On 9/11, Bowing and Clearing Our Heads

Apostate-
Are you dictating your posts to your stenographer?
You can drop the act.

As you might have noticed, my posts were made before I made Saba breakfast at 3AM-
Since you don't know this islamic fact- I am not fasting at 3AM-
so you cannot create the condition for me to break it.
Another basic mistake in your knowledge of Islam.

You are not exactly helping your case with these continued mistakes.
How could you not know that?

Victoria
Had it never occured to you that mentioning "right" foot before the "left" was a matter of dictation error. People frequently mix up the left and right directions. Maybe because the whole routine seemed ridiculous to me even as a child. When you made such a big fuss I looked back and discovered the error and corrected it. Compare my September 14th post with mine of Sept 16. You were quick to jump on me. Your religion teaches you that Akthar utthunni sou.
As for me not engaging you any further which, as usual, you misinterpreted, I just did not want you to break anymore of your fast on my account.

Yes Mary, that is proof. You can see the whole conversation if you look at the prior posts.
Even very small children know this basic practice.
It is not possible that Apostate could have entered adulthood without having been informed of this.
If he were a practicing muslim man in the past- that means he went to the mosque every single week.
Muslims are super conscientious when it comes to uniform practice.
It is in the Qur'an that we are to watch out for each other, and correct each other's mistakes.
We also are commanded to protect each other and hides each other's faults.

Even the tiniest detail- and stepping into the bathroom with your right foot is so well known- so ingrained- that even if he had made it through his life without being instructed by his parents-
he could not have made it past the muslims in his mosque when he prayed-

We have to perform ablutions before we pray-
and the bathroom is the first place everyone hits when they enter the mosque.

Since it is the first place we go- the bathrooms are always centrally located- and there are always sofas and benches filled with elderly who have nothing else to do but monitor the people.

The only thing I can liken it to, is crossing onself in holy water when one comes into a cathoic church-
except there are no people around them, people just rush by the bowls and into the church.
So it's not really a comparable example.

Or maybe, if someone claimed to be a catholic or ex-catholic- and crossed themselves backwards.
Catholics cross themselves forehead- stomach- LEFT shoulder, right shoulder.
Othodox christians do it right shoulder then left- backwards for catholics (and vice versa)

(I know, because I'm left-handed- and used to get mixed up and corrected on this)

Also, if Apostate didn't feel embarrassed and know he has been exposed for lying- he would have come back and defended himself- or exclaimed his truthfulness to his claim of being muslim.
Instead he has slunk away- afraid of further exposure.

He has been one of the most virulent and hateful anti-muslim posters here-
spewing real perverted filth- and brimming with hate.

So, to answer your question, yes- every muslim- even small children- know this basic act-
it is not an act of jurisprudence subject to ignorance by some.

It is the seminal act- most basic knowledge-
praying is one of the 5 pillars or requirement of being a muslim.

Even if one wasn't obviously taught by their parents- or in school and rasied a muslim-
when one becomes one- the first thing you are taught is to perform ablutions, (wudu).
The absolute first thing- and to do that- you go to the bathroom- which often has specialy designed sinks for it.
You cannot pray without being clean first.
You cannot be clean with going to the sinks in the bathroom.
You cannot enter the bathroom on your right foot.

It is inconceivable that any muslim, anywhere- would not know this.

Just as a catholic child may not know church doctrine- they all know how to cross themselves.

Simialrly, over a billion muslims all over the word may not know islamic jurisprudence- but they all- old and young alike- know to enter the bathroom on their left foot. and start on he right side when performing wudu(ablutions).

There are a few really anti-islamic posters in here that always show up and vilfy islam-

Apostate, Ibrahim Mahfouz,(who is a christian) Observer and Arif.

Even Arif was suprised at my reaction- and said-
"Apostate you must have really provoked her, she normally does not respond like this. I may be wrong but this is her first."

Yes, it is my first time.
I have responded with patience and gentleness to constant slander and personal abuse from Apostate.

But this latest lie- so easily disproven- deserved to be exposed.

I think he will show up again with a fake muslim name now.

Victoria
You have no evidence and he/ she had not admitted to this. Otherwise you would have quoted his /her admission. Jumping to such a conclusion and getting all worked about it because he/she said right foot instead of a left foot or some such thing is not an incontrovertible evidence. Do you or any Muslim know all aspects of your jurisprudence? Or maybe it is inconceivable that there be an apostate? I know few who attend my church.

That is the point Mary, Apostate has written the foulest and most vile misinformation - all the while claiming to be an ex-muslim.

Now we discover he has been lying about this all along-

If someone went to a christian panelists thread and said the most perverted horrible things about Jesus- all the while claiming to be an ex-christian-

and you discovered that they were lying about THAT the whole time also-

you would call a liar a liar I am sure.

Joe
I agree with you 100%. I am curious how “On Faith” allows such a trashy language and such personal attacks on its threads?

Showing all this outrage over a name? Why not show part of this outrage toward those who commit daily crimes against innocent people in the name of your religion.

I think you missed the point observer.

I think this person who calls herself Victoria needs some real professional help. Making such a big fuss over somebody calling himself Apostate is downright ridiculous. Accusing him of copying from “faith freedom.org” is a proof that he is an apostate , since this is an organization for ex-Muslims i.e. apostates.
Check it out!
http://www.faithfreedom.org/

And yes False Apostate-
Vicious lying and malicious slander and defmatory remarks will ALWAYS hit a raw nerve with me.
It is what happens when honest people encounter mendacious bigots.

Arif said,
"Apostate you must have really provoked her, she normally does not respond like this. I may be wrong but this is her first."

Yes, it is a first- and I thought about that as I responded. I was even oging to include that it was a first in my post but thought - well- I don't need to brag about previous self-restraint.
Thanks for noticing, and being a gentleman.

But Apostate has been in here lying and defrauding us for a long time claiming to be an ex-muslim and it was such an overt an obvious lie that I felt his dishonesty shoud be outed.
---------------
Apostate hypocritically replied-
"But as you very well know, those of her persuasion when they could not answer a charge they retaliate by attacking the person conveying the message. The irony of the whole issue is that she saved her vilest venom"

There WAS no charge you idiot-
You were wrong. Your charge was backwards and wrong.
And you revealed your own dishonest, fraudulent, misrepresentative depiciton of yourself for all this time-
You tried to give your own slanderous cause credibilty by making a false claim-

You were never a Mulsim- and lied.

To call a liar a liar is not attacking the messenger- it is revealing the message, and the messenger as false.

Now you have been caught.

So your credibilty has been forfeited by your own making.
Not only that- but you compound stupidity with further idiocy by claiming that the english noun Apostate is an 'arab musim' name!

So now we know you sit on Faithfreedom with all of the other pretenders who take fake muslim names and post poisous falsehoods- and you come and regurgitate that incorrect and unknowledgable garbage back here- not even realizing that half the people in there are lying to each other, and so eager to fill their own hate-filled bigotry with substantiation- that they believe ANY nonsense!

And THEN- you try to save face- by attacking NY credibilty!!!!

"We are also fasting from impatience, anger, and any negative traits. That is the most important thing.”

Now tell me prithee WHO IS THE FRAUD?

That does not make me a fraud- that makes me weak. There is a difference between not adhering to our ideals perfectly and deliberately misrepresenting or lying about ourselves.
HOWEVER!!!

That particular post was made at 3:43 AM AND I WAS NOT FASTING-
Believe me, I thought about it before I posted, as I thoughtfully consider all of my responses.

BUT- it was a righteous anger- I don't believe that calling a fraud and liar and defamer of my faith- anything but justified.

and it is pseudoNYM- not pseudo name.

And you make a VERY COMMON MISTAKE-when you misuse the meaning of irony- which means to make a statement that is opposie of another, and more similar to sarcasm- UNLESS it is in reference to a literary device- which this exchange is NOT-which would be IRONIC-

So, despite your complete miscomprehension of the english language and the subtleties of meanings-
your continued falsehoods and vitriol in your lame attmepts to defame Islam- for whatever dysfunctional reasons that you need to hate soemthing- and your ineffective SARDONIC (Marked by or displaying contemptuous mockery of the motives or virtues of others.) and nasty quips-

I see you have learned a little something about Islam as it is from my post- and what Ramadan means-

So I'm glad I can help in your re-education.

Your idiotic rants, on the other hand, seem to have had the opposite effect that you were going for.
My grandmother always said- "The truth will out."
Meaning, eventually, the truth reveals itself.

So, kudos to you false apostate- you have outed the truth with your own ineptness.

AND- I am not fasting today- And that is none of your business!

Arif:
You are right.I must have hit a raw nerve. It could not be because of what I call myself. But as you very well know, those of her persuasion when they could not answer a charge they retaliate by attacking the person conveying the message. The irony of the whole issue is that she saved her vilest venom for Ramadan; the time she claims the believers’ nature is purged of all najaseh (filth). The worst part is how hypocrites do not seem to be aware of the irony of their actions. A classic example is the case of the imam who gave a fatwa(edict) to kill those who accuse Muslims of being violent.

Victoria says to Apostate:
"You are an idiot. It is not a muslim arab name-
it is not a name at all."

Apostate you must have really provoked her, she normally does not respond like this. I may be wrong but this is her first.

Anyway Apostate, what you posted about gas and other absurdities is true in Pakistan. We were taught all of that and more, however people largly use water to clean themselves now and the odd number of rocks may not apply. In some remote tribal areas where people use the fields to relieve themselves stones are the norm. You will to this day find men walking around with one hand in their baggy pants holding a rock to catch every drop so that their pants don't get soiled...don't pick up rocks in Pakistan is the moral of this story.

Victoria:
On Sept 2 you pontificated
“Our fasts are not automatically valid- they must be accompanied by patience, and gentleness.
Imagine going through the whole day making the sacrifice and then getting angry- that is a reason for your fast to be nullified.

We are also fasting from impatience, anger, and any negative traits. That is the most important thing.”

Now tell me prithee WHO IS THE FRAUD?

"This is because one time I signed “Apostate/ (my pseudo name).I do not know what makes her so sure I never was a Muslim even though my pseudo name, is a Muslim Arab name."

Yes, you're pseudonym is Apostate.

Apostate
–noun 1. a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc.

Apostate is an english word from the latin derived form the greek.

'my pseudo name, is a Muslim Arab name'

You are an idiot. It is not a muslim arab name-
it is not a name at all.

It is an english noun.

I ceased responding to your nonsensical assertions a while ago-

But you are a fake and fraud and poser-

Apostate:
Re: Reading during Ramadan.
Revised Jurisprudence of the bathroom.
1. Enter with the left foot and leave with the right foot.
2. Squat in a way that neither face nor back is facing Mecca.
3. Wipe behind with the odd number of pebbles held in the left hand.
4. If any part of cloth is soiled by urine to repeat the prayer’s ritual starting with ambulation.
5. Hold your penis with the left hand.
6 When farting turn toward the wind.
7. Upon entering the enclosure for any purpose mention the name of Allah to drive away evil spirits.(O Allah, I seek refuge with You from male and female devils) and when leaving say "Allah I seek your forgiveness."

Well no, Apostate- you have stated in no uncertain terms that you are an ex-muslim revealing it's inadequecies and educating the masses.

I have read The Satanic Verses, and even if I hadn't, with it's notoriety, I would have the sense to not cite it as a source for knowledge of Islam.

You are busted for the fraud you have perpetrated on us here.

Try to talk your way out of it if you want-
it is what it is.

I knew YOU would catch that little tidbit PAganplace. :)

"Anyone notice that those bass-akwards leaders of Tripoli somehow thought Americans were Christian!"

Well, until they were told on no uncertain terms regarding the Treaty of Tripoli that the US of A was "In no way founded upon the Christian religion."

Assalamu'alaikum,

> Comments from all the peace-loving,
> tolerant Muslims out there???

Ah, I thought Rushdie's book was supposed to be non-fiction. I didn't realize it was satire. Doesn't appear many do.

Word to the wise ... I wouldn't go reading too much into Rushdie's words as being actual Islamic rules. Like any good humorist, he has used exaggeration to make his point. The same work could not only be written about any religion, it could also be easily written about Aetheists. It wouldn't make it any more "literal" either.

Wa'salaam

Re: Bathroom Jurisprudence:
It is also good manners according to Sharee’ah to recite certain adhkaar (supplications) when entering or leaving the toilet, which are quite appropriate to the situation and place. Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught us that when entering the toilet, we should say: “Allaahumma innee a’oodhi bika min al-khubthi wa’l-khabaa’ith (O Allah, I seek refuge with You from male and female devils).” When leaving the toilet, he should say: “Ghufraanak (I seek Your forgiveness).”
Below is all what you need to know about bathroom jurisprudencein Islam.

sweetness-light.com/.../lets-ask-the-imam-muslim-bathroom-etiquette

www.themodernreligion.com/basic/charac/essays_Bathroom_Etiquette.htm

More on Islam and farting: (i.e. Sir Rushdie and the Apostate got it right)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1503931/Prayer-Recitation-of-Quran-and-Ablution-or-Bath?query2=islam%20fart

"Farting is problematic in Islam. During prayer, a worshipper must not fart. Sahih Bukhari (1.4.137) writes that Allah will not accept a Muslim’s prayer if he/she passes wind during the ritual.

The exception occurs if the worshipper farts silently, or the fart does not smell. In such a case, he/she may continue with the prayer (ibid, 1.4.139).Sunaan Nasai (1.162) writes that if you fart during a prayer you must redo ablution. Sahih Bukhari (9.86.86) says that for a “farter” Allah will not accept his/her prayer until he/she performs another ablution."

Victoria
I gleaned those gems of rules about the etiquette in the bathroom from the various ahadith and what I learned from the practices and writings of Muslims. The item of which direction to face when passing gas I learned from Salman Rushdie’s book the “Satanic verses.” If you are as knowledgeable in Muslim jurisprudence, as you try to project, you will know about those practices, and would not deny them, even if you are ashamed of them, as you should be.
As for my true identity, that has nothing to do with the topic. Your assumption that I was never a Muslim because I am ignorant, according to you, of some Muslim practice is assuming that every Muslim knows everything that needs to be known about their religion. This is ludicrous, to say the least. Counter my claim with a credible rebuttal, and do not try to psychoanalyze me.

CCNL:
I shall answer part of your question;" How did Apostate blow it?"
It is her statement below is how she thinks I blew it.
“YOU WERE NEVER A MUSLIM.”
This is because one time I signed “Apostate/ (my pseudo name). I do not know what makes her so sure I never was a Muslim even though my pseudo name, is a Muslim Arab name. Besides I know more about Islam than many professed Muslims who regularly post on WAPO. I shall leave it to the readers to judge my knowledge as well as my integrity.

O'Victoria,

And how is the Apostate mistaken???? How did he blow it???

Apostate!
Omigod- you have been LYING bold faced all this time!!!

YOU WERE NEVER A MUSLIM.

Even though you have spouted faithfreedom pastes for a long time- I have given your story the benefit of the doubt.
But you don't even know the most BASIC things that even tiny toddler muslim children know!

You are wrong wrong wrong, and I will not even tell you so you can continue to expose yourself as the pretender and fraud you have revealed yourself to be-
, but you are so wrong-
whatever webste you got that info was is wrong- don't rely on it anymore.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh.

Why would a person be so filled with bigotry and hatred to spend their time pretending to be a fake someone to vilify the group they hate?

Even Arif will tell you that you blew it big time this time.

Jurisprudence of pre islamic era followed by Jews and Christians as well .

Re: Reading during Ramadan.

Jurisprudence of the bathroom.
1. Enter with the right foot and leave with the left foot.
2. Squat in a way that neither face nor back is facing Mecca.
3. Wipe behind with the odd number of pebbles held in the left hand.
4. If any part of cloth is soiled by urine to repeat the prayer’s ritual starting with ambulation.
5. When farting turn toward the wind.
6. Upon entering the enclosure for any purpose mention the name of Allah to drive away evil spirits.

Unites States have killed more innocent civilians than Alquaeda and Taleban put together. !.5 million innocent Muslims have already been butchered using cluster bombs weighing 800 kilograms in Iraq.

Are you saying suicde bomb is wrong and cluster bomb is right ?

Required reading for the "Fun and Feasting Ramadaners" as they are bowing and clearing their heads:

From Sir Salman Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses", p. 376, paperback issue - for those 1 billion Muslims to read as they are forbidden to purchase or read said book:

an excerpt:

The faithful lived by lawlessness, but in those years Mahound - or should one say the Archangel Gibreel? - should one say Al-Lah? - became obsessed by law.

Amid the palm-trees of the oasis Gibreel appeared to the Prophet and found himself spouting rules, rules, rules, until the faithful could scarcely bear the prospect of any more revelation, Salman said, rules about every damn thing, if a man farts let him turn his face to the wind, a rule
about which hand to use for the purpose of cleaning one's behind.

It was as if no aspect of human existence was to be left unregulated, free. The revelation - the recitation- told the faithful how much to eat, how deeply they should sleep, and which sexual
positions had received divine sanction, so that they leamed that sodomy and the missionary position were approved of by the archangel, whereas the forbidden postures included all those in which the female was on top.

Gibreel further listed the permitted and forbidden subjects of conversation, and earmarked the parts of the body which could not be scratched no matter how unbearably they might itch. He vetoed the consumption of prawns, those bizarre other-worldly creatures which no member of the faithful had ever seen, and required animals to be killed slowly, by bleeding, so that by experiencing their deaths to the full they
might arrive at an understanding of the meaning of their lives, for it is only at the moment of death that living creatures understand
that life has been real, and not a sort of dream.

And Gibreel the archangel specified the manner in which a man should be buried, and how his property should be divided, so that Salman the Persian got to wondering what manner of God this was that soundedso much like a businessman.

This was when he had the idea that
destroyed his faith, because he recalled that of course Mahound himself had been a businessman, and a damned successful one at that, a person to whom organization and rules came naturally, so
how excessively convenient it was that he should have come up with such a very businesslike archangel, who handed down the management decisions of this highly corporate, if noncorporeal, God."

Comments from all the peace-loving, tolerant Muslims out there???

He who calls himself “RESPONSE to THOR” defends the crimes of his terrorist cult by citing the examples of McVeigh, Jones of Jamestown. IRA,Inca, Aztecs and Mayas.

Timothy McVeigh was a deranged man and did not kill in the name of his religion
Jones of Jamestown was a narcissist cult leader not unlike your prophet.
IRA is a revolutionary war for aggrieved people unlike what is happening in the West Bank of Palestine.
The Inca, Aztec and Maya have integrated with the more civilized cultures of the Spaniards.

The following is a partial list of crimes of terrorism waged in the NAME OF YOUR RELIGION since 2001.

1) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured
3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops (3,371, combat 778 non-combat) and 87,387 – 95,373
Iraqi civilians4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.
5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.
6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.
7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.
8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

"Interfaith dialog in which all people can live in peace and prosperity has already started. You will remain isolated."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQIJkgpP1hg

" THOR:

If a good muslim renounces the Quranic verses that inspire and even demand violence- then interfaith communication is available. If not- appeasement will never work."

*****************************************************

Your arrogance based ob distortions is appalling. Those who believe in Armageddon and all non-Christians will ultimately be converted and if they don't convert then will be killed are already being ignored.

Interfaith dialog in which all people can live in peace and prosperity has already started. You will remain isolated.

Did you hear the one about the thief when feeling guilty asked what happened to thieves on judgment Day? The reply was, "They will receive the bill for what they owe."

"Glory be to God! Declaration of the third article. We have agreed that if American Christians are traveling with a nation that is at war with the well-preserved Tripoli, and he [evidently the Tripolitan] takes [prisoners] from the Christian enemies and from the American (Christians with whom we are at peace [the Arabic sentence is here most confused], then he sets him [sic] free; neither he nor his goods shall be taken. Likewise, the Americans, when they take [literally "bring"] ships of their enemies and there are on board people from Tripoli, they shall not take one of them nor their goods. Thus! [This word, occurring at the end of several articles, seems to take the place of a full stop.]"

Anyone notice that those bass-akwards leaders of Tripoli somehow thought Americans were Christian!

Also Vicsnoria- I guess YOU were not aware of the Paris Peace Treaty (John Adams, John Jay, and Ben Franklin of course)

The first words are-

"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts . . ."

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml

"I guess you were not aware of the Treaty of Tripoli (Jefferson of course)"

Thank you Vicsnoria for allowing me to expound on American history:

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in 1797. Joel Barlow was the American diplomat who served as counsel to Algiers and was responsibile for the treaty negotiations. Barlow, not Jefferson, is resonsible for Article 11. (So big surprise.. vicsnoria lies.)

Muslim pirates remained problematic despite the 1797 Treaty. Also, Tripoli demanded an increase in bribes in 1801. When President Jefferson refused to increase payment: Tripoli declared war on the United States.

The United States blockaded Tripoli from 1803 to 1805. The United States Marines led rebel soldiers from Tripoli and captured the city of Derma. The Pasha of Tripoli quickly signed a new treaty promising to exact no more "tribute". Once again- Jefferson rightly surmised appeasement will never work against Muslims and fought them to submission.

The first Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 (with article 11) was terminated by war after 8 years. A new treaty of 1805 was signed under Jefferson's presidency. The phrase "as the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" is completely absent. Again Jefferson shows his wisdom as founder and leader of America.

And FYI- Article 11 does not even appear in the Arabic version.

Check it out:

"[Translation of the Arabic Treaty]
Praise be to God! Declaration from [sic] this noble affair and this clear and important speech, being the agreement consisting of the articles of peace and fellowship and all friendship and love and good trust and all confidence on account of the peace treaty between us with the Americans and [sic] with our Lord and Master the exalted Lord Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli, may God strengthen him by His grace, amen! and in agreement with his whole Divan, the whole population of his regency and his Divan, may God strengthen them by His grace and His favor, amen!

Praise be to God! Declaration thereof from the first article. That we have agreed upon a perfect, valid, everlasting peace, without modification or change from the beginning to the end, in permanency, with the Americans and [sic] with our honored Lord, the Lord Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli, may God strengthen him and likewise his Divan, and what we have arranged between us [has been arranged] with a pure heart from our side and from their side. This treaty of peace has been displayed [the Arabic word here used generally denotes " to break a seal," or something of that sort] and worked out in detail by our honored and exalted Master, our supreme [the word here used is uncommon; it may have the meaning of sovereign] Master, the Lord Yussuf Pasha, in the protected [i. e., by God] Algiers, may God strengthen him by His grace, amen!"

the rest at link-

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796e.htm

Certainly we all have biases and inclinations- to deny that is to be transparently dishonest to ourselves ahd the world.

But bias becomes bigotry when one attempts to dehumanize people.

And bigotry is just ugly-

If you find yourself vilifying and demonizing an entire pople- ask yourself if you may have slipped into the dishonorable pit of prejudiced bigotry.

Hi Thor- I guess you were not aware of the Treaty of Tripoli (Jefferson of course)

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Khaled Baig claims:
"Declare Allahu-Akbar. Announce that Allah is the greatest."

That is not true. “Akbar “means “greater“ but greater than whom?
The pagans of pre-Islamic Arabia worshipped many gods, but considered one as greater than the others and so they named him Akbar. He had three daughters Allat, Uzza and Manat. This god was the god of the moon, and so the crescent was his symbol. That is why you see crescents on top of mosques. The Muslims adopted these symbols as well as many other practices from the pagan religions of Arabia. That includes the fasting of Ramadan and the pilgrimage to the black stone in Mecca.

If a good muslim renounces the Quranic verses that inspire and even demand violence- then interfaith communication is available. If not- appeasement will never work.

Be sure to read the last paragraph:

Hadith: "Death is a gift for a believer." (Baihaqi)

OUR ONLY DUTY IS TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE

By Khalid Baig

Allahu-Akbar. Allah is the greatest.

These are the first words a Muslim child hears after entering this world. The father makes the call to prayer in his or her ears as the welcome-to-this-world message. The same call is heard wherever there are Muslims, five times a day. The prayers also begin with this pronouncement. Certainly this is the emblem of the Islamic faith. There is no power in the world equal to the power of the One God. Allah is the greatest.

This has been the Islamic message right from the beginning. The very first surah or chapter to be revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was surah Mudathir. And it contains the command: "And Thy Lord, do thou magnify." The Arabic word is kabbir. Declare Allahu-Akbar. Announce that Allah is the greatest.

The pagans of Arabia did not like it. The Jews and Christians were not happy with it either. The irony is that at the same time all of them professed belief in the statement. The pagans believed in many gods, but did believe in the Supreme God too. They claimed authority for their smaller gods, but did not claim them to be bigger than Allah. Jews and Christians clearly believed in God, the Creator and Lord of the universe. With the exception of a small group of atheists, that remains valid till today, as the U.S. dollar bill announces to the whole world: "In God we trust." The question is, then, why should anyone have problem with Allahu-Akbar. Why feel uneasy with it or feel threatened by it? Is it not saying the same thing that they already agree with? The answer lies in the Islamic concept of God.

"Allah! There is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal, Supporter of all. Neither slumber nor sleep can seize Him. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is he that intercedes with Him except by His leave? He knows that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He wills. His throne extends over the heavens and the earth and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Most High, the Supreme." [Al-Baqarah 2:255]

What a tremendously empowering creed! From the smallest to the largest, everything in the universe depends on Him. He depends on none. All other powers are illusory. His is the only real Power. When He is on our side, we need not fear anyone. If He is not pleased with us, the support of the whole world for us will be for naught. Worldly powers try to manipulate people by telling them what they can do for them and what they can do to them. But a person informed by Allahu-Akbar will not be tempted by the first or intimidated by the second. The power of "world powers" evaporates before the shouts of Allahu-Akbar. In fact there is no empowerment outside this belief, and no enslavement to other humans with it! We can see why the claimants to power in this world may be threatened by it.

What a tremendously liberating creed! It liberates us from slavery to our own desires also. His knowledge is unlimited. Ours is extremely limited. What can we do except follow His commands? He is watching us all the time. We cannot get away with disobedience because of His oversight. He will judge us and no one will be able to intercede on our behalf except with His permission. We can see why those who are afraid of accountability may be threatened by it.

What a tremendously humbling creed! It reminds us of our humble station in life with respect to God. As the Qur'an says at another place,

"Those who dispute about the Signs of Allah without any authority bestowed on them, there is nothing in their breasts except the quest of greatness, which they will never attain..." [Mumin, 40:56].

We can see why those with arrogance may be threatened by it.

This includes the arrogance of science. We see it in the scientist who declares that there is no need to invoke a spiritual hand of God since everything has a rational basis. Or the medical doctor who thinks that he can control the biological processes. (Look at all the pronouncements of the genetic engineering pundits, euthanasia advocates, and population control gurus). On the other hand, a scientist free of such sickness looks at the workings of this universe; the great design in it; the tremendous purpose in every creation; and he finds himself compelled to say: Subhan-Allah.

Allahu-Akbar is the weapon that gives us the courage to challenge all subjugation, political or intellectual. It makes us turn our attention to the Creator and ignore other creations like ourselves. In the jihads in Afghanistan, Kashmir, or Bosnia, as elsewhere, the power of this weapon has been felt by people on both sides of the conflict. In every conflict the shouts of Allahu-Akbar instilled fear in the hearts of the oppressors. It boasted the morale of the mujahideen with new levels of hope and courage. And that is the way it should be. Because Allah is the Greatest.

http://www.albalagh.net/food_for_thought/akbar.shtml

A terrorist is someone who kills innocent people and destroys everything that comes its way. No doubt, Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist and was raised as a Christian.

The Army of God fanatics who bombed numerous abortion clinics in America did all that in the name of Jesus Christ. They killed adults in the name of protecting the unborn.

The IRA fought for 400 years in the cause of Catholicism.

Rev Jones of Jonestown, Guiana led his followers to suicide.

The Spaniards destroyed the Maya, the Inca and the Aztec civilizations because they were not Christians.

Where does all this lead us?

Isn't it that those who ask for interfaith dialog and understanding should be commended.

How do you know that Timothy McVeigh was not a practicing Christian-

"McVeigh told journalists that at his execution he would quote from Invictus, a 19th century poem by William Ernest Henley famous for the lines: "I am the master of my fate/I am the captain of my soul."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4

INVICTUS

OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade.
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

How do you know that those pirates were practicing Muslims?

Thomas Jefferson once questioned Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain about the continuing piracy of the United States ships to which he told the future President that it was their duty as good Muslims to take the war to the unbeliever. This is well documented American history.

Thanks for your questions as they give me a chance to reiterate the truth of my statements.

Thor wrote:
"I say Muslim pirates because they were practicing Muslims not unlike Muslim terrorists who live in America. Timothy McVeigh was not a practicing Christian and he did not rely on Bible verses to direct his aggression."

****************************************************

Your Islamophobia leads you to deceive yourself. You pick and chose. How do you know that Timothy McVeigh was not a practicing Christian and those pirates were practicing Muslims?

Why did you leave out the IRA and the fanatics of the Army of God? The former were terrorising the Protestants and the latter were terrorising the seculars of the abortion clinics.

When you quote directly somebody, you have no right to modify it. You need to go back to school.

Clearly, you have an agenda which leads you to deceive yourself.

HONESTY CAN NEVER BE SELECTIVE.

"Crime does not have any religion"

DOESN'T THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

ISLAM "was founded on the LAWS of their Prophet, that it was WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, that all nations who should not have ACKNOWLEDGED their AUTHORITY were sinners, that it was their RIGHT and DUTY TO MAKE WAR upon them wherever they could be found, and TO MAKE SLAVES of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be SLAIN IN BATTLE was SURE TO GO TO PARADISE.”

When a faithful Muslim relies on verses in the Quran to dictate his aggression against others- he must either renounce those verses or prepare for war.

As Thomas Jefferson quickly noted- appeasement will never work against Muslim pirates.

I say Muslim pirates because they were practicing Muslims not unlike Muslim terrorists who live in America. Timothy McVeigh was not a practicing Christian and he did not rely on Bible verses to direct his aggression.

And BTW:

It is against Islamic Shari'a law to convert to another religion, to forsake Islam, to practice homosexuality, to practice witchcraft, to commit adultery. The sentence for all these crimes- DEATH.

" THOR:

"If Jefferson wanted to go after the (Muslim)pirates, that was the right thing to do at that time"

******************************************************
You are a master in distorting things. You inserted within parentheses the word (Muslim) pirates. I never wrote that prefix (Muslim) to the word pirates. That reflects your Islamophobia.

Crime does not have any religion. The IRA of Northern Ireland committed acts of terrorism for four centuries. Were they Christian terrorists?

The Army of God fanatics bombed numerous abortion clinics in America. Were they 'Christian terrorists"?

Was Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist?

"If Jefferson wanted to go after the (Muslim)pirates, that was the right thing to do at that time"

Yes. Appeasement never works. Jefferson saw it And I completely agree.

"In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, then US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

“…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

AND FROM ANOTHER AMERICAN PRESIDENT:

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam’s capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” [p. 269]

John Quincy Adams

“Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece, written while JQA was in retirement, before his election to Congress in 1830” [Chapters X-XIV (pp. 267-402) in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29. New York, 1830.]

Mohamed Habib of the Muslim Brotherhood answers:
“There are already existing (Muslim Brotherhood) institutions; there are laws and a constitution that they operate under in order to have a role in serving the American society."

Below is part of the constitution with which they wish to serve the American society.

“The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/DN-dreher_09edi.ART.State.Edition1.4235f88.html

""It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

That famous quote of Thomas Jefferson says it all about his views about other religions and the freedom of religion.

If Jefferson wanted to go after the pirates, that was the right thing to do at that time. Just as it is the right thing to do to go after the terrorists. It is not the war against any religion.

Ellison's Ties to Farrakhan and Nation of Islam

While a law student in 1989 and 1990, Ellison wrote several columns as Keith E. Hakim in the student newspaper, the Minnesota Daily. "The first article defended Louis Farrakhan against accusations of antisemitism.", defended Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Abdul Muhammad, and spoke in the voice of a Nation of Islam advocate." The second column "called affirmative action a 'sneaky' form of compensation for slavery, suggesting instead that white Americans pay reparations to blacks." The third suggested the creation of a separate state for black residents.

In 1995, Ellison, writing an editorial as Keith X. Ellison, stated that Farrakhan is not an anti-Semite. The same year, Ellison was identified as a member of the Nation of Islam in the Star Tribune.

In 1997, when Joanne Jackson, executive director of the Minneapolis Initiative Against Racism (MIAR), allegedly said that, "Jews are among the most racist white people", Ellison, using his religious name Mohammed, read a statement supporting her on behalf of the The Minneapolis-St. Paul Study Group of the Nations of Islam: "[We] stand by Ms. Jackson. We stand by the truth contained in the remarks attributed to her, and by her right to express her view without sanction. Here is why we support Ms. Jackson: She is correct about Minister Farrakhan. He is not a racist. He is also not an anti-Semite. This widespread and unfair practice of whites sanctioning blacks for not denouncing Minister Farrakhan represents a racist double standard, and is an impediment to any honest dialogue about race. If black people are to ever possess a collective sense of self-respect and self-determination, they must not genuflect whenever powerful whites make the unreasonable demand to denounce Minister Farrakhan. Minister Farrakhan said he did not like the tension between the black and Jewish communities, and that he was open to dialogue with any groups as long as they did not set any conditions." Ellison later claimed "While some at that meeting justified her comments, I spoke out in favor of increased dialogue between the Jewish and African-American communities."

In 1998, during his Minnesota State Legislature House campaign, as Keith Ellison-Muhammad he said he had an affiliation with the Nation of Islam, but "rejected anti-Jewish attitudes".

You are NOT from America or you would know American history. Are you misinformed or intentionally trying to mislead?

Here is the TRUTH sourced by Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/jefferson.asp

Even this very new American knows the TRUTH:

Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates
Christopher Hitchens

America’s first confrontation with the Islamic world helped forge a new nation’s character.

When I first began to plan my short biography of Thomas Jefferson, I found it difficult to research the chapter concerning the so-called Barbary Wars: an event or series of events that had seemingly receded over the lost horizon of American history. Henry Adams, in his discussion of our third president, had some boyhood reminiscences of the widespread hero-worship of naval officer Stephen Decatur, and other fragments and shards showed up in other quarries, but a sound general history of the subject was hard to come by. When I asked a professional military historian—a man with direct access to Defense Department archives—if there was any book that he could recommend, he came back with a slight shrug.

But now the curious reader may choose from a freshet of writing on the subject. Added to my own shelf in the recent past have been The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World, by Frank Lambert (2005); Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror 1801–1805, by Joseph Wheelan (2003); To the Shores of Tripoli: The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Marines, by A. B. C. Whipple (1991, republished 2001); and Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation, by Joshua E. London (2005). Most recently, in his new general history, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, the Israeli scholar Michael Oren opens with a long chapter on the Barbary conflict. As some of the subtitles—and some of the dates of publication—make plain, this new interest is largely occasioned by America’s latest round of confrontation in the Middle East, or the Arab sphere or Muslim world, if you prefer those expressions.

In a way, I am glad that I did not have the initial benefit of all this research. My quest sent me to some less obvious secondary sources, in particular to Linda Colley’s excellent book Captives, which shows the reaction of the English and American publics to a slave trade of which they were victims rather than perpetrators. How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780? We dimly recall that Miguel de Cervantes was briefly in the galleys. But what of the people of the town of Baltimore in Ireland, all carried off by “corsair” raiders in a single night?

Some of this activity was hostage trading and ransom farming rather than the more labor-intensive horror of the Atlantic trade and the Middle Passage, but it exerted a huge effect on the imagination of the time—and probably on no one more than on Thomas Jefferson. Peering at the paragraph denouncing the American slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, later excised, I noticed for the first time that it sarcastically condemned “the Christian King of Great Britain” for engaging in “this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers.” The allusion to Barbary practice seemed inescapable.

One immediate effect of the American Revolution, however, was to strengthen the hand of those very same North African potentates: roughly speaking, the Maghrebian provinces of the Ottoman Empire that conform to today’s Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Deprived of Royal Navy protection, American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The infant United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas.

One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or “tyranny,” let alone “terrorism.” He resists any comparison with today’s tormenting confrontations. “The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology,” he writes. “Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America’s War of Independence.”

Let us not call this view reductionist. Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce. But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)

Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy. So here was an early instance of the “heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma, in which the United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.

It seems likely that Jefferson decided from that moment on that he would make war upon the Barbary kingdoms as soon as he commanded American forces. His two least favorite institutions—enthroned monarchy and state-sponsored religion—were embodied in one target, and it may even be that his famous ambivalences about slavery were resolved somewhat when he saw it practiced by the Muslims.

However that may be, it is certain that the Barbary question had considerable influence on the debate that ratified the United States Constitution in the succeeding years. Many a delegate, urging his home state to endorse the new document, argued that only a strong federal union could repel the Algerian threat. In The Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton argued that without a “federal navy . . . of respectable weight . . . the genius of American Merchants and Navigators would be stifled and lost.” In No. 41, James Madison insisted that only union could guard America’s maritime capacity from “the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians.” John Jay, in his letters, took a “bring-it-on” approach; he believed that “Algerian Corsairs and the Pirates of Tunis and Tripoli” would compel the feeble American states to unite, since “the more we are ill-treated abroad the more we shall unite and consolidate at home.” The eventual Constitution, which provides for an army only at two-year renewable intervals, imposes no such limitation on the navy.

Thus, Lambert may be limiting himself in viewing the Barbary conflict primarily through the lens of free trade. Questions of nation-building, of regime change, of “mission creep,” of congressional versus presidential authority to make war, of negotiation versus confrontation, of “entangling alliances,” and of the “clash of civilizations”—all arose in the first overseas war that the United States ever fought. The “nation-building” that occurred, however, took place not overseas but in the 13 colonies, welded by warfare into something more like a republic.

There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

The cruelty, exorbitance, and intransigence of the Barbary states, however, would decide things. The level of tribute demanded began to reach 10 percent of the American national budget, with no guarantee that greed would not increase that percentage, while from the dungeons of Algiers and Tripoli came appalling reports of the mistreatment of captured men and women. Gradually, and to the accompaniment of some of the worst patriotic verse ever written, public opinion began to harden in favor of war. From Jefferson’s perspective, it was a good thing that this mood shift took place during the Adams administration, when he was out of office and temporarily “retired” to Monticello. He could thus criticize federal centralization of power, from a distance, even as he watched the construction of a fleet—and the forging of a permanent Marine Corps—that he could one day use for his own ends.

At one point, Jefferson hoped that John Paul Jones, naval hero of the Revolution, might assume command of a squadron that would strike fear into the Barbary pirates. While ambassador in Paris, Jefferson had secured Jones a commission with Empress Catherine of Russia, who used him in the Black Sea to harry the Ottomans, the ultimate authority over Barbary. But Jones died before realizing his dream of going to the source and attacking Constantinople. The task of ordering war fell to Jefferson.

Michael Oren thinks that he made the decision reluctantly, finally forced into it by the arrogant behavior of Tripoli, which seized two American brigs and set off a chain reaction of fresh demands from other Barbary states. I believe—because of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jones—that Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.

Once again, Barbary obstinacy tipped the scale. Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, declared war on the United States in May 1801, in pursuit of his demand for more revenue. This earned him a heavy bombardment of Tripoli and the crippling of one of his most important ships. But the force of example was plainly not sufficient. In the altered mood that prevailed after the encouraging start in Tripoli, Congress passed an enabling act in February 1802 that, in its provision for a permanent Mediterranean presence and its language about the “Tripolitan Corsairs,” amounted to a declaration of war. The Barbary regimes continued to underestimate their new enemy, with Morocco declaring war in its turn and the others increasing their blackmail.

A complete disaster—Tripoli’s capture of the new U.S. frigate Philadelphia—became a sort of triumph, thanks to Edward Preble and Stephen Decatur, who mounted a daring raid on Tripoli’s harbor and blew up the captured ship, while inflicting heavy damage on the city’s defenses. Now there were names—Preble and Decatur—for newspapers back home to trumpet as heroes. Nor did their courage draw notice only in America. Admiral Lord Nelson himself called the raid “the most bold and daring act of the age,” and Pope Pius VII declared that the United States “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.” (In his nostalgia for Lepanto, perhaps, His Holiness was evidently unaware that the Treaty of Tripoli, which in 1797 had attempted to formalize the dues that America would pay for access to the Mediterranean, stated in its preamble that the United States had no quarrel with the Muslim religion and was in no sense a Christian country. Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands.)

Watching all this with a jaundiced eye was the American consul in Tunis, William Eaton. For him, behavior modification was not a sufficient policy; regime change was needed. And he had a candidate. On acceding to the throne in Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli had secured his position by murdering one brother and exiling another. Eaton befriended this exiled brother, Hamid, and argued that he should become the American nominee for Tripoli’s crown. This proposal wasn’t received with enthusiasm in Washington, but Eaton pursued it with commendable zeal. He exhibited the downside that often goes with such quixotic bravery: railing against treasury secretary Albert Gallatin as a “cowardly Jew,” for example, and alluding to President Jefferson with contempt. He ended up a supporter of Aaron Burr’s freebooting secessionist conspiracy.

His actions in 1805, however, belong in the annals of derring-do, almost warranting the frequent comparison made with T. E. Lawrence’s exploits in Arabia. With a small detachment of marines, headed by Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, and a force of irregulars inevitably described by historians as “motley,” Eaton crossed the desert from Egypt and came at Tripoli—as Lawrence had come at Aqaba—from the land and not from the sea. The attack proved a total surprise. The city of Darna surrendered its far larger garrison, and Karamanli’s forces were heavily engaged, when news came that Jefferson and Karamanli had reached an understanding that could end the war. The terms weren’t too shabby, involving the release of the Philadelphia’s crew and a final settlement of the tribute question. And Jefferson took care to stress that Eaton had played a part in bringing it about.

This graciousness did not prevent Eaton from denouncing the deal as a sellout. The caravan moved on, though, as the other Barbary states gradually followed Tripoli’s lead and came to terms. Remember, too, that this was the year of the Battle of Trafalgar. Lord Nelson was not the only European to notice that a new power had arrived in Mediterranean waters. Francis Scott Key composed a patriotic song to mark the occasion. As I learned from Joshua London’s excellent book, the original verses ran (in part):

In conflict resistless each toil they endur’d,
Till their foes shrunk dismay’d from the war’s desolation:
And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d
By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.
Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,
And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare.
Then mixt with the olive the laurel shall wave
And form a bright wreath for the brow of the brave.
The song was part of the bad-verse epidemic. But brushed up and revised a little for the War of 1812, and set to the same music, it has enjoyed considerable success since. So has the Marine Corps anthem, which begins: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” It’s no exaggeration to describe the psychological fallout of this first war as formative of the still-inchoate American character.

There is of course another connection between 1805 and 1812. Renewed hostilities with Britain on the high seas and on the American mainland, which did not terminate until the Battle of New Orleans, might have ended less conclusively had the United States not developed a battle-hardened naval force in the long attrition on the North African coast.

The Barbary states sought to exploit Anglo-American hostilities by resuming their depredations and renewing their demands for blood money. So in 1815, after a brief interval of recovery from the war with Britain, President Madison asked Congress for permission to dispatch Decatur once again to North Africa, seeking a permanent settling of accounts. This time, the main offender was the dey of Algiers, Omar Pasha, who saw his fleet splintered and his grand harbor filled with heavily armed American ships. Algiers had to pay compensation, release all hostages, and promise not to offend again. President Madison’s words on this occasion could scarcely be bettered: “It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none.” (The expression “the United States is” did not come into usage until after Gettysburg.)

Oren notes that the stupendous expense of this long series of wars was a partial vindication of John Adams’s warning. However, there are less quantifiable factors to consider. The most obvious is commerce. American trade in the Mediterranean increased enormously in the years after the settlement with Algiers, and America’s ability to extend its trade and project its forces into other areas, such as the Caribbean and South America, was greatly enhanced. Then we should attend to what Linda Colley says on the subject of slavery. Campaigns against the seizure of hostages by Muslim powers, and their exploitation as forced labor, fired up many a church congregation in Britain and America and fueled many a press campaign. But even the dullest soul could regard the continued triangular Atlantic slave trade between Africa, England, and the Americas and perceive the double standard at work. Thus, the struggle against Barbary may have helped to force some of the early shoots of abolitionism.

Perhaps above all, though, the Barbary Wars gave Americans an inkling of the fact that they were, and always would be, bound up with global affairs. Providence might have seemed to grant them a haven guarded by two oceans, but if they wanted to be anything more than the Chile of North America—a long littoral ribbon caught between the mountains and the sea—they would have to prepare for a maritime struggle as well as a campaign to redeem the unexplored landmass to their west. The U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean squadron has, in one form or another, been on patrol ever since.

And then, finally, there is principle. It would be simplistic to say that something innate in America made it incompatible with slavery and tyranny. But would it be too much to claim that many Americans saw a radical incompatibility between the Barbary system and their own? And is it not pleasant when the interests of free trade and human emancipation can coincide? I would close with a few staves of Kipling, whose poem “Dane-Geld” is a finer effort than anything managed by Francis Scott Key:

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbor and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
Kipling runs briskly through the stages of humiliation undergone by any power that falls for this appeasement, and concludes:

It is wrong to put temptation in the pathof any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”
It may be fortunate that the United States had to pass this test, and imbibe this lesson, so early in its life as a nation.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html

American political culture has always had a bipolar personality, at once tolerant and intolerant, inclusive and exclusionary. Anti-immigrant bigotry and religious intolerance have a long history in our country. Puritans hanged Quakers in Boston Common, signs proclaimed, "No Irish need apply," and laws prohibited Chinese immigrants from becoming citizens.

Benjamin Franklin expressed concern over foreign immigration in 1751. He feared the influx of German-speaking immigrants, who he said were not as white as the English. Franklin asked, "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion."

The American Revolutionary leader Samuel Adams expressed the virulent anti-Catholic sentiment that was shared by many Americans at the time. In "The Rights of Colonists," a proclamation that was adopted by the town of Boston on Nov. 20, 1772, Adams wrote "that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all Christians except Papists."

Catholics, or "Papists," could not be afforded religious tolerance, Adams said, because their allegiance to the pope meant that they "teach Doctrines subversive of the Civil Government under which they live." The fear and antipathy toward Catholicism among many Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries was as deeply felt as is the fear of Islam today.

The best antidote to religious intolerance, then or now, can be found in the words of Thomas Jefferson. In his "Notes on Virginia" in 1785, Jefferson said that alternative religious beliefs are not "injurious to others" and should not be restricted by government. "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

At Philadelphia in 1787, Jefferson's understanding of religious tolerance won out. Nowhere in the Constitution is it required to swear on a Bible, nor is even "swearing" required -- one may choose either oath or affirmation. Most important, according to Article VI, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

COCLUSION: Ellison was right about Thomas Jefferson because he held the most liberal and accomodating views about other religions. THOR GOT IT ALL WRONG. MAY GOD REST JEFFERSON'S SOUL IN PEACE!

Marc describes as” utter crap” the following claim.
“All terrorists/extremists commit crimes against humanity in the name of Islam."
Citing one or two deranged men does not prove anything other than they are deranged. Mentioning the IRA and the Contra does not fly either. Those are civil aka revolutionary wars that that are diplomacy by other means and carried out by groups who are left with no recourse to address their grievances.
The terrorists who are committing crimes against humanity are the ones who are trying to spread their primitive ideology and dominance over the civilized world by terror and deception, getting their marching ordersfrom a 7th century book written by a desert dweller. Got that or should I repeat it?

SM: What does the Muslim Brotherhood think of the two candidates in the upcoming elections in the U.S?

Mohamed Habib: We would naturally like to see the end of the current regime and that their practices are not to be repeated by the coming administration. We don’t anticipate such change taking place if Senator John McCain wins, for he seems to be following the same line as the current American President George Bush. We are not so sure about Senator Obama either, because of his Israel visit, him saying that Israel is a democracy, and his visit to AIPAC, but we are withholding judgment because maybe he needs to do this to win. That being said, any change away from the criminal practices of the current administration is a good thing, and we would be happy with whatever candidate would put a stop to it.

SM: Since it just happened, what do you think of the Shura Council fire? Do you think this is an act of fate or does it indict someone?

Mohamed Habib: In the name of God, most merciful, most graceful, I think that its representative of the deterioration and the negligence that is entrenched in all of the government’s institutions. One would assume that with such an institution there would be a little bit of care or interest exercised in protecting it, since the tools to prevent such accidents are available. But, unfortunately, we saw that the response to the incident wasn’t on the required level to stop it, and while the firemen showed incredible courage, their level of preparedness and training were not at the desired level.

SM: We had Army helicopters carrying buckets of water from the Nile and dumping it on the fire. It was a scandal.

Mohamed Habib: That’s of course a shameful incident, but it’s a part of a bigger picture. And it expresses the tragedy and the suffering that the Egyptian people live in.

SM: Sir, let’s now talk about some international incidents. Very recently, the ICC has issued an indictment of the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir over Darfur, and the first people in the world who issued a statement against the indictment was the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Why is that?

Mohamed Habib: First of all, this whole scenario is a political one of the first degree, and the Security Council is the organization that proposed this whole thing, and in reality, we know that the Security Council is under the control of the current American administration. And there is an American agenda and project in the region — and in Sudan. We see that this project doesn’t only go after the Sudanese resources, but also the fabric of Sudan itself, with the aim of tearing it into shreds. This is not about Omar al-Bashir or Ahmed Haroun, or whomever. There is a project, and it’s an obvious one at this point, and it aims to turn all parties against each other, east and west and north and south, in order to attack the heart, which is the Arabic and Islamic solidarity and unity. And to us as Egyptians, Sudan represents the gateway to Africa and it’s of strategic importance to Egypt; so any foul play happening there will naturally reflect on Egypt, since it concerns its national security. That’s one side of it. The other side is that we haven’t seen the Security Council moving to take action in order to address the war crimes that American President George Bush committed in Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands of people who died in the invasion and occupation in Iraq. We didn’t see the Security Council moving to address the human rights violations in Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn’t see them move to prevent the monstrous slaughtering of our Palestinian brothers in Ghaza and the West Bank. Given all that, it is then obvious this indictment is political of the first degree. And if there were human rights violations in Sudan, then it should be addressed and remedied in Sudan, and there should be an independent judiciary inside Sudan that would launch an investigation and conduct a fair trial to address what happened in Darfur or elsewhere.

SM: What are the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Mohamed Habib: The Muslim Brotherhood has an Islamic, civilized, uplifting project that is based on the idea that Egypt needs to rise again to greatness, because in its rise it will uplift the entire Arab world with it. This of course requires the creation of a society that values justice, equality, and freedom, and what that entails in regards to respecting the will of the people in choosing their representatives or leaders; and also what that entails in regards to having really independent judicial and legislative branches of government, especially in the face of an executive branch of government that has infiltrated everything. We have announced our acceptance of the rule of democracy that is based on real political diversity, and the peaceful exchange of power, and that the people should rule and that they have the right to choose their leaders, their representatives, and the political platform that best addresses their desires and ambitions. We have a civilized project that is very interested in education, scientific research, and the use of technology as an important element in the uplifting of nations and people. We have a civilized project that highlights the importance of serious planning, and the modern administration of all of the country’s institutions. If we, as Egyptians, are suffering from a bread crisis or an unemployment crisis, or whatever, in reality we only have one crisis and that’s a crisis in ruling the country. Everything else is symptoms of that disease. We are facing corruption and oppression, therefore we consider that political reform is the key to achieve all the other types of desired reforms. We also want and call for an international community that enjoys stability and peace for all of the nations of the world, and this cannot take place without having the values of truth, justice, and freedom. Unfortunately, the current administration has stepped on all of the international treaties, agreements, and conventions, and unfortunately the American administration is now using might as a substitute for legitimacy, which brought back the law of the jungle to the world. It aims to control and hegemonize the world, so that the international political landscape is a unipolar one instead of a multipolar one.

SM: The image of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. and in other western countries — while we aren’t going to say it’s a bad one — is not the image you would like to portray for yourselves.

Mohamed Habib: That’s true!

SM: Why do you think that is?

Mohamed Habib: There are two parts to that. The first part is related to the tyrannical and oppressive regimes in our countries, that try to project a mental image (a really scary and horrifying image) in the minds of the western world that we are against democracy, and freedom, and human rights in general. The other part is the Zionist-American project that upholds double standards and has a special agenda that contradict the interests of our Ummah, and thus finds in the Muslim Brotherhood an obstacle in the way of executing that agenda. Therefore, they unfortunately promote a very wrong and negative image of us. This forces us to act and try to communicate with think tanks and research centers, academics in universities, the people, and the media, whether the local or the international one.

SM: Fine, but we can claim that the Egyptian media is controlled by the Egyptian government, while the western media is not controlled by the western governments. What’s stopping the right image of you to reach the world then? Are they conspiring against you?

Mohamed Habib: No, but naturally there are centers in the U.S. and Europe that carry out the agenda of the U.S. government. But there is also an independent media that has a role in educating the populace, and thus improve our image in their minds.

SM: Is there a Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.?

Mohamed Habib: I would say yes. There are Muslim Brotherhood members there.

SM: Then what are they doing there?

Mohamed Habib: No, there are already existing institutions; there are laws and a constitution that they operate under in order to have a role in serving the American society. They are part of the American society and they want to an active positive role in it, and a part of that is to spread a positive image of Islam along with its values, culture, history and teachings.

SM: This is naturally very important. Who represents you in the US?

Mohamed Habib: Well, there are there those who do represent us, who do that role.

SM: But it’s not CAIR, right? The Council for American Islamic Relations? Many people say that they are your front. Other people say that its ISNA. But back to CAIR, some people from the Muslim Brotherhood have denied having a connection with CAIR. Do they really represent you?

Mohamed Habib: Ehh, this is a sensitive subject, and it’s kind of problematic, especially after 9/11 …

SM: For them to say that there is a relationship between you two?

Mohamed Habib: Yes. You can say that.

SM: Gotcha. What kind of relationship does the Muslim Brotherhood have with Hamas? Do you offer them support of any kind?

Mohamed Habib: Hamas, like any Muslim Brotherhood entity, is not related to the other entities. But we do support them. We support them with ideas. We support them with advice and vision. We incite the people — in Egypt for example — to donate money and care and understand about the Palestinian cause. Then the civil society institutions carry out the role of facilitators of our support.

SM: Thank you for your time sir.

Mohamed Habib: Thank you.

LONDON: British Muslims on Friday condemned as deeply offensive a computer game called ‘Muslim Massacre’, which trumpets itself as a ‘game of modern religious genocide’.

The game urges players to ‘wipe out the Muslim race with an arsenal of the world’s most destructive weapons’.

‘The makers of this ‘game’ and the ISPs (internet service providers) who are hosting it should be quite ashamed of themselves,’ Inayat Bunglawala, spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain, told AFP.

‘Anti-Muslim prejudice is already on the increase and needs to be challenged and not reinforced through tasteless and offensive stunts like this.’

Players in the game — the aim of which is to ‘ensure that no Muslim man or woman is left alive’ — control an ‘American Hero’ wielding a machine gun and a rocket launcher parachuted into the Middle East.

The creator of the game, known as Sigvatr, described it as ‘fun and funny’. Writing on the SomethingAwful.com discussion forum website, he said: ‘Don’t whinge about how offensive and ‘edgy’ this is.’

The Ramadhan Foundation, a British Muslim youth organisation, voiced ‘deep condemnation and anger’ at the game, accusing it of ‘glorifying the killing of Muslims in the Middle East’.

‘Encouraging children and young people in a game to kill Muslims is unacceptable, tasteless and deeply offensive,’ said the Foundation’s chief executive, Mohammed Shafiq.

‘If it was the other way around, with a game featuring Muslims killing Israelis or Americans, there would be uproar and rightly so,’ he said, urging ISPs to block the site.

‘We urge ISPs to take action to remove this site from their services as it incites violence towards Muslims and is trying to justify the killing of innocent Muslims.’

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go2nFbNnwmY

Mike Puccinelli CHICAGO (CBS) A Chicago teacher is under fire for singling out the only Muslim student in her class while talking about the Middle East. The teacher has now been reassigned to another school. However, the young boy's family is demanding answers.

CBS 2's Mike Puccinelli reports that the family met behind closed doors at Chicago Public Schools headquarters for two-and-a-half hours in a meeting presided over by a federal mediator. All sides have agreed to meet again next month.

The teacher in question is no longer working at the same school, but if the Pakistani-American family at the center of this story has their way, she might not be working much longer.

"He came home and before he even took his backpack off, he had tears in his eyes already," said Mohmmad Fahad Choudhary, victim's brother.

Mohmmad talks about the day his little brother came home from school saying his teacher had singled him out in front of his class as an example of a terrorist.

"She used the example of if Saleh were to go on to an airplane, put his backpack down and put two wires together and the plane were to blow up - and she didn't make a point," said Christina Abraham, Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Saleh Choudhary did not want to go on-camera to talk about the incident, which happened last April while he was a sixth-grader at Brentano Academy, but his brother says the 13-year-old's life hasn't been the same since.

"Everybody started teasing him and calling him a terrorist after the comments were made by the teacher," Mohmmad said.

The bigots who are bashing Muslims here should note that the constitution of the United States grants equal protection under the law. The 70+year old KKK member who killed an African American boy decades ago is in jail today.

Arif writes "A comment on this article; Islam and violence are mutually inclusive. All terrorists/extremists commit crimes against humanity in the name of Islam."

Utter crap of course.
The "Contra" terrorists weren't Islamic.
US sponsored terrorists in Angola under Josef Zavimbi weren't fighting for Islam.
The IRA were hardly Muslims.
The bomber at the Atlanta Olympics was a Conservative Christian.
The OK City bombings were carried out by a conservative nutcase who was in no way a Muslim.

Better luck next time!

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

KNOW AMERICAN HISTORY?

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States of America and the North African states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco, and the three Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Arif advises Anonymous thus:
“If you read out posts carefully you'll notice we have different styles of writing and absolutely different personalities.”

If anonymous was critical enough in his thinking to examine the different styles and perceive the style differences he would not be who he is; a believer in the ridiculous and a defender of the indefensible besides perpetrating wrong generalizations.

Georgiason writes:

"These very pages have in recent days borne witness to why many Americans are still wary of granting Islam the same tolerance we grant other religions"

**********************************************************

Who do you think you are? The constitution of the U.S. gives equal protection under the law. This tolerance discussion is academic and is meant to reach out to one another for the sake of peace and harmony, and cordiality.

Saudi Islam is not the main stream Islam. Most Muslims are not Wahabis. American Muslims especially are highly educated, articulate professionals. We are physicians, surgeons, lawyers, professors, computer programmers, scientists, engineers and yes some are taxi drivers, small businessmen etc.

By the way two million of us are African Americans and have lived here for many generations. In short, like any other group we are not monolithic.

"Deb Chatterji, A. Kafir, Ibrahim Mahfouz, Arif, CCNL: Are they all one person coming out at different times with these different pseydonyms?"

Spoken like a true Muslim. If you read out posts carefully you'll notice we have different styles of writing and absolutely different personalities.

A comment on this article; Islam and violence are mutually inclusive. All terrorists/extremists commit crimes against humanity in the name of Islam. Where do these Muslims derive their venom from? The same quran/hadith we all read. There are some people who are inherently non-violent and those are the Muslims that we mostly come across. The violent (extremist Muslims) are the terrorists, hijackers, suicide bombers, the ones who recruit the bombers, the Somali high sea pirates (looting, wonder where they learnt that from?)...

Arif (pbuh)

GeorgiaSon writes
"These very pages have in recent days borne witness to why many Americans are still wary of granting Islam the same tolerance we grant other religions"

Maybe we should just stop tolorating religion at all?
I mean the Jews practice a form of genital mutilation on children - what kind of religion does that?
In the Catholic Church you see artwork depicting torture and death, and the Catholics weekly pretend to eat human flesh - what kind of religion does that?
The founder of the Lutheran church wanted to rob, murder and enslave the Jewish people of Europe - is that sick or what?

All religions are weird if you're not in them. Most religions have their own "crazies", fundamentalists who won't tolorate modernity. In fact any belief system's extremists can end up causing trouble - look at Mao and Stalin. Seems to me we ought to stick to rationalism and tolorance and not use religion or any other belief system to trump common sense.

Picking on Islam is just bigotry, which I know is easier than actually thinking, but it's not very useful.

I am amazed that in the thousands of years of the Torah there is none that knows the Ark of the Covenant, the Mercy seat. It all has to do with the Ten Commandants. I am amiss that nobody knows them. How be it that nobody knows the LORD is the Father and the Mother. Many claim to know God, but I have proven that be not the case. How can there be peace on earth when the God the world worships knows nothing but evil. How can there be peace on earth when the world rejects the LORD. If anyone has a sane opinion to offer, please enlighten me.

Eboo says:
“We are not at war with a religion, or a region, or a race. We are at war with extremists.”

But aren’t those extremists strict adherents of Islam? And don’t they justify their horrendous crimes, mostly against innocent people, by the Muslim scriptures?

According to a recent "Islam on Campus" survey of 1,400 students by the Centre for Social Cohesion, an independent think tank, just under a third of Muslim students said that killing in the name of religion can be justified. Sixty percent of the students who were active members of campus Islamic societies agreed with the statement.

Doesn’t this and other similar surveys show a definite positive correlation between Muslim fundamentalism and Jihad against “infidels”?

Not until Muslim societies actively combat those “extremists’ and Muslim religious leaders issue fatwa (edict) declaring those thugs as apostates, all this talk about “fringe criminal groups” being out of the “believers loop” will sound hollow at best.

*We are not at war with a religion.We are at war with extremists*

The religion/cult begets the extremists.That is the point.
The cult always finds an excuse for Holy War from beginning to present time namely there is always a *pretext* for Holy War,because islam is Holy War.That is the Problem.

Had there been Peace at the time of the founder of islam ?
Had there been peace during *4 caliphs period*,Omayyad,Abbasids and Ottoman Empire ??? No,no.no.
Islam/submission doesnt know what Peace is.
Islam is *smite their necks* 47.4

Besides,islam not versus Christianity,but Civilization.

To me,*interfaith* provides muslims to build *bridgehead* in US,when muslims reach 10 per cent of US population,everybody will see what happens.
*Interfaith* is not correct *concept* to stop Terror and Holy War.
Submission came to Egypt and Civilization gone.
Headscarf came to Iran and Persopolis died.
Holy War will come to US and everyone shall see what happens and everyone shall see what *Interfaith* did,but it shall be too late,too late...

These very pages have in recent days borne witness to why many Americans are still wary of granting Islam the same tolerance we grant other religions. I refer to the excellent expose of the Saudi-backed textbook used in Islamic schools worldwide, including a Saudi-connected school in Virginia, that is full of hate-mongering diatribes against other religions. This, mind you, coming from the heart of mainstream, orthodox Islam.

People like Eboo Patel, far from reassuring us, only reinforce our suspicions and fears when he refuses to engage us in a dialogue about such issues as the textbook, but instead, gushes forth once more with his touchy-feely plate of pious platitudes. I and others who read this forum long ago got on to Mr. Patel. He is, first and foremost, an Islamic apologist and flagrant demagogue whose chosen role is to try to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans with exactly this kind of meaningless verbiage. And no doubt getting paid to do it.

Let me say this to any Muslims out there who are genuinely concerned about Islam's place in America: distance yourselves from Eboo Patel and his ilk immediately. Engage your fellow Americans in a real dialogue that might convince us that Islam is, in fact, a religion of love and compassion that deserves the same respect accorded other mainstream religions.

Turn your backs on the Saudi-backed and flagrant propagandists like Eboo Patel, who cannot be bothered to respond to one single comment on his own blog. This imperial spirit may fit well with the monarchical, authoritarian, repressive regimes that Islam gives rise to, but it does not fly in America.

Don't continue to shoot yourselves in the foot by leaving it to the likes of mindless apologists like Eboo Patel to make your case. If you consider yourself a non-extremist, Patel is undermining your cause, not bolstering it.

What those of the Muslim faith fails to realize that the LORD is in between "And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee." "it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai." "and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife" "and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes."

"I have given my maid into thy bosom"
"the Lord judge between me and thee."

I ask you wise men, does the LORD cast out Sarah or Abram/Hagar. What does Sarai say, "My wrong be upon thee" "I was despised in her eyes". I say neither. "it may be that I may obtain children by her." The Word is clear, the child is not responsible for the actions of the parent. And the parent is not responsible for the actions of the child. Job said "I would despise my life" David wrote "refuge failed me"

“I have sworn unto David my servant”
“Thy seed will I establish for ever”

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright
Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soul: I would despise my life.

David wrote, "I looked on my right hand, and beheld, but there was no man that would know me: refuge failed me; no man cared for my soul."

I will sing of the mercies of the Lord for ever: with my mouth will I make known thy faithfulness to all generations.
For I have said, Mercy shall be built up for ever: thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the very heavens.
I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.

“I have sworn unto David my servant”
“Thy seed will I establish for ever”
“O ye seed of Abraham his servant”
“ye children of Jacob his chosen”

O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
He is the Lord our God: his judgments are in all the earth.
He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.

Quoting "Fools are those who have read only the bible" Fools are those who don't belive in the first and latter rain. How can you call me lazy, I post my knowledge and share it with others who seek it. I quote the Word and the prophets. My teaching encompasses the begining and the end. Would you call Moses lazy for teaching. I have already done everything written.

Moses and Jesus are mentioned several times in the Quran, so if Muslims were to meditate on the Ten Commandments & the Sermon on the Mount, they would have no difficulty in finding common ground with Jews and Christians.

Islam could be simple:

Have faith in God and do good works.

Seek peace and justice for all.

Take care of the orphan and widow, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, provide shelter to the homeless, visit prisoners, take care of the sick...

Excellent piece...excellent!

Harold, Harold, Harold,

Once again: Fools are those who have read only the bible. God cannot be proud of such lazy creations!!!!

Even though the attack on the World Trade Center was carried out by a small group of terrorists, guilt by association has been used to demonize Islam.

The People of the Books constituting a community is a concept exclusive to Muslims; the Jews and Christians have no such concept, because Islam regards itself as a continuation of the idea of one, eternal and indivisible God preached by Patriarch Abraham and other prophets who followed him.

The Christian belief in Trinity and the Jewish denial of Prophets Jesus and Mohammad (may peace be on them) are the sources of disagreements between the followers of the three great monotheistic religions.

Nevertheless, the Quran still assigns a special place to Christians and Jews as is evident from many verses, including this one:

"And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our God and your God is One and we are committed to observe peace before Him (Al-Ankabut: 46)."

Apart from the religious differences, the long history of political conflict between Islam and Christianity has tended to color the West's view of Islam. In the wake of 9/11 especially, politicians and sections of the media have tended to portray Islam as a religion that preaches perpetual war on the followers of other faiths.

In this well-orchestrated campaign, reference is often made to those verses of the Quran (the collection of which took place over 22 years) which were revealed in actual battle conditions when Muslims were fighting for their survival. Reading them out of context would obviously lead to a gross misunderstanding of the teachings of Islam.

While terrorist groups in the Muslim world have done enormous harm to religious harmony and coexistence, politicians, sections of the media and even responsible people in the Western world have not helped matters by utterances that hurt Muslim religious sentiments.

Muslims are accused of being terrorists when they fight for their freedom in Chechnya, Kashmir, or Palestine. As the leader of the Catholic community, the Pope should take a lead in encouraging a dialog among the intellectuals of the three faiths and perhaps follow the commendable example set by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, who relentlessly worked for inter-faith harmony, understanding and coexistence.

A genuine dialog requires looking both inward and outward. Muslim intellectuals must put their heads together and work not only for the rejection of extremism by a minority of Muslims but also to chart a strategy to bring modernity to their community.

This necessitates a reform in religious education. The madrassa system
of memorizing the Quran without necessarily understanding the text
produces semi literate clerics who exploit the emotions of the masses.
This leads to deplorable mob psychology that results in violent behavior in the
streets.

Without the knowledge of theological explanations, Islamic and world history, comparative religion and Islamic law,and some understanding of science and technology, Muslim clerics remain woefully unprepared for an inter-faith dialog..

Deb Chatterji, A. Kafir, Ibrahim Mahfouz, Arif, CCNL: Are they all one person coming out at different times with these different pseydonyms?

no one could have put it in better words.The only problem is that who will listen to you? People put their fingers in their ears and don't want to listen to anything but the nonsense they want to hear. I think their hear it and believe it because they're ignorant...

THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE ARK SAVE THE TWO TABLES OF STONE

He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them.
Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word:
But murmured in their tents, and hearkened not unto the voice of the Lord.

“had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach”

There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.
And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord,
So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord.
Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.

“There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone”
“which Moses put there at Horeb”
“when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel”
“that the cloud filled the house of the Lord”
“for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord”
“The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness”

And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

“And he declared unto you his covenant”
“which he commanded you to perform”
“Ten Commandments”
“he wrote them upon two tables of stone”

“Lest ye corrupt yourselves”
“make you a graven image”
“the similitude of any figure”
“the likeness of male or female”
“The likeness of any beast that is on the earth”
“the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air”
“The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground”
“the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth”
“And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven”
“when thou seest the sun”
“the moon”
“even all the host of heaven”

“LEST YE CORRUPT YOURSELVES”
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

“WHEN THOU SEEST THE SUN”
“THE MOON”
“AND THE STARS”
“God made two great lights”
“the greater light to rule the day”
“the lesser light to rule the night”
“God called the light Day”
”the darkness he called Night
”he made the stars also”

“THE LIKENESS OF ANY FISH THAT IS IN THE WATERS BENEATH THE EARTH”
“Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life”
“God created great whales”
“and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind”

“THE LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT CREEPETH ON THE GROUND”
“God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing”

“THE LIKENESS OF ANY WINGED FOWL THAT FLIETH IN THE AIR”
“and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven”
“every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

““THE LIKENESS OF ANY BEAST THAT IS ON THE EARTH”
“and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

“THE LIKENESS OF MALE OR FEMALE”
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

“MAKE YOU A GRAVEN IMAGE”
“THE SIMILITUDE OF ANY FIGURE”
“God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

“LEST YE CORRUPT YOURSELVES”
“AND LEST THOU LIFT UP THINE EYES UNTO HEAVEN”
“EVEN ALL THE HOST OF HEAVEN”
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”

“LEST YE CORRUPT YOURSELVES”
“And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it”

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

By: http:////.......({..J..}).......({..O..}).......({..Z..}).......({...E.}).......({..V..}).......({..Z..})........dot...... US

.
.
.
.
.
.
international Year [of] Astronomy, 2008.

Something the Jealous Catholics & Evangelicals are Jealous About & did Everything They can to Stop "i" from Spreading the "EC{lat-i-on Gospel" so to spaketh!

IYA2008

IYA2008

IYA2008
.
.
.
.
.
By: http:////.......({..J..}).......({..O..}).......({..Z..}).......({...E.}).......({..V..}).......({..Z..})........dot...... US

The wisdom post 9/11 is that secular, liberal countries should:

1. Stop Muslim immigrants coming inside their countries

2. Officially ban the practice of Islam

3. Have no relations with Muslim countries

4. Beam anti-Islam propaganda via satellite everywhere

5. Collectively ostracize all Muslim countries

ISLAM IS A BARBARIC RELIGION !

WE are HERE!
--
Here are YE Holy Cosmic “TETRA-NEEDS“ on Space-Ship EARTH! Followed by the “THE TEN FiATS” Of The “NEW-SONG” ( plus 3 alternates) for a better World to LOVE & liVE in!

Note: If YE are Minus ANY one of Thses TERTA-NEEDS below, then Houston Ye Have a Problem!

^ .^. ^
FOOD
http://{J}
http://.{O}
http://...{Z}
http://......{E}
http://.........{V}
http://............{Z} @Us
HOME
http://................{J}
http://..................{O}
http://......................{Z}
http://.........................{E}
http://...........................{V}
http://..............................{Z} @Us
L♥VE
http://.................................{J}
http://....................................{O}
http://.......................................{Z}
http://..........................................{E}
http://.............................................{V}
http://................................................{Z} @Us
CLOTH
http://.....................................................{J}
http://.......................................................{O}
http://..........................................................{Z}
http://.............................................................{E}
http://................................................................{V}
http://...................................................................{Z} dot
us

1:F♣♣D To keep from disappearing;
2:H♦ME Abode to sleep/enjoy/protect;
3:L♥VE, someone to or have companion;
4:CL♠TH, something to wear!

IMPORTANT: Rich, Middle-class or Poor, Besides Keeping Busy that, If YE hath All these “4-Tetra-Needs“ then Ye hath No Worry’s , in the World, on this Blesseth Holy Cosmic Miraculous, & zero biblical Sin, Holy Cosmic NEBULAS-built S.paceS.hip Planet EARTH, aka S.S. GAiA, S.S. GEOiD, S.S. TELLUSng something!

--- Below are the 10 + 3, alternate, FiATS Of THE "NEW-SONG"

BEHOLD, The "10 Fiats" of the NEW SONG & the "2 Alternatives".

Please; Magnify Them & make them Honorable & Uphold Them!
-

1) "Let there be NO Worship of JEALOUSY as a G-D.!"

2) "Let there be NO Abuse of LOVE to forgive UNCORRECTED-SIN(s)!"

3) "Let there be NO Hassling over a NAME for G-d!"

4) "Let there be NO Denial of FREEDOM OF EKCLATi-ON-ity or
APOCALYPTARiANiTY as RELIGION et al!"

5) "Let there be NO Dishonoring of HONORABLE Parents!"

6) "Let there be NO Unjustifiable HOMICIDE or HURTING!"

7) "Let there be NO Sex with Non-CONSENTERS or BEASTS!"

8) "Let there be NO Theft from NON-THIEVES or NON-USERERS!"

9) "Let there be NO False WITNESSING or Un-JUST Judging!"

10) "Let there be NO Envy of {HU} {MATES} or Folks keeping these FIATS of O.U.R.
NEW-SONG!"
-
11) “Let there be NO Denial of TETRA-NEEDS (Food, Shelter, LOVE & Clothes) to
Any 'Hum {Ate} {Kind}!”

12) "Let there be NO Procrastination nor LAZYNESS!"

13) “Let there Be NO Denial To Self Nor Others in contemplation of REALITY, aka Ye Holy TRANS {FiNiTY}!”

PLEAZE-a QUEERS, PLEASE-a WiCCANS, Plaese WiTCHES, PAGANS, QUUE-NATionals, etc..

Please

Go to a Non-Straight Blog!

Go to a Pagan only Blog, not on this SDtraight Blog!

Go To a Non-straight-QUEER Blog, Queer Bars, Queer Places.... But Not on This Straight Blog, Please-a, Witches, Pagans & or F.A.G.G Nationals & Lovers!!

In response to Mark Edward:

1) The United States has been attacked by our own homegrown Conservative Christian terrorists.

>>Our homegrown Conservative Christians have not organized themselves into an international terrorist organization whose main tool is obscene acts of violence and mass murder like the Islamist terrorists. The victims of their extreme fundamentalist religious beliefs are Muslims, Jews, and Christians.>>

2) Israel isn't part of the USA silly. Israel's problems with terrorists aren't our concern. Israel is not worth one drop of my kid's blood.

>>True. Israel is not part of the United States; however, it is a Western democracy and ally of the United States. Never, never, never has Israel ever asked the United States for any soldiers or a single drop of blood for its defense. It has been a major target of Islamist violence, and suicide bombing.>>

3) You might have a point, if the USA had not sponsored terrorists in recent memory. Carter armed the "terrorists" in Afghanistan. Reagan armed terrorists in Angola and Nicaragua, as well as trading arms to Iranian backed terrorists. Nobody has clean hands.

If you believe there is no difference between Islamist terrorists and their goals I suggest you read "The Looming Tower". It might help you put things in a clearer perspective,

Why don't you add "Oklahoma City NEVER AGAIN!!!" with that? Is it because it was carried out by right wing Christians?

Timothy McVeigh was a disgruntled sociopath who was an individual sociopath with a few confederates. He had no real religious or political agenda. He headed not international terrorist organization. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Marc Edward: If there's no difference between Islamic terrorists and Islamist terrorists, how do explain the fact that these terrorists have killed far more Muslims than non-Muslims?

See, Randall.

Saying things.

What do you intend to *do?*

You never say what you intend to *do.*

Except...

Oh, right, I said that before.

Are you trying to justify something you won't say?

Our War on Terror and Aggression:

An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)-

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count

1) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Islamist Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US troops (3,377 by combat 781, non-combat) and 87,387 – 95,373 Iraqi civilians, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!!

3. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

4. NK has finally started to destroy in nuclear weapons’ capabilities.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9. Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon for their bombing of Oklahoma City.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends. Radovan Karadzic was finally captured on 7/23/08 and is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war -- charges related to the 1992-1995 civil war that followed Bosnia-Herzegovina's secession from Yugoslavia.

14. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

What is it you propose to do, Randall?

A lot of people like you *say* these things, but never say what you intend to *do.*

Except maybe encourage Americans to become like what you fear.

Muslims in America are playing a numbers game that is being played all over the world. Take a good look:

Islamization and Cowardice in Scandinavia

As German journalist Henryk Broder put it after the 2006 riots over the Danish cartoons of Muhammad: "Objectively speaking, the cartoon controversy was a tempest in a teacup. But subjectively it was a show of strength and, in the context of the 'clash of civilizations,' a dress rehearsal for the real thing.

The Muslims demonstrated how quickly and effectively they can mobilize the masses, and the free West showed that it has nothing to counter the offensive -- nothing but fear, cowardice and an overriding concern about the balance of trade. Now the Islamists know that they are dealing with a paper tiger whose roar is nothing but a tape recording."

In 2008, three years after the cartoons were first published, the matter is still very much alive in the minds of many Muslims. More than 200 lawmakers shouted "Death to the enemies of Islam" during an angry demonstration outside the Afghan parliament, protesting the reprinting of the cartoons in Denmark and the release of the Islam-critical film Fitna by the Dutch politician Wilders. At the same time, Danish aid is helping schools to re-open in Afghanistan, even though critics say the curriculum is based on fundamentalist Islam. A campaign to boycott Danish and Dutch products was launched in Jordan. The campaign will include ads in newspapers and on radio and television that urge consumers to avoid buying named goods. The organisation, "The Messenger of Allah Unites Us," have produced t-shirts, bumper stickers and posters with the campaign logo "Live without it."

"[Danish] Muslim organizations intend to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights," Muslim leader Mohammed Khalid Samha told IslamOnline, the large English language website founded by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, after a Danish court rejected a suit by seven Muslim groups. "We were quite sure that the Danish judiciary would not be fair to Muslims," said Samha. Meanwhile, two Tunisian men were arrested and charged with plotting the murder of Jyllands-Posten cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.

As Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept, puts it in the essay Courage and Cowardice in Scandinavia from June 2008, following a bomb in Pakistan targeting Denmark:

"When a car bomb exploded outside Denmark's embassy in Islamabad on June 2, killing eight, it was easy to guess who had done it and why. Sure enough, some days later al-Qaeda took credit and confirmed its motive: the now-infamous Muhammed cartoons. Originally published in the Jyllands-Posten daily on September 30, 2005, they were reprinted by a raft of Danish dailies last February 13 in a show of solidarity with turban-bomb cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, the target of three would-be assassins who had been arrested the day before. Presumably this rather surprising action — the Danish media, generally speaking, have given Jyllands-Posten a rough time for the past three years for upsetting the Muslims — was the immediate cause for the bombing."

"Blasphemy" against Islam potentially carries the death penalty according to sharia law. In June 2008, a Pakistani judge sentenced a Muslim man to death on charges that he insulted Islam's Prophet Muhammad.

In contrast to Denmark's defiance, other Scandinavian countries surrendered to Islamic pressure as fast as humanly possible. Bawer again:

"Sweden took another route. When a political website featured a Jyllands-Posten cartoon, the government sent police to close it down. More recently, hit with his own cartoon crisis involving artist Lars Vilks, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt not only met Muslim ambassadors, but was praised by one for his 'spirit of appeasement.' Norway didn't cover itself in glory, either. On the pretext that a tiny newspaper, Magazinet, had reprinted the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (never mind that major dailies in Spain, Germany, and France had done so as well), the cartoon jihadists chose to target Norway as well, plainly betting that the dialogue-happy, UN-worshipping 'peace country' would curb its freedoms at the first hint of Muslim displeasure. They were right. Norway's government caved in ignominiously, holding a press conference on February 10, 2006, at which Magazinet's cowed editor, Vebjørn Selbekk, with the blessing of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, grovelled before a posse of imams and apologised to them for exercising his freedom of speech. It was probably the most disgraceful day in modern Norwegian history, but you wouldn't know it by the politicians and journalists, who celebrated this selling out of freedom as a triumph of peacemaking."

Selbekk, editor of the small Christian newspaper Magazinet, had firmly resisted pressure from Muslims who had made death threats and from the Norwegian establishment. But eventually Norway's Minister of Labor and Social Inclusion Bjarne Håkon Hanssen hastily called a press conference at a major government office building in Oslo. There Selbekk issued an abject apology for reprinting the cartoons. At his side, accepting his act of contrition and asking that all threats now be withdrawn, was Mohammed Hamdan, the then head of Norway's Islamic Council. As Bawer indicates, it was a picture right out of a sharia courtroom, with the Muslim leader declaring Selbekk to be henceforth under his protection.

In a Friday sermon on February 3 2006, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world's largest Islamic organization, exhorted worshippers to show rage in response to the cartoons. The sermon was aired on TV. The day after, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze by an angry mob. It should be mentioned here that both Norway and Denmark are members of NATO and that destroying an embassy could be considered an act of war, or certainly very close to it. A few days later, a delegation led by Mr. Mohammed Hamdan of Norway's Islamic Council and a senior pastor representing Oslo's bishop visited Qatar to meet Mr. Qaradawi. The trip received support from the Norwegian government. Yusuf al-Qaradawi then accepted the apology that Vebjørn Selbekk had issued on February 10.

Walid al-Kubaisi, a Muslim dissident living in Norway, warned that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is more dangerous than the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, and that the Muslim Brotherhood, whose founder Qaradawi followed when he was young, wants the world to submit to sharia. Kubaisi reacted strongly to the statement by Mr. Hamdan that he would now give Mr. Selbekk protection: "It frightens me that he presents himself as an authority that can grant or revoke protection. Does this mean that [Minister] Bjarne Håkon Hanssen thinks that the next time I feel threatened because of something I have written, I should contact the Islamic Council, not the police? Sadly, the government, in their eagerness to end the current troubles, have made the authoritarian forces stronger." Kubaisi feared that Islamic hardliners would from now on burn something every time they felt offended about anything, and expect to get their will.

To read more-

http://europenews.dk/en/node/13912

"Muslims in America are playing a numbers game that is being played all over the world. Take a good look:"

They said the same thing about the Irish and Italians and whoever else.

America isn't a 'numbers game.'

It's an America game.

Though some may tell you it's about breeding and conversion.

What would you have us do, spawn a whole bunch of kids conditioned to hate each other?

Eboo et al,

As I wrote once on these blogs:

We're all God's children, can't you see?
It's not us and them, it's WE and WE!

Thank you, Eboo, and my thanks for all here who are giving support to peace.

"I know that religious pluralism is alive & well all over this country, if only people are willing to listen to each other rather than judge each other."

DH If you think the Muslim's in America are all happy pluralists you are unaware of what is happening in Muslim majority countries- Saudi, Sudan, Iran.. Even Indonesia is struggling and losing against Shariah law.

Muslims in America are playing a numbers game that is being played all over the world. Take a good look:

http://www.islamicpopulation.com/

Dr. Who writes
"Rarely have I heard anyone say we are at war with ISLAMIC terrorists. When the word terrorist is preceded by an adjective that adjective is ISLAMIST terrorists."

Distinction without a difference.

" It is in fact ISLAMIST extemists who have attacked Western targets and Israel"

1) The United States has been attacked by our own homegrown Conservative Christian terrorists.
2) Israel isn't part of the USA silly. Isreal's problems with terrorists aren't our concern. Israel is not worth one drop of my kid's blood.
3) You might have a point, if the USA had not sponsored terrorists in recent memory. Carter armed the "terrorists" in Afghanistan. Reagan armed terrorists in Angola and Nicaragua, as well as trading arms to Iranian backed terrorists. Nobody has clean hands.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated writes
"As long as Islam follows the violent dictates of the koran, we will always be at war with all Muslims including the "liberal" Eboo Patel. 9/11 Never Again!!!!!!!"

Why don't you add "Oklahoma City NEVER AGAIN!!!" with that? Is it because it was carried out by right wing Christians?

Eboo writes "This is not a Muslim vs Christian world, it is a Pluralism vs Extremism world"

All your words were great, but that sentence deserves to be repeated.
The USA is ill served by the "us vs. them" mentality. Sadly there is on political party that exploits the terror from September 11th whenever they get the chance.
Lets not forget we have our own extremists in this country, our own religious fundamentalists that attacked the USA before we ever heard the name of Bin Laden. These folks are still here, and sadly they vote in our elections.

Clearer heads abu! :)

Thank you, Eboo, for reminding us that seeking to war against an entire religion is a guarantee of an endless cycle of violence.

To CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED: Your paradigm is as distorted as the one you claim all Muslims follow. By its logic, whole groups of people - including the bin Ladens of the world - could state "As long as Christianity follows the (insert adjective) dictates of the Bible, we will always be at war with all Christians including the "liberal" (insert name)." You have bought a distorted picture of Islam. Others have bought a distorted picture of Christianity. Why? Because of the extremism of some of their followers. Your statement does not exemplify the good of the Christian faith you espouse.

Humanity's well-being and peace are not attainable until human unity is established. This unity cannot be attained until the mass of humanity abides by the central spiritual teachings of their faiths. For those who are unaware of this fact, Islam teaches the golden rule just as firmly as Christianity does. Muslims and Christians seem to live by it in about equal numbers - that is, rarely.

Beautiful, beautiful piece - Eboo. Thanks for putting in words what every American should be thinking...after all, it's been 7 years since that fateful 9/11...thousands more lives lost, homes destroyed etc. - are we any closer to peace?

Excellent advice to 'know thy enemy' - the enemy is extremists - who come in all colors, ethnicities, & religious beliefs. Not Muslims, not Christians, not Jews...simply extremists.

Good luck in NY w/ your new service project - may God bless you for trying to educate & empower Americans to rise to the highest ideals that this country treasures - the belief that you're innocent till proven guilty, the belief that you're free to worship as you please, and the freedom to form intelligent opinions based upon facts, not hatespeech! Here's to pluralism...as an active member of the Arizona Interfaith Movement - I know that religious pluralism is alive & well all over this country, if only people are willing to listen to each other rather than judge each other.

I think you ought to watch the news or the Web more, Doctor, if you think people actually don't say 'Islamic' or even make the distinction when they say 'Islamist.'

Or read a couple posts down.

Certainly, this post is about the distinction between the idea of a 'Clash of Civilizations' and defending a pluralistic civilization.

In most circumstances, this whole 'War On Terror' thing is *really* best dealt with in avoiding and disavowing fanaticism and fundamentalism of any kind. Calling it a 'War' for one, tends to obscure the fact that this is mostly about *policing,* not pointing 'armies' at each other.

Meanwhile, it's on us as humans and spiritual people, all of us, to increase the peace.

This isn't about guns or swords or bombs or 'Which Religion Is Righteous In This War.'

It's about,

People are trying to live, here.

It's about time we all learned to get along with the neighbors, and anyone that don't like it can go shout at a wall.

Rarely have I heard anyone say we are at war with ISLAMIC terrorists. When the word terrorist is preceded by an adjective that adjective is ISLAMIST terrorists. It is in fact ISLAMIST extemists who have attacked Western targets and Israel. It is important to point this out and at the same time to continue to ask all Muslims to continue to disavow ISLAMISTS, ISLAMISM, and the violence that accompanies their extremist version of their religion. Muslims should be pleased to help fight this vicious religious extremism that besmirches one of the world's major monotheistic religions. For the West to be frightened of offending all Muslims, by being afraid of naming ISLAMISTS as a threat to peace, because they think all Islam will be offended is to give a victory to the extremists. For this surrender implies that somehow most Muslims can not distinguish the extremists among them from the majority of Muslims who seek peace.

Rarely have I heard anyone say we are at war with ISLAMIC terrorists. When the word terrorist is preceded by an adjective that adjective is ISLAMIST terrorists. It is in fact ISLAMIST extemists who have attacked Western targets and Israel. It is important to point this out and at the same time to continue to ask all Muslims to continue to disavow ISLAMISTS, ISLAMISM, and the violence that accompanies their extremist version of their religion. Muslims should be pleased to help fight this vicious religious extremism that besmirches one of the world's major monotheistic religions. For the West to be frightened of offending all Muslims, by being afraid of naming ISLAMISTS as a threat to peace, because they think all Islam will be offended is to give a victory to the extremists. For this surrender implies that somehow most Muslims can not distinguish the extremists among them from the majority of Muslims who seek peace.

Yeah, that's bloody brilliant, Concerned Christian. "We'll make war on all of you till 'you' stop being violent."

What do you expect to happen, that way?

Ah, Springsteen. Always one of my favorites. :)

And, good assessment of the situation, Mr. Patel.

May more of us come to see that. It's the only way we don't all lose.