[moki]

Three cheers for Ali al-Khodeir! I applaud his statements, and retractions of terrorism. If more radical Islamic clerics would follow his enlightened lead, the world would be a much better place.

from: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2237879

.....

Who gains?
Nov 20th 2003 | CAIRO
From The Economist print edition


It may get harder to tell whether terror wins or loses Arab hearts and minds

SAUDI state television is known for its bland fare. But a few days ago, Saudi families, slumped in digestive repose after breaking the Ramadan fast, were stunned to see a famously Koran-thumping, jihad -mongering preacher confess, meekly and at length, to the wrongness of his ways.

AP

Jihad in Riyadh

This repentance was a sign that even extreme Islamists may start to join the wider Muslim public in recoiling at the tactics of terrorists who act in their name, most recently by bombing two synagogues and five days later causing wide devastation in Istanbul and killing dozens, mostly Muslims. If such theological props are removed, it would be a setback for jihad- obsessed radicals that may prove as influential as the security offensive that has put Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda on the back foot (hard though it is to tell to what extent his structure has been dismantled).

Yet the rising frequency of terrorist attacks and their widening range suggest that local groups may now represent a bigger threat than any global mother organisation. It is hard to be categorical about the relationship between locals and a global network. But if local groups are indeed operating independently, they may prove harder to eradicate.

The sheikh who was contrite on Saudi television, Ali al-Khodeir, had gained fame among radical youths by preaching that suicide attacks were highly commendable acts of jihad , that any Muslim who aided infidels should be considered an infidel, and that chasing Jews from Arabia was a religious duty. He has been in jail since May, when he was arrested after issuing a fatwa forbidding citizens from helping police to hunt fugitives thought responsible for a series of bombings in Riyadh that month which killed 34 people.

So the sheikh's shock repentance carried a lot of weight. It was not the first time a jihadi preacher had renounced his own teachings. Since the massacre of 58 tourists at Luxor in 1997, leaders of Egypt's Gamaa Islamiya, a group responsible for a string of terror attacks in the early 1990s, have published numerous books condemning them as abhorrent and alien to Islam. Other incidents, from the Twin Towers tragedy to bombings in Tunisia, Indonesia, Morocco and elsewhere, have elicited similar opprobrium from Muslim clerics.

But Mr Khodeir's about-turn was particularly dramatic. Not only was the bombing in Riyadh wrong because it killed Muslim innocents; he said it was wrong to attack non-Muslims unless they warred directly against Islam and indeed wrong to wage any kind of jihad without the explicit sanction of a rightful Muslim ruler. He even advised Muslims against fighting Americans in Iraq, on the ground that it is not clear under whose banner they would be fighting. Most surprisingly of all, to Saudis attuned to strong undercurrents of sympathy with Osama bin Laden, he told “armed men hiding in caves” to lay down their guns and think of the Day of Judgment, when they would be questioned about “all the blood that has been shed without justification...or gain.”

Such declarations could have a similar impact on Saudis as those by repentant militants in Egypt, where no terrorist attacks have occurred for five years. Yet some extreme groups are surely beyond influencing. Having long rejected the mainstream, state-supported Muslim clergy, they are likely to dismiss pleas from the likes of Mr Khodeir as well.

The internet, now the main meeting ground for Islamist radicals, is still awash with justifications for jihadi terror. Numerous web postings declare that it is not true that the 18 people who perished in the Riyadh bombing were innocents; they were all FBI agents. Others take a different tack, and say that bombings which have killed Muslims were staged by the CIA or by Israel's security service, Mossad, to undermine support for the jihadis . Several proclaimed terrorism experts, discussing the Istanbul blasts on the Arabic satellite channel Al-Arabia this week, reached just this conclusion, citing rumours that Mossad agents were withdrawn from the synagogues just before they were attacked.

This sea of disinformation is rendered stormier by the widely perceived nobility of violent Muslim resistance in Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere. To many Arab minds, it has blurred distinctions between such territorial conflicts and the hazier notion of striking “crusaders” and Muslim “collaborators” elsewhere.

More police work, combined with bigger efforts by Muslims themselves, may defeat the jihadis in the long run. But the task would be easier if the underpinning perception that Islam itself is under a mortal threat from the West were removed. Thanks to the rhetoric of people such as Mr Khodeir, that belief is deeply held.

[eklipse]

Forced confession?

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Forced confession?

Let's give the man the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he's capable of recognizing the err of his ways, shall we?

You do have a point, I'd just prefer to believe otherwise.

[einmakom]

This is worth bumping, because at least four users here have bought into the odd notion that Mossad is operating in Iraq, and at least two have bought into the belief that the Mossad caused the bombings in Saudi Arabia.

One even believes Mossad to be responsible for the bombings in Turkey.

Yet, this cleric Ali al-Khodeir, and Lebanon's top Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sheik Hussein Fadlallah believe otherwise- that this is the work of radical Islamists, and they are now choosing to speak out against such despicable acts.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Yet, this cleric Ali al-Khodeir, and Lebanon's top Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sheik Hussein Fadlallah believe otherwise- that this is the work of radical Islamists, and they are now choosing to speak out against such despicable acts.

the world won't pay attention. The america- and Jew-haters will support anyone who causes harm or 'combats' the 'evil' of the Great Satan and Israel, regardless of the disgusting and horrific consequences for Islam, Arab society, and the world as a whole. For the leftists and extremists, the ends justify the means.

[RooneyX]

Jesus did the same. When the Romans went to arrest his terrorist brigade one guy's ear was chopped off. Jesus was then pressured into telling his men to lay down their weapons or they would be killed by the same.

Between imperialism and rebellion there lies cooperative pacifism in order to create dialogue and cultural ties.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Jesus did the same. When the Romans went to arrest his terrorist brigade

Jesus's 'terrorist brigade'? That's new to me. Why don't you elaborate and quote the New Testament for clarification. I'd like to hear more about Jesus's 'terrorist brigade'.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by moki:
Let's give the man the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he's capable of recognizing the err of his ways, shall we?

You do have a point, I'd just prefer to believe otherwise.

He has an incentive to reform - he's in jail, after all, and I wouldn't put it past the Saudis to, shall we say, twist his arm. But one does hope that it's sincere and will have a positive effect.

The Saudi regime is waging its own PR campaign. About 6 months ago, I posted about a radio spot I had heard in which the Saudis talked about what a great country they had and how they were preparing for the future. Very travel bureau-ish. I heard another one the other day that had a much more desperate/urgent tone - i.e. "We're holding elections and trying to keep the terrorists down - really!" I was wondering what sort of elections one would have in a monarchy. In any case, they do seem worried about us turning tail on them.
This contributes to my concern that they merely coerced this Ali guy, but again one hopes that it's a positive sign.

I read an interview last year of Bernard Lewis, the conservative Middle East expert. It was his contention that 9/11 was not a sign of things to come, but a last gasp. He felt that once the rank-and-file saw that flying planes into buildings was mostly a futile and self-destructive act, they would turn away from the likes of al Qaida. Who knows, but maybe Ali signals a trend.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Jesus did the same. When the Romans went to arrest his terrorist brigade one guy's ear was chopped off. Jesus was then pressured into telling his men to lay down their weapons or they would be killed by the same.

Between imperialism and rebellion there lies cooperative pacifism in order to create dialogue and cultural ties.

What a load of SH*T! One person gets their ear cut off and all of a sudden Jesus had a "terrorist brigade". The Romans didn't give two farts about Jesus or his followers, the priests at the temple, on the other hand, were very nervous. You don't go in and upset the temple "moneylaunderers" and get away with it. If Rome was that hot after the guy, Pilate, Governor of Judea, wouldn't have balked at having Jesus killed. In his own words (from letters sent to his friend Seneca in Rome) he said he "admired Jesus' peaceful message and thought that the prophet could possibly calm the Israelites working in rebellion". Furthermore, he said in a letter sent after Jesus' death, "I fear I have made a grave error and should have held to my convictions". Sounds like Jesus was a real troublemaker...

[RooneyX]

Search word 'terrorist' in New Testament.

Apocalyptics, End of the World enthusiasts, anti-Imperialist movements, purification rituals, Rome = Great Whore of Babylon, etc. The word 'terrorist' was used against the movement.

You're just afraid of having American imperialism linked with Roman imperialism and good ol' first century Jesus movement linked with modern evil, scary Islamists.

Even if it's plain to see.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Search word 'terrorist' in New Testament.

Apocalyptics, End of the World enthusiasts, anti-Imperialist movements, purification rituals, Rome = Great Whore of Babylon, etc. The word 'terrorist' was used against the movement.

You're just afraid of having American imperialism linked with Roman imperialism and good ol' first century Jesus movement linked with modern evil, scary Islamists.

Even if it's plain to see.

It's very easy for you to spew those arguments, and it's quite another for an educated, intellectual mind to argue them from a theological and reasoned perspective. What you give us are anti-Christian, knee-jerk propagandising musings.

I asked for a reasoned position, and you tell me I'm afraid. Of what--well, you won't even put forth an argument to tell us.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah in his sig:
My mullahs, we da last ones left. Life in a theocracy is all good for nobody.

Hey, you changed some perfectly good 2Pac lyrics to fit in with your ramble there!

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
It's very easy for you to spew those arguments, and it's quite another for an educated, intellectual mind to argue them from a theological and reasoned perspective. What you give us are anti-Christian, knee-jerk propagandising musings.

I asked for a reasoned position, and you tell me I'm afraid. Of what--well, you won't even put forth an argument to tell us.

Not really. I just don't think this, or any public forum, is a reasonable place for discussing history in a detailed way without being shouted down by a religiously minded mob who always turn up.

There are many people who have compared current events to many in the past and several well-respected scholars who have written books about political movements against the Romans and other empires. I don't need to add to them, it's already there and as long as history repeats itself there will always be comparisons made.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Not really. I just don't think this, or any public forum, is a reasonable place for discussing history in a detailed way without being shouted down by a religiously minded mob who always turn up.

so then you were just sniping and trolling. Tossing around intellectual nuggets like 'Jesus was a terrorist' or 'Jesus's terrorist brigade'.

There are many people who have compared current events to many in the past and several well-respected scholars who have written books about political movements against the Romans and other empires. I don't need to add to them, it's already there and as long as history repeats itself there will always be comparisons made.

Which is totally different than defending Jesus's 'terrorist brigade' comment or relating America to some imperialist Roman empire, bent on military conquest of the world.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Hey, you changed some perfectly good 2Pac lyrics to fit in with your ramble there!

yeah. Pretty catchy, huh?

[docbud]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Search word 'terrorist' in New Testament.

I can't seem to find the word terrorist in there.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by docbud:
I can't seem to find the word terrorist in there.

maybe his advanced, educated mind is extrapolating something new from the original Greek texts. Then far be it for us simpletons to question His Majesty's new revelations.

[RooneyX]

Me, invent evidence? No, no. When Paul was approached by Roman officers for preaching Christianity he was confused for Jesus and they asked him if he was the 'Egyptian who led 4000 terrorists to the desert'.

And please, don't bollock me now. By 'Egyptian' they are saying a 'Misrimi Jew' (a non Jewish Egyptian couldn't lead a donkey to the desert community).

Josephus also describes Jesus this way, an Egyptian who preached on the Mount of Olives and claimed he could bring the walls of the temple down.

But I'm not going to bother debating this. The slander and ganging up even in this premature stage says such a debate only goes in one direction - scientific history vs religious intimidation.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Me, invent evidence? No, no. When Paul was approached by Roman officers for preaching Christianity he was confused for Jesus and they asked him if he was the 'Egyptian who led 4000 terrorists to the desert'.

There was once a user here -KellyHogan was his name- who said almost exactly the same things as you. His argument didn't hold water either.

What you have here is certainly a case of mistaken identity, as you claim, but there is no evidence that the Egyptian of whom the Romans spoke was Jesus.

And please, don't bollock me now. By 'Egyptian' they are saying a 'Misrimi Jew' (a non Jewish Egyptian couldn't lead a donkey to the desert community).

Evidence?

Josephus also describes Jesus this way, an Egyptian who preached on the Mount of Olives and claimed he could bring the walls of the temple down.

Ah, yes, Josephus. Disregarding the fact that he had an axe to grind, it should be noted that he didn't even get the quote right. Jesus didn't say that he could bring the walls of the temple down. Quite the opposite: he said that he could rebuild it, if another were to knock it down. He wasn't even speaking literally here, however, so the point is moot, but the fact that he's been misquoted is important to note.

But I'm not going to bother debating this. The slander and ganging up even in this premature stage says such a debate only goes in one direction - scientific history vs religious intimidation.

Who is slandering anyone here? Who is trying to intimidate anyone? If more people disagree with you than agree, does that necessarily mean that we are trying to intimidate you? Or are you simply seeing what you want to see, namely yourself against an imaginary throng of "unwashed masses"?