[Hawkeye_a]

Why would i want to find proof to back up your rather outrageous claim ?

Ill make a deal with you, i beleive unicorns minotaurs and vampires exist(in reality). if you goto google and find proof and read up on it, ill read up on your claim. agreed ?(sarcasm...of course)

Burdeon of proof falls on you. No one here has corroborated to your claim and u cant even get the dates right. Get your facts straight by reading up on the matter before making such claims and asking us to find proof for you.

Cheers

[goMac]

Here's a darn good start for you:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...3F&btnG=Search

Read and think, it'll do you some good.

Here's an even better link:
http://www.arabworldbooks.com/biblio...lexandrina.htm

The moral of the story, Christians destroy the library because they claim it's pagan, and then they try and blame it on the Muslims (which you can find with just a bit more research).

If you'd like to dispute a claim you're also welcome to research against it. I did present the Wikipedia entry.

[Hawkeye_a]

I will enlighten myself shortly.

Cheers

[Y3a]

so the Taliban didn't actually destroy the temples either, it must have been the Christians...

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Y3a

so the Taliban didn't actually destroy the temples either, it must have been the Christians...

No no no. the fact that our forefather(centuries ago) might have done things we arent exactly proud of, gives, groups like the Taliban justification to do the same in this day and age (in the name of religion).

Also, i think i can finally articulate what ive been trying to say through this thread.

Muslims(at least the ones in here) claim the Quaran and Islam is "perfect". My rebutal is:
How can it be perfect when it leaves itself open to such interpretations that the Taliban, Al Quadea and JI(Indonesia) and Hammas seem to abide by TODAY? in particular this notion of "Jihad". Surely even making a reservation to goto war isnt something a "holy" text should contain in a first place, unless it condones killing of others. Therefore, how can the Quaran unabridged and not translated (interpreted in any which way) be any better than any of the other world religions, that for the most part, condem killing of any kind ?

Also heard on the BBC that Budhists MONKS have become the target of muslim extremists and rebels in the south of Thailand. Add that to your list of Kashmir, E.Timor, Bosnia, Israel, Cyprus, Chechnya, Bali and Kurdishstan. Thats just a fact, you have these people "interpreting" the Quaran in such a dangerous way, and the fact that the Quaran leaves itself open to such interpretations...just makes it an imperfect document (like any other) to me.

Cheers

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

No no no. the fact that our forefather(centuries ago) might have done things we arent exactly proud of, gives, groups like the Taliban justification to do the same in this day and age (in the name of religion).

Also, i think i can finally articulate what ive been trying to say through this thread.

Muslims(at least the ones in here) claim the Quaran and Islam is "perfect". My rebutal is:
How can it be perfect when it leaves itself open to such interpretations that the Taliban, Al Quadea and JI(Indonesia) and Hammas seem to abide by TODAY? in particular this notion of "Jihad". Surely even making a reservation to goto war isnt something a "holy" text should contain in a first place, unless it condones killing of others. Therefore, how can the Quaran unabridged and not translated (interpreted in any which way) be any better than any of the other world religions, that for the most part, condem killing of any kind ?

Also heard on the BBC that Budhists MONKS have become the target of muslim extremists and rebels in the south of Thailand. Add that to your list of Kashmir, E.Timor, Bosnia, Israel, Cyprus, Chechnya, Bali and Kurdishstan. Thats just a fact, you have these people "interpreting" the Quaran in such a dangerous way, and the fact that the Quaran leaves itself open to such interpretations...just makes it an imperfect document (like any other) to me.

Cheers

Most Muslims don't claim Islam is perfect. Yes, according to their religion the Quaran is perfect. That doesn't mean any additional texts written by extremists are.

Jihad does not mean go to war. The Quaran says this. Seems the Quaran already recognizes this problem.

People aren't misinterpreting the Quaran. They are referring to documents written after the Quaran that are not part of the texts.

[Hawkeye_a]

Ok. but thats just it. how do you explaina ll this conflict and all these extremists who target civilians delibrately ?

Look at the world today, look at all the conflicts....including those involving the U.S. Most if not all the conflicts involve muslims (im sad to say). Obviously there's a common element thats causing all this animosity against the west(US, Europe, Australia) and the East(Hindus, Budhists, Russian). So whats the motivating and distinguishing factor here ? lets narrow it down.

Economics ? Social ? Military ? But the extremists claim releigion. if it was about money or resources, etc they'd be a lot more extremists out there who arent Muslim.

So whats the best explination you can come up with ? seriously....given all the conflicts in the world today.... whats the explination ? and whats at the root of that ?

Cheers

(At this point...im open to a discussion...but thats my analysis of the current state of affairs and the apparent conclusion i have managed to come up with, given some the logic i have outlined above)

[goMac]

The problem is the extremists aren't real Muslims. A lot of people on these boards like to pretend they are to make their arguments sound better, but they aren't. They've added their own material to Islam.

In the same way, you wouldn't say that Christians are really Jews. Christianity came from Judaism. The earliest Christians may have even called themselves Jews, but they weren't. They had different teachings and believes. In the same way the Muslim extremists aren't really Muslim.

The Arabs have never historically stood out in respect to war. Most of the time, when they took over an area, after the initial war it was very peaceful (for example, the Arab invasion of India hasn't turned out that badly, India has been pretty stable for over 2000 years). Compare the Arabs to say.... the Romans... the Greeks... or the Egyptians, and historically they look pretty small fry.

Right now the reason they are so active is because of Israel and Palestine. American and the European powers did go in after World War II and kick the Arabs out of Isreal for the most part. So now they see everything they do as an act of defense against the "meddling" western powers. They're more paranoid then they were, and I hate to say it, but we started this whole mess. Arabs I think are worried that their country will be next after Palestine, and the whole taking over Iraq too thing didn't exactly prove them wrong.

[vmarks]

You're stating that American and European troops went to Israel and forcibly removed Arabs? Have you that poor a grasp on history as to believe in fiction?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

(for example, the Arab invasion of India hasn't turned out that badly, India has been pretty stable for over 2000 years)

Seriously....are u living in a fantasy world ?

The largest forced migration ever happened when Pakistan, India and Bangladesh were formed. read up on it. or watch 'Ghandi'. Also read up on the exodous of Zorastrians from Persias(modern day Iran).

And as per your definition of 'real' and 'fake' muslims and christians and jews.....what are you on about ? if you expect this discussion to have any basis whatsoever making a distinction between a true 'muslim' a true 'christian' or a true 'jew' cannot exists. if it were that easy....all the cases where Christians and jews are to blame, they arent really 'Christians' or 'jews' either.

I cant have a reasonable discussion with you if thats the strategy your going to use to make ur point.

Also if you want to talk civilizations from millenia ago, well we as humans havent changed much. But im talking in respect of our world TODAY.

And as far as Israel, from what ive read(from unbiased sources) Jewish ppl were immigrating to that general area and as a community decided to form a state given the atroticities of WWII. Seeing as it their ancestoral home, they had every right to and still do. thats my opinion.

But as far as the world TODAY and all it's civilizations....the muslim world seems to be at odds with everyone else...that would lead me to deduce there's a common element in that community thats causing the conflict. i beleive it's the notion of 'Jihad'.....however you interpret it.

Im not attacking the entire community, i KNOW most people no matter what religion they follow or community they belong to want peace. But it seems as though this notion of 'Jihad' is whats causing so many to turn to the 'dark side' and disrupt peace all oveer the planet. Instead of having clerics 'denouce' islamic terrorists, i feel they aught to change that whole notion or define it more thuroughly to avoid such extreme interpretions. MAYBE that could lead to fewer wars, and some stabiulity ? Bu thats just my opinion...

EDIT>> The Arabs invaded India ? when ? i thought Islam was brought to India by the Moguls(spell?)

[Super Glitcher]

Originally Posted by goMac

The problem is the extremists aren't real Muslims. A lot of people on these boards like to pretend they are to make their arguments sound better, but they aren't. They've added their own material to Islam.

What's a Real Muslim believe then? I think as far as their perspectives on
Israel and the Jews you won't see any difference. Only in individuals.. ones
who believe and ones tied to materials.

Originally Posted by goMac

In the same way, you wouldn't say that Christians are really Jews. Christianity came from Judaism. The earliest Christians may have even called themselves Jews, but they weren't. They had different teachings and believes. In the same way the Muslim extremists aren't really Muslim.

A Christian would never claim to be Jewish. I don't think anyone would
confuse them, it's a very clear seperation in the belief that Jesus was the first
coming of the Messiah. Jews believe he was not.

And to my knowledge, early Christians never called themselves Jew unless you
are confusing the religion with the nationality (there's a difference, there are many
Christian Jews).

Originally Posted by goMac

Right now the reason they are so active is because of Israel and Palestine. American and the European powers did go in after World War II and kick the Arabs out of Isreal for the most part. So now they see everything they do as an act of defense against the "meddling" western powers. They're more paranoid then they were, and I hate to say it, but we started this whole mess. Arabs I think are worried that their country will be next after Palestine, and the whole taking over Iraq too thing didn't exactly prove them wrong.

We didn't start anything - and the Palestine homeland thing I believe is
just a sherade to keep the publics eye off of the real Islamic motive.
If it's really only about the palestinians having a home - why couldn't
one the f'ing huge Arab countries donate some land to them?? Hmmm,
maybe because they are Islamic? Maybe because it's a good hand to play
to get Jews out of Israel?? You tell me...

Israel became a nation in 1300 b.c., that's what, 2000 years before
the inception of Islam? Whose got deeper roots?

Arabs rule over 13 MILLION sq. kilometers of land in 21 countries while Israel
occupies only 20,000 km. If you can count, that's 649 fold. The population
difference is 49 fold.

I hardly think that Arabs are paranoid about losing land. Arabs have a home
without Israel, Jews don't. It's a religious war, to say otherwise is to save face
or be delusional. The push againt America is because we are the only thing
standing in the way. As long as there are Jews in Israel, this will continue.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

if it were that easy....all the cases where Christians and jews are to blame, they arent really 'Christians' or 'jews' either.

That's the point.

Originally Posted by Super Glitcher

why couldn't
one the f'ing huge Arab countries donate some land to them??

Because just like Germans are Germans, Brits are Brits, Iraqis are Iraqis, and Iranians are Iranians the Palestinians are Palestinians.

But you are repeating the typical rhetoric of forcing a population away from their own land. As long as it's Arabs/Muslims you are OK with that. For Jews there's a different set of rules apparently.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

The problem is the extremists aren't real Muslims. A lot of people on these boards like to pretend they are to make their arguments sound better, but they aren't. They've added their own material to Islam.

(...)

Right now the reason they are so active is because of Israel and Palestine. American and the European powers did go in after World War II and kick the Arabs out of Isreal for the most part. So now they see everything they do as an act of defense against the "meddling" western powers. They're more paranoid then they were, and I hate to say it, but we started this whole mess. Arabs I think are worried that their country will be next after Palestine, and the whole taking over Iraq too thing didn't exactly prove them wrong.

So, who is it that truly speaks so loudly for the real Muslim that he can make us ignore OBL?

Who is it that represents the moderate Muslim so unmistakably that we can recognize him from the "radical" who purports to lead the religion?

If we were to imagine a figurative dinner setting to get to know the major players in today's WoT who would we see?

Looking around the table we have GWB and Tony Blair and their followers representing the coalition. Yes, the INFIDELS and GREAT SATANS have made themselves known and have been seated and recognized.

Next, there are the Israelis, the Junior Satans.

Then, of course there is OBL and the violent Muslims, who YOU call the radical Muslims.

Followed by the Palestinians, who can't be seen as being that far removed from the radical category.

Another party to this gathering, which can't be ignored because of their determined efforts to speak out against the perceived wrongs of their OWN leadership, make their point of view or wishes known and to affect the dynamics of the conflict is called the progressives or American and Western European left-wing progressives/liberals. (For the sake of identification these are the enemy of the radical Muslims because they are INFIDELS!!! And they are enemies to the Infidels because they help empower the radical violent Muslims.)

Next to them there is a chair and a place setting for the "REAL" Muslims or MODERATE Muslims. But there is no one sitting there. If there is someone there they appear to be strangely absent, missing, invisible, moot or perhaps they're just demonstrating their characteristic submission so well as to make them effectively absent.

As much as I dislike saying it, when it comes having made a better case of being a real group worth mentioning and recognizing, the liberal/progressive/left have AT LEAST represented the ideal challenge issued by JFK, to "stand up and be counted."

They have risked making THEIR voices heard.

But the world only sees a place setting at the table for the moderate or "real" Muslims. Yet, EVERYONE speaks of them as an entity SEPARATE from the radical Muslims the OBL's and al Qaeda, Hamas and Fatah.

But until and UNLESS they do speak up or stand up and make themselves known, and try to take back their religion which has been as successfully co-opted - as OBL successfully weaved his organization to be part and parcel of the ultra conservative Islamic Afghan government called the Taliban - that we should and from now on WILL consider real Islam to be represented by the RADICALS.

For the sake of any further discussions on these pages AFAIK, there IS no difference between OBL and moderate Islam.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Column...f-1138956.html

Wed, July 20, 2005

The myth of the 'moderate' Muslim

By SALIM MANSUR

Since at least Sept. 11, 2001, the non-Muslim world at large has been waiting for that segment of the Muslim population designated as "moderate" to resolutely denounce terrorists who, in defiling its faith-tradition, have subverted Islam into a cult of death.

The expectation there is a large, identifiable segment of "moderate" Muslims is a transposition to the Muslim world of the idea of "moderation" in politics and religion that sustains democracies.

It is also a natural expectation that the sort of extremism associated with "jihadi" (war-mongering) politics of Muslim terrorism and suicide bombings would generate a counter-offensive by "moderate" Muslims, repudiating such violence and isolating extremists politically and socially, while supporting the global war on terror.

But this has not happened. On the contrary, as atrocities mount, Muslims generally have remained -- their private anguish aside --publicly complacent, and their religious leaders divided on what should be the proper Islamic response.

There has been no spontaneous or organized demonstration of Muslims across the Arab-Muslim world, nor in European or North American cities where Muslims reside in increasing numbers, in support of victims of such terror and in unqualified condemnation of extremists who exploit Islam for their criminal purposes.

Dissension among Muslim religious leaders on whether to condemn terrorism and suicide bombings -- and the absence of any effort by the Muslim majority to express its disgust with extremism -- invariably lead to ques-tioning the nature of Islam by non-Muslims.

Instead of witnessing "moderate" Muslims resolutely taking back their faith-tradition from extremists and murderers, the world has grown numb to endless apologetics and polemics explaining away "jihadi" politics as a misguided, though inexcusable, response to the wrongs inflicted upon Muslims by the West.

The truth is there does not exist an identifiable body of Muslims, substantive in number or an outright majority, who could be described as "moderate" by their repudiation of Muslim extremists.

Violence has been an integral part of Muslim history, irrespective of whether it is sanctioned by Islam, and Muslims who unhesitatingly use violence to advance their political ambitions have created a climate within their faith-culture that any Muslim who questions such practice is then deemed apostate and subject to harm.

Consequently, what might pass for "moderate" Muslims, the large number of Muslims unaccounted for as to what they think, in practical terms constitute a forest within which extremists are incubated, nurtured, given ideological and material support, and to which they return for sanctuary.

Moreover, since there is little experience of democracy within the Arab-Muslim world, the culture of "moderation" remains practically non-existent.

Though the example of Saudi Arabia -- where "mutawwa," or religious police, herd Muslims to their daily religious obligations -- might be considered untypical, it provides the model of authoritarian practice of faith and politics in Muslim societies where dissent is frowned upon and where opposition runs the risk of being branded as seditious.

But there are Muslims who, at great risks to themselves, unapologetically condemn the culture of violence Muslims have bred for extremists among them to exploit.

They work alone, or in small groups of like-minded Muslims, despite being maligned and ostracized by fellow Muslims, to dissect and expose Muslim extremism to the world at large while striving against immense difficulties to keep faith in the ideals of Islam.

Their effort, irrespective of any effect in advancing Muslim reformation, remains real, while "moderate" Muslims being nowhere to be found confirm their existence is a myth until proven otherwise.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Next to them there is a chair and a place setting for the "REAL" Muslims or MODERATE Muslims. But there is no one sitting there. If there is someone there they appear to be strangely absent, missing, invisible, moot or perhaps they're just demonstrating their characteristic submission so well as to make them effectively absent.

Or if you would know the least about Islam you would know that we have no religious leaders. There is no pope in Islam. Just elected (scary huh?) mosque leaders (also known as Imams). Some are more respected than others but for Muslims the only real religious authority is the Quran. But you would know this if you were really interested in understanding Islam instead of spending most of your time vilifying it and it's followers.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Seriously....are u living in a fantasy world ?

The largest forced migration ever happened when Pakistan, India and Bangladesh were formed. read up on it. or watch 'Ghandi'. Also read up on the exodous of Zorastrians from Persias(modern day Iran).

And as per your definition of 'real' and 'fake' muslims and christians and jews.....what are you on about ? if you expect this discussion to have any basis whatsoever making a distinction between a true 'muslim' a true 'christian' or a true 'jew' cannot exists. if it were that easy....all the cases where Christians and jews are to blame, they arent really 'Christians' or 'jews' either.

I cant have a reasonable discussion with you if thats the strategy your going to use to make ur point.

Also if you want to talk civilizations from millenia ago, well we as humans havent changed much. But im talking in respect of our world TODAY.

And as far as Israel, from what ive read(from unbiased sources) Jewish ppl were immigrating to that general area and as a community decided to form a state given the atroticities of WWII. Seeing as it their ancestoral home, they had every right to and still do. thats my opinion.

But as far as the world TODAY and all it's civilizations....the muslim world seems to be at odds with everyone else...that would lead me to deduce there's a common element in that community thats causing the conflict. i beleive it's the notion of 'Jihad'.....however you interpret it.

Im not attacking the entire community, i KNOW most people no matter what religion they follow or community they belong to want peace. But it seems as though this notion of 'Jihad' is whats causing so many to turn to the 'dark side' and disrupt peace all oveer the planet. Instead of having clerics 'denouce' islamic terrorists, i feel they aught to change that whole notion or define it more thuroughly to avoid such extreme interpretions. MAYBE that could lead to fewer wars, and some stabiulity ? Bu thats just my opinion...

EDIT>> The Arabs invaded India ? when ? i thought Islam was brought to India by the Moguls(spell?)

What? Ghandi wasn't alive when the Arabs invaded India. That was over 2000 years before Ghandi was born. Do you know what you're talking about?

Islam didn't exist when the Arabs invaded India. Instead they brought the religion that would turn into Hinduism. Islam has never really existed in India.

And no, the people who say, burned the library of Alexandria weren't acting as Christians. You got my point. In the same respect the people who are Muslim Extremists aren't really Muslims at all.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

So, who is it that truly speaks so loudly for the real Muslim that he can make us ignore OBL?

Uhhhh... You do realize that Christianity is one of the only religions in the world with an appointed leader. You ignore OBL with this thing in your head. It's called a brain. It's supposed to help you filter things. If Osama Bin ladin is crazy enough to blow up buildings, he's probably not sane enough to talk about Islam either. If you're smart you've figured this out already.

Why do you need someone to tell you what real Islam is? And since when have you cared? Von Wrangell again and again tries to tell you and you always either ignore him or flame in response.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Or if you would know the least about Islam you would know that we have no religious leaders. There is no pope in Islam. Just elected (scary huh?) mosque leaders (also known as Imams). Some are more respected than others but for Muslims the only real religious authority is the Quran. But you would know this if you were really interested in understanding Islam instead of spending most of your time vilifying it and it's followers.

You know what logic, you are right. I just want to say that my experience arguing with you has definately affected my views. Yes, I continue with my troll ways, but for the most part, I have learned a lot from you...really.

But don't you thnk that a more respected Imam would qualify as a leader if his teachings influence the actions of muslims, whether moderate, liberal, or super fanatic?

If yo look at Christianity, people tend to call Pat Robertson and the likes, Christian leaders, but when it comes down to it, he isn't an elected pope type, an official of any kind. He is just a minister with a big church, tv show, a big mouth (although I like PR) and followers.

What is the difference.

[Super Glitcher]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

But you are repeating the typical rhetoric of forcing a population away from their own land. As long as it's Arabs/Muslims you are OK with that. For Jews there's a different set of rules apparently.

Ha!

How hypocritical can you get?

You are presuming that there is an actual Arab nation known as Palestine
that was removed from their land. You should read up on your history pal.

The 'actual' region known as Palestine when it was transferred to British rule
from the Turks in 1917 includes modern day Jordan as well as Israel.
Populated by both Jews and Arabs, they were referred to as 'Palestinians'.
So technically speaking, Jews are as much Palestinian as your Arab Palestinians.
That being, there is quite a bit more of 'Palestine' currently under Arab rule
than there is under Jewish rule. Jordan is a much larger country than Israel,
and has historically had a higher population. If an Arab Palestinian state
belongs anywhere, it should be Jordan.

There never has been an actual country known as Palestine, there is no
Palestinian language and there is no unique Palestinian culture. What you
would say are 'Palestinians' are indistinguishable from modern day Arabs.
Even the late Arafat wasn't 'Palestinian', he was Eqyptian.

Like I said man, Arab nations have plenty of land. This refugee thing is
all the Arabs have going for them in the quest to destroy the only Jewish
state, Israel. The Jews have had their roots in Israel for 3,700 years and
you're going to overlook that for the 'Palestinians'?
The "Palestinian Covenent" wasn't even written until 1964.

[Super Glitcher]

Originally Posted by goMac

Uhhhh... You do realize that Christianity is one of the only religions in the world with an appointed leader.

Uhhhh...

There is, and never has been a person or institution between a Christian and God.

There is only man and God.

Where do you get information like that?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Or if you would know the least about Islam you would know that we have no religious leaders. There is no pope in Islam. Just elected (scary huh?) mosque leaders (also known as Imams). Some are more respected than others but for Muslims the only real religious authority is the Quran. But you would know this if you were really interested in understanding Islam instead of spending most of your time vilifying it and it's followers.

I'm just stating my interpretation of what I've noticed and what a guy wrote in a newspaper column.

Wed, July 20, 2005

The myth of the 'moderate' Muslim

By SALIM MANSUR

Is HE also a vilifier? The name sounds like he would know better than I would. I yield to his assessment. Heck, he might even know better than YOU?

Nah, that couldn't be.

I have said to you, more than once, that this problem IS THE PROBLEM OF MODERATE ISLAM.

The lack of any central 'authority' I think you'd agree was included in my original post (portions reprinted below).

For ONCE I will invoke the rule about not responding in a personal attack and will ONCE AGAIN direct your focus to the main issue here before the readers of this thread, the same issue which is at the crux of the WoT...

Who is it that allows OBL to represent them?

Dissension among Muslim religious leaders on whether to condemn terrorism and suicide bombings -- and the absence of any effort by the Muslim majority to express its disgust with extremism -- invariably lead to ques-tioning the nature of Islam by non-Muslims.

Instead of witnessing "moderate" Muslims resolutely taking back their faith-tradition from extremists and murderers, the world has grown numb to endless apologetics and polemics explaining away "jihadi" politics as a misguided, though inexcusable, response to the wrongs inflicted upon Muslims by the West.

The truth is there does not exist an identifiable body of Muslims, substantive in number or an outright majority, who could be described as "moderate" by their repudiation of Muslim extremists.

What you are trying to do is demonize anyone who sheds light on things about Islam you'd rather remain obscure or vague.

To use an analogy, if Islam were the science and art of professional magic and you were a magician you would be upset with me and seek to discredit or silence ANY one or any voices that gave away the magician's secrets.

And, I don't do it out of malice, I simply want to remain a Christian and don't want to be forced to choose between conversion to Islam or death.

Convince me, assure me that's not what Islam intends and I will happily desist.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

What? Ghandi wasn't alive when the Arabs invaded India. That was over 2000 years before Ghandi was born. Do you know what you're talking about?

Islam didn't exist when the Arabs invaded India. Instead they brought the religion that would turn into Hinduism. Islam has never really existed in India.

And no, the people who say, burned the library of Alexandria weren't acting as Christians. You got my point. In the same respect the people who are Muslim Extremists aren't really Muslims at all.

Clarification required for me. To me:
Arab = indeginous people of the Arabian peninsular
Babylonian = indeginous ppls of modern day Iraq
Persians = indeginous ppls of modern day Iran
Muslims = inhabitants of the muslim world west-africia to pakistan, former-USSR to Kenya, Indonesia, Brunei, and those living outside.
Now, thats what i learnedfrom livingthere for 16 odd years. i dont know if the rest of the world has a different classification scheme.

I wasnt aware of Arabs invading India. And since this discussion has to do with Islam, how is something that predated Islam relevant ?

I am not attacking the people here, dont you get it. i know we're all the same. We will all take what is afforded to us by our code of conduct to try and further ourselves (economically, etc.) 'Jihad'(or its interpretation) is just giving them an excuse to throw a tantrum, kill ppl and get what they want. Why is there a 'translation' or 'interpretation' barrier ? shouldnt muslim leaders define it and prevent it from being taken in such lethal context ? I think that notion of Jihad has brought more trouble to everyone than it has solved anything. If you ask me, i want to see Muslims the world over persecuting these extremests. Heck we in the free world march against war in vietnam, korea, Iraq, etc,etc....cause we hate it. it's my opinion that the Muslim world is divided when it comes to the extremists. Many support it and many dont. thats where that notion of 'Jihad' needs to be made clear. If the free world can rally behind peace movements why cant the muslim world do the same against those i ntheir communities who want to pursue war/agression ? my answer: Jihad. Get rid of it, change it or have a universal definition of it. Quit hiding behind 'interpretations'....it's done everyone enough harm.

Cheers

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I wasnt aware of Arabs invading India. And since this discussion has to do with Islam, how is something that predated Islam relevant ?

You're trying to say the Middle East was a violent region. My point is, historically before the creation of Isreal, it was not.

[Super Glitcher]

Originally Posted by goMac

You're trying to say the Middle East was a violent region. My point is, historically before the creation of Isreal, it was not.

Well, historically, Israel was created as a 'nation' around 1300 b.c.-
marked by the return of the Jews from Egyptian enslavement.
(they were enslaved for 400 years by Egyptians after fleeing the
land of Canaan because of famine.. however the Jews had occupied
that land for at least 300 years before this- dating back to 2000 b.c.)

It remained Israel, and a peaceful nation until 587 b.c. when it
was conquered by the Babylonians. After which it was consecutively
conquered by the Persians, Greek Hellenistics, Romans and Byzantine
Empires, Islamic and Christian crusaders, Ottoman Empire, and then
finally the British Empire was given control in 1917.

I'm not really sure how you mean to say that the region was
peaceful until Israel was a nation. But am interested to hear.
Also, are you implying an agressive war-like nature to Jews??

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

Uhhhh... You do realize that Christianity is one of the only religions in the world with an appointed leader. You ignore OBL with this thing in your head. It's called a brain. It's supposed to help you filter things. If Osama Bin ladin is crazy enough to blow up buildings, he's probably not sane enough to talk about Islam either. If you're smart you've figured this out already.

Why do you need someone to tell you what real Islam is? And since when have you cared? Von Wrangell again and again tries to tell you and you always either ignore him or flame in response.

This post represents several thoughts simply pieced together and may not represent one unbroken train of thought. I am tired. What can I say?

Are you KIDDING? I have attended services at a Mosque. I have defended followers of Islam from criticism. I have VERRRRY slowly come to this position and even now remain open to learning more because I DO NOT like what I am learning. And yet, I do not attack and insult the Quran or it's followers. Instead, I try to cite passages and articles to support my contentions and/or to solicit greater understanding.

Any salesman will tell you that the greatest objections come from someone who wants to buy.

Anyone who is constantly engaged by this subject does so NOT out of hatred or uncaring.

Ask yourself, why is it that you come here to MacNN. Even though I would think the majority of those you meet here (in the P/L, anyway) are those who are critical of your position and your religion and your pov!

The reason is because, you CARE! You have some feelings for the people here and you WANT them to find the happiness that is inherent in the Islamic 'fold.' You want to influence others to join in your belief.

But what you can't see is that, along WITH the happiness that might go with leading a good Muslim life are the things YOU have no control over and which YOU have submitted to and accepted voluntarily but others do not want and would not accept.

I don't want to be FORCED to submit to these things and it's not in YOUR or VW's power to change the fact that a goal of Islam is world domination. And, if submission isn't voluntary it will be made compulsory.

Nothing you can say will change the Quran. But the Quran DOES advise you to be sneaky in trying to outwit and outmaneuver and throw your adversary off guard and catch him unaware.

And THAT is what I believe is happening here.

SIGH...

goMac, I have read from some of the many Islamic websites and have been impressed by the evidence I have seen where so many people earnestly want to better understand their faith, to grow in their faith and allegiance to the scriptures. To respect and continue the tradition of their fathers and to live their lives simply and with dignity, in peace.

It has softened my heart.

Yet, I have also read passages and articles and interpretations and posts that are, as Salim Mansur writes, "endless apologetics and polemics explaining away "jihadi" politics as a misguided, though inexcusable response to the wrongs inflicted upon Muslims by the West."

And as I sense this undeniable violent force called al Qaeda (which wants me to believe and worship as they do or else die) racing at me and threatening me as well as everything I hold dear, the only thing I have to assuage my fear are mere words from people like you and VW (who have no power to change the Quran but who are instructed by the Quran to try to deceive me) that would tell me I am wrong to be alarmed.

Words that say I am wrong to be concerned. Words that say the warnings I hear and read from so many quarters are simply the words of those who HATE Islam and that THOSE words should be ignored.

And yet you offer silence, misdirection, subterfuge or obfuscation when it comes to the issue of what causes fear or hatred.

Does Mansur or any author start by hating a thing? No. Not from birth. It is a learned or conditioned response that came from teachers.

Do you know who the first person was who taught me to fear Islam? Osama bin Laden.

I didn't believe the blind Sheikh or any of the others' terrorist teachings that I should fear Islam.

But I believed OBL. And yet, I didn't even believe HIS teachings immediately. I had to go through the stages of learning where my FIRST IMPULSE was to DISBELIEVE what he said. And to lean on my PRE-conceptions of what Islam was. (Just as you and many of the left wing/liberal/progressive/Muslims may have leaned on YOUR preconceived notion of what AMERICA is before election day 2004.)

It took awhile and I'm STILL learning but I'm a believer now. He really does want the USA to fall and the remainder of the moderate followers of Islam would do nothing to stop him from achieving his goal.

However, I still entertain the possibility that I MAY be wrong. So, here I am searching for more knowledge and sharing my knowledge with others.

I must say though, that in regards to Islam and OBL and the WoT and moderate (???) Muslims and all, I invoke the doctor's creed, "First, do no harm," but in REVERSE. 'First, do NOT become a victim.'

That's what I am doing here. I am studying and learning, as we all are. But until I am CONVINCED otherwise I must follow my conscience and speak out for the sake of my fellow Americans to tell them what I believe and why.

It is something I wish the MODERATE MUSLIMS would find a way to do.

I do not hate Muslims. I do not hate the religion of Islam. But I believe it has a plan for my country and my way of life and for me that I do not accept. I'd rather there be peace throughout the world (except for on these pages, where I enjoy scrapping). I would like for Christian, Jewish and Muslim and anyone with ANY other religious belief or non-belief to just get along.

However, I have seen too much evidence which indicates the march, the flow, the creep of Islam simply will not stop because it is in the Quran to dominate the world. And we have seen that toward that end, if MODERATE Islam can't or won't stop OBL or the suicide terrorist bombers efforts, that the proposition of whether the West becomes a Islamic state may likely come about, NOT as a ballot referendum, but at the encroaching threat of a bomb blast.

I have read OBL's proclamations. He is a cogent, intelligent man. Many of his indictments of the US are valid. He is sober and serious but not without warmth and a sense of humanity about himself, personally. He is no hypocrite as far as I can see. As an adversary he is to be respected because of his deliberation and thoughtfulness and patience. His ability to persevere, to inspire the masses, near and far, his total dedication to his cause and his own belief and interpretation of scripture.

You don't believe he is a madman. No one who is serious about helping him, stopping him or preventing him from having his way believes he is insane.

And let's be clear. If you can, you would help him. And if I can, I would try to prevent him from having his way.

Neither of us really thinks he is insane.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Heck we in the free world march against war in vietnam, korea, Iraq, etc,etc....cause we hate it. it's my opinion that the Muslim world is divided when it comes to the extremists. Many support it and many dont. thats where that notion of 'Jihad' needs to be made clear. If the free world can rally behind peace movements why cant the muslim world do the same against those i ntheir communities who want to pursue war/agression ? my answer: Jihad. Get rid of it, change it or have a universal definition of it. Quit hiding behind 'interpretations'....it's done everyone enough harm.

Cheers

[segovius]

Re interpretations of Jihad and other issues and 'moderate' Muslims vesrsus 'extremists': the problem is that Islam as a religion in non-dogmatic and does not expound and absolute law. It is as near to fee-thinking and self-creation of belief as you can get in a religion.

One example to prove my point. What does it mean to be a Muslim? What are the prerequisites? There is one - and only one: to subscribe to the shahada.

That is to say: to believe that there is 'No God but God and Muhammad is His Prophet'.

That does not mean there are no beliefs above this but that they differ in interpretation and through different groups such as the Shi'i. The beliefs necessarily are interpretations as no-one can know the mind of God. How can a human know this?

Islam does not as a religion impose strict dogma, there are no priests, no Pope, free thought and criticism was encouraged (and resulted in much of western Civilization as well as the saving of the Jews and fringe Christians from the Church's pogroms in Europe's Dark Ages - which were never 'Dark' in the Islamic world) until literalists and extremists stamped it out.

But this is my point: literalists and extremists exist because there IS freedom to interpret. There is not this freedom in other religions so therefore they are more rigid - as philosophical systems they are more literal and biased. Islam is an umbrella for hundreds of schools of thought because of this, many contradictory and opposed (which is why to speak of 'Islam taking over the world' is utter nonsense - the different sects would have to conquer each other first and establish a ruling monolithic entity. This hasn't happened in 1500 years and we are nowhere near it now).

I see Islam as a Democratic experiment much like America. You can think what you like within certain parameters. The position of the Islamophobes and people who like to talk about Islam all the time (due to fear instilled in them by their governments to keep them manipulable and distract attention) but know nothing about it is like an easterner who used the existence of fringe groups in the States such as the KKK as an example that 'America is evil' or that it has failed because such groups exist. I say it has succeeded because such groups exist (even though I abhor them) - succeeded because such groups are an expression of human nature (unfortunately) and their existence is evidence that human nature has been allowed expression.

From all this you will clearly you will see that OBL could believe this just as easily as Mr Moderate. They are both Muslims. That does not mean they are both the same or they are both right.

Again, as no-one knows the mind of God (and religions which pretend to must by definition be in error on this point) then no-one here on earth can judge the rightness or wrongness of these positions. Personally I believe extremists are wrong in their interpretations and I would speak out against them but it is God who will judge in the final analysis.

All this is a contradiction for the West and really this is the West's problem - it's own understanding (or misunderstanding) of Islam, and it is a problem it has been wrestling with since it's first encounters with Islam.

[Super Glitcher]

Originally Posted by segovius

What does it mean to be a Muslim? What are the prerequisites? There is one - and only one: to subscribe to the shahada.

That is to say: to believe that there is 'No God but God and Muhammad is His Prophet'.

If you subscribe to even this one thing you are then
inherently subject by the words of the prophet,
a l l o f t h e m. There's no logical way around that.
Muhammad states he is gods only prophet and that
the Qu'ran is gods only book.
That seems pretty rigid to me....

If his words don't matter and no one knows the will
of god and everything is up to interpretation then it
is not a religion, more a feeling..
as 'religion' implies a set of ethics, values and beliefs.

You say that other religions are more rigid, like this is
a bad thing? It's comparable to any law of science,
a hypothesis must be continually tested and must stand
up to every test perfectly or else it is impure and must
be reanalyzed and if it can be, reproposed. A religion
that is rigid, literal and biased must stand up to far
greater testing than one that is lose, symbolic and impartial,
and it will be more valuable in the end, as it has been proven
and hence can be treated as law and truth.
You trust your soul to an experiment?

America's roots are not 'experimental' - they're based in Christianity.
Please don't forget to note that when you mention her success.
Interesting the nation which allows the greatest amount of freedoms
is based on Christianity- as opposed to such an 'open minded' religion
as say, Islam?

Thankfully my God happens to be quite clear, and amazingly forgiving.
But then this would be common to knowledge to anyone who'd even
cracked open a Bible...

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Super Glitcher

If you subscribe to even this one thing you are then
inherently subject by the words of the prophet,
a l l o f t h e m. There's no logical way around that.
Muhammad states he is gods only prophet and that
the Qu'ran is gods only book.
That seems pretty rigid to me....

Muhammad stated that he was 'A' prophet not the 'only' prophet. The Qur'an accepts the Biblical Prophets and Jesus also as prophets so there is no conflict there.

Also he states, as does the Qur'an, that the Bible and Jewish scriptures (as well as many others) are revelations from God so clearly he does not state that the Qur'an is God's only book.

The Qur'an also states that Christians and Jews are believers and will go to paradise. So the rigidity you see comes from somewhere else than from the religion itself.

Also the words of the Prophet are in dispute. They are not held to be in the Qur'an but in the hadith which are the collected sayings - some of these are unreliable and many are acknowledged as such by most Muslims. They were collected by interview over many years and in many cases long after the Prophet's death. Some are clearly invented while others are clearly authentic. There is little dispute over this.

If his words don't matter and no one knows the will
of god and everything is up to interpretation then it
is not a religion, more a feeling..
as 'religion' implies a set of ethics, values and beliefs.

No Muslim would say his words don't matter. Islam is still a religion as it deals in those things you mention - particularly belief. It just draws a distinction between belief and fact.

I fervently believe that Barcelona will win the Champions League for example, I just wouldn't say I know this. Belief and knowledge are two different things and when they mold into each other there is a problem.

You say that other religions are more rigid, like this is
a bad thing? It's comparable to any law of science,
a hypothesis must be continually tested and must stand
up to every test perfectly or else it is impure and must
be reanalyzed and if it can be, reproposed. A religion
that is rigid, literal and biased must stand up to far
greater testing than one that is lose, symbolic and impartial,
and it will be more valuable in the end, as it has been proven
and hence can be treated as law and truth.
You trust your soul to an experiment?

Is freedom of thought a 'bad-thing'? It exists regardless - even someone who accepts a 'rigid' religion is exercising freedom of thought in choosing it. It is therefore a moot point. The issue is really whether systems of thought actually have the honesty to admit that it is inevitable.

The Catholic Church is 'rigid' in certain things for example but that doesn't stop those things from happening in it's fold. It just means they get covered up - which is a hypocrisy and another sin.

America's roots are not 'experimental' - they're based in Christianity.
Please don't forget to note that when you mention her success.
Interesting the nation which allows the greatest amount of freedoms
is based on Christianity- as opposed to such an 'open minded' religion
as say, Islam?

I think you'll find that the Founding Father's idea of Christianity was very loose and certainly not in any way comparable to what we know it as today. I would dispute some were Christians actually and think they incline more to Deism.

Thankfully my God happens to be quite clear, and amazingly forgiving.
But then this would be common to knowledge to anyone who'd even
cracked open a Bible...

Well, God is forgiving. That's what God is. No problem there.

[von Wrangell]

for segovious.




(except for the CL comment. It's obvious Liverpool will win it for the sixth time. )

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by goMac

Uhhhh... You do realize that Christianity is one of the only religions in the world with an appointed leader.

You couldn't be more wrong! Catholocism may have a pope...but the pope is not the leader of Christianity.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Or if you would know the least about Islam you would know that we have no religious leaders. There is no pope in Islam. Just elected (scary huh?) mosque leaders (also known as Imams). Some are more respected than others but for Muslims the only real religious authority is the Quran. But you would know this if you were really interested in understanding Islam instead of spending most of your time vilifying it and it's followers.

VW,
Mojo2 is speaking metaphorically and you know it. And, for once, he raises some interesting points. Who among the myriad leaders among Islam is renowned for his outspoken stance against terrorism? Who among the Imam are preaching unacceptance of the extremist viewpoints? Who among the Imam are seeking to distance themselves from their Muslim brothers who advocate violence against the West.

Mojo2 put forth the argument that there is no great voice in the world-wide Muslim community--rising above all the rest--that is speaking out against the extremism going on today in certain quarters of the Islamic world. If you wish to contradict this argue and prove it false then point out some leaders--and a leader can be someone whose authority is respected by others, whether or not it is a formal position of leadership--who take a stance in opposition to the extremists within the Muslim world.

Personally, I think you are right when you argue the number of Islamic extremists in the world is quite small when compared to the peaceful Muslim population as a whole. But, I also agree with Mojo2 that I have yet to see or hear of anyone--highly regarded within the Muslim community--constantly and continually speak out against the actions of the extremists. Where are the religious leaders who hold unwavering stances against the current crop of extremists who, while small in number, appear to be large in influence?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Re interpretations of Jihad and other issues and 'moderate' Muslims vesrsus 'extremists': the problem is that Islam as a religion in non-dogmatic and does not expound and absolute law. It is as near to fee-thinking and self-creation of belief as you can get in a religion.

One example to prove my point. What does it mean to be a Muslim? What are the prerequisites? There is one - and only one: to subscribe to the shahada.

That is to say: to believe that there is 'No God but God and Muhammad is His Prophet'.

That does not mean there are no beliefs above this but that they differ in interpretation and through different groups such as the Shi'i. The beliefs necessarily are interpretations as no-one can know the mind of God. How can a human know this?

Islam does not as a religion impose strict dogma, there are no priests, no Pope, free thought and criticism was encouraged (and resulted in much of western Civilization as well as the saving of the Jews and fringe Christians from the Church's pogroms in Europe's Dark Ages - which were never 'Dark' in the Islamic world) until literalists and extremists stamped it out.

But this is my point: literalists and extremists exist because there IS freedom to interpret. There is not this freedom in other religions so therefore they are more rigid - as philosophical systems they are more literal and biased. Islam is an umbrella for hundreds of schools of thought because of this, many contradictory and opposed (which is why to speak of 'Islam taking over the world' is utter nonsense - the different sects would have to conquer each other first and establish a ruling monolithic entity. This hasn't happened in 1500 years and we are nowhere near it now).

I see Islam as a Democratic experiment much like America. You can think what you like within certain parameters. The position of the Islamophobes and people who like to talk about Islam all the time (due to fear instilled in them by their governments to keep them manipulable and distract attention) but know nothing about it is like an easterner who used the existence of fringe groups in the States such as the KKK as an example that 'America is evil' or that it has failed because such groups exist. I say it has succeeded because such groups exist (even though I abhor them) - succeeded because such groups are an expression of human nature (unfortunately) and their existence is evidence that human nature has been allowed expression.

From all this you will clearly you will see that OBL could believe this just as easily as Mr Moderate. They are both Muslims. That does not mean they are both the same or they are both right.

Again, as no-one knows the mind of God (and religions which pretend to must by definition be in error on this point) then no-one here on earth can judge the rightness or wrongness of these positions. Personally I believe extremists are wrong in their interpretations and I would speak out against them but it is God who will judge in the final analysis.

All this is a contradiction for the West and really this is the West's problem - it's own understanding (or misunderstanding) of Islam, and it is a problem it has been wrestling with since it's first encounters with Islam.

So, as you pointed out--and in a very interesting way, I might add--the practice of Islam provides for a much greater flexibility of interpretation and practice than other, more rigid, monotheistic religions. That is good to know.

However, I am still intersted in seeing addressed the question of those who speak out against the small minority of Muslim's who advocate anti-Western sentiments and the extremism that goes along with it. With this independence of interpretation and practice you have indicated, then I have to ask, where are those who have used this independence to take a stand in opposition to their Muslims peers who advocate violence and extremism?

Unlike Mojo2, I don't seek to equate the (perceived) lack of opposition to Muslim extremism as somehow a silent, tacit endorsement of the extremism. But still, I am troubled that there are not more voices in the Muslim world who don't oppose both the ideas of violent extremism but actively and vociferously speak out against those who do advocate extremism.

[von Wrangell]

dc:

Here's a small sample of the reaction just to 9/11 and mostly from the US Muslim community and with some quotes from some of the more powerful scholars from around the world.

http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

The reason you don't hear much about this is because of several reasons. One of them is because the Western media isn't really interested in the "moderate" Muslims. A very good example of it is the coverage in the last British elections. The biggest Muslim organisation held a press conference about how they wanted to encourage Muslims to vote, what they should consider when they vote etc etc but what made the headlines were some 10-20 (can't remember the exact number) of extremists who crashed the PC claiming it was haraam to vote. Those 10-20 Muslims made the news when an organisation representing the majority of Muslims in Britain was making a positive step. That was one of the best examples of the dilemma we Muslims face here in the West. We get absolutely no help in showing the true face of the Muslim community.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, as you pointed out--and in a very interesting way, I might add--the practice of Islam provides for a much greater flexibility of interpretation and practice than other, more rigid, monotheistic religions. That is good to know.

However, I am still intersted in seeing addressed the question of those who speak out against the small minority of Muslim's who advocate anti-Western sentiments and the extremism that goes along with it. With this independence of interpretation and practice you have indicated, then I have to ask, where are those who have used this independence to take a stand in opposition to their Muslims peers who advocate violence and extremism?

Unlike Mojo2, I don't seek to equate the (perceived) lack of opposition to Muslim extremism as somehow a silent, tacit endorsement of the extremism. But still, I am troubled that there are not more voices in the Muslim world who don't oppose both the ideas of violent extremism but actively and vociferously speak out against those who do advocate extremism.

There are many - the question is more properly one of why they are given no publicity. I suppose the most famous is Irshad Manji (who I don't agree with personally) who is calling for a re-institution of ijtihad (which I do agree with).

Free Muslims look to becoming more influential and Muslim Wake Up which is the leading light in support of the raging debate over women leading the prayers (this is a major debate in Islam right now but no non-Muslim I know has even heard of it which is odd because it is a massive movement for equal rights from within the religion). These are websites as you will note rather than people but they are indicative of a larger grass roots movements which has no leaders as such because it is coming from the people.

Another example which has had virtually no attention whatsoever in the West is to be found in Yemen - generally regarded (wrongly) as a terrorist haven: Qur'anic duels ease terror:

When Judge Hamoud al-Hitar announced that he and four other Islamic scholars would challenge Yemen's Al Qaeda prisoners to a theological contest, Western antiterrorism experts warned that this high-stakes gamble would end in disaster.

Nervous as he faced five captured, yet defiant, Al Qaeda members in a Sanaa prison, Judge Hitar was inclined to agree. But banishing his doubts, the youthful cleric threw down the gauntlet, in the hope of bringing peace to his troubled homeland.

"If you can convince us that your ideas are justified by the Koran, then we will join you in your struggle," Hitar told the militants. "But if we succeed in convincing you of our ideas, then you must agree to renounce violence."

The prisoners eagerly agreed.

Now, two years later, not only have those prisoners been released, but a relative peace reigns in Yemen. And the same Western experts who doubted this experiment are courting Hitar, eager to hear how his "theological dialogues" with captured Islamic militants have helped pacify this wild and mountainous country, previously seen by the US as a failed state, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The dialogue is ongoing in Islam on all levels: terrorism, theological interpretation, women's rights, sex and gender issues - the unfortunate fact is though that dialogue is not something the West can understand.

Mass movements shouting in the street, violent opposition, ranting leaders....yes. But dialogue - and dialogue that solves problems quietly with no fuss - is just not newsworthy.

Or is there perhaps another reason that all these things are not more widely known?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by segovius

I suppose the most famous is Irshad Manji (who I don't agree with personally) who is calling for a re-institution of ijtihad (which I do agree with).

A verse many forget (both Muslims and Westerners simply don't know about it) but is very important in Islam is the following.

Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;

Surah 42:38

This verse clearly tells us Muslims to work towards a democratic system. Ijtihad should be an important part of this system IMO.

The dialogue is ongoing in Islam on all levels: terrorism, theological interpretation, women's rights, sex and gender issues - the unfortunate fact is though that dialogue is not something the West can understand.

Mass movements shouting in the street, violent opposition, ranting leaders....yes. But dialogue - and dialogue that solves problems quietly with no fuss - is just not newsworthy.

Another article about al-Hitar: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/685/re12.htm

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

dc:

Here's a small sample of the reaction just to 9/11 and mostly from the US Muslim community and with some quotes from some of the more powerful scholars from around the world.

http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

Can you provide a link from somewhere other than the terrorist supporting CAIR?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

You're trying to say the Middle East was a violent region. My point is, historically before the creation of Isreal, it was not.

Where the hell did i say that ? And either way... its my opinion that the whole world was a 'violent region' If you are going to pre-date Islam, u cant exactly blame the religion, can you ? And before the "creation" of Israel...do u mean like 2000 years ago when neither Christianity or islam existed and the Jewish people controlled that general region ? Get your facts straight...Israel and the "Jewish state" existed in that region longgggg before Jihads, popes, churches and mosques.

People keep throwing the term "double standards" around like they even grasp whats going on. On one hand they are against israel and it's people from freely choosing to form a country ON THEIR OWN ANCESTORAL HOMELAND, and on the other hand, they support extremists and "freedom fighers"(as they might call them) in places like Chechnya, Bosnia, Kashmir, Thailand, etc. Hows that for double standards ?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Where the hell did i say that ? And either way... its my opinion that the whole world was a 'violent region' If you are going to pre-date Islam, u cant exactly blame the religion, can you ? And before the "creation" of Israel...do u mean like 2000 years ago when neither Christianity or islam existed and the Jewish people controlled that general region ? Get your facts straight...Israel and the "Jewish state" existed in that region longgggg before Jihads, popes, churches and mosques.

People keep throwing the term "double standards" around like they even grasp whats going on. On one hand they are against israel and it's people from freely choosing to form a country ON THEIR OWN ANCESTORAL HOMELAND, and on the other hand, they support extremists and "freedom fighers"(as they might call them) in places like Chechnya, Bosnia, Kashmir, Thailand, etc. Hows that for double standards ?

By your logic we all need to put ourselves in camps and give back America to the Native Americans.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

By your logic we all need to put ourselves in camps and give back America to the Native Americans.

Im not suggesting a 'universal theory' here. im talking specifically about Israel.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Im not suggesting a 'universal theory' here. im talking specifically about Israel.

Then explain what makes Israel different than my example.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

dc:

Here's a small sample of the reaction just to 9/11 and mostly from the US Muslim community and with some quotes from some of the more powerful scholars from around the world.

http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

The reason you don't hear much about this is because of several reasons. One of them is because the Western media isn't really interested in the "moderate" Muslims. A very good example of it is the coverage in the last British elections. The biggest Muslim organisation held a press conference about how they wanted to encourage Muslims to vote, what they should consider when they vote etc etc but what made the headlines were some 10-20 (can't remember the exact number) of extremists who crashed the PC claiming it was haraam to vote. Those 10-20 Muslims made the news when an organisation representing the majority of Muslims in Britain was making a positive step. That was one of the best examples of the dilemma we Muslims face here in the West. We get absolutely no help in showing the true face of the Muslim community.

Just 1,000 muslims marching ANYWHERE IN ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to denounce Osama and al Qaeda would get WORLDWIDE press attention and coverage.

Wouldn't you agree?

Yet, out of 1.4 BILLION people who supposedly are moderates and supposedly don't agree with Osama's violence (even though a recent survey of Saudi males, aged 19 - 45 years, 90% LOVE Osama. Source was a guest on C2Cam) you have how many coming out against him, against al Qaeda?

[Super Glitcher]

Originally Posted by goMac

By your logic we all need to put ourselves in camps and give back America to the Native Americans.

goMac,
His comment hardly implies such an extreme.
This kind of response clearly shows the lack of
substance in your position.

I'm so tired of these hypocrites trying to demonize
Israel while they turn a blind-eye to the Palestinian
Authority. It's so clearly obvious that there is no
point to argue.. otherwise you wouldn't need to
operate by subterfuge or terror would you? It would
be clear that your facts were straight and you had
some claim to the land wouldn't it? The lack of any
real historical claim and the defeat at all four attempts
to take Israel by force since 1947 has left you with this
only method: to try and make the Jews retreat and give
their land of free will.

As far as Israel goes, it's Jewish land. If a Muslim want's
to say otherwise, the burden of proof is on them.

If you want to play the palestinian card, I've negated
that with historical fact in an earlier post- please show
historical evidence to the contrary before you mention
it- it's fraudulent publicity that has been given its only
shred of substance by a biased Arab/Islamic majority
U.N. council. It's only true goal is the destruction
of the Jewish state of Israel - not some noble home
land plea.

You wonder why you hear it so much then...
Hmmm... 1.5 billion Muslims I heard earlier?
How many Jews are there??? The Muslim
community need only whisper to drown out the
cries of the Jews. Yes, and I imagine the U.N. bias
doesn't help the Jews that much either.

So, thank God for the United States.. and, recently
for the U.K.. We may suffer for our stance, but it is
a stand for freedom & God has promised ultimate victory.

Unfortunately Palestinian leaders are only able to produce
this worn out and totally fraudulent stance on 'refugees'.
Truth of the mater is that they were ordered to leave
under threat of death by Arabs who were about to
invade Israel. Even more detrimental to this case is the fact
there were 3-fold the number of Jewish refugees forced to
leave their Arab homes at this same time- under threat of
death from Arab Islamic leaders.

Also, the number of Arab refugees is an interesting
thing in itself. When the British gained control of the
area in 1917 they allowed the resettlement of Jews in
the area, this caused an economical surge which led
to the immigration of many Arabs from surrounding
countries. This trend continues to this day as Israel
is a very prosporus nation. When the UNRWA tallied
these refugees in 1947 their criteria for being
counted was based on if you had lived there for at
least 2 years.... hardly a means to establish a basis
for a 'home land' - but maybe this is just my
programmed western mind...

No Arabs even began to call themselves Palestinian
until 1967.

The truth is, as I stated before, the Muslims will not
rest until the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel.
This 'religious' epicenter claim is also fake- there's no
record of any Arab or Muslim leaders visiting Israel
for a religious reason at anytime in history prior to
the re-establishment of nation Israel. Pretty amazing
given the huge amount of importance it would seem
to bear today. This is also a smokescreen.
Look at the religious texts, the Jewish bible mentions
Jerusalem 670 times while the Qu'ran mentions it not
even once. Add this onto the history the Jews have
with the land and you have a case that is hard to beat.

Hawykeye,
Since there is no proof to be had, as is clearly the
historical case - you'll never get a good answer.
Instead please continue to expect unsubstantiable
claims and plain lies, as has been the case since
the very rebirth of the Jewish state of Israel.
This is an impase and logical defeat for the
movement, yet it's ferver continues- to the
shame, not the glory of those who pursue it.

Jewish State of Israel...

Isn't it a wonderful thing that it will never be
broken again?

I think it's fantastic.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Super Glitcher

I'm so tired of these hypocrites trying to demonize
Israel while they turn a blind-eye to the Palestinian
Authority. It's so clearly obvious that there is no
point to argue.. otherwise you wouldn't need to
operate by subterfuge or terror would you? It would
be clear that your facts were straight and you had
some claim to the land wouldn't it? The lack of any
real historical claim and the defeat at all four attempts
to take Israel by force since 1947 has left you with this
only method: to try and make the Jews retreat and give
their land of free will.

As far as Israel goes, it's Jewish land. If a Muslim want's
to say otherwise, the burden of proof is on them.

I'm not demonizing anyone.

Look. Arabs lived on that land for 2000 years. They built their homes there. They made a living there. The Arabs that were kicked off were born there. They lived there because there parents lived there.

Then you kick them off and expect them to be ok with that? No matter what you think about Israel deserving that land, you can't tell me that the Arabs who lived there would just go "OK" and leave. They'd be pretty pissed. And they'd tell all the other neighboring Arab nations they were pretty pissed.

If someone came into your state, told you to get out because the land was going to the Native Americans, you'd be pretty pissed. Would you take "Well you still have 49 other states to live in" as a good excuse?

I tell you what. I'll write a book. I'll write the word Jerusalem in it 1000 times. Does that give me the right to Israel?

The bible mentions Egypt a lot too. Does that belong to the Jews?

Does anyone ever try and pass their arguments through logic here?

[goMac]

Super Glitcher:
Also, historically the Arabs have lived in Israel longer than the Jews.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

Then explain what makes Israel different than my example.

-Jews are a majority in that region(modern day Israel) right now.
-And they have the will and means to take back what was rightfully theirs by over 2000 years of heritage.
-The EuroAmericans havent kicked Native Americans out of the North America.
-Israel is willing to let Muslim Arab Palestineans live & work & reside on their side of the fence, it dosent work the other way around.
-Native Americans are vastly our numbered by immigrants and dont have the necessary means to take back their land. Although, since awareness has recently been raised in the American community Americans are sympathetic apologetic and compationate about helping native Americans. They do have certain priveledges over other Americans and are in a way getting SOME control back and are co-existing for the most part just fine. How does that apply ? Citing my examples above in previous posts, where have the muslim invaders shown any sort of compassion to the people they have kicked out ?
-If Palestine was given control of Israel, you can say goodbye to religious freedom in that area. How do i know ? look at the multi-cultural(religious) nature on both sides. A lot fewer(if any) christians, jews, hindus, budhists, athiests on the palestine side, now look at Israel. i dont know what would hapeen to the American way of life if native Americans were given complete control of government and military.

As ive stated before....if Zorastrians(who fled to India) were to launch a campaign to resettle in persia, id support them, I support the Dalilama(who fled to india) desire and campaign to get back into Tibet. And if the Native Americans(as a whole community, not just one nutcase on the fringe) wanted control of the Americas, id support them.

The Israelis like the Zorastrain, N.Americans and Tibeteans were kicked off of their own lands. Of those 4, the Israelis have the will and the means to reclaim whats rightfully theirs. And they have done a MUCH better job of managing the area and opening it up(which is a nice bonus to the world community by the way).They could have just closed themselves off to the rest of the world like S.Arabia or iran but they didnt. Therefore i support them.

Muslims and palestineans have the entire muslim world to resettle in. Where do you recommend Israelis move to ? Antartica ? Greenland ? here's a though...how about their ancestoral home .... Israel.

Cheers.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Unlike Mojo2, I don't seek to equate the (perceived) lack of opposition to Muslim extremism as somehow a silent, tacit endorsement of the extremism. But still, I am troubled that there are not more voices in the Muslim world who don't oppose both the ideas of violent extremism but actively and vociferously speak out against those who do advocate extremism.

I can understand what you mean. When I first started lurking around here there were some REALLY anti-Muslim guys around here. It made me feel bad for the Muslims and it made me think these Muslim haters were like mad dogs.

I wanted to see BOTH sides and be fair.

I heard this and that. I read here and there. I researched hither and yon. And I posted my findings along the way.

And here I am, JUST NOW beginning to see what vmarks (to name just one) has been trying to say all this time.

I ALSO feel it is KINDA unfair to bash the Muslims here on MacNN as they are not committing any terrorism. However, it is NOT unfair to ask them to explain their positions and ask if they agree or not with certain actions and to try to cut through all the confusion that exists (however much of that confusion is created as a smokescreen by Muslim followers).

And, because they have been less candid than would serve the cause of true enlightenment we must sift through what they say to find bits and pieces that are, accurate and pertinent and to the point and candid.

Tough to find all four in any meaningful exchange here.

But, here is the matter as I see it. Many in the Muslim world believe and admire and LOVE Osama because he is taking the religion back to it's basics.

Remember many years ago when Pope John Paul was heralded for stepping BACK from the movement to make the Church MORE progressive and he died as one of the most respected and beloved Church leaders.

Osama bin Laden is OLD school. In the last 100 years or so, all of the attempts at MODERNIZING or SECULARIZING Islam (in ANY of it's sects or offshoots) have been unsuccessful in one major way or another.

The ONLY Muslim leader who has captured the imagination of the Muslim world, the ONLY leader who has shown he has the smarts and the courage and the organizational ability and the finances to return the Muslim world, not only to it's exalted position as better (YES, better as the Quran might judge them better because of their good works) than the West or the rest and to fulfill the Quran's intent to dominate the world...

Is Osama bin Laden.

There are Muslims who have a different view of Islam than OBL and al Qaeda (look at the civil war a-brewin in Iraq between Sunni and Shiite Muslims) and al Qaeda's main goal was to get the Muslim nations squared away first, using violence if necessary to compel them to submit, and to use well planned attacks on the US and Israel and other Western targets to attract attention to al Qaeda's efforts and help with recruitment.

However, we have jumped into the fire and we are (as several of our posters here have repeatedly said) literally playing into OBL's hands.

The way it appears to me is that with a plan, a sound conservative religious orientation, and the means and the will to achieve his plans, OBL really DOES enjoy the tacit support of the Muslim world and no one wants to either make themselves a target of his crew or else relatively few moderate Muslims would really have THAT much of a problem adopting HIS political views if it meant there really MIGHT be a new Islamic Caliphate.

Here is the Der Spiegel excerpt where OBL and Zarqawi's 7 Step Plan to create an Islamic Empire (as President Bush said) was described.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...369448,00.html

An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps

In the introduction, the Jordanian journalist writes, "I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future." What he then describes between pages 202 and 213 is a scenario, proof both of the terrorists' blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness. In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.


The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."


The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.

Imagine yourself an American voter who is not very political and you just want to live your life and let the nonsense that Washington's politicians do go on as long as the country is safe and the administration makes life better for you and that your kids may one day have a better life than you.

You like the tough and assuring message of the President. He sounds strong and sure and he has a plan for the future of this country. So, you give him your support.

Well, the same person, in the Muslim world is giving OBL her support for the same reasons.

And the reason we don't see any moderate Muslims protesting in opposition to OBL and al Qaeda is THE EXACT SAME REASON CINDY SHEEHAN SHOULDN'T BE PROTESTING THE WAR.

Unlike many of the Americans, who OBL considers to be as dumb as cattle and are smart enough only to make sure they have food in their stomachs, the Moderate Muslim is NOT going to protest when it will serve to undermine the efforts being conducted on their behalf.

The jihad around the world, both violent and non-violent, is working toward achieving world dominance and as Islam is already the world's fastest growing religion, I'd say they are really making progress in their jihadist efforts.

Whereas, even though a defeat in Iraq would HELP OBL and Zarqawi achieve their goal of creating a base of operations in Iraq, Sheehan and followers are not as smart as the moderate Muslims who would never think to actively campaign against their own interests.

Admitting any of this openly on this page would not help the cause of jihad and so the answers we've seen, dc are the only kind we should expect.

A magician does not reveal his secrets.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

-Jews are a majority in that region(modern day Israel) right now.
-And they have the will and means to take back what was rightfully theirs by over 2000 years of heritage.
-The EuroAmericans havent kicked Native Americans out of the North America.
-Israel is willing to let Muslim Arab Palestineans live & work & reside on their side of the fence, it dosent work the other way around.
-Native Americans are vastly our numbered by immigrants and dont have the necessary means to take back their land. Although, since awareness has recently been raised in the American community Americans are sympathetic apologetic and compationate about helping native Americans. They do have certain priveledges over other Americans and are in a way getting SOME control back and are co-existing for the most part just fine. How does that apply ? Citing my examples above in previous posts, where have the muslim invaders shown any sort of compassion to the people they have kicked out ?
-If Palestine was given control of Israel, you can say goodbye to religious freedom in that area. How do i know ? look at the multi-cultural(religious) nature on both sides. A lot fewer(if any) christians, jews, hindus, budhists, athiests on the palestine side, now look at Israel. i dont know what would hapeen to the American way of life if native Americans were given complete control of government and military.

As ive stated before....if Zorastrians(who fled to India) were to launch a campaign to resettle in persia, id support them, I support the Dalilama(who fled to india) desire and campaign to get back into Tibet. And if the Native Americans(as a whole community, not just one nutcase on the fringe) wanted control of the Americas, id support them.

The Israelis like the Zorastrain, N.Americans and Tibeteans were kicked off of their own lands. Of those 4, the Israelis have the will and the means to reclaim whats rightfully theirs. And they have done a MUCH better job of managing the area and opening it up(which is a nice bonus to the world community by the way).They could have just closed themselves off to the rest of the world like S.Arabia or iran but they didnt. Therefore i support them.

Muslims and palestineans have the entire muslim world to resettle in. Where do you recommend Israelis move to ? Antartica ? Greenland ? here's a though...how about their ancestoral home .... Israel.

Cheers.

EuroAmericans haven't kicked Native Americans out of North America?

They put them on reservations giving them the worst land. Sound familiar?

Israel is willing to let Palestinians live on the other side of the fence with them? Gee... that sounds awful nice considering the Palestinians used to own that land.

Israel doesn't have 2000 years of heritage on that land. They have 1000 years. The Kingdom of Israel was founded in 900 BC. They were kicked out by the Romans about 100 AD. This means the Palestinians are the ones who've had the land for nearly 2000 years. Do your research.

Yes, of course Jews have a majority. They've forced the Palestinians out. Thats like saying if China invaded the US, moved in their own population and killed off a lot of the native Americans until they had a majority that they deserved the land. Ain't so.

There was religious freedom before Israel was forcefully created. Sorry, I don't buy that.

It's not Israeli land. It hasn't been for 2000 years. The Ten Commandments were handed down on Mt. Sinai. Should Israel take that too? How about Egypt were Moses worked his miracles? How about that? You know... I'm part Welsh. Does that mean I'm personally entitled to Welsh lands? No. This argument doesn't make sense. While the rest of the world has moved on from events 2000 years ago apparently some people don't.

You wanted to know why Muslims are so pissed off? It has nothing to do with Islam. This is why they are pissed off.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by goMac

You wanted to know why Muslims are so pissed off? It has nothing to do with Islam. This is why they are pissed off.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

EuroAmericans haven't kicked Native Americans out of North America?

They put them on reservations giving them the worst land. Sound familiar?

Israel is willing to let Palestinians live on the other side of the fence with them? Gee... that sounds awful nice considering the Palestinians used to own that land.

Israel doesn't have 2000 years of heritage on that land. They have 1000 years. The Kingdom of Israel was founded in 900 BC. They were kicked out by the Romans about 100 AD. This means the Palestinians are the ones who've had the land for nearly 2000 years. Do your research.

Yes, of course Jews have a majority. They've forced the Palestinians out. Thats like saying if China invaded the US, moved in their own population and killed off a lot of the native Americans until they had a majority that they deserved the land. Ain't so.

There was religious freedom before Israel was forcefully created. Sorry, I don't buy that.

It's not Israeli land. It hasn't been for 2000 years. The Ten Commandments were handed down on Mt. Sinai. Should Israel take that too? How about Egypt were Moses worked his miracles? How about that? You know... I'm part Welsh. Does that mean I'm personally entitled to Welsh lands? No. This argument doesn't make sense. While the rest of the world has moved on from events 2000 years ago apparently some people don't.

You wanted to know why Muslims are so pissed off? It has nothing to do with Islam. This is why they are pissed off.

Yes, what EuroAmericans did to Native Americans is deplorable that was 300 years ago. Now look at the coexisence of both communities. they both reside in the worlds most proporous nation, i hardly think either would claim they'd have been better off otherwise. Either way, Americans imo, have shown treamondous solidarity with Native Americans in recent years, and thats much better than kicking any nonbeleivers off the land.

Jews didnt just arive in a sudden mass immigration to the area, they were migrating there for years, and then they decide to form a state of Israel on the land of their ancestory.

You say your Welsh, right ? Guess what...there is still a Wales, where they speak Welsh, and have Welsh traditions. You can say your Welsh because of that. A couple of generations down the road, if Wales didnt exist and ur grandchildreen claimed to be Welsh, no one would have a clue what they meant.

And it is Israeli land. you know why ? if all the reasons ive stated arent good enough....use your own reasoning and switch the words "Israel" and "palestine" around. The modern state of Israel has been there for 50 odd years, right ? so what, you want to kick them off now ?

The problem with the Israel vs Palestine issue is Jerusalem. It is the Jewish capital, the same way Mecca&Medina is to Islam, and the Vatican is to Catholicism. For some odd reason palestineans(Muslims) seem to value the Jewish capitals with more fervor and obsession that the Jews. Why is that ? is jerusalem suddently a prize ? bragging rights for those who claim it ? i think tothe palestineans it is. To the Israelis(Jews) its merely the capital of their religion.

goMac answer me these questions (a paragraph each if possible):
-Was there an Israel before Islam ?
-Was there an Israel before Palestine ?
-What is to become of the "Jewish State", where would it be relocated to ?
-Whats to become of all the Israelis who moved there ?
-What of Jerusalem ? break down the Synagogues and Churches and erect Mosques ?
-What of Hammas ? Whos their next target ... Cyprus or maybe America?
-What message does that send to other terrorist groups ?(such as those in Chechnya, Algeria, Iraq, Egypt, Kashmir, Thailand, Bali, U.K., U.S.... who all coincidentally seem to belong to the same demographic)

You say it's got nothing to do with religion, i say it appears as though religion is the only common factor in all these conflicts around the world. That makes religion a huge deal to those dealing with these idiots who take hostages and blow themselves up.

Muslims are pissed off cause its got nothing to do with Islam? Open your eyes and take a good look around. You have north Africans, Arabians, eastern mediterranean, eastern European, centeral asian, south asian and south east asian groups who dont eat the same food, or speak the same language and yet fight/terrorize under the same banner and have the same untranslated and unabridged text as their guide.What do YOU call that ? an unfortunate coincidence ?

Cheers

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Yes, what EuroAmericans did to Native Americans is deplorable that was 300 years ago. Now look at the coexisence of both communities. they both reside in the worlds most proporous nation, i hardly think either would claim they'd have been better off otherwise. Either way, Americans imo, have shown treamondous solidarity with Native Americans in recent years, and thats much better than kicking any nonbeleivers off the land.

Jews didnt just arive in a sudden mass immigration to the area, they were migrating there for years, and then they decide to form a state of Israel on the land of their ancestory.

You say your Welsh, right ? Guess what...there is still a Wales, where they speak Welsh, and have Welsh traditions. You can say your Welsh because of that. A couple of generations down the road, if Wales didnt exist and ur grandchildreen claimed to be Welsh, no one would have a clue what they meant.

And it is Israeli land. you know why ? if all the reasons ive stated arent good enough....use your own reasoning and switch the words "Israel" and "palestine" around. The modern state of Israel has been there for 50 odd years, right ? so what, you want to kick them off now ?

The problem with the Israel vs Palestine issue is Jerusalem. It is the Jewish capital, the same way Mecca&Medina is to Islam, and the Vatican is to Catholicism. For some odd reason palestineans(Muslims) seem to value the Jewish capitals with more fervor and obsession that the Jews. Why is that ? is jerusalem suddently a prize ? bragging rights for those who claim it ? i think tothe palestineans it is. To the Israelis(Jews) its merely the capital of their religion.

goMac answer me these questions (a paragraph each if possible):
-Was there an Israel before Islam ?
-Was there an Israel before Palestine ?
-What is to become of the "Jewish State", where would it be relocated to ?
-Whats to become of all the Israelis who moved there ?
-What of Jerusalem ? break down the Synagogues and Churches and erect Mosques ?
-What of Hammas ? Whos their next target ... Cyprus or maybe America?
-What message does that send to other terrorist groups ?(such as those in Chechnya, Algeria, Iraq, Egypt, Kashmir, Thailand, Bali, U.K., U.S.... who all coincidentally seem to belong to the same demographic)

You say it's got nothing to do with religion, i say it appears as though religion is the only common factor in all these conflicts around the world. That makes religion a huge deal to those dealing with these idiots who take hostages and blow themselves up.

Muslims are pissed off cause its got nothing to do with Islam? Open your eyes and take a good look around. You have north Africans, Arabians, eastern mediterranean, eastern European, centeral asian, south asian and south east asian groups who dont eat the same food, or speak the same language and yet fight/terrorize under the same banner and have the same untranslated and unabridged text as their guide.What do you call that an unfortunate coincidence ?

Cheers

Huh? Britain decided one day to "give" Israel to the Jews. The Jews in Israel didn't just outnumber the Arabs one day and then sit around and decide to form a nation.

I'm not saying kick the Israelis off. You're perfectly right. Change the words Palestine and Israel around and it's the same situation. That's why so far things have been unsolvable. Clinton couldn't solve it. So far Bush hasn't either. If I knew how to solve this problem it would be wonderful.

There was an Israel before Islam. There was a Israel before Palestine. I've already addressed your middle questions. I'll get to your last ones in the next paragraph. Actually, I've also addressed why Israel existing 2000 years ago isn't really a good justification either. If the world operated on ancient borders it would be nuts. Italy would own Europe. Mongolia would own China. England would own the US. Are you catching my drift? Saying you owned a piece of land 100, 500, 1000, 2000 years ago doesn't make a good justification for anything at all.

The first thing you need to do to stop terrorists is shut down their justifications for existing, both to stop recruitment and stop their spread. The extremists go around to different Muslim nations telling people "Look, they've taken Palestine, they've taken Afghanistan, they've taken Iraq. They're obviously after Muslim nations. You need to stop them before they take your nation." Contrary to what you've been trying to examine, Islam didn't inspire them to attack us. They see a pattern that Western powers are trying to take Muslim nations. We can fight the terrorists forever and we won't ever really stop them. The best way to secure ourselves is to solve the basic core of the problem. If someone can solve the Israel problem, that's a pretty good start. Israel has been the rallying cry, both for Saddam Hussan, and OBL (while both hated each other and used different tacts to approach the problem). Take away the terrorists rallying cry to stem recruitment and growth of terrorist groups. Then take out the remaining terrorists.

It has about as much to do with religion as your local church's bingo game has to do with Christianity. Yes, they're all part of the same religion. Religion wasn't the inspiration for this. It's simply the common thread of people who think they see a pattern and think they're next on the US's hit list. This is why the left is screaming about diplomacy. We're not saying don't use force on the terrorists. We're saying without diplomacy in the Middle East and solving of Diplomatic problems you're never going to solve the core of the problem.