, is the United States? historical ideal of being a melting-pot meritocracy.
?You can keep the flavor of your ethnicity, but you are expected to become an American,? said Omer Mozaffar, 34, a Pakistani-American raised here who is working toward a doctorate in Islamic studies at the University of Chicago.
Britain remains far more rigid. In the United States, for example, Pakistani physicians are more likely to lead departments at hospitals or universities than they are in Britain, said Dr. Tariq H. Butt, a 52-year-old family physician who arrived in the United States 25 years ago for his residency.
Nationwide, Pakistanis appear to be prospering. The census calculated that mean household income in the United States in 2002 was $57,852 annually, while that for Asian households, which includes Pakistanis, was $70,047. By contrast, about one-fifth of young British-born Muslims are jobless, and many subsist on welfare.
Hard numbers on how many people of Pakistani descent live in the United States do not exist, but a forthcoming book from Harvard University Press on charitable donations among Pakistani-Americans, ?Portrait of a Giving Community,? puts the number around 500,000, with some 35 percent or more of them in the New York metropolitan area. Chicago has fewer than 100,000, while other significant clusters exist in California, Texas and Washington, D.C.
Pakistani immigration to the United States surged after laws in the 1960?s made it easier for Asians to enter the country. Most were drawn by jobs in academia, medicine and engineering. It was only in the late 1980?s and 90?s that Pakistanis arrived to work blue-collar jobs as taxi drivers or shopkeepers, said Adil Najam, the author of the book on donations and an international relations professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
In Britain, by comparison, the first Pakistanis arrived after World War II to work in factories. Many were fleeing sectarian strife in Kashmir ? a lingering source of resentment ? and entire communities picked up and resettled together. This created Pakistani ghettos in cities like Bradford and Birmingham, whereas in the United States immigrants tended to be scattered and newcomers forced to assimilate. The trends intensified with time.
A decade ago, for example, a Pakistani in Chicago who wanted to buy halal meat, from animals butchered in a religiously sanctioned manner, could find it only on Devon Avenue. Now halal butchers dot the city and its suburbs.
Thousands of immigrants and their American-born offspring still flock to Devon Avenue because of its restaurants and traditional goods, including wedding saris for women and long, elaborate shirts and gilded slippers with curled toes for men. The avenue?s half-dozen rudimentary mosques have a reputation for being more conservative than those elsewhere in Chicago, with the imams emphasizing an adherence to Muslim tradition.
Published: August 21, 2006
(Page 2 of 2)
?They go to an area where they have a feeling of nostalgia, and even psychologically it is important for immigrant communities to feel that their home country is represented,? said Dr. Butt, an early member of the Association of Physicians of Pakistani Descent of North America, one of the oldest immigrant organizations here.
But immigrants are not mired in the Devon Avenue neighborhood; many move out once they can afford better. Unlike the situation in Britain, there is no collective history here of frustrated efforts to assimilate into a society where a shortened form of Pakistani is a stinging slur, and there are no centuries-old grievances nursed from British colonial rule over what became Pakistan.
Where such comparisons fail, however, is in providing a model to predict why some young Muslims turn to violence, although no religion is immune. In the United States there have been a few cases of young Pakistani men being arrested or tried in terror plots, in Atlanta and in Lodi, Calif., for example.
Ifti Nasim, a former luxury car salesman turned poet and gay rights advocate, greets a visitor with a slim volume of his works. The cover photograph shows him wearing a bright orange dress, ropes of pearls and a long blond wig. He has been in the United States since 1971.
Some shoppers crowding the sidewalks on Devon Avenue greet Mr. Nasim warmly, telling him they listen to his radio show or read his columns in a local Urdu-language newspaper. In Pakistan, Mr. Nasim says, his flamboyance would not be tolerated, but here he calls his acceptance ?the litmus test of the society.?
Like many, however, he has moments of doubt, saying, ?Pakistani society in Chicago has made a smooth transition so far, but you never know.?
A more important factor in determining who becomes a militant is most likely the feeling of being stigmatized as less than equal, community activists say, noting that such discrimination remains far more common in Britain. It is probably compounded by the fact that violence against Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon feels so much closer there, they say.
Overt bigotry is rarer here, but it exists. For instance, Mohamed Hanis, a taxi driver who is a Pakistani immigrant, said that on the Friday night after the terror alert in London, a young white man climbed into his cab. Noticing the name Mohamed, the man threatened to report that Mr. Hanis had admitted to supporting terrorist attacks unless he could get a free ride. Instead, Mr. Hanis hailed a police officer who forced the passenger to pay.
Mr. Mozaffar, the University of Chicago student, said he had grown up with revered Muslim role models like Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul-Jabar, but now there were none. He teaches religion classes for young Muslims, and the question inevitably arises whether the creed justifies using violence for political or religious aims. He emphasizes that Islam forbids killing innocent civilians, and community members here have said they will not tolerate a mosque prayer leader advocating violence.
Initial reports about the British suspects quoted neighbors as saying that some of the men had become more religious, adopting Islamic dress and praying five times a day. That kind of transformation happens in Chicago, too, but the idea that any such change should automatically arouse suspicion rather than be considered teenage rebellion or a religious conversion makes community activists bridle.
For the past eight years, Abdul Qadeer Sheikh, 46, has managed Islamic Books N Things on Devon Avenue, which sells items like Korans, prayer rugs and Arabic alphabet books. He says that since Sept. 11, he has seen signs of the bias that has existed in Britain for decades developing here. He describes a distinctive fear of being seen as Muslim, even along Devon Avenue. Before, a good 70 percent of the women who came into his shop were veiled, he said. Now the reverse is true, and far fewer men wear traditional clothes.
The attitude of the American government in adopting terms like ?Islamic fascists? and deporting large numbers of immigrants, he said, makes Muslims feel marked, as if they do not belong here. ?The society in the United States is much fairer to foreigners than anywhere else,? he said, ?but that mood is changing.?
-
What term would rogt use? I believe there will be resistance in the muslim world to any term coined by westerners.
I don't think Muslims are offended by the terms "Muslim", "terrorist", or "Islamic fundamentalist". I personally don't find it difficult to discuss this topic without saying "Islamofascist".
What responsibilities, as a muslim , does rogt feel in confronting such groups and denouncing their terrorist tactics?
Since I'm not Muslim, I couldn't say.
btw... i'm not offended by the term 'christian wacko'. I'm sure I've used the term myself. It all depends on context doesn't it?
I don't know any white people who are offended by "honky" or "cracker", but that doesn't make "nigger" any less offensive to blacks.
-
What responsibilities, as a muslim , does rogt feel in confronting such groups and denouncing their terrorist tactics?
Since I'm not Muslim, I couldn't say.
I apologize for my assumption
btw... i'm not offended by the term 'christian wacko'.? I'm sure I've used the term myself. It all depends on context doesn't it?
I don't know any white people who are offended by "honky" or "cracker", but that doesn't make "nigger" any less offensive to blacks.
on the contrary, i've heard black persons use that term amongst themselves unashamedly. But if a white person says it, that's completely different.
This reminds me of an initiative in Malaysia that was trying to outlaw Islamic expressions (alllah ahkbar, wassalam alaikum, etc...) to be forbiden to non-muslims: so non-muslims would be breaking the law if they used those expressions.? And this is a small example of what IMHO is a bonafide agenda in western countries on the part of muslim immigrants..... to strive for a separate law process (sharia) applicable only to muslims.
-
Quick side note:
on the contrary, i've heard black persons use that term amongst themselves unashamedly. But if a white person says it, that's completely different.
As a black male, perhaps I can through a little light on the subject. In the african-american community "Nigga" is used by many as a term of endearment and "Nigger" is considered by all to be a racial slur.
My father taught me to see both in a negative light, so I never used either word.
-
beliefs sure are funny huh? they all are kinda funny.people fighting and dying over whats in their head.what a joke! sooner or later this bullshit will have to end.earths resouces are runing out and we will all have to share hahahaha so have fun with your silly religons and hold on to them tight.i see us as one race one planet.this is the future.maybe it should be "belief system facist"? drop acid not bombs! that just might do it!
-
For those of you not familiar with this author, he is a retired colonel with substantial military background in the mideast.
====================================
ISLAM-HATERS: AN ENEMY WITHIN
By RALPH PETERS
September 7, 2006 -- ISLAMIST fanatics attacked us and yearn to destroy us. The Muslim civilization of the Middle East has failed comprehensively and will continue to generate violence. The only way to deal with faith-poisoned terrorists is to kill them.
And the world's only hope for long-term peace is for moderate Muslims - by far the majority around the globe - to recapture their own faith.
But a rotten core of American extremists is out to make it harder for them.
The most repugnant trend in the American shouting match that passes for a debate on the struggle with Islamist terrorism isn't the irresponsible nonsense on the left - destructive though that is. The really ugly "domestic insurgency" is among right-wing extremists bent on discrediting honorable conservatism.
How? By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman.
I've received no end of e-mails and letters seeking to "enlighten" me about the insidious nature of Islam. Convinced that I'm naive because I defend American Muslims and refuse to "see" that Islam is 100 percent evil, the writers warn that I'm a foolish "dhimmi," blind to the conspiratorial nature of Islam.
Web sites list no end of extracts from historical documents and Islamic jurisprudence "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is the alpha and omega of the Muslim faith. The message between the lines: Muslims are Untermenschen.
We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism. And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military (Hey, guys, there's still time to join. Lay your backsides on the line - and send your kids!).
It's time for our own fanatics to look in the mirror. Hard. (And stop sending me your trash. I'll never sign up for your "Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." You're just the Ku Klux Klan with higher-thread-count sheets.)
As for the books and Web sites listing all those passages encouraging violence against the infidel, well, we could fill entire libraries with bloody-minded texts from the Christian past. And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua.
Another trait common among those warning us that Islam is innately evil is that few have spent any time in the Muslim world. Well, I have. While the Middle East leaves me ever more despairing of its future, elsewhere, from Senegal to Sulawesi, from Delhi to Dearborn, I've seen no end of vibrant, humane, hopeful currents in the Muslim faith.
I'm no Pollyanna. I'm all for killing terrorists, rather than taking them prisoner. I know we're in a fight for our civilization. But the fight is with the fanatics - a minority of a minority - not with those who simply worship differently than those of us who grew up with the Little Brown Church in the Vale.
Does Islam foster practices that inhibit progress or integration into the modern (and postmodern) world? Yes, as practiced in the greater Middle East, from the Nile to the Indus. Our "allies," the Saudi ruling family, are the embodiment of evil - but they've done far more damage to the Muslim world than to us.
Elsewhere, Muslims are struggling to move their faith forward in constructive ways. And all religions are what living men and women make of them.
In our own country, we should respect our fellow citizens who happen to be Muslims - instead of implying that they're all members of a devious fifth column. More than 3 million Americans profess Islam. How many have strapped on bombs and walked into Wal-Mart?
Sure, bad actors will emerge. But every immigrant group has produced its gangsters, demagogues and common criminals. Fools who insist that "Muslims can't be good Americans" insult both Muslims and America - whose transformative genius should never be underestimated.
The problem isn't the man or woman of faith, but cultural environment. Once free of the maladies of the Middle East, Muslims thrive in America. Like the rest of us.
We are in a knife-fight to the death with fanatics who've perverted a great religion. But those who warn of Muslims in general are heirs of the creeps who once told us Jews can never be real Americans and JFK will serve the Vatican.
Obviously, there's a moral reason for not condemning all Muslims. Real Americans judge men and women by their individual characters and actions, not by the color of their skin or the liturgy they recite on their respective Sabbaths. Sorry, all you bigots: You'll never get the Wannsee Conference, Part II, at Lake Tahoe.
But even for our inveterate haters, those whose personal disappointments have left them with a need to blame others (sounds like al Qaeda to me . . . ), there's a Realpolitik reason not to insult all Muslims: In the serious world of strategy and the military, you don't make unnecessary enemies.
We've got our hands full in the Middle East. Why alienate the Muslims of Indonesia or West Africa (or California)? A wise strategist seeks to divide his enemies, not to recruit for them. Some of the bigots out there might like to try to kill a billion Muslims, but I'm not signing up for their genocidal daydreams - nor will my fellow Americans.
Ultimately, our military actions can only buy time. The long overdue liberal reformation within the Islamic world can only be carried out by Muslims themselves. Those who believe in Islam with all their hearts will have to be the ones who defeat those who hijacked their faith.
Do we have to fight? Yes. But let's fight our true enemies, not the innocent.
-
Hello Ponytotts,
I sent you an email addressing this issue. I checked your public forum account and it wasn't active. I've re-activated it. Let me know if you have any further trouble with your account.
FYI, I would suggest composing your message in notepad or some other text editor if you need 60 - 90 minutes to compose. This will eliminate any risk of losing your data. I've had it happen to myself as well.
Please let me know if you need further assistance.
All the best.
-
ARLINGTON, Va. - Iran's former president decried a wave of "Islamophobia" that he said is being spread in the United States by fear and hatred of Islam in response to terror perpetrated by Muslims.
ADVERTISEMENT
"In the crime of 9/11, two crimes were committed," Mohammad Khatami said. "One was killing innocent people. The second crime was masking this crime in the name of Islam."
Under smothering security, with dozens of uniformed police and plainclothes American security personnel provided by the State Department, Khatami spoke Friday night at an event sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations called "The Dialogue of Civilizations: Five Years After 9/11."
Khatami is visiting the United States for two weeks, coming to this Washington suburb after two days in the nation's capital. Unlike at an appearance Thursday night in the Washington National Cathedral, no protesters were evident outside the hotel where he spoke. Multiple marked and unmarked security vehicles were outside, and a segment of Jefferson Davis Highway, a main Arlington artery, was shut down while he was there. At least one helicopter swooped repeatedly over the area.
Khatami, the most senior Iranian to visit Washington in a quarter-century, spoke in front of American and Iranian flags, draped in each other's folds.
The talk broke no new ground for Khatami, considered a reformist during his two terms as president that ended last year. He was among the first foreign leaders to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. His visit to the United States drew criticism from some politicians and others because of the bitter contention now under way between Iran and the United States over actions of his successor, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
He told his audience through an interpreter that in conditions that have followed the Sept. 11 attacks, American Muslims should show their countrymen by example that they, not terrorists, represent Islam.
"Demonstrate to others that whatever is said about Islam in the media is not correct" and combat the "wave of Islamophobia and hatred of Islam that we unfortunately are experiencing today," he said.
He laid out three goals for Muslims: "Your responsibility and our responsibility is to be first a good citizen in whatever country you live; to try for yourself and your children to move up the ladder of social achievement and education; and third is to fight the vague Islamophobia that has been created by those who don't have the best interests of Islam at heart."
He said "killers who go among others and kill others in acts of terror, if they identify themselves with Islam, they are lying. You Muslims who live in the United States should be representatives of enlightenment and don't allow those who create this Islamophobia" to speak for the religion.
-
y ANDREA ELLIOTT
Published: September 10, 2006
America?s newest Muslims arrive in the afternoon crunch at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Their planes land from Dubai, Casablanca and Karachi. They stand in line, clasping documents. They emerge, sometimes hours later, steering their carts toward a flock of relatives, a stream of cabs, a new life.
Skip to next paragraph
Sept. 11: Five Years Later
Go to Complete Coverage ?
Multimedia
Graphic
Muslims Before and After 9/11
Audio & Photos
After 9/11: The Immigrant Experience
This was the path for Nur Fatima, a Pakistani woman who moved to Brooklyn six months ago and promptly shed her hijab. Through the same doors walked Nora Elhainy, a Moroccan who sells electronics in Queens, and Ahmed Youssef, an Egyptian who settled in Jersey City, where he gives the call to prayer at a palatial mosque.
?I got freedom in this country,? said Ms. Fatima, 25. ?Freedom of everything. Freedom of thought.?
The events of Sept. 11 transformed life for Muslims in the United States, and the flow of immigrants from countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Morocco thinned sharply.
But five years later, as the United States wrestles with questions of terrorism, civil liberties and immigration control, Muslims appear to be moving here again in surprising numbers, according to statistics collected by the Department of Homeland Security and the Census Bureau.
Immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia are planting new roots in states from Virginia to Texas to California.
In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents ? nearly 96,000 ? than in any year in the previous two decades.
More than 40,000 of them were admitted last year, the highest annual number since the terrorist attacks, according to data on 22 countries provided by the Department of Homeland Security.
Many have made the journey unbowed by tales of immigrant hardship, and despite their own opposition to American policy in the Middle East. They come seeking the same promise that has drawn foreigners to the United States for many decades, according to a range of experts and immigrants: economic opportunity and political freedom.
Those lures, both powerful and familiar, have been enough to conquer fears that America is an inhospitable place for Muslims.
?America has always been the promised land for Muslims and non-Muslims,? said Behzad Yaghmaian, an Iranian exile and author of ?Embracing the Infidel: Stories of Muslim Migrants on the Journey West.? ?Despite Muslims? opposition to America?s foreign policy, they still come here because the United States offers what they?re missing at home.?
For Ms. Fatima, it was the freedom to dress as she chose and work as a security guard. For Mr. Youssef, it was the chance to earn a master?s degree.
He came in spite of the deep misgivings that he and many other Egyptians have about the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. In America, he said, one needs to distinguish between the government and the people.
?Who am I dealing with, Bush or the American public?? he said. ?Am I dealing with my future in Egypt or my future here??
Muslims have been settling in the United States in significant numbers since the mid-1960?s, after immigration quotas that favored Eastern Europeans were lifted. Spacious mosques opened in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York as a new, highly educated Muslim population took hold.
Over the next three decades, the story of Muslim migration to the United States was marked by growth and prosperity. A larger percentage of immigrants from Muslim countries have graduate degrees than other American residents, and their average salary is about 20 percent higher, according to census data.
But Sept. 11 altered the course of Muslim life in America. Mosques were vandalized. Hate crimes rose. Deportation proceedings began against thousands of men.
Some Muslims changed their names to avoid job discrimination, making Mohammed ?Moe,? and Osama ?Sam.? Scores of families left for Canada.
Yet this period also produced something strikingly positive, in the eyes of many Muslims: they began to mobilize politically and socially. Across the country, grass-roots groups expanded to educate Muslims on civil rights, register them to vote and lobby against new federal policies such as the Patriot Act.
?There was the option of becoming introverted or extroverted,? said Agha Saeed, national chairman of the American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections, an umbrella organization in Newark, Calif. ?We became extroverted.?
Page 2 of 2)
In some ways, new Muslim immigrants may be better off in the post-9/11 America they encounter today, say Muslim leaders: Islamic centers are more organized, and resources like English instruction and free legal help are more accessible.
Skip to next paragraph
Sept. 11: Five Years Later
Go to Complete Coverage ?
Multimedia
Graphic
Muslims Before and After 9/11
Audio & Photos
After 9/11: The Immigrant Experience
But outside these newly organized mosques, life remains strained for many Muslims. To avoid taunts, women are often warned not to wear head scarves in public, as was Rubab Razvi, 21, a Pakistani who arrived in Brooklyn nine months ago. (She ignored the advice, even though people stare at her on the bus, she said.) Muslims continue to endure long waits at airports, where they are often tagged for questioning.
To some longtime immigrants, the life embraced by newcomers will never compare to the peaceful era that came before.
?They haven?t seen the America pre-9/11,? said Khwaja Mizan Hassan, 42, who left Bangladesh 30 years ago. He rose to become the president of Jamaica Muslim Center, a mosque in Queens, and has a comfortable job with the New York City Department of Probation.
But after Sept. 11, he was stopped at Kennedy Airport because his name matched one on a watch list.
A Drop, Then a Surge
Up to six million Muslims live in the United States, by some estimates. While the Census Bureau and the Department of Homeland Security do not track religion, both provide statistics on immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries. It is presumed that many of these immigrants are Muslim, but people of other faiths, such as Iraqi Chaldeans and Egyptian Copts, have also come in appreciable numbers.
Immigration from these regions slowed considerably after Sept. 11. Fewer people were issued green cards and nonimmigrant visas. By 2003, the number of immigrants arriving from 22 Muslim countries had declined by more than a third. For students, tourists and other nonimmigrants from these countries, the drop was even more dramatic, with total visits down by nearly half.
The falloff affected immigrants from across the post-9/11 world as America tightened its borders, but it was most pronounced among those moving here from Pakistan, Morocco, Iran and other Muslim nations.
Several factors might explain the drop: more visa applications were rejected due to heightened security procedures, said officials at the State Department and Department of Homeland Security; and fewer people applied for visas.
But starting in 2004, the numbers rebounded. The tally of people coming to live in the United States from Bangladesh, Turkey, Algeria and other Muslim countries rose by 20 percent, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data.
The uptick was also notable among foreigners with nonimmigrant visas. More than 55,000 Indonesians, for instance, were issued those visas last year, compared with roughly 36,000 in 2002.
The rise does not reflect relaxed security measures, but a higher number of visa applications and greater efficiency in processing them, said Chris Bentley, a spokesman for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, part of Homeland Security.
Like other immigrants, Muslims find their way to the United States in myriad ways: they come as refugees, or as students and tourists. Others arrive with immigrant visas secured by relatives here. A lucky few win the green-card lottery.
Ahmed Youssef, 29, never thought he would be among the winners. But in 2003, Mr. Youssef, who taught Arabic in Egypt, was one of 50,000 people randomly chosen from 9.5 million applicants around the world.
As he prepared to leave Benha, a city north of Cairo, some friends asked him how he could move to a country that is ?killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan,? he recalled. But others who had been to the United States encouraged him to go.
He arrived in May 2005, and he found work loading hot dog carts from sunrise to sundown. He shared an apartment in Washington Heights with other Egyptians, but for the first month, he never saw his neighborhood in daylight.
?I joked to my roommates, ?When am I going to see America?? ? said Mr. Youssef, a slight man with thinning black hair and an easy smile.
Only three months later, when he began selling hot dogs on Seventh Avenue, did Mr. Youssef discover his new country.
He missed hearing the call to prayer, and thought nothing of unrolling his prayer rug beside his cart until other vendors warned him against it. He could be mistaken for an extremist, they told him.
Eventually, Mr. Youssef found a job as the secretary of the Islamic Center of Jersey City. He plans to apply to a master?s program at Columbia University, specializing in Arabic. For now, he lives in a spare room above the mosque. Near his bed, he keeps a daily log of his prayers. If he makes them on time, he writes ?Correct? in Arabic. ?I am much better off here than selling hot dogs,? he said.
Awash in American Flags
Nur Fatima landed in Midwood, Brooklyn, at a propitious time. Had she come three years earlier, she would have seen a neighborhood in crisis.
Hundreds of Pakistani immigrants disappeared after being asked to register with the government. Thirty shops closed along a stretch of Coney Island Avenue known as Little Pakistan. The number of new Urdu-speaking pupils at the local elementary school, Public School 217, dropped by half in the 2002-3 school year.
But then Little Pakistan got organized. A local businessman, Moe Razvi, converted a former antique store into a community center offering legal advice, computer classes and English instruction. Local Muslim leaders began meeting with federal agents to soothe relations.
The annual Pakistan Independence Day parade is now awash in American flags.
It is a transformation seen in Muslim immigrant communities around the nation.
?They have to prove that they are living here as Muslim Americans rather than living as Pakistanis and Egyptians and other nationalities,? said Zahid H. Bukhari, the director of the American Muslim Studies Program at Georgetown University.
Ms. Fatima arrived in Brooklyn from Pakistan in March with an immigrant visa. She began by taking English classes at Mr. Razvi?s center, the Council of Peoples Organization.
She has heard stories of the neighborhood?s former plight but sees a different picture.
?This is a land of opportunity,? Ms. Fatima said. ?There is equality for everyone.?
Five days after she came to Brooklyn, Ms. Fatima removed her head scarf, which she had been wearing since she was 10. She began to change her thinking, she said: She liked living in a country where people respected the privacy of others and did not interfere with their religious or social choices.
?I came to the United States because I want to improve myself,? she said. ?This is a second birth for me.?
-
http://www.myspace.com/city_of_los_angeles
6. the U.S. is the only military in the world capable of doing the greatest GOOD (caveat: without re-training/vision, probably the greatest EVIL).? the U.S. military along w/ diplomats, students, volunteers, the media, etc. now have the responsibility to bring the FREE flow of everything (goods, ideas, education, people, etc. etc.) to EVERYONE else.
* re-train the military, so that every soldier starts thinking more like a police officer (i.e. fairness, knowledge of culture, be able to balance violence and compassion, diplomacy, information gathering w/ in the constitutional framework~consensual, resonable suspicion, probable cause, etc.)
The purpose of the U.S. military is not to provide services like a police officer, that is what the police is for.? Your VISION comment is rather funny too; they are THE MILITARY man!? They locate, close with and DESTROY the enemy!? Yes, they have training on how to proffesionally deal with situations they wouldn't normally see in combat, i.e. policing a civilian population.? I find the "be able to balance violence and compasison," OFFENSIVE!? the U.S. media doesn't report ANY good that the our armed forces do for the civilians in AF or IQ.? Here is something for ya; did you read about the little girl a squad of Rangers saved from a mine field when they dropped a couple of 20" ladders through the minefield so they had a safe path to walk on?? No you didn't, that was showing something good we did, btw the little girl lived, my brother was able to stop the bleeding.? ?
-
Forwarded to me by a friend:
This article, written in 1946 is amazing accurate in portraying the issues still faced today. What is also important is that it details some history of Mohammed, Islam, and the radical sects. ?Reading of the article shows that the problem of fundamental Islam began long before the US became active in the area. It was a threat that has been around for centuries. To blame the US for the problems today is to deny the history of the area.
Assessing the Islamist Threat, Circa 1946
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2006
In 1946, U.S. power was on the ascent. A U.S. nuclear bomb had hastened the end of World War II and, while the Cold War was beginning, the United States remained the world's only nuclear power. As the international community rebuilt from the ashes of war and the United Nations sought to preserve peace, the military intelligence division of the U.S. War Department?the predecessor of today's Defense Intelligence Agency?charged its analysts to speculate on long-term threats to global security. One resulting essay, which appeared in the classified periodical Intelligence Review,[1] identified the Islamic world as a region of concern.
Written just over than six decades ago, the resulting analysis is prescient.[2] The report describes a region beset by "discontent and frustration" and handicapped by a collective inferiority complex, yet unable to overcome "intellectual inaction," a situation which would keep the region from advancing in the modern world. The analysts speculate correctly about the growing importance of the Arab media and the divisive force of nationalism.
Ironically, while many academics today would dismiss as culturally insensitive the authors' frankness and generalizations about peoples and religion, the assumption that culture matters holds true. Many of the report's observations mirror those made in recent years by the United Nations' own Arab Human Development Report, which, if anything, is more pessimistic. In 1946, observers of the Middle East still had hope that increasing literacy and ease of travel would lead the region to become more cosmopolitan. While they raised concerns about nascent Islamist movements, they did not foresee just how malignant such groups could become, nor did they envision that oil-rich states such as Saudi Arabia would fund extremism rather than regional development.
As important as what the authors do say is what they do not. While it has become trendy in some academic and diplomatic circles to blame terrorism and regional instability on Israel's existence, the War Department's report suggests these problems?and anti-Semitism as well?predated the Jewish state. Many Arab states complained about Jewish immigration to Palestine, but the report's authors suggest local governments cynically promoted such concerns, and Muslims farther afield had different priorities. Well before Israel's independence and the 1967 war, Arab and Islamist groups embraced terrorism, using it for purposes unrelated to Zionism. Accordingly, while the scapegoating of Israel may be fashionable in the foreign ministries of Arab states, the European Union, and the diplomatic parlors of the United Nations, the 1946 report shows that responsibility for the political, economic, and social failings of the region are far more complex and deeply-rooted.
?The Editors
The Moslem world sprawls around half the east, from the Pacific across Asia and Africa to the Atlantic, along one of the greatest of trade routes; in its center is an area extremely rich in oil; over it will run some of the most strategically important air routes.
With few exceptions, the states which it includes are marked by poverty, ignorance, and stagnation. It is full of discontent and frustration, yet alive with consciousness of its inferiority and with determination to achieve some kind of general betterment.
Two basic urges meet head-on in this area, and conflict is inherent in this collision of interests. These urges reveal themselves in daily news accounts of killings and terrorism, of pressure groups in opposition, and of raw nationalism and naked expansionism masquerading as diplomatic maneuvers. The urges tie together the tangled threads of power politics which?snarled in the lap of the United Nations Assembly?lead back to the centers of Islamic pressure and to the capitals of the world's biggest nations.
The first of these urges originates within the Moslems' own sphere. The Moslems remember the power with which once they not only ruled their own domains but also overpowered half of Europe, yet they are painfully aware of their present economic, cultural, and military impoverishment. Thus a terrific internal pressure is building up in their collective thinking. The Moslems intend, by any means possible, to regain political independence and to reap the profits of their own resources, which in recent times and up to the present have been surrendered to the exploitation of foreigners who could provide capital investments. The area, in short, has an inferiority complex, and its activities are thus as unpredictable as those of any individual so motivated.
The other fundamental urge originates externally. The world's great and near-great powers cover the economic riches of the Moslem area and are also mindful of the strategic locations of some of the domains. Their actions are also difficult to predict, because each of these powers sees itself in the position of the customer who wants to do his shopping in a hurry because he happens to know the store is going to be robbed.
In an atmosphere so sated with the inflammable gases of distrust and ambition, the slightest spark could lead to an explosion which might implicate every country committed to the maintenance of world peace through the United Nations Organization. An understanding of the Moslem world and of the stresses and forces operative within it is thus an essential part of the basic intelligence framework.
History of the Moslems
The influence which integrates the Moslems is their religion, Islam. This religion began officially in the year 622 A.D., when Mahomet [Muhammad] was driven from Mecca because of his preaching of a synthesis of Jewish and Christian heresy, and took flight to Yathrib (Al-Medinah). Taking advantage of the age-old feud between the two towns, he soon rallied an army to his side, made extensive compromises with Medinah paganism, and attacked Mecca. At his death in 632 A.D., he was the master of all Arabia.
His successors, the Caliphs (or Khalifs) quickly overran much of the known world; they reached India and penetrated TransCaspiana and Musa ibn Tariq, and crossed the straits at the western end of the Mediterranean, giving to the mountainous rock at their entrance the name of Jebel al-Tariq (the mountain of Tariq), which the Spaniards later corrupted to "Gibraltar." In 732 A.D.?just one century after the death of the Prophet?the Moslem advance in Western Europe was finally turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martel. To the north of Arabia, the Byzantine Kingdom held back the Moslem tide until the 15th century, when Constantinople fell and central Europe became a Turkish province. From that high point, Moslem expansion gradually receded. Although for centuries the Moslem world had been contributing to western arts, science, and trade, a period of increasing sterility set in, and during the next 400 years, the Moslems advanced very little in any phase of human endeavor.
At the present time there are no strong Moslem states. The leadership of the Moslem world remains in the Middle East, particularly in Arabia. This area lies near the geographical center of Eurasia's population, with industrial Europe to the west and the agricultural countries of India, Indonesia, and China to the east. Through it passes the Suez Canal; and north of it lie fabulously rich oil fields around the Persian Gulf.
Present Forces Tending to Weaken Moslem Unity
The many forces tending to tear the Moslem world apart have been so strong that there has been no central Moslem authority since the 8th century; the factors which generate disunity are discussed briefly below.
1. Lack of a common language.?Moslems east and south of the Tigris River (except those in Malaya and Indonesia) usually speak Urdu, Persian, or Turkish. West of the Tigris River, the dominant language is Arabic, but its far western dialects are unintelligible to the eastern Arab.
2. Religious schisms.?The oldest of these schisms is the Sunni-Shiah controversy, which arose in the 8th century. The eastern Caliphate, with its capital at Baghdad, gave impetus to the Shiah sect, but it was not until the 17th century that the Shiah creed was officially adopted in Iran. The majority of Moslems, however, belong to the Sunni (unorthodox) sect although islands of Shiah believers exist in Sunni regions. Neither sect has a recognized leader. In theory the Sunni should have a Caliph, a successor to the Prophet; but the historic Caliphate came to an end in Baghdad around 1350, and there have since been only "captive" Caliphs?puppets set up by secular powers and not generally recognized. The Emir Husayn of Mecca desired the British to recognize him as Caliph in 1916, and in recent years King Faruq (Farouk) of Egypt has made gestures indicating he would be willing to play the part. Nationalism keeps the Moslems apart, however, and no serious bid for the traditional role of a leader of Islam now exists.
Islam is also beset with modern movements which try to make it conform to new historical evidence and to modern psychology and science. These have included a reform movement known as Babism, which appeared a century ago in Iran, followed by Bahaism, which adopted many features of the former.
Along with "the acids of modernity," there have been atavistic movements designed to preserve the original "purity of Islam." In 1703 an Arab chieftain, Abdul Wahab, revived a fanatically purist faith, which soon swept over all Arabia. Thousands of "pagan Moslems" were massacred at Mecca by desert adherents of the new faith. Around 1850 the movement suffered eclipse but again appeared in 1903, led by Abdul Aziz of the Saud family. Again it overran the Arabian Peninsula, and it is now the recognized faith of Saudi Arabia. These Wahabis believe that the Koran is the only source of faith and that it contains the only precepts for war, commerce, and politics; they regard any innovation as heresy.
Paralleling this reactionary tendency, there have appeared in Egypt and elsewhere several societies that stress Islamic culture; these are openly anti-European and secretly anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. The best known is the Ikhwan el-Muslimin (Brotherhood of Moslems), which encourages youth movements and maintains commando units and secret caches of arms (it is reported to have 60,000 to 70,000 rifles). The militant societies, such as the Shahab Muhammad (Youth of Mahomet) and the Misr al-Fattat (Young Egypt), are led by demagogues and political opportunists. They issue clandestine pamphlets, attack the government, stir up hatred of the British, and sow the seeds of violence. In recent months, Premier Ahmad Maher of Egypt was assassinated, and former Premier Nahas Pasha was wounded by people associated with these groups. Christian minorities in the Middle East fear these fanatical and nationalistic Moslem societies which exploit the ignorance and poverty of the masses, and even the more enlightened Moslem leaders must cater to their fanaticism in order to retain their positions.
3. Geographical isolation.?The Indian Moslem knows little or nothing of his fellow believers in Mongolia and Morocco. To a Sudanese, Turkey and Iran are meaningless terms. High mountains, broad deserts, and great distances separate one group from another, and provincialism has inevitably resulted.
4. Economic disparities.?Throughout the Moslem world, social conditions closely approximate medieval feudalism. In Egypt, a few thousand people own the land on which 15 million labor as share croppers. In Saudi Arabia, where the purest desert "democracy" exists, the contrast between the living conditions of the peasant and the feudal land-holding classes is very great. That contrast is common throughout the whole Moslem world, where the lack of industrial development has made it easier than elsewhere to retain the feudal system of exploiting the land and the peasants. Social reform has been given only lip service, and the Moslem peasants have a growing conviction, stimulated by Soviet propaganda, that the landowners are their worst enemy. In northern Iran, the peasants have openly revolted under the instigation and protection of the Red Army, and such a revolt can happen anywhere in the Moslem world.
5. Political rivalries and nationalism.?The Iranian has always looked upon the Arab as a wild man and upon the Turk as a "son of a dog"; the Turk in turn considers the Iranian a degenerate but agrees with his views of the Arab; and so goes the cycle of animosity. These mutual dislikes have existed for centuries, but they have a deeper meaning in the present era of nationalism. For example, after exiling the puppet "Caliph" in 1923, the Turks completely nationalized the idea of Islam. Pilgrimages ceased almost entirely, the Koran was translated into Turkish, and all prayers were put into that language. Oaths no longer needed to be made on the Koran, but on one's honor. Thus, the roots of Islam were cut, making religion a purely passive phase of nationalism.
Likewise in Iran, during the period of 1920 to 1940, religious holidays were displaced by national fiestas, national heroes were substituted for those of Arab origin, and the old customs of Islam were replaced by new.
Even within the Arab-speaking world, nationalism transcends religion. Egypt is concerned with local issues. Saudi Arabia is absorbed in the age-old feud between its royal family and that of west Arabia. Nationalists in Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Morocco are concentrating on means to throw off the French yoke.
-
Part Two
Only when a cause in another region would be of value in their own do the Moslems cooperate. For example, their widespread sympathy for the Palestinian Arab in his struggle against Zionism is translated into action only by the Arab states bordering on Palestine. The largest single group of Moslem believers lives in India, but its principle fear is of being swallowed up in a sea of Hindu millions; to these Moslems, the establishment of a colony of Jews three thousand miles to the west is by comparison a matter of little concern.
In addition to the dissension and selfish interests that tend to split the Moslem world from within, various foreign countries have parceled it into spheres of influence or areas of outright domination. From 1930 to 1940, only three Moslem states, with a total population of less than 40 million people, had any real degree of independence. They were Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and each of these was jealous of the others and on the defensive to protect its national existence against the great powers.
6. Prostitution of leadership.?At the end of the 18th century, Moslem power had fallen so low that a series of self-appointed Protectors of Islam appeared. One of the earliest was Napoleon, who, as governor of Egypt from 1799 to 1802, outdid the old Moslem rulers in celebrating Islamic festivals and reviving decadent customs.
Later, Great Britain assumed the role, but her efforts had small success because her Zionist policy antagonized the Arabs.
Then Mussolini and Hitler represented themselves as guardians of the Moslems. Axis money and intrigue proved effective in many instances, so that with the approach of war, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Rashid Ali al-Gailani of Iraq, among others, were in the Axis camp. In Iran, a group of important persons was formed into a loose political party which favored the Axis, and in Egypt the British could trust neither the king nor the premier.
The most recent claimant as Protector of Islam is the Soviet Union, which before the war showed little interest in championing religion but now realizes the value of such a rule as an instrument of policy. Thus, while the London BBC and Delhi radio have recently broadcast recitations in Arabic from the Koran and admonished the faithful to continue their devotions, Radio Moscow has told of the facilities which the Soviet Union had made available to pilgrims for traveling by air to Mecca.
Recent Soviet broadcasts have quoted the imam of the Moscow mosque, Sheikh Nasr ad-Din, on freedom of religion in the Soviet Union. The imam stated that "every Moslem in the U.S.S.R. is well aware of the fact that the Stalin constitution is a guarantee for the freedom of expression and belief," and (citing the oppression of Moslems under Christian regimes) that "Moslems in the U.S.S.R. always beseech Allah to protect the Soviet authorities and our great father and friend of all nations, the great and wise Stalin." The imam was also quoted as saying that "as a result of the consideration shown by the government toward Soviet Moslems, tombs of distinguished Moslem religious leaders are being maintained" and reconstructed. Another Moscow broadcast, directed at Arabic-speaking peoples, declared that rumors circulating in Arab circles regarding the Soviet Union's attitude toward religion, particularly the Islamic, were "nothing but political maneuvers of the imperialists, who are afraid of the Arab march on the road of democracy and true liberty."
The election in Moscow of the Grand Mufti of the Central Muslim Administration is reported to have been scheduled for January. Arab circles are reported to have taken more interest in this assembly of Moslems than in any other Soviet propaganda effort. It is to be anticipated that the election of the Grand Mufti of the Central Moslem Administration may prove as useful propaganda as was the election of Alexius to the Patriarchate of All Russia. The Soviets have also solicited the favor of the Coptic Church in Egypt and that of other religious groups in the Middle East.
The net result of all these intrigues has been that the Moslems are properly suspicious of their leaders. The moment a new leader appears, he is tempted by various European powers to accept their "assistance," and almost inevitably his loyalty and discretion are eventually sold to one of them.
Present Forces Tending to Strengthen Moslem Unity
1. The Pilgrimage to Mecca.?This ancient duty formerly brought many hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from all sections of the Moslem world to Mecca, where ideas were actively exchanged, along with goods. Although the pilgrimage is still made (the last was in November and December 1945), the number participating had dwindled greatly. The scarcity of shipping during the war reduced the usual horde to about 20,000-30,000 per year. While the numbers will probably increase now, they are not likely to reach their former proportions. Turkey discourages pilgrimages; Iran (where the dissident Shiah sect is the official religion) has prohibited them altogether since 1944. Yet they will continue to be a unifying force when Moslems from the East and West meet and repeat prayers in a common language.
2. Classical Arabic.?All written Arabic, as well as that spoken in public assemblies, is based on the classical forms. Accordingly, a newspaper printed in Casablanca can be read in Baghdad or by members of the Lebanese colony in New Jersey. The Arab press is reviving. Al Ahram, a daily newspaper in Cairo, has almost as large a circulation outside the country as within. Many new books have been published on the lives of the early Moslem heroes, and a "Book of the Month Club" distributes biographies of famous characters, almost all Moslems. The American Readers' Digest, in its Arabic translation, sells around 100,000 copies a month, indicating the increasing demand for reading material. It is still too early to know whether this literary revival will tend to break up Moslem solidarity by introducing new ideas, or will lead Islam out of its slough of intellectual inaction.
3. Modern communications.?The development of fast, comfortable, and relative [sic] cheap travel is affording a more cosmopolitan outlook to a small group in each country. Radio programs in all the languages of the East flood the air. Thus, for a few, the isolation of the past has ended, and these few will act as a leaven for the rest. Any growth in understanding among the poverty-crushed masses, however, will be very slow.
4. The Arab League.?After a spasmodic upheaval, such as that led by Lawrence in 1916-1920, the pan-Arab movement broke up under the pressure of British and French policies and because of rivalries between the Hashmite family of west Arabia and the Saud family of east Arabia. Nevertheless, two other forces were driving the Arabs of the Middle East toward greater cohesion: (1) hatred of European exploitation and (2) fear of a Jewish state on Arab soil. By 1942, leaders of the Arab world were advancing plans for the formation of an Arab federation, and in February 1943, British Foreign Secretary Eden declared that Great Britain favored any move toward Arab unity.
Soon there was a stirring of political activity, culminating in October 1944 with the announcement of the Alexandria Protocol of the Arab League Conference. A constitution was drafted in March 1945, and seven states (or mandated territories) have become members. The League aims to include all Arabs in North Africa and then to take in Turkey and Iran. It represents the sympathetic and broader vision that is being expressed by the Arabs of both East and West for the first time in centuries. At the very least, the League serves as a rallying point for Moslems, and many of them hope will restore Islam to some degree of political power.
The Present Estimate
If the Moslem states were strong and stable, their behavior would be more predictable. They are, however, weak and torn by internal stresses; furthermore, their peoples are insufficiently educated to appraise propaganda or to understand the motives of those who promise a new Heaven and a new Earth.
Because of the strategic position of the Moslem world and the relentlessness of its peoples, the Moslem states constitute a potential threat to world peace. There cannot be permanent world stability, when one-seventh of the earth's population exists under the economic and political conditions that are imposed upon the Moslems.
[1] Confidential (declassified on May 17, 1979), Feb. 14, 1946, no. 1., pp. 24-34.
[2] See Daniel Pipes, "Moslem States Represent a Potential Threat to World Peace," FrontPageMagazine.com, Feb. 13, 2006.
-
Woof All:
There certainly is a certain humor, unintended as it may be, to a group responding to the Pope's statement on doctrinal violence in Islam by saying "We will punish you for saying we are violent by sending death squads".
That said, it would not surprise me if the complete text of the Pope's statement was often missing from the reportage of it in much of the Muslim world. Certainly the mirror equivalent in our world is capable of sensationalizing too.
Still, responses to the larger question presented by the Pope's speech seem utterly to be missing in action.
===========
Report: Rome tightens pope's security after fury over Islam remarks
By Haaretz Service News Agencies
The Vatican has increased the security provisions for the Pope, Army Radio reported Sunday, a day after an Iraqi insurgent group threatened the Vatican with a suicide attack over the pope's remarks on Islam.
Muslims around the world have reacted furiously to the comments Tuesday by Benedict XVI, in which he quoted from an obscure Medieval text referred to some of the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad as "evil and inhuman."
The statement, posted online Saturday in the group's name, does not state the seat of the Holy See directly, but is addressed to "you dog of Rome" and threatens to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."
Advertisement
"We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life," said the message posted in the name of the Mujahedeen Army on a Web site frequently used by militant groups.
The message, the authenticity of which could not be independently verified, also contained links to video recordings of what the group claimed were rocket attacks on U.S. bases.
The Mujahedeen Army's statement vowed, "our minds will not rest until we shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."
The same group has claimed responsibility for scores of attacks in Iraq, including the April 2005 downing of a helicopter carrying 11 civilians, including six Americans.
It was among 11 Sunni insurgent groups that offered in June to halt all attacks if the United States agrees to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq in two years.
Pope 'sorry' Muslims offended by his speech on Mohammed
The Vatican said on Saturday Pope Benedict XVI was sorry Muslims had been offended by a speech whose meaning had been misconstrued, as anger and protest grew throughout the Muslim world.
In a statement issued by the Vatican, the pope said he respects believers in Islam and hopes they will understand the true meaning of his speech.
In a speech on Tuesday the Pope repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who said everything the Prophet brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said.
"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,"' Benedict quoted the emperor as saying.
The remarks sparked outrage across the Islamic world.
The new Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said that the pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the Church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God."
"The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers," Bertone said in a statement.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said the Vatican statement saying the Pope was sorry did not go far enough.
"We want a personal apology [from the Pope]. We feel that he has committed a grave error against us and that this mistake will only be removed through a personal apology," Muslim Brotherhood Deputy Leader Mohammed Habib told Reuters.
"Has he presented a personal apology for statements by which he clearly is convinced? No," he said.
Morocco recalled its ambassador to the Holy See in protest over the Pope's remarks, the Foreign Ministry said Saturday.
Ambassador Ali Achour will be recalled as of Sunday for consultation "following remarks offensive with regard to Islam and Muslims by Pope Benedict XVI," the ministry said in a statement released by Morocco's state news agency.
Assailants attack five churches in West Bank, Gaza
Assailants hurled firebombs and opened fire at five churches in the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday, causing no injuries, but sparking fears of a rift between Palestinian Muslims and Christians.
The attacks on four of the 10 churches in the West Bank town of Nablus, and on the Greek Orthodox Church in Gaza City unsettled a relatively peaceful coexistence in the city.
The assaults began with fire bombings of Nablus' Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches, which left trails of black scorch marks in their wake. At least five firebombs were hurled at the Anglican church, whose door was later set ablaze in a separate attack. Smoke billowed from the church as firefighters put out the flames
In a phone call to The Associated Press, a group calling itself the "Lions of Monotheism" claimed responsibility, saying the attacks were meant to protest the pope's remarks about Islam.
Hours later, four masked gunmen doused the main doors of Nablus' Roman and Greek Catholic churches with lighter fluid, then set them ablaze. They also opened fire on the buildings, pocking their outer walls with bullet holes.
In Gaza City, militants opened fire from a car at a Greek Orthodox church, hitting the facade. A policeman at the scene said he saw a car escape with armed men inside. Explosive devices were set off at the same Gaza church on Friday, causing minor damage.
There were no claims of responsibility for the last three attacks. Said Siyam, the interior minister from Hamas, ordered extra protection for churches across the West Bank and Gaza.
"The atmosphere is charged already, and the wise should not accept such acts," said Father Yousef Saada, a Greek Catholic priest in Nablus.
Ayman Daraghmeh, a Hamas legislator, denounced the attacks, and urged Palestinian police to do more to protect Christian sites.
Growing chorus of criticism in Muslim world against Pope
Iran condemned Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday for making what it called "a big mistake" in his comments on Islam and demanded an apology, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
"The pope's expression contradicted his own leadership of a divine religion. Promotion of incorrect beliefs (about Islam) is considered a big mistake," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini was quoted as saying.
Hosseini said the pope should "revise and correct" his remarks in order to prevent Muslims' indignation.
In the first reaction from a top Christian leader, the head of Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Church said in remarks published Saturday that Pope Benedict XVI's comments on Islam were "against the teachings of Christ."
Coptic Pope Shenouda III told the pro-government Al-Ahram newspaper that he didn't hear the pope's exact words, but that "any remarks which offend Islam and Muslims are against the teachings of Christ."
"Christianity and Christ's teachings instruct us not to hurt others, either in their convictions or their ideas, or any of their symbols - religious symbols," Shenouda was quoted as saying.
Egypt's Copts, whose liturgy follows Eastern Orthodox Christian traditions rather than the Vatican, account for an estimated 10 percent of Egypt's 73 million people.
Also on Saturday, Indonesians gathered outside of the Palestinian Embassy in Jakarta in protest over the pope's remarks.
On Friday night, some 2,000 Palestinians angrily protested against the pope in Gaza City, accusing him of leading a new Crusade against the Muslim world.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh Friday joined the growing chorus of criticism in the Muslim world against Pope Benedict XVI, saying he had offended Muslims everywhere.
Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric on Friday denounced Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks about Muslim holy war, and demanded the Pope personally apologize for insulting Islam.
"We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels ... and ask him [Benedict] to offer a personal apology - not through his officials - to Muslims for this false reading [of Islam]," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah told worshippers in his Friday prayers sermon.
Fadlallah's words were some of the strongest yet in response to the pontiff's remarks on Islam's prophet Mohammed and holy war, during a speech this week in Germany, which angered many in the Muslim world.
"We call on the Pope to carry out a scientific and fastidious reading of Islam. We do not want him to succumb to the propaganda of the enemy led by Judaism and imperialism against Islam," Fadlallah said.
On Friday, Pakistan's parliament unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Benedict for making what it called "derogatory" comments about Islam, and seeking an apology. Hours later, its Foreign Ministry summoned the Vatican's ambassador to express regret over the remarks.
About 100 worshippers demonstrated after Friday prayers at Egypt's Al-Azhar mosque, the Sunni Arab world's most prominent institution, chanting "Oh Crusaders, oh cowards! Down with the Pope!"
Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said on Friday Pope Benedict XVI must explain himself after insulting the Muslim world with "unfortunate" remarks about Islam and jihad.
"He has to explain himself, and tell us what exactly did he mean," Gheit told The Associated Press. "It can't just be left like that."
Many attributed the Pope's comments to a larger political bias against Muslims. "This is part of the whole war against Islam. Whenever we close a door on evil, they open another door," said an Egyptian man who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
"These Christians are all infidels. Benedict himself is an infidel and a blind man. Doesn't he see that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places were waged by Christians?" another worshipper said.One of the protest's organizers, a Muslim Brotherhood figure, shouted into a microphone, demanding an official apology from the Vatican.
Hundreds of Egyptian riot police wearing black helmets and carrying heavy
shields surrounded the mosque, preventing protesters from spilling over into the streets.
Fadlallah said he condemns "and protests in the strongest terms" the Pope's comments, "particularly his quoting without any occasion of the words of the emperor in which he insults Prophet Mohammed."
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora instructed Lebanon's ambassador to the Vatican, Naji Abi Assi, to visit the Vatican Foreign Ministry to seek
clarifications on the pontiff's remarks, a Lebanese government official said Friday.
In neighboring Syria, the grand mufti, the country's top Sunni Muslim
religious authority, sent a letter to the pope saying he feared the pontiff's comments on Islam would worsen interfaith relations. Sheik Ahmad Badereddine Hassoun, a moderate cleric, said the comments "raise intellectual, cultural and religious problems between followers of religious faiths."
The letter, addressed to the Pope and delivered to the Vatican embassy in
Damascus, avoided sharp criticism however, reflecting tight control by Syria's secular regime.
"We expect that what has been attributed to your holiness is not true and hope we can all work together on spreading divine values that call for harmony, accord and cooperation," Hassoun wrote.
Notably, the most violent denunciation so far has come from Turkey - a
moderate democracy seeking EU membership, which Benedict plans to visit in November.
Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Friday that Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet, or worse, a deliberate distortion of the truths.
"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz told Turkish state media. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."
"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," he said. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."
Even Turkey's staunchly pro-secular opposition party demanded that the Pope apologize to Muslims before his visit. Another party led a demonstration outside Ankara's largest mosque, and a group of about 50 people left a black wreath outside the Vatican's diplomatic mission.
Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi has tried to defuse anger, saying the Pope had not intended to offend Muslim sensibilities and insisting that Benedict respected Islam. In Pakistan, the Vatican envoy regretted "the hurt caused to Muslims."
But Muslim leaders said outreach efforts by papal emissaries were not enough. "We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels ... and ask him [Benedict] to offer a personal apology - not through his officials," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah - Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric - told worshippers Friday in Beirut, Lebanon.
Rashwan feared the official condemnations could be the precursor for widespread popular protests. Already there have been scattered demonstrations in several Muslim countries.
"What we have right now are public reactions to the Pope's comments from political and religious figures, but I'm not optimistic concerning the reaction from the general public, especially since we have no correction from the Vatican," Rashwan said
-
Second post of the morning:
Defining Today's Moderate Muslim
By Teresa Watanabe, Times Staff Writer
September 17, 2006
Who is a moderate Muslim?
Is it Maher Hathout, the Los Angeles Muslim leader who has promoted interfaith relations and women's equality but denounced Israel as a brutal apartheid regime? Is it Tashbih Sayyed, a journalist based in Alta Loma, Calif., who praises Israel's behavior toward Palestinians as tolerant and criticizes Muslims for corrupting Islam?
The question has come under intense debate since 9/11 as the public struggles to distinguish peaceful Muslims from Al Qaeda terrorists, and is at the heart of two Southern California skirmishes over who represents moderate Islam.
In a dinner scheduled for tonight, the American Jewish Congress plans to honor Sayyed and four others for what it sees as their friendly attitudes toward Israel and courageous efforts to reform Islam.
Gary Ratner, executive director of the Congress' Western region office in Los Angeles, said the tribute is part of the organization's global efforts to reach out to moderate Muslims in Pakistan, Indonesia, Albania and elsewhere, including sponsoring a dinner in New York last year for Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
"Israel is going to be a fixture in the Mideast," Ratner said. "If there is ever going to be peace, there has to be accommodation with Muslims."
The organization's choice of honorees, however, has offended some Muslims, in part because three of them no longer practice the faith.
In contrast, a different award has offended some Jewish sensibilities: the decision by the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission to honor Hathout as a model of harmonious interfaith relations.
Hathout's critics argue that his controversial statements supporting Hezbollah and denouncing Israel have exposed him as an extremist. The Egyptian native and retired cardiologist, saying his opponents have twisted his record, asserts that he has long condemned terrorism, launched interfaith dialogues and promoted an American Islamic identity that celebrates pluralism, democracy and women's rights.
The commission is to vote Monday on whether to reaffirm or rescind the award.
Despite the dissent, Muslims, Christians and Jews named similar attributes when asked to define religious moderation. They included problem-solving without violence, affirmation of human rights, religious freedom and other Western values, and respectful attitudes toward women.
But on one key issue, there was sharp disagreement: attitudes toward Israel.
Ratner said his group believes support for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is central to the definition of a moderate because it speaks to the larger qualities of tolerance and acceptance.
Others, however, reject that as a litmus test.
"It's un-American," said John Esposito, Georgetown University professor of religion and international affairs. "Your principal and only obligation in terms of loyalty as an American is to America. You can have a variety of positions regarding foreign policy."
Still others say labels and litmus tests aren't terribly useful for either side.
"The question is ? can we find points of agreement, a place from which to build trust and move forward?" asked Rob Eshman, editor of the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. "I deal with Jews every day whom I don't consider moderate, but I don't write them off. And we can't afford to write off Muslims."
Since 9/11, Esposito and others said, the quest for moderate Muslims has become widespread as policymakers, journalists, terrorism experts and religious leaders seek to understand Islam and assess who is "safe" and who is extremist.
Often, those seeking moderate Muslims are looking for people to affirm their own values, said Reuven Firestone, a professor of medieval Jewish and Islamic studies at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles.
When we say we want moderate Muslims, what we are really saying is that we want Westernized Muslims who have the same kinds of sensibilities we have," Firestone said. "But that's not realistic. It's a false but human assumption that moderates must agree with us on most issues."
To Firestone, moderates are those committed to settling disputes without violence and willing to hear and consider other points of view, especially those contrary to their own.
Others said that whatever yardstick is chosen must be consistently applied. If Muslims who condemn Israeli treatment of Palestinians are extremists, all Christians, Jews and atheists who feel likewise must be similarly described, said Khaled Abou El Fadl, a UCLA Islamic law professor and author of "The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists."
Many said a key criterion for Muslim moderates is that they in fact be Muslim.
Among the Jewish Congress honorees are Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie, a self-described atheist, and two women who say they left the faith years ago, Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish.
Darwish is a Southern California writer and founder of Arabs for Israel. Sultan is a Corona psychiatrist, writer and activist who has said she is particularly concerned about women's status in Islam.
"By honoring Muslims who are not practicing Muslims, the given message, even if unintentional, is that these people are good because they left the faith," said Firestone, who recently returned from a six-month sabbatical in Cairo. "But there are hundreds of millions of moral, deeply believing Muslims."
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Jewish groups have long tried to promote alternative Islamic leaders who may be friendly to Israel but in fact have little following among Muslims. "It's a slap in the face," he said.
But Ratner defended the selections.
"To me it's a phonetic debate," he said, referring to whether the awardees were practicing Muslims or not. "It's about the reform of Islam so that the Muslim world and the West can live in peace and tolerance with each other's values and beliefs."
Two of the honorees say they are practicing Muslims deeply concerned about their tradition's future and are unafraid to speak about it. Both Salim Mansur, a Calcutta native and Canadian political science professor, and Sayyed, the newspaper editor, said the Muslim world must stop blaming the West for its own ailments, including poverty, illiteracy, injustice or extremism.
Sayyed, 64, immigrated to the United States in 1981 to escape what he described as an increasingly radical practice of Islam in Pakistan. He said Muslims must reinvigorate their tradition with open debate even on sensitive questions. That includes, he said, whether Islam was spread by the sword or ideas, whether shariah is an outdated legal system for Muslims and whether the Prophet Muhammad's actions were all divinely inspired.
But when he wrote an article last year calling for Islam's reinterpretation, Sayyed said, he was widely condemned and threatened by fellow Muslims.
Mansur, too, said he was ostracized after writing columns for the Toronto Sun five years ago condemning the Taliban's destruction of ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and comparing it to the murderous Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. The backlash prompted him to stop going to his local mosque.
Both men, however, said they have no intention of falling silent.
"Because I love my faith, I have to raise my voice and challenge it from within," Sayyed said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Note the source of the following:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=86776&d=19&m=9&y=2006
Editorial: Chasm of Ignorance
19 September 2006
WHATEVER views people may have about Pope Benedict?s controversial speech at Regensburg University last week, it underlines the urgent need for greater dialogue between people of different faiths. There is a dangerous chasm of ignorance about other faiths and it affects Muslims, Christians, Jews and practitioners of other religions equally; it is dangerous because it is so easily exploited by bigots and opportunists for their own political ends.
But, many will assert, there is a dialogue that has been going on for years. They can point to organizations such as C100, set up by the World Economic Forum to promote interfaith cooperation between the West and the Muslim world or to the Al-Azhar Permanent Committee for Dialogue with Monotheistic Religions. There is the Vatican-Muslim Committee set up by the Catholic Church and Al-Azhar, the Anglican Al-Azhar Dialogue Committee and a number of other organizations in countries around the world. There is even a day ? Muslim Catholic Dialogue Day on Feb. 24 each year ? adopted by Al-Azhar and the Vatican.
Commendable as all this is, it is not enough. If they were, there would not have been a Danish cartoons row earlier this year or a row now. The committees and organizations are not producing the results because the knowledge and understanding is not getting down to the grass roots where the prejudices and ignorance exist. What is the point of dialogue if it excludes the vast majority who do not fully understand all that is involved? It is at the grass roots that riots take place, where passions turn to prejudice, and mosques, churches and innocent believers are attacked and killed. That is where dialogue has to be planted and nurtured. And what is the point of dialogue if it excludes bigots? If they are left on the outside, they will continue to stir up hatred and plant their bombs. Dialogue desperately needs a wider arena, one that will draw in the uninformed on all sides, not least the bigots. That means using the mass media. Sadly, not everyone appears to understand that.
This paper has tried to publish a series of articles on interfaith dialogue. It is a perfect vehicle ? an English language daily in a Muslim country with a readership of different faiths and nationalities. We asked major religious and political figures from around the world to contribute. The feedback was extremely positive: ?Great idea,? we were told. But after months of reminders, not a single article has been submitted. It is profoundly disappointing. Never has the need for dialogue been so acute. Clearly dialogue cannot be left to well-intentioned experts. If the world were full of them there would not be a problem. But it is not like that. Dialogue must involve the largest possible number of people.
The Danish cartoon row should have provided the stimulus to intensify efforts. It did not. Maybe now, in the full fury of the papal row, the message will get through. It has to. In today?s global village, we cannot afford to be ignorant of each other?s faiths. Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds hate ? and hate is scarcely a step away from war and conflict.
-
CHICAGO ? So here?s the thing about speed dating for Muslims.
James Estrin/The New York Times
Many American Muslims ? or at least those bent on maintaining certain conservative traditions ? equate anything labeled ?dating? with hellfire, no matter how short a time is involved. Hence the wildly popular speed dating sessions at the largest annual Muslim conference in North America were given an entirely more respectable label. They were called the ?matrimonial banquet.?
?If we called it speed dating, it will end up with real dating,? said Shamshad Hussain, one of the organizers, grimacing.
Both the banquet earlier this month and various related seminars underscored the difficulty that some American Muslim families face in grappling with an issue on which many prefer not to assimilate. One seminar, called ?Dating,? promised attendees helpful hints for ?Muslim families struggling to save their children from it.?
The couple of hundred people attending the dating seminar burst out laughing when Imam Muhamed Magid of the Adams Center, a collective of seven mosques in Virginia, summed up the basic instructions that Muslim American parents give their adolescent children, particularly males: ?Don?t talk to the Muslim girls, ever, but you are going to marry them. As for the non-Muslim girls, talk to them, but don?t ever bring one home.?
?These kids grew up in America, where the social norm is that it is O.K. to date, that it is O.K. to have sex before marriage,? Imam Magid said in an interview. ?So the kids are caught between the ideal of their parents and the openness of the culture on this issue.?
The questions raised at the seminar reflected just how pained many American Muslims are by the subject. One middle-aged man wondered if there was anything he could do now that his 32-year-old son had declared his intention of marrying a (shudder) Roman Catholic. A young man asked what might be considered going too far when courting a Muslim woman.
Panelists warned that even seemingly innocuous e-mail exchanges or online dating could topple one off the Islamic path if one lacked vigilance. ?All of these are traps of the Devil to pull us in and we have no idea we are even going that way,? said Ameena Jandali, the moderator of the dating seminar.
Hence the need to come up with acceptable alternatives in North America, particularly for families from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, where there is a long tradition of arranged marriages.
One panelist, Yasmeen Qadri, suggested that Muslim mothers across the continent band together in an organization called ?Mothers Against Dating,? modeled on Mothers Against Drunk Driving. If the term ?arranged marriage? is too distasteful to the next generation, she said, then perhaps the practice could be Americanized simply by renaming it ?assisted marriage,? just like assisted living for the elderly.
?In the United States we can play with words however we want, but we are not trying to set aside our cultural values,? said Mrs. Qadri, a professor of education.
Basically, for conservative Muslims, dating is a euphemism for premarital sex. Anyone who partakes risks being considered morally louche, with their marriage prospects dimming accordingly, particularly young women.
Mrs. Qadri and other panelists see a kind of hybrid version emerging in the United States, where the young do choose their own mates, but the parents are at least partly involved in the process in something like half the cases.
Having the families involved can help reduce the divorce rate, Imam Majid said, citing a recent informal study that indicated that one third of Muslim marriages in the United States end in divorce. It was still far too high, he noted, but lower than the overall American average. Intermarriages outside Islam occur, but remain relatively rare, he said.
Scores of parents showed up at the marriage banquet to chaperone their children. Many had gone through arranged marriages ? meeting the bride or groom chosen by their parents sometimes as late as their wedding day and hoping for the best. They recognize that the tradition is untenable in the United States, but still want to influence the process.
=====
The banquet is considered one preferable alternative to going online, although that too is becoming more common. The event was unquestionably one of the big draws at the Islamic Society of North America?s annual convention, which attracted thousands of Muslims to Chicago over Labor Day weekend, with many participants bemoaning the relatively small pool of eligible candidates even in large cities.
At a ?matrimonial banquet,? single Muslim American men spent seven minutes at each table, including the one at which Alia Abbas sat before moving on.
There were two banquets, with a maximum 150 men and 150 women participating each day for $55 apiece. They sat 10 per table and the men rotated every seven minutes.
At the end there was an hourlong social hour that allowed participants time to collect e-mail addresses and telephone numbers over a pasta dinner with sodas. (Given the Muslim ban on alcohol, no one could soothe jumpy nerves with a drink.) Organizers said many of the women still asked men to approach their families first. Some families accept that the couple can then meet in public, some do not.
A few years ago the organizers were forced to establish a limit of one parent per participant and bar them from the tables until the social hour because so many interfered. Parents are now corralled along one edge of the reception hall, where they alternate between craning their necks to see who their adult children are meeting or horse-trading bios, photographs and telephone numbers among themselves.
Talking to the mothers ? and participants with a parent usually take a mother ? is like surveying members of the varsity suddenly confined to the bleachers.
?To know someone for seven minutes is not enough,? scoffed Awila Siddique, 46, convinced she was making better contacts via the other mothers.
Mrs. Siddique said her shy, 20-year-old daughter spent the hours leading up to the banquet crying that her father was forcing her to do something weird. ?Back home in Pakistan, the families meet first,?? she said. ?You are not marrying the guy only, but his whole family.?
Samia Abbas, 59 and originally from Alexandria, Egypt, bustled out to the tables as soon as social hour was called to see whom her daughter Alia, 29, had met.
?I?m her mother so of course I?m looking for her husband,? said Mrs. Abbas, ticking off the qualities she was looking for, including a good heart, handsome, as highly educated as her daughter and a good Muslim.
Did he have to be Egyptian?
?She?s desperate for anyone!? laughed Alia, a vivacious technology manager for a New York firm, noting that the ?Made in Egypt? stipulation had long since been cast overboard.
?Her cousin who is younger has babies now!? exclaimed the mother, dialing relatives on her cellphone to handicap potential candidates.
For doubters, organizers produced a success story, a strikingly good-looking pair of Chicago doctors who met at the banquet two years ago. Organizers boast of at least 25 marriages over the past six years.
Fatima Alim, 50, was disappointed when her son Suehaib, a 26-year-old pharmacist, did not meet anyone special on the first day. They had flown up from Houston especially for the event, and she figured chances were 50-50 that he would find a bride.
When she arrived in Texas as a 23-year-old in an arranged marriage, Mrs. Alim envied the girls around her, enthralled by their discussions about all the fun they were having with their boyfriends, she said, even if she was eventually shocked to learn how quickly they moved from one to the next and how easily they divorced. Still, she was determined that her children would chose their own spouses.
?We want a good, moderate Muslim girl, not a very, very modern girl,? she said. ?The family values are the one thing I like better back home. Divorces are high here because of the corruption, the intermingling with other men and other women.?
For his part, Mr. Alim was resisting the strong suggestion from his parents that they switch tactics and start looking for a nice girl back in Pakistan. Many of the participants reject that approach, describing themselves as too Americanized ? plus the visas required are far harder to obtain in the post-Sept. 11 world.
Mr. Alim said he still believed what he had been taught as a child, that sex outside marriage was among the gravest sins, but he wants to marry a fellow American Muslim no matter how hard she is to find.
?I think I can hold out a couple more years,? he said in his soft Texas drawl with a boyish smile. ?The sooner the better, but I think I can wait. By 30, hopefully, even if that is kind of late.?
-
The Pope's Divisions
Benedict XVI promotes "interfaith" dialogue. Muslims and Christians need it.
BY REUEL MARC GERECHT
Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Although many Muslims have apparently found Pope Benedict XVI's recent oration at the University of Regensburg deeply offensive, it is a welcome change from the pabulum that passes for "interfaith" dialogue. Since 9/11, his lecture is one of the few by a major Western figure to highlight the spiritual and cultural troubles that beset the Muslim world. Think of the awfulness that we've observed in the last years: the suicide terrorism in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, but especially the holy-warrior carnage in Iraq, where Sunni diehard believers have tirelessly slaughtered Shiite women and children. Then think of the tepid, not always condemnatory, discussions these atrocities have provoked among devout, especially fundamentalist, Muslims. We should have seen many more Westerners and Muslims posing painful questions about the well-being of Islamic culture and faith. With the exception of President Bush's remarks about "Islamofascism," which provoked dyspeptic reactions inside the U.S. government and out, the administration has generally avoided using powerful language connecting Islam to terrorism.
Let us be frank: There is absolutely nothing in the pope's speech that isn't appropriate or pertinent to a civilized discussion of revealed religions and ethics. Even if one is not a believer in any revealed faith, or has some memory of the conflict, daily cruelty and forced conversion meted out by representatives of Rome's bishops, or has some skepticism about the church's commitment to defending the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment, one can be thankful that the pope sees Christianity as a vehicle of peace and tries to explain why he thinks this is so. And by extension why Islam is so often today the loudly proclaimed faith of men who define their relationship to God through violence. Joseph Ratzinger's explanation, as befits a former professor of theology and philosophy, is an abstract one, but it is in the broadest sense undeniably true.
Popes ought to help clarify--not camouflage--the great troubling issues, as Shiite Islam's most senior ayatollahs try to illuminate the most perplexing questions that confront their followers and Muslims in general. The odds are good that few of the pope's most vociferous Muslim critics read his highly philosophical disquisition, which affirms a position on a needed harmony between reason and faith that many of Islam's great jurists and philosophers would quickly recognize. Benedict is trying to tackle many of the very same subjects that Iran's former president, Mohammad Khatami, approached in his book, "From the City World to the World City"--but with considerably more erudition and tact. Mr. Khatami's language, thought and historiography are often an intellectual mess and egregiously insulting to Christians, Jews and, most of all, Western atheists and agnostics. Yet Mr. Khatami is esteemed by many of those who scold the pope.
Is the pope wrong to imply--in a rather roundabout way--that there is today something amiss inside Islam, as a community of believers sharing one faith and a long, common cultural tradition? There probably isn't a single liberal editor at a major American or European paper who doesn't think that there is something a little dysfunctional--a disposition that tolerates, if not encourages and admires, violence as expression of religious outrage--among young Muslim males from Northern Europe to Indonesia. We might not be able to put our finger precisely on it--the problems of a radicalized British Muslim of Pakistani ancestry are not the same as a Sunni Iraqi suicide bomber who blows up Jordanian and Palestinian women and children--but we know there is something wrong within Islam's global house, something that cannot be blamed exclusively on Western prejudice, bigotry, military actions or colonialism.
Many Muslims know it too, even if they are not inclined to say so publicly--it's often dangerous and always enormously difficult for believing and nonbelieving Muslims to aggressively critique their own when they know non-Muslims are listening. Self-described Muslim intellectuals (often meaning the traditionally devout, clerics) really have a hard time engaging in self-criticism that fortifies non-Muslim critiques of Islamic society. The notion of "us" and "them" is very powerful in Islam, even though Muslims have often aligned themselves with infidels against their religious brethren. The truly hard-core, radical Muslims of the West--the most frightful of the jihadists--have much more in common temperamentally and culturally with militant European left-wingers than they do with the devout farther east, yet they ferociously separate the world into two camps like the most primitive Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.
And self-confidence is a huge problem. Militarily triumphant in the past, traditional Muslims had an easier time being tolerant toward the minorities in their midst; they certainly were unperturbed by the theological arguments and invective put forth by practitioners of a superseded faith. As many believing Muslims have become less self-confident--and the world around them has become ever more incongruent with the imagined, pure world of early Islam, when the faithful were unceasingly victorious because they were more perfect in their submission to God's will--they have become more acutely conscious and aggressive about their Muslim identity. Clerics in London, Copenhagen, Cairo or Tehran dictating terms about the appropriate comportment of non-Muslims toward believers has naturally followed.
Pope Benedict nailed two facts about Islam that are contributing factors to the faith's very rough entry into modernity. The prophet Muhammad, the model for all Muslims, established the faith through war and conquest. His immediate successors, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, whom traditional and radical Muslims cherish, reinforced Islam's identity as a victorious faith through the rapid creation of a world empire. Christianity was also at times spread by "the sword," and its use of that sword against nonbelievers and heretics was more savage than any Muslim imperialist's. But Christianity was not born to power. Jesus is not a conqueror. The doctrine of the "two swords" always existed in Christian lands--the division of the world between church and state--and created enormous tension. It helped produce Western civic society. And the image of God in Islam, which the pope underscores by talking about the Muslim philosopher Ibn Hazm, is a cleaner expression of unlimited, almighty Will than it is in Christianity. Islam is akin to biblical Judaism in accentuating the unnuanced, transcendent awe of God. When radical Muslims take a hold of this divine fearsomeness, it can untether itself quickly from "conventional" morality, thereby allowing young men to believe that the slaughter of women and children isn't an abomination. In that sense, Muslim jihadism, like fascism, rewrites our ethical DNA, turning sin into virtue.
The pope doesn't tell us how we should proceed to counter the defects he sees in Islam. He should, since that would begin a real, painful but meaningful dialogue, which will surely cut both ways between the West and Islam. But what is most disturbing in the Western reaction to the pope's speech--and one sees the same reaction among those who are uncomfortable with President Bush's use of the term "Islamofascism"--is the often well-intentioned refusal to talk openly about the other side. No one wants to offend, so we assume a public position of liberal tolerance, hoping that good-willed, nonconfrontational dialogue, which criticizes "our" possibly offensive behavior while downplaying "theirs," will somehow lead to a more peaceful, ecumenical world.
We won't talk about the history of jihad in Islam. We would rather emphasize that jihad can mean an internal moral struggle for believers, even though the most progressive, revisionist Muslim (unless he has been completely secularized in the West) knows perfectly well that when Muslims hear the word "jihad," they proudly remember holy warriors, from the prophet Muhammad forward. We won't probe too deeply, and certainly not critically, into how the Quran and the prophet's traditions, as well as classical Islamic history, have given all believing Muslims certain common sentiments, passions and reflexes. We don't even talk about how the post-Christian West's great causes--nationalism, socialism, communism and fascism--entered Islam's bloodstream and altered Muslim ethics, often catastrophically. Many in the West, on both right and left, prefer to see Osama bin Laden's terrorism as a violent reaction to Western, particularly American, behavior. It is thus something that could be avoided. (Israel usually enters the discussion here.) We shy away from the more existential arguments that suggest that bin Laden's popularity in Islamic lands is the product of an enormous religious and philosophical distemper that derives from the world being the reverse of what God had ordained: Muslims on top, non-Muslims down below.
But we need to talk and argue about these things. We need to stop treating Muslims like children, and viewing our public diplomacy with Islamic countries as popularity contests. Given what's happened since 9/11, a dialogue of civilizations is certainly in order. To his credit, Benedict has at least tried to approach the invidious issues that will define any helpful discussion. For 200 years, the West has, for better and worse, helped create the intellectual framework within which all Muslims think. Muslim saints, like the Egyptian dissident Saad Eddin Ibrahim, or Muslim devils, like Ayatollah Khomeini, have Western ideas profoundly within them. If we withdraw from this civilizational debate, the decent men and women of the Middle East, most of whom are faithful Muslims, will have a very hard time defeating those who have brutalized and coarsened their culture and religion. Westerners are doing Muslims an enormous disservice--a lethal bigotry of low expectations--by telling the pontiff to be more diplomatic. This isn't how anti-Western Islamic theocrats, holy warriors and ordinary teachers in much of the Muslim world act. They're having a real, vibrant discussion. We should turn it into a debate.
Mr. Gerecht is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
-
Divided Hearts
The 'comfort' of knowing that most Muslims don't wish us dead
September 11, 2006
By THEODORE DALRYMPLE
On the day on which the plot to blow up ten airliners between Britain and America was revealed to the public, I took a long taxi ride in a British city in which a good proportion of the taxi drivers are Muslim. My driver was Muslim, and I had more than enough time to talk to him.
We lamented the state of the world in general, and in particular the uncontrolled and vile public drunkenness of British youth that makes the life of taxi drivers a hazardous misery once the sun goes down. (It so happens I was on my way to a prison to prepare an entirely pointless medical report on a young man who, while drunk, had attacked a taxi driver.)
?I think religious belief makes people behave better,? he said. ?Provided no one tries to compel anyone else or uses violence.?
Amen to that: I agreed with him, though secretly I thought the chances slender of a religious revival among debauched British youth. The driver was a kindly, well-mannered man, and the classic immigrant success story: His children had progressed without difficulty into the professional middle class. He was, then, the archetypal moderate Muslim, whose public representatives Mr. Blair?s government so persistently seeks, in the forlorn hope that they will do the security services? work for them.
Despite my liking for the driver as an individual, whom I adjudged sincere in his moderation, I could not entirely disembarrass myself of a residual prejudice against him: He was, after all, a Muslim, and I recognized in myself something discreditable that has become visceral, not under fully conscious control, namely a distrust of more than a billion people because of their religion.
It was not always so. In my youth and young adulthood, I traveled widely in the Muslim world?in the Middle and Far East, Central Asia, and parts of Africa?and I was not aware of any anti-Islamic feeling whatsoever. On the contrary, I saw?superficially, no doubt, for I spoke none of their languages and did not tarry long?many virtues in the people among whom I traveled. They (by which, of course, I mean the men) were usually extremely dignified and very hospitable. I feared for neither my safety nor my possessions while among them. Even in Nigeria, where the people cheerfully said of themselves, ?There is no such thing as an honest Nigerian,? the Muslim North was conspicuously more honest than the Christian and animist South. I witnessed a hue and cry in a northern market, in which a thief was chased and then beaten. It was crude and vicious, no doubt, but more effective than, for example, the British police in the suppression of petty crime. Larceny on a grand scale was another thing altogether: The northern politicians were specialists in it. But you could leave your belongings in the middle of a town and find them still there when you returned.
So my prejudice is of recent, not distant, origin. Of course, I had long realized that the political traditions of the Muslim world were very different from those of my own country, and in my opinion inferior to them; but that was true of much of the globe, and extensive travel had taught me that the nature, virtues, and charms of a society were not completely captured by a description of its political institutions. Politics is not all.
The Islamists have changed all that. No doubt that was their intention: They invited, and wanted, a binary view of the world in order to overcome and defeat the half of it that they consider ungodly, evil, and an impediment to perfection on earth, and not coincidentally to their absolute power. Their success has been to instill apocalyptic visions in people who were previously immune to them.
So as I rode in the taxi, the word taqiyya, usually translated as ?dissimulation,? kept running through my mind like a refrain. Taqiyya is the principle by which a Muslim may disavow his religious beliefs if it is necessary for him to do so. I am no Islamic scholar, but it seems to me that the application of the concept has been extended. Where once it meant that a Muslim could deny his faith if he were threatened with death unless he abjured it, it has come to mean lying to promote any religiously desired end. Taqiyya has always been more important for Shia than for Sunni Muslims, but is permitted to the latter.
Roman Genn
On www.al-islam.org, I found the following, allegedly true story: A Shia and a Sunni Muslim were traveling to London to attend an Islamic conference. En route, the two of them discussed the need for unity between the two main branches of Islam, and the Sunni argued that the Shia resort to taqiyya was an obstacle to that unity. At London Airport, the Sunni told the immigration officer that he had come to England to seek medical treatment, while the Shia said that he had come to visit friends. The Sunni said to the Shia afterwards that an Islamic conference provided healing for the soul, while the Shia said that it provided an opportunity to visit friends. According to the author of the article on the Web, both had indulged in laudable and justifiable taqiyya.
This is not taqiyya to save life: No one was threatening the two of them with death unless they entered Britain. It was lying because the end was believed to justify the means, and possibly for the sheer malicious pleasure of deceiving someone (an infidel immigration officer) you cannot believe to be the equal to yourself.
If such a story is held up as a moral example, as something Muslims could and should learn from in their everyday dealings with the non-Muslim world, it cannot be much of a surprise that non-Muslims begin to grow suspicious of even the most decent of the Ummah. And this feeling of mistrust is bound to have grown because so many of the bombers and would-be bombers appeared for a long time to be perfectly integrated into British society. A man with a friendly manner and a pleasant expression, a conscientious teaching assistant by day, turns out to be a suicide bomber by night, ready to die so long as he takes as many complete strangers with him as he can. If he could not be trusted, if he was harboring such murderous hatred in his heart despite all outward appearances, which Muslim can be trusted?
The problem is all the greater because surveys among Muslims have consistently shown a high level of support for suicide bombers. Even ?moderates? who are wheeled onto the broadcast media to defuse incipient and potentially dangerous conflict say that, while they deplore the violence, they ?understand? it: that is to say, that they believe the extremists are not really, or not wholly, to blame.
Of course, surveys are notoriously difficult to interpret. They are, in fact, invitations to taqiyya. Moreover, the relation between expressed opinion and action is unclear. A lot depends upon how a question is put, and opposite answers can sometimes be obtained merely by a change of wording. Much also depends on the representative nature of the sample canvassed. And so forth.
Even with all these reservations in mind, however, it is far from encouraging to learn that (if one survey is to be believed) 100,000 British Muslims approve of the suicide bombing of Britain, or at least are prepared to say that they do to people who ask them in confidence. It is difficult to believe that this is not a soil propitious to the growth of terrorism. And from the point of view of the rest of the population, is it more significant that 1.5 million Muslims don?t approve of such bombing? Is it much of a consolation to know that, in a crowd in which there is someone who is determined to kill you, there are many more people who have no such desire?
Likewise, should we be grateful for the fact that fully 70 percent of British Muslims (again, if a survey is to be believed) do not think that British Jews are a legitimate target, that is to say may rightfully be killed at random? If you were a Jewish employer, would you be happy to take on a Muslim employee secure in the knowledge that there is only a one in three chance of his believing that it is religiously permitted, perhaps even religiously required, to kill you?
There is no doubt that the Islamist strategy is working at the moment. It will destroy the possibility of normal human contact of the kind that inhibits prejudice and mollifies hatred, and sow only suspicion and violence in the hope of attaining a total and final victory after some kind of apocalypse. In the end, however, I don?t think the strategy will work?in the modern world, Islam itself is too much of an intellectual nullity, just as Marxism was, for it to triumph. Moreover, diseases tend to decline in virulence as epidemics wane. Short-term, I am pessimistic; long-term, which is perhaps to say after my death, I am optimistic.
Mr. Dalrymple is a contributing editor of City Journal and the author, most recently, of Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_national_review-divided_hearts.htm
-
September 20, 2006
Bring Them Freedom, Or They Destroy Us
By Bernard Lewis
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered by Bernard Lewis on July 16, 2006, on board the Crystal Serenity, during a Hillsdale College cruise in the British Isles.
By common consent among historians, the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte--who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease. General Bonaparte--he wasn't yet Emperor--proclaimed to the Egyptians that he had come to them on behalf of a French Republic built on the principles of liberty and equality. We know something about the reactions to this proclamation from the extensive literature of the Middle Eastern Arab world. The idea of equality posed no great problem. Equality is very basic in Islamic belief: All true believers are equal. Of course, that still leaves three "inferior" categories of people--slaves, unbelievers and women. But in general, the concept of equality was understood. Islam never developed anything like the caste system of India to the east or the privileged aristocracies of Christian Europe to the west. Equality was something they knew, respected, and in large measure practiced. But liberty was something else.
As used in Arabic at that time, liberty was not a political but a legal term: You were free if you were not a slave. The word liberty was not used as we use it in the Western world, as a metaphor for good government. So the idea of a republic founded on principles of freedom caused some puzzlement. Some years later an Egyptian sheikh--Sheikh Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawi, who went to Paris as chaplain to the first group of Egyptian students sent to Europe--wrote a book about his adventures and explained his discovery of the meaning of freedom. He wrote that when the French talk about freedom they mean what Muslims mean when they talk about justice. By equating freedom with justice, he opened a whole new phase in the political and public discourse of the Arab world, and then, more broadly, the Islamic world.
Is Western-Style Freedom Transferable?
What is the possibility of freedom in the Islamic world, in the Western sense of the word? If you look at the current literature, you will find two views common in the United States and Europe. One of them holds that Islamic peoples are incapable of decent, civilized government. Whatever the West does, Muslims will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. Therefore the aim of our foreign policy should be to insure that they are our tyrants rather than someone else's--friendly rather than hostile tyrants. This point of view is very much favored in departments of state and foreign offices and is generally known, rather surprisingly, as the "pro-Arab" view. It is, of course, in no sense pro-Arab. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and unconcern for the Arab future. The second common view is that Arab ways are different from our ways. They must be allowed to develop in accordance with their cultural principles, but it is possible for them--as for anyone else, anywhere in the world, with discreet help from outside and most specifically from the United States--to develop democratic institutions of a kind. This view is known as the "imperialist" view and has been vigorously denounced and condemned as such.
In thinking about these two views, it is helpful to step back and consider what Arab and Islamic society was like once and how it has been transformed in the modern age. The idea that how that society is now is how it has always been is totally false. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Assad family in Syria or the more friendly dictatorship of Mubarak in Egypt--all of these have no roots whatsoever in the Arab or in the Islamic past. Let me quote to you from a letter written in 1786--three years before the French Revolution--by Mssr. Count de Choiseul-Gouffier, the French ambassador in Istanbul, in which he is trying to explain why he is making rather slow progress with the tasks entrusted to him by his government in dealing with the Ottoman government. "Here," he says, "things are not as in France where the king is sole master and does as he pleases." "Here," he says, "the sultan has to consult." He has to consult with the former holders of high offices, with the leaders of various groups and so on. And this is a slow process. This scenario is something radically different than the common image of Middle Eastern government today. And it is a description that ceased to be true because of a number of changes that occurred.
Modernization and Nazi and Soviet Influence
The first of these changes is what one might call modernization. This was undertaken not by imperialists, for the most part, but by Middle Eastern rulers who had become painfully aware that their societies were undeveloped compared with the advanced Western world. These rulers decided that what they had to do was to modernize or Westernize. Their intentions were good, but the consequences were often disastrous. What they did was to increase the power of the state and the ruler enormously by placing at his disposal the whole modern apparatus of control, repression and indoctrination. At the same time, which was even worse, they limited or destroyed those forces in the traditional society that had previously limited the autocracy of the ruler. In the traditional society there were established orders-the bazaar merchants, the scribes, the guilds, the country gentry, the military establishment, the religious establishment, and so on. These were powerful groups in society, whose heads were not appointed by the ruler but arose from within the groups. And no sultan, however powerful, could do much without maintaining some relationship with these different orders in society. This is not democracy as we currently use that word, but it is certainly limited, responsible government. And the system worked. Modernization ended that. A new ruling class emerged, ruling from the center and using the apparatus of the state for its purposes.
That was the first stage in the destruction of the old order. The second stage we can date with precision. In the year 1940, the government of France surrendered to the Axis and formed a collaborationist government in a place called Vichy. The French colonial empire was, for the most part, beyond the reach of the Nazis, which meant that the governors of the French colonies had a free choice: To stay with Vichy or to join Charles de Gaulle, who had set up a Free French Committee in London. The overwhelming majority chose Vichy, which meant that Syria-Lebanon--a French-mandated territory in the heart of the Arab East--was now wide open to the Nazis. The governor and his high officials in the administration in Syria-Lebanon took their orders from Vichy, which in turn took orders from Berlin. The Nazis moved in, made a tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime. It was in this period that political parties were formed that were the nucleus of what later became the Baath Party. The Western Allies eventually drove the Nazis out of the Middle East and suppressed these organizations. But the war ended in 1945, and the Allies left. A few years later the Soviets moved in, established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various other countries, and introduced Soviet-style political practice. The adaptation from the Nazi model to the communist model was very simple and easy, requiring only a few minor adjustments, and it proceeded pretty well. That is the origin of the Baath Party and of the kind of governments that we have been confronting in the Middle East in recent years. That, as I would again repeat and emphasize, has nothing whatever to do with the traditional Arab or Islamic past.
Wahhabism and Oil
That there has been a break with the past is a fact of which Arabs and Muslims themselves are keenly and painfully aware, and they have tried to do something about it. It is in this context that we observe a series of movements that could be described as an Islamic revival or reawakening. The first of these--founded by a theologian called Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who lived in a remote area of Najd in desert Arabia--is known as Wahhabi. Its argument is that the root of Arab-Islamic troubles lies in following the ways of the infidel. The Islamic world, it holds, has abandoned the true faith that God gave it through His prophet and His holy book, and the remedy is a return to pure, original Islam. This pure, original Islam is, of course--as is usual in such situations--a new invention with little connection to Islam as it existed in its earlier stages.
Wahhabism was dealt with fairly easily in its early years, but it acquired a new importance in the mid-1920s when two things happened: The local tribal chiefs of the House of Saud--who had been converted since the 18th century to the Wahhabi version of Islam--conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. This was of immense importance, giving them huge prestige and influence in the whole Islamic world. It also gave them control of the pilgrimage, which brings millions of Muslims from the Islamic world together to the same place at the same time every year.
The other important thing that happened--also in the mid-20s--was the discovery of oil. With that, this extremist sect found itself not only in possession of Mecca and Medina, but also of wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. As a result, what would otherwise have been a lunatic fringe in a marginal country became a major force in the world of Islam. And it has continued as a major force to the present day, operating through the Saudi government and through a whole series of non-governmental organizations. What is worse, its influence spreads far beyond the region. When Muslims living in Chicago or Los Angeles or Birmingham or Hamburg want to give their children some grounding in their faith and culture--a very natural, very normal thing--they turn to the traditional resources for such purposes: evening classes, weekend schools, holiday camps and the like. The problem is that these are now overwhelmingly funded and therefore controlled by the Wahhabis, and the version of Islam that they teach is the Wahhabi version, which has thus become a major force in Muslim immigrant communities.
Let me illustrate the significance of this with one example: Germany has constitutional separation of church and state, but in the German school system they provide time for religious instruction. The state, however, does not provide teachers or textbooks. They allow time in the school curriculum for the various churches and other religious communities--if they wish--to provide religious instruction to their children, which is entirely optional. The Muslims in Germany are mostly Turks. When they reached sufficient numbers, they applied to the German government for permission to teach Islam in German schools. The German authorities agreed, but said they--the Muslims--had to provide the teachers and the textbooks. The Turks said that they had excellent textbooks, which are used in Turkey and Turkish schools, but the German authorities said no, those are government-produced textbooks; under the principle of separation of church and state, these Muslims had to produce their own. As a result, whereas in Turkish schools in Turkey, students get a modern, moderate version of Islam, in German schools, in general, they get the full Wahhabi blast. The last time I looked, twelve Turks have been arrested as members of Al-Qaeda--all twelve of them born and educated in Germany.
The Iranian Revolution and Al-Qaeda
In addition to the rising spread of Wahhabism, I would draw your attention to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The word "revolution" is much misused in the Middle East; it is used for virtually every change of government. But the Iranian Revolution was a real revolution, in the sense that the French and Russian revolutions were real revolutions. It was a massive change in the country, a massive shift of power--socially, economically, and ideologically. And like the French and Russian revolutions in their prime, it also had a tremendous impact in the world with which the Iranians shared a common universe of discourse--the world of Islam. I remember not long after the Iranian Revolution I was visiting Indonesia and for some mysterious reason I had been invited to lecture in religious universities. I noticed in the student dorms they had pictures of Khomeini all over the place, although Khomeini--like the Iranians in general--is a Shiite, and the Indonesians are Sunnis. Indonesians generally showed little interest in what was happening in the Middle East. But this was something important. And the Iranian Revolution has gone through various familiar phases--familiar from the French and Russian revolutions--such as the conflicts between the moderates and the extremists. I would say that the Iranian Revolution is now entering the Stalinist phase, and its impact all over the Islamic world has been enormous.
The third and most recent phase of the Islamic revival is that associated with the name Al-Qaeda--the organization headed by Osama bin Laden. Here I would remind you of the events toward the end of the 20th century: the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, the withdrawal of the defeated armies into Russia, the collapse and breakdown of the Soviet Union. We are accustomed to regard that as a Western, or more specifically, an American, victory in the Cold War. In the Islamic world, it was nothing of the kind. It was Muslim victory in a Jihad. And, if we are fair about it, we must admit that this interpretation of what happened does not lack plausibility. In the mountains of Afghanistan, which the Soviets had conquered and had been trying to rule, the Taliban were able to inflict one defeat after another on the Soviet forces, eventually driving the Red Army out of the country to defeat and collapse.
-
In previous posts I have been taken to task for using the term "Islamofascism". This piece addresses the issue:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Islamism and Fascism: Dare to Compare.
On Tuesday of last week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) entered the fray over the Bush Administration's description of the enemy as "Islamic fascism." (Bush first used the phrase on August 7, and other top officials have followed suit.) Feingold:
I call on the President to stop using the phrase "Islamic Fascists," a label that doesn't make any sense, and certainly doesn't help our effort to fight terrorism. Fascist ideology doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam.
At the White House press briefing last Wednesday, Tony Snow came to the defense of the President, after a journalist read him a dictionary definition of fascism. "It doesn't quite seem to fit what we're talking about," said the journalist. "Well, it actually does fit," replied Snow.
I haven't used the phrase myself, and I generally prefer Islamism or jihadism, depending on the context. But I can't rise up against the use of Islamic fascism with the righteous indignation mustered by, say, Michigan professor Juan Cole, who's denounced the "lazy conflation of Muslim fundamentalist movements with fascism." My reason is that this conflation, or comparison, has had some rigorous champions within Middle Eastern studies over the years. It didn't originate in the Bush White House; it has a long pedigree including some pioneering social scientists. These scholars, who knew rather more than Senator Feingold about both Islamism and fascism, did think the comparison made sense. I'll let them explain why.
Any student of my generation first would have encountered the comparison in the work of the late Manfred Halpern, who spent nearly forty years as a politics professor at Princeton. Halpern grew up with fascism: born in Germany in 1924, he and his parents fled the Nazis in 1937 for America. He joined the war against the Nazis as a battalion scout in the 28th Infantry Division, and saw action in Battle of the Bulge and elsewhere. After Germany's surrender, he worked in U.S. Counterintelligence, tracking down former Nazis. In 1948 he joined the State Department, where he worked on the Middle East, and in 1958 he came to Princeton, where he did the same.
In 1963, Princeton published his Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa. For years, this book was the basic text in the field, and included the only academic treatment of Islamism, which no one much cared about at the time. Halpern labeled it "neo-Islamic totalitarianism," and this is how he described it:
The neo-Islamic totalitarian movements are essentially fascist movements. They concentrate on mobilizing passion and violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader and the solidarity of the movement. They view material progress primarily as a means for accumulating strength for political expansion, and entirely deny individual and social freedom. They champion the values and emotions of a heroic past, but repress all free critical analysis of either past roots or present problems.
Halpern continued:
Like fascism, neo-Islamic totalitarianism represents the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence. Unable to solve the basic public issues of modern life?intellectual and technological progress, the reconciliation of freedom and security, and peaceful relations among rival sovereignties?the movement is forced by its own logic and dynamics to pursue its vision through nihilistic terror, cunning, and passion. An efficient state administration is seen only as an additional powerful tool for controlling the community. The locus of power and the focus of devotion rest in the movement itself. Like fascist movements elsewhere, the movement is so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members.
At the time, Halpern was a central figure in Middle Eastern studies, and his book?reprinted six times?appeared in every syllabus for the next fifteen years. His critical analysis of Islamism very much cut against the grain, at a time when Cold War strategists ardently wooed Islamists as allies against communism. In the 1970s, he walked away from the field, and his reputation within it slipped. But his rigorous treatment of Islamism stands up well, and his equating it with fascism was a serious proposition, made by someone who had seen fascism up close.
The comparison of Islamism with fascism also made sense to the late Maxime Rodinson, the preeminent French scholar of Islam, who pioneered the application of sociological method to the Middle East. As a French Jew born in 1915, Rodinson also learned about fascism from direct experience. He moved to Syria in 1940, but the Vichy regime deported his parents to Auschwitz, where they perished. Rodinson was a man of the left?in his early years, militantly so?but he took his thinking from no one.
In 1978, during Iran's revolution, enthusiasm for Islamism began to spread among his colleagues on the French left, who romanticized it as the vibrant, new anti-West. The French philosopher Michel Foucault become famously enamored of Ayatollah Khomeini. Rodinson decided to set things straight, in a long front-page article in Le Monde, targeted at those who "come fresh to the problem in an idealistic frame of mind." Rodinson admitted that trends in Islamic movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood were "hard to ascertain."
But the dominant trend is a certain type of archaic fascism (type de fascisme archa?que). By this I mean a wish to establish an authoritarian and totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order. It would at the same time impose conformity to religious tradition as interpreted in the most conservative light.
By "archaic," Rodinson referred to the religious component of the ideology, largely absent from European fascism.
I'm not sure whether Rodinson ever repeated this precise phrase, but putting it once on the front page of Le Monde was enough. He had accused his colleagues on the left of celebrating a form of fascism, from his perch at the pinnacle of Islamic scholarship. This especially sharp critic of Eurocentric distortions of Islam didn't shy from the comparison of Islamism with fascism, at a moment just as politically charged as the present one.
In 1984, Said Amir Arjomand, a prominent Iranian-American sociologist at SUNY-Stony Brook, picked up the comparison and ran with it. With a nod to Halpern, Arjomand pointed to "some striking sociological similarities between the contemporary Islamic movements and the European fascism and the American radical right.... It is above all the strength of the monistic impulse and the pronounced political moralism of the Islamic traditionalist and fundamentalist movements which makes them akin to fascism and the radical right alike."
In 1986, he took took the comparison even further, in an influential article for the journal World Politics entitled "Iran's Islamic Revolution in Comparative Perspective." Arjomand entertained a number of comparisons, but in the end settled on fascism as the best of them. Islamism (he called it "revolutionary traditionalism") and fascism "share a number of essential features," including "an identical transposition of the theme of exploitation" and a "distinct constitutive core."
Like fascism, the Islamic revolutionary movement has offered a new synthesis of the political creeds it has violently attacked. And, like the fascists, the Islamic militants are against democracy because they consider liberal democracy a foreign model that provides avenues for free expression of alien influences and ideas. (Also like the fascists, however, the Islamic militants would not necessarily accept the label of "antidemocratic.")
Arjomand's conclusion: "The emergence of an Islamic revolutionary ideology has been in the cards since the fascist era." (For much more of the comparison, go here. Arjomand later repeated the argument almost verbatim in his 1989 book The Turban for the Crown, Oxford.)
Latest word is that the State Department has persuaded the White House to stop talking about "Islamic fascism." That should make it easier for academics to revisit the comparison as a serious analytical proposition. It's necessary because self-styled campus progressives are repeating Foucault's mistake. It started in earnest last spring, when Noam Chomsky made a pilgrimage to the the lair of Hezbollah's maximum leader, Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah, and came out praising him for defying America. Over the summer, Hamid Dabashi, keeper of Edward Said's flame at Columbia, offered this: "Both Hamas and Hizbullah, becoming even more integral to the Palestinian and Lebanese national liberation movements, will one day succeed in helping establish a free, democratic, and cosmopolitan republic in their respective countries." Then earlier this month, celebrity philosopher and queer theorist Judith Butler told a Berkeley audience that Hamas and Hezbollah are "social movements that are part of the global left."
It's too much to expect the mandarins of Middle Eastern studies, at this advanced stage of decadence, to revisit the Islamism-fascism comparison. The Middle East Studies Association is led by Juan Cole, who thinks such a "conflation" is "lazy," but who's quite capable of offering this more energetic one: "Saudi Arabia is an extremely conservative society; going to Saudi Arabia is kind of like going to Amish country in the United States." (The State Department presently warns Americans who go to Saudi Arabia to stay only in hotels and compounds that "apply stringent security measures including, but not limited to, the presence of an armed guard force, inspection of all vehicles, and a hardened security perimeter to prevent unauthorized vehicles from approaching the facility." Like in Amish country.)
It's these conflations of Hamas with the "global left" or Wahhabis with the Amish that are truly lazy. In contrast, the Islamism-fascism comparison has ample and even distinguished academic precedents. Younger scholars and students should seize the moment to explore it further, with intellectual rigor and without fear.
Addendum: Who does meet Juan Cole's criteria for fascism?
-
Speakout: Muslims must both denounce, renounce their violent hadiths
By Dr. Tawfik Hamid
Dr. Tawfik Hamid, an Egyptian physician, Islamic scholar and former
extremist, is the author of The Roots of Jihad (www.rootsofjihad.org). Hamid
will be speaking in Denver at the University of Denver on Monday at 7:30
p.m. Tickets are $10 for adults and $5 for students.
Rocky Mountain News
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_5048866,00.html
October 6, 2006
Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's No. 2 man, leader, last month announced that
Americans must choose: Convert to Islam or continue to receive acts of
terror.
Al-Zawahri was reiterating a fundamental concept of Salafi Islamic teaching,
the fountainhead of extremist thinking. Yet the authors of the American
government's recent intelligence report on terrorism's spread seem not to
have been listening.
Zawahri's threat is based on a saying of the Prophet Muhammad as written in
Sahih Al-Buchary, a central book of Salafi Islamic teaching. This hadith, or
fundamental concept, states: "I have been ordered by Allah to fight and kill
all mankind until they say, 'No God except Allah and Muhammad is the prophet
of Allah' (Hadith Sahih)."
Based on this hadith, early Muslims used the sword to spread Islam
throughout the world. The same hadith inspires contemporary Islamic terror
including this summer's thwarted London airplane explosions. Other
rationales that terrorists use to justify terrorism - the Arab-Israeli
conflict, America's involvement in Iraq - are simply useful propaganda cover
stories, not the actual causes or goals of terrorists' actions.
Americans must be wary of political leaders who accept the propaganda
explanations. To win the war on terror, America's leaders must recognize the
powerful role of the Islamic religious principle of jihad, Islam's belief
that it must conquer the world, which derives from the above hadith. Belief
in jihad is what causes so many Muslims worldwide to cheer terrorist acts
such as 9/11, European subway bombings, and Hezbollah and Hamas attacks
against Israel.
Allowing jihadist teaching to continue is like allowing cancer cells to
survive in a human body.
The human immune system demonstrates that nurturing normal cells and
respecting their variance sustains life. A healthy body nourishes cell
diversity. A healthy body politic, similarly, must value respect for
different beliefs. At the same time, if an immune system shows any tolerance
whatsoever for cancer cells, the latter will terminate that body's life. The
immune system of a body politic must have a similar zero tolerance for
beliefs that incite violence against its citizens.
Cancer can be overcome if an individual has a strong immune system that acts
to triumph over the killer cells. Similarly, the cancerous teachings of
Salafi Islam could become insignificant if the majority of Muslims were to
vocally oppose them.
Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of Muslims, Islamic organizations
and Islamic scholars have not publicly objected to these teachings. There
have been no powerful Muslim demonstrations to denounce Osama bin Laden and
not a single fatwa by top Islamic scholars or organizations to consider bin
Laden an apostate - as was done to Salman Rushdie just for writing a novel.
Because the teachings continue, a significant proportion of the world's
Muslims have become passive terrorists, peaceful citizens whose sympathy in
their hearts and support with their purses enable terrorism's spread.
If Islamic scholars and organizations in America disapprove of jihadist
teachings, they must speak out against them. Americans should consider
Muslims to be moderates, and Islam a peaceful faith, only if, in English and
in Arabic, Muslims clearly denounce their violent hadiths and strike them
from the books that educate their next generation.
In addition to internal immune reactions, externally applied interventions
also can destroy cancer cells. Like cancer-fighting chemotherapy, strongly
applied military might can reduce large tumors. America eliminated al-Qaida
training camps in Afghanistan, but the verdict is not yet in on whether
Israel this past summer similarly decimated Hezbollah.
To conquer the metastases of extremist Islam, however, words may be the most
potent weapons. Outspoken condemnation of the theological sources of
terrorism by American intellectuals and politicians, reinforcing the
self-examination of Muslims themselves, could make a vital difference.
Addressing the theological wellsprings of Islamic terrorist motivation is
essential if America is to succeed in its war against terrorism. Pope
Benedict XVI has begun leading the way. Neither political correctness nor
Muslim outrage must be allowed to prevent further realistic talk about the
religious underpinnings of Islamic violence. Otherwise Islamic teaching will
continue to spread jihad's cancerous beliefs.
-
http://www.howardbloom.net/islam.htm
-
http://www.howardbloom.net/militant_islam_timeline.htm
-
Earlier in this thread there was some squabbling over the meaning of Fascism. Here's Mussolini's take on it:
(Hat tip to TB)
=======
http://www.mises.org/story/2355
Excerpt Follows:
<" While I could quote from numerous political and intellectual leaders throughout the war and welfare century, I have chosen one who summed up the dominant political thoughts in the twentieth century. He was the founder of fascism, and he came to power in 1922 in Italy. In 1927, Benito Mussolini stated:
Fascism … believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace…. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it…. It may be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism. For the nineteenth century was a century of individualism…. [Liberalism always signifying individualism], it may be expected that this will be a century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State…. For Fascism, the growth of Empire, that is to say, the expansion of the nation, is the essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite is a sign of decay and death. [2]
Guiding Principles
Mussolini's statement bears closer study because it dramatically states some of the guiding principles of the twentieth century:
It states that perpetual peace is neither possible, nor even to be desired.
Instead of peace, war is to be desired because not only is war a noble activity, but it reveals the true courage of man; it unleashes creative energy and causes progress. Moreover, war is the prime mover to enhance and glorify the state. War is the principal method by which collectivists have achieved their goal of control by the few over the many. They actually seek to create or initiate wars for this purpose.
Individualism, the philosophy practiced in the nineteenth century, is to be abolished and, specifically, collectivism is to rule the twentieth century.
Fascism is recognized as a variation of other forms of collectivism, all being part of the Left, as opposed to individualism. It was not until the "Red Decade" of the 30s, and the appearance of Hitler, that leftist intellectuals and the media began to switch Fascism on the political spectrum to the Right so that the "good forms of collectivism," such as socialism, could oppose the "extremism on the Right" that they said was fascism.
The founder of fascism clearly realized that all of these collectivist ideas — i.e., socialism, fascism, and communism — belonged on the Left and were all opposed to individualism. Fascism is not an extreme form of individualism and is a part of the Left, or collectivism.">>
-
WHEN MUSLIMS SPEAK OUT!
We covered this on the air yesterday, but again people are demanding details.
We've often asked on the air why, if Islam the peaceful religion that many Muslims want us to believe it is, we don't hear more Muslims speaking out against Islamic terrorism. Well, now we may have an explanation.
Jamal Miftah is a Muslim residing in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is an immigrant from Pakistan. Jamal Miftah is a member of the Islamic Center of Tulsa Mosque. On October 29th Jiftah wrote an article for the op-ed page of the Tulsa World. Here is what he wrote:
Because of lack of knowledge of Islam, Muslim youth are misguided into believing by the so-called champions of the cause of Islam that the current spate of killings and barbarism, which has no equal in the recent civilized history, is jihad in the name of Islam. They are incited, in the name of Islam, to commit heinous crimes not pardonable by any religion and strictly forbidden in Islam....
Even mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S. and around the world have become tools in [Al-Qaeda's] hands and are used for collecting funds for their criminal acts. Half of the funds collected go into the pockets of their local agents and the rest are sent to these thugs.
They are the reason for branding the peaceful religion of Islam as terrorism. The result, therefore, is in the form of Danish cartoons and remarks/reference by the Pope.
I appeal to the Muslim youth in particular and Muslims of the world in general to rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity and help the civilized world to bring these culprits to justice and prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression.
I appeal to the Muslim clerics around the world that, rather than issuing empty fatwas condemning suicide bombing, they should issue a fatwa for the death of such scoundrels and barbarians who have taken more than 4,267 lives of innocent people in the name of Islam and have carried out more than 24 terrorist attacks on civilian installations throughout the world. This does not include the chilling number of deaths because of such activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is well over 250,000.
I appeal to al-Zawahri and his band of thugs to hand themselves over to justice and stop spreading evil and killing innocent humans around the world in the name of Islam. Their time is limited and Muslims of the world will soon rise against them to apprehend them and bring them to justice.
Well, that's a pretty striking condemnation of Islamic violence from a Muslim, wouldn't you say? Well it certainly didn't go over well with Jamal's fellow Tulsa Mosque. Jamal Miftah was expelled from his Mosque. The governing board has since ruled he can return. He has also been subjected to death threats and threats of violence from his fellow members of the religion of peace. Miftah was told that he should not criticize Islam in front of non-Muslims. I've re-read Jamal's letter, and for the life of me I can't see where he criticized Islam. I guess that if you criticize any Muslim that is considered to be criticizing Islam.
If you search the blogs on this matter you'll see a letter from Jamal Miftah responding to this situation. He says: "I am Jamal Miftah and I stand by what I have written. America is great country and so its people and I hope and pray that one day justice is done to the victims of 9/11, no matter what Mr. Kabbani, the Imam of Tulsa mosque or Mr. Abu Waleed, the spokesman for Islamic Society of Tulsa feel or say. God bless America."
Now there is one Muslim I would be proud to have as a neighbor and count as a friend.
http://boortz.com/nuze/200612/12052006.html
-
I've just marked this site for further exploration.
==============================
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=1824
From a Muslim outlook, imams have missed the point on flight behavior
December 11, 2006
M. Zuhdi Jasser
The first thing one must understand about this whole hullabaloo with the Muslim imams taken off a Phoenix-bound plane in Minneapolis is that it most definitely was not about the right to prayer or freedom of worship.
And much as the imams and their handlers may try, it is certainly not about victimization.
But because the case of the six imams (five from the Valley) and US Airways Flight 300 has taken on a life of its own, it would be helpful to look and see what lessons can be gleaned from this story.
All of us as Americans have endured the incremental inconveniences of air travel since 9/11. From 3-ounce fluid limits to random searches, those of us with the first name Mohammed can also attest to humbling profiling. Most of us are quite willing to endure all this because we know the inherent dangers of flying in the world today.
There is little argument that American airport concourses have become clinics of anxiety-laden travelers who have become vigilant in spotting anything out of the ordinary. This vigilance and anxiety is even more acutely felt by U.S. Transportation Security Administration agents and airline crews. They will never be rewarded for a safe flight. But they will be globally vilified for one lax call that leads to tragedy.
Into this highly charged environment comes this incident of the imams returning from their conference. To ignore the larger context is to virtually live in an airtight bubble.
The preponderance of evidence points to some troubling coincidences during flight preparation, regardless of where we stand on this issue. The distribution of their seats, while in fact random, raised concern. Changing seats after boarding, rather than before, raised concern. Conversations in Arabic after boarding raised concern. Seatbelt extenders raised concern. However, no passengers refused to board after seeing and hearing the imams pray aloud at the gate. Taken individually, each of the reported actions could be something any of us would do. However, in totality, although unfortunate in retrospect, it remains hard to fault a cautious crew who must act with little information to ensure a safe flight.
But let us look at the response of the imams since the incident.
They rushed toward the media never looking back. They have taken their story of victimization to every soft media they could find. They then stoked the same tired Muslim flames of victimization through their own political pulpits in mosques around the Valley.
Organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and the Muslim American Society also immediately jumped on board, even before the imams' flight reached Phoenix the next day, and began whipping up the drums of victimization. Their handlers flew in from across the country staging rallies and pray-ins so they could teach the American people about this supposed tragedy of injustice.
As a devout Muslim, I have watched this painfully protracted saga unravel, fearing what comes next. The media, especially print media, have bent over backward to hear minorities' fears. Yet public opinion has not seemed to budge in favor of the imams. The lesson here lies in why. It has to do with credibility.
We are all creatures of passion. This fiasco has stirred the passionate cry of victimization from the Muslim activist community and imam community. But where were the news conferences, the rallies to protest the endless litany of atrocities performed by people who act supposedly in my religion's name? Where are the denunciations, not against terrorism in the abstract, but clear denunciations of al-Qaida or Hamas, of Wahhabism or militant Islamism, of Darfurian genocide or misogyny and honor killings, to name a few? There is no cry, there is no rage. At best, there is the most tepid of disclaimers. In short, there is no passion. But for victimization, always.
Only when Americans see that animating passion will they believe that we Muslims are totally against the fascists that have hijacked our religion. There is only so much bandwidth in the American culture to focus upon Islam and Muslims. If we fill it with our shouts of victimization, then the real problems from within and outside our faith community will never be heard.
Though this was not about prayer, let us look at the prayer itself: certainly a central part of our faith both alone and in congregation. The Quran teaches Muslims that God did not make our faith to be too difficult. Thus, during travel, many of us pray alone in silence when we cannot find a private place or where public display is not appropriate.
Prayer is an intimate thing, five times a day for Muslims. It is a personal conversation with God and not about showing others how devout we are.
Congregational prayers are preferred, but in travel (as three of the imams did apparently do) they can be combined upon their arrival in Phoenix.
Alija Izetbegovic, former president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, once said he was never so close to God in his prayers as a Muslim as he was during his solitary confinement for 12 years as a political prisoner struggling for liberty under Josip Broz Tito's oppression.
These imams would do well to learn from President Izetbegovic. He further understood the separation of religion and politics.
He understood God teaches us in the Quran that our religion is based upon intention and that if we perceive that the public situation is not conducive to our congregational prayer, that a forgiving God will understand.
Because these imams and their handlers just don't get it, it's time we Muslims found leadership and organizations that do.
Our predicament is unique, fragile and precarious. We Muslims are a relatively new minority in a nation that gives us freedoms that no other Muslim nation would allow.
Whether we acknowledge it or not, a radical subset of our faith community is seeking to destroy the basis for this liberty.
Either we predominantly direct our passions against these radicals or Americans will not count us as allies in this consuming struggle.
-
Besa: Muslims Who Saved Jews in World War II
by Norman H. Gershman
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0815609345/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
I have not read the book but I thought this was really interesting.
Besa is a code of honor deeply rooted in Albanian culture and incorporated in the faith of Albanian Muslims. It dictates a moral behavior so absolute that nonadherence brings shame and dishonor on oneself and one's family. Simply stated, it demands that one take responsibility for the lives of others in their time of need. In Albania and Kosovo, Muslims sheltered, at grave risk to themselves and their families, not only the Jews of their cities and villages, but thousands of Jews fleeing the Nazis from other European countries.
Over a five-year period, photographer Norman H. Gershman sought out, photographed, and collected these powerful and moving stories of heroism in Besa: Muslims Who Saved Jews in World War II. The book reveals a hidden period in history, slowly emerging after the fall of an isolationist communist regime, and shows the compassionate side of ordinary people in saving Jews.
http://www.eyecontactfoundation.org/BESA
This website has links to some of the families stories
-
**And on the other side....**
The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terror
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Chuck Morse, the author of The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism - Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini. Mr. Morse will be speaking at the International Institute for Holocaust Research-Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, March 23. He is a Republican candidate for Congress in Massachusetts where he is campaigning against Barney Frank.
Glazov: Chuck Morse, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Morse: Thank you.
Glazov: Tell us why you wrote your book.
Morse: After the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001, I was searching for an answer to the question of how people could be so filled with hate for the United States that they would commit such an irrational and barbaric atrocity. Also, why some Arabs hated Jews so much that they would blow themselves up in order to kill as many Jews as possible.
Glazov: So what is the psychology of the people who will blow themselves up in order to kill Americans and Jews?
Morse: Cult-like subservience is cultivated in young people by older conspirators who have a warped agenda. Hatred starts at home and, in the case of many Palestinian Arabs, the conditioning continues at school. Candidates for suicide missions are drafted and cultivated by the fully witting haters in the same way that baseball scouts find and cultivate talent for the major league. The possibility that mind control techniques are employed, some of which may have been developed in the former Soviet Union, should not be discounted.
Glazov: Give us the story on Amin al-Husseini.
Morse: Amin al-Husseini, regarded in the Arab world as the founding father of the Palestinian movement, chose the path of denying the national rights of the Jews to that tiny area between the Jordan Rover and the Mediterranean Sea known as Israel.
Al-Husseini instigated a pogrom against indigenous Palestinian Jews in 1920. After conviction in absentia, he was pardoned by British Mandate Governor Herbert Samuel, himself a British Jew. Samuel was responsible for elevating al-Husseini as Mufti of Jerusalem thus establishing a strange pattern of western leaders supporting extremists over moderates, a pattern that continues to this day in many cases.
In 1936, al-Husseini met with Adolf Eichmann, one of the Nazi masterminds behind the Holocaust against the Jews, in Palestine where Eichmann visited for a few days. Al-Husseini then was put on the Nazi payroll and received Nazi funds which he used to instigate the Arab Revolt of 1937-1939 according to testimony at the Nuremburg and Eichmann trials.
In 1941, al-Husseini played a key role in instigating a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq. Following the collapse of the coup, al-Husseini helped instigate the Fahud, or the murder campaign against the indigenous Jews of Iraq, a campaign that has been compared to the kristalnacht in Germany.
In November, 1941, al-Husseini met with Hitler in Berlin where he was treated as a visiting head of state. al-Husseini spent the war years in Nazi Germany where he was recognized as the head of state of a Nazi-Arab government in exile. Hitler promised al-Husseini that he would be chief administrator of the Arab world after the Nazi "liberation."
While in Nazi Germany, al-Husseini directly participated in the Holocaust against the Jews by preventing the exchange of Jews for German POW's and instead insuring that they went to the crematoria. Al-Husseini led in the effort to train Bosnian Muslim brigades and other Muslim European brigades who were involved in many atrocities. He funneled monies form the sonderfund, money looted from Jews as they were sent to the concentration camps, sending the funds to the Middle East to be used to promote Nazi and anti-Jewish propaganda.
After the war, al-Husseini escaped to Cairo ahead of indictment at Nuremburg where he spent the rest of his life agitating against Israel. He died in Beirut in 1974.
Glazov: In contrast to al-Husseini, there have been moderate Arab leaders who have supported the aspirations of the Jews in Palestine. Can you tell us about them?
Morse: Emir Faisal, later King of Syria and Iraq and recognized as political leader of the Arab world, who signed an agreement with Chiam Weizmann, recognized head of the Zionist organization, known as the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement in January, 1919.
This agreement, which recognized the Jewish National Home in Palestine, reflected the more moderate and genuinely progressive view held by many Arabs at the time. I contend that this agreement constitutes established international law. Faisal envisioned an Israel, existing within "modest and proper" borders, coexisting with the emerging Arab states and helping those states emerge into modernity with the development of democratic institutions, western economies, and greater civil rights for Arabs. Had the Faisal vision been realized, perhaps the Arab States today would be prosperous and free rather than what they became -- which is authoritarian systems with endemic poverty and little freedom.
Glazov: The Koran is ridden with anti-Semitic passages, but at the same time there are passages that recognize a Jewish Israel. Can you comment?
Morse: The anti-Semitic passages in the Koran apply to Jews, and Christians, who live in Muslim States and who are considered as "dhimmi's." At the same time, the Koran explicitly recognizes the Jewish State in the following passage:
....the words of Moses to his people. He said "Remember, my people, the favors which Allah has bestowed upon you...Enter, my people, the holy land which Allah has assigned for you." (Sura V)"...when the promise of the hearafter cometh to pass (at Judgement Day) we shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations. (Sura XVII: 104)
Glazov: So then why do Muslims not follow their holy book and work to give Jews their safe holy land?
Morse: Al-Husseini started the process by driving moderate Muslims out of Palestine in the 1920's and 1930's. Moderate Palestinian Arabs were assassinated, driven into exile, or silenced by fear in a policy that continues. The extremists, who have twisted the Koran to suit their own agenda, control the Arab and Muslim street by employing the same terror tactics that they are now using against the western democracies.
Glazov: In many respects, you could say that al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas etc. are all, on one level, branches of Nazism. No?
Morse: Nazi money, largely looted from Jews, was used before, during and for decades after the war to help establish and influence these groups. Nazi war criminals emigrated to the Arab countries after the war in an effort known as "Oerationn Odessa." Al-Husseini played a role in this operation. Certainly they have embraced Nazi style anti-Semitism and tactics.
Glazov: Nazis like al-Husseini and others in his genre have received support from prominent westerners over their more moderate counterparts. Why?
Morse: This is a fascinating question that I don't have the answer to. Before and during the war, al-Husseini and his ilk were supported by the Nazis while after the war the support came from the Soviet Union and various groups affiliated with the international left. Leftist groups continue to support the radical Islamiso-Fascists as indicated by the anti-Western, anti-Semitic U.N. Conference on Racism held in Durban, South Africa in the summer of 2001.
Glazov: So how does all of this information help us? How do we utilize these historical facts to help fight the war on terror?
Morse: We support the good guys and strike at those who are striking us. President George W. Bush articulated this doctrine when, after 9/11, he stated that the nations and peoples of the world would have to take sides in the war against the terrorists.
Glazov: Mr. Morse, thank you for joining us.
Morse: Thank you very much.
-
GM,
I knew you were going to post something like that and its true but --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
It's difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It's a wonder I haven't abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. I simply can't build my hopes on a foundation of confusion, misery, and death...and yet...I think...this cruelty will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again.
Anne Frank
-
And we know how it turned out for her-- which is why I am a "Never Again Jew".
-
GM,
I knew you were going to post something like that and its true but --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
It's difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It's a wonder I haven't abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. I simply can't build my hopes on a foundation of confusion, misery, and death...and yet...I think...this cruelty will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again.
Anne Frank
**And were it not for men with guns that waded ashore on Normandy, her words would be lost to history. Pretty words are nice, but pragmatic responses to threats are what matters.**
-
Well said.
-
Marc,
We also know how it turned out for the Nazis. You and GM need some sugar in your coffee. To save you from telling me that I should drink my coffee black so I can wake up-- I don't drink coffee. I drink herbal "tea" --- I don't like caffeine.
Never again Jews/Shoah or never again mass murder?
It greatly upsets when people compare the Shoah to anything else because I think it was a phenomenon unseen in human history--
however in terms of preventing mass murder the world has not done a great job with either situation in the Congo or Darfur
For never again Shoah that is why Israel must be strong because Jews have now other country
PS-- GM posted while I was writing this.
I am very grateful for those of fought or are fighting for my freedom and safety. I owe a debt I can never repay. I strongly support pragmatic action - violence does indeed solve some problems. Fighting is very necessary sometimes but it is also important to remember why we are fighting.
-
Fighting is very necessary sometimes but it is also important to remember why we are fighting.
Agreed.
-
Amen to that. Rachel, your Chanukah posts on the Power of Word thread on SCE forum have touched me in this regard. My thanks.
-
Does anyone else have the problem that after they make a obnoxious comment they hear their Mother's voice saying " Don't be smart Young Lady" That may just be me.
Anyway I apologize for my glib comment about cofee . I don't mean to make light of the necessity of war and violence. There is definitely a time for fighting and this is one of them on many fronts.
I do understand that it much easier for me to be optimistic because the worst thing that happens to me at my job is that I sometimes get bored . As I go about my day my life is not at stake and I m not asked to do dark things to protect others.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell.
I am very grateful for all those men and women (armed forces, firefighters, police etc) who sacrifice for my freedom and safety.
I just feel optimism and hope for a better world are worth fighting and working for.
I was a funeral on Monday for a close family friend who just finished her 7 year battle with cancer. Her ability to provide hope and inspiration for others while she was sick herself and morning the death of her husband of 40 years was amazing. I was so lucky to know both of them.
PS, Marc You and GM keep posting while I am writing. Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate it.
-
http://jhvonline.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=96&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=5936&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1291&hn=jhvonline&he=.com
Published 25.DEC.08
WASHINGTON / ANKARA, Turkey – The Turkish General Directorate of Post and Telegraph Organization has issued two new commemorative stamps honoring the heroism of Necdet Kent and Selâhattin Ülkümen, Turkish diplomats who risked their lives during World War II to save Jews of Turkish origin from concentration camps.
Ülkümen served as the consul general of Turkey in Rhodes between 1943 and 1944. Opposing the German Nazi forces which occupied the island during World War II, he saved 42 Jews from death, threatening to create an international crisis if they were not released. Ambassador Ülkümen later was honored as a Righteous Gentile by Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.
Kent served as Turkey’s vice consul general in Marseille, France, between 1941-1944, and during World War II. He saved the lives of more than 80 Jews, who had been loaded into cattle cars to be transported to concentration camps. Risking his own life, Kent, himself, climbed into the train and refused to leave without them. In interviews after the war, Kent attributed his moral resiliency to his Turkish identity: “As a representative of a government that rejected such treatment for religious beliefs, I could not consider leaving [Jews on a train bound for a concentration camp].”
“Turkey issued the stamps for the simple reason that, even today, the world remains scarred from the atrocities of the Holocaust,” said Nabi Sensoy, Turkey’s ambassador to the United States. “Honoring these two great Turkish diplomats who protected the innocent, risking their lives, is also meant to convey Turkey’s appreciation of the historic friendship between the Turkish people and Jews from Israel and around the world.”
The two stamps were issued to recognize the courageous acts of those who resisted, and to show that the human capacity to confront evil can withstand the most difficult of conditions.
-
:-) :-) :-)
-
In Egypt, seven Coptic Christians were murdered yesterday by a Muslim gunman as they filed out of a midnight mass in the southern town of Nag Hamadi. In Pakistan, more than 100 Christian homes were ransacked by a Muslim mob last July in the village of Bahmaniwala. In Iraq that same month, seven Christian churches were bombed in Baghdad and Mosul in the space of three days.
Such atrocities—and there are scores of other examples—are grim reminders that when it comes to persecution, few groups have suffered as grievously as Christians in Muslim lands. Fewer still have suffered with such little attention paid. Now a new report from the non-profit ministry, Open Doors USA, shines a light on the scale of oppression.
In its annual World Watch List, Open Doors ranks eight Muslim countries among the 10 worst persecutors of Christians. The other two, North Korea (which tops the list) and Laos, are communist states. Of the 50 countries on the list, 35 are majority Muslim.
Take Iran, which this year ranks as the world's second-worst persecutor of Christians. Open Doors reports that in 2009 the Islamic Republic arrested 85 Christians, many of whom were also mistreated in prison. In 2008, some 50 Christians were arrested and one Christian couple was beaten to death by security officials. At least part of the reason for the mistreatment appears to be the result of Muslim conversions to Christianity: Apostasy carries a mandatory death sentence in Iran.
In Saudi Arabia (No. 3), all non-Muslim public worship is forbidden. The state forbids the building of any type of non-Muslim house of worship, and Christian expatriates in the kingdom must practice their faith in private. The same goes in the Maldives, where the report notes that all citizens must be Muslim; "the handful of indigenous Christians are forced to believe in complete secrecy." Similarly in Mauritania, conversion to Christianity or any other religions is formally punishable by death.
Little wonder, then, that once-thriving Christian communities in the Muslim world have now largely voted with their feet by fleeing to safer havens, often in Europe or the United States. That's true even in religiously important communities such as Bethlehem, where the Christian majority has largely fled since the arrival in the 1990s of Yasser Arafat's repressive government and the ascendancy of Islamist groups such as Hamas. By contrast, Christians practice their religion freely and openly in Israel, just a few miles distant.
It might seem natural that at least some attention would be paid in the West to the plight of these Christians. Instead, attention seems endlessly focused on "Islamophobia," not least at the U.N.'s misnamed Human Rights Council. In November, much of Europe went berserk over the Swiss referendum to ban the construction of minarets (though not of mosques). But the West's tolerance for its large Muslim populations stands in sharp contrast to the Muslim world's bigotry and persecution of its own religious minorities. That's a fact that ought to be borne in mind the next time Westerners berate themselves about their own supposed "intolerance."
-
It is amazing how little press this is getting. Reverse the roles and have Muslims suffer at the hands of Christians and that is all the talking heads of the MSM would broadcast.