All Comments (533)

Kudos to Eboo Patel for this excellent, insightful and spot on article.

I recommend all the people on this webpage to visit this website on Youtube and see for themselves to what extent Ayaan Hirsi Ali fabricated her entire life story down to her name and age in order to be accepted as an asylum seeker in the Netherlands -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z82C10myBmM&feature=related

I do not think she deserves much in the way of true credibility given the sheer magnitude of her lies and concoctions that led to her Dutch citizenship and political stardom in the first place.

Why should there be any limitations on what someone writes about religion or anything else? What is so sacroscant about Islam or Mohammed? If someone wants to write something however controversial, he or she should be accorded the full freedom to do so. In India, a well known poet of Bengal (Sunil Gangopadhay) has written terrible things about a popular Hindu diety. But Hindus in India did not go on a rampage to ban the poem much less kill the poet. He is living hale and hearty in calcutta.

So I have only one word for Muslims who take a hard line against writers critical of Islam and Mohammed. Grow up! If there is any fatwa on killing such writers, the country's legal system should lock up the fatwa-issuers as criminals issuing death threats. Such threats should not be permitted in modern, civil societies. Unfortunately, this is only one aspect of how Islamic countries differ from others in the world.

This whole fatwa issuing business and going on a violent rampage if someone critices Islam and the prophet are signs of extreme immaturity. The relevant question is how Muslims can evolve their societies into progressive modern ones instead on being stuck in the Middle Ages.

Hang on.Did that guy just say that muslims should be expelled from scandinavia?? That`s scary.Thank God I`m not living in Europe or the USA.So much hatred.
I was reading somewhere that a US politician has even recommended the use of a nuclear device, on Mecca and Medina, in the event that America is attacked by terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
Dutch politician calls for the banning of the Quran.
It`s not a good time to be a muslim in the western world.
All at the same time that the USA continues to illegally occupy iraq and afghanistan and is talking of going to war with iran.
Guantamo is still not closed.Hundreds of people are kept there years after they were arrested and never charged.
Some of them have been realeased after years without being charged.
A campaign poster in Switzerland recently showed a veiled muslim woman next to a junkie.
Another one showed three white lambs kicking a black one off a Swiss flag.
What next?? Maybe concentration camps in a few years time..

Hang on.Did that guy just say that muslims should be expelled from scandinavia?? That`s scary.Thank God I`m not living in Europe or the USA.So much hatred.
I was reading somewhere that a US politician even recommended the use of a nuclear device, on Mecca and Medina, in the event that next time America is attacked by terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
Dutch politician calls for the banning of the Quran.
It`s not a good time to be a muslim in the western world.
All at the same time that the USA continues to illegally occupy iraq and afghanistan and is talking of going to war with iran.
Guantamo is still not closed.Hundreds of people are kept there years after they were arrested and never charged.
Some of them have been realeased after years without being charged.
A campaign poster in Switzerland recently showed a veiled muslim woman next to a junkie.
Another one showed three white lambs kicking a black one off a Swiss flag.
What next?? Maybe concentration camps in a few years time..

Hang on.Did that guy just say that muslims should be expelled from scandinavia?? That`s scary.Thank God I`m not living in Europe or the USA.So much hatred.
I was reading somewhere that a US politician even recommended the use of a nuclear device, on Mecca and Medina, in the event that next time America is attacked by terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
Dutch politician calls for the banning of the Quran.
It`s not a good time to be a muslim in the western world.
All at the same time that the USA continues to illegally occupy iraq and afghanistan and is talking of going to war with iran.
Guantamo is still not closed.Hundreds of people are kept there years after they were arrested and never charged.
Some of them have been realeased after years without being charged.
A campaign poster in Switzerland recently showed a veiled muslim woman next to a junkie.
Another one showed three white lambs kicking a black one off a Swiss flag.
What next?? Maybe concentration camps in a few years time..

Hang on.Did that guy just say that muslims should be expelled from scandinavia?? That`s scary.Thank God I`m not living in Europe or the USA.So much hatred.
I was reading somewhere that a US politician even recommended the use of a nuclear device, on Mecca and Medina, in the event that next time America is attacked by terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
Dutch politician calls for the banning of the Quran.
It`s not a good time to be a muslim in the western world.
All at the same time that the USA continues to illegally occupy iraq and afghanistan and is talking of going to war with iran.
Guantamo is still not closed.Hundreds of people are kept there years after they were arrested and never charged.
Some of them have been realeased after years without being charged.
A campaign poster in Switzerland recently showed a veiled muslim woman next to a junkie.
Another one showed three white lambs kicking a black one off a Swiss flag.
What next?? Maybe concentration camps in a few years time..

She may be repulsive to your Muslim faith, but your Muslim faith and reverence for Muhammad, the devil's prophet, are repulsive to me and should be repulsive to all who are "enlightened". Islam is the religion of the devil!

Was moses a terrorist?
see my video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYvYd-7hi_Q

Shalom.

In America, today, if you want to be lionized, you have to hate intensely the Muslims and show your hate publicly. This is a sad commentary on our country which appears headed for the scrap heaps of history. Throughout humanity's history, when a great nation goes the path our stupid, hateful "leaders" have chosen for our beloved America, the great country has only one way to go: DOWN!!

In America, today, if you want to be lionized, you have to hate intensely the Muslims and show your hate publicly. This is a sad commentary on our country which appears headed for the scrap heaps of history. Throughout humanity's history, when a great nation goes the path our stupid, hateful "leaders" have chosen for our beloved America, the great country has only one way to go: DOWN!!

In America, today, if you want to be lionized, you have to hate intensely the Muslims and show your hate publicly. This is a sad commentary on our country which appears headed for the scrap heaps of history. Throughout humanity's history, when a great nation goes the path our stupid, hateful "leaders" have chosen for our beloved America, the great country has only one way to go: DOWN!!

In America, today, if you want to be lionized, you have to hate intensely the Muslims and show your hate publicly. This is a sad commentary on our country which appears headed for the scrap heaps of history. Throughout humanity's history, when a great nation goes the path our stupid, hateful "leaders" have chosen for our beloved America, the great country has only one way to go: DOWN!!

mr hefron- i refer you to october 20th, 2:25 pm on this very blog
there are 3 posts, read them and click on the amman message for further reading if you like

There must be many Muslim Americans who will speak out loudly against any idea of a Global Caliphate; of operating under the Sharia; of eschewing Dhimminitude. These stances would, like our Founders, be enlightened. And I'd then bet that your rather cruel castigation of free thinking Ms. Ali might then be refuted.

heres a link to the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998

later it was thrown in the face of congress by bush as proof that they had given him a "promisory note go to war with iraq' card-
(not my words, chris matthews)

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

pundits are speculating this latest action may be used in the future as a go ahead for war-

(the action against the iranian military- first in history

Isn't this a joke; the terrorist state of US_Israel accuses the Iranian military of being a terrorist organization. Hilarious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402758_pf.html

a round of drinks for all my friends!
(charles bukowski- barfly-the movie)

thanks for calling my attention to that-

that really made my night-

no- that really was an excellent question for me-
(as i wasnt aware of your small confusion and wouldnt have been until you shared it)

and im delghted to come upon that website which i wouldnt have without the question-
i also submited a form of it to the jursiprudents at amman-

as for the hell question- it has bothered me for some time-
i think i told you my boycotting heaven til hitler goets in story- (got me kicked out of bible study at 14)

i do know this story but will paraphrase it -
(again im terrible at keeping track of things ive read- im really glad i have that link to jamal badawi as i couldnt get back to it- i have to recreate my thinking process to get back to sites sometimes- also i found the fatwa site you asked for but didnt link it as i kept reading and forgot why i was reading- ill find it again insha'alla)

there was a man - who prayed every day on time -fasted- did hajj- everything good and islamically correct- but nearing the very end of his life he committed a grave sin-(maybe adultery- one of the big ones)
there was a (lets say) woman- who lived a profligates promiscuous life- but at the very end embraced islam-

it is said that the woman gained entrance to paradise and the man- his fate is unknown and up to ALLAH_

this is a poor relating-

but the point (for me) is this-

we just dont know-
we cannot judge what is in anothers heart- or what their condition will be in the future-

i look at every single person as a potential muslim- and i dont mean that in a join my club way- or theyre lost i hope they see the light way-

i mean that as a potential companion in paradise-
and i look at muslims too and think they may be a potential loser of paradise in some way- maybe the drunk guy begging on the corner will be in - maybe the muslim praying next to me wil be out-

no one knows- i dont know for myself let alone anyone else

but i know for sure that the mercy and forgiveness of god is exponentially greater than my own- and i cannot think yet of the person i could condemn to hell- and ive seen a few in my life-
but in souls ive seen loneliness and alienation and some souls have really never ever been loved by anyone and are so gone and it is amazing but true- really desparate souls by their own reckoning beyond any possible redemption- people in prison for crimes of cruelty- i dont find any inhuman humans- but some very close-

who can even say- what fires and trials some need to go through-

ok-im off on a tangent- o and this is pretty long-

thanks for the heads up
that really mde my night
peace

Victoria,

Congratulations on winning your much deserved award! Check it out on the following link by The Jihadist posted at 5:56 PM:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/10/cooperate_or_die/all_comments.html

THE FIRST ANNUAL AWARDS FOR READER-POSTERS OF "ON FAITH" 2007

Prizes : free continued access to On Faith until award winners wants to stop or On Faith stop.

So.........the categories and nominees for "Most" and "Best" are..... (suspenseful drum-rolls):
...

Most patient and kind Muslim:
- Victoria

...

Hi Victoria,

Nah, it wasn’t a good question. I was confused again; it happens a lot with me. I was thinking of apostate as anyone who doesn’t accept Islam, like Christians and Jews, not to mention us atheists/agnostics.

So I shouldn’t have been asking you about apostasy, which means to renounce one’s religion. Of course, Islam wouldn’t have anything to say about a Christian or Jew who renounces his/her religion.

What I was really trying to get at is that we need some kind of Amman Message that would unite all religions, like the Sunnis and Shiites were united. This idea that, if you don’t think like I do, you are doomed to everlasting hell is really repugnant to me.

atually that article reminded me that amnesty international has been calling for the USA to be charged with genocide for hisroshima and nagasaki.

i dont think theres any other description that would fit what was done to the native americans either.

strange how one forgets these things
thanks for the reminder jon-
(although a sentence or two in the article about hiroshima or nagasaki would have been appropriate)

watched a documentary on pbs about the relationship between iran and america-

i wasnt aware that iran helped america after 911 go into afghanistan
i was aware that the iranians held vigils for us and thousands poured into the streets in support for america- ive posted that incident elsewhere-

one incredibly backhanded and sneeeeaky comment i heard from richard armitage had me really amazed at the usage of words.

when asked about the (apparently invaluable- not my opinion- ) intelligence and physical support given by iran to america wen they went into afghanistan-
he said they were "not unhelpful".

that took a second to sink in ,

doesnt that mean they were helpful?

it has never occurred to me to be so grudging in giving credit where it is due-

not unhelpful

that really blew my little mind

rick- really excellent question.

if a person leaves islam, they are no longer considered muslim ( i guess)so that umbrella of protection wouldnt apply to them.

christians and jews are people of the book , so to be an apostate, they have to leave their religion, become muslim, then leave islam.

i have been, on and off, researching it all day-

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article02.shtml

this is jamal badawi-
my first contact with islam as a social phenomena (and not theological) was in 1990- when i was given a series of tapes by him. 15 0r 20 i forget. 30 or 40 with both sides

i drove from n. cal to pttsburgh in a straight shot for 2 1/2 manic days and listened to them.

i was headed for the carmelite nunnery-
no kidding- (serious stuff)
he is really one of the best minds in north america.

so im delighted to give his link on apostasy

synopsis-
there is no instance where the Prophet(pbuh) ever killed anyone for apostasy, but a hadeeth where he let an apostate go unmolested and unquestioned

also there is the treay of - o i can never remember that name- habadiya or something- if i go to the link itll be too hard to get back in here- but it ws always a craw in my throat on the subject- where he sent many muslims back to mecca who were certain to become apostates.

also it is not in the qu'ran at all

the only place it occurs or is mentioned, is in a verse that clearly states that the judgement comes only from ALLAH-

so the answer is uneqivocally NO.
yay

but great question

CTCNL,

Did you see the Solar Decathlon Home competition on PBS News Hour tonight?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/solar_homes/slideshow/index.php

The Solar Village

Twenty college and university teams competed in the Department of Energy's third Solar Decathlon. Each team's challenge was to design and build a fully functioning energy-efficient solar-powered house on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Details on the solar homes come from the Solar Decathlon's Web site.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/solar/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_novabrsavedbythesun_2007-10-23

Neat stuff!

Thanks Jon for the thought provoking article. The prognosis is not good.

We are all “terrorists”, whether we are the individual suicide bomber striking back the only way that he can, or the terrorist state of US_Israel, raining tons of bombs from a thousand feet up to usurp the lands and oil fields of the rightful owners.

Henry Kissinger has an op-ed in WP today about the planned peace conference at Annapolis next month. For some reason they never post his articles on their web site as they do their other stories, so I will summarize.

He notes that …for most of its history Israel has rejected the notion of a Palestinian state, insisted on an undivided Jerusalem as its capital and refused to permit a return of Palestinian refugees. The Arab states have matched Israeli refusals by refusing to recognize Israel in any borders…

…The intifada and global momentum of radical Islamism have brought home to the Israeli public and leadership that their state is threatened by four new and growing dangers: first, an altered security environment in which the principal threat is not so much conventional wars as terrorist attacks from groups with no defined geography and operating from small, mobile bases; second, the demographic challenge, because the alternative to a two-state solution could become a single state in which the Jewish population is a minority; third, the existential threat of nuclear proliferation, particularly from Iran; and fourth, an international environment in which Israel finds itself increasingly isolated because of the growing perception in Western-Europe and in small but influential U.S. circles that Israel’s alleged intransigence is the cause of Arab hostility toward the West…

…As a general diplomatic rule, it is expected that the parties to an agreement…are able to deliver. In the proposed diplomacy, the interlocutors on both sides have extremely shaky domestic positions…

…The statement of Iran’s supreme leader last week attacking the Palestinian peace process and warning Arab states not to participate is likely to be the beginning of a systematic campaign…

What are the odds of achieving peace as a result of this conference? Zero

The best move for the Israelis would be to vacate their 5+ million citizens from Palestine and bring them to Texas.

As twice proven now, in Vietnam and Iraq, the Powel Doctrine of overwhelming military force is dead. It cannot defeat the insurgent who swims in the sea of the people.

Combining the ANNIHILATING POWER of Hiroshima with the NIHILISTIC GOSPEL of Auschwitz.

From the H-Bomb to the Human Bomb
André Glucksmann- the Thinking Frenchman

"A pitiless new day is dawning. The powers of the inhuman and the efficacy of hatreds mutate dangerously. A generation that worked diligently to tame the threat of nuclear war finds itself driven toward a horizon more frightening to contemplate than the one it dreamed of avoiding. Now it must try again to think the unthinkable, to leave the era of the H-bomb and enter the time of the human bomb."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_modern_terrorism.html

Hi Victoria,

You say:

“for instance- NONE OF US CAN ARROGATE OURSELVES TO CALL ANOTHER AN APOSTATE.

if we cannot call another muslim an apostate- who is there left to condemn?”

Well, you could call Christians and Jews apostates. What say ye about that?

I notice that the 2nd of the Three Points of the Amman Message said:

2. Based upon this definition they forbade takfir (declarations of apostasy) between Muslims.

It’s too bad that they couldn’t have said the same about Christians and Jews.

FRENCH INTELLECTUALS LOVE AYAAN HIRSI ALI-

"Make Hirsi Ali honorary French citizen"
23 October 2007

PARIS – A group of French intellectuals are demanding that Ayaan Hirsi Ali be given honorary French citizenship and that France provide the former politician with the protection that the Netherlands no longer wants to provide now that she lives in the US.

In a petition in the newspaper Libération the intellectuals express annoyance at the "unacceptable cowardice of a European government." The petition is signed by among others philosophers Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut and André Glucksmann.

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=45201
"Europe was the cradle of the Enlightenment tradition," says the declaration, "and Western values must guarantee freedom of expression."

i wish there were some shia who could comment here as i am poorly equipped to do so

yes, that is the paragraph i was referring to when i said a small but important distinction,
thats why i capitalized the word HEIR- but now i realize i should have been clearer in saying that i (and history) disagreed with that asessment-

abu bakr was the closest companion of the Prophet(pbuh) and also the father of Aisha, and she was considered the final authority for any matter relating to the life and sayings of the Prophet(pbuh). without her, most of the hadeeth would have been lost and if there was a question, hers was the final say.

so it is interesting to see how alien that idea (of a woman being the authority in matters of intelligence- administration- even war making which aisha did)was to society at that time.

for instance, the only record we have of how to pray comes from the sunnah- or transmitted actions of the Prophet(pbuh)
there are no guidleines in the qu'ran-

even today it is interesting to see how these subtle but pervasive distinctions are made.

have you ever heard of a man doctor?
how about a woman doctor?

did it ever occur to you to call a male who is a doctor a man doctor?

why should a female be a woman doctor?

however the shia certainly have their own hadeeth.
i dont want to define shia for them- but i observe that ALi has a more central status than the Prophet(pbuh) in shi'ite modern practice.

one of the more exceelent points made by the council at amman was to define muslim.
it was an inclusive (of shia of course) definition and we can only benefit from that.

for instance- NONE OF US CAN ARROGATE OURSELVES TO CALL ANOTHER AN APOSTATE.

if we cannot call another muslim an apostate- who is there left to condemn?

actually- as ive contended- this is already an islamic condition.

IF A MUSLIM ACCUSES A BELIEVER OF BEING AN UNBELIEVER- AND THE ACCUSED IS INNOCENT- THE ACCUSER BECOMES AN UNBELIEVER THEMSELF.

this isn't idle or inconsequential

this is a very solid and enforced idea and an integral part of islamic social mores interwoven tightly into its fabric.

it is taboo to even suggest such a false thing-

that is why you never see muslims on these boards accuse each other of not being a muslim.
that is how i know that when someone questions my muslimhood- they are posers-

okay, enough of that for now.

peace

Here's another difference; the Shia do not accept the hadiths:

"Shia Muslims also feel animosity towards some of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, based on their positions and actions during the early years of discord about leadership in the community. Many of these companions (Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, etc.) have narrated traditions about the Prophet's life and spiritual practice. Shia Muslims reject these traditions (hadith) and do not base any of their religious practices on the testimony of these individuals. This naturally gives rise to some differences in religious practice between the two groups. These differences touch all detailed aspects of religious life: prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc.

Sunni Muslims make up the majority (85%) of Muslims all over the world. Significant populations of Shia Muslims can be found in Iran and Iraq, and large minority communities in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Lebanon.

It is important to remember that despite all of these differences in opinion and practice, Shia and Sunni Muslims share the main articles of Islamic belief and are considered by most to be brethren in faith. In fact, most Muslims do not distinguish themselves by claiming membership in any particular group, but prefer to call themselves simply, "Muslims."

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm

Actually this paragraph that you quoted implies to me that the first four caliphs were decended from Muhammad, since the Sunnis believe that their decendents are also legitimate claiphs:

"The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the HEIRS of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These HEIRS ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War."

Why would their decendents be legitimate heirs, if they themselves were not heirs of Muhammad?

Thanks Victoria,

I think I was confused because I thought that the first 3 Caliphs were related as father and son, and that the Sunnis wanted this, but the Shi'i did not.

I knew that was wrong after thinking about it, because I know that the Shi'i think that the Caliph must be decended from Ali.

Thanks again for the clarification!

no rick- sunnis DO NOT believe in creating a dynasty-
but they keep doing it.
the qu'ran states that any country headed by a king is destined to corruption
it also states clearly that it is the obligation of every muskim to speak out against the despotic tyrant-

The first 3 caliphs were NOT relatives of Muhammad(pbuh) or each other.
Ali, the 4th caliph was the cousin of the Prophet(pbuh). The shia contend that the caliphate should be kept within the descendants of the Prophet(pbuh) this is the specific issue that created the DIVISION between sunni and shia.

the caliphate is based upon who is most qualified, not who ones father is.

but people created dynasties, and then new caliphs would spring up in opposition to this trend- only to repeat the same behavior.
(kind of like "reform parties" that laways become that which they set out to oust (my own analogy)

the turkish caliphate descended predictably into corruption and indolence.

clearly saudi arabia is an example of the worst possibilty-
kings are anti-islam.

so to recap-
SHIA for the heirs of family ties
sunnis ostensibly against it- but in practice kept repeateing the same mistake

all sunni scholars agree that there should be no succesion based on family ties, but based on abilities of individuals.

the last caliphate was destroyed in turkey in 1924.

that was why i picked out that particular piece of the article-
as i said- its a small distinction and might seem like nit-picking-

but it stated the same thing you just did-
that sunnis BELIEVE in the heirs of caliphs succeding

this is not what the Prophet(pbuh) proposed
abu bakr was made caliph by the will of the people. he was shy to accept the mantle-
Ali showed no interest in it.
It wasnt until after umar an othman died that the people put Ali forth. when he died they proposed his son, who also abdicated immediately and went off to live his days peacefully.

at the death of the Prophet, it was is wife Aisha who became the main authority on the words and actions of the Prophet(pbuh)

all arguments about the validity of sayings were put before her. she was the final authority as she was reknown for her impeccable memory and obviously, her constant companionship.

it was because she was a female that made the followers of Ali reject her authority, although sunni everywhere accept her definitvely and it is hadeeth that come through her transmission that are the first and strongest.

the questionable hadeeth that state that she was a child when she consumated her marriage to the Prophet(pbuh) for instance, come from the (now)
iraqi dissidents who pushed Ali forth.
even though history puts her at 18 or so.

she is even today virulently hated by shia.

what is it that made you think the opposite?

Thanks for the clarification Victoria.

If I understand you correctly then, the Sunnis believe in a royal succession of Caliphates (Kings) much like England. Although England has taken the control of government away from the (symbolic) Royal Family, the Sunnis have not. The Shiites believe that there is no royalty, but rather all are equal, more like the U.S.

I think that another important distinction is that roughly 90% of all Muslims are Sunni. The 10% who are Shiite in Iran and southern Iraq are in the distinct minority.

hey i bet if you send a question to mr patel, he could really enlighten us all big time.
im stuck in some old hotmail server thingy and i havent figured out how to bypass it.

good posts rick-

if i was ideologically opposed to them - i would still compliment their logical and thorough coverage.

heres a tiny but very important distinction from your article by the history network

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the HEIRS of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These HEIRS ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

it is actually an enormous distinction between shia-sunni.

Sunni's look to the Prophet(pbuh) saying that his heirs were to be treated no differently than any other muslim. And no dynasty was to be created from his descendants, no special treatment, favors etc...

The first 4 were all the companions of Rasul(pbuh). a nickname for our Prophet, kind of like darling or beloved one.

the 4th was Ali, Muhammad's 1st cousin and also son in law (he married his daughter fatima)

after the death of Ali- Muawiya ( a scribe to but no relation to the Prophet(pbuh)became caliph, and moved to syria where he became governor- starting the umayyad dynasty- his son yazid succeeded him- but was not respected and a warmaker- in the meantime the grandson of Muhammad(pbuh) and son of Ali was encouraged to go claim the caliphate from the questionable yazid, and his head was chopped off at kerbala.

when you see the iraqis doing the self flagellation thing (simialar to the medieval monks if you ask me- which you didnt) it is in remembrance of their betrayal of husayn- by not protecting him.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/SHIA/HUSAYN.HTM

heres a quick synopsis- its a shia site i believe- but of course they should describe themselves.

and then there were other dynasties and caliphs etc--- and much later it was too convoluted anyway- but sunni's contend that it was not the wishes of the Prophet (pbuh) to create a family dynasty although it is human nature to keep it in the family its a highly contnetious issue between shia and sunni.

personally i find similarities between the practces and temperments of shia with roman catholics- very ritualistically oriented, with some small (but nomeans as much as catholic) not imagery but iconic symbols- highly emotional and of course the overwhelming guilt factor which pervade both- but that is my personal observation so take it as such.

also it is of note that the borther of husayn, hasan outright abdicated and rejected the caliphate-
the geneological descendants of Muhammad(pbuh) (as youll see, husayn and his son died in battle)
have the family name of sayyid, or said, or sayid, or sayeed etc... but i have to admit, everyone and their cousin seems to have that last name so i cannot testify.

and of course the Prophet(pbuh) came from a large family and tribe so..

hope you enjoy this little bit of info on the shia and sunnis.

ive been to both and i ilke shias- one of the best muslims ive ever known was a lone shia at our mosque from lebanon.
peace

CTCNL,

So going back to your comment on oil independence would be nice, but solar is not ready for prime time.

True, but as Ender noted, if we had spent the last 4 years and half a trillion dollars pursuing energy independence instead of squandering it in Iraq, we may not be there yet but we would be well on our way.

There are other technologies than solar; e.g. nuclear, coal, wind, hydrogen, conservation and geothermal. We must rebuild our infrastructure to provide more and better public transportation. We must change our lifestyle, travel shorter distances to work, telecommute, mandate higher fuel economy vehicles, etc.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has a plan to achieve energy independence in 8 years. This is optimistic, but it can be done. It needs to have a greater priority than we placed on our man on the moon project of the 60s.

CTCNL,

Point #6:

You say: ‘And you really believe Saddam and his "security forces" were somehow good global citizens???’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, but at least they kept they peace didn’t they. Once again the point is proven that a ruthless dictator is always better than chaos. And what business was it of ours? Did we really care that he was a bad man? No, we just coveted his world’s 2nd largest oil field, and the Jewish lobby (our true government) feared and loathed him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Point #7:

You say: ‘And your single Jewish friend, what sayest he about your current siding with Islam?’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He and I agree to disagree on that issue. But that’s OK, we are still friends.

CTCNL,

Point #5:

You say: ‘And you believe that the illiterate womanizing Mohammed and his henchmen were really visited by a "pwtfft"? And visited Heaven?’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, no more than I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and was resurrected to heaven; but so what? What’s your point?

CTCNL,

Point #4:

You say: ‘And have you finished reading the book of death aka the koran?’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, I’m on Chapter 3 of 114, but it’s no more the book of death than is our old testament.

Chapter 1 AL-FATIHA (THE OPENING) is a very innocuous 7 verse opening.

Chapter 2 AL-BAQARA (THE COW) has 286 verses and parallels our OT discussion of Adam and Eve in the garden, the children of Israel, the exodus rom Egypt, etc:

002.040: O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me.

002.049: And remember, We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: They set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live; therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.

002.050: And remember We divided the sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh's people within your very sight.

The Qur’an accepts the OT/NT as gospel and builds from there; the difference being that Jesus is a Prophet like Muhammad, not God.

So really, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same God with minor variations.

CTCNL,

Point #3:

You say: ‘And the references to the conference you noted? And did Iran sign the message??’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, here are the endorsements by Iran and Iraq:

Islamic Republic of Iran (21)

159. Supreme Spiritual Leader Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Ali Khamenei fatwa
160. H.E. Dr. Mahmood Ahmedinejad ∫President
161. Grand Ayatollah Shaykh Muhammad Ali Al-Taskhiri fatwa § ¶ ◊Secretary General, Forum for the Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence
162. Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Fadil Lankarani fatwa
163. Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Waez-zadeh Al-Khorasani § ◊Former Secretary General, Forum for the Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence
164. Grand Ayatollah Prof. Dr. Al-Sayyid Mustafa Mohaghegh Damad § Director of the Academy of Sciences; Justice in the Ministry of Justice; Head of the Inspectorate General
165. Hujjat Al-Islam Dr. Mahmoud Mohammadi Iraqi §Chairman of the Cultural League and Islamic Relations in the Islamic Republic of Iran
166. Dr. Al-Sayyid Mahmoud Mar‘ashi Al-Najafi §Head of the Grand Ayatollah Mar‘ashi Al-Najafi Library
167. Dr. Muhammad Ali Adharshab §Secretary-General, Arab-Iranian Friendship Society
168. Mr. Murtada Hashim Bur Qadi §Secretary-General, Bureau for International Relations, Great Islamic Encyclopaedia
169. Shaykh Abbas Ali Sulaymani § Representative of the Supreme Spiritual Leader in Eastern Iran
170. Mr. Ghulam Rida Mirzai §Member, Consultative Council
171. Dr. Syed Muhammad Rida Khatimi §Political leader; Former Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament
172. Shaykh Muhammad Shari‘ati §
Former Advisor to the President of Iran; Member of Parliament
173. Amb. Muhammad Kazem Khuwansari ◊
Permanent Representative of Iran to the Organization of the Islamic Conference
174. Mr. Ma Sha Allah Mahmoud Shams Al-Waithin §Journalist and Writer
175. Dr. Ruqayya Rustum Yurmaki *Imam Sadiq University
176. Dr. Mojgan Sakhaei *Imam Sadiq University
177. Shaykh Ahmad Mablaghi ◊Professor, Qom Seminary
178. Dr. Gholam Reza Noor-Mohammadi ◊Director, Centre for Islamic Medical Research, Imam al-Sadiq University, Qom; Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tehran
179. Shaykh Hassan Jawahiri Zadeh ◊Professor, Religious Seminary, Qom

Republic of Iraq (28)

180. H.E. Mr. Jalal Talabani ∫President
181. Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Ali Sistani fatwa
182. Grand Ayatollah Shaykh Ishaq Al-Fayad fatwa
183. Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Muhammad Sa‘id Al-Hakim fatwa
184. Grand Ayatollah Shaykh Bashir Al-Najafi fatwa
185. Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Shaykh Hussein Isma‘il Al-Sadr fatwa
186. Grand Ayatollah Shaykh Husayn Al-Mu‘ayyad § *Knowledge Forum, Baghdad
187. Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Bahadili §Islamic Missionary
188. Shaykh Dr. Harith Al-Dari ≈Head of Ulema organization
189. Dr. Muhsin ‘Abd Al-Hamid ≈
190. Dr. Ahmad Abd Al-Ghaffur Al-Samara‘i §Head of the Diwan of the Sunni Waqf
191. Al-Sayyid Abd al-Sahib Al-Khoei §Secretary General, Imam Al-Khoei Benevolent Foundation
192. Al-Sayyid Muhammad Al-Musawi §Secretary General, World Islamic Ahl Al-Bayt eague
193. Shaykh Dr. Mahmoud Muhammad Dawud Al-Sumayda‘i ≈
194. Prof. Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Al-Duri § Researcher and Historian, Department of History, University of Jordan; Fellow of Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought
195. Prof. Dr. Bashshar Awwad Marouf § *Researcher and Editor; Fellow of Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought
196. Shaykh Abbas Ali Kashif Al-Ghita §College of Islamic Studies, University of al-Kufa
197. Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Najdi §Islamic Intellectual
198. Shaykh Walid Faraj Allah Al-Asadi § College of Islamic Studies, University of al-Kufa
199. Shaykh Prof. Dr. Ahmad Al-Kubaysi § ≈Missionary and Islamic Intellectual
200. Prof. Ghanem Jawad §Director of Cultural Affairs, Khoei Benevolent Foundation
201. Mr. Muhammad Allawi § Assistant Director General, World Islamic Ahl Al-Bayt League
202. Prof. Sa‘d Al-Malla §Islamic Intellectual
203. Dr. Mustafa Abd Al-Ilah Kamal Al-Din §Islamic Intellectual
204. Prof. Dr. Adnan Ali Al-Faraji *Islamic University
205. Dr. Aziz Rashid Al-Dayini *Islamic University
206. Dr. Abd Al-Qadir Mustafa Al-Muhammadi *Islamic University
207. Mr. ‘Ala’ Al-Din Al-Mudarris *Researcher and Historian republic

CTCNL,

Point #2:

You say: ‘And strange you say nothing about said terror support supporting the high cost of oil. Said profits are feeding this Sunni/Shiite conflict and Israel is always the convenient scapegoat and you have fallen into this Islamic trap. Yes it would be nice not to depend on oil and natural gas but going solar is not in the current realm of realism. ’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well of course the price of oil is expected to rise, when we are waging war on the people who generate the oil supplies.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/12/journal_prospec.html

From the above link:

Networked tribes, infrastructure disruption, and the emerging bazaar of violence. An open notebook on the first epochal war of the 21st Century.

By John Robb
Friday, 29 December 2006
JOURNAL: Prospects for Iraqi oil production in 2007

As anticipated repeatedly on this weblog, Iraq's oil production in 2007 will be the same or worse than 2006 (Ben Lando at the UPI has a round-up). Currently at 1.6 million barrels a day, production is less than it was pre-war. On the northern production routes alone, $11 billion (from 651 lost days of production) in losses have been achieved by simple systems disruption (most of the casualties suffered by the guerrillas doing the disruption have been self-inflicted). Of the remaining production, $700 million a month in oil (which can be added to the $100 million a month in revenue in gasoline smuggling) is stolen by gangs/militias/guerrillas that bunker or reroute the oil. This is a good model for what will happen in Saudi Arabia but at higher levels of production and revenue from theft.

And we have no one to blame for this but ourselves. I don’t lay this one on the Israelis, other than for the influence of their Washington D.C. lobbyists who prodded us into this horrendous misadventure in the first place. But we were so eager to grab these oil fields that we didn't take much prodding.

CTCNL,

So I apologize for the length of the previous post. To boil it down:

You say:

1. ‘And who promotes the ancient Sunni/Shiite feud? The Islamic terror Shiite theocracy of Iran and the Islamic Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia. Strange that you say nothing about this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I said nothing about it, because it is not true.

Actually, the kind of sectarian fighting we're seeing now in Iraq is not ancient. It is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.

Yes, the Iranians support their natural ally, the Shiites, in their effort to oust the unwanted invader and occupier, the US. What’s wrong with that?

And yes, the Saudis are concerned about their natural ally, the Sunnis, and try to protect them from the coming payback for the decades (not millennia) of abuse that the Sunnis perpetrated on the Shiites under Saddam’s rule. What’s wrong with that?

So it’s more like a family feud between the Hatfields and McCoys, and has practically nothing to do with Islam, which has formally renounced the feud and abhors it.

If you are satisfied with this answer, we will move on to Point #2.

CTCNL,

OK let’s take your points one at a time:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You say:

1. ‘And who promotes the ancient Sunni/Shiite feud? The Islamic terror Shiite theocracy of Iran and the Islamic Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia. Strange that you say nothing about this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I said nothing about it, because I don’t know that it is true or relevant. Let’s see if we can find some information on this.

Actually, the kind of sectarian fighting we're seeing now in Iraq is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.

Here is an article from the History News Network (HNN):

What Is the Difference Between Sunni and Shiite Muslims--and Why Does It Matter?

By HNN Staff

Updated 12/18/06

http://hnn.us/articles/934.html

First some background information from the article:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Islam religion was founded by Mohammed in the seventh century. In 622 he founded the first Islamic state, a theocracy in Medina, a city in western Saudi Arabia located north of Mecca. There are two branches of the religion he founded.

The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed. In 931 the Twelfth Imam disappeared. This was a seminal event in the history of Shiite Muslims.

According to R. Scott Appleby, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, "Shiite Muslims, who are concentrated in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, [believe they] had suffered the loss of divinely guided political leadership" at the time of the Imam's disappearance. Not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure.

Another difference between Sunnis and Shiites has to do with the Mahdi, “the rightly-guided one” whose role is to bring a just global caliphate into being. As historian Timothy Furnish has written, "The major difference is that for Shi`is he has already been here, and will return from hiding; for Sunnis he has yet to emerge into history: a comeback v. a coming out, if you will."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is more background that you can read on the web, then this:

Osama bina Laden is a Sunni Muslim. To him the end of the reign of the caliphs in the 1920s was catastrophic, as he made clear in a videotape made after 9-11. On the tape, broadcast by Al-Jazeera on October 7, 2001, he proclaimed: "What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted. ... Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more [than] eighty years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated."

Juan Cole, a well-known historian of the Middle East, has pointed out on his blog, Informed Comment that the split between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq is of relatively recent origin:

I see a lot of pundits and politicians saying that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq have been fighting for a millennium. We need better history than that. The Shiite tribes of the south probably only converted to Shiism in the past 200 years. And, Sunni-Shiite riots per se were rare in 20th century Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites cooperated in the 1920 rebellion against the British. If you read the newspapers in the 1950s and 1960s, you don't see anything about Sunni-Shiite riots. There were peasant/landlord struggles or communists versus Baathists.

The kind of sectarian fighting we're seeing now in Iraq is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.

Rick,

And who promotes the ancient Sunni/Shiite feud? The Islamic terror Shiite theocracy of Iran and the Islamic Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia. Strange that you say nothing about this. And strange you say nothing about said terror support supporting the high cost of oil. Said profits are feeding this Sunni/Shiite conflict and Israel is always the convenient scapegoat and you have fallen into this Islamic trap.

Yes it would be nice not to depend on oil and natural gas but going solar is not in the current realm of realism.

And the references to the conference you noted? And did Iran sign the message??

And have you finished reading the book of death aka the koran?

And you believe that the illiterate womanizing Mohammed and his henchmen were really visited by a "pwtfft"? And visited Heaven?

And you really believe Saddam and his "security forces" were somehow good global citizens???

And your single Jewish friend, what sayest he about your current siding with Islam?

CTCNL,

Yes, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites don’t much like each other, but this has nothing to do with Islam. This has more to do with hundreds of years of the Sunni minority dominating and abusing the Shiite majority under Saddam and others. And you know Saddam didn’t have a religious bone in his body.

From the three points of the Amman Message as posted by Victoria: (1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi)… is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate is impossible and impermissible. Verily his (or her) blood, honour, and property are inviolable… This was endorsed by 552 signatories from 84 countries.

From the beginning in Iraq, the Takfiri foreign militants have targeted the Shi‘a in order to create a civil war and widen the conflict, thereby entangling the coalition forces in a never-ending conflict of which their countries will eventually weary. By achieving a consensus that all Sunni and Shi‘as are Muslims and that all have basic common beliefs and practices, the conference has taken the theological and religious basis out of this sectarian conflict, and exposed for what it really is: sedition and mass murder.

Actually, our invasion and overthrow of the sovereign government and dispersal of its security forces has more to do with the anarchy that we now see on the streets of Baghdad than does any tenet of Islam.

Rick,

You must be kidding!!! Islam is a religion of peace???

Sunnis and Shiites the last time I checked are Islamics and they butcher each other 24/7 in the name of some relative of Mohammed using the koran as their SOP.

Good Morning CTCNL,

What are you doing up so late? What time zone are you in? Ah yes, it is the weekend. You young folks can stay up half the night.

It's discouraging isn't it, to find out that your preconceived notions about Islam, that you have been harboring for so long, are all wrong.

As Victoria always says, Islam is a rligion of peace, but does reserve the right to defend itself. If we don't attack it, it won't attack us.