[thunderous_funker]

�to kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is the individual duty of every Muslim who is able, until the Aqsa mosque [in Jerusalem] and the Haram mosque [in Mecca] are freed from their grip, and until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam.�

Its that last part that seems to miss the notice of politicians and fear-mongers in the west who seem bent on portraying this conflict in terms of "good and evil" or that "civilization itself" is somehow at stake.

No one is attacking "our way of life". Not unless you consider military bases in Muslim countries and Israeli settlements in Palestine to be a lifestyle choice.

Islam and Fundamentalist Islam face a battle for culture. The west does not.

The West and Islam are just fine.

The West and Islamic terrorism are fighting a purely political battle with purely political objectives.

[DBursey]

Being the world's busiest man, I will confess to having merely skimmed this thread. Nonetheless, as it regards a subject of personal interest which is germaine to this discussion, I thought I'd link a piece published in today's Toronto Star. The author, a respected journalist, media personality and practising Muslim, raises some very good points which IMO need to be addressed by the Muslim community.

Muslim Author Urges Reform

From the article:

Call her crazy or call her courageous, Toronto journalist Irshad Manji is calling for reform in Islam � targetting what she calls its oppression of women, its tribalism and its attitudes toward Jews.

In a book published yesterday, Manji questions the divine authorship of the Qu'ran and urges Muslims to freely ask questions about Islam and adopt the ages old tradition of independent reasoning.

"Muslims have been bludgeoning each other's freedoms well before European colonialism, well before the state of Israel and well before MTV," she said. "You can't blame intellectual stagnation or complacency on the White House, the Jews, even the house of Saud. We have only ourselves to blame."

Manji is a practising Muslim who observes the month-long fast at Ramadan and prays daily, though no longer in the proscribed times and style mandated by the faith. "When it becomes rote, a ritual, it easily translates into submissiveness. Discipline is one thing, but when it becomes mindless � am I truly conscious of communicating with my Creator?" she writes.

Given her outspoken views, I suppose it is only a matter of time before a fatwa is levied against her. Debate and dissent are not exactly hallmarks of Islam.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
�to kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is the individual duty of every Muslim who is able, until the Aqsa mosque [in Jerusalem] and the Haram mosque [in Mecca] are freed from their grip, and until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam.�

Its that last part that seems to miss the notice of politicians and fear-mongers in the west who seem bent on portraying this conflict in terms of "good and evil" or that "civilization itself" is somehow at stake.

No one is attacking "our way of life". Not unless you consider military bases in Muslim countries and Israeli settlements in Palestine to be a lifestyle choice.

Islam and Fundamentalist Islam face a battle for culture. The west does not.

The West and Islam are just fine.

The West and Islamic terrorism are fighting a purely political battle with purely political objectives.

I totally disagree with this post, which, in my opinion, blatantly casts the Islamic Fundamentalists and Westerners as moral equivalents. I am astounded at the lack of moral resolve that your interpretation of the first statement has.

On 9-11, these same Muslims enacted a vicious assault on our way of life.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
I totally disagree with this post, which, in my opinion, blatantly casts the Islamic Fundamentalists and Westerners as moral equivalents. I am astounded at the lack of moral resolve that your interpretation of the first statement has.

On 9-11, these same Muslims enacted a vicious assault on our way of life.

There is only moral equivalency if you believe that the ends justify the means. Just because Al'Queda has political aspirations doesn't make their tactics justifiable. If Dr. King had ordered suicide bombers instead of peace marches, he would have been a dispicable terrorist despite the nobility of his cause.

I also didn't say I thought Al'Queda's cause was just or right. I'm merely pointing out what they said they are fighting for. That might be useful in a war.

How exactly was 9/11 an "assault on our way of life"??? How is that even possible?

If almost a million people dying a year can't influence Americans to diet and exercise, how many will Al'Queda have to kill to change "our way of life"??

As long as Septicemia kills 10 times as many Americans every year as the biggest, luckiest, flukiest terror attack in our history, I don't expect the American "way of life" to change very much.

You'll forgive me if an attack that could have been thwarted by a $10 masterlock on the cockpit door (assuming the massive inteligence failures over 2-4 years and inability to prevent people getting on planes with knives were unaviodable) doesn't dictate a radical shift in my lifestyle or politics.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You'll forgive me if an attack that could have been thwarted by a $10 masterlock on the cockpit door (assuming the massive inteligence failures over 2-4 years and inability to prevent people getting on planes with knives were unaviodable) doesn't dictate a radical shift in my lifestyle or politics.

The cut in intelligence is really to blame. IMHO

People were too confident that no one would DARE try, so they kinda too things for granted.

These guys have been planning 9-11 since the last time they tried to blow up the WTC.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:As long as Septicemia kills 10 times as many Americans every year as the biggest, luckiest, flukiest terror attack in our history, I don't expect the American "way of life" to change very much.

Septicemia has not caused, in itself, an alteration in the way of life in America, which is predicated on the American individual's right to his life, his liberty, and his prosperity.

The terrorist's goal is to create fear and hysteria, to break down the reason that holds us all together as a nation, to cause the placement of security measures that have a negative effect on our lives and liberties.

They clearly demonstrated this on september 11th when they cold-bloodedly murdered several thousand innocent citizens engaged in legitimate business activity, sending a clear message that they hate us and resent our way of life, wishing to destroy it.

We should hunt and destroy them all. We should seek to punish the nations that sponsor them as well.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
The terrorist's goal is to create fear and hysteria, to break down the reason that holds us all together as a nation, to cause the placement of security measures that have a negative effect on our lives and liberties.

Subjective. Most Palestinians (and arguably, much of the arab world) would probably say the same about Israel and the US.

They clearly demonstrated this on september 11th when they cold-bloodedly murdered several thousand innocent citizens engaged in legitimate business activity, sending a clear message that they hate us and resent our way of life, wishing to destroy it.

And what message do you suppose the US has sent to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq in recent months?

We should hunt and destroy them all. We should seek to punish the nations that sponsor them as well.

...or push them into sea, right? Perspective is a funny thing.

[Spliffdaddy]

push, hell.

Kill 'em dead using .50 cal BARs.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
push, hell.

Kill 'em dead using .50 cal BARs.

[AutoJC]

Originally blurted by eklipse:
And what message do you suppose the US has sent to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq in recent months?

Freedom.

[thunderous_funker]

Now you're all over the place. But don't worry, you're in good company. Most Americans and most politicians have lashed all over desperately trying to find a way to react to what they don't appear to understand.

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Septicemia has not caused, in itself, an alteration in the way of life in America, which is predicated on the American individual's right to his life, his liberty, and his prosperity.

Exactly. 3,000 deaths is a drop in the ocean of human suffering that occurs nearly every day on this planet. The number of dead doesn't dictate our course of action, otherwise we'd have declared war on the dozens of causes of "innocent" death that strike down hundreds of thousands of American lives every single year.

Our way of life is not threatened by the death of 3,000 people no matter how spectacular the video footage is. No matter how innocent. No matter how unjust. There's nothing just about the tens of thousands who die from Alzheimer's every year either.

In our grief, we've mistakenly assumed that something fundamental in our lives must change because we cannot grasp this tragedy. Grasp it. The only fundamental thing that must change because of that horrible day is basic security measures and operational law enforcement against known terrorists by the agencies that were supposed to prevent such attacks and probably could have if they had done their jobs.

Originally posted by AutoJC:
The terrorist's goal is to create fear and hysteria, to break down the reason that holds us all together as a nation, to cause the placement of security measures that have a negative effect on our lives and liberties.

Irony. In that case, the terrorists have won. I'm the voice of reason telling people to not be hysterical because we got sucker punched. I'm the one saying we don't need to suspend the Bill of Rights because this was preventable by very basic measures. I'm the one saying this doesn't need to change our basic assumptions about the world and the people in it.

When a city bus in Los Angeles is brought to a screaching halt because a young Arab man is praying in the back seat (yes, I was in the bus) and some hysterical passenger started screaming about suicide bombers, the terrorists have won. Turns out the poor kid had jury duty so he couldn't do his morning prayers at home and was trying to discreetly do it in the back of the bus on his way to the Courthouse.

Originally posted by AutoJC:
They clearly demonstrated this on september 11th when they cold-bloodedly murdered several thousand innocent citizens engaged in legitimate business activity, sending a clear message that they hate us and resent our way of life, wishing to destroy it.

Which message should be believe? The message they sent us? Or the message that unscrupulous politicians would tell us in their attempts to reshape America to suit them best in the midst of our fear and grief?

Al'Queda's list of demands are entirely political, as noted in the statement that started this conversation.

Secondly, even if OBL decided that Al'Queda's new goal was to destroy our way of life, what makes you think they have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing it?

Growing up on military bases in Europe in the 80's, I've been aware of terrorism and it's threat my entire life. Bomb threats, shootings, radical groups vowing to kill Americans, protests, etc have been part of my day to day life for 30 years.

Guess what, I'm not afraid of them. Just like I'm not afraid of rapists, murderers, theives and cancer--All of which have infinitely more chance of impacting my life with horror than terrorists.

Long after OBL is dead, there will be some other nut who wants to change the world and thinks that killing innocent people is the best way to accomplish it. They won't keep me up at night either.

Originally posted by AutoJC:
We should hunt and destroy them all. We should seek to punish the nations that sponsor them as well.

Sure. But the methods used are more important than the resolve to do it. America has been fighting terrorism for decades. So has the rest of the civilized world. Sometimes its Fascists, sometimes its Marxists, sometimes its Moaists, sometimes its Christians, sometimes is Islamists. Whatever.

We've always had them and probably always will. I won't be changing what I believe in to suit them, thank you. Why should you?

Terrorists cannot destroy America. Nor can they destroy what Americans believe in. Only Americans can do that to themselves by surrendering what makes this nation great our of some irrational fear and mindless revenge complex.

Terrorists cannot combat nations openly to effect their desired changes. Their method is to provoke their enemies into a self-destructive course of action. Al'Queda can't fight the US military, but it can draw the US military into massive regional conflicts that escalate, divide, incite further self-destructive measures.

So we've got guerilla wars in 2 of the most formidable spots on the globe tying up 60-70% of the entire military might of the United States for an unknown future costing hundreds of billions of dollars sowing strife, dissent and accrimoney between cultures and between traditional allies, not to mention Americans.

Yep. Hard to imagine how OBL could have even wished for this kind of success. He just might be the luckiest man alive. A couple thousand crackpots have mired the greatest superpower the world has ever known into an almost unwinnable situation at an untold cost to our nation's wealth, credibility, reputation and standing in the world.

What happens when the most respected and envied nation in the world becaomes the most hated, feared and distrusted?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Freedom.

LMAO!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Freedom.

actually, its hegemony.

[moki]

Originally posted by DBursey:
From the article:

.....

Call her crazy or call her courageous, Toronto journalist Irshad Manji is calling for reform in Islam � targetting what she calls its oppression of women, its tribalism and its attitudes toward Jews.

.....

Given her outspoken views, I suppose it is only a matter of time before a fatwa is levied against her. Debate and dissent are not exactly hallmarks of Islam.

THIS is the kind of thing I was hoping to see. Excellent -- glad at least some are calling for reform, though you are likely right re: her dissent.

[moki]

Here's the article in full:

from: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1063750211566

Muslim author urges reform
Tells faithful to `take responsibility' for what ails Islam

Cancelled as speaker because of fears she'd offend too many

Call her crazy or call her courageous, Toronto journalist Irshad Manji is calling for reform in Islam � targetting what she calls its oppression of women, its tribalism and its attitudes toward Jews.

In a book published yesterday, Manji questions the divine authorship of the Qu'ran and urges Muslims to freely ask questions about Islam and adopt the ages old tradition of independent reasoning.

"Grow up! And take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam," she said in an interview.

The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-up call for Honesty and Change is beyond controversial. It may ignite a firestorm of protest.

She isn't the first to call for a reformation in Islam. There are stirrings of it in other places, but her easy conversational style, addressed to "my fellow Muslims," makes it accessible to a wide range of readers.

"Muslims have been bludgeoning each other's freedoms well before European colonialism, well before the state of Israel and well before MTV," she said. "You can't blame intellectual stagnation or complacency on the White House, the Jews, even the house of Saud. We have only ourselves to blame."

Manji, 34, said she received as many supportive responses, especially from young Muslims, as angry ones.

"Muslims need to change their anti-Semitic and anti-female and other bad habits," said a reader who had fled Afghanistan.

Critical letter writers have accused her of propagating lies and being in the pay of Zionists.

"Will we remain spiritually infantile, shackled by expectations to clam up and conform, or will we mature into citizens, defending the very pluralism of interpretations and ideas that makes it possible to practice Islam in this part of the world?" she writes.

Manji is a practising Muslim who observes the month-long fast at Ramadan and prays daily, though no longer in the proscribed times and style mandated by the faith. "When it becomes rote, a ritual, it easily translates into submissiveness. Discipline is one thing, but when it becomes mindless � am I truly conscious of communicating with my Creator?" she writes.

Yet some readers will not see her criticism of Islam as an act of love. Though she hasn't been the target of a fatwa � as Salman Rushdie was for his fictional The Satanic Verses � she does have a sleek, imposing-looking man wearing black with her when she goes out. He's a "personal assistant,"not a bodyguard, she insists. They've known each another for years. He checks the board room at her publisher's before a conversation begins. He looks around as she walks to a park to have her photo taken.

She has had bullet proof glass installed in some rooms in her house. Better safe than sorry, she said. And she's been consulting with the police on security measures, though she has not received any threats she considers serious.

At least one multicultural organization has cancelled her as a speaker because they're afraid she'll offend Muslims.

The ideas in the book have evolved over her lifetime, but became more urgent after 9/11, when she read of Muslim suicide bombers leaving death notes citing the Qu'ran and the joys that awaited them in the afterlife.

Manji, with spiked and streaked hair and her intense way of locking eyes in conversation, is startlingly direct. She has never hidden the fact that she's gay. After years in broadcasting � her latest program is Big Ideas on TVO � she answers questions quickly and fluently.

She is astonished by how people in the west, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, practise a form of self -censorship when it comes to critiquing Muslim issues.

"What I am about to say may sound wrong, out of context, but Osama bin Laden had it right on one score � we are spoiled in this society, we have gone soft. As the philosopher Arthur Koestler said, the problem is that we have ceased to be aware of the values we are in danger of losing � freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. They are taken for granted as magical, as a birthright, but we immigrants can tell you, you need to exercise these freedoms every day lest they atrophy.

"Bin Laden is counting on this, on non-Muslims being cowed by fear of being called racist. It's as if they feel they are doing us a favour by refusing to have faith in us Muslims to push for reform, as someone called it, the soft racism of low expectations.

"However, I believe we can transcend this moment."

She urges Muslim readers to adopt the Islamic tradition of ijtihad, which allows Muslims to update his or her religious practises in light of contemporary circumstances. She proposes a movement to encourage women entrepreneurs. Then, she writes, priorities will change: "from tribalism to trade, from the honour of husbands as sole providers to the dignity of reciprocity between men and women."

Manji's family fled Ugandan dictator Idi Amin's regime in 1971. She said her free-spirited questioning of convention started at an early age at a babysitting service offered by the Rose of Sharon Baptist Church, where at age eight she received the Most Promising Christian of the Year award.

She attended Saturday afternoon classes in Islam until she was 14, when she was kicked out. At 23, she was an editorial writer for the Ottawa Citizen newspaper. She has debated current events regularly on TVO and hosted CITY-TV's QueerTelevision. Ms. magazine called her a "Feminist for the 21st Century" and Maclean's named her a "Leader for Tomorrow."

[lil'babykitten]

Seriously moki, you have found one hell of a strange woman here. Her understanding of Islam seems lacking, to say the least.

Let me quote, from a different article by this woman, because at the moment it stands out to me:

http://www.ubc.ca/talkofthetown/manji.html

"In blunt, provocative, and deeply personal terms, she unearths the troubling cornerstones of Islam as it's widely practiced:
tribal insularity, deep-seated anti-Semitism, and an uncritical acceptance of the Koran as the final, and therefore superior, manifesto of God.".......
"Irshad Manji calls herself a Muslim refusenik. "That doesn't mean I refuse to be a Muslim," she writes. "It simply means I refuse to join an army of automatons in the name of Allah."

The Quran is the final word of God. This is not a 'troubling corner stone of Islam', it is fact, pure fact. She does not agree with this. She is therefore not a muslim. It's as plane as that. That belief is the cornerstone of Islam: the final word of God.

From moki's linked article:

When it becomes rote, a ritual, it easily translates into submissiveness. Discipline is one thing, but when it becomes mindless � am I truly conscious of communicating with my Creator?" she writes

Islam is about submission to Allah. In the above she is questioning yet another corner stone of Islam. She is unsure of what she says she believes in. Again, if she has not submitted to Allah, she is not Muslim.

Manji questions the divine authorship of the Qu'ran and urges Muslims to freely ask questions about Islam and adopt the ages old tradition of independent reasoning.

Once again, if she questions the authenticity of the Quran she can't call herself a muslim. The Quran is open to interpretation and discussion. However here, this woman questions whether it is the final word of God.

"Grow up! And take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam," she said in an interview.

She would appear to be saying here, that it is the Muslims that ail Islam! Rather it should be, what is it that ails some of the nations and people who claim to be doing something in according to islam?

from another article by her

"I graduated to asking more nuanced questions," she said, "such as, 'If the Quran came to Prophet Muhammad as a message of peace, why did he command his army to kill an entire Jewish tribe?'"

This is just damn right blasphemous. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did nothing of the sort. Islam has never taught any hatred toward Jews, this is something she has wrongfully pinned to Islam and to the most highly regarded Prophet.

Just a couple of things. There is plenty more to pick up on. I shall do this at a later date.
I have nothing against people speaking their minds. I am entitled to my opinion just as much as she is. But in my view, she is seriously misguided as to what Islam actually is about. It seems to me that she is trying to tailor make the religion to suit her views, that is not right.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Here's the article in full:

from: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1063750211566

Okay. This woman strikes me as wannabe-Muslim who has found that Islam does not fit with her principles/lifestyles and has decided to try and bend and twist it to suit her needs. This is fine, but, as soon as she does this, she forfeits her right to call herself a Muslim and her 'religion' can no longer be considered Islam.

To give you a simple example: she claims to be a 'gay Muslim', this is a contradiction in terms. Homosexuality is not permitted under Islam - just as the ingestion of alcohol is forbidden, so is fvcking another man in the ass.

If this is your idea of 'reforming Islam', think again, this is an attempt to demolish the most basic tenets of Islam - and it will not stand, anywhere.

[Logic]

Cancelled as speaker because of fears she'd offend too many

When someone who can't be called muslim starts trying to rip our system of belief apart, yes she should be afraid that she could offend people.

Call her crazy or call her courageous, Toronto journalist Irshad Manji is calling for reform in Islam � targetting what she calls its oppression of women, its tribalism and its attitudes toward Jews.

About the oppression of women; I've already proven that Islam is not at fault here. Read my article again and some of the quotes from the Quran. I won't write that all again. About tribalism: What has tribalism to do with religion. It is a part of the culture if anything. It has nothing to do with islam as religion. Attitude towards jews: There is nothing in the Quran or anything Muhammed said that results in the "hostility" towards jews. I am not going to find the quotes you need, you can do that yourself.

Manji questions the divine authorship of the Qu'ran and urges Muslims to freely ask questions about Islam and adopt the ages old tradition of independent reasoning.

You should not question that it is the word of god, but you should reason and discuss it's meaning. But she seems to be asking muslims to question that it is the final message from God. i.e. she is not muslim.

"Grow up! And take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam," she said in an interview.

What is my responsibility in what "ails" islam? What is her point? (except getting attention) What is it that "ails" Islam? Isn't it rather what ails some of the nations and people who claim to be doing something according to Islam?

"You can't blame intellectual stagnation or complacency on the White House, the Jews, even the house of Saud. We have only ourselves to blame."

What intellectual stagnation? And WTF has this to do with Islam?

"Muslims need to change their anti-Semitic and anti-female and other bad habits," said a reader who had fled Afghanistan.

Once again there is nothing anti-semitic about Islam, there is nothing anti-female about islam and what other "bad habits"? And you do notice this is from a person who fled from Afganistan?????? Not exactly the true Islamic country.

Critical letter writers have accused her of propagating lies and being in the pay of Zionists.

It doesn't surprise me at all.

"When it becomes rote, a ritual, it easily translates into submissiveness.

Islam is about submission to God. Once again, she isn't a muslim. She doesn't seem to understand even the most basic things about Islam. She fails to understand things that I, who live in a nation with no Islamic tradition, have been able to understand. I haven't been a muslim all my life, and it is only recently that I have started to take Islam as my guide in life.

"Discipline is one thing, but when it becomes mindless � am I truly conscious of communicating with my Creator?"

There is nothing mindless about reading the Quran and trying to understand it. There is nothing mindless of living your life according to Islam. There is nothing mindless about it at all.

At least one multicultural organization has cancelled her as a speaker because they're afraid she'll offend Muslims.

She is about as insulting as the fubar trolls. Only she claims to know something about islam and claims she's a muslim which makes her even worse. So yes, she should be afraid about offending muslims.

The ideas in the book have evolved over her lifetime, but became more urgent after 9/11, when she read of Muslim suicide bombers leaving death notes citing the Qu'ran and the joys that awaited them in the afterlife.

First, I always wondered what Quranic verses they used. Second, if she was truly muslim she would be furious for them using the islam in this way and not begin to question her faith.

She has never hidden the fact that she's gay.

One problem. Being gay makes it impossible for you to be a muslim. The Quran does simply not condone homosexuality.

She is astonished by how people in the west, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, practise a form of self -censorship when it comes to critiquing Muslim issues.

To me it seems like she wants muslims to discuss the things she think is wrong with islam. Things that are the fundamental pillars of our belief. Of course she will not be greeted with flowers and people will not be dancing in the streets for her. Muslims do discuss their faith, but there are certain fundamental beliefs that cannot be questioned because they are the foundation for our faith. If you don't like the foundation, find a new house.

She proposes a movement to encourage women entrepreneurs.

We have discussed this part before. And you have been shown that women are allowed to be entrepreneurs if they want to.

"from tribalism to trade, from the honour of husbands as sole providers to the dignity of reciprocity between men and women."

Again, I have already shown to you how muslims view these things. Please, it is getting irritating to answer and to prove this wrong again and again.

where at age eight she received the Most Promising Christian of the Year award.

Wait, I thought she was a muslim. How about she just turns to Christianity instead of trying to show her twisted idea of Islam to the world(or the few that actually listens to her).

She has debated current events regularly on TVO and hosted CITY-TV's QueerTelevision. Ms. magazine called her a "Feminist for the 21st Century" and Maclean's named her a "Leader for Tomorrow."

<sigh> Do we have to go through this again?

As I said, she should find what religion suits her, and not try to change Islam to suit her needs. I did that and it shouldn't be so hard for her to do that. She seems to have a very twisted view of Islam. Perhaps she is the one who should grow up and find the religion that suits her......

To me she seems to be a woman who needs attention and she feeds islamophobic tendencies in the western society by finding problems that don't exist.

[DBursey]

We have wahhabism, we have mullahs declaring the 'duty of muslims everywhere to kill Americans'; we have untold thousands praising suicide terrorists as martyrs, rejoicing in the murder of women and children; on the other hand we have a small voice daring to question some of these murderous tenets, who as a result is labelled 'not a muslim'.

Just as Luther was labelled 'not a christian', I'd imagine.

Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance? Or one of aggression, intolerance and chauvanism?

Certainly many of these problems reflect cultural in addition to religious mindsets. But Muslims do seem quite subservient, not only to their religious beliefs, but to those who usurp those beliefs in the service of murderous political aims.

Wake up! Your brothers discredit you by murdering in the name of your faith! Why do the moderates not speak up? What holds your tongue in defense of these people? Is it fear or dogmatic adherence to a doctrine of bigotry that silences the muslim masses?

I realize this post is inflammatory and if I offend, it is because I am sick to my core at those apologists whose silence legitimizes acts of atrocity in the muslim world and beyond.

[kvm_mkdb]

The 'small voice' belongs to the majority.
The fact that we aren't listening doesn't mean they aren't talking.

So many voices speaking up.
I guess they'll never make the headlines.

Submission to a doctrine of tolerance is what our friends are saying.
And you can't read beyond the first word.

What blinds you?
What apologists? Who? Where? What silence?

Your ignorance pains me.

[DBursey]

Submission to a doctrine of tolerance is what our friends are saying.
And you can't read beyond the first word.

What blinds you?
What apologists? Who? Where? What silence?

Your ignorance pains me.

Thanks for the link.

To what first word do you refer? To what am I blind? Please, enlighten me. Or are ad hominems towards strangers your standard modus operandi?

My ignorance causes you pain? Thanks for the commiseration. Seeing a family friend taken from his wife, sons and daughter by men whose final words were undoubtedly 'allah akbar' as they committed mass murder in the name of islam pains me.

Seeing TV coverage of thousands ululating and passing out candy in celebration of civilian carnage as his widow sat for days, awaiting his return pained me greatly.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

If there are voices of support in the islamic world for tolerance and plurality, well then, you're correct. I don't hear them.

Submission to a doctrine of tolerance indeed.

[christ]

Originally posted by DBursey:
...Seeing TV coverage of thousands ululating and passing out candy in celebration of civilian carnage as his widow sat for days, awaiting his return pained me greatly....

You see what your TV presents to you. This is not necessarly 'truth'.

Believing this 'ululating and passing out candy in celebration of civilian carnage' sterotype, Americans 'know' Muslims are 'bad', and won't accept news articles that show them as 'good' (that news must be biased). Your American TV channels want viewers, and so pander to the stereotype.

Any US TV channel that painted Muslims in a sympathetic light would be boycotted as 'unAmerican'. Therefore they won't. Therfore they reinforce the stereotype.

Don't confuse TV news with truth.

[DBursey]

I see. I'm a misinformed victim of American propaganda, with which Canadian and other media are so obviously in cahoots. The World Trade Centre, the Bali bombings, the calls to attack civilians ... all a myth perpetuated by the media. Those ululations were probably produced on the same set that staged the moon landings. Was it the real Arafat that publicly chastized his people for such celebratory behaviour on those 'faked' BBC news reports?



My point with these posts has been to question why there has not been more condemnation by prominent Muslims of islamic terrorists who kill in the name of their god and religion? I find it sad that in raising this I'm condemned as blind, intolerant and misinformed.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by DBursey:
My point with these posts has been to question why there has not been more condemnation by prominent Muslims of islamic terrorists who kill in the name of their god and religion? I find it sad that in raising this I'm condemned as blind, intolerant and misinformed.

And my point of starting this thread was to discuss the misunderstanding and try to better understanding between Islam and the West. It was not my intention to discuss whether or not the terrorist acts are being condemned enough by the mainstream Muslim groups. That is a topic for another thread. Anywho, I did address this issue anyway and IIRC it was established that there is such widespread condemnation, just that for whatever reason, it is not being reported. Just type such a query in to google and see what results you get-there are thousands.

I would not say you were 'blind, intolerant and misinformed' but I think that people are losing their tempers because you and others keep asking questions that a) have already been answered and b) are not relevant to this particular thread.

[christ]

Originally posted by DBursey:
I see. I'm a misinformed victim of American propaganda...

Yup. (western rather than American, but in principle, spot on)

My point with these posts has been to question why there has not been more condemnation by prominent Muslims of islamic terrorists who kill in the name of their god and religion?

There has been, but it has not been reported by the news media that you watch

...I find it sad that in raising this I'm condemned as blind, intolerant and misinformed.

You're not. As ms. kitten pointed out, you are irritating folk by making them point out to you stuff that you could have found out for yourself, just by reading earlier posts in this thread. So rather than 'blind, intolerant and misinformed' I'd go for 'lazy and provocative'.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Okay. This woman strikes me as wannabe-Muslim who has found that Islam does not fit with her principles/lifestyles and has decided to try and bend and twist it to suit her needs. This is fine, but, as soon as she does this, she forfeits her right to call herself a Muslim and her 'religion' can no longer be considered Islam.

Hrm, that sounds remarkably like what Islamic extremists are doing, doesn't it?

You're quick to denounce her as not being Islamic, but can we then say that anyone who uses Islam to subjagate women (clearly not an Islamic principal) is no longer a Muslim?

How about governments like Iran that twist and distort Islam? What about the severe form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia, where women aren't even allowed to drive?

Seems if you're going to call this woman "not a Muslim" for saying there needs to be a reformation, there's even more of a case to be made that Saudi Arabia can be considered "not Muslim" -- which would really perplex people who consider it to be the center of "true Islam"

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Once again, if she questions the authenticity of the Quran she can't call herself a muslim. The Quran is open to interpretation and discussion. However here, this woman questions whether it is the final word of God.

That's just it -- the problem is that the Koran can be interpreted in many ways, and has been, and continues to be.

She would appear to be saying here, that it is the Muslims that ail Islam! Rather it should be, what is it that ails some of the nations and people who claim to be doing something in according to islam?

I'd agree with that -- however, we're talking about a large number of nations, and an equally large number of people. In that sense, Islam has become hijacked and distorted on a grand scale, and I applaud her efforts at reforming it and taking the religion back.

This is just damn right blasphemous. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did nothing of the sort. Islam has never taught any hatred toward Jews, this is something she has wrongfully pinned to Islam and to the most highly regarded Prophet.

Do you believe that there is a large amount of hatred/suspicion towards Jews among Muslims? I'd say there is, given how willing so many Muslims were willing to believe that the Jews were responsible for 9/11. How can this be explained? Is it simple lack of education? Victims of their state-controlled media? Too used to Jews being made a scapegoat by politicians who want to give their people a focus for their anger?

Just a couple of things. There is plenty more to pick up on. I shall do this at a later date.
I have nothing against people speaking their minds. I am entitled to my opinion just as much as she is. But in my view, she is seriously misguided as to what Islam actually is about. It seems to me that she is trying to tailor make the religion to suit her views, that is not right.

Yes, she appears to be doing exactly what many Muslim countries have done, and all of the Muslim extremists have done. At least what she's doing is not condoning the killing of others, or blaming other people for the problems in the Islamic world, as they do with such frequency (and you have done, blaming Islamic terrorists and their actions on "The West")

[moki]

Originally posted by christ:
Any US TV channel that painted Muslims in a sympathetic light would be boycotted as 'unAmerican'. Therefore they won't. Therfore they reinforce the stereotype.

This is both ridiculous, and untrue. There have been countless specials on various news channels, the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, etc, etc. that do very much paint Muslims in a sympathetic and good light.

Indeed, take a look at the current issue of The Economist, or the current issue of National Geographic. Surprise, surprise, they both have major articles on Islam/Islamic countries, and they are both quite informative, objective, and positive.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by moki:
Hrm, that sounds remarkably like what Islamic extremists are doing, doesn't it?

Yup, sounds to me like a similar slippery slope.

How about governments like Iran that twist and distort Islam? What about the severe form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia, where women aren't even allowed to drive?

You're getting it backwards here. I agree with you about SA, but it is obvious that you know very little about Iran. I never liked Komehini or his ideas, but you can't ignore the huge improvements that are taking place there now. The Sharia is interpreted in a modern, more humane way, women have tangible rights - some are government officials, etc. Clearly it is not ideal yet - but it is also not what many here depict it as being - it is by far more 'liberal' and 'progressive' than most Gulf states.

That's just it -- the problem is that the Koran can be interpreted in many ways, and has been, and continues to be.

You think that is the problem? Please elaborate.

Do you believe that there is a large amount of hatred/suspicion towards Jews among Muslims?

There is, mainly because of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Don't forget that for over a millennium Jews fled from persecution in Christian countries into Muslim ones, where they were respected as human beings and could thrive. That demonstrates that there is nothing inherently anti-semitic in Islam - on the contrary.

Moki - let's forget that woman, OK? You have here progressive, modern muslims that do not accept her ideas - she urges an Islamic reformation that begins in the West. To me and others she is the prototype of the dogmatic left that wants to impose her 'western' views to others.
There are many muslim voices that don't get the same amount of publicity, yet promote constructive debate. We should listen to them - which will be very difficult as long the mainstream media proposes us OBL and Irshad Manji as the 'two faces of Islam'.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by moki:
This is both ridiculous, and untrue. There have been countless specials on various news channels, the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, etc, etc. that do very much paint Muslims in a sympathetic and good light.

Indeed, take a look at the current issue of The Economist, or the current issue of National Geographic. Surprise, surprise, they both have major articles on Islam/Islamic countries, and they are both quite informative, objective, and positive.

Sure - but that is not where the majority gets their information from. Many 'popular' news outlet publish islamophobic garbage such as this - and the ever-present 'war on terror' updates.

[moki]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Moki - let's forget that woman, OK? You have here progressive, modern muslims that do not accept her ideas

hrm, I don't find someone who blames "The West" for all Islamic terrorists to be particularly progressive -- I find it rather disturbing, actually.

That kind of rampant scapegoating is dangerous, and quite disingenuous as well.

[Logic]

1.

2.

3. Lets be fair here, OK? Lets take a look at how the tolerant west has spoken about Islam and how the morally superior west has denounced their religious leaders and condemned their ignorant remarks, shall we?

Defaming Islam

Christian Leaders' Remarks Against Islam Spark Backlash


I could go on and on but I won't. Where is the condemnation by Bush? Where are all the denouncements of these men?

Would it be fair of me to claim that this view is what most in the western world support? Would it be fair if I claimed that Christianity is in need of reformation? Would it be fair that I want these people cast out of our society? Or would it perhaps be fair if I just tried to inform the western world that Islam is not what you are tought? Just as it would be fair that you say that these views are not ones that are tolerated in the west?

I'll say it once again, this thread has proven again and again that education is needed in the west. This thread has proven again and again that the west has become islamophobic. And who do we have to "thank" for that? Not only OBL and other terrorist leaders but also the ignorance of the west and the very insulting remarks by some of the wests religious and political leaders.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
That's just it -- the problem is that the Koran can be interpreted in many ways, and has been, and continues to be.

You seem to be saying here, if I understand correctly, that perhaps the Qur'an should not be open to interpretation. I disagree. It must be able to develop over time. Let me give a slightly abstract, but still a relevant comparison; The American Constitution. A document that has lasted well over 200 years and yet is still an extremely relevant document in American society. This is precisely because it is open to interpretation and is flexible enough to develop with time. Now back to the Qu'ran, the terrorists are using it's word or 'interpreting' it to suit their agenda. Because you feel this is wide spread, you therefore believe Islam needs to be reformed? why? Why should the whole religion be changed to suit those that have distorted it's true teachings for their own gain? Why can't we go back to those mistreating it and solve it from there? To refer to my comparison again. The constitution, amongst other things, lays down all the rights for the citizens. When someone commits murder that infringes on the rights of the victim and thus goes against the Constitutional laws. But, does that mean we now have to go back and change the words of the Constitution? of course not, in fact it hasn't been amended too much considering how long it has been there. Instead, governments sometimes to go to the roots and tackle the causes of crime such as by introducing initiatives that keep people of the streets and in the schools, for example.

In short the Qu'ran must be allowed to develop with time. It is up to us (muslims) to ensure that the true word of God is not lost and that the foundations of Islam are not lost. Like I have said, there is much condemnation of these acts by the real muslims, but it is not getting enough attention in the mainstream media. Condemnation alone regardless, is not enough to solve the problem. Reforming Islam is too dangerous, the author of the article you linked to demonstrates this. Because her suggestions throw the founding principles of Islam straight out of the window. Muslims have a duty to ensure that the true word of God is maintained, this must be done by being a lot more outspoken about why what these terrorists are doing is wrong, with clear and continuous references to what parts of the Qu'ran are being misinterpreted and correcting that-here is where I would agree with you that at the moment this is not happening on a grand enough scale. Simple condemnation that you have suggested, is not enough to solve the problem. You like to pin to me now that I think the only problem is 'the West'. That is untrue. It is not the only problem but it is an important part of it. To deny that would be rather disingenuous.

Originally posted by moki:
At least what she's doing is not condoning the killing of others, or blaming other people for the problems in the Islamic world, as they do with such frequency (and you have done, blaming Islamic terrorists and their actions on "The West")

A rather simplistic outlook, as if you are saying 'Ah well I'm not muslim, so who cares if the religion becomes totally incoherent, just as long as killing people stops' Of course work is needed in stopping the use of the Qu'ran in legitimising attacks, but a type of reform in which the whole principles of Islam are thrown out of the window is not acceptable either.
Whilst I am still quite iffy about where these people are going. Some of their articles, in particular about approaching the gay issue, are very agreeable IMHO.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Hrm, that sounds remarkably like what Islamic extremists are doing, doesn't it?

Yes - but I don't think we should send the marines after her just yet.

You're quick to denounce her as not being Islamic, but can we then say that anyone who uses Islam to subjagate women (clearly not an Islamic principal) is no longer a Muslim?

Yes, you can. I would.

How about governments like Iran that twist and distort Islam? What about the severe form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia, where women aren't even allowed to drive?

Yes - but see kvm's note about Iran - it's not quite as clear cut as you are making it.

Seems if you're going to call this woman "not a Muslim" for saying there needs to be a reformation, there's even more of a case to be made that Saudi Arabia can be considered "not Muslim" -- which would really perplex people who consider it to be the center of "true Islam"

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said calling for reformation makes her "not a muslim". In order to call yourself a Muslim you have to subscribe to the teachings and philosophy of Islam - which she refuses to do. Her choice of lifestyle prevents her acceptance as a Muslim - her call for 'reformation'/demolition appears to be an attempt to warp Islam to accommodate herself.

That said, many aspects of Saudi Arabian culture/law can and should be considered un-Islamic. If there is to be any sort of reformation it should be in making these violations known to the wider world and bringing them to an end - perhaps through regime change. But, somehow, I don't think the US will be a great proponent of 'Operation Saudi Freedom'.

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
Christian Leaders' Remarks Against Islam Spark Backlash


I could go on and on but I won't. Where is the condemnation by Bush? Where are all the denouncements of these men?

Bush stated over and over again that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the quarrel was not with Muslims. What more do you want?

Would it be fair of me to claim that this view is what most in the western world support? Would it be fair if I claimed that Christianity is in need of reformation?

Absolutely it would be fair; I'd be fine with that. People view those preachers as a joke, and they HAVE been denounced by religious leaders in the western world over and over again, and Islam has been defended by them.

I'll say it once again, this thread has proven again and again that education is needed in the west. This thread has proven again and again that the west has become islamophobic.

I really don't think that's a fair assumption to draw. I don't think that this thread has "proven" anything except that there are problems on every side of the fence, and that people are most likely to blame the guy on the other side than they are to blame themselves.

We've seen that from everyone here; the difference is in degrees. You've been well, erm, "logical" about most of it -- the kitten has been more on the side of simply scapegoating and blaming "The West"

Regardless, I will say it again: I think Islamic extremists are a big problem, and I think their greatest threat is to Muslims. It would thus behoove the Islamic world to take care of the problem, but I suppose it will happen one way or another eventually anyway.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You seem to be saying here, if I understand correctly, that perhaps the Qur'an should not be open to interpretation.

No, I am not saying that. Of course it should be open to interpretation, I'm merely stating that there is no "right" and no "wrong" -- the Islamic whackjobs who like blowing themselves and others up in the name of Allah feel they are being extremely Islamic, and they would likely say that you are wrong in your interpretation.

Like I have said, there is much condemnation of these acts by the real muslims, but it is not getting enough attention in the mainstream media.

Forgive me, but I'm not partial to conspiracy theories. There are numerous media outlets available to people in the US, and I'm simply not seeing these widespread condemnations. It is being done, but it is not enough.

I don't think the "evil neo-cons" are controlling things. I don't think the "evil west" is the cause of all Islamic terrorists. I don't think there is a vast media conspiracy that is attempting to defame Islam.

I find all of these notions to be simplistic, and scapegoating. Let's address the issues here.

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:
Bush stated over and over again that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the quarrel was not with Muslims. What more do you want?

Hold on a sec. IIRC all leaders of predominantly muslim nations condemned the 9/11 attacks except SH. Still you are saying that there needs to be a more public denouncement of the terrorists. Now when I bring up something a Christian leader says out of ignorance you claim it is enough that Bush says the quarrel is not with Muslims? Shouldn't the same apply for both? Or are Americans held to another standard than the rest of the world? According to your "theory" Bush should publicly condemn these comments made by these religious leaders. All religious leaders(christian that is) should make sure they get heared and condemn these comments. The ordinary Christians should make sure he can't make these comments without getting the condemnation they deserve. The same should spply to both.

Absolutely it would be fair; I'd be fine with that. People view those preachers as a joke, and they HAVE been denounced by religious leaders in the western world over and over again, and Islam has been defended by them.

I haven't heard it so I think they need to do more. See, how these comments you have made in this thread don't make any sense when they are directed at you(Christians/americans/us the western world). And if people think they are a joke, why do they elect presidents who are personal friends of these men? And no it isn't fair that I would demand that Christians would turn over their whole system of belief just because I don't agree with it. Just as it isn't fair that you demand a reformation of Islam just because you don't like what some "muslims" do.

I really don't think that's a fair assumption to draw. I don't think that this thread has "proven" anything except that there are problems on every side of the fence, and that people are most likely to blame the guy on the other side than they are to blame themselves.

We've seen that from everyone here; the difference is in degrees. You've been well, erm, "logical" about most of it -- the kitten has been more on the side of simply scapegoating and blaming "The West"

Regardless, I will say it again: I think Islamic extremists are a big problem, and I think their greatest threat is to Muslims. It would thus behoove the Islamic world to take care of the problem, but I suppose it will happen one way or another eventually anyway.

There is little in that I disagree with except that about lbk. Islamic extremist are a problem that should be taken care of. But that is not the same as saying that Islam needs a reformation. If you would have claimed that from the beginning I don't think anyone would have disagreed with you. Well perhaps about how big of a problem it is but I doubt we would have had to go through these many pages to sort it out.

And since this thread was about Islam and not countries that are predominantly muslim this thread has shown exactly what I said. When people hear Islam they think of terrorists, subjugation of women and human rights violations. That is why a thread like this is needed. To show that none of this has anything to do with Islam, but the people who use Islam for their own agendas.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
I don't think the "evil neo-cons" are controlling things. I don't think the "evil west" is the cause of all Islamic terrorists. I don't think there is a vast media conspiracy that is attempting to defame Islam.

I find all of these notions to be simplistic, and scapegoating. Let's address the issues here.

This is becoming a joke. 'Evil neo-cons', 'evil west'.
Once again, because it seems you still don't understand...even after 4 pages. I do not place sole blame on the neo-cons nor the West. The perpetrators, as I have said are also responsible for their actions, the countries in which they are living in are also cause for concern. Here is the difference, I can accept there are problems on both the East and West side. You can't. In fact you cite America as 'the greatest'.

Address the issues? I have been, despite you taking this issue off topic at times. You should take your own advice.

[Logic]

Just thought I should bump this thread so that the ignorant can read up on what Islam is about. Not what others claim it is about.

[LeftHandedMiddleChild]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Well firstly, I really wish you would stop totally ignoring the points I am making in my posts.



No-but I also think it is unfair to compare, because we are dealing with two totally different cultures here. Why should Islamic countries be compared to the West? Who makes that decision. Why should the two be compared? Is the West some kind of 'role model'? because I can think of so many examples of Western culture that I find terrible. This question actually makes me angry......



Yes.



Yes



No-but not for the reasons you have stated.

So many questions, so little battery power left in my laptop. I shall elaborate in due course.
Not that I have much of a desire to do so since you are not prepared to open your mind up to an explanation.: much like yourself stick: