Invitation to dialog to Muslims

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Bryan Lee]

see final post

[Sitbatan]

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

[Bryan Lee]

see final post

[ppulatie]

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.

[rogt]

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.

[xtremekali]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[ppulatie]

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.

[Bryan Lee]

see final post

[Crafty_Dog]

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   and credible plans were made to decapitate the Canadian Prime Minister    attack the Parliament    and assassinate various figures    .  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. , , , "

[Bryan Lee]

see final post

[milt]

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

[xtremekali]

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

[xtremekali]

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]

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

[Bryan Lee]

see final post

[Body-by-Guinness]

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.

[ppulatie]

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

[Bryan Lee]

see final post

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Bryan Lee]

see final post

[Bryan Lee]

See final post

[Crafty_Dog]

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.     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

[rogt]

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.

[Bryan Lee]

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

[Blain]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Body-by-Guinness]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[SB_Mig]

Here's a lengthy rebuttal to the 9/11 conspiracy if Sibatan is interested:

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/loose-marbles-i.html

[ppulatie]

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?

[Sitbatan]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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,

[Howling Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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]

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/

[nasigoreng]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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; 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); 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

[Crafty_Dog]

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.   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.  


The Adventure continues,
CD

[milt]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[Michael6343]

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.

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

[Howling Dog]

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

[Michael6343]

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"