Politics Fuels Despair, Resentment

I wish to clarify what I meant by "Pray to God, but lock your door..." Faith and reason must go together. God does not send angels to do what He has given human beings the capacity to do. Faith in God does not deny human reasoning in the way God's will is interpreted and religions are practised.

So it is in the best interest of humanity to study religions also from the perspective of human reason, which is after all God given.

No other religion has a political system embedded in it as Islam in this day. Hence it ought to be studied as a political system as well, considering there are 1.3-1.5 billion Muslims around the globe and Sharia Law has a big say in countries where there is Muslim majority. The practise of Islam in the West where Muslims have never been in the majority, and Sharia Law has had no say nor has say, is a different matter. The impact of Islam is best assessed when the progress of countries where there was no previous culture that counts as a major culture, before the arrival of Islam is carefully examined. Babylon, Iran, Egypt etc were ancient cultures with an impressive history and cultural background that were a few millennia old before the birth of Islam. So the glory attributed to Islamic culture in the Middle East is not based on Islam alone. The culture that went before it must be taken into consideration. Similarly India's rule of Islam which is a mere three hundred years accounts only for a small period of time in Indian history, when compared to the history of the country with a rich culture and religious basis in Hinduism and Buddhism spanning many centuries.

Study of Islamic history must be done based on these considerations.

Another area of study could be anthropology of Islam.

Only when Islam is studied under these different aspects: Politics, Law (especially with regard to human rights), religion, history, anthropology... will we begin to fully understand the religion for what it is and its impact on current society. With Islamic fundamentalism on the rise worldwide, such a study is a necessity, no longer an academic luxury.

When Islam is studied with the detachment of scientific vigour, the facts, observations and conclusions can be presented to all Muslim and non-Muslim communities alike.

The great drawback in having only religious scholars assess Islam is that there seems to be a compelling need to whitewash aspects of its history (which a historian, political scientist or legal expert in human rights would not be obliged to do) or political impact. All religions must own up to its history and undertake corrections. The Catholic Church did it, there is no reason why Islam shouldn't, based on facts alone.

God should not be created in our image and likeness. I'm sure God is big enough to survive false interpretations by human beings of who He is and what He would like human beings to do in His name. I'm sure God would have no objections to having the Quran and Hadiths studied scientifically.

A Modest Proposal

Since Islam has 1.3 billion adherents, its Sharia Law being the basis of politics and law in Islamic countries (or with Muslim majority) even to this day, it ought to be studied in the university by (by non-Muslim) students of political science and law. (Comparing it with Jewish law would add additional insight, since Mohammad was influenced by Jewish teaching.) Leaving study of Sharia Law to religious scholars alone dimishes its understanding as a political and legal (especially from the perspective of human rights) system and its direct impact on society.

Islamic extremism has become a fact of life involving the safety of non-Muslims around the world. It is therefore vital to study the political and legal system embedded in the religion. It is no longer sufficient for interfaith religious scholars to engage with Shariah Law.

There is a wisdom saying: "Pray to God, but lock your door if you don't want thieves to break in and steal." It is laudable to expect Islam to be a religion of peace. But if Islamic history, the claim of Islamic extremists, some unpleasant incidents in the recent past, have even a remote basis in the Quran, it is essential to examine it objectively under the microscope, without relying entirely on a purely Islamic religious interpretation that stem from those who are peace loving Muslims who have every reason to interpret their religion with bias.

A nicely written piece. I do think that we can't all see things as black and white; we must see things through the perspective of others. How else are we to try and understand them? I ask many of those who commented here to please seek knowledge from sources other than the media. It's the only way to obtain a balanced perspective.

peace

The two most important issues that Christians and Muslims could use for dialogue:

1. Human rights according to the Bible and the Quran

2. Faith in God and good works as per the Bible and the Quran

Ms. Mubarak's eloquent analysis of our country's current policy is something our policymakers should listen to, carefully, and take into account as we try to better the current mess in the Middle East, including important parts of our own creation. On the other side, I think Americans, trying to appreciate moderate views of people like the author, are dismayed that such writings don't also call for Muslims to loudly reject the hopefully minority but seemingly growing jihadist mindset and teachings espoused by so many willing suicide bombers who have been systematically taught that to kill Westerners is to gain eternal bliss. I can only hope that Ms. Mubarak is also speaking to the Muslim media with lessons for them as well as she does lessons for us. But it would help her noble cause and more acceptance of her opinion to make this point equally in her messages to Americans.

Dear Victoria

Let me assure you that it does not matter at all to me whether you were once a fully professed nun or did or did not live in a convent. I recall now that Karen Armstrong the panelist was a fully professed nun before she became a Muslim. In hindsight I must concede that I was probably upset at an unconscious level that you gave up Christianity in favour of Islam. As a person who has not even remotely been tempted to give up Christianity for Islam I could not understand you fully (and still do not), hence the seemingly harsh stand. I have felt differently about persons who was born into a Muslim family or converted to Islam from atheism. But I realize now that God alone knows each one's heart and He alone is worthy of passing any judgment on anyone. But how easily and blindly I would draw conclusions. Sorry about all judgmental comments, conscious and unconscious.

BTW, when I mentioned that I know no Muslims personally in Sydney, it does not mean that I do not come across them in the course of my daily life. This is a world city (not quite so large and international as New York, but large and international enough) and there are many Muslims. I do not pay any extra attention because they are Muslims. I would recognize a woman as one only if she wore the hijab. To me they are simply Aussies, or human beings like any other. I relate to each person as a human being. As for knowing Muslims in India, there was a large Muslim community in my father's village where I lived for the first eight years of my life. I could differentiate them from the Hindus only because they dressed differently. My father had direct dealing with several Muslims. As for me, after moving out of my father's village, I have known Muslims who were dressed like the rest. For a short while I even shared a room at the Uni hostel with a Muslim and we got along quite well.

I would strongly encourage you to write about your spiritual journey, privately, even if not on this forum. Maybe you could even get it published one day because you do write beautifully and your journey has been unusual in many ways. It must make an interesting read for others and give you greater clarity about your spiritual path.

As the Quran says, to God all must return. Our journey on this earth is a journey back to God from whom we have come. How each one makes that journey is unique and God, who knows our secret thoughts and intentions will judge according to His standards that we know very little about. Religions have given an indication of what they might be.

Best wishes
Soja

well america is no different in its reverence for sports- im an extreme atheist in that respect-
to be honest- sports fanaticism creeps me out

because i most admire the franciscans and have worked with them i listed franciscans- but it could just as easily been carmelites as that was where i was headed-

its a long and circuitous story- that doesnt need elaborating- actually to be more specific- its te poor claires-

but its easy to find franciscans in calif - especially north

i didnt live in a convent

it wasnt the franciscan part - it was the convent part

which is why i considered seriously the carmelites-

but i was too active and dont get me started on sexism in the church-

id say im about as anti-competition anti-sports as it is possible to be without getting lynched :)

BTW, sports is supposedly the national religion in Australia. It is a pity I am almost an atheist in that regard. But I do admire the great sportsmen and women of my country and like to scream 'Aussie, Aussie, oy, oy!' when they do Australia proud. However the only sports I like to watch sometimes is long distance cycling, eg Tour de France. The sport encourages environment friendly mode of transport and shows how one can reconnect with nature and admire the beautiful landscape.

Dear Victoria

You realise I'm a bit of a literalist. My assumption that you were once a Fransciscan novice (you refer to as noviciate)for many years without actually taking the vows of a nun, is what I concluded from your own posts. I have not invested the time to reread all the blogs on the forum in which you have mentioned them. But I will provide just one to provide my source of information:

'actually ross im an ex-franciscan novitiate who is trying to become a humble authority on islam.' (Posted 21 January 2007, at 4:25 PM on Akbar Ahmed's thread titled, 'Islam and Women.')

You might like to refer to your posts, among others, on Pamela Taylor's blog: 'God made me do it' (Posted by her 18 February 2007 10:23 AM), 'Catholics more likely to face Ethnic bias than Religious discrimination' (posted by her 16 March 2007 7:22 AM), Eboo Patel's thread, 'Discrimation against Muslims (posted by him 20 March 2007, 9:41 AM), 'On admiring the religious other,' (posted by him in answer to the moderator's question dated 11 April 2007)...

I may yet get around someday to posting some of your comments that caught my attention so that you are convinced that I base my impressions only on what you have written and not someting I pulled out of my fictive imagination.

Once again I wish to affirm that I respect your your person and your choice of Islam. Although I would never choose Islam for myself (I have always been a Christian and remain so by conviction even after reading the Quran), I respect the choice 1.5 billion Muslims around the world have made. Sufi Islam I understand developed parallel to Wahaabi Islam integrating other streams of religious thought into it. Sufi Islam I am made to understand is oftentimes considered a different religion by members of Wahaabi Islam, although Sufi mystics have used the Quran as their spiritual basis. Kabir, the Indian Sufi mystic, would probably not be accepted without problems by Wahaabi Muslims. That is probably one reason Fr Bede referred to Sufi Islam as the basis for religious dialogue. Since no other religion has a political component integral to it, it would be more difficult for other religions to dialogue with the political element of Wahaabi Islam. IMHO the political branch of Islam must enter into dialogue with other political systems, eg democracy, monarchies etc.

I must hasten to confess that I am not that fearless and courages as I claim. I have been a coward many times in my life. However sometimes I have taken a stand based on my courage, completely out of proportion with the power I had. I started very early by challenging the authoratative positions on many issues taken by my father and paternal grandmother (a matriarch). I am trying to learn the hard way that discretion and not bravado and recklessness is the better part of valour. (Critical assessment of Wahaabi Islam is definitely not my area of special interest, since I'm not a religious scholar.) Dicretion has been emphasised as a great spiritual virtue, but I must admit that I had not given it much thought or tried to practise it in my life.

Gandhi's genius is in combining the principles of the Bhagavad Gita and the Sermon on the Mount to form a political strategy that is both effective and based on non-violence. Civil disobedience based on "Satyaagraha' ('longing for truth') is a spiritually based political tactic to fight injustice. We need to put that tactic into use even more today because war with modern technology is not a very sensible option to resolve conflicts. The concept of just war was developed also in the Catholic church. How could someone like Hitler have been stopped with civil disobedience or diplomacy?

The great challenge is to discern good and evil.

The great dilemma is that sometimes one must choose the lesser of two evils to resolve a conflict because many times there are no black and white solutions to human problems.

I do not know any Islamic organisations in Australia. I not know any Muslim personally. There is nothing to suggest that Muslims are discriminated in Australia. Second generation Australian Muslims integrate well and become Aussie in most ways. As far as I can tell the Muslims keep their religious practise their private business. Any attempt to politicise Islam and cause division is strongly discouraged here and rightly so.

Best wishes
Soja

i dint live in a franciscan convent soja- that is why i keep getting upset

ill give a synopsis someday but i cant right now as im supposed to be doing other things but i get stuck and easily distracted when im here

as you see i get excitable

no i dont believe in pre-ewmptive stirkes at all in any way

on a microscosmic scale between individuals-
in america if one person makes a pre-emptive strike against another- we call it a sucker punch
and only the most cowardly yellow belllied baCKSTABBER DOES SUCH A THING

so its not more valid on a macrocosmic scale when a nation does it
actually its exponentially MORE invalid

as far as the comment about turning the other cheek only counts when the tcheekturner has the ability to break the others nose

thats a good one

from exreme pacifism to islam is not as big a jump as one might imagine
oh- im going off again i better go before i start

peace thanks for your very kind words and gentleness

does australia have a branch of the women in black?
http://www.womeninblack.net/

peace

Dear Victoria

I'm glad that the tension has let up. Many thanks for your kind words.

As to my English language skills, or the lack of it which caused the misunderstanding: I have enough excuses for not being able to keep up with your nuances in spite of being an Australian citizen.

I had not heard a word of English until the age of eight (attended the village schools in the home villages of my parents in Kerala and learnt only Malayalam). Then my mother's dream to have us learn English and have better education forced my dad to take the family to Tamil Nad, the neighbouring state. That is when I learnt the English alphabet in preparation to attend an English medium school. One does not learn all that much in two years between the ages of 8 - 10. Then I moved to a school with a national syllabus and was taught in English and Hindi medium (arts/social subjects in Hindi and science in English, and we also learnt Sanskrit for five years). English was not taught at a very high level. Always science oriented, I was not particularly interested in languages, and wrote atrocious English composition (the word we used for essays). Luckily not much language skill was expected of science students and I got away with minimum because we got to select our elective subjects in Class 9. At no time did I learn English or any other language as a major, and studied only basic English for the first year at Uni. I do happen to know a bit of several lanaguages though - Malayalam (my mother tongue), Tamil (can speak but cannot read or write), Hindi(can read and write better than my mother tongue but cannot speak), Sankrit (can read and understand only very little of what I studied in school) and German (the language I know next best after English).

Although I left India twenty years ago, I came to Australia only seven years ago. I did not attend any English classes in Australia. I make do with the little I learnt in India. English remains the language I happen to know best and I think and 'feel' in English. My thoughts include neither poetry nor nuances of American English or any other English (or any other language) for that matter.

So there you have it - my valid excuse for my limited knowledge of English.

Since I was focussed on answering your politically oriented questions, I forgot to mention that my sympathies are with you for being jailed with no charges. I admire your capacity for forgiveness, I really do. I have not yet reached the stage of forgiving all my enemies (while I am still hurting from the wounds), although I do them no harm. I have a long way to go in walking in the steps of the One I call my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. I think of Gandhi who always expressed his grievances to the media and thus exposed evil, giving the public an opportunity to decide between right and wrong. Exposing evil is the first step to overcoming/fighting it, so I look upon the media as instruments of God in fighting evil. Gandhi had interpreted the meaning of 'turning the other cheek' quite wisely: In the sense he meant it, turning the other cheek makes no sense unless one has the strength to break the nose of the one who slapped one on the cheek. (So in any conflict, when the US chooses not to use violence, it is turning the other cheek in the highest Christian sense because it has the power to break anyone's nose. Using force to stop evil, like stopping genocide or a dictator, is another matter. Even though I do not believe in pre-emptive wars, I do believe in just war and using force in self defence. Killers must be stopped in order that they may not kill more innocent people. Not to stop a killer is evil, not pacifism.) What lesson does one teach a bully by turning the other cheek, if one is too weak to take on the bully anyway? So your forgiveness is great because you could have chosen another path, namely of seeking justice through the courts and monetary compensation.

As to US Congress discussing the Armenian genocide issue: I think it is unwise to bring up an issue after so many years, in the US. Let the people/nations concerned deal with it. Leave fact finding to historians, archeologists and criminal lawyers interested in the issue. If genocide can be established without a shadow of reasonable doubt, and anyone directly involved with it can be brought to justice, then it should be done by the wounded/related parties in the International Court of Justice in the Hague, set up to deal with such issues. Passing a motion in US Congress serves no purpose except to create diplomatic tension with Turkey, a country that is trying very hard to live up to European ideals of democracy.

By the way I have no reason to feel proud, only great grief that I have not fulfilled my goals in life, have made some really big blunders and been wronged in ways I never deserved. I have never been a "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full" kind of person, not even as a child. I like to think of myself as someone who is not afraid to speak the truth, to anyone. Some people mistake that for pride as you seem to have.

As to sharing personal stuff, I have done my share too. I would however have no one else to blame if someone made references to it in anyway they chose. This here is a public forum, and each one is responsible for the information they share. Secretly I have admired those who managed to express their thoughts without ever mentioning anything personal.

I will respect your desire and refrain from making any reference to anything personal, even I think I could use them to make some point clearer! :)

I already expressed my admiration for your communication skills on Eboo Patel's forum. I can only repeat that. Your spirit of service and fire to fight for justice is admirable too. As to your Islam, it is I who must get used to your Islamic thinking and forget that you lived in a Franciscan convent once upon a time.

Best wishes
Soja

ill tell you what soja- the only reason i come back here is to see what new surprises you have for me-
you sure got me this time

if nothing else you are certainly an interesting and intelligent woman

im sorry if i was so sharp
as you see- i take poetic license and get lost in words sometimes

many of your posts are really deep, and reaching for fineness and outstanding-

just thought id balance out all the dramatics of the last post
i really find nothing in your posts even coming close to anger let alone hatred or anything ugly

maybe ive been too quick in projecting an intolerance on you
i better look at myself alot more

see ya later- god willing

SOJA- i dont know whether to take you dead serious- or what.

are you really that literalist in your interpretations of things presented?

i am finding no evidence of deficiency in your english expression

heres the article you're referring to:

as you can see it starts out with an extension of libs bizarre characterizations of muslim women
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"liberated-
despite YOUR EFFORTS TO DEPICT ALL all muslim women as burkha blinded mole creatures hiding in caves-

o yes, and the men are sun baked fried brainless zombies wandering aimlessly around the deserts with their giant guns looking for americans to smite-

how do the two ever get together to make more muslim babies?

maybe its like when spock goes back to his home planet and goes sex-crazy for a few days-

lots of dark tanned baked terrorists fighting to the death for the opportnity of grabbing the sluggy mushroom colored flock of black crowlike clad mole women-

i WANT to be allowed to come out and see the sun- but the evil sunrays will kill me!!!
and my flabby gelatinous little daughters too!!

of course we mercilessly shove the boy babies out into the sun to get baked a nice raisin brown so their brains will only be fit for future brain washing-

o how i dream of freedom and coming out of my dark dirt living tomb!

well, i always have 7 years from now when i can come out of my misery and watch my some sinuous snakey leathery tanned maniac slit another maniacs throat for my pleasure-

IS THAT ABOUT HOW YOU VIEW US LIB?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

sorry lib- i have to retreat back to the comforting darkness as the blazing light from the computer is blinding my weak red eyes............"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

how did you miss this at the end?
that it was a parody of what lib imagines?

then soon after that i posted in reference to this article
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"peace lib- i hope my teasing was taken in the spirit of silliness with which it was given"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

this is where i actually call it silly teasing, just on the very remote chance that sarcasm was lost on lib.

soja- are you sayng that you thought there were subtle shadings and nuances in that depiction?

it was an extreme and ridiculous caricature

there was no finesse to it- no elegant innuendo

it was fiercely and completely harsh

if you are so , well- literalist in how you perceive things-
why didnt you include the other elements and incorporate then into your developed bio of me?

if you can misunderstand so completely-
why only the grublike gelatinous girls?
what about the boys who are left mercilessly to fry until their little brains can be washed into some extreme servility?

do you really think i live in a cave and only come out every 7 years?

and that i lay in wait in some animalistic dementia in sensory deprivation for the opportunity to come out and watch some savage slaughter for my own pleasure?

and that i and my crazed community are hiding out in a cave somewhere in america in apparent anonymity??

if youre going to include one graphic and inhuman item, id think you would have incorporated them all to create some scenario.

it is 1 of 2 possibilities

1) either, you really are so ,literalist is the only kind way i can put it-
and even though your language skiils (havent you been in australia over 20 years?) evidently are quite developed- they somehow failed you in this instance- to mistake a graphically freakish lampoon with an actual factual account-

2) or this is your way of you saving face and you'll sacrifice your english proficiency rather than admit it is possible you just didnt understand or were willing to accept the ridiculous too readily- which would indicate a lack of impartiality and a wound to your pride

if you really lack the subtlety and awareness to detect such an overt apparent and obvious parody-

what other REAL subtleties, distinctions, favorings and nuances have you missed or misinterpreted?

im just really flabbergasted that you thought that was a factual account

if its a language thing- i can understand that

and if that is the case- perhaps you have similarly missed or presumed other facts about me that you could revisit

i think youre basically a kind person, maybe a little too proud, and to me it is creepy when people try to get personal

if you have a genuine question- you really are welcome to ask

i would vastly prefer that ot being misrepresented

just as you like to perceive yourself as egalitarian and non-partisan

i am driven by a desire to not be misunderstood-
and when people tell me what i think- it makes me mental

also i was mad at you for inviting those ladies who have real issues with me and have attacked me - well- visciously-

terra on eboo patels bill clinton question
and insight all over the main board

she is actually marian, and then disappeared for a bit and came back as insight-

but even as insight she had some pretty disgusting accusations
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2007/09/the_gospel_according_to_bill/all_comments.html

so i felt it was pretty mean to invite those ladies in here because theyve both been really well- just unladylike

but im over it now i really dont know what to say about htis post

but it was interesting reading my own dramatic post as id forgotten all about it

to me, dragging personalities into something is questioning the logic and validity of a person and trying to throw distracting and assumptive motives where they may not exist

someone really has to slam me hard and alot before i have suspicion for bad in them
and i dont have suspicion for bad in you soja
ok peace
see you in the funny papers

Dear Victoria

Since you accuse me of "assassinating" your character by merely making a passing reference to a couple of details you mentioned about your personal life to elaborate a point I was making:

On October 16, 2007 2:16 PM you wrote, “youre a font of misinformation when it comes to me- even down to very basic details of having 2 or more children (where on EARTH did you come up with THAT ONE?)”

I based my information based on your post on the thread of Pamela K Taylor titled "The End is a-coming" (26 March 2007 7:40 AM).

On March 23, 2007 at 2:38 PM, in your post addressed to Concerned the Christian now Liberated, whom you addressed as "lib", you wrote,

"i WANT to be allowed to come out and see the sun- but the evil sunrays will kill me!!!

and my flabby gelatinous little daughters too!!

of course we mercilessly shove the boy babies out into the sun to get baked a nice raisin brown so their brains will only be fit for future brain washing-.."

My understanding of "daughters" ("my flabby gelatinous little daughters too") is that the word is used to refer to more than one. "Daughters" could mean two or more and my post made note of that distinction. Am I mistaken in interpreting that statement as meaning that you are referring to your daughters? If not, what were you referring to? Whose daughters? If not daughters, then what? Why should it amount to character assassination to refer to you as a mother when you mention "my flabby gelatinous daughters?"

If I was mistaken about you having two or more children based on your post, then I would appreciate you explaining the meaning of your post which I interpreted as I did. English is not my first language you know and I am willing to admit that I could miss the nuances in your writing.

If The Washington Post doesn't delete any of your posts on this forum, anyone can verify that you have posted a lot of personal details here (check out your posts on the threads of Pamela Taylor, Eboo Patel etc). I'm not inventing anything, and I have absolutely no reason to assassinate your character. I wonder about your motive for trying to paint me as one who hates Muslims and as one who is trying to assassinate your character.

Best wishes
Soja

PS: More later...maybe.

soja- what are you talking about?

i dont care if you agree with me.

you're still on about this not being an appropriate conversation?
and youre disappointed that the islamophobes on the other post didnt join here?
they werent discussing politics but personal character asassination, (mine)

dont worry about my choices in life, worry about your own soul.

whats with the bbc links?

yes, the non-muslims of the world watched the bosnian massacre

anyway- i have no idea what your point ever is.

youre always trying to force things into a personal disccusion about your beliefs-

if you dont have any coherent thoughts on ME politics, why do you keep posting here?

i just popped in to see if any of the islamophobes accepted your (kind of sneaky) invite to come in here and slam me-

your false assertion that al-qaeda is based on islamic principles is cleared up once and for all by the amman message of 2004-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Frequently Asked Questions Tell a Friend

The Amman Message started as a detailed statement released the eve of the 27th of Ramadan 1425 AH / 9th November 2004 CE by H.M. King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein in Amman, Jordan. It sought to declare what Islam is and what it is not, and what actions represent it and what actions do not. Its goal was to clarify to the modern world the true nature of Islam and the nature of true Islam.

In order to give this statement more religious authority, H.M. King Abdullah II then sent the following three questions to 24 of the most senior religious scholars from all around the world representing all the branches and schools of Islam: (1) Who is a Muslim?
(2) Is it permissible to declare someone an apostate (takfir)?
(3) Who has the right to undertake issuing fatwas (legal rulings)?

Based on the fatwas provided by these great scholars (who included the Shaykh Al-Azhar; Ayatollah Sistani and Sheikh Qaradawi), in July 2005 CE, H.M. King Abdullah II convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world's leading Islamic scholars 'Ulama) from 50 countries. In Amman, the scholars unanimously issued a ruling on three fundamental issues (which became known as the 'Three Points of the Amman Message'):

They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi'a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash'arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.

Based upon this definition they FORBADE takfir (DECLARATIONS OF APOSTASY) between Muslims.
Based upon the Mathahib they set forth the subjective and objective preconditions for the issuing of fatwas, thereby exposing ignorant and illegitimate edicts in the name of Islam.

These Three Points were then unanimously adopted by the Islamic World's political and temporal leaderships at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit at Mecca in December 2005. And over a period of one year from July 2005 to July 2006, the Three Points were also unanimously adopted by six other international Islamic scholarly assemblies, culminating with the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah, in July 2006. In total, over 500 leading Muslim scholars worldwide—as can be seen on this website [click here to see the entire list]—unanimously endorsed the Amman Message and its Three Points.

This amounts to a historical, universal and unanimous religious and political consensus (ijma') of the Ummah (nation) of Islam in our day, and a consolidation of traditional, orthodox Islam. The significance of this is:
(1) that it is the first time in over a thousand years that the Ummah has formally and specifically come to such a pluralistic mutual inter-recognition; and
(2) that such a recognition is religiously legally binding on Muslims since the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: My Ummah will not agree upon an error (Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab al-Fitan, Hadith no.4085).

This is good news not only for Muslims, for whom it provides a basis for unity and a solution to infighting, but also for non-Muslims. For the safeguarding of the legal methodologies of Islam (the Mathahib) necessarily means inherently preserving traditional Islam's internal 'checks and balances'. It thus assures balanced Islamic solutions for essential issues like
1)human rights;
2)women's rights;
3)freedom of religion;
4)legitimate jihad;
5)good citizenship of Muslims in non-Muslim countries, and just and democratic government.

It also exposes the ILLEGITAMATE OPINIONS of RADICAL FUNDAMENTALISTS and TERRORISTS from the point of view of true Islam. As George Yeo, the Foreign Minister of Singapore, declared in the 60th Session of the U.N. General Assembly (about the Amman Message): "Without this clarification, the war against terrorism would be much harder to fight."

Finally, whilst this by the Grace of God is a historical achievement, it will clearly remain only principial unless it is put into practice everywhere. For this reason, H.M. King Abdullah II is now seeking to implement it, God willing, through various pragmatic measures, including
(1) inter-Islamic treaties;
(2) national and international legislation using the Three Points of the Amman Message to define Islam and forbid takfir;
(3) the use of publishing and the multi-media in all their aspects to spread the Amman Message; (4) instituting the teaching of the Amman Message in school curricula and university courses worldwide; and
(5) making it part of the training of mosque Imams and making it included in their sermons.

God says in the Holy Qur'an says:

"There is no good in much of their secret conferences save (in) whosoever enjoineth charity and fairness and peace-making among the people and whoso doeth that, seeking the good pleasure of God, We shall bestow on him a vast reward." (Al-Nisa, 4:114).

there you have it-

October 20, 2007 2:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on October 20, 2007 14:46

VICTORIA:
heres your coordinated fatwa against terrorism

its long, but i didnt know what i should leave out
ill cap the relevant parts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The declaration is of the utmost importance to the future of Iraq and to the war on terrorism for the following reasons:

(1) The war on TERRORISM cannot be won by military and intelligence means alone. The only way to win the war on terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, and thus to dry up the pool of potential recruits to extremism. This cannot be achieved by western-style television or radio stations, which appeal to and influence only tiny secular, urban, westernized minorities. It can only be done through the authority and legitimacy of Islam itself. Unlike other religions, Islam has not been held together over hundreds of years by religious or temporal institutes, or by a clerical caste—rather, it has been held together by the Holy Qur’an and other texts which in effect interpret it. Thus religious authority lies in written texts and their interpretations. What the extremists did, before they ever took a single violent action, was to REJECT the traditional internal checks and balances on the interpretation of these texts. Indeed, to this day, before and behind every single terrorist act there is a PSEUDO-FATWA permitting or commending it. What the conference achieved is to put those traditional checks and balances (in theory at least) back on the interpretation of these texts.

(2) From the beginning in Iraq, the Takfiri foreign militants have targeted the Shi‘a in order to create a civil war and widen the conflict, thereby entangling the coalition forces in a never-ending conflict of which their countries will eventually weary. By achieving a consensus that all Sunni and Shi‘as are Muslims and that all have basic common beliefs and practices, the conference has taken the theological and religious basis out of this sectarian conflict, and exposed for what it really is: SEDITION and MASS MURDER. Without a religious solution in Iraq there can be no political solution, and hence no end to the conflict. The conference is thus providing “the religious solution”.

(3) Through the explicit recognition of the “Eight Schools of Jurisprudence” of Islam and their methodology, it implied the recognition of seven issues which are vital for Muslims and non- Muslims to live together harmoniously in this world: (i) THE protection of human rights, individual rights and freedoms and social justice under Islamic law; (ii) THE protection of women’s rights, children’s rights and ethnic minorities rights under Islamic law; (iii) The ABSOLUTE PREVENTION OF INDIVIDUAL VIOLENCE, AGGRESSION AND TERRORISM under ISLAMIC LAW; (iv) The prevention of the POLITICIZATION of religion and of offensive “JIHAD” by Muslims in the modern age; (v) The GUARANTEE of respect and tolerance for other religions under Islamic law; (vi) The injunction according to Islamic law for Muslims to be loyal and good citizens in non- Muslim countries in which they are not oppressed and enjoy full freedom of religion (as is the case precisely in the U.S. and the U.K.), even if those countries are in conflict with Islamic-majority countries; (vii) The permissibility according to Islamic law for Muslims to chose their own form of temporal government for themselves (within the parameters of the maqasid or “goals” of the Shari‘a) including modern DEMOCRACY.

King Abdullah II’s historic conference was made possible at this period of history due to a number of historical factors and recent political developments, specifically: the galvanization of world opinion against terrorism following the events of 9/11; Western pressure on the financial resources of the terrorists; Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia’s courageous moves in his own country to recognize and honour the Shi‘a and Sufi minorities despite the vehemence of the Wahabi opposition to this; the co-operation of the traditional religious leadership in Egypt (especially that of al- Azhar); the recent coalescing of the Shi‘a religious leadership in Iraq, around the supreme authority of Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. This conference was attended by over 175 leading religious figures from over 40 countries and marks one of the most important efforts to combat the problem of extremism and violence in the modern world.

ARE YOU STARTING TO UNDERSTAND NOW?

Dear Victoria

You wrote, "You have an almost cartoonlike superficial awareness of ME issues..."(posted October 16 2007 5:17 PM) Hence in response to your questions, I have provided BBC links to the topics you touched on. Reading up in detail on these issues to go into a lengthy discussion with you lies outside my area of particular interest. I must repeat too that I am here on an On Faith forum, not a political one.

I will touch briefly on the issue of Turkey since you mentioned it. I understand however that your views are coloured by the fact that your husband is a Turkish Muslim. (I know nothing about your personal life other than what you have written on this forum. I don't go back to reread your posts, but I can't help it that I have a fairly good memory.)

Seventeen years ago a Kurdish woman from Turkey told me about the plight of her community in Turkey. According to her the Kurds feel marginalised and persecuted by the larger Turkish community. The world read about the gassing of Iraqi Kurds by Saddam Hussein and also about the recent terrorist attacks on their community in Iraq. Being a small ethnic group in Turkey with Turkish Muslims on one side and Iraqi Shia and Sunni within the Iraqi side of Iraqi Kurds, they feel isolated and in need of self-protection. Who could blame them for that? The fact that the Kurdish territory within Iraq has oil and the fact that the Iraqi Kurds feel a sense of kinship with their community in Turkey, makes it politically interesting and volatile territory.

Do you have reports of the minority ethnic Kurds in Turkey attacking the majority Turkish civilians? If so please feel free to share the information here with details of the source.

Turkey and its history of Christianity we already discussed in one of Eboo Patel's thread. I pointed out that I belong to an Eastern Church which had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic church in Rome until 400 years ago. Even now the Syro-Malabar Catholic church in Kerala enjoys autonomy within the Catholic church. Only Syro-Malabar Catholics who live outside Kerala come directly under the RC church in Rome.

The Christian role of Turkey you mentioned was over three centuries before the birth of Islam. The powerful Turkish Ottoman Empire was not Christian, but Muslim. European countries at the time considered themselves Christian.

Turkey is for sure a bridge between the East and West. Geographically only a very small portion of it lies within Europe, the vast bulk of it is in the East (Turkey cannot be referred to as ME for that reason). Turkey applied for full membership in EEC (now EC) on 14 April 1987 (twenty years ago). The delay for acceptance into the EU is because it has not yet met all the political criteria for EU membership. Turkey is still in the process of working towards fulfilling all the criteria.

Why did I write about my faith journey on this thread? Why should description of one's faith journey be out of place in a forum that is discussing religions? Besides, the "On Faith" forum would like to hear about personal faith journeys. There is even a separate section with invitation to share the journey. I did not share my personal faith journey there, because I feel that I am currently in a phase that is difficult to put in words.

Mentioning your motherhood was only to highlight the pain of mothers in Iraq, now suffering because of the Shia-Sunni conflict. If your sympathies are with the occupied, then it should matter to you even when Iraqis are killing each other on the basis of their ethnic differences.

You should be asking yourself with what motive you share your personal details on this forum. Being annoyed with me for remembering them is pointless. Your status as an ex-Francisan novitiate (novice) of many years is an essential part of your faith journey. As a Catholic who has been exposed to and has engaged with other religions (and have known many others who have done the same without giving up their Christian faith), when you present your Islamic views to me I cannot help but calling to mind (and maybe gently reminding you) you were once a Catholic nun in training. I respect your freedom to choose any path that appeals to you, but that doesn't oblige me to agree with your views. I take no offence when you disagree with my views.

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Victoria

You ask quite indignantly why the world allows wrong things to happen and where the humanitarian responses to Darfur and now Myanmar (Burma)etc are. (Re post Oct 6, 2007 5:51 PM)

May I ask what exactly you are doing? What exactly the 1 billion + Muslims are doing about the issues you have mentioned? Are you indignant about human nature in general or about some human beings in particular? Do you notice that some human beings do go out of their way to do good things while the vast majority don't? In what way do you differentiate between the humanitarian tendencies of Muslims and non-Muslims, if you differentiate between them at all.

Below from the BBC a couple of links for a quick review on what is going on and what other people around the world are thinking about the issue.

Burma/Myanmar:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7035943.stm

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3610&edition=2&ttl=20071021122450

To Victoria:

DARFUR(from BBC):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5316306.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7023413.stm

A delegation of influential elder statesmen led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu has been visiting Darfur to try to find solutions to the conflict.
The "Elders" have been talking to local community leaders and to displaced people living in camps.

The visit comes three days after an attack on the African Union base in southern Darfur left 10 soldiers dead...

To Victoria:

Kosovo contd...

Operation Allied Force by NATO against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia lasted from 24 March to 10 June 1999. Ten member countries of NATO which participated in the military action to protect Muslims in Kosovo after diplomatic efforts failed - Belgium, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Canada, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the USA.

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-040e.htm

The German Green Party's first ever foreign minister and deputy chancellor, Joschka Fischer, is the man who faced down pacifists in his own party (then in power along with SPD as coalition partner) to send German airmen to Kosovo [the Greens split into two factions as a result - the “Realos” (who believe in just war to stop oppressors) and “Fundies” (total pacifists)]. For the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) it was the first time it had participated in a conflict since World War II.

Slobodan Milosevic on Trial:

“The trial of Slobodan Milosevic was organised through a specially-created UN tribunal, located in The Hague, Holland, as an effort to show that it was possible to hold a powerful man accountable for what were considered to be his crimes during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.” (BBC)

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e.htm

To Victoria:

KOSOVO (from BBC):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3550401.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3524092.stm

"The 1974 Yugoslav constitution laid down Kosovo's status as an autonomous province, and pressure for independence mounted in the 1980s after the death of Yugoslav President Tito.
But resentment over Kosovan influence within the Yugoslav federation was harnessed by the future leader, Slobodan Milosevic. On becoming president in 1989 he proceeded to strip Kosovo of its autonomy.

A passive resistance movement in the 1990s failed to secure independence or to restore autonomy, although ethnic Albanian leaders declared unilateral independence in 1991.
In the mid-1990s an ethnic Albanian guerrilla movement, the Kosovo Liberation Army, stepped up its attacks on Serb targets. The attacks precipitated a major, and brutal, Yugoslav military crackdown.

War

Slobodan Milosevic's rejection of an internationally-brokered deal to end the crisis, and the persecution of Kosovo Albanians, led to the start of Nato air strikes against targets in Kosovo and Serbia in March 1999.

Meanwhile, a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Kosovo Albanians was initiated by Serbian forces. Hundreds of thousands of refugees fled to Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Thousands of people died in the conflict.

Serbian forces were driven out in the summer of 1999 and the UN took over the administration of the province.

Contd...

Dear Victoria

I notice that nobody has responded to my invitation on the main thread to join this discussion and contribute to the political issues you have referred to. I was hoping that someone who was politically savvy would save me the trouble of responding with little knowledge. I would have been happy for you to get involved in a lively and interesting debate (which I cannot provide due to my lack of interest in such a debate which does not deal with the question on this forum in the first place). It would definitely have gone a long way in proving my point that you are mired in a very prejudiced mind-set when it comes to assessing any issue concerning Muslims anywhere in the world.

To answer your question (October 16, 2007 2:16 PM): "Where do you get the idea that non-Muslims helped the Kosovos or any of the Balkan Muslims?" repeated once again at the end of your post, "and what gives you the idea that non-Muslims helped the Balkans?"

BOSNIA:

For a quick overview, please read the Balkan timeline on BBC for information on the role of NATO, UN (peacekeeping force and International court of Justice in the Hague), UK, US and EU (Eufor)in the Bosnian conflict.

Please read up about the Dayton Peace accord and the trial in the Hague as well.

Here a couple of BBC links to get started:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1066981.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/14/newsid_2559000/2559699.stm

sorry- i realized there is a base of information necessary for the connection to be clear-

due to the recent resolution passed by congress declaring turks the perpertratotors of a genocide on the armneian people 92 years ago-

and the US denying turks access to THEIR OWN BORDER to chase the PKK- the kursdish terrorist gorup that have so far killed 30,000 turks- (using m-16s by the way. a strictly MADE IN AMERICA weapon)
the turks have told the US their bases in incirlik- (through which 70% of US supplies travel through into iraq) may be closed.

also- i notice putin is meeting with ahmadenijad today, where he stated that all of the caspian sea neighbors are under the protection of russia, which is certainly an allusion to azerbaijan, as america casts about looking for a new base of strategic value.

the world market reacted to this news by raising the cost of a barrel of oil to 87. dollars- as of 7:00pm EST (up from the 80 posted earlier
because they are afraid that the oil lines and supplies will be negatively impacted if the turks cut off access to their base.

the interesting thing about turkey is it depends where you are approaching it from-

its the site of the first congregations of christianity- also the catholic church was codified in turkey- if you approach it from eastern europe- its a european country-
if you appoach it from the ME, its a middle eastern country-
smack dab in the middle

also the issue of the armenian so called genocide is not an established fact

the armenians calim 1 1/2 armenians were killled by the turks

the turks contend that the armenians made a treasonous alliance with russia (no one denies this) and there were 2 1/2 million turks killed also (again no one denies or questions this)

alos the turks opened their archives 10 years ago and invited historians to study them
today, the armnenians still will not open up their archives to outsdiers

also, an autobiography written by the first armenian president belies the facts proposed by the armenians
this book is bannned in the US

the only reason this went through to congress was the powerful armenian lobby whose base is in s. calif and whose rep they pushed to put forth the resolution

so you see its not a cut and dried issue at all

for america to make such an allegation without studying any facts is really irresponsible
not to mention it happened 100 years ago and theres an ominous silence on darfur- china- even cambodia-etc-etc....

so your statement-
"Darfur, Burma, Bosnia, Turkey (working towards becoming a member of EU) are not countries of ME either (since you mention you were mentioning only issues that concern ME in accordance with the question on this thread.) "

as im watching the news- i see that the current confliuct between the united states, IRAQ and turkey have manifested in the world by PUSH9ING OLI BARREL PRICES TO AN ALL TIME HIGH OF 80 DOLLARS A BARREL- WTH PROJECTION GOING TO 100

so you have a problem that im looking at underlying events in advance and foreseeiing their impact?

turkeys been applying for EU admission for over 40 years

go do a google and see how many turks CARE ABOUT THIS today

you have an almost cartoonlike superficial awareness of ME issues, and you are complaining that i comment on it?

soja- what are you talking about?

im talking politics here, and you keep going on about all this uneccesary personal stuff-

i didnt decide to post on postglobal now- IVE BEEN posting on it since it started-

and WHERE do you get the idea that i have 2 or more children???

this isnt a froum about why people come to these boards- we all have our reasons-

why do you comment on personal issues?

theres plenty of on topic subjects there

why do you care what subject i post about?

do you have some strict rules in your head that you feel are being encroached upon?

where do you get the idea that non-muslims helped the kosovos, or any of the balkan muslims?

even my own government doesnt have the audacity to make such a claim- as a matter of fact- the aide to ronald reagan- richard holbrooke-
a SUPER CONSERVATIVE HAWK- stated that the west non-reaction to the genoicde of the muslims in the balkans was OUR GREATEST FAILURE!

so what makes you think this?

youre a font of misinformation when it comes to me- even down to very basic details of having 2 or more children (where on EARTH did you come up with THAT ONE?)

in the future, why not just discuss the issues presented reasonably, and stay away from personal comments

for instance the several unanswered and direct questions

would you support an american (and possibly australian alliance) of an incursion into iran?

and what gives you the idea that non-muslims helped the balkans?

Dear Victoria

It is interesting: your opinion that expressing one's opinion and differing with yours constitutes ad hominem attack and passive agressive insult. As far as I can recall the forum has been deluged with posts from many Muslim bashers, who have not had one good word to say about Islam, and yet you did not dish out the kind of remarks that you have been generous with in your posts addressed to me. All my posts are on this forum, everything I have said about Islam too. I see no reason to list them all here in order to defend myself against your false allegations.

On the one hand you claim that you have not read all my posts and on the hand you allege that my posts always end with critique of Muslims. ???

I have written my impressions based on the posts I read stemming from you. If not for the difficulty of navigating through literally thousands of posts, I would have reposted your comments based on which I hold the opinion that you did not have much good to say about Christianity. I recall particularly our exchange in Eboo Patel's thread where you expressed your opinion that no spiritual experience involving celibacy is complete; on a separate thread more recently how the Torah and the Bible does not give instructions about doing good as the Quran does etc. Your time as Franciscan novitiate (novice)for many years you mentioned on several ocassions.

On this thread you mentioned Vietnamese killing Vietnamese, Koreans killing Koreans, Columbians, blacks and Hispanics killing each other. None of them killed in the name of their religion. They are not issues dealing with the ME.

Darfur, Burma, Bosnia, Turkey (working towards becoming a member of EU) are not countries of ME either (since you mention you were mentioning only issues that concern ME in accordance with the question on this thread.) Aside, Kosovo Muslims were helped by non-Muslim nations. Milosevic was brought to trial by people who were not Muslims.

The Washington Post (like the New York Times) is an international newspaper, so setting up a mainstream forum discussing religions to facilitate dialogue between religions, and assessing the impact of religion on politics and vice versa is nothing less than pure genius on the part of Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham. What happens in Washington has an impact on the rest of the world. Sally and Jon through The Washington Post has taken on the role of making Washington the Athens of religious-political dialogue, where new ideas can be thrashed out and tested; its international readership ensures that the ideas generated here will spread like a ripple, if they are worth spreading.

I mentioned that I am apolitical and yet I got interested in the Iraq issue. I listed my sources of information only to clarify that I took pains to inform myself extensively before setting out to voice my protest in some small way. I do not read all the news sources I have listed on a regular basis to keep myself politically informed. I would do that if my interest in politics was that great. In fact I read far too little. My knowledge on political matters is accordingly meagre. I'm even less interested in sports. But I manage to survive without feeling overly ashamed of myself. However I would not pretend to political knowledge I do not have (at least I hope so!).

Australia is not about to expel all its Muslims. It would be good if you could cite your source of such false information.

We are dealing only with opinions on this forum or any other forum. Your opinion, my opinion, the opinion of x, y, z. The difference in opinions are however based on the information that the person has accessed, the quality of the information they base their opinions on, their personal interpretation based on their own ability to interpret the information, their conditioning and their personal values etc. We do live in a very subjective world because people look at it through their subjective eyes. None of us can help it. Sharing on (reading) these forums helps us to get different subjective takes on a given issue, that is all.

Why do I post on the On Faith forum? Faith is an issue I could discuss from a personal perspective (because of my interest and personal experience) in a way that I could not discuss politics. I was raised in a very traditional and pious Syro-Malabar Catholic family. I attended a Syro-Malabar Catholic Carmelite convent school for two years (age 8-10) where we were taught Carmelite spirituality appropriate to our age. I started to read the Bible for myself when I was about ten years old. My interest in spiritual matters has been lifelong (although I have had only secular education except for those two years in an SMC Carmelite school and have never spent time living in a convent even as a lay person), although in my childhood years I did nothing more than participate in the family prayers and church attendance and rituals like every SM Catholic child. For eight years in India, I attended a school which inculcated the idea of national unity (including acceptance of religious plurality) very consciously. For nine years (1984-1993) I knew Dom Bede Griffiths, a Benedictine monk whose great contribution was to work towards religious unity and inter-religious dialogue.

I must admit that I turned lukewarm about spiritual matters about 15 years ago. Participating in this forum is gradually beginning to revive my interest in spiritual matters again. So I'm deeply grateful to Jon and Sally.

One of the main reasons I felt inspired to participate in this forum was because I have known Dom Bede Griffiths personally for nearly 9 years and I wanted to direct as many people as possible to his work and mission. In the last letter he wrote to me (Jan 1993) before his death (May 1993), he said that I have work to do for God. I didn't give that any thought. When I discovered this forum, I was reminded of what Fr Bede wrote to me. Since I am unfit to dicuss his books because I lack the theoritical knowledge I felt the next best thing I could do was to direct others to read his books. I went to his Ashram merely to spend time in prayer and not to become a religious scholar. Although in that context I spent a lot of time talking and discussing with him and many spiritual seekers, in different stages of their spiritual journey, from around the world, it is not sufficient to take on the task of carrying out any mission on behalf of Fr Bede. I am hoping though that many people who read the blogs on this forum will get to read Fr Bede's books for themselves. All who knew Fr Bede considered him a holy man and a visionary. His message is way ahead of his times and therefore I felt taht The Washington Post On Faith forum was a very good place to introduce Fr Bede.

I read your posts on religious matters as the opinions of a white American woman, now married and mother of two or more children, who was raised by atheist/agnostic parents, spent time in a Franciscan convent as noviciate (novice) for many years, practised Buddism, Hinduism, paganism etc, and arrived at Islam nine years ago. You prayed at every stage of your spiritual journey and your prayer took you from one religion to the other before arriving at Islam nine years ago.

I am glad that you have decided to post on PostGlobal now. May you have your fill of discussing politics with the politically savvy crowd there!

Best wishes
Soja

Middle East Politics

BBC

MUSLIM SCHOLARS REACH OUT TO POPE

More than 130 Muslim scholars have written to Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders urging GREATER UNDERSTANDING between the two faiths.
The letter says that WORLD PEACE could depend on improved relations between Muslims and Christians.

It identifies the principles of accepting only one god and living in PEACE with one's neighbours as common ground between the two religions.

It also insists that Christians and Muslims worship the same god.

The letter coincides with the Eid al-Fitr celebrations to mark the end of Ramadan.

Koran and Bible

It was also sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the heads of the Lutheran, Methodist and Baptist churches, the Orthodox Church's Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I and other Orthodox Patriarchs.

The letter, entitled A COMMON WORD BETWEEN US AND YOU, compares passages in the Koran and the Bible, concluding that both emphasise "the primacy of total LOVE and devotion to God", and the love of the neighbour.

With Muslims and Christians making up more than half the world's population, the letter goes on, the relationship between the two religious communities is "the most important factor in contributing to meaningful PEACE around the world".

"As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes," the letter says.

Emerging voice of Islam

It adds: "To those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make PEACE and come together in harmony."

One of the signatories, Dr Aref Ali Nayed, a senior adviser at the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme at Cambridge University, told the BBC that the document should be seen as a landmark.

"There are Sunnis, Shias, Ibadis and even the... Ismailian and Jaafari schools, so it's a CONSENSUS," he said.

Professor David Ford, director of the programme, said the letter was UNPRECEDENTED.

"If sufficient people and groups HEED THIS STATEMENT and act on it then the atmosphere will be changed into one in which violent extremists cannot flourish," he said in a statement.

The letter was signed by prominent Muslim leaders, politicians and academics, including the Grand Muftis of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Russia, Croatia, Kosovo and Syria, the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the former Grand Mufti of Egypt and the founder of the Ulema Organisation in Iraq.

soja- i invite you to the postglobal blog where i have been posting for some time.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2007/10/is_condemning_the_armenian_gen/comments.html

however, its a much more savvy crowd there-

and one has to be more consistent in providing substantaition for any claims made- and opinions are- well, just that.

so basically - the turkish government 10 YEARS AGO- invited scholars from all over the world to investigate and they opened up all of their archives to any interested.

10 YEARS AGO!!

and NOW- NOW?

3 short months ago turkey voted in their PM who is an observant muslim- also their president is an observant muslim-

the people by voting in a democratic system- (who are 99% muslim) decided the want muslim leadership-

erdogan has turnewd turkey around, as far as religious freedom, intellectual and press freedom, economic expansion- in other words-
running a successful democracy that just happened to be full of muslims.

so the US- which has been stating that islam is inconsistent with democracy-
has decided that ALTHOUGH WE ARE IN A WAR ON "TERROR"- the turks CANNOT PURSUE TERRORISTS!!

on their own border!!!

turkey has been cooperative and acquiescent in allowing us troops to use their land-
turkey has been a good friend to america in their war in terror-

its extraordinarily and transparently anti-muslim and hypocrisy of the US to do this.
most of the world feels this way
go to some international blogs-

BBC has alot of stories on it- and BBC is in no way muslim friendly.

well, Eid is here this morning -

in an hour or so ill probably run into people from all sorts of middle eastern lands- as well as many indians and pakistanis-

i guess we can discuss religion and its impact on politics in the middle east-

its always interesting and informative to hear from a wide spectrum of nationalities

so what do you think about your own countries overtly islamophobic agenda?
you think they should expel all muslims?

again soja- the question posted by onfaith bloggers sally quinn and jon meachem is-

"To what extent are problems in the Middle East about religion and to what extent are they about politics? Does it matter?"

your response-

"Chewing cud over the Middle East political issues that has already been discussed at length On Faith forum doesn't seem like a very wise investment of time"

is a hoot-

THEN WHY ARE YOU CHEWING SO MUCH CUD ON THIS QUESTON?

no one forces you to post here-
basically you are saying that you are wasting your own time?

so go post on postglobal then!

no ones is telling you to post here- or make long and time consuming responses

why do you make such passive agressive insults?

im not insulting you or telling you what to do- if you dont think this is an appropriate forum- why did you post in the first place?

besides- as stated- my government is rattliing the sabres here over iran-

it scares and outrages me.

why do you care so much what i post or where?

you havent answered one question ive asked- yet ive answered your specific questions at length-

its respect soja-

heres an exercise for you of the spiritual bent-

all of the unasked for observations and thinly veiled insults and unecessary remarks of a personal nature you have made in regard to me-
(although its a mystery to me why you take so much energy to do so)

consider the possibilty that you may be projecting something you see in me that you dont like about yourself.

do what you want soja- i dont care
i havent even thought about what youre doing- i was thinking of the issues presented

for instance- turkey has been told by the united states that it CANNOT CROSS ITS OWN BORDER INTO NORTHERN IRAQ TO PURSUE KURDISH TERORISTS IN THE PKK WHO HAVE JUST KILLED 15 SOLDIERS!

AND THEN! the US has just passed a bill declaring that the contested behavior of the turks in 1915-
1915!!!!
was genocide!
if that isnt inflammatory intervention i dont know what is!
also david horowitz- a known muslim basher has just proposed a seminar (not debate) linking similiarities to this incident 92 years ago to the holocaust of the jews by the nazis!!!

i could go on-

even YOUR OWN COUNTRY has declared that they want to EXPEL ALL MUSLIMS!

if you dont find these things important or pertinent-
thats on you-
but i do- and ill continue to speak to these issues where and when i deem appropriate.

its just not up to you to decide for me whats appropriate soja
i will decide for me, thank you!

Dear Victoria

You prove my point. You interpret my communication in accordance with your notion that you read the intention of others infallibly.

I was only pointing out to the fact that Washington Post has set up a separate forum to discuss politics (PostGlobal), and that this forum focusses on faith matters. The UN is NOT dealing with Iran and its nuclear weapons program (or what is believed to be the nuclear weapons program, since Iran claims it intends to use nuclear technology only for peaceful purposes) as a religious issue. It is a political issue as far as the world is concerned. There are thousands of great humanist atheists in the US and elsewhere working towards peace, justice and nuclear disarmament, without treating it like a religious issue. It can be done you know. One doesn't have to be a Muslim to be interested in peace and justice in the world and work towards the common good of all. Even for believers of other religions who work towards peace and justice at a political level, the good work remains a fruit of their religious beliefs, not an integral part of their religion. Islam as you are aware (as is the rest of the world), unlike any other religion, has a political element ingrained in it. That is the point I was trying to make. It is laudable when one uses political Islam to do good - the Quran repeatedly reminds its believers to do have faith in God and do good works.

Chewing cud over the Middle East political issues that has already been discussed at length On Faith forum doesn't seem like a very wise investment of time. Just my humble opinion.

So you think I'm trying to censor what you are doing in the US from Australia? I just hope that it is your idea of a joke, because if it is not, then your interpretation of what I'm doing is just plain ridiculous.

Best wishes
Soja

To what extent are problems in the Middle East about religion and to what extent are they about politics? Does it matter?

The problems in the ME are mostly political.

and as it affects the srest of the world, it matters very much.
it matters to me, and if it doesnt to you- i dont care.

this is a specifically relevant question to my posts. and ill post where i want.

trying to censor what im doing from australia is an absurdly futile enterprise soja.

Dear Victoria

We are both agreed that this forum is not about you or me. Our impressions of each other are so irrelevant to this discussion, so investing extra time to identify all your posts (which probably run in the thousands) and analyse your input serves no purpose. Luckily all our exchanges have been made only on this public forum and if not deleted by The Post, are still posted on this forum. Among others, I remember some of your posts from the threads of Eboo Patel, Pamela Taylor, and one from Cal Thomas.

I also am aware that the On Faith forum is about religions, and to the extent that religions impact politics and vice versa.

I agree that US politics is very important. (I'm politically lazy because I have always been that way. To be honest, I must force myself to inform myself about political matters. So it has nothing to do with any special preference for the politics of any country.) US foreign policy concerns the rest of world, especially since it is the only super power. The Washington Post has accordingly set up a separate forum to discuss politics - Post Global. If I wanted to discuss politics, that is the forum I would choose, not the On Faith forum which is clearly about faith matters. Discussion of Iran would be a repetition of the question on just war.

Best wishes
Soja

“As it states in the Quran: ‘Oh you who believe, stand up firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even if it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be against rich or poor; for God can best protect both. Do not follow any passion, lest you not be just. And if you distort or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that you do.’” (Quran 4:135)

its a forum on the middle east- so hw could a question on middle east politics possibly be inappropriate?

i live in america, so the issue of iran is not superfluous here.

if you dont think its an issue worth your time, so be it.

Dear Victoria

You have mentioned a lot of issues in your posts.

International politics: My interest in politics is very superficial. I'm a great admirer of reporters who risk limb and life to provide the world with reliable information. I have been reading the Guardian (UK), Counterpunch.org articles, articles by David Krieger (joined his online team and wrote as many letters as I could protesting against the invasion of Iraq), George Monbiot since 2002, since non-mainstream views on the Iraq issue interested me very much. I do rely also on the BBC for international news. Ocassionally I also browse through ZDF and Die Zeit for the German take on international issues. So I consciously try to form my opinions (about an issue that interests me) based on different views expressed in the international media. I'm not an American you know, so there is no need to instruct me on international issues and US foreign policy as if I were. I appreciate good and abhor the bad no matter where they come from. My power of discernment about what is really good or evil, or a mixture of both, is far from perfect of course. In forming my opinions about any issue, I try to be as unbiased as possible, looking at issues with the heart of a global citizen. I admit that it is a lifelong task - to learn to think in terms of the whole world, and not restrict oneself to the stamp on one's passport/s.

Since this is not a forum to discuss international politics, but only religious issues, and to the extent it may directly influence political issues, it is unnecessary to list your political concerns, however legitimate they may be, and how much I may share some of them.

Inappropriate to the forum as your two questions are, I will nevertheless answer them with a little more than yes or no.

I have strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, and made enough posts on the Just War thread to prove that I consider the idea of pre-emption (and war with modern technology) monstrous, so your question about Iran is superflous.

As to India (btw I am an Australian citizen as well) and nuclear weapons: How easily you jump to the conclusion that India is about to use nuclear weapons on Iran, although India has no history of being an aggressor! Characteristically you seem to have missed out on the global concern about Islamic extremism, and the danger it poses if it takes root and spreads in a country with a Hindu majority and a Muslim population of 138 million. India has worked very hard at uniting the Muslims and Hindus in India. Thanks for the link to the interesting article on Indo-Israeli relations. It is good to know that India is pursuing a non-aligned policy - ie not cutting off ties with the Arab world while actively cultivating a good relationship with Israel. Kerala has a long history of contact with the Jews - there was a Jewish settlement in Kerala even before the birth of Jesus.

As to the rest of your posts Victoria: I have been reading these blogs on and off since December 2006. I must admit I have not taken the time to read all the posts (including yours) and have made only a microscopic contribution in comparison to you. In order to answer your most recent posts, I would have to go back and read all your posts, especially those that had caught my attention and get uncomfortably personal and confrontational with you in order to answer you appropriately. But I do not wish to do that because it would mean investing loads of time and in the end the time invested would not serve any purpose at all. In my personal opinion (one is allowed to have personal opinions I suppose) you are mired in a somewhat fixed mind-set regarding your views as a Muslim, and somewhat self-righteous in your opinion about yourself while being quite "generous" with handing out sharply critical judgement about others, which of course you would not classify as ad hominem.

You wish to remind me that this forum is not about me. Thanks for that. I hope you follow your own advice when you next write personal details about yourself. I could write your biography based on the information you have provided thus far.

I wish you well!

Best wishes
Soja

soja- im not sure exactly what it is you imagine i think or say-

i will make it very clear- i am and have all of my lifetime been a pacifist-

i have proven repeatedly through my words and especially actions this philosophy.

i was even imprisoned for 2 months in LA years ago(illegally and never charged)) because i would not betray my beliefs.

yes, it can and did happen in america.

and yes, i was encouraged to and did not sue.

not because i didnt have a case, it was nationally known, and not because i would have lost- i would have undoubtedly won.

but i felt it would be wrong to benefit financially from the situtation.
and a display of public forgiveness was more important than money.
because you cannot just talk talk about forgiveness, and turning the other cheek, but have to live up to those ideals.

also-it would have belittled and prostituted off the experience that many gained strength through.

so when i say i believe something- whatever reasons you conjure up for my motivations- you are likely incorrect.

i DO believe the curent invasion and occupation of iraq are wrong.
just as i protested against apartheid in africa and israel-
and the war in kuwait-
and many other foreign policy decisions that my government has made that i feel are morally reprehensible.

and will continue to do so.

but these are personal ssues, and have no place (in my opinion) in discussions about politics.

and if you had any awareness of US politics you'd also be aware that vietnamese killed vietnamese, and koreans killed koreans, and columbians killed columbians in every situation where the US intervened to manipulate foreign governments for their own selfish gain.

just name a country where the US has interfered, and you will find this.

just look at americans own black on black or hispanic on hispanic gang wars and you will find this.

so the question places the blame on the victims of americas atrocious and immoral manipulations of the populace

to suggest that there is some inherent wrong in the occupied peoples is irresponsible

to ask why o why iraqis are killing each other
is to deflect and distract the real questions

why does the world allow this to happen?
why has it watched the systematic displacement and abuse of palestinians?
where are the humanitarian responses to darfur, and now myanmar?
where were they during the ethnic genocide in bosnia?
the list goes on and on

soja- heres a simple and straightoforward question-

all it requires is a yes or a no.

the US is right now preparing to go to war with Iran- a country that had NOTHING to do with 911- or any of the other issues elaborated upon.

would you support your homeland, india, which has just received an enormous nuclear weapons package from the united states, using those weapons against its neighbors to the west, iran?
http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm
its a yes or no.

par·ty line /ˈpɑrti ˈlaɪn for 1, 2; ˈpɑrti ˌlaɪn for 3, 4/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pahr-tee lahyn for 1, 2; pahr-tee lahyn for 3, 4] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the authorized, prescribed policies and practices of a group, esp. of the Communist party, usually followed by the members without deviation; official philosophy or credo.
2. the guiding policy, tenets, or practices of a political party: The judge was chosen on party lines.

that is what party line means- it does not mean belongong to a party

here is a list of uneccesary and wrong ad hominems that you have peppered your writing with

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) I prefer to refer to it as selective amnesia on your part, since you seem to have forgotten my earlier posts.

????
2)discussion of Middle East politics PROBABLY constitutes discussion of Islam for you.

??????

3) I can claim with certainty that your knowledge of India is abysmally poor. You don't seem to have the slightest clue as to how many groups

4)How could you possibly compare that with the Iraqi situation where it remains an ever present challenge to form a stable democratic government due to violence among only three ethnic groups?

???? BY POINTING OUT THE HISORICAL FACT THAT IRAQ WAS CREATED BY BRITAIN IMNPOSING ARTIFICAIL BORDERS ON A MAP?

4) I don't quite understand your logic when you blame the British for trying to bring the Kurds, Shia and Sunni under one government, a process which Saddam Hussein continued in his own way,

AGAIN, BY POINTING OUT THAT IRAQ HAD A HISTORY BEFORE THAT- I WASNT BLAMING BRITISH, I GUESS YOU SURMISED THAT ON YOUR OWN

5) You IMPLIED that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein merely gave room for the old rivalry to reemerge (?since dictatorship had kept it somewhat under check).

??? DONT TELL ME WHAT I MPLY- IF I SAY SOMETHING I COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY IT

6)Victoria, if blind approval of everything that Muslims do or have done in the past and a claim that Muslims are 100% right in everything they do and have ever done,

???????

7)You have criticised Christianity in ways that does not do you -

WHO MENTIONED CHRISTIANITY?

8)- one who spent many years as a Catholic in a Franciscan convent in training to be a nun - any credit.

????????????
FURTHER PROOF THAT YOU DONT READ MY POSTS-
I CERTAINLY NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING

9) I personally consider your attitude towards Christianity a crying shame

YOU REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MY VIEWS ON CHRISTIANITY ARE TO CONSIDER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER

contrary to what you imagine soja- i dont read all your posts, dont know all your views, and most importantly, dont comment on what you know or dont know or think

i wish you would extend that same courtesy in return

there are so many irrelevant and personal an just plain wrong observations of me that there is no content ot your posts

you continually see bad intentions where they dont exist

as you have had very strong political views in the past- it is simply misleading to claim you are apolitcal.

one can be political and still be reasonable

apolitical implies a neutrality

your posts always end up finding fault with muslims, no matter how you softpedal it-
that is not apolitical,

im not apolitical, but i dont pretend to be

id say there is really no such thing as an apolitical person, unless it is someone filled with apathy who just doesnt care

if you really want an insight into why the war in iraq is going on- there is a question on these blogs about just that

i find your descent into ad hominems pointless and somewhat mean spirited

and i find a disconnect with your claim of shedding bitter tears at the invasion, and then saying-
4. So 13 years of sanctions killed many thousand Iraqi children. I can't recall having mentioned that I supported the sanctions and felt comfortable about the dying children. Does the tragedy of the sanctions now justify what Iraqis are doing to their own children in the name of ethnic differences?"

i find that incredibly dismissive and cold

its not all about you soja

i dont find any compassion in you towards iraqis, despite your bitter tears which switched to blaming the iraqis (arent they the ones you shed bitter tears for?)

and your long ad hominems just distract from the point

which is, western intervention in the ME has hurt its people
and is continuing to hurt its people

and we should have left them alone

"

Dear Victoria

You talk of a new party line which blames the victim. I don't know which party you are talking about. The issue of occupation with the consent of the current Iraqi government aside, nobody is under any illusion that it is Iraqis who are killing Iraqis now. Even Kofi Annan went so far as to call it a civil war (which party does Kofi Annan belong to?). You might like to clarify who exactly has been doing the killing since, say May 2003. Of course I'm not referring to the attack of the occupation forces, but only the Iraqi-Iraqi killing. You justified the Shia-Sunni killing on the grounds that rivalry between Sunnis and Shias have existed for centuries (that the West wasn't aware of the rivalry because of its ignorance of Iraq history). You implied that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein merely gave room for the old rivalry to reemerge (?since dictatorship had kept it somewhat under check).

I must repeat the question: Why o why are the Iraqis killing each other?

Let me use a rather poor comparison to illustrate my point. In case of domestic abuse, it takes outside intervention to break the abuse cycle because the dynamics of abuse leave the victims somewhat paralysed to act against their own family. The abuser and the victim need to be separated in order for healing to begin. But non-abusive members of the family don't start to abuse each other on the grounds there was outside intervention to stop an abuser (unless of course the greater abuser had merely kept the smaller abusers under check).

Why o why are the Iraqis killing their own Iraqi Muslim brethren? The Quran doesn't justify it.

As mentioned in this thread, I did discuss my opposition to the invasion of Iraq. I was not the only apolitical person who opposed the invasion. David Krieger(US) and George Monbiot (UK), Human Rights groups, etc etc (among thousands of others) are not political.

Discussion of the climate change crisis is not politics. It is a scientific issue which can be tackled adequately only if politicians (and industry) play an active role.

There are public health issues for which medical professionals need the direct help of politicians. Discussing those issues and bringing them to the notice of politicians does not constitute playing politics.

Victoria, if blind approval of everything that Muslims do or have done in the past and a claim that Muslims are 100% right in everything they do and have ever done, is the only proof that I respect Muslims (didn't a Muslim himself calculate that about 10% of Muslims are extremists), then you can add I don't respect Christians either, because I have had no problem expressing criticism of wrong things done in the name of Christianity. The difference is however that Christianity does not demand/need my blind loyalty for its legitimacy. Christianity can stand on its own merit - on the merit of the life Jesus Christ lived, and His teachings - and thus admit the mistakes, even atrocities committed in the name of the religion, by some. Christianity can take and survive criticism from anyone. You have criticised Christianity in ways that does not do you - one who spent many years as a Catholic in a Franciscan convent in training to be a nun - any credit. Maybe you are unaware of your criticisms. I personally consider your attitude towards Christianity a crying shame, and yet I respect your choice to be a Muslim and criticise Christianity in any way you choose.

You choose to deliberately ignore all the good I have had to say about Muslims, the respect I have for anyone to choose Islam as their way to God.

I suggest you read up some Indian history, from reliable sources, before claiming to be an expert on Islam in India. In school (with a national syllabus) I had to learn the verses of Kabir, an Indian Sufi mystic (in Hindi original). It is compulsory component of the state school curriculum in Hindi speaking parts of India in the North where Hindu-Muslim conflict was greatest during the time of partition.

Recently I watched a TV program that suggested Sufi Islam does not enjoy much freedom in Turkey. Maybe you'd like to provide more detailed information on how much Sufi Islam was actually propagated in Turkey and is being propagated today and how much religious freedom Sufis actually enjoy today, in spite of Turkey being a secular democracy.

Best wishes
Soja

i have a problem with the new party lin ethat has been adopted- which is- blame the vctim.

after decades of intervention in iraq- destructive sanctions, and now a 4 year occupation- now- NOW you say - it's the iraqis fault? why o why are they killing each other?

what i found inconsistent was that you have stated your opinions on politics many times- and you lead with saying you are extremely apolitical- but then go on to talk politics.

and whatever your apolitical stance- it always ends with some critique of muslims.

maybe you're unaware of this.
but i have certainly noticed this, and we have spoken of this before.

i just think if you have strong political views, you shouldn't claim neutrality in such terms.

o yes, sufi islam was not propogated in india- but turkey.

Addendum:

1. As an Australian, like all other Australians, I would like to see our soldiers return home safe to Australia - yesterday. Australian soldiers are in Iraq only because of the unique relationship we have with the US and UK. Australia is a small country of 21 million people, and it has no political interests in the Middle East. Personally, I would like for Australian soldiers only to be part of an international UN peace keeping force, to be deployed to parts of the world with sanction from the UN. I am all for empowering the UN as much as possible and having a large multinational force that can be deployed swiftly and decisively to any part of the globe with the approval of member countries. As a small, peace loving country, I would like for Australia only to be active in mediation and peace making roles.

2. The outcome of the civil situation in Iraq, if there was no outside force to contain the ethnic violence as it is now, is doubted even by Iraqis themselves. (I had suggested the role of a UN peace keeping force very early on in one of my posts on the topic of finding a solution to the civil war in Iraq.) I have never supported invasion and occupation of Iraq, and still don't. No non-Iraqi soldier has a business to remain there if the Iraqi government wants them all out.

3. India consisted of small kingdoms when the British arrived. I'm sure that no Indian is complaining that when India gained freedom from the British, it was a large united country and not a collection of many separate kingdoms. So what is wrong with the British having united the Iraqi Shias, Sunnis and Kurds? Didn't Saddam Hussein rule them all as one country even when the British had no role in their government? I don't quite understand your logic when you blame the British for trying to bring the Kurds, Shia and Sunni under one government, a process which Saddam Hussein continued in his own way, even if the methods he used was rather brutal.

4. So 13 years of sanctions killed many thousand Iraqi children. I can't recall having mentioned that I supported the sanctions and felt comfortable about the dying children. Does the tragedy of the sanctions now justify what Iraqis are doing to their own children in the name of ethnic differences?

5. There are 138 million Muslims in India. Iraq has a population of 26 million. The Indian Muslims speak different languages, have different cultures, are "genetically very different" in many ways. (As to genetic similarity of Indians: maybe you should visit Kashmir and observe the fair skinned, light eyed natives there, go to Eastern states like Assam and notice the faces that resemble the Chinese and native American, go to some tribal areas where the people are very dark skinned, and the all the variations in between, found around India, highly pronounced in Metropolitan cities like Delhi and Mumbai.) Yet there has never been a time when Muslims killed their Muslim brethren for those reasons. Not even during the partition, when there are large scale Hindu-Muslim massacre, did the Muslims kill each other. Muslims worked hand in hand with Hindus for Indian independence. Is there a lesson that the ethnic rivalry driven Muslims in Iraq can learn from it? It is not by accident that Sufi Islam was propagated in India and has been used as a basis for national unity. Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims in the world. They also belong to many ethnic groups. Yet we do not hear of ongoing Muslim-Muslim killing based on ethnic differences. Is there a lesson that Iraqis can learn from it?

The lesson, which is not subtle at all, is obvious to most, as it is to me.

Dear Victoria

The distorted interpretation about my views towards Muslims doesn't surprise me in the least bit. I prefer to refer to it as selective amnesia on your part, since you seem to have forgotten my earlier posts. I do not suffer from blind loyalty to any religious group, not even to my own, namely Christianity (even Catholic). I have had no hesitation to differ with the Pope when the need arose(in case you have read my post about Latin Mass, my views on homosexuality, etc you would know).

Your definition of political and apolitical may be biased by the fact that discussion of Middle East politics probably constitutes discussion of Islam for you. Just by way of information, thousands upon thousands who objected to the invasion of Iraq were non-Muslims like me. In the lead up to the invasion, I had joined up the online action group formed by an American: David Krieger, whom I consider a great American hero.

I would say it is a good try on your part to deny the reality of Iraqi Muslims killing other Iraqi Muslims, and blame non-Iraqis for the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis. How exactly does condemning such killing (killing, in my dictionary is killing, no matter who does it and for what reason; as far as I know, no soldier of the "Coalition of the Willing" is going about blowing themselves up in the middle of Iraqi civilian crowds) constitute change of loyalty on my part? It is precisely because my sympathies are with the innocent Iraqi civilians of ALL ethnic groups, that I'm indignant about the killing by suicide bombers. I see no justification for it whatsoever and I don't see how it could solve any problem for Iraqis, even if the bombers succeeded in blowing up all the 26 million Iraqis.

Being entirely Indian in origin and having left India only twenty years ago, I can claim with certainty that your knowledge of India is abysmally poor. You don't seem to have the slightest clue as to how many groups of people (different ethnic groups, religions, languages, cultures) have lived together for centuries at peace with one another and still do. The population of India is one billion plus. I do agree that more recently there are pockets of violence between Muslims and non-Muslim in certain parts of India. How could you possibly compare that with the Iraqi situation where it remains an ever present challenge to form a stable democratic government due to violence among only three ethnic groups?

No Victoria, I did not make any attempt at subtlety at all - I made no pretense to hide my my horror at the killing by Iraqis of Iraqis. Your tinted glass interpretation of my motives are far too obvious.

Best wishes
Soja

i have to say that your posts have had a disctinctly anti-muslim passive agressie flavor with consistency.
so i openly challenge your contention that you were apolitical.

soja- everyone imagines that iraq sprang into being when america invaded it-

the country itself is a false western construct- i think it was 1932? when britian drew some lines on a map and declared it a country.

understanding this sheds a great deal of light on the subject of why muslims are killing eahc other there.

look at india- the people there are genetically related, and they still killed each other, and still do.

it takes more than britain drawing a line on a map to make a cohesive society.

this should haveve been obvious to bush and co before they went in- (it was to any with the most nominal of knowledge of history)

and of course 13 years of sanction, that directly killed off 1/2 MILLION children under 5 doesnt exactly count for nothing.

good try though, trying to shift it to the muslims-

thats just what the american government has been doing recently.

i cant imagine you tears were too bitter if your sympathies could switch so easily-
my sympathies are still with the occupied

no soja- not too subtle at all

Dear Ms Mubarak

Although I'm apolitical to the extreme I was distressed to the highest degree about the invasion of Iraq. I had felt compelled to join thousands around the world to voice my protest. I was outside the Sydney Town Hall along with other Australian protestors as the bombs began to fall in Baghdad. I cried bitterly when "shock and awe" began.

Precisely for that reason what the Iraqis have been doing to other Iraqis since the invasion beats my imagination. In the four and half years since the invasion, Iraqis have been killing other Iraqis; Muslims have been killing their Muslim brothers and fellow countrymen, women and children in Iraq. As a non-Muslim I do not understand the reason for the rivalry between Sunnis, Shia and the Kurds. All I know is that in a country of 26 million, three groups of Muslims are unable to reconcile their differences. Is any non-Muslim responsible for the ethnic hatred that fuels the killing?

After WWII how could Marshall plan have done any good if the Germans had spent all their time killing each other instead of rebuilding their country? The Iraqis could learn a lesson from the Germans and model themselves after the country that grew to be a powerful democracy after their dictator was toppled.

Could not the billion+ Muslims worldwide not convince the Iraqis to stop killing each other? It grieves every non-Muslim to hear of innocent Iraqis being killed - Kurdish, Shia, Sunni; innocent Iraqi children of all sects living in constant terror of their own lives, and the lives of their parents. The soldiers who are stationed there with the consent of the Iraqi government are targets of the attack too. What exactly is the killing supposed to achieve? Is it based on politics or religion? When is the best time to stop the killing if not NOW?

The Iraqi football team has shown a way to Iraqi unity. If only every single Iraqi would take their inspiration from them!

A concerned and grieving non-Muslim

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

good post ahmed- definitely better than mine-

i DO notice what you write daniel,you're very asutute and intelligent - and you're a sensitive guy yoo with a strong sense of justice and fairness-

i wouldnt bother replying to you if i didnt think so-

but you've definitely taken sides on the negative about islam and i can see why-

from your posts i know you strive to see the fairness and take up for the underdog-

thats a great quality in my book

pay attention to ahmed not me he said it better

you're right- i do get hypersensitive to muslim issues- but theres so much blatant hatred on these boards against muslims that i may be coming from reading an onslauht and stick you in there where you dont belong.

am not sure how my post ended up under anonymous name?! perhaps it is to do with me first posting it without my name but the second time i did post it under my own name. sorry anon. it has nothing to do with me. i would not use your name.

Daniel

You are right. Many Muslims act funny about non-muslims entering a mosque. this is mainly because they don't know what their intention is. So, yes, there is fear on both parties and it is the fear of stopping each other from understanding each other.

But there are many Muslims who are happy to let you into their personal domain and share their faith and views with outsiders. In fact they are by far the majority.

I do not live in America but I would expect American Muslims to be far more tolerant that some Whabi from Saudi Arabia. I know for sure they are totally intolerant of any other person, even of other Muslims who are not of Wahabi faith. I find such intolerance totally repugnant and unIslamic.

After all Quran invites us to have a peaceful dialogue with other faiths so that we find common ground.

3:64 Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).

Notice emphasis on 'common terms' that which binds us together. Notice also: in case of disagreement: just say we have done our bit and leave it at that.

These are guidance from God but many Muslims have steered away from such guidance.

I know that our current problems are political and not religious but many have confused the two. Yet God has nothing to do with such problems. It is us, humans who must resolve them.

God gave us gravity but we jumped off buildings.

i certainly didnt berate you for not going to a mosque daniel

why would you go to a mosque?
to learn about who muslims actually are so that your imagination and fears dont control your feelings which in turn control your worldview.
your statement
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" If I ever meet an Islmaic person who prayed to Mecca 5 times a day, and loved Islam, I would say so, but I have never meet such a person."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

was countered by my invitation to LEARN as you have admitted you dont know anything about islam or muslims except some isolated incidences

so instead of telling me what i dont understand about my own religion-
consider that it is YOU who doesnt understand islam at all- and youre demonstrating that your preconceived and prejudiced conclusions will not allow you to try.

because i am pro-muslim- you infer wrongly that i must have a poor tolerance for non-muslims.

i am intolerant of intolerance though daniel and it is no more palatable coming from you or anyone else

Victoria

Because you are sensitive to criticism of Islam, you probably only notice when I say something against Islam. However, I am actually opposed to all religious fanaticism, which may or may not include you. I am not an Islamaphobic; I am a Religious-Fanatic-Phobic. Have you ever noticed, I call Christian fanatics "Jesus maniacs." And while I do go to church regularly, there are churches which I would be afraid to enter. If you have the courage and would like to enter one of these churches, I will kindly lead you to the door, and then run the other way, while you go in.

I am not a Muslim. I and not a theologian. Yet you berate me because I would not go to a mosque. Why would I go to a Mosque? I am not Muslim. That is something about you that don't seem to be able to understand; you think everyone should attend Mosque; but everybody is not Muslim.

I think your attitude towards non-Muslims is poor; and that you are intolerant.

My fears are not unreasonable. You may be a very nice person. But you, a single person, cannot undo all the harm to Islam that Islam has done to itself, with the planes crashing into the world trade towers, suicide bombings, train bombings in Madrid, London subway bombings, beheadings; all those things are not in my imagination. It is you, Victoria, who have your head in the sand and cannot face the facts that Islam has made an extremetly bad impression on all the continents of the world, and has a very bad reputation. Maybe you, are a nice person, I don't doubt that; but you are mixed up in something that I think perhaps you do not understand very well.

basically daniel you have just revealed your real reasons for your islmophobic posts-

no one can do anything about your fear but you-
its your responsibilty- your phobia

now i understand why you keep blaming muslims for things that they have nothing to do with

conquer your own unreasonable fear.

there is no basis for it but your own mind.

your perceptions are what need to be changed, not all the muslims in the world.

Of course you could go to any mosque you like daniel.
no one can control your fear but you.

yes, it is wrong of you.

i have invited many many times christians and jews to mosques for the iftar dinner.

those with open minds and a desire to learn have enjoyed themsleves.

you dont need a personal invitation to walk into a church, do you?

i see that if you keep your head in the sand, you can continue to complain about what you dont know or understand.

dont blame muslims if you want an excuse to keep criticizing them unfairly.

prove it to yourself-

what have you got to lose except ignorance?

Dear Victoria

I could not go to a Mosque, uninvited. I am not Muslim. I would not want to go alone. This is the truth; I would be afraid. Maybe that is wrong of me. But that is a PR problem for Islam, for Muslims to deal with. Just telling the infidels to go to the Mosque to see how pleasant it is, is not a very good PR tool.

who said all muslims in islamic countries are happy daniel?

possibly my lack of scientific training makes me misunderstand- but from what i saw stated was that an empirical scientific discipline supports the dynamics presented.

i appreciate that you admit that your experiences are limited to some anecdotal incidences and leave yourself open to the possiblity that many muslims who pray 5 times a day and love islam exist.

i am not forced to pray, and thats my choice.

this is the perfect opportunity for you to replace your negative experiences with positive ones.

go to any mosque that you choose at sundown.
partake of iftar- the meal that we take when we break our fasts.

you'll br overwhelmed by the positivity and humanity
peace

But what if you are not a well-bred little Muslim child? Then you are cast out? Islam is very harsh indeed, to other points of view. To say that everyone in Islamic countires is happy being Muslim is ludicrous. How stupid do you think we infidels are?

Arminius: You actually meant that I am right since I am the one who asserted that the word anointed is used to address many other than Jesus. Yet, they translated it and attached the word christ only to Jesus. These are my words, not babbling pablo's!

pablo: I saw no arguments from you. What are you talking about?

I am not an expert on Islam and I am not a hateful person or a religious bigot. But I know what I see. I have seem people whom I have assumed are Muslims, families, mother, father, and little children, at art museums on Sundays, enjoying themselves, and I am struck that, yes indeed, they do appear to be people, calm, and kind, and ordinary, just like any people, anywhere, and I am aware that that is what prevails in most places in Islamic societies.

Accross the street from me, in my suburban American neighborhood, there was an immigrant family from Israel, and an Arab immigrant family, living just a few doors down. (I am not sure which Arab country they were from). One day, I saw from my kitchen window, the Arab woman, and the Jewish woman, (both wives and mothers) met on the sidewalk, and they stopped and talked.

I became a little worried. Would this develope into some kind of political scene? So I watched them. They chatted. They began to smile and laugh. They liked each other. I wondered, what must they be talking about? Their families and children, probably. We think that the Arabs and Jews just automatically and reflexively hate each other. So I was suprised, and a little awed to see with my own eyes, that this is not true.

In my work, I have met and befriended people from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and Turkey, all but one, men. With no exceptions, they tell of their terrible experiences with Islam and how it has ruined their lives. They do not go into any theological details, but just have a problem with enforced religious belief, in general. Even my friend from Turkey said that Turkey is a terrible and stifling place to live, if you any tendency at all towards free thinking. I was suprised to hear this, since we are always told that Turkey is the most modern and forward looking Islamic state.

My female friend from Iran had horror story after horror story to tell me about life in Iran. She had pictures of her family homelife, in which every member was dressed up in formal attire, at home. This, she said, is because you can only dress as you please, put on your makeup, wear your jewelry, and do your hair, only inside your home. When going out, men and women both, were required to be drab and plain. She told me that she would kill herself before she would ever go back.

I am not an expert on Islam. These are only my anecdotal encounters with Islam. Normally, I would know nothing at all, except what I read in the papers. But how can I ignore these people whom I have known, liked, and even loved? If I ever meet an Islmaic person who prayed to Mecca 5 times a day, and loved Islam, I would say so, but I have never meet such a person. All of the Islamic people that I know stop praying to Mecca, when they are no longer required to.

What I know of Islam from my general following of the news, is that it claims to be a religion of peace. But it seems to be a violent blood relgions of human sacrafice, with wierd tendencies towards existential nihilism, that is the destruction all things. If that is an incorrect impression, then that is PR problem for Muslims, who should do all they can to correct these impressions. But I do not see much along those lines, either.

Victoria,

For your post timed at 2.44 a.m. Maasha'Allah! How very well said.

ALLAH SUBHAANA-WATA'ALA'S APOSTLE (P.B.U.H.) SAID " THE STRONG IS NOT THE ONE WHO OVERCOMES THE PEOPLE WITH STEALTH; THE STRONG IS THE ONE WHO CONTROLS HIMSELF WHEN IN ANGER'.

I am writing about half an hour after sehri, the pre-dawn meal and just before I go to do my Fajr (dawn) prayer. May Allah bless you, sister, in this world and in the hereafter, and give you the courage to inspire others to follow in your footstep, including my sinful self.

During a military battle (I don't rememeber which one, but most likely on an occasion when marauders attacked the trading caravans belonging to the Prophet's [p.b.u.h.] house or to the sahaabas' [companions'] house) Umar-ibn-Al-Khattaab had been engaging the formidable leader of the marauders in a specially difficult sword fight. After much struggle, Umar was able to wrest the opponent's sword from his hand and throw him on the ground. Normally, Umar would have been satisfied at that and would let his oponent go, sure that the humbling effect of the defeat would wisen the opponent and force others to give second thoughts about rallying behind him again to attack the Muslims at a later time. But, overwhelmed by the ferocity of this difficult fight against a formidable opponent, Umar had raised his arm the feverish thought racing through his mind whther he should finish off his opponent as the opponent himself would have done, according to the ethics of combat of those times, inherited from pre-Islamic times.

Feverish in his own discomfiture (and, in his mind, humiliation) at an unprecedented defeat, the opponent wanted to at least humiliate the Great Umar (whom he had heard about) before dying. So, he spit in Umar's face. Umar grew more angry, but (Allah be pleased with him and give all Muslims the same strength) he immediately recalled the Prophet's (p.b.u.h.) teaching that you quoted above.

So he let his opponent go, as he normally would have, despite the ferocity of the fighting and with the additional factor that he had to control his anger.

This story is hardwired into the brain of every well-bred Muslim child because it is routinely taught to him or her from about the age of 3. It is a story as well-known to every Muslim child as is the story of the hare and the tortoise.

The Hammurabbi code (which is also that of the Old Testament) of 'an eye for an eye' was refined by Islamic ethics and jurisprudence more than 1400 years ago. The refinement says that: an aggrieved party has the RIGHT to demand an eye for an eye, but it is far, far better for him and for everybody else that he forgive, if he can and if he can be sure that, as a result of the forgiveness, an opportunity would not be created for the perpetrator of the malfeasance to commit an even greater malfeasance in future such that the Umma (society) would have been better off even if it had to bear the guilt feeling of having taken out of a human being the life that Allah Subhaana-Wata’ala has given him.

Generations of philosophers have debated this issue of truth, justice and forgiveness. The authors of the oft-cited book “The 100”, which lists and asesses the value of their impact on mankind (good and bad) of the 100 greatest men that ever lived, state that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is number one because his positive impact has been greatest. I don’t recall exactly who was number 2, maybe Isaac Newton. Issa ibn Mariam (Jesus Christ --Allah’s blessings be upon him) is number 3. The authors explain that, had the teaching attributed to Jesus about ‘turning the other cheek’ been a practicable way of life and had it been actually practiced, Jesus would certainly be their number 1 choice because, nominally, there are more Christians than Muslims. But firstly, there are more Christians in the world than Muslims only nominally, counting those who practice their religion, Muslims are more numerous; secondly, the teaching is impractical and therefore not practiced, because, as evolutionary biologists will tell you, on the one hand our brain (and thumbs and camera eyes, etc.) evolved according to the stimuli in our environment, and the process of ‘our general evolution unfolded without our brain in mind’(pun very much intended!).

Because Islam is a covenant between Allah and His creation individually (the Prophet himself is only a messenger, and other Ulemas, judges etc are only guides) Islamic justice and forgiveness does not deny the Muslim the right of an eye for an eye: it denies him the barbaric practice of using his force to exact more than an eye for an eye and empowers him to resort to the Umma’s (society’s) help in case his weakness may force him to accept less than an eye for an eye, and goes further to shower on him the blessing of the greater strength of forgiveness, in the context of the provisos mentioned above, with the assurance that Allah Subhaana-Wata’ala will reward him several times more for his magnanimity in forgiving.

Mahatma Gandhi, and indeed, many of those freedom fighters today hailed as the most enlightened, have quipped that the rule an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. This is a total non-sequitur. There are two problems. Firstly, the Islamic (and probably also the Jewish) rule of an eye for an eye does not say that one MUST pull out the eye of someone who has been found guilty of pulling out the eye of an innocent. It says that the aggrieved party has a right to demand that and no judge can deny it to him, because the judge is not the one who knows the intensity of the aggrieved party’s suffering. The aggrieved party should not be COERCED to forgive, whether for his own good as perceived by others or for the Umma’s (society’s) good. He should be encouraged to forgive if the provisos referred to above are met. Secondly, the conclusion that the whole world would be blind assumes that everybody is or has at some point been either a perpetrator of some malfeasance or a victim, and that nobody is willing to forgive. The mistake made is not only this ‘fallacy of composition’, but the assumption behind the other fallacy (‘let those without sin throw the first stone’) that there is nobody without sin. There are many of is who have never sinned. But one must have the kindness towards ourselves to also recognize that. The skeptics think that we don’t exist just as they are certain that God does not exist.

Two final points, to ward of the accusations of naivety. There is no naivety, no cynicism. Islam is for this world and for the hereafter. “When the Friday prayers are done, spread over the earth and partake of the bounty of your Lord and give thanks to Him for His beneficence” says the Quran. The first point is that the robustness to the most modern scientific refinement of the concept of justice of teachings of the Quran as I have outlined above is every day being substantiated by the latest theoretical developments in Game Theory and the theses of The Theory of Justice by John Rawls. The second point is that, beyond theory, at the very empirical level of cliodynamics (the science of the behaviour of populations and development of social institutions in the dynamics of historical trends), Peter Turchin claims to detect patterns that support both the theses of Game Theory and the Islamic narrative because they are congruent with each other.

somalitrade,

I have supported my arguments you have not. Your opinion does not count and therefore, you have lost this debate. When you refute one thing I have said I will address you again.

You cannot not see the truth because you look at God's word through the unbelieving lens of Islam. The Apostle John said that whoever denies that Jesus is the Son of God is an anti-Christ so Muslims do not believe in the Jesus of Holy scripture but the fake one erected by Satan to keep Muslims from seeing the truth so that they may be saved.

Jesus' death on the cross is the only payment that will make you able to stand on the day of judgment but in unbelief you have rejected Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore, you will have to pay the debt of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord unless you repent.

Somalitrade, you said:

"You are right, Christ means Messaiah in Hebrew. This word Messaiah is used in many places in the old and new testament. Bible translators took the same word Messaiah and translated it differently when the reference is to Jesus. For example, it is only translated as christ for Jesus and is translated into annointed for anything else. Why??? So one day like today, a person like pablo would think that it is a special word assigned ONLY to Jesus and then accuses others who point out the truth as brainwashed!!!"

I hate to admit it, but Pablo is right about this.
To Christians, Jesus is The Anointed One, so He is called Christ, and that word is only used in translations in reference to Jesus.

As far as Pablo goes otherwise - well, I am Christian, but I find his posts very offensive.

Sister,

I like ur recerach but i. I will very thankfull to to you if you send me more recearch on following adress. The Most topic for me is History of Islam.

rao2852@gmail.com

postal adress

Muhammad Abu Bakar khan
C/o Habib Rafiq (Pvt) Ltd.
Defence Housing Authority Ph-II,
GT Road, Rewat, Islamabad, Pakistan
Cell no. +92-321-5851521

Here is a nice hadith on stoning. I am sure the Apostle of Allah was in control of his anger while he stoned the woman.

Moral: Stone but not in anger.

From Imam Malik's Muwatta.

Book 41, Number 41.1.5:

Malik related to me from Yaqub ibn Zayd ibn Talha from his father Zayd ibn Talha that Abdullah ibn Abi Mulayka informed him that a woman came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and informed him that she had committed adultery and was pregnant.

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you give birth."

When she had given birth, she came to him. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you have suckled and weaned the baby."

When she had weaned the baby, she came to him. He said, "Go and entrust the baby to someone."

She entrusted the baby to someone and then came to him.

He gave the order and she was stoned.

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger."

Does anyone remember why the US military took action in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait????

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

You shouted: "AND FOR THE RECORD- IVE POSTED VOLUMINOUSLY ON THESE THREADS AND HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO "CONVERT" ANYONE TO ISLAM."

Thank you ever so much!!! Following the precepts of a warmongering, womanizing, illiterate, "holey not holy hallucinator" is a bit much.

How goes the rewrite of the koran?

How goes the Ramadan night-time snacks?

Bush really threw away the most golden opportunity to address terrorism in the world right after 911-

there was world unity and sympathy- there was international support- we could have joined (even led if our collective ego demanded a 'power position) a coalition of world leaders to demand reform in islamic countries and countries with overwhleming human rights abuses (like china and n. korea) and used our forces and energies to develop policies with teeth in them.

it was a unique chance to be a positive leader as we had the whole world behind us.

instead, it became a shameless and endless political power grab- oil grab- no-bid contract grab-

actually, according to the international religious freedom report it wasnt muslim countries that were named the primary countries of concern for religious persecution and perpertrating murder and imprisonement of its people- not for political reasons, but purely for religious ones. it was n. korea, burma, china-
churches arent being burned down in muslim countries - they are being burned down in tose countries.

if the united states really was worried about religious freedom reigning and "US values" being exported, it wouldnt be to any islamic countries.

its politics- its oil- it money money money.

we blew it- we just blew it.

as a country we are roundly mocked in international circles- bush has in one fell swoop taken us from being a superpower to an global laughing stock in his short 'reign'.

this administration never cared about the people who were killed on 911-
it hasnt even taken care of the first responders or the families of the victims.

every day here in new york the pap=ers are filled with stories of abandoned americans- abandoned by their government who at the same time uses their suffering as political leverage to keep filling htose no-bid contracts- to keep the military industrial complex fat and wealthy-

it was never about religion and isnt now.

20 years from now there will be a new bogeyman and a new excuse to american expanisionism and imperial colonialism that we call "spreading democracy".

as long as people keep letting their passions and emotions be manipulated by "religion" (and that includes the atheists who cloak their prejudices under the banner of patriotism)
the politcal issues that are driving our policies that are killing our young men and women will continue unquestioned, and even cheered on by american sheeple.

i think john kerry said, how do you ask a man to be the last one to die in a war?

AND FOR THE RECORD- IVE POSTED VOLUMINOUSLY ON THESE THREADS AND HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO "CONVERT" ANYONE TO ISLAM.

islamist- there are so many inconsistencies in what you post as supposedly from a muslim viewpoint that it would take a lengthy rebuttal, and frankly ive repsonded at length to you before with no response of logic.

more andmore distractions distraction-

islam doesnt need reforming- american policy needs major overhaul

islam isnt sending 100,000 and more troops all over the world to kill women children and old people.

we hold that unique distinction

and there is no moral imperative that we have to offer to anyone anymore.

Islamist,

You say *Islam is a religion of peace*.
Could you write any *peaceful islamic country*

You say *Islam is against hypocrisy,injustice and oppression*
1-Hypocrisy(taqiyya) is the *basic principle* of islam.Quran 3.28 mandates hypocrisy(taqiyya).
2-Injustice is the way of islamic life.Could you show any justiceful islamic country.Women and non-muslims are *second class citizen* in islam.
3-Oppression is the meaning of islam.
*Headscarf* is an oppression.
Fasting,which is absolute farmful for Human Health,is an oppression as well.
Dar ul Harb(Land of War/Jihad) is an ill-minded islamic concept.

Islam,the civilization killer,is a repressive cult,nothing else.

I just listened to a youtube video regarding the christian copts population in the middle east. Copts population has declined from 8.2% to 5.6% in Egypt alone. The conversion rate from christianity to Islam has accelerated to an alarming rate according to the church. The staistics showed that instead of indivduals converting to Islam, the trend is now of entire families accepting Islam. Guess what is the main reason for this massive conversion??

Social justice in Islam, especially those of women!!! The copt churches won't allow divorce. If a woman is divorced, no one is allowed to marry her! Islam, on the other hand, offered a clear social path. Copts are also suffering from the church heads struggling for power. What's really interesting is the unique conversions of priests and nuns. Islam also provided them with a way to worship the one true God and still keep the high status of Jesus in their hearts as a mighty prophet of God. Copts have one advantage over other christians! They lived side by side with their fellow muslims, they have exposure to the Quran and exposure to muslim scholars. They knew Islam without CNN/FOX/...etc. No brainwashing, that is!

If in doubt, I can post the pointer to that 2-part audio on youtube!

Arminius:
You are right, Christ means Messaiah in Hebrew. This word Messaiah is used in many places in the old and new testament. Bible translators took the same word Messaiah and translated it differently when the reference is to Jesus. For example, it is only translated as christ for Jesus and is translated into annointed for anything else. Why??? So one day like today, a person like pablo would think that it is a special word assigned ONLY to Jesus and then accuses others who point out the truth as brainwashed!!!

pablo:

Look very carefully at the verses you quoted. Here they are again:

John 14:8-11
8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

This is exactly what the Jews told Moses, "let us see God!". Jesus is basically telling them that they need not see the father because it is the father who sent him. As verse 10 above shows, Jesus is telling them that God sent him and he only repeats God's words (please read the verses!). Where in these verses did he say that "from now on I am your God". Had he preached that before, they wouldn't even ask the question. Please read and analyze what you quote before posting it.

Alex

You degree of naivety is astounding:

"Historical comparisons are always risky, but it would be akin to the United States blaming all its earlier troubles on the colonial practices of Great Britain, France and Spain."

Yes you would do just that if Britain, France or Spain had military bases against your wishes in USA and chose your leaders for you.

KR

You mention that jihadist come from not so poor countries like: ie Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt.

Precisely because these regimes are fully supported by the US and they have not been democratic. In fact those who govern these countries have been doing so with the blessing of the USA whilst many of their citizens languish in prisons for wanting freedom.

It just amazes me how little you guys know of the history of the ME. Do a google for American intervention in the ME and read closely. Then understand that you reap what you sow. You would not tolerate any foreign country doing such things to your country. Why do you expect Muslims to tolerate your misadventures?

For decades American citizens had no idea what their foreign policy did to others. They are just waking up to this. Meantime they are being brainwashed by their media and this crazy notion of believing whatever their politicians tell them.

I do admit that Muslims have their problems and no one is devoid of such. But try leaving it to them to sort out instead of playing holier than thou. Try and be an honest broker. What you do in Palestine is far from being honest. You support Israel as if it can do no wrong and denounce Palestinians as if they can do no right. 50 years you have played these games. You want some Palestinian stooge to renounce the right of return of all refugees who lost their homes to Israeli army. Yet this right of return to one's home is sacrosanct according to Geneva Convention. You don't even mention any compensation.

You are prepares to wage yet another war on Iran on suspicion that it is planning to produce nukes but you are happy to let Israel have theirs and would prevent any UN inspection of Israeli nukes, yet you denounce anything good that UN inspectors have said about Iran.

You want peace but wage wars.
You want democracy but support thugs.
You want democracy but when they elect Hamas you disagree.
You even help Israel to bomb and destroy Lebanon even as though they are your friends.
You want justice but not when it comes to your own wrong doings.
You want friends but only if they agree with you.
You want no nukes but you develop more of your own.

And when you can't get your way you cry fowl. Blame it on Islam. So now you have an endless supply of enemies. That will secure your economy which is based on producing weapon. And production of WMD requires consumption. Thus endless wars.

Try switching to producing life-affirming goods and services and show us how to do so. We would love you for that.

You reap what you sow.

Concerned, you poor lapsed Catholic into Catholic of Reality and Crossanized Christian chap who now talks of singlurity and being brainwashed from his personal experience! Oh, my symphaties to you as a lost soul, a fellow in limbo in On Faith.

Muslims and Jews are not brainwashed on the Trinity of God and salvation through Christ. Go to your fellow Christians and take them away from these embellishments, the most devious embellishments of the Abrahamic faiths as all atheists who were former Christians knows.

You are in hell my dear fellow - trapped in On Faith and no life beyond. Be free. My friend "Jihadist" walk away from On Faith without giving in to anything you want. Why should she and nor will I to you and other blinkered non-Muslims.

I'm off to Ramadan feasting and praying. Get well soon and be free from fear.

Cheers

Islamist,

Unfortunately, like Christians and Jews you have been brainwashed with embellishments of "prophits"/fortune tellers and "pwtfft"s. Not a good foundation for any "good book"!!!!!

I am more of a lurker reader of On Faith rather than a poster. The discussions never varies from the same form one standard. All these post re Islam forcibly converting others. Put to rot, the nonsense in other posts about dhimmis for taxes. Why convert others to Islam when Mulsims can get more taxes from dhimmis and dhimmis are left to their own affairs and largely exempted from military service? If all here are afraid of Islam and Muslims, so be it. It is to Muslims' advantage then, that so many know so little about Muslims and Islam and to fear the faith and the adherents to the point some propose to nuke Mecca. As if that will cut off the head or heart of Islam, and all Muslims will capitulate, convert to Christianity, lapse into atheism and become second rate secular westerners. From Iraq, expanding the "war" to Iran, then over Afghanistan on to Pakistan and all to control the Central Asian oil flow? I have lost faith in US e values and ethics. I have my Qur'an to guide me to the right path, not of those led astray by their greed, stupidity, shortsightedness, moral uncertainty and lax values.

Cheers

Cazart and Jay S:

A friend "Jihadist" has better things to do in Ramadan and not reading On Faith ever. So, I'll do a take of her here on what she'd call, "fun".

Not all Muslims are Arabs.
Not all Arabs are Muslims.
Not all terrorists are Muslims.
Not all Muslims are terrorists.
Not all Christians are KKK.
Not all Buddhists are Dalai Lama.
Not all Hindus are Gandhi
Not all atheists are .........., but most want to be Hitchens.

Islam is a religion of peace. Muslims, the adherents of Islam, will fight to the death if they are deprived of their lands, resources and rights.

Islam is a religion with clear reminders against greed, hypocrisy, injustice and oppression. Muslims will not roll over and give up their land and rights just because someone said so and want so.

It is Jemaah Islamiyah, not Jemmah Islamiya.

Indonesia is a member of OPEC and US oil companies salivating all over for oil there.

In the mid-sixties, the CIA had a hand in the killing of at least half a million Indonesians allleged to be atheistic communists.

Muslims just hate US hypocrisy, greed and thirst for oil and don't respect their elastic take on ethics and values.

Muslims don't take to outsiders invading and occupying their countries - making greedy bastards die in trying to take over their lands and resources.

Religious arguments? It's the obession of Christians and atheists here, not Muslims. Muslims never claim for the truth. Islam is acknowledgement of God and surrendering to that belief in peace. Only Christians seek salvation for all mankind through Christ.

Islam is not a person. It cannot reform itself. Muslims as people, can and do, but on their own terms, not anyone's.

Calling Muslims who fight against illegal invasion and occupation "jihadists" are complimenting them. The lesser jihad, war against illegal occupation or oppression by corrupt goverments, is legal. So, a "jihadist" is one who fought in a legal or just war. More proper to call it mujahid (singular) or mujahideen (plural).

Who were "ARGUING OVER INVISIBLE SUPERHEROES WHO LIVE IN OUTER SPACE?" No one here is still reading Marvel comics and watching Star Trek episodes. People are talking about God who started the whole universe. How limited-minded some are in understanding only at the level of "invisible superheroes who live in outer space."

Jihadian enough I hope.

Cheers

jay s,

Do you believe in anything you cannot see?

somalitrade,

Again you do not support one thing you say. You tell me why I should believe Muhammad who came along 600 years after Jesus and claimed that God spoke to him and told him that Jesus was not the Son of God instead of the Apostle John who walked with Jesus.

By the way the Isaiah passage (Isaiah 9:6) was written 600 years before Jesus came to earth. You simply do not believe God's word. According to the scriptures you will receive God's judgment if you do not repent.

John 14:8-11
8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Asim,

All of Asia Minor was Christian until by force it was converted to Islam.

Somalitrade:

'Christ' does not mean 'appointed', it means 'anointed'. In Christianity, Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed One, a Greek translation of the Hebrew 'Messiah'. As such, it has profound religious meaning.

This particular overheated 'discussion' follows the usual pattern of On Faith 'discussions', i.e., a textbook example of the blind men and the elephant.

FOR THE ATTENTION OF WHOMEVER IS INTERESTED IN THE FACTS -- A BBC news item timed at 11:52 GMT

" Russia and China 'spying on US'

Mr McConnell said extended surveillance powers were 'critical'
Russia and China are spying on US facilities at close to Cold War levels, the head of US intelligence has warned.
Both were aggressively collecting information on the US, head of National Intelligence Michael McConnell warned.

US agencies are battling traditional state foes as well as terror groups, Mr McConnell told a congressional hearing.

Mr McConnell was defending new legislation allowing the US government to eavesdrop on international phone calls and emails without a warrant."

Well Jay, it does take some intelligence to figure out that God exists. For one thing, He does give hints, plainly obvious at times. It can be an IQ test of sorts. It appears that you aren't smart enough to pick up on them, and so are left in the dark....Tell you what: I'll think of you in my prayers tonight, and maybe it might help to open that closed mind of yours...

"As for the religious argument, you're all sitting here - ostensibly claiming to be rational adults - ARGUING OVER INVISIBLE SUPERHEROES WHO LIVE IN OUTER SPACE. There's less hope than I thought."

Thank you Cazart. That needed to be said. Not that these ostensibly rational adults will listen.

Asim: "Give me one example, where Islam imposed it's faith on anyone, anywhere in the world!!!"

Another typical example of Lying, deceitful, untruthful Islamic proganda. How about Spain, when it was invaded by Islam? The Spanish Christians were forceably converted by the sword. Or the Byzantine Empire, once Christian, also forceably converted by the sword? Or how about India, invaded by Muslims and the Buddhists wiped out? And how about present day Egypt, where Christian Copts have their Churches burnt down, and are assaulted? Or, how about Thailand, where Buddhists are now shot every day? And how about the situation in Africa, with the Janjaweed Islamic militia wreaking havoc? Everywhere Islam has a presence, it is waging war to forceably establish the Caliphate. 911 was not an isolated incident. It is the RULE everywhere, that Islam is waging war, while it calls itself "The Religion of Peace".

Asim

The first condition of the UN resolutions was that Pakistan must vacate its soldiers from Kashmir.

Pakistan never did and on top of that Pakistan settled Kashmir with non-Kashmiris.

Pakistan must first vacate Kashmir, remove all Punjabis and Pathans from Kashmir and then we can talk about a plebiscite.

By the way why not hold a plebiscite in Punjab in which the Hindu and Sikh Panjabis can also vote? Why just Kashmir?

Why not honor the first plebiscite in NWFP when the Muslims of that province voted to stay with India?

I am assuming that since you are such an ardent supporter of UN resolutions, you also accept the 1948 UN resolution making Israel a country.

Victoria - yes, I am perfectly aware that 83% of Muslims are not arabs. I am also aware that the muslims who don't happen to be Arab hate us just as much.
Are you aware of Jemmah Islamiya?
Of the Sari Club?
Of the fact that Indonesia sits atop massive oil reserves?

A classic example of what I'm talking about. Adjust energy policy and you remove a lot of the fuel from this fire. When US policy is less tightly tied to propping up the people who keep Arabs - and other Muslims - down, less hatred will be engendered toward the US.

As for the religious argument, you're all sitting here - ostensibly claiming to be rational adults - ARGUING OVER INVISIBLE SUPERHEROES WHO LIVE IN OUTER SPACE. There's less hope than I thought.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on

Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals

in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to

Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John

Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face

a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to

Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the

country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and

its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if

you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then

Australia is not for you", he said on National Television. "I'd be

saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing

people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law

that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent

courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the

opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps,

then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he

said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to

the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told

reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should

"clear off". Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and

who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well

then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by

saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave it.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some

individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we

have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of

Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the

'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility

that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against

immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a

better life by coming to Australia." "However, there are a few things

that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some

born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a

multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and

our national identity. And, as Australians, we have our own culture,

our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle." "This

culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials

and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese,

Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to

become part of our society. Learn the language!" "Most Australians

believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political

push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian

principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is

certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If

God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world

as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is

that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with

us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go",

then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this

planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change,

and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By

all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others. "This is

OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will

allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done

complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our

Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take

advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO

LEAVE'." "If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to

come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, Canadian and American

citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing

the same truth!

Jai Khosla,
You must live on Mars: yes Indian military occupation of overwhelmingly Muslim populated Kashmir and refusal of India to implement UN resolution for Kashmiri self determination since 1947-the same as In Palestine and Kosovo . Call the UN or an Indian embassy near you to correct your misinformation.

Ted Baines:
Why don't you ever talk about present day torture, imprisonment, murder, assasination, ethnic cleansing and starvation of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians “living” in israeli concentration camps under a racist militaristic apartheid jewsih theocray-israel??

Why go back 1500 years back to engage in name calling and fabricated lies about Muslims and the Prophet: I already told you the story of the treacherous jewish tribes of Banu Qurizah and Banu Nazir and the just punishment they received-which traitors like Jonathan Pollard have not received yet-because of AIPAC influence. If you are so humane why not speak about the recent genocide of Bosnian Muslims-1992-1995? Clearly to distract from the atrocities your cousins in occupied Palestine commit every day using American weapons and American taxpayer’s money. The life of half a jew who is claimed to have received justice 1500 years ago is more important than the millions of Muslims who perish in Palestine, Iraq and Somalia at this very moment. Jewish life is always more precious than other human beings because jews speak louder!!

Bill,
Ggive us one example where Muslims imposed their faith on any one any where in the world? Ask the 200 million Muslims in Indonesia if they were forced to accept Islam-And ask the whole of South America the same question, where Catholic Spain imposed Christianity by the sword and decimated their national cultures-the Pope apologized recently for this historical injustice. So stop repeating your unsubstantiated lies. With all due respect you are either a liar or profoundly ignorant.

Daniel,
So you have decided to speak for Islam and want to reform it: why don't U reform your own faith or better yet reform your own confused mind. Cannot U see the big log in your own eye? Every body suddenly becomes an expert on Islam!!

Like any community, Muslims need and are looking at their own problems and trying to solve them but they are not being left alone to do that: jewish occupation of all of historic Arab Palestine, invasion, destruction and occupation of Iraq on false pretexts...etc. Radicalism only begets Radicalism...Muslims are reacting to an unprecedented onslaught from without essentially from the west...its accumulated grievances which were outlined by Hadia and also in my post above.

America resisted British occupation, oppression and colonialism and evicted the British and George Washington was declared a terrorist by the British-why can not the Palestinians, Iraqis and Kashmiris do the same and resist their occupiers and evict their tormnetors?

cazart- you are aware that 83% of the wolrd population of muslims are not arabs?

B GORDON- read a book called "a;; the shah's men"

it reveals how the CIA itself with george daddy bush as one of its first operatives(also kermit roosevelt) whose inception was designed SOLELY to continue to steal the oil profits form the iranian people

you were saying?

Daniel,

All that you are good for is hate.

I am not asking for anybody to like me. Most people not only do not particularly like Freeman Dyson, they don't even know who he is.

All they want is to enjoy the fruits of the work that others perform or, having dilapidated their resources, to grab the resources that others have in their underground. (Not only ME oil, but also Africa's and Latin America's minerals).

OK! To prove my point. Let me see if would you know who Vint Cerf is. Do you know who he is?

It is good to see a view from a Muslim because most of topics on GWoT is written by a Christian. If one cannot hear and read from the other side, the person become blind and brain-washed. I didn't know what but deep side of myself kept asking a question "Why the Muslimes continue to attack!" including those Iraqi docters who terrorized London airports not long ago. What made those high intellects gave up thier high paying job, family and decide to hurt Britishes? No one around me actually asked those questions. Instead, people made comments about not tbeing able to trust people from any Middle East states... Even if our young soldiers die each day, no one seems to care asking qustions about innocent man and women and old and yong people who die every hour on the street of Bagdad. We hear about sons and daughters in military die but no one seems to ask questions of aftermath of those who die in Bagdad and KirKuk... Where are all the Muslimes? Why don't they try to work a way to close the gap and difference between Christians and Muslimes other than this young lady? Why don't Muslimes voice themselves and express thier concerns and thoughts and the hell they have to go through each and everyday? It seems as if many of Muslimes in the state is being responsible for the terrorists. However, I think that it is Muslimes best interests of coming out and expressing thier difficulties of going through descrimination. In closing, Muslimes should come out and speak for themselves and teach the rest of the world what the real Muslime/Islim is about. I bet that most of americans think of muslims as terrorists. This is Muslimes job to enlighten dume souls like myself.

CONCERNED:

Haven't you learned already? There are no flaws in Islam. It is the perfect religion! Flaws are in humans just like me and you. Nothing left now but to enlighten others about what they know not. It is a choice though. AFterall, the only scripture that clearly stated the freedom of religion is the Quran: "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

Muslims have to feed on other peoples' flaws. That way they don't have to consider their own flawed religion and states of militaristic Islam like the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran based on the "holey not holy hallucinator", "pwtfft"s and plagiarized messages.

Muslims, address and correct your flaws and we will then consider your commentaries worthy.

Viva La France!!!!!!

pablo: it is time to stop babbling and start thinking out of the box. Bring me something from the bible where Jesus himself "while walking on earth and talking to people" said that he is 100% God as you claim! No third parties please or people who shows up many years after Jesus left the earth and claim they received the holy ghost and then their words ended up as a scripture (such as the book of revealations, a.k.a the book of dreams!). Come on! test your memory. If your salvation is based on Jesus being God, it should be easy to come up with something (or is it the church that dictated that on you?)....

Then you quoted the bible:

"Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Is Jesus asking people to become Jehadists? Am I taking this out of context???

The word CHRIST means "APPOINTED" and has no divine meaning whatsoever. In so saying, Muslims declare and accept that Jesus IS the Christ, meaning a mighty messanger from God, nothing else. Why are you implying that the word Christ means something divine? Kings, prophets, pillars, and even athiests were called Christ in the bible. Nothing is divine about it! What's wrong with you? When I call someone brainwashed, I really have something in my mind to support it. How about you?

Nit-picking religious arguments is the problem. It is not necessary to do that here.

What is the true intent of some obsure verse of the Bible or Koran? Who cares? It is completely irrelavent. Constantly rehashing the Crusades, or European Imperialism is also pointless.

What matters is the world as it exists today, this very minute, that was handed to us from the generations who came before, who are now gone, and over whom we may neither control, feel guilt over, nor take credit for. We, all of us, in Europe, America, the Middle East, and India, have been deposited into our many situations by a thousand contingencies of history, but we are here now, and now is what counts.

I say, that now is the time for Islam to reform itself to the world which now exists.

somalitrade,

The sword is figurative as clearly seen when read in context. Jesus is speaking about the rejection believers would experience even from their own family members for following Him. He is teaching that true followers will love God more then the acceptance of even unbelieving family members. The passage in context:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

I have supported what I have said about the Qur'an with trusted Islamic Haddiths, which inform the reader about what the Qur'an means and how Muhammad lived his life. Until you engage this debate with supported arguments I see no more reason to interact with your personal attacks, out of context Bible quotations, and your unsupported statements.

I looked at the picture of Hadia Mubarak and read the quick biography, and then read her essay again.

She is a very sweet child, wrapped up in her shroud, both metaphorically, and literally, of Islam. She is naive and sheltered.

Perhaps one day, she will broaden her views, join the world, remove the shroud from her body, and allow us all to see who she really is.

Hadia Mibarak has raised quite succinctly the long ignored issue of "why" in the current conflict between the West and the Muslim World. She has correctly pointed out that it indeed is far less a civilizational clash issue, although this is theory several ill informed and if not misguided experts would like us believe. The problem is more of an issue of lack of a reality check.

Self-seeking foriegn policy, complemented further by the arrogance of superior military power and not-to-be ignored manupulations of vested interest, often encourage West, especially US to deal with various forms of expressions of resentment (some of which are regeretably quite despicable)with even greater and more violent acts of reprisals. This is no solution. Even the mightiest cannot guarantee success through the path of violance.

Time may have come for all of us- Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus or whatever to refelect, re-appraise and redirect our energies from this self-defeating path of hatred, carnage, death and destruction and focus on solutions based on appreciate enquiry of each others owes and aspirations.

Dear Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada

All I meant to say was that when you kick everyone in he shins, don't expect them to like you. You are a perfect example of that.

somalitrade,

Calling people names and making unsupported statements proves nothing. I base what I am saying about Jesus who was 100% man and 100 % God at the same time on the Holy Scriptures. God the Son put on human flesh in order to die on behalf of humanity to pay the debt for sin that you and I could never pay. He then arose from the dead. (See Philippians 2; Romans 3).

He did willingly give up his life but in His humanity cried out to the Father. Jesus said:

"For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom formany."

This verse teaches that Jesus humbled Himself and "came." In other words He existed before He came to earth. He came to earth to be a servant and to pay yhe debt "ransom" we owe. You can pick and choose verse out of context to support your Jesus is not God view if you want which all the Muslim scholars do but that is not the clear reading of scripture in context. Jesus unequvically said He was God and that He would die on the cross and raise from the dead according to the Old Testamment scripture. The Qur'an contradicts both the OT and the NT therefore why should I listen to the Quran which was written 600 years after Jesus and is in conflict with the OT teaching that the Messiah would be God. Isiah put it this way:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This verse says that a chuld would be born who would be called God (El Gibbor). Satan does not like the clear teaching of scripture. He does not want us to believe that Jesus paid for our sins because Satan wants to take humanity to hell with him. Therefore he makes up false religions to fool humanity into denying Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our sins. The Apostle John who walked with Jesus said the following about those who reject Jesus' Sonship:

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also."

Daniel, Re Your Post timed at 2:57 p.m.

You write : " HOWEVER, in the other direction, there is just as much tension between the Islamic world and Hindu India, which could not be more different than America".

Well, not THAT different if you ask let's say, Sri Raman or Kuldip Nayyar, if you have any idea of whom I am talking about. (Sri Raman often writes in Truthout.org and Kuldip Nayar is a columnist for Asianage; do wrote to them -- they rpovide their e-mail address -- or at least read their articles, and you will understand why Muslims have gripes about India [not the 'as much tension' that you talk about).

But, much more near 'home' (that is Amewrica), you suely have not forgotten that Vajpayee's India did not hesitate one second to mass more than 1 million troops on the border with Pakistan around the time, as we later learnt, that Cheney and Rumsfeld were threatening Pakistan of being bombed back to the stone age. But I am sure that in your lexicon, that qualifies for good-neighbourliness, right?

So? "The most fundamental problem in U.S.-Muslim world relations today is our inability to view current events through the prism of historical, socio-political, and-economic conditions in the region, such as the history of colonialism or the reality of authoritarianism in the Middle East."

"Authoritarianism in the Middle East" like everywhere else on earth is over, done, finished. Do like the Indians and open casinos, get rich, buy yourself some decent clothes, put on some make up, bag a man,, or two, get integrated into the human race. Try it, you might just like it.

What Ms. Mubarak wants, is what all Islam wants: to force their religion on the world, through Islamic Law, or Sharia. If non-believers will not convert, then they will be enslaved, or preferably, killed, by Islam. We see behind your smokescreen, and we see your worldwide warfare on non-believers, whether they be Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other faith. We grow tired of the constant prevarication of Islamic spokespeople, the failure to face the fact that Islam is a violent religion which seeks to force others into slavery. We grow tired of seeing our fellow believers killed around the world, in the name of "peaceful" Islam. No, Islam is not the victim. Islam is the Cause.

One wonders if Ms Hadia Mubarak will truly mean what she says & says what she means should the Kurds declare their right to self-determination & nationhood and their "neighbors" - w/ USA connivance - attack them . . . we shall truly see if she truly believes that "The truth is that people of all walks of life have the same aspirations, whether they’re Israeli or Palestinian; Serbian or Bosnian; Iraqi or American." . . . or Kurdish . . . They - The Kurds of the Kurdish crescent - too "want a chance to breathe without wondering whether their kids will come home from school maimed or dead; they want sovereignty and the right to govern themselves. They want justice and equality . . . . . They want to live a life of dignity"! No doubt she will "ask the right questions" & "explore the historical, socio-political, and economic landscape" of historic Kurdistan.

Adil:

Good point.

SUE allen

:)so when a helpless victim is abducted and raped and given food. we should show gratitude for the food that has provided?:)

i am sure you are familair with the saying>>> Give me liberty or give me Death.

PA wrote:

"I pray that those who are ensnared in Islam would see the truth about Jesus the Son of God who died on the cross for all sin and arose from the dead so that they would be set free."

Jesus, on the other hand, said:

"ELi, Eli, Lemma Sabakhtani" ("My God, My GOD, Why have you forsaken me?")

Why you making it look like Jesus wanted to voluntarily offers himself to save people from their sins. Jesus was crying for help and he wanted to get away from it all and asked God for help. If Jesus asked God for help, why would you ask Jesus, rather than God, for help? What's wrong with this sickness? Enough nonsense! Jesus never said he is God and never asked anyone to worship him. Why do you push people into darkness here? Do you have a bunch of forgiveness certificates you want to sell? Go to Ebay!

Then you said:
"In conclusion, followers of Jesus have a different blueprint to follow than followers of Muhammad. Jesus was peaceful and turned the other check all the way to the cross."

Peace!!!??? Jesus said "I didn't come to bring peace to earth, but ...."

Are you drunk or something? Brainwashed as you are and less fortunate to get your head out of the church box, I see why you write something like that. Do you people read your own bible or do I have to teach you that too!!!!??? Yikes!

Hadia,

You mis-characterize what you refer to as "cultural dependence theory." Few western thinkers with any sense of subtlety believe that Islam (broadly defined) is the cause of the apparent clash between the west and the Muslim world. Rather, most of us nefarious culturalists believe that Radical Islamism--much like radical Arab nationalism before it--paints the world as an inevitable clash of western powers with what is viewed as the previously victimized and rising civilization of Islam (as they interpret the meaning of Islam). So politics and socio-economic factors obviously play into the problem, but they are interpreted through the prism of a necessary zero-sum game.

I do not believe that a 'clash of civilizations' is an inevitable consequence of differing religious values. Rather, it is because radical islamists believe in a clash of civilizations that such a conflict is possible.

As for politics, I'd like to hear a socio-economic and political explanation for the willingness of Al-Qaeda to murder anyone labeled apostate or infidel (including their co-religionists in Iraq) that does not include their motivation of religious intolerance,hatred, and chauvinism.

Gene Gerzhoy
Georgetown SFS Class of 2007

Palestinians comprise less than 1% of Muslims. If muslims wish to blame all of there social ills on that sad little clash of cultures, then it is just an excuse for hatred. No different than a southern redneck blaming his own failed existance on blacks.

There are always excuses to hate if that is all you're looking for, but brutal Islamic regimes are the cause of more suffering than Israel.

Somalitrade:

All I said is no one can understand Alan Greenspan! In case you missed it that is called levity. Ease up on the frenzy and smell the flowers (and laugh at the jokes).

Ironman:

Can you at least understand that 1.2 million Iraqis were masacared because GW Bush talks to a higher father daily? The genocide of Iraqis are happening IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES DAILY, yet all you and others want to think about is how bad muslims are!?

Adil

Who provides most of the jobs for muslims: the Jews

Who allows the muslims to vote in real elections in a real democracy: the Jews

Who provides most of the actual funds for muslims in Gaza, in Judea and Samaria: the Jews

Where do the muslims go when they need real and modern health care: the Jews

I know, I have been in Israel, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran.

The joke is that you are so ignornant of what is actually happening on the ground that you sound foolish. Of course it is the Jews that help muslims in Israel the most. It is an empirical fact that takes place every day. The Arabs and the Persians hate the Arabs in Israel. You know it and so do I.

Christians are to follow Jesus words and example but have not been perfect in their behavior. One also must remember that there are and have been people who are Christian in name only and that Jesus preached very strongly against hypocrisy. His hatred of hypocrisy and self righteousness are two big things things that first drew me to Him when I began reading the Gospels.

Muhammad on the other hand began peacefully and interacted with the Jews and Christians but when they did not receive his message because it contrdicted the Bible he resorted to violence. His followers have been following his example ever since. In Qur’an 9 the repentance chapter Muhammad’s example became the blueprint for Jihad that is used by Muslims to this day.

Muhammad had made a covenant with the people of Mecca that he would not kill them but later Muhammad changed his mind and gave them four months to convert to Islam or die. Verse 5 was given to cancel out the covenant he had made. Qur’an 9:5 follows:

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 9:5).

The Highly regarded Islamic commentary published by the Azhar had the following to say in regard to Surah 9:5 in 1983:

"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed."

The highly respected Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily in his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194); gave the following commentary on verse 5:

"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year; none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."
So you can see that when Muslims wage Jihad it is for the purpose of Islamic expansion and they are following the example of the “prophet.” Osama Bin Laden followed this example of giving time for repentance before Jihad by calling the USA to turn to Islam before he brought down the world trade center.

In conclusion, followers of Jesus have a different blueprint to follow than followers of Muhammad. Jesus was peaceful and turned the other check all the way to the cross. He told Peter to put away his sword and said “those who live by the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:5). So-called Christians who have not and do not follow Jesus’ example are living in direct disobedience to Jesus’ words and example. Muhammad on the other hand took up the sword himself and commanded his follower to do likewise. People all over the Islamic world have followed his example and are following his example and words today.

It is true that some Muslims do not follow Muhammad’s example. In fact, some do not even know about his violent example and do not understand the Qur’an. But the consensus in the Islamic world is mostly in lock step with Muhammad’s words and actions. A person would have to be an ostrich to miss this truth.

I pray that those who are ensnared in Islam would see the truth about Jesus the Son of God who died on the cross for all sin and arose from the dead so that they would be set free.

Hmmmm, I rather like the western banking system, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, pornography, gay culture & living together in peace. I'd say we got it right on all fronts.

We are witnessing a clash of civilizations. Western capitalism is threatened and terrorized by Islamic values enjoined by Muslims.

There is no place for western banking system, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, pornography, gay culture & living together in Islam and these mainstays of capitalism would collapse once Islam prevails. The alarm bells are ringing in the west not because of militant Islam, but because the populace there are embracing Islam.

How many of the above were abhorred by western societies only 40 years ago ? The west is changing the values they had preached.

Like Phil Collins says, "Do as I say, not do as I do".

SOMALITRADE:

No one can understand Alan Greenspan!

Asim,

Stop playing to the politically correct indoctrinated masses. I have to admit that is a good Jihad strategy since we in the West have lost all discernment. However, you will not fool me. I know the true history of Islam as apposed to the PC version taught by most Universities who receive loads of money from the Muslim world and do not want to offend the hand that gives them huge amounts of cash. I also know how Muhammad modeled Islam and it was consistent with what the Qur'an and the Haddiths teach.

Muhammad said, "I have been ordered to fight until the whole world says" 'there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet'"

ASIM:

I am sure it is only an oversight on your part but I notice in all of your items your grammar is skewed - you never properly capitalize the words israel or jew. Being the fair-minded and worldly "American Muslim" you claim to be I am sure you will correct your unintentional slights.

Dear Dr. Livingstone:

Read this RECENT article.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html

In it, you read that Alan Greenspan just announced that the Iraq war was about oil. The article also quotes the new estimate for Iraqi civilians killed due to the war.

"Greenspan's damning comments about the war come as a survey of Iraqis, which was released last week, claims that up to 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels."

YES, that's 1.2 million! See how generous I was!

Pablo:

My boy, will you never learn?

BILLINJERSEY:

The people in power in Afghanistan are no different from the people in power in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egygt et al. They use religion to control their populace and I do ascribe to them the fanaticism of their proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Kuds, Revolutionary Guards, Taliban, Islamic Jihad).

I don't believe the propaganda that radicals are only a minority of Mulims. The reason the majority "moderate" Mulims don't speak out against terrorism is because.... it is not so bad as long as they are killing Jews or Americans or Westerners. Silence is support.

If the Arab world is so concerned about the Palestineians why don't they let them live as citizens rather than keep them in refugee camps?

billinjersey,

I am not talking about acts that are done in the name of Christianity that are in conflict with the words of Jesus. I am against those also. The Qur'an and the example of the prophet unquestionably support Jihad (war) against all infidels. Again you have made a bunch of unsupported statements that mirror what is fed to the masses through the media and our universities but prove what you are saying. What you are saying is popular but that does not make it true.

Hadia,
Thanks for an objective and coherent narrative of the state of affairs of US/Muslim realtions and how to solve the problem.
But with AIPAC and 43/forty three jewish members of congress,it looks like a tall order to turn around this flawed and biased US foreign policy.

We American Muslims should continue to speak out and vote en masse to change that policy where US national interests are served as a priority-unlike the israeli lobby which has no proiority except the blind support for israel and its lengthy and brutal occupation in Palestine-the longest in modern history.

Hadia,
Thanks for an objective and coherent narrative of the state of affairs of US/Muslim realtions and how to solve the problem.
But with AIPAC and 43/forty three jewish members of congress,it looks like a tall order to turn around this flawed and biased US foreign policy.

We American Muslims should continue to speak out and vote en masse to change that policy where US national interests are served as a priority-unlike the israeli lobby which has no proiority except the blind support for israel and its lengthy and brutal occupation in Palestine.

The murder of kaab upon the orders of Muhammad.

Kab b. al—Ashraf had a mixed ancestry. His father came from a nomadic Arab tribe, but his mother was a Jew from the powerful al—Nadir tribe in Medina.

He lived as a member of his mother's tribe. He heard about the Muslim victory at the battle of Badr, and he was disgusted, for he thought Muhammad the newcomer to Medina was a trouble—maker and divisive.

Kab had the gift of poetry, and after the Battle of Badr he traveled down to Mecca, apparently stopping by Badr, witnessing the aftermath. Arriving in Mecca, he wrote a widely circulated poem, a hostile lament, over the dead of Mecca.

Angered by the poems and now able to strike back after the Battle of Badr, Muhammad had had enough. He asked, 'Who would rid me of [Kab]?' This was Muhammad's way of getting other human beings murdered.

Five Muslims volunteered, one of whom was Kab's foster—brother named Abu Naila. They informed him, 'O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.'

He answered, 'Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.'

After deceitfully gaining Kab's trust over time, a Muslim yelled to the four other murderers, 'Smite the enemy of God!' Though outnumbered, Kab mounted a strong defense, so their swords were ineffective. Finally, one of the conspirators remembered his dagger, stabbed Kab in the belly, and then bore it down until it reached his genitals, killing him.

They made it back to Muhammad. They saluted the prophet as he stood praying, and he came out to them. They told him that the mission was accomplished. A reliable Muslim historian Tabari (d. 923) reports that the five Muslim thugs severed Kab's head and brought it to Muhammad.

This sheds light on the gloriously peaceful Muhammad.

ASIM:

Your position is exactly why I support the U.S. military.

There is a lot of explaining here about why there is so much tension between the Islamic world and America. Fine. HOWEVER, in the other direction, there is just as much tension between the Islamic world and Hindu India, which could not be more different than America. Maybe there is something wrong with the way the Islamic people relate to non-Islamic people. Why is it always everyone else who is wrong? There are just too many conflicts in too many places to say that Islam is innocent in all of this. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

In response to ironman, I would say that you are taking a view espoused by a minority of Muslims and attributing it to all Muslims. In so doing, you are playing into the hands of the very people that you claim to oppose. That was not a problem in WWII; the countries we were fighting were actually under the control of the people whose ideologies were evil. That is not the case today (though it was the case in Afghanistan), and we should not treat the Islamic world in a way that causes it to become the case.

In response to Pablo, the major flaw in Christianity is evidenced by your email: it is the idea that Christians are right and everyone else is wrong. If you think Christianity is not a bloody religion, you should relearn your history. The last time Christian churches were really in charge of countries, we had the wars of the Reformation, and before that the suppression of the Cathars, the crusades, etc., etc. (Oh, by the way, the Jews were no better when they were in power; read Deuteronomy.)

Asim

Kashmir is not under Indian occupation. It is an integral part of India and joined India according to the rules of the Partition. had referendums been taken in Sindh and Punjab, both would have opted for India. But because he knew that he would lose, Jinnah did not allow referendums in these two provinces.

Regarding repression of Kashmiris, the are not repressed. India has every right to kill those Muslims who take up arms against India. Hindus have been driven out of the Valley and only arms will they be able to return.

Part Two.
How to solve this problem:

1// For the US to cleanse its soul and free itself from the yoke of the Israeli lobby and stop its vulgar and blind support to Israel while the Palestinian people continue to suffer a 60-year old occupation of all their historic Arab homeland under an Apartheid regime of a militaristic racist jewish theorcay; A clear separation of US national interests from those of the jewish apartheid state is long overdue and urgent: the interests of the two diverge greatly and are essentially mutually exclusive. Israel has proven to be a strategic liability for the US and the source of all tension and conflict in the ME.

2// The war on, the invasion and destruction of Iraq relates very closely to Israel which, along with AIPAC, very zealously promoted that war on Iraq-and is agitating for another on Iran so it can maintain hegemony over the region thru its nuclear arsenal which is scarring states like Iran to seeking a nuclear weapon to avoid an Israeli aggression or US invasion-the fate of its neighbor, Iraq.

3// To stop US support for dictators and despots in the Arab/Muslim world-where the people of the Arab/Muslim world are oppressed from within and from without: respectively by dictatorships at home and external occupation such as the 60-year old israeli occupation of all of historic Arab Palestine and the disastrous and uncalled for US occupation of Iraq, form without.

The Muslim people love American values which are truly compatible with their own and hence millions have immigrated to America and millions more would immigrate if they could: would not the occupied Palestinians and the dispossessed Iraqis immigrate to the US if they could-to escape the Gaza & the West Bank Concentration camps and the gates of hell in Iraq? Muslims the world over are puzzled by and need an answer for the big anomaly which is: why is not American democracy for export? And why is the US foreign policy so incongruent with the great values of American liberal democracy? US foreign policy is seen as radically unfair, controlled by the Israeli lobby and neocons-many of them are loyal to Israel-and anti-Arab and anti-Islamic.

How would Americans feel if they were Palestinians under brutal Israeli occupation for sixty years or if they were Iraqis being invaded and occupied by an unjustified US occupation?

Understanding the above grievances and projecting a fair and balanced US foreign policy will undoubtedly undermine radicalism in the Muslim world-there is absolutely nothing inherently hostile by Muslims against America or its values.
No amount of clever Marketing-Public Diplomacy-will sell a rotten and flawed product, namely a biased US foreign policy that is designed to serve Israel rather than the US national interests.

Part One.A good number of acumulated grievances deeply felt by the 1.6 billion Muslims towards the West in general and the US especially that need to be understood and addressed in order to deal effectively with US/Muslim relations: essentially Arabs/Muslims are oppressed from within and from without, by dictators and despots at home who are supported, nurtured and protected especially by the US and the west generally AND externally by the anomalous creation of a racist apartheid jewish theocracy in the heart of the Arab world and robbing the whole region from its resources, stability and peace; by the genocide of Bosnian Muslims and oppression of Kosovo Muslims, by Russian decimation of Muslim Chechnya, Indian military occupation of Muslim Kashmir, Ethiopian occupation of large chunks of Somalia-Ogaden region-and present occupation of Somalia…and the list of accumulated Muslim grievances is endless with the Crusaders, the Inquisition and Colonialism and brute military intervention at every turn as a background.

Polemists in the guise of historians such as the jewish Bernard Lewis who fabricated the grand lie in his book” What went wrong,” claiming that the decline of the Muslim world after the fall of the Ottoman empire-1918- and the rise of the west, causing frustration of Muslims and jealousy of the success of the west-is the cause of all the problems and violence!!!
Essentially his false theory-which is the basis of Huntington’s so called clash of civilizations-is designed primarily to distract from the main cause of Muslim resentment of the west, namely the 60-year old jewish occupation of all of Arab Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians who either still live in refugee camps or in large concentration camps-Gaza and the West Bank to this very moment.

GW Bush repeated like a parrot the false claims of B Lewis"they hate us because of our values." Lewis and Henry Kissinger are regular visitors to the White House to advise Bush:their benchmark is Israeli intersts.

Ms. (Professor?) Hadia Mubarak,

With all due respect, you got this all wrong.

It is not the Muslim world that has a problem, it is America that has a problem with the a nexus that includes the 'Muslim world' (I mean, really MUSLIM WORLD, not just Middle East plus Pakistan but also Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, the 150 million Indian Muslims, the Muslims of Nigeria and Tanzania, etc.), plus countries like Venezuela, Brazil, China, Russia, plus the other countries of the Non-aligned movement. What is America's problem? Its stubborn pursuit of hegemony and unipolarity at world geostrategic level. There today is ample evidence, substantiated and supported by military generals on the ground, war and logistics analysts in military academies, researchers in the military hardware equipment-development and military software programme development fields, military hardware producers and other defence analysts, that this is not sustainable. Just before the Iraq invasion, the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson who had been awarded the Templeton Prize in Religious Understanding and Science gave his acceptance lecture in which he warned President Bush that a simple scientific thought-experiment would convince him, in the intimacy of his own internal dialogue with himself, that, in a three-dimensional world, a viable stable structure has to be at least tripolar. He analyzed the stupendous possibilities for the enhancement of human welfare being opened by the cutting-edge scientific endeavours of this beginning of the third millennium. He evoked the reality of “quantum dots”, physical matter formed of atoms from which the nucleus had been teased out by means of computer-assisted techniques (described in the book “Hacking Matter” by Wil McCarthy), which can be, and actually have been, at lab level, moulded into nano-objects like a table that, because the absence of the nucleus enormously enhances the plasticity of this new material, can be transformed into a chair by the mere switch of an electric current! Mr. Freeman invited President Bush to consider investing the billions that were likely to be swallowed by a thoroughly inhuman war whose outcome was uncertain into scientific research instead. He even foresaw, early on and anti-cynical as a good scientist can be, that the real motive for war might be what Alan Greenspan yesterday told us that we all know (knew, all along, did we not?) but are too cowardly to explicitly tell out – oil. And he accordingly assured President Bush that these new technologies were highly likely to produce plentiful energy at low cost albeit with significant up-front investment in research, to make worries about depletion of fuel fossil energy disappear and, what’s more, help arrest climate deterioration both by virtue of the new energy sources but also new technologies to reverse climate change. But greed and bravado had the better of wisdom and prudence.

Next, why a US problem with Muslims more particularly than others? Two reasons, essentially – first, the ME is almost totally Muslim (except for Israel, and that factor also explains much else) and has the largest concentration of oil resources relative to any other part of the world; secondly, the Islamic sense of human solidarity (’Asbiya in Arabic – read Peter Turchin’s book titled War&Peace&War, Pi Press, NY 2006) and democracy (Yes!) flies in the face of both Western ‘rugged individualism’ Ayn Rand-style and representative democracy as distinct from Islamic communitarianism and ijtihaad democracy. Because of these two factors, there had all along existed a project to defeat ‘Godless communism’ before the end of the millennium (that’s the end-time/evangelism twist to geostrategic calculations and machinations), and the opportunity to sell this ‘grand strategy’ to a mostly-gullible-but-partly-venally-complicit group within the Muslim world arose out of the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet Union’s criminal succumbing to the temptation to invade Afghanistan, with encouragement, let us not forget, from Indira Gandhi’s India. The rest as Alan Greenspan says, we all know too well: the instrumentation of Islam and mujahideen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, with subgrade weapons sold to these mujahideens to fight and therefore, their honour engaged, their decision to pay the cost of becoming willing cannon-fodder for the minced-meat-like war machine of the Russians as the price to be paid to win and salvage their honour. What happens after it’s over? Two things could have happened – a sultanate under Mullah Omar in Afghanistan that would eventually lay its hands on Caspian oil, or the US wresting control of the oil and the mujahideen becoming as barbaric as their even more barbaric American manipulators. We know which scenario materialized.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not demonizing anybody. Had it not been a US demon, we could have had an ‘Afghan sultanate’ demon, a Soviet demon, or even an Iranian or Indian demon (don’t forget that Indira’s India encouraged the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and later did not hesitate to mass one million troops on the border with Pakistan, probably around the time when, we later learned, Pakistan was threatened of being bombed back to the stone age!)

Next and finally, the faith dimension. Ms Mubarak is right that Islam, Christianity and Judaism have a lot in common. Psychologist know that it is the intensity of shared experience and outlook on life that cause both the most violent conflict and the most sublime and constructive cooperation. We are in the first-mentioned mode and we want to get to the second-mentioned mode. How do we get from here to there? In a situation of conflict the first gesture of appeasement has always to be done by the stronger party, otherwise we have appeasement only by attrition (As Metternich said: ‘they make a desert and they call it peace’). That first gesture must come from America and it must take the form of -- explicit or implicit but sincere – acknowledgement that the time of unipolarity is over and a multipolar world order is already in the making. Once this mindset is established, it will be necessary to define the roles of at least six major players in a new world geostrategic order – the US, the EU, the Muslim world (grosso modo), the Shanghai Cooperation Organistion (SCO), India (maybe, maybe not, including Pakistan), and Latin America (especially the Brazil/ArgentinaVenezuela nexus). None need necessarily be antagonist to the other, as Freeman Dyson rightly points out, but any realist, not necessarily military, will tell you that there will still be rivalries and one-upmanship and the possibility or actuality of war, cold or hellish, will always be there. But multipolarity will ensure that reason and prudence weigh more in military adventurism than unipolarity ever could.

In his prescient 1999 book “Unholy Wars”, Stephen K. Cooley repeatedly warns how tragic it will be for humanity if, in the West’s pursuit of global dominance, Islam replaces the Soviet Union as ‘the Satanic foe’. By defining the game more broadly to include other countries’ aspirations, this zero-sum, apocalyptic predicament can be sublimated into a more humane agenda.

Everything is the fault of non-Moslems -- American policy, colonialism, Israel, you name it, just not Islam or Moslems themselves. They are always innocent victims -- even though they are murdering non-Moslems every day in more than a dozen countries as I write this.
Hadia Mubarak writes:
"The truth is that people of all walks of life have the same aspirations.."
This is plainly false and plainly anti-Islamic according to all Islamic scholars and religious authorities. Some people aspire to enjoy life, some people aspire to alleviate human suffering in the world, some people aspire to become rich, some people aspire to serve Allah, etc. Moslems are supposed to aspire to serve Allah, which makes their aspirations quite different from those of non-Moslems.
The root of the tension between Islam and non-Islam is right in the Koran which has a great many verses calling for contempt, hatred and violence toward non-Moslems. Here are just five of those many verses:

"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve." (8.55)

"The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy." (4:101)

"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (48:29).

"Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends." (5:51)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (8:40)

The hadith (sayings by and about Muhammad) are even worse, and they are considered just as sacred for religious Moslems as the Koran which is considered Allah's literal word -- perfect, complete, immutable and valid for all of eternity.

Islamic values are NOT compatible with western civilization, and the best, most convincing proof of that is the fact that NONE of the Moslem-majority countries have signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All 57 of the Moslem countries signed on to their own "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam" which makes the Sharia ( Islamic law based on the Koran and Hadith) the only source of "rights" and laws.

Until Ms Mubarak and the Moslem religious establishment deal with these theological issues, there can be no solution to the clash of civilizations. It is Islam, in the Koran, which declared war on non-Moslems 1400 years ago, not the other way around. Islam still has not called off this war.

A good number of acumulated grievances deeply felt by the 1.6 billion Muslims towards the West in general and the US especially that need to be understood and addressed in order to deal effectively with US/Muslim relations: essentially Arabs/Muslims are oppressed from within and from without, by dictators and despots at home who are supported, nurtured and protected especially by the US and the west generally AND externally by the anomalous creation of a racist apartheid jewish theocracy in the heart of the Arab world and robbing the whole region from its resources, stability and peace; by the genocide of Bosnian Muslims and oppression of Kosovo Muslims, by Russian decimation of Muslim Chechnya, Indian military occupation of Muslim Kashmir, Ethiopian occupation of large chunks of Somalia-Ogaden region-and present occupation of Somalia…and the list of accumulated Muslim grievances is endless with the Crusaders, the Inquisition and Colonialism and brute military intervention at every turn as a background.

Polemists in the guise of historians such as the jewish Bernard Lewis who fabricated the grand lie in his book” What went wrong,” claiming that the decline of the Muslim world after the fall of the Ottoman empire-1918- and the rise of the west, causing frustration of Muslims and jealousy of the success of the west-is the cause of all the problems and violence!!!
Essentially his false theory-which is the basis of Huntington’s so called clash of civilizations-is designed primarily to distract from the main cause of Muslim resentment of the west, namely the 60-year old jewish occupation of all of Arab Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians who either still live in refugee camps or in large concentration camps-Gaza and the West Bank to this very moment.

GW Bush repeated like a parrot the false claims of B Lewis"they hate us because of our values." Lewis and Henry Kissinger are regular visitors to the White House to advise Bush:their benchmark is Israeli intersts.

How to solve this problem:

1// For the US to cleanse its soul and free itself from the yoke of the Israeli lobby and stop its vulgar and blind support to Israel while the Palestinian people continue to suffer a 60-year old occupation of all their historic Arab homeland under an Apartheid regime of a militaristic racist jewish theorcay; A clear separation of US national interests from those of the jewish apartheid state is long overdue and urgent: the interests of the two diverge greatly and are essentially mutually exclusive. Israel has proven to be a strategic liability for the US and the source of all tension and conflict in the ME.

2// The war on, the invasion and destruction of Iraq relates very closely to Israel which, along with AIPAC, very zealously promoted that war on Iraq-and is agitating for another on Iran so it can maintain hegemony over the region thru its nuclear arsenal which is scarring states like Iran to seeking a nuclear weapon to avoid an Israeli aggression or US invasion-the fate of its neighbor, Iraq.

3// To stop US support for dictators and despots in the Arab/Muslim world-where the people of the Arab/Muslim world are oppressed from within and from without: respectively by dictatorships at home and external occupation such as the 60-year old israeli occupation of all of historic Arab Palestine and the disastrous and uncalled for US occupation of Iraq, form without.

The Muslim people love American values which are truly compatible with their own and hence millions have immigrated to America and millions more would immigrate if they could: would not the occupied Palestinians and the dispossessed Iraqis immigrate to the US if they could-to escape the Gaza & the West Bank Concentration camps and the gates of hell in Iraq? Muslims the world over are puzzled by and need an answer for the big anomaly which is: why is not American democracy for export? And why is the US foreign policy so incongruent with the great values of American liberal democracy? US foreign policy is seen as radically unfair, controlled by the Israeli lobby and neocons-many of them are loyal to Israel-and anti-Arab and anti-Islamic.

How would Americans feel if they were Palestinians under brutal Israeli occupation for sixty years or if they were Iraqis being invaded and occupied by an unjustified US occupation?

Understanding the above grievances and projecting a fair and balanced US foreign policy will undoubtedly undermine radicalism in the Muslim world-there is absolutely nothing inherently hostile by Muslims against America or its values.
No amount of clever Marketing-Public Diplomacy-will sell a rotten and flawed product, namely a biased US foreign policy that is designed to serve Israel rather than the US national interests.

Which 2008 candidate is most sympathetic to muslims?

I am not a religious bigot when I say that Islam must reform; in fact, it will reform. A society in which one and only one point view prevails is by definition, unfair and unjust. It is unfair and unjust to the substantial part of the population who do not agree with the required belief, but who must pretend to believe or else risk trouble.

Why should women be modest so that men's passions are not arroused? Why should women be imprisoned in complicated clothing and not be allowed to be as free as men, who are. in fact, themselves, not very free?

Islam is a narrow, arrogant, and intolerant relgion and lifestyle. It is in conflict not just with Europe and America; it is in conflict with Hindu-India, and in fact, with any cutlure or system that it bumps up against, that is not Islamic.

Islamic terrorsts are, for the most part, not really the poor and underprivileged; they are more often the well-to-do, and well-educated, whom Islam leads down a very strange path of paranoia and ultimately to existential nihilsm. I do not think my fear and opposition to this kind of thinking should earn me the label "relgious bigot."

Hadi

You are escaping from thetrue nature of the cause of Islamic terrorism. The true reason is Islam because Muhammad who founded Islam was a a violent man, a criminal.

Here is an incident related in Sirat RasulAllah , the first biography of Muhammad. It relates the murder of the poetess Asma bint Marwan who used to verbally criticize the prophet but never used violence.

Asma was an Arab poetess. She composed a poem blaming Meccans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. In March 624, when the Allah—inspired Prophet heard what she had said, he asked, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?'

A follower of Muhammad volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.

The next day Muhammad praised the killer who had carried out the murder at the behest of Muhammad.

Here we go again, more "wishy wash Islamic speak" from another "liberal" Muslim.

And to reiterate the fix for the problems in the Middle East bypassing said "wishy wash".

The question: "To what extent are problems in the Middle East about religion and to what extent are they about politics? Does it matter?

I would add "and to what extent are they about water supplies?

The answer: All three with the religious problems/foundation flaws feeding the political and water problems.

How to fix???

Recognize the flaws in the foundations of said religions:

The flaws:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

3. Mohammed, the "holey not holy hallucinator, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pwtfft"s and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics. And who funds these acts of terror? Islamic Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

How to fix? Rewrite the OT, NT and Koran in historical terms.

Next???

Turn control of Jerusalem and the water supplies in the area over to the UN.

Use the current oil/blood/terror profits of Iran, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, etc. to fund water desalination plant construction throughout the Mideast.

billinjersey,

What exactly are the flaws in Christian thought? How dare you draw a moral equvilence between Christianity and Islam. You do not know what you are talking about. Again this is the dribble that in being taught in our universities and spewed by most of the media. When Muslims murder in the name of Islam the are in complete accordance with the Qur'an and the example of the prophet. Muhammad recorded:

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 9:5).

If a so-called Christian murders in the name of Christianity he or she is in conflict with Jesus who said "turn the other cheek."

Before you say another word prove what I have said is wrong and stop going on hearsay and propaganda from the left and the Christian hating Universities here in the USA.

BILLINJERSEY:

The problem I have with your item is that it goes back to the old "every argument has two sides" and the tired "America invades countries it doesn't agree with".

How would your use your thesis on WWII? Would you speak up for the militaristic Nazi and Japanese values of world domination? Did we invade and level germany and Japan because we did not "agree" with them?

At some point you need to take a stand with what is right and expose what is wrong. Mullah Omar and his ilk are illiterate thugs bent on power and domination.

Does anyone think if they gain control of a Califate we will see moderation, modernity and peace?

P.S. I was born and raised in Jersey so I am on your side!

Sue Ellen
is that your best argument? first of all i did not specify who i support or dont support.
what i am saying is let it be! dont intervene dont interfere. you've got to be kidding me when you say Isreal is the best friend the palestinians have even have!! seriously that is the sillest thing i have ever heard.

jncc1701,

You make a lot of unsupported statements; therefore, I cannot take you seriously. You sound like you have been programmed by the anti-Christian media and educational institutions in the West (For proof watch the news and attend a university). These Western Institutions seem to forget that the West and namely the USA was built on a Judeo reformation based Christianity that saw all men as created equal (Note: this does not mean all beliefs are equal). This foundation allowed for free thought and expression. It also allowed for freedom and entrepreneurism. No anti God system can be successful as seen in the God hating triplets Socialism, Marxism, and Communism.

It seems there needs to be an Islamic reformation that properly diminishes the role of mullahs in modern society. The rest of the world moved on a thousand years ago and Islam still believes in a life/death struggle against infidels.

How about expending some of that fervor on building something rather than destroying everything. Perhaps a paved road, or a sewer.

1) Ms. Mubarak is right about the polls. All the polls agree that the principle beef against us in the (nonoverlapping) Arab and Islamic worlds is the fact that we financially underwrite the Israeli government; assist in the harsh represssion of dissent and elections (Iran, Palestine, Egypt, etc.); invade countries we don't like (Iraq, Lebanon, etc.); and represent our own economic interests against their national self-interest (Dubai, Libya, etc.) "They" hate us (to the extent they do) for these policies, and not for our freedom. Moreover, these are not policies that we adopted yesterday; they go back unchanged for decades.

2) Given our vast power and the fact that we have intervened repeatedly in the region, it is quite easy for citizens of the region (including, I suspect, Ms. Mubarak) to blame us even for the things we do not do. For example, we are not responsible for the repression in Algeria or Morocco, but I am sure that many Algerians and Moroccans think we are.

3) What she is trying to say, and what most commenters here have missed, is that there are two sides to every story. Sure, there are flaws in Islam as a system of thought. There are flaws in Christianity as a system of thought. To the extent the west has overcome them it is not because Christianity is different from islam; it is because we have (wisely) limited the power and influence of religion. There appears to be no good mechanism for doing that in Islamic culture. But if we're looking at this from the perspective of what we can do to resolve the problem, the last thing we should worry about are the flaws in Islam. What we should do is take the beam out of our own eye before worrying about the mote in our neighbor's eye.

Dear Somalitrade:

It would be refreshing if muslims like you received your information from sources other than the semi-literate rubes who preach in your mosques. You now claim that there are more dead in Iraq than during the entire Iran-Iraq War which involved large army groups confronting each other. Please state your evidence or was this some more information fed to you from the madrass?

This is typical Moslem propagandist garbage. Everything is the fault of non-Moslems -- Ameican policy, colonialism, Israel, you name it, just not Islam or Moslems themselves. They are always innoccent victims -- even though they are murdering non-Moslems every day in more than a dozen countries as I write this.
Hadia Mubarak writes:
"The truth is that people of all walks of life have the same aspirations.."
This is plainly false and plainly anti-Islamic according to all Islamic scholars and religious authorities. Some people aspire to enjoy life, some people aspite to alleviate human suffering in the world, some people aspire to become rich, some people aspire to serve Allah, etc. Moslems are supposed to aspire to serve Allah, which makes their aspirations quite different from those of non-Moslems.
The root of the tension between Islam and non-Islam is right in the Koran which has a great many verses calling for contempt, hatred and violence toward non-Moslems. Here are just five of those many verses:

"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve." (8.55)

"The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy." (4:101)

"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (48:29).

"Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends." (5:51)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (8:40)

The hadith (sayings by and about Muhammad) are even worse, and they are considered just as sacred for religious Moslems as the Koran which is considered Allah's literal word -- perfect, complete, immutable and valid for all of eternity.

Islamic values are NOT compatible with western civilization, and the best, most convincing proof of that is the fact that NONE of the Moslem-majority countries have signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All 57 of the Moslem countries signed on to their own "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam" which makes the Sharia ( Islamic law based on the Koran and Hadith) the only source of "rights" and laws.

Until Ms Mubarak and the Moslem religious establishment deal with these theological issues, there can be no solution to the clash of civilizations. It is Islam, in the Koran, which declared war on non-Moslems 1400 years ago, not the other way around. Islam still has not called off this war.

The author has the odd idea that it is somehow America's problem to resolve the "...legitimate grievances of millions living in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, and Lebanon.." It may be worth remembering the idiom that "you get the government you deserve".
If the millions don't like their government - do something about it other than whine for us to solve your problems.

There is no economic or scientific development without separation of religion and state, and the Middle East will remain in the shadow of the West until it figures this out.

Islam seems incapable of creating a separate secular world view, while some parts of Christianity seems to be forgetting its tradition of "giving to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's"

Religion be it Christian or Islam is based largely on myths similar to Greek stories of Zeus. And have as much relevance to the issues faced by humanity today.

We ignore our secular foundations to our peril.

Religion is a way to control individuals who are too afraid to assume responsibility for their own lives or the problems of the human condition.

Matters of faith are best left to a person's private moments and not be the basis for public policy, be it abortion or veils.

Economic problems cannot be solved by war, religion, or morality tails.

The fact that this OnFaith site even exists shows we have a long way to go to free ourselves from the hold of these ancient stories, and the subsequent chaos it brings to our day to day existence.

Throwing numbers like 1 million out w/o facts to back them is is simply emotional outburst. Just a reminder; Saddam Hussein killed about 300,000 or so Iraqis and this has been well documented in mass graves. How come no Arab or muslim every spoke up against this? How come no one openly criticizes Ahmedinejad or what is happening in Darfur? Where is the outrage? Why do muslims not speak openly against what is happening in the tribal regions of Pakistan where radicals and jihadis are continuing to gather from around the world. Why do muslims not condemn the govt sanctioned beheadings in Saudi Arabia or suppression of women in the Kingdom of Saud?Granted the rest of the world is not perfect. The policies of the Rest of the World are also not perfect. But Arabs and Muslims cannot hand their hat on that. That is simply a cop out. America and many other nations have not had the best relations over decades. But the other nations have not spiralled down into this abyss.

Not all civilizations are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves and others up in the name of Allah. You are no victim your Qur'an and the example of your false prophet is the problem. If the Muslim world would renounce the Qur'an and the Haddiths then we would see change.

Yes your people are oppressed. Yes your governments are all dirty. Yes your world is tribal. Yes the intellectual muslims are scattered and the stone aged, uneducated, millitant religious are in total control of muslim life around the globe.

You want us to ask why? I'll tell you because we have. HATE and VIOLENCE are the paths that your leaders have chosen since 1948.

The response to your hate and violence was... no suprise.. hate and violence in return.

The difference is we in the west are not intentionally oppressing women, killing people who believe something different from their neighbors, do not force people to go to pray, do not kill our neighbors for singing at home, do not instruct our children in schools that muslims are the devil, do not equate every crime on earth with a particular religion as muslims do in the middle east.

Yes muslims want to be equal and dignified. But the actions of the mullah forfeit any dignity with their words of hate and death in the mosque.
WHERE ARE THE MODERATE MUSLIMS?

Chased off into the wilderness, and drowned out by the haters, is where.

Yes we need to end ignorance and poverty in the muslim world. Muslims need to remove hate in the process as well and overthrow their leaders in the mosque who demand and instigate hatred, and justification of violence.

Peace be upon you.

Frankly, what moslems need in their religion and their relationship with the west is less of what Ms Mubarak seems to be offering :politics or "socio-political-economical"mushi mushi, and more of what it really is about , which is theology.

Instead what Ms Mubarak offers ,is a combination of both, a combination that is usually deadly. If we want to talk religion, let's talk theology, and let the three abrahamic religions sort it out and find a common ground between the three representations of Gods,angels etc... If we were to leave the dialogue between the three religions to theologians, we would do much better.

Ms Mubarak says she is an American Muslim who belongs to both "parts of the world". what parts? geographical, political? theological? What does it mean to be an American Muslim? I am fed up with this kind of talk where words belonging to one realm are used in another. Only poets do this. But if you are looking at solving the problems of poverty, democracy etc..., let us use the appropriate words. Let us talk conscensus, money, business , loans etc... not this endless mushi mushi about faith, identity etc... How about we start by defining terms that we use? what is the "historical, socio-political, and economic landscape" of the middle east? The only landscape I see is religious people who are misappropriataing the langage..

EMMY dear:

Over 1 million civilians in Iraq alone were killed. Abuse cases in prisons, to women, and recently as bluntly as killing civilians outright by soldiers and security companies! I wonder, what kind of a bitter taste this leave in most of the muslim world? Who should be blamed for this? I wish that you and others on this board lift the mask and stop getting your info from the media. Thinking on ones own is a healthy practice. But don't go too far as your ex-president Carter when he tried to expose the real situation in the middle east in his book. He was rediculed, cursed on TV, and designated a lunatic by whom you might consider american heroes by today's standards. Democracy today in US is not based on a vote per illegible citizen, but rather a muzzle for every citizen. US today reminds me of the middle east of the past and present. No wonder the CIA was sending prisoners to these countries for interrogations (wink wink!)!

What a load of twaddle from this "intellectual" satrap of the Salafists. Apparently these darling, precious muslimns are completely blameless. If you vote for Hamas, if you vote for Hezbollah, if you support the Salafist agenda then prepare for war, because this is what we will give you. Why is it that the Salafists scream for holy war and then sh.t their pants when it is served up to them boiling hot, like in Somalia?

I love how no one is responsible for their own bad behavior or poor choices. It's always someone else's fault. If you feel oppressed by someone, take a page out of Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr.'s playbook. Don't spread hate, blow up innocents, abuse women and blame it on the West or Israel.

Adil,

The people you speak of that live in Israel voted for Hamas whose goal is the geocide of the jews. Please tell me why any decent person should support them. As you know, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait and Egypt and Syria have REFUSED to allow these people to become citizens. Why is that??

Second, these people preach and practice the worst forms of misogyny on the planet. They also send 5 year children to be cannon fodder. Israel and the Jews are basically the only friends these people have. You, are not friend of their by supporting them as terrorists. And if you support Hamas and Fatah they you support geocide of the Jews, and that will not ever, ever, happen again. You can take that to the bank.

I want to hear a lot less whining about "religious bigotry" and a lot more about both sides cleaning up their own houses. US policies in the region are, undoubtedly, our own worst enemy. But what those policies have stirred up IS, in fact, a very ugly version of Islam - and one that HAS been tacitly supported by Muslim moderates. Are Arab problems all our fault? Absolutely not. Arab dictators are the ones keeping Arabs down, not the US and Israel. But we make it all too easy for them to point at us as the problem. Bottom line - we can slap all the military and political bandaids on this we want, but we won't get a "cure" until we adopt a serious energy policy.
Remove the fuel and the fire goes out.
Still, let's not deny that there IS a fire, and that the face of modern Islam is not very pretty right now. Is it a reaction to powerlessness? Yes. Is it an ugly reaction? Also yes.

Now what!? You people cry on everything now. You won't accept anything outside what your priests, Rves and CNN/FOX/..etc news team would tell you. Someone comes forward to clean your heads from the prejudice you have against anything islamic, yet you keep demanding that your distorted views on Islam be the main ground for discussions. I know that you have tremendous doubts of your faiths and your religous systems, but how attacking others and flipping the truth about them would help you reconcile that doubt?

Doubts nither add nor subtract anything from the truth, and truth isn't what you read, hear, and see on the media. Truth is not what you hope it is either, thinking perhaps with all your problems you still are a bit better than everyone else. If you want to know the truth about Islam, go read the Quran and seek its interpretation. Afterall, if what's said in the media is true, you should find it there and it will be a win-win situation for you! It is all about how high your standards of thinking are!

Bill
what policies fuel that anger here are some for you
how about supporting isreal over the palistenians. how is that>>> count the number of vetos used by the US to block any sanction, any rebuke directed at Isreal.
how about supporting the arabs corrupt dictator ships>
how about shutting down any democratic effort made by the indiginous people!
is that enough for you?

This is just another version of the "moderate Muslim" myth. Of course there are moderate i.e. non-violent, non-Western hating Muslims but the source of international terrorism is the large Islamic minority of extremists and the support and passivity of the "moderate" Muslims. One cannot logically argue that terrorism is caused by political alienation. The Taliban in Afghanistan want a medieval theocracy and are killing the supporters of the elected "democratic" govt. One cannot logically argue that terrorism is caused by economic deprivation.Islamic terrorists have attacked Saudi Arabia,a cradle to grave welfare state (most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis). Of course Palestinians are opposed to the U.S. support of Israel, but how does that explain Iranian hostility to the U.S. on other than extreme religious based animosity to Western values and freedoms. If the basis for Islamic/Western conflict is not a "clash of civilizations" how does one explain riots in Indonesia and other parts of the world over the Danish cartoons which represented a harsh rejection of the Western ideal of freedom of the press? The Shia/Sunni mutual atrocities in Iraq are based on tribalism and religious intolerance from another age which have nothing to do with the foreign policies of the West. It is simply too easy to blame "colonialism", Western policies, and social conditions for this intolerant, religious and culturally based hatred.

Muslims have allowed fellow muslims to convert Islam into a vessel for terrorism and mayhem, death and destruction. The biggest enemy that muslims have is Islamists and Islamism being taught by Saudi and by Fatah and Hamas and Hezbollah.

The author notes:
"There is only the reality of facts on the ground, which is that people living in the Middle East want some respite; they want a chance to breathe without wondering whether their kids will come home from school maimed or dead; they want sovereignty and the right to govern themselves. They want justice and equality, not a corrupt system where nepotism and bribery are people’s only credentials into office. They want to live a life of dignity, away from the security checkpoints, curfews and the daily humiliations that comprise their everyday existence."

Well the simple fact is that it is Muslims and Muslim governments that are causing 98% of the issues she notes. She should be addressing her concerns to the leadership of Fatah that currently teaches hate and murder to muslim children, that mocks the USA and applauds the murder that took place on 9/11; she should be asking why the muslims have received trillions of dollars in oil revenue and yet many of their people are still in dire poverty. She should ask why it is so common for muslims to be so hateful of non-muslims. And she must confront what Ms. Hirsi Ali has so eloquently stated and that is, is the current verions of Islam being widely practiced alien to human rights, decency and peacefully living with others who are not forcibly converted or murdered

I thirst for a sensible discussion on how we can solve the stupidity of war and bigotry. I think Ms. Mubarak's post is a nice place to start.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that MY solutions will fix YOUR problems. It is the height of hypocracy to assume that my solutions have fixed my problems (am I now perfect? NOT!)

I think that we do all want the same things -- to be able to worship our God however we want (or not) in peace, to raise our children in safety, to be productive and have a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. So, I agree with Ms. Mubarek in that sense.

A couple questions for her or anyone else who has the answers:

"In fact, a recent poll by Gallup demonstrates that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is not driven by hatred of U.S. values, but hatred of U.S. policies in the region, which can be addressed without compromising U.S. interests in the region." Which policies? Yes, we have royally screwed up by supporting despots and encouraging revolutions (and then looking the other way when the locals get killed). But, what should we do differently? What policies should we fix?

"There is only the reality of facts on the ground, which is that people living in the Middle East want some respite; they want a chance to breathe without wondering whether their kids will come home from school maimed or dead; they want sovereignty and the right to govern themselves. They want justice and equality, not a corrupt system where nepotism and bribery are people’s only credentials into office. They want to live a life of dignity, away from the security checkpoints, curfews and the daily humiliations that comprise their everyday existence." And whose "fault" is it that people in the MIddle East do not have these things? While we certainly inflamed the Suni/Shia hatred in Iraq but, if we were not there, would they love each other?

What will it take for people all over the world to respect one another and not think that "My God is better than YOUR God and, as a result, I must kill you"? When will we say as a world community, "ENOUGH!" ??

Peace.

She also utterly ignores the fact that studies repeatedly show that the most likely elements of Muslim society to be radicalized are not the poorest but the most affluent. The constituents of these terrorist groups are most often college educated and come from middle class families and up. Also the prevalenc of radicalsim among the western european muslim communities is another phenomenon she fails to take into account.

Instead just another tired, Marxist inspired cliche about poverty and circumstances, myopic entirely to the possible power of ideas. More boring, tired argument, and more boring, pathetic apologia for violent, tribal superstition.

Sure, all we have to do is to throw Israel to the dogs of Islam. The leadership in your religion demonizes Jews and advocates their extermination -- and OUR policies are the problem? Once again, a member of Islam shows the world how out of touch they are, how self-absorbed they are, and how obstinate they are about reveling in their hatred of the non-Muslim world. The problem IS Islam -- and only Islam will solve it. The problem is NOT the western world in general nor the United States in particular. Why doesn't ISLAM "heed the voices of moderation?" Look inward and solve the radicalism that infests the Muslim world first!

I wholeheartedly agree with what is said. Just let us do our thing and you do yours.

Hadia Mubarak shows the fundamental problem with the Islamic world -- this continuing inferiority complex, which manifests itself as these overbroad arguments.

Historical comparisons are always risky, but it would be akin to the United States blaming all its earlier troubles on the colonial practices of Great Britain, France and Spain. In fact, our founders and succeeding generations did just that -- but we still had to solve our own problems. Certainly, Great Britain did not abandon its national interests to make our lives easier. And with that point in mind, we are not responsible for the happiness or safety of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, and Lebanon. The people of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, and Lebanon are responsible.

The argument outlined is only partially true. Most of the Jihadis have traditionally come from countries where life is not that hopeless, if one aspires to get ahead: ie Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt. It is true that these are all dictatorships that do not allow people many basic Rights. But on that other hand, educated people and professionals go about conducting their lives in a "normal" manner in these countries. In addition, linking Arab and muslim anger to the plight of the Palestinians is also a farce. If one knows the region, Palestinian refugees in Persian Gulf are basically second class citizens in many of these countries, like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc. So, there is hypocricy there too. The challenges of the Arab community in Europe and the radicalization of the Arab youth in Europe cannot be attributed to just Western policies. At the core is a complex combination of issues that include lack of Rights, perversion of Religion, Western Policies, clash with modernity and social malaise. It is not just America's policies alone that drove thousands of Arab men to get on planes and go to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1990s.

You make a lot of noise about socio-economic condition but never once actually say what they are or their connection to terrorism. You talk of the hopes of Muslims to live comfortable prosperous lives and make lots of flowery statements that just utterly ignore the tribal brutality that governs the worldview of the average Middle Easterner. (see Iraq) You say there is no clash of civilizations but do nothing to show why. You say that it is a result of American policies in the region but don't say which ones and never even entertain the possibility that those policies might be the result of the intractable backwardness. You didn't actually say anything of substance I can see.

Religious bigotry? No it is not religious bigotry to say that such a society, which forces burkas on women, condones honor killings, suicide bombing, and which tears itself to pieces on being freed from a fascist dictator, needs to reform. In the Muslim world they have known nothing but theocracy or dictatorship and it is blindness which doesn't tie this to their religion. I don't want them to reform their religion, I want them to drop it and if they don't, it won't bother my conscience to support a fight against them because there is no coexistence with people who can construct nothing but the most brutal societies on the planet. Why would we ever give an inch to a mentality which belongs to the darkest eras of human history? You would because not to is bigotry. You are an apologist for religious fundamentalism, tribal brutality and theocracy.

www.draggedfromthebottom.blogspot.com