I heard the judge quoted as saying that since "Islam is a religion of tolerance," there would be no penalty if Abdul "reverted" to islam.

I've discussed this death threat stuff before, having made the acquaintance of a man from Germany whose Arab side of the family threatened to kill him themselves when he drifted away from islam and declared that he wasn't sure about God. On Muslim sites, they often quote someone saying "the loss of even one believer weakens the Ummah, and hurts all Muslims."

I kind of wore out my welcome by suggesting that this made Islam seem weak and worried, not the religion of warriors we like to think it is.

The fact is, as is noted in the article, the Muslims have long had tolerance for "people of the book" not Muslim, but they have no tolerance for one who has been shown the true faith and who then spits in the face of Allah by rejecting it.

Certainly not a religion that Mrs. Marmaduke Moore would want to encounter!

I don't think Abdul Rahman "Spit" in the face of Allah.

The Judeo-Christian God and Allah are the same god of Abraham. Abdul Rahman is not rejecting ALLAH/God, he is rejecting Islam and the prophet Mohammed and following the teachings of another (less important) Muslim prophet: Jesus, and accepting him as his savior.

Why does this warrant a death penalty? Because the Islam of today is not a religion of peace and tolerance (read any Wafa Sultan lately?) by western standards. Read the Qur’an, there is very little “peace� in there. But to warring, desperate tribes of the 6th century and a military leader (Mohammed) bent on unifying them (under him) it seemed peaceful enough.

The "tolerance" for the "people of the book� boils down to Dhimmitude and Jizra dues. Buddhist, Hindus, Sikhs are afforded no tolerance at all.

Gibbons was lavish in his praise for the treatment of Christians and jews in lands conquered by Muslims. The dues were justified by the fact that Christians and jews were not allowed to perform certain functions at that time (such as defense), and since they benefitted from these functions, it seems reasonable for them to pay a tax for them which would not be paid by those who could contribute more directly.

I don't like the "religion of war' type of argument, since it is shallow and superficial, much too broad and sweeping. The real question is whether Muslims are peacefull and whether those who are not are not so simply because of the religion.

Remember, the Christian bible itself is full of strife and violence, much of it sanctioned. Christians themselves have a full history of committing violence in service fo religion. Remember, the Crusades came about when theologians reinterpreted the concept of "just war," a war that was necessary for defense, for example, and replaced it with the concept of "hpoly war," a war justified because of its service to God. It was this cincept which justified the attempt to rest the holy Land from the infidel Muslims and convert them by force to Christianity.

Sound familiar? Some Muslims have re-interpreted the concept of 'jihad' from struggle to holy war. Unlike the Christians, they do not have a pope to ensure that this doctrine is held by every Christian (in the countries under the pope's authority).

It is not Christian to damn a whole religion or all of its followers because of a few.

How do you account for the fact that Muslims and Hindi have lived tpogether more or less at peace in india, or Muslims and Buddhists in Indonesia? Didn't Muslims there get the message?

Now, if the blogosphere goes according to form, someone will read this and accuse me of defending the practice of killing apostates in Islam. I am not.

First of all nowhere in Quran does it say that people are not allowed to choose their religion.Secondly. if you read Islamic history, Mohammed himself set the example at Hudabiya, when he allowed all people who had converted to Islam through fear to go back to their original religion.
As far as your comment on the less important prophet is concerned, You must see howm many times Jesus is mentioned in the Quran. More than any other prophet, and it is Jesus who is coming back on Judgement day not muhammed.
This incident is being blown out of proportion as a deliberate attempt by Fox, and people like Yolanda. Who should know fully well that the Law or Sharia is man made.
They want to promote the idea that "Because the Islam of today is not a religion of peace and tolerance"
That is in their best interest to continue a war. Afghanis have the least education per capita and are living in a war torn country for a decade, to give them as a an example of what muslims are or what Islam is, seems to me that is rather silly and ignorant.
My question to Yolanda et.al. is "what informs you that Islam of today is not a religion of peace and tolerence?

Azmat: "This incident is being blown out of proportion as a deliberate attempt by Fox, and people like Yolanda."

You know, Azmat, most of what you say is true. But i hardly think it is possible to blow the execution of a man for leaving a religion "out of proportion."

You are right to point out that Sharia law is man-made. You could further point out that not all Muslim countries o4 Muslims follow all of Shria law slavishly.

Remember, we have had executions in Nigeria under Sharia law for adultery, with a judge wryly noting that the fact that only the women involved were executed is just the way things are, due to biology. In one of these cases, the execution weas stayed several months, until the pregnant woman gave birth, because, the judge noted when passing the death sentence, "Islam is a religion which values life." I guess the judge didn't get the irony.

My German correspondent's family is from morocco. He has been back to morocco to visit some of his family. But he had to snealk in because some in his family have promised to kill him for being an apostate. In fact, he will not allow pictures of himself to be published, and has given no information about his present whereabouts, except that he is in Germany, just because he has had his life threatened there, and had to make like Salman Rushdie to avoid death.

He assures me that if he is killed byt members of his family, they would not be prosecuted in Morroco.

When you add this to all of the many fatwas against authors of books, or those who express some opinion that some cleric doesn't like, add it to such things incomprehensible to Americans like the honour killing of a teenage girl who dated, from a Muslim family in St. Louis, you should easily see that Americans can get a pretty bad picture of Muslims. After all, all of these things were justified by religion.

you would do better to express your uneasiness about things like the execution of people for being an apostate, explain these things, as you started to do here, and try to sgow where some things done in the name of religion are really an extension of old tribal practices.

To me, downplaying these abominations is as bad as trying to paint a whole religion and all of its believers with a braod and damning brush.

This shouldn't be about attack and defense. it should be about understanding.

Yeah. yeah... yadda, yadda. Blame me for all the world mishaps. I can handle it.

Av - No one argues that Muslims weren’t top notch progressive humanitarians 600 hundred years ago. 600 years ago Arabs had indoor plumbing while Brits shunned bathing for fear they’d catch cold and die. What happened to change the Arab’s superiority in the last century, is up for debate. And yes, Christians did allot of bad stuff, but that is no excuse for Islam to do bad stuff now.

“~ such as defense), and since they benefited from these functions, it seems reasonable for them to pay a tax�

What kind of “defense� would that be? Like when we came to the aid of Kuwait? Or the Albanians? Hmmm… Or is that tax more like the protection money extorted from businesses by colorful, garlicky smelling thugs working at the behest of men titled “Don�? Just kidding ;-) …Current western standards dictate that any citizen is afforded the same type of protection regardless of creed, so I guess that’s why I have a hard time understanding the justification of Dhimmitude and Jizra. And from what I’ve read, Dhimmi was conceived totally opposite from what you stated, in that certain peoples of certain faiths COULD perform certain functions that Muslims could not, (money lending, money changing) hence they were afforded protection/allowed to live, and discreetly practice their faith within an Islamic country. Different books…Different explanations, I guess.

I agree with you Av, the bible is full of crud that our modern humanistic ideals cannot abide, that’s why the literal bible isn’t used as our constitution. Nope, no more stonings… eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, for us. We are above that now. So is the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Regardless, modern Sharia law is based on the Qur’an and Hadith and is practiced with all its stonings, amputations and decapitations in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Libya and Nigeria; without any complaints from the UN (talk about “irrelevant�)

� How do you account for the fact that Muslims and Hindi have lived together more or less at peace in india,~�

Uhhh… because India is a democratic, secular, nation, where Muslims live as free and peacefully as they do here in the US?

You are right Averroes, it should be about understanding, If I convert to christianity, my family might be upset with me but NO they will not kill me. These isolated examples are not a reflection of Islamic beliefs they are a reflection of the different cultures that muslims represent. It is very common here in the west to confuse a cultural practise like clitorectomy with a religious custom. Clearly most Christians are not well versed in the religion of Islam, that is why the media is able to use cultural practises and associate them with religious customs. That is like me saying that because polygamy is practised in UTAH all christians believe in polygamy, that is the kind of ignorance people display when they say I know a guy from morroco, or I know this person from Afghanistan and he is about to die for converting to christianity. Now let me guess you are going to say strictly mormons are not christians. Or Jehovah's Witness are a particular sect of christianity. Similarly, most mainstream muslims do not buy into what some sect believes. Would you say that David Koresh or Jim Jones represent typical christian philosophy or beliefs.

By the way this does not make sense it is a contradiction:
"My German correspondent's family is from morocco. He has been back to morocco to visit some of his family. But he had to snealk in because some in his family have promised to kill him for being an apostate."
He went to morocco to visit his family that want to kill him..... And didn't get killed because he avoided those that wanted to kill him? Maybe they want to kill him cause he owes them money? Or has done some other harm? But the fact is he went back and did not get killed.
Honor killing is a cultural fact, if you look at the Sikh culture or the indian sub-continent cultures, it goes beyond religion, it just so happens that India has a lot of muslims.
Cheers

Dear Azmat,
You’re a smart guy, how come you never, ever question your faith? News Flash! Not everything Muslim is perfect! Nor is everything Christian! I question my faith, and even though mine doesn’t penalize me with death if I leave it, I still desire to remain, despite the crusades, inquisitions and pedophile priests. But it is because us Catholics do question our faith, that our faith is able to reform with the times. If reform is to ever happen in Islam, members like yourself have to come down from your high horse, admit that the Ummah has it’s faults and try to inspire change from within. Peace on this planet depends on people like you doing this.

Hey Azmat! What do you think of Dr. Wafa Sultan?

Don\\\'t know a Dr. Wafa Sultan. And I do question everything in Islam, started doing that since I was 12. Most people would not call me a muslim. I am only a muslim by name because I was born in that family. Please do not get me wrong, I gain nothing by defending Islam, I am only defending logic, reason and simple facts. I have no desire to reform Islam, because to begin with I have no claim to Islam. Besides I don\\\'t want to be bothered to educated a billion people. To start with I disagree with their basic premise that there is a hell or a heaven. Secondly, If there is a God, would he really want us to go through the motions of praying five times a day? I think not! At least not in the way that some mulims believe. I believe that this religion came at a certain point in history for a reason, it was needed back then. As time went on Islam has slowly evolved. The five times a day prayer make sense if you agree that yoga five times a day keeps you healthy. Because all those positions are yoga positions. If you agree that meditation helps your mental health, praying is good for you. Same with fasting, and zakat or (charity/tax) is good for society. And Haj has the same social purpose to connect with the rest of humanity. All these have nothing to do with GOD. They are rituals designed for humans to have a better experience of life. I don\\\'t think that God needs our prayers, nor does He care. He would like us to have the best life and He has told us through philosophers, educators, messengers, and simple common sense hints.
Yolanda, how could I possibly impact on muslims, I cannot even appeal to sensible people like you who believe in reason being supreme and are self-confessed critical thinkers. All I am asking is that you not promote incorrect information. Also have love and compassion in your heart despite the ignorance of your fellow human beings.
Cheers
Azmat

Dear Azmat,
I agree with everything you’ve said about religion. I’m glad you feel this way, but unfortunately in many Middle Eastern countries these statements are enough to get you killed. So I understand now your reticence to try to talk to your fellow Muslims about change… it could cost you our life.
Dr. Wafa Sultan is a Syrian born psychologist who lives in California. A couple weeks ago she had the audacity to go on Aljazeera and speak in Arabic about everything that she thinks is wrong with Islam. You can read about her here: http://www.annaqed.com/english/politics/a_fearless_arab_american.html
Not everything she said was completely true (many Muslims have contributed to science in the last century) but many things she said made complete sense and left the men she was debating speechless. Of course she admitted to having left the faith, so she has now been branded a heretic and fatwas have been issued to have her killed.
Sadly, because she admits to being an apostate, Muslims will not listen to her message. That is why it is clear to me that if Islam is to catch up with the rest of the world it will have to come form within. If more progressive Muslims had the courage to speak up like Dr. Sultan, the radical fundamentalists would back down, and more and more progressive Muslims would feel safe to speak and implement reform, this effect would escalate till the radicals would again be a powerless minority. Then the world will know that Muslims remain Muslims because they believe in their faith and not because they fear being executed.

Yolanda: "What happened to change the Arab’s superiority in the last century, is up for debate."

And it has ben debated within islam for almost 600 years. My favourite comes from a Turkish scholar of the middle 1800's, who noted that the western societies had been and were continuing to allow a greater role for women in society and industry. He said that compared to the west, countries under islam were trying to win a race by running on one leg. (Sorry, his name sxcapes me now.)\

Of course, now, many Muslims have adopted the favourite of the religious, the downfall is caused by a separation from "true" Islam, and can only be reversed by a return to the most restrictive culture. We in American see the same thing in Christianity. You know, we get hurricanes because we sin, usually that sin being having liberal values.

"And yes, Christians did allot of bad stuff, but that is no excuse for Islam to do bad stuff now."

I wasn't making any such argument. First of all, "bad stuff" is defined by peopele according to a person'
s own values, which may come directly from his culture and religion. My German friend (mentioned above) accuses the Americans of doing "bad stuff," things which he thinks are now generally considered uncoivilized, like execute criminals even though we are aware that convictions are sometimes wrong. Those who defend the death penalty in America to someone like him do so in the same terms that the Afghans might use in the case at the head of this thread.

Note that some have indicated that there may be a way out, one that makes perfect sense. He must be crazy, for only a crazy man could see the truth of Islam, and then refute it.

I point this out because I think that Christians should stop and reflect before they get on their high horse and (as is particularly true of Catholics), pontificate. (That is a joke i couldn't resist.) further, the worst of christian mistreatment of "infidels" and heretics came at about the same age of the religion that islam is at now. Should Christians expect their younger borther to grow up faster than they did? Maybe they are just going through a stage.

"Dhimmi was conceived totally opposite from what you stated, in that certain peoples of certain faiths COULD perform certain functions that Muslims could not, (money lending, money changing) hence they were afforded protection/allowed to live, and discreetly practice their faith within an Islamic country."

I should point out that Gibbons' book ends in the year 1453 with the fall of the Roman Empire, so his adulation was for the Muslims before that.

In fact, so far as i know, there is no prescription in islam against money lending nor money changing. There are Riba laws, and lending money for interest is forbidden. This is called 'usury,' which is also forbidden among Jews and Christians. however, with the rise of a mercantile economy in Europe at the beginning of the last millenium, somehow the Christians and Jews decided to change the rules, and now prohibit lending at "excessive interest," and call that usury.

Although it is hard for those in the west to understand a prohibition of lending at interest, it may be one of the wisest things that the merchant Mohammed ever dictated.

The dfact is that some Christian communities have had aggreements f protection in the middle east for hundreds of years, honoured to this day.

When the US government in the 1950s waned to make a dam on the Allegheny river that would have backed up onto the Seneca Indian reservation, the Senecas fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. They based their resistance on a document they had which promised them the lands of their reservation "in perpetuity." RThge document was signed by one George Washington.

But the Seneca lost.

[� How do you account for the fact that Muslims and Hindi have lived together more or less at peace in india,~�

Uhhh… because India is a democratic, secular, nation, where Muslims live as free and peacefully as they do here in the US? ]

That's true, of a sort, lately. I'm talking centuries.

"Sadly, because she admits to being an apostate, Muslims will not listen to her message."

Actually, it is worse. A few years ago, i offered an opinion on some matter that had been published by Aziza al-Hibri on a middle east based Muslim board that was discussing the matter. I was told simply by EVERYONE there, male and female alike, that they didn't have to read the opinion because it was made by a female, and, as such, could be dismissed. "Don't you at least wan't to see her arguments," I aked. "No need to," was the answer.

"A servile womb cannot breed free men."

azmat: "You are right Averroes, it should be about understanding, If I convert to christianity, my family might be upset with me but NO they will not kill me. These isolated examples are not a reflection of Islamic beliefs they are a reflection of the different cultures that muslims represent."

Of course, but in this case, it actually comes from a rather widespread understanding of islam. In all may time discussing islam, I have never heard anyone say that such killings of apostates were not in accord with Islamic law, although many said they don't agree with them, and point out that they are not common.

"It is very common here in the west to confuse a cultural practise like clitorectomy with a religious custom."

Good example.

"That is like me saying that because polygamy is practised in UTAH all christians believe in polygamy, that is the kind of ignorance people display when they say I know a guy from morroco, or I know this person from Afghanistan and he is about to die for converting to christianity."

Actually, it is not a good match. There are levels of confusion. Even some in th US think that all Mormmons secretly support polygamy because mormon offshoots still practice it.

The difference is that Christians are outspoken in their opposition to polygamy. A person in Africa could check with his local Christian minister to settle the question. When a Christian goes to his local Muslim leader to discuss the killing of apostates, he might here that it is according to Islamic law. She might be told that its use is relatively rare.

Your example is more like someone seeing men whipping themselves in karbala, and thinking that, since the TV said this was something they always do on this particular muslim holiday, then it is a general Muslim practice. of course, it is a practice among Shia.

Remember, Americans don't have much of a cultural ear. Americans expect everyone to be like them, for, after all, they are like they are because there ancestors came from everywhere.

You remember the old internet joke: If you speak three languages, you are 'trilingual;' if you speak two languages, you are 'bilingual;' and if you speak one language, you are American.

"Would you say that David Koresh . . ."

Koresh is an interesting case. He did not believe that he was a mainstream Christian. As his carefully chosen name suggests, he believed that he was a sort of last prophet that was going to unite the house of David and the house of Koresh. he was sort of going to put all the people of the book together into a new religion.

But i get your point. Thjere is a difference, at least in perception, in America. When Jim Jones committed mass slaughter, he was denounced by other Christians. Americans do not see or hear such a mass denunciation of Islamoterrorists, for instance, from Muslim leaders.

Part of the problem is that there are no grand leaders in Islam, like the Pope, or presbyters who run christian churches and guard the doctrine. So, although many leaders DO stand up and condemn such things, many others applaud them, even among Muslim clerics in Western countries.

Consider, for example, Father Feeney, a catholic priest who almost 60 years ago began preaching that one must be a Catholic to enter heaven. He was denounced by his bishop, relieved of pastoring duties, silenced by the pope, and, when he contiued to preach this doctrine, excommunicated. He started a spinter group religion which is still going. Although the members see themselves as Catholic, the Catholic Chutrch does not, and everyone knows it because of the actin of the church.

The situation with bin Laden, to name on, is different. Although many condemn his works and publications, he has not been publically excommunicated, for that can't be done. The worst i've heard is his being conddemned for issuing fatwas even though he has no standing as a Muslim scholar.

The fact is that Americans perceive that a large number of Muslims seek at leaxt the eventual downfall of the weat, and see that as part of their religious doctrine. While there are Americans who see it the other way, they are not as loud.

But Americans are culturally blind. the other day someone called into a talk program where they were talking about how things are going in iraq. She was glad that one of the guests was optomistic that there would be no civil war, and that the government would succeed. then she stated in her pleasent, young voice, "I'm just waiting for things to settle down over their so that we Christians can go over and go about the business of converting them to Christianity."

azmat: "By the way this does not make sense it is a contradiction:
"My German correspondent's family is from morocco. He has been back to morocco to visit some of his family. But he had to snealk in because some in his family have promised to kill him for being an apostate.""

If you read just above the part you quoted, you will see that i said that some in his family wanted to kill him. others have been protective. His family is quite large and extended. Last year, he got a warning from someone in his family that a cousin of his, a young man of 22 whom he had never met, was on his way to Germany to kill him. They supplied him with pictures. later he got word that the man had joined up with some Islamic radicals, and had left Europe. His contact thought the man might have been bound for iraq, but didn't know.

"But the fact is he went back and did not get killed. "

Yes. He was protected by those in his family who do not want to kill him, obviously. And it should be obvious that he did not go back to visit members of his family that wanted to kill him. In fact, his mother (an ethnic German) and his father live in morocco.

"Honor killing is a cultural fact, if you look at the Sikh culture or the indian sub-continent cultures, it goes beyond religion, it just so happens that India has a lot of muslims."

Yes. But the honour killing to which i referred was carried out by a Palestinian man, who stabbed his teenage daughter while his wife held her down. Much has been written on this, but i would like your thoughts on whether this is just as likely to happen if the man in St. Louis were a Christian Palestinian. Much has been written about this, with some caliming that this is NOT general palestinian practice, but is in the rural area he came from. It is also noted that this is not a general practice among palestinian Muslims, but this man was a member of a radical group associated with Abu Nidal, who are fighting on behalf of what they believe are fundamental Muslim practices.

Finally, i wanted to mentin something that i heard a Nigerian cleric say about Shria law, in connection with the woman who was executed for adultery, after her baby could live without breast milk. He said that the law is ha=sh, but the point of the law is not harsh punishment. The point is to have punishments so harsh that almost no one would transgress. He thought that by lessening the punishment, one is trading in the souls of people who would then feel free to transgress, and that the rise in transgression would have a negative effect on society.

I mention this because in America, we have been for a couple decades in the midst of a similar culyture, building ever more prisons, and making incresingly longer sentences, even as more states re-instated the death penalty. The people who are for this make the same argument as the cleric.

Atilla, is that quote yours? That’s a good one! I’m going use it in my e-mail signature.

Dear Av. -

�~compared to the west, countries under islam were trying to win a race by running on one leg� I’ve heard this before and I agree, yet women during Islam’s heyday (8th – 15th century) had more power than many women in European countries, who inversely of muslim women, gained equality and power in the last couple centuries. Another theory would argue that Islam’s intellect has suffered too; smart women tend to be “un-conformists� and not considered good “wife� material for conservative Muslim men. As the more desirable subservient and less “cerebral� women became the mothers of the new generations, they diluted the population’s intellect as a whole. Maybe this explains why most of Saudi Arabia’s and Egypt’s graduates are in Islamic and religious studies. ;-) Just kidding! I don’t know if there’s a connection.

�~"bad stuff" is defined by peopele according to a person' s own values� I apologize for my choice of words used for the sake of brevity… by “bad stuff� I mean any actions that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the UN’s general assembly in 1948 which states that the recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world� and goes on to explicitly delineate those rights. So I’m staying on my high horse as a humanitarian activists (the fact that I was born catholic is incidental) in calling out that the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be obeyed by everyone, everywhere: Afghanis that threaten to kill apostates as well as Americans mistreating GTMO prisoners.

How I wish, Christianity in it’s infancy had had an older brother that could have guided us in a more humanitarian direction and prevented the collective guilt we carry for the atrocities committed in the past. Sadly that wasn’t the case, and your ad hominen aside, is not an excuse for us to idly sit by and watch innocent men, women and children die at the hands of radical fundamentalist Muslims as they go “through a stage� and eventually figure out that treating non-Muslims as second class citizens, that honor / apostate / homosexual killings, that the stoning of rape victims / adulterers and radical FGM are “bad things�

(Are you one of those people that say that UNICEF and Amnesty International shouldn’t butt into the affairs of independent nations? If so, I’ve been hoping to debate that)

Should I take your explanation of the “history of money lending� and ensuing tangent as an attempt to patronize me? Nah! …I’ll just inform you that I know this, that the 22% interest rate on my Target card IS USURY and I only mentioned money lending in my previous post as an example. Now to go back to the topic…

�~ they didn't have to read the opinion because it was made by a female� I’m not surprised. And as a woman, who hopes to some day have daughters, I will strive to make the world’s communities give women equally rights lest myself or my daughters become victims of they’re “going through a stage�

Dear Av. -

“~America~ building ever more prisons, and making incresingly longer sentences, even as more states re-instated the death penalty. The people who are for this make the same argument as the cleric.�

So… you’re saying that the argument for harsh punishments, in the case you site, execution of an adulterous woman, works as a deterrent, like the American death penalty for murder works as a deterrent? Granted adultery isn’t a good thing, but realistically, who does it hurt? Since male adulterers in Islamic countries are rarely, if ever, executed, I assume that the only thing hurt is a male ego. I fail to see where hurting a “male’s ego� is equivalent to “killing� someone… cultural differences aside.

Av & Yolanda,
I did not read all that you have written carefully, but I get the overall general idea.
Lets start with death threats, easy to make difficult to carry out. Any lunatic can say \"i will kill you\" but to actually do it totally different matter. The countries that you are talking about Av people say stuff like that all the time without thinking and without consequences. As far as Dr. Sultan is concerned I read about her, and all I have to say is more power to her and good luck. It is like standing in front of a highway full of cars going in one direction and trying to tell everyone they are going in the wrong direction. Pretty stupid huh?
The way to change and any one in psychology or human development movement will tell you, it begins with the self. If Dr. Sultan sets an example like Muhammed did, where everyone who knew him, knew him for his honesty and integrity, and listened to him because of the personal qualities that he displayed, and this is true for all prophets, great men and women, first they display certain leadership qualities. If Dr. Sultan displays those qualities she will be able to impact a billion people someday. But i think these qualities are evident early on. She is on the band wagon of controversy. It would be very easy for me to write a book that gets under the skin of the average muslim, to boot I could put a cartoon of muhammed on the cover. Then I could also get the death threats. That would make no difference and would not reform Islam. Islam is being reformed by those muslims who set an example of what a muslim really is. These people live lives where they help others and are devoted to God as well. But what makes them successful is that they lead by example. I do not see Dr. Sultan doing that. Get to know some real people who contribute to society in a positive manner and also happen to be muslims.
Yolanda,I grew upin Pakistan and never received any death threats, and I criticized Islam and asked questions all the time. Like I have said before your opinions are based on incorrect information. One more time where are you getting your information from?
See for all you know, if it comes from the press here or from certain biased sources, your opinions will be colored by that information. Dr. Sulatan\'s example shows me that you are interested in ONLY looking for muslims who are going against the mainstream Why? Why could you not find some muslim scholar that speaks without controversy and still makes sense. (Hey someone like me ?)You must understand that the radical muslims do not speak for Islam,nor do the moderate,nor do the faithless. I have said this before, Islam is a religion of personal interpretation, which means each individual has a seperate interpretation of Islam. The only thing that binds some muslims together is similarity of ritual, rest is up for grabs. We can have muslims who are murderers and criminals, that does not mean that the religion condones that. In fact if you look at the crime rate it is higher here in US then in any muslim country. Does that mean that US condons and is all about criminal behaviour?
Av the Law is made by humans, and based on interpretation and consensus. You show me where in the Quran it says that apostates ought to be killed. And how someone can even misinterpret that? Since Islamic history is filled with occasions of more religious freedom for Jews and Christians then under roman law. Or any other law. Muslims have a kinship with christians and Jews they are our first cousins in Religion. I know yolanda you want to give the example of Middle east and Israel, please show me examples before 1948 and when muslims had problems with Jews. The state of Israel was the sore spot for Arabs and that was the begining of the conflict.This is a political and teritorial conflict not a religious conflict.
As far as some of the backward laws in Islamic states is concerned If I dig enough I can find some really stupid laws that are on the books here in the US. And then I can call US a barbaric sciety?
Look this guy in Afghanistan knew what the Law was and broke it intentionally. If I do that here in the states would you come to my rescue?
I think not! You would say knowingly break the law pay the price. Why did this issue only come out after 16 years???? Because this is one way the US can justify its existence in Afghanistan. It is a propaganda issue. The law of the land for the last three years is the US military. We can Create puppet governments around the world, You mean to tell me that the mighty country of USA which can carpet bomb villages cannot stop the death of one man, quietly? Yes we can change regimes and take out al-quida Bunkers at night with precision,but we need Condaleeza Rice to speak about this stupid guy who knowingly broke the law,and she has to intercede in his behalf. Give me a Break!
Reagrding Attila quote I would say only a servile womb breeds a free man. Just look at the history of slavery or any other freedom movement, it starts with a mother who was enslaved, so it is illogical to claim that freedom only comes from from freedom, how would anyone then become free??

Yolanda: "Another theory would argue that Islam’s intellect has suffered too;"

Maybe not intellect, exactly. But a Muslim on another board told me that more books are translated into Spanish and distributed in Sapin in one year than have been translated into Arabic in 50 years. and i5t says something that two years ago, the best selling book translated into Arabic in Palestine was Mein Kampf.

Yolanda: "So I’m staying on my high horse as a humanitarian activists (the fact that I was born catholic is incidental) in calling out that the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be obeyed by everyone, everywhere: Afghanis that threaten to kill apostates as well as Americans mistreating GTMO prisoners."

That's fine. But you must realize that the UN declaration is no different from any other statement of ideals. it has no legal force behind it. In other words, staing the ideals as a UN proclamation adds nothing to their adoption, and may deter it. The UN is not yet a one-world government. (Although, i keep seeing those black helicopters....)

Yolanda: "How I wish, Christianity in it’s infancy had had an older brother that could have guided us in a more humanitarian direction and prevented the collective guilt we carry for the atrocities committed in the past."

It did. Christians didn't listen to them. in fact, they persecuted them.

It is not in the nature of those who think they have the God-given truth to listen to others.

Yolanda: "your ad hominen aside"

Moi?

Yolanda: ". . .s not an excuse for us to idly sit by and watch innocent men, women and children die at the hands of radical fundamentalist Muslims as they go “through a stage� and eventually figure out that treating non-Muslims as second class citizens, that honor / apostate / homosexual killings, that the stoning of rape victims / adulterers and radical FGM are “bad things�"

What you are saying is that your point of view is superior to any other. To make that point, you weight your list of cruelties. Remember, the same argument can and is made against America's use of lengthy sentences. You have made some assumptions (for instance, that honour killings are justified by Islam, rather than a cultural phenomenon), and have assumed that there can be no justification for these things within another religion. it is sort of like arguing that something is true because the bible says so. You are arguing that what you say is true because the UN says so.

I'm merely suggesting that one can make a general argument from a point of view, but that in arguing for this point of view, one must be aware of other points of view, and to generally accept those points of view as the work of honest people with the best motives, despite the fact that they disagree with you. Certainly you are aware that much of the world considers certain Catholic dogma as old-fashioned and counterprocuctive to the well-being and dignity of humanity. (I assume here that you are, as you state, Catholic, and not a pseudoCatholic of the cafeteria variety.) Some argue that the Catholic Church's dogma on birth control is inhumane goiven the overpopulation of the earth. But i think that despite those voices, the peoplewho insist on these doctrines are by and large honourable people. (btw, when Pope Paul re-inforced the doctrine on birth control, a good Catholic, William F. Buckley said that it was a decision that future popes would come to regret. So far, i don't think any has.)

So, the question here is whether any religion should change its values and laws simply because the UN and Yolkanda see it differently. Do you think the Catholic Church whould change things because most people in the world, including the UN, disagree?

Yolanda: "(Are you one of those people that say that UNICEF and Amnesty International shouldn’t butt into the affairs of independent nations? If so, I’ve been hoping to debate that)"

yes, that would be me, so far as the UN is concerned. The key is the phrase "butt in."

so far as AI is concerned, they don't butt in, they simply take any and all reports of abuse and count them as if true. i suppose that that has some value, even if one is not so credulous as to take their reports at face value.

Yolanda: "I will strive to make the world’s communities give women equally rights "

I have conversed with many Muslim women both in the west and in Muslim countries who like things the way they are just fine. I remember one woman who went to visit her husbanfd's family and fussed over the fact that she would have to wear a head cover and abandon her usual blue jeans, etc. After the visit, she said that she was quite happy doing so, and felt a bit liberated from some of the things she faced as a woman in the west. (The family was in london, England.)

Now, YOU might say that since she doesn't meet your criteria for liberated woman, then she must be brainwashed, or some such thing. But i would say that she is a thoughtful woman who sees more than one side of an issue.

I will just say that there is always more to things than any dogmatic approach can see. witness, for example, the daughters of feminists who fought for women's choice suddenly attacking those who choose to be stay at home mothers. i guess it isn't choice they want.

Yolanda: "Should I take your explanation of the “history of money lending� and ensuing tangent as an attempt to patronize me?"

No. You simply made a statement that was not true, which i corrected, and, in my loquacious style, i expanded on it.

Yolanda, quoting me and responding: [~America~ building ever more prisons, and making incresingly longer sentences, even as more states re-instated the death penalty. The people who are for this make the same argument as the cleric.�

So… you’re saying that the argument for harsh punishments, in the case you site, execution of an adulterous woman, works as a deterrent, like the American death penalty for murder works as a deterrent? ]

Yes. of course i didn't think that it had to be mentioned that there is no evidence that the death penalty in america for murder is a deterrent. i was hoping that all would catch this bit of irony.

Yolanda: "I fail to see where hurting a “male’s ego� is equivalent to “killing� someone"

This is psychobabble. The basis for laws about wives in Semetic tribes is that wives are property. Mohammed said that they are more than property, probably an improvement from the Hebrew view.

Remember, the bible enjoins one to refrain from coveting his neighbor's wife. their is no such proscripotion for wives, since husbands are not legally property.

One can see the punishments for adultery as akin to the old west p[roscription to "hang 'em high" if "'em" are horse thieves. Just as horse thieves in the old west stole something vital to one's life, those who commit adultery with your wife are not only stealing and misusing your property, they are calling into question the very existense of your family in posterity.

Yolanda: "Granted adultery isn’t a good thing, but realistically, who does it hurt?"

I take it that you are not married. Or, if you are, your husband has not committed adultery.

or, alternatively, you might have this conversation:

Yolanda's SO: Oh, btw, i hought you should know. I have been screwing your best friend for a year 'cause she is just such a good lay."

Yolanda: Cool. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Azmat: "I did not read all that you have written carefully, but I get the overall general idea. "

OK, should i not read all that you have said and answer on my general idea? if i don't read it all, my general idea is likely to be wrong. in addition, I don't really seek responses to my general ideas, always a guess, but to what i specifically say.

Your method always seemms to lead to my saying that i didn't say this or that, or that you have taken somethng for granted tht is not true. Why not simply answer what i really said?

To me, it is a matter of respecting the other in a discussion. your values may be different, however.

Azmat: "Lets start with death threats, easy to make difficult to carry out."

Of course. Terence McNally, the playwrioght, has a fatwa of death agaist him, but states that he isn't afraid. The mere issuance of a fatwa does not guarantee that anyone will carry it out.

however, it does excuse the carrying of it out. And when money is added as a proize, as in the Salmon Rushdie case, one may have enough fear to actually hide.

In America, a few Catholic priests have argued-in the abstract-that the killing of abortionists could be justified as protecting the innocent. However, so far as i know, no bishop has issued a call for the death of specific abortionists.

Your argument seems to be that because death fatwahs are not univerally carried out, we should ignore them.

My argument is that they should not be issued, unless the issuer is God himself.

asmat: "As far as Dr. Sultan is concerned I read about her, and all I have to say is more power to her and good luck. It is like standing in front of a highway full of cars going in one direction and trying to tell everyone they are going in the wrong direction. Pretty stupid huh?"

The real question is whether the things she says are true. it matters not one bit whethert or not she is a skank whore or a scholar. The truth of what she ways rests on its own merits. Whatr you have done is construct a giant examn0p-le of the 0old argumentum ad hominem fallacy. "I don't have to consider what she says as important because she does not conform to my view of what a social critic should be." For instance:

Azmat: "She is on the band wagon of controversy."

OK. That may or mmay not be true. But the truth of your statement has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not her statements are valuable. THAT is decided by examining her statements, which one does by reading HER, not about her.

Azmat: "Yolanda,I grew upin Pakistan and never received any death threats, and I criticized Islam and asked questions all the time. "

So, by this anecdotal evidence, we now know that one person who criticized Islam did not get a death threat, and one who left Islam did. And that is all we know.

Of course the ojne who did was brought to the court, and, i prewsume, you were not. My question is this: if you had been charged with, say, libeling islam, and had been brought before a sharia court, what would have been the result?

Azmat: "I have said this before, Islam is a religion of personal interpretation, which means each individual has a seperate interpretation of Islam."

Yes, in the abstract, Islam is like a vast protestanism. however, this statement breaks down in practice. Not only do juridical scholars set limits to interprestation, but whole governments say what islam is. For instance, while in america, Christians (and Muslims) are free to interpret and carry out the teachings on charity, in many Muslim countries, the charity is taken out of it by making it a tax.

Azmat: "The only thing that binds some muslims together is similarity of ritual, rest is up for grabs."

This sweeping statement is simply untrue.

Azmat: "We can have muslims who are murderers and criminals, that does not mean that the religion condones that. "

Please tell us who has made this claim. All that has been claimed is that Islam has condoned what others see as murder. Ask Salmon Rushdie. or ask those who had walls collapsed on them in Taliban Afghanistan. The argument that you have made here is an example of the straw man fallacy.

Remember, the key here is not that murders happen, but that some aresanctioned in the name of religion. for instance, because someone is an apostate, or because someone said things judged unkind about islam, or to expel the Crusaders and infidels from the holy lands.

the point is also not that not all Muslims subscribe to this, but that Muslims cannot, for various reasons, mount a concerted campaign against such things. btw, you might tell me if this is true or not: I have been told by a Muslim from karachi that the most popular T-shirt in that country is one with bin Laden on it, and the most popular poster has a sesame street character (Bert or Ernie) on it, beside bin laden. (He was chiding me, and saying that as soon as they got rid of the general, the Americans would lose everything, and islam would begin to restore the Middle east, and then the rest of the world to Khilafah.)

Azmat: "Av the Law is made by humans, and based on interpretation and consensus. You show me where in the Quran it says that apostates ought to be killed. And how someone can even misinterpret that?"

As you well know, any religion is more than its most basic scripture. As far as i know (trust me not here, I am an alien) the Christian bible does not speak of abortion, but Christians of both High and Low churches condemn it, and other Christians who accept abortion do not throw them out of Christianity.

So far as i know, the penalty for "Murtad Fitri " is assessed as death by every juridiacl tradition in both Shia and Sunni Islam. There is a little more leeway with regards to "Murtad Milli." (And also note that the penalties do not apply to women.)

The fact is that the penalty is based on haditha and traced back to the saying in the Koran which says:

"There is no compulsion in [accepting] the religion of Islam." this continues: "Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path."

the point is that those who have pledged total subservience to Allah are committing what constitutes treason against Allah and the Ummah. this is especially true in Murtad Fitri , where the apostate is assumed to have been raised in Islam without the corrupting influieences of the kufir and shirk. in this case, as you know, Islamic law says that even if the apostate repents, the penalty must be carried out, forgiveness being left to Allah. For Murtad Milli, on the other hand, a repentence is honored, since a "revert" obviously has been exposed to kafir and firk in his upbringing.

This verse from the koran is also cited: "No believing man and no believing woman has a choice in their own affairs when Allãh and His Messenger have decided on an issue." (33:36)

In other words, having accepted islam, one has not freedom of inellect when it comes to religion. this being true, one can see just how dangerous apostates can be.

Westerners take the usual Muslim "hey, they don't speak for all of islam" with a large grain of salt. those interested read things like this, from a polemic against a Muslim who had spoken out against bin laden and al-Qaida:

Taking THE INITIATIVE in fighting

This means PURSUING the kaafirs in their lands and calling them to Islam and fighting them if they do not agree to submit to the rule of Islam.

This kind of jihad is fard kifaayah (a communal obligation) upon the Muslims. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they do"

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

"Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful"

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

"and fight against the Mushrikoon (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah) collectively as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allaah is with those who are Al-Muttaqoon (the pious"

[al-Tawbah 9:36]

"March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), and strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allaah. This is better for you, if you but knew" [al-Tawbah 9:41]

It was narrated from Ibn 'Umar that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allaah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and establish regular prayer, and pay zakaah, If they do that then their blood and wealth is safe from me, except by the laws of Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allaah."

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 24; Muslim, 29.

Muslim (3533) narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever dies without having fought or thought to himself about fighting has died following one of the branches of hypocrisy."

All of these texts - and many others in the Qur'aan and Sunnah - mean that it is obligatory for the Muslims to wage jihad against the kuffaar AND TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN THAT. The scholars are unanimously agreed that jihad against the kuffar, and seeking them in their own lands, and calling them to Islam, and waging jihad against them if they do not accept Islam or accept paying the jizyah, IS OBLIGATORY and has not been abrogated.

[find this long polemic here]

Note that i don't like this source, but the paper is exhausively documented with quotes from the Koran, sunnah, and hadiths.

My point is not just that Muslims base killing kafir, for instance, on the Koran, and the juridical traditions, and the killing of apostates, but that, unlike the case of Father Feeny among the catholics, the whole of islam doesn not rise up to throw them out. in the wwest, this seems to be either a tacit endorsement, or a view that they may be correct and it is not worth objecting to.

Lest one argue that it is not possible for islam to rise up, I will point out tht a mere mention of some of the Sufi mystics that i enjoyed years ago met with total revulsion on most of the Islamic boards i have visited (Rumi excepted).

We also know that in Saudi Arabia, children are tought the hadith, attributed to the prophet, about the tree betraying th hiding jew, and bidding the Muslim to come and kill him.

These things are disturbing to westerners, and protestations that only some muslims follow Muslim scriptures in this regard are hardly mollifying. For what is true is that anyone who is a Muslim can, to put it in biblical terms wsmite a kufir or a Jew and site scripture to back his action. AND find some scholar to bless his action.

Azmat: "The state of Israel was the sore spot for Arabs and that was the begining of the conflict.This is a political and teritorial conflict not a religious conflict."

This is true, so far as it goes. it is often a point made on Muslim boards, just after they argue that fighting against israel is a sacred duty of all muslims. The chief warriors in this conflict are religious organizations, some of whom get support from non-Arabs, like the Iranians. We should not be so simplistic as to leave the religious element out of the conflict, on either side.

Azmat: "As far as some of the backward laws in Islamic states is concerned If I dig enough I can find some really stupid laws that are on the books here in the US."

Yes, there are. (But avoid those websites with lists of stupid laws--most are false.) But if you can find one as monumental as calling for the death penalty for thinking the wrong thing, tell me. just the other day iu heard of a lawmaker in some state who wanted to make rape a capital crime, and it was noted that he had an uphill battle, since only murder and treason are generally considered caital crimes in America.

Azmat: "Look this guy in Afghanistan knew what the Law was and broke it intentionally. If I do that here in the states would you come to my rescue?"

Of course i would, if i thought the law was stupid and inhumane. In fact, throughout the sixties, here in america, i not only willingly broke stupid laws and had other americans come to my resue, I came to the rescue of others who did the same.

In america, you see, we have a long history of giving adulation to those who practice civil disobedience. We honour, for instance, Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King. We think it is the duty of citizens to act against laws which are unjust.

"You would say knowingly break the law pay the price."

Would I? Mindreading. what we did say is that one should not whine when the law is applied. We were realistic enough to know that it wouod take more than one act of civil disobedience to change the law.

"Why did this issue only come out after 16 years????"

The man and his wife are currently involved in a child custody dispute, and his wife brought his conversion to Christianity to the court's attention.

Azmat, losing it: "The law of the land for the last three years is the US military. We can Create puppet governments around the world, You mean to tell me that the mighty country of USA which can carpet bomb villages cannot stop the death of one man, quietly? Yes we can change regimes and take out al-quida Bunkers at night with precision,but we need Condaleeza Rice to speak about this stupid guy who knowingly broke the law,and she has to intercede in his behalf. Give me a Break!"

You should clean your mind of this propaganda. We cannot just save the man because we have no jurisdiction there. What jurisdiction we might have had after we drove out the Taliban government has been seeded back to an elected government of afghanistan. thus, we observe the sdame diplomatic channels that we would in any other case. Note that the court has issued a statement that they would not be bullied by outsiders.

Don't be stupid here, Azmat. if we wanted to set up a "puppet" government, we would have. if you think we wanted to, just look at the constitution that was adopted. Do you seriously think we would have written it?

Compare it to the japanese constitution, which we did write. now, is the japanese government a puppet government of the US?

In sum, don't just parrot idiocies, actually think about things. Get the facts.

Your remark is almost as stupid as those from certain iraqis, who concluded that the US was behind the boimbings and killings, and the sabotage of water and electric lines, of oil facilities and lines (in order to stay in iraq longer) on the basis that the if the US could bring precision bombing, then they could stop all that. Geesh.

Short point: if Afghanistan was a puppet government to the US, this case would never have come up.

but you know that.

I guess links don't take here. so here it is:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/terrorism1.htm

Like i said, i don't like cites with a point of view like this. i usually avoid any cite where i can guess the outcomes of their arguments in advance.

Also, i should note that if i sound a bit gruff, it is directed to what i think are bad arguments, not the person makeing them. I , myself, make bad argumentws on a regular basis, and invite you to take the same tack toward me.

er, yes, i'm stupid. That's 'site.' i can't chalk this one up to arthritis and bad eyesight, just another brain freeze.

Let me apologize here for the quality of the typing in my posts.

Averroes good stuff, I read it carefully this time. Didn\'t do that last time cause i was short on time, busy with life you know.
Let me start with the death threats again. If they are not meant to be carried out they are vacuuous and devoid of all meaning. It is kind of like the old joke, stop doing this or else !! and you say or else what? Or else I will put up with it; is the answer. Hey man or woman, we live in a society where people are held accountable for death threats, not so in the rest of the world. You want to impose your set of values on the rest of the world? Where decent people are allowed to give meaningless death threats and other decent people know and laugh about those death threats, except you do not get it and take it seriously. Look the fact is Salman Rushdie is still alive. Now try screwing with a realpower like the US government and see how quickly the jets bomb your tent and kill your children. aS KNOWLEDGEABLE as you are you must have heard \"might is right\" and a threat is only as good as your ability to excecute. Otherwise it is meaning less. Tell your wife, or husband, Improve or I will leave,and if they know that you are not leaving your threat looks stupid.
Regarding Dr. sultan,she can speak all the truth she wants the merit of what she says does not lie on truth value but the impact it has on muslims tomove them in the direction she wants. If they move in the opposite direction her truth is ineffective. For example,I can say the \"the sun is shining\" that might be true but has no impact. So truth value of statements in this case is irrelevant. I have some sticky keys so pardon my spelling.
I don\'t really have to read Dr. Sultan to measure the reaction. I am watching 500,000 people marching in LA, they are reacting to something, that itself is sufficient, you think that they are reacting to some falsehood? Or does truth even enter the equation?
If I was ever brought to court and trust me I have been! It is because I broke some law or was accused of breaking somelaw. Once again that is a matter of Law not of religion.
Regarding the practise of Islam by certain governments,I would say that a lot of the Law is losely based on religion. Look at the Law here, it is based on but is not identicalwith christian and Judaic values. So some countries base their laws onIslam, that does not make those Laws of religion, they are loose interpretations by humans. And are usually flawed. You are also welcome to say what Islam is, that does not make it so. Just like those scholars and those governments. It is possible that those very laws may be re-interpreted and changed, and those very scholars may change theirminds. Just like you might change your mind about Islam someday. How has Islam condoned what others see as murder? Who made that claim on behalf of Islam? Didn\'t send a fax to me or GOD.
What is Mutrid fillie or Fitiri? Are you quoting some verse in the quran? If not strike it from the record as irrelevant your honor.
How is 33:36 being interpreted by you as sanctioned killing?
Doyou know what Kafir means? I don\'t think their are any Kafirs in the world these days. Yeh fourteen hundred years ago maybe. How is 8:39 anything but fighting evilwithin yourself.
I don\'t knowabout your knowledge of Islamic history,but you have to understand that Quran came at some points in Muhhameds life and if you read it by taking that into account you would understand what is being said. The second Sura is Sura Baqra I looked at 105 and it talks about Haroot and Maroot. It is a historical description not a command to do harm. Now if you have a different passage than that let meknow which Quran you are using. I Using the english translation by Yusuf Ali. But I can also Read Arabic and understand and translate myself, so there is no ambiguity for me. Can you read Arabic? Are you aware that Suras are divide into Medina and Mecca, and those are separate time periods for Islam. Here is what my translation says:
\"Fight them on until there is no more tumult and oppression and there prevail Justice and faith in God Altogether and everywhere. But if they cease verily God Doth see all that they do. \"
If you read the explanation this verse is talking about the Infidels in Mecca.
Re: Sura Tubba 9:5 this is about the time when certain aliances were made with Jews and Christians and pagans, but treachery and deciet,and broken promises led to this Sura where the hypocrites double dealing and evilways are pointed out. And the prescription is laid out for how to dealwith those that break treaties. Read 12 which says if they violate their oaths and taunt you for your faith Fight Ye for their oaths are nothing to them.
Yes taken out of context it looks like the Quran is asking to kill and murder. But this is about 9 AH And at that time this was needed. How does it apply today???
If you read 9:40 (re 9:41) it is talking about how God protected the prophet when he was only with one person and a whole army was looking for him.
In each case please takeinto account the historical context of each verse. Now you can say that it applies today! That sir/madam is a matter of interpretation. You misquoted 9:36 and forgot to say \"But know that God is with those who restrain themselves\"
Please Mr. Or Ms. Averroes get a good copy of the Quran and learn to read Arabic. You are being misguided. As far as Bukhari is concerned, I don\'t recommend you use it, it is the version passed on by humans. It does not carry as much weight as the Quran. You really have a ill-informed understanding of Jihad,which is internal struggle against sin and temptation. The Path to God always starts with the self.
Ofcourse you want to have the interpretation that suits you, except that it is simply incorrect. I am born and raised a muslim and never have I been taught to take up arms against anyone, Kafirs or Infidels or Musrakeens or Jews or Christians or Hindus or Siks or Budhists. (Maybe in self defense) Nor have all my friends who attented the same mosque as me,and grewup with me. The emphasis on Jihad being the struggle against evil, where evil lives within us, we do not have access to the evil in others.
You are so funny av you talk about boards where they encourage all muslims to fight against Israel,hmm not very successful are they? One billion people in the world, I can just see them all marching towards Israel.
AV: \"the whole of islam doesn not rise up to throw them out\" who do you want me to throw out and how?????? Islam is a club where there is no official to kick you out. You can call yourself a muslim andnobody can doanything about it. It is between you and GOD.
AV: \"For what is true is that anyone who is a Muslim can, to put it in biblical terms wsmite a kufir or a Jew and site scripture to back his action\" exactly my point, you can call yourself a muslim and kill someone and site the scripture and there is nothing I could do about it. You see we have no club president. I can\'t kickyou out of the club, and if I say that you are not a member, the rest of the world will say sure thats what you say about all suicide bombers and martyres.
AV: \"Of course i would, if i thought the law was stupid and inhumane\" Butyou wouldn\'t if you thought the law was just. that is the point those Afghans donot see this law as stupid and inhumane; YOU DO. And you wouldn\'t help me If I had sex with an underage girl and the law said that I had to go to jail for twenty years, because you would think that it is justice. Because you would agree with that law. Soput yourself in the shoes of the Afghani.
Yes civil disobedience is a wonderful thing and I am sure that you would love to do that given a chance but only for things that your own values are aligned to.I don\'t see too many people marching to set free those stupid Afghanis people in Gitmo. Where are the civil disobediant losers now? The only reason we have anti-war marches here is because the cost of the war is increasing. If it was only Iraqi and Afghani casualties, or as we in the west say so eloquently \"collateral damage\" Yeh I really see the marchers and the spirit of sixties in my town where marches are done to support the troops which means support the president and support the war.How many Iraqi civilians and Afghani Civilians have died under the occupation of the United States? Any clue? How many marches for those innocent lives lost? You know I would\'nt march in those either. Why bother it does not seem to make any difference. Besides its not the US That is the cause of loss of life any more It is the Iraqis and the Afghanis themselves, blowing themself up.
\"Azmat losing it\" I agree, I am gettting a little old. I think I understand what jurisdiction means and I think that this Christain dude will be saved. No matter what the Afghani law says and what the cleric say. The writing is on the wall, Ms. Rice has spoken.
She is bigger than God in my books.
\"Don\'t be stupid,Azmat\" Hey AV I can\'t help it I was born stupid. Not too bright, so what can I say I gotta be me. But tell me why would the US military still be in Afghanistan if the power has been succesfully transfered to Afghanis? Because the Karzai Govt would last one-millisecond after the US military leaves. Might is Right again: Fredrick Neitzsche??
Yes there is the appearence of power transfer. The appearence of a constitution, but we all know who is really incharge. It used to be Dick,but after that shooting incident where he prematurely discharged, it is now Ms. Rice.
Short point: If Afghanis were to determine there own destiny we would not even hear of this christian dude, he would be killed quietly. And his death would be called an accident. But this whole hopla of court and clerics, smacks of US media and propaganda.
I hope I have answered everything carefully this time, just wanna let you know Mr or Ms. Averroes, that it has been my pleasure to interact with you, Now if we could only talk in Urdu, I have a couple of choice shares for you.
Cheers,
Azmat

AV says : btw, you might tell me if this is true or not: I have been told by a Muslim from karachi that the most popular T-shirt in that country is one with bin Laden on it, and the most popular poster has a sesame street character (Bert or Ernie) on it, beside bin laden.

I have some wonderful property for you near the beach, in Pakistan. Please would you be interested? Only $10,000.
Oh I got a better one: My father used to have a $3,000,000 estate and I can only transfer those funds to USA,please give me your account information and then I will wire the money to your account, but first I need a deposit so that Iknow that you will keep my money in trust. Please respond quickly,as If I do not withdraw the money we will lose it all. Due to the sudden demise of my father, sincerely yours
Bogato Tomato.
Man I may be stupid but I do not swallow everything that is presented to me. Occasionaly I spit it out.
Oh and I did not bother to look at the Afghani constitution, I suspect it is the Sharia Law. Wow that IS a victory for the Bush administration, they can\'t have it here, but In Iraq and Afghanistan they will impose Sharia. Note the repubs have more in comman with the Sharia then these liberal nut jobs.
Love, your gullible friend
Azmat

Dear Azmat

“Islam is being reformed by those Muslims who set an example� Yes, That is why I always encourage you to set the example with your Muslim friends, even though you say you can’t because you are only one.

“~do not see Dr. Sultan doing that� I agree, lamentably she’s an apostate and cannot influence from within the Muslim faith.

“where are you getting your information from?� From Al-Jazeera.net/English, BBC, UPI, and MEMRI which is a translation vehicle for Arabic media. (I don’t watch CNN or FoxViews)

“ONLY looking for Muslims who are going against the mainstream Why?� Because by all appearances mainstream Islam is becoming more and more radical. I want to find someone who goes against this trend to give me hope.

“Why could you not find some muslim scholar that speaks without controversy and still makes sense.� I have found Dr. Mamoun Fandy, Khaled Duzdar, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, and Ali Ahmad Sa'id, to name a few. But it’s hard to take them seriously when they are writing in English to a mainly western audience, Dr. Sultan’s speech was in Arabic on Al-Jazeera, she wasn’t pandering to the west

“~ radical muslims do not speak for Islam,� I know that! I just want to hear more Muslims speaking to radicals on how their behavior is detrimental to Islam.

“~ crime rate it is higher here in US then in any muslim country.� It’s relative, rape and spousal abuse is underreported in muslim countries when the victim gets penalized or suffers social stigma. Hence, those statistics can’t be trusted..

�~ guy in Afghanistan knew what the Law was and broke it� No…He converted to Christianity 16 years ago while in Germany (not illegal there), He was living the last years in Pakistan (not illegal there either) and just recently returned to Afghanistan because it is supposedly so “Democratic� since Condi called it a success story.

“~show me examples before 1948 and when Muslims had problems with Jews.� Here I agree with you. Before 1948? very little. Jews should have a Jewish state, but did it have to be in Palestine? Great Britain and The US ceded Palestinian territories to the Jews under the guise of fulfilling an ancestral religious claim, while in reality they were securing a foothold in the Middle East to oversee control of the Suez canal, their oil lifeline. There are national parks in Canada twice as big as Palestine, why not put the Jews there? Cause it didn’t serve any purpose to the world's super powers. If I were Palestinian, I’d be pissed too, but I would find other means besides terrorism to protest occupation. My complaint is with all the other Arab governments that use the Palestinian conflict as a political diversion from their own shortcomings in social infrastructure, to the point of inciting racial hatred of Jews.

“~it is illogical to claim that freedom only comes from freedom,
I interpret it as “How can you expect free “thinkers� from a servile womb?� In that context, free thought comes from freedom more often than from slavery.

Always nice talking to you Azmat. Best regards.

Av! Dude! (or dudette, whatever you are) in the future, please be CONCISE!
I’m flattered you felt the need to write a dissertation in response to my post. But I have a paper due, and your reply is too long for me to read and respond to right now. I will later.

Azmat (&Yolanda), you should bbe able toguess my gender from my name. Any Muslim would.

Azmat, you make a lot of easy assumption which lead you to say things that are simnply weird and untrue. I would suggest making less aswumption and asking more questions.

Azmat: "Let me start with the death threats again. If they are not meant to be carried out they are vacuuous and devoid of all meaning."

You will, of coure, privide me the text, date, and author of any fatwa which calls for the death of oanyone, and which then adds that "this fatwa is not meant to be carried out."

Azmat: "we live in a society where people are held accountable for death threats, not so in the rest of the world. You want to impose your set of values on the rest of the world?"

How silly. this is not a matter of values. Even in America, it is not uncommon for b=people to say, "UI'll kill you" to a spouse or co-sorker, or a friend. We have an idea about when it is serious. THAT may be a matter of culture. But thoughout the worl, when you make official statements, you are taken at your word. I don't think that Mohammed couseled clerics making idle death threats. But, of course, you can show me the Sura which says, say, "when the cleric cqlls for the death of a person in an official fatwa, laugh ye at him, and ignore it, knowing you that it is a big joke."

Your ridiculous defense here is similar to one given on a Muslim site a few years ago, when hde acknowledged that there had been film taken of a cleric in Detroit, michigan, exhorting those at Friday prayers to shout in uniwson with him, "Death to israel, Death to America. Death to the Jews. Death to the Americans." He saoid it was a cultural thing that "we" kafir couldn't understand. i asked him specifically if it meant "death to israel, Death to America. Deatyh to Jews, Death to Americans." He said that it didn't call for the death of anyone or anything. So i asked him, "What does it mean then?"

His answer? "It doesn't mean that, but i can't explaine it to you. you'd have to be a Muslim to understand."

Azmat, i don't accept such stupid arguments from Christians and i don't accept them from anyone else. Words have meaning.

You know, it's funny, when some American hothed says, "we should just kill all the Muslims," Muslims have no problem knowing what is being said. And i doubt very much if they would accept that they don't understand what is being said because it was said by some Christian.

What i am attacking here is youir assumption that Americans are all idiots.

Azmat: "Now try screwing with a realpower like the US government and see how quickly the jets bomb your tent and kill your children. aS KNOWLEDGEABLE as you are you must have heard \"might is right\" and a threat is only as good as your ability to excecute."

This low-level prapaganda antiAmericanism is beneath you, Azmat. Try thinking instead. As you know, antiAmericanism is rqampant in the world. if you think about it, you would realize that most of the world benefits more from the US than has need to fear it.

I fear that your mind is closed on stuff like this, and many other things. it brings to mind a quote from Jonathan Swift, the irish wit, which is at the head of famous iraqi blogger Zayed's page: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

Azmat: "Regarding Dr. sultan,she can speak all the truth she wants the merit of what she says does not lie on truth value but the impact it has on muslims tomove them in the direction she wants. If they move in the opposite direction her truth is ineffective."

I have a different view of truth. To me, it was true that Blacks, say, should be treated just like anyone else even when speaking that truth was dangerous. The fact that it did not move anyone to anything but bringing about your demise didn't seem to me to be any reason to say that speaking such a truth was "irrelevant."

What you are proposing is that those who stood up for the notion that all persons are to be treeted equally, in the history of America, and who pointed out injustice, some of whom lost their lives, their careers, their families, all these people should have said it, surbveyed th landscape, see that it had no great effect, and have simply stopped saying it because, although true, it was irrelevant.

Azmat: "I don't really have to read Dr. Sultan to measure the reaction."

No, you have to read her to judge the truth of what she says. For instance, you and i can actually judge the rection the writings of Sayyid Qtub have had, but that tells us notjhing of their truth. Because, as you are aware, reactions often have nothing to do with the truth.

Azmat: "I am watching 500,000 people marching in LA, they are reacting to something, that itself is sufficient, you think that they are reacting to some falsehood?"

So, you seem to be saying, if a mob reacts to s0oething, the kmobv must be right? Remember, a nuymber pof people died in riots when it was false reported that a Koran was flushed down a toilet at Gitmo. What do you say to the families of those who died? Whoops?

Today and yesterday, there were large demonstrations because of the bill that was passed by the house concerning illegal immigration and illegal immigrants in the US. I should note here that a Catholic cardinal has already announced, in advance, that if the law is passed, he will instruct the priests and nuns under him to violate certain sections of the law. He is not telling them that they will not be punished if arrested under such a law. He is urging them to civil disobedience.

Azmat: "Look at the Law here, it is based on but is not identicalwith christian and Judaic values."

Despite what you might hear some right wing nuts say, American law is NOT based on the law in the Judeo-Cristian tradition. it is directly based on English common law, which came from Germanic law, on roman law, and most particulary, on the philosophy of John Locke. the Saxons who were those behind English commonlaw (with the Angles and the Jutes) were pagans. It was also influenced by the Vikings, who conquered parts of England. The prticularly Christian parts of the law, such as the divine right of kings, were specifically removed from American law. We don't much care about kings here.

Azmat: "You are also welcome to say what Islam is, that does not make it so."

I usually don't. i sometimes report what Muslims say it is. both those who seem to have been searching for the truth (like Averroes) and those who seem to have a great effect (like Qtub).

Azmat: "Doyou know what Kafir means? I don\'t think their are any Kafirs in the world these days. "

OK. Maybe you should tell that to the roughly thousand people who have told me that i am worthless because i am Kaffir.

Azmat: "How is 8:39 anything but fighting evilwithin yourself. "

You seemed to have missed it. I am not interpreting anything. I simply have reported to you interpretations made by Muslims. Especially ones that have had effect in the world.

Zfter i wrote the above tract, i lloked on the net for several hours for an explanbatoion for various Muslim penalties prescribed for different things. i found many on stoning for adultery. All were arguments made by Muslims quoting the Koran, the Sunnah, the haditha, and various historical and present scholars to support the penalty, except one. in that one, the man claimned that the penalty has been largely based on a particular hadith of doubtful authenticity (although, to be sure, none of the others doubted it).

In the address by bin laden that i link to, everything he says is traced back to the Koran.

Now, if you had your eyes open, you would realize that here in america, there are kooks who come up with weird ideas based on their peculiar reading of the bible. Some have said that homosexuals should be killed. Some have said that the bible calls for poligamy. Some have said that the bible says that we should kill everyone byt white people. still others have said the bible says we should kill everyone by Black people.

B ut, by and large, with a few exceptions, these do not becaoome the law of the land. Such weirdos get marginalized. sometimes, such as in the case of the Ku Klux Klan, who claimed to be Christians protecting the "white race," it may take a long time, and it may take people like me who were willing to keep on saying the truth even though it didn't have any immediate effect (and therefore wqas, to you, irrelevant). But we slowly try to muddle through, knowing we will never reach perfection, but trying to keep our eyes on the prize and march toward our ideals.

Azmat: "In each case please takeinto account the historical context of each verse."

I have heard this a lot. sometimes, on musloim sites, i will come upon a heat3ed discussion about whether or not the Muslims have a duty to kill Americans, say, and someone will cite some verse from the Koran as justification (along with a long list of false accusations against america, such as "they just want to kill every Muslim in the world and destroy islam). However, when i come in and hoin the discussion, i am told that the verse has to be taken historically. You see, they are lying.

Azmat, i don't care about these arguent made to me. i am not reading the scriptures and taking action based on what I othink about them, or on what others have taught me about them. You should be making these arguments to other Muslims.

I'm not misinterpreting Islam or the scriptures, i am merely telling you what other have told me, or i have read, who are Muslims, with sometimes great influence, are saying about what is true in islam.

For instance, there was a long and disparate argument in one Muslim room, complete with citations and dispoutation, about whether there could ever be a state in which some part of the world was not Muslim, AND the world was at peace, with no further war necessary. i can report that there was no one of Miliki background present, who have a tripartite divination of the world, rather than the usual "dar es-islam" and 'area of war." (What ever the Arabic is.) finally, someone noted that in the Koran, Mohammed made peace when he was not strong enough to wage war, but later, when he was strong enough, abrogated the treaties he had made, and made war. the writer argued that there can be temporary peace in such situations, but that any peace with kaffir was simply a tactic in the broader strategy to bring the entire world to islam. he asked if anyone cvould bring an argument against this, and no one could. All agreed, for instance, that it was alright for a Muslim to live in a non-Muslim land (such as Canada, say), and to observe the local laws as much as possible, but that they should understand that living under any but a world-wide khalifah could not be justified forever, and that eventually, they must rise up and take the country by force, if necessary.

I must note that many moderates on the board were uncomfortable with this conclusion, but all said that it was based on a correct reading of the Koran, and that they could not refute it. In this discussion were Muslims from many countries in the middle east (not Suadi Arabie or iran), Somalia, South Africa, India, indonesia, japan, the US, Canada, one from "Andalusia," and many countries in europe.

What the conclusion was here is that islam means to conquer the world in the name of religion, by force, if necessary, as it did in the early days (spare me the protestations to this.) And if it can't do it now, it will do it when there is any weakness in any part of the world not under the Khilafah (which, of course, means several countries that we in the west identify as "Islamic," such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt.)

Now, QAzmat, these are real things. you like to make "might is right" claims about the US, which are not real things. Kind of funny, if you ask me.

it's like the other noght when someone called America "impericist" and the respondent remarked that if the US is imperiscist, it is very bad at it. After all, we won the biggest war in the history of the world, and the losers within decades were there own country, and had booming economies.

Have you ever seen a movie, made in England, with peter Sellars, called "the mouse that roared?" made about 1958, ity concerns a mythical european country about to go bankrupt, who decide that the best way to get their ecponomy back in shape is to declare war on the US and then lose.

"You really have a ill-informed understanding of Jihad,which is internal struggle against sin and temptation. "

Always the assumptions. in fact, i often argue just this point! But it is also true that many Muslims take jihad to mean more than that. And you know it. when people went to Afghanistan before 911 to answer the call to jihad, they were not going there to search for some personal understanding to settle internal spiritual battles.

Azmat: "You are so funny av you talk about boards where they encourage all muslims to fight against Israel,hmm not very successful are they?"

interesting point. Back when i trained with people like the PLO, i had great hopes for them. But what i have come to see is that Arabs don't really goive a crap about the Palestinians. they goive a lot orf lip service, but then do nothing but drop a few dollars on terroist organizations. if they havfe some in their own country, they keep them on reservations, or, like Kuait, use them as servile labor without any chance at citizenship.

I can't tell you how many times i have raised this to get a respions like, "that is true, but we couldn't possibly make them all citizens, it would wreck our economy" or some such. it is a sad fact that more palestinians have come to America and become citizens than have gone to any Arabic country and become citizens.

Of course, then there is good old nassar reviewing the troops in Cairo one day, pointing them to the desert, and announcing that they were goin g to rid the land of the jews. THEN he acts surprised when israel wipes them out in the desert. Geesh!

One more of this:

Azmat: "The second Sura is Sura Baqra I looked at 105 and it talks about Haroot and Maroot. It is a historical description not a command to do harm."

I don't know what it is. All i kow is what Muslim say it is. Let's puut it this way, Azmat. suppose that, circa 1100AD, someone had come to the west from mecca, and complained that some Christians were saying that the Bible justified their gpoing to the H9oly land, taking it by force from the infidel "Mohammedans," killing them, if necessary, and expelling them from the Holy Land, in the name of God. suppose that person was told, "oh, they're just some people who misinterpret the bible, don't take them seriously." But the Muslim protests that they have a large army marching thgrough Byzantium, and have already killed some Muslims in asia Minor. "Don't worry," the christians tell him, "lot's of people can make threats. it doesn't mean anything. Besides, there is nothing we can do about them.
Everyone is free to interpret the bible the way he wants."

What do you think your Muslim should think about that lame explanation?

Azmat: "You misquoted 9:36 and forgot to say \"But know that God is with those who restrain themselves\""

You should have guessed that i only cut and paste. I can't misquote. The further verse was discussed in many places. i tried to point you to discussions, in most cases between muslims.

let me try again: here in america, we have our share of religious nuts, some of whom espouse dangerous interpretations of the bible. But these people soon lose any traction with the mainstream religious, even he nuts, and drop out of the discussion. It seems to me that in Islam, the nuts are a vital part of the discussion. And when someone sho is not a Muslim brings this up, they are topld such lame things as "learn Arabic" or "you misunderstand." Like i said, I don't misunderstand "kill Americans." EVen if i don't know Urdu.

Azmat: "Islam is a club where there is no official to kick you out. "

Gee, the fact that i made this point myself twice before in this thread might have given you a clue that i know this. We have several varieties of Christianity in america where the same thing applies. Some of them "shun" those they think are not living true to the values of the group. others confront miscreants and force them to prove that they should remain in the group.

To me, those who take the attitude that "hey, if they wqant to kill people and call themselves (my religion), well, hey, that's cool, i can't do anythig about it" are simply cowards.
Reminds me of some of my fellow hippies who would say, "well, if murder's your thing, well, i don't like it, but who am i to say what you should do?"

Azmat: "Ofcourse you want to have the interpretation that suits you, except that it is simply incorrect. I am born and raised a muslim and never have I been taught to take up arms against anyone, Kafirs or Infidels or Musrakeens or Jews or Christians or Hindus or Siks or Budhists."

Please note that your little anecdote in the second sentence is no proof of the claim in the first sentence. Logically speaking.

I know, Azmat, i have exchanged posts, e-mails, and chats with muslims all over the world who agree with you, and describe their own teaching as you do. In general, the farther you get away from Suadi Arabia, Iran, and pakistan, the more likely it seems that it is to be true. You should realize that none of this has been about YOU, nor hqs it really been about Islam. i realize that it is hard not to react in a defensive manner. Really! NO ONE gets attacked mnore than an American!

What i have been talking about is how some people within islam interpret scripture to justify their doing things you might think wrong, how these people can be dangerous (currently, mostly to little children in iraq) and how Islam appears to care less. All Yolanda and i have really been doing is to try to explain why it is a concern to those who live in the west, and why the response of Muslims seems inadequate. in fact5, i believe that there is more of a reaction than most in the west know, but it is still inadequate. While it is easy to find terrorist websites spuiting venom, and one can find lots of pro-terrorist yellow journalism, such as much of al-jezeerah, it is actually quite hard to find equally hard sites by Muslims fighting against terrorism. Anti American and anti isrtraeli fatwas are easy to find, but anti hamas fatwas are harder to find.

(btw, in a personal note, i worked in prison for many years. One gets "antennae" for sociopaths and evil people. it is a survival skill. i can say that hamas leader Sheik Yassin was probably the most evil man i have ever seen. on the other hand, i don't get that vibe from bin Laden. he seems to me to be at peace, and to actually believe that he is doing right. just my observation.)

Azmat: "that is the point those Afghans donot see this law as stupid and inhumane; YOU DO."

yes, and that is the crux. the question is WHY the Afghans don't see it as cruel and unjust. The reason is that they have been taught that it is religiously correct.

i'd be more interested in what you think about it.

btw, i believe that those outside our country who disagree with our laws, say, on capital punishment, have every right to protest it, perhaps by sending their secretary of state. That has happened. In fact, some murderers have not been extradicted to the US because the country in which theylived did not support the death penalty. And we only apply it to murder, not changing your mind.

Azmat: "And you wouldn\'t help me If I had sex with an underage girl and the law said that I had to go to jail for twenty years, because you would think that it is justice."

Always the assumptions. You haqve no idea what i would think. How old are you? How old is the girl? What exactly happened? you know, a man i knew was 17 and had a 16 year old girlfriend. they were having sex, and it was legal. When he turned 18, he was arrested, convicrted of statuatory rape, and was sentenced to five years in prison. do you think that was justice?

Azmat: "I don\'t see too many people marching to set free those stupid Afghanis people in Gitmo."

No, the marches have died down. not effective, and not likely to be. it is because those Afghans (i don't think they are stupid, as you do), are inlegal limbo. there doesn't seem to be any way under the law to pry themn loose so long as the Taliban continues to fight. had the exact same problem in good old WWII. you see, the Germans took prisoners, and, if they survived, they were freed when the war was over. The Americans also took prisoners, and they also were freed when the war was over. This one has the same rules.

Despite that, a raft of American attorneys have done everything they could to represent the people in Gitmo, and have pressedfor every advantage they couold. They and the Supreme Court have forced the government to do womthing unprecidented: provide status hearings for those detainees in Gitmo.

btw, from what i can find out, about a quarter of those ever detained in Gitmo have been let go. those went to Gitmo from Afghanistan amounted to about one-tenth of all the prisoners taken by coalition forces in Afghanistan.

We bad. We evil. We're not good people like those in Afghanistan who killed mothers in front of their children in a stadium for the amusement of all. Nope. we bad.

Azmat: "The only reason we have anti-war marches here is because the cost of the war is increasing."

Now, Azmat, i don't think you ae stupid, but stuff like this is. in fact, there were anti-iraq war marches BEFORE the war, when the cost was zero. In fact, one of my old 60's cohorts, Dave Dellinger, actually marched (with others, of course) against the Afghanistan invasion. He got his start marching against WWII.

As for me, lest you assume, I have opposed every war in my lifetime, except the Afghanistan invasion. I just don't think we should be galavanting around the world trying to do good for people. I don't believe in the old liberal notion that we should, in the words of John F. Kennedy, "pay any price, endure any hardship," go anywhere, to insure the survival of liberty. i don't think it is any of our business. i don't think we should give anyone any of our money. i think we should just leave everyone alone, to work out their own problems. As long as they leave us alone, we should leave them alone.

you see, as you amply demonstrate, no good deed goes unpunished.

Azmat: "as we in the west say so eloquently \"collateral damage\""

of course the phrase is meant to convey that it is damage that is not intended. you can make fun of it for reasons of propaganda if you wish, or, rather, more truthfully, as you have been brainwashed.

i am going to tell you the truth here, just as an exercise. you will not believe it, of course. (Reference the Swift quote from Zayed)

These two military exercises in Afghanistan and iraq were the most precise in history, in both cases, great care was taken to avoid civilian casualties. and the care was very successful. it would be easy to find examples where American or British lives were bput in danger to avoid civilian casualties.

Of course, total succes inthis is not possible.
but it is evil and perverse to ignore the effort.

i would only ask you to compare this to, say, the typical Palestinian homocide bombher, who sets off himself where he can kill the most "collateral damage." of course, in that case, we should note that civilians are actually the target. i await your acid toungue on that one, my friend.

Remember, the loudest voice of islam says that all muslims have a duty to kill any american, civilian or not, anywhere and anytime they can. no collateral damage there.

Let me ask you this: if Americans were to seize back control of iraq, and stay in control for the same amount of time as that good Muslim Saddam, do you reaolly think that Americans would DELIBERATELY kill anywhere close to as many Iraqi civilians as Saddam did?

Don't you find it interesting that two people from iraqi kurdistan said recently that if George Bush ran for office trhere, he would win 95% of the vote? Why do you think that is, Azmat? Because the Americans are killers of civilians?

It was with much sadness that i read a dispatch from a reporter with some troops in iraq that a cxommander in mosul had to tell his troops that they could no longer hand out candy and soccer balls to children, because the insurgennts were targetting the children to get at the troops.

Once again, i suppose the Americans are the bad guys.b
and the child killers are just some misqguided Muslims that you, ho-hum, don't have enough hoinesty or moral fibre to speak out against. YOU save it for americans.

Azmat: "How many Iraqi civilians and Afghani Civilians have died under the occupation of the United States?"

I don't rallycare. people die. the question is how many people have died because of the occupation by America, not due to other couses, like natural death from disease or old age, or because of the insurgency and the american and iraqi respoinse to it. now, compoare that to any who would have died buyt received medical treatment that they wouldn't have gotten because, under Saddam, he was siphoning medicine away from the citizens topad his own pockets.

let's put it this way: how many people do you think would have died under occupation if the original Americanb plan was put into effect. That is, the iraqis quyickly put together a government, cooperated in the Americans (and others) spending billions to rebuild the ifnrfrastructure that Saddam had let deteriorate, most american troops would have been gone by october, 2003 (since there was no insurgency requiring them to stay)? In other words, if there were no insurgency, how many iraqi civilians would have died under american occupation, do you think?

To help you guess, get on the web and ask how many japanese died as thge result of American occupation, or how many Germans died as the result of occupation.

You know, Azmat, we Americans are naive. We tend to think that the average Muslim is religious and serious about it. Most Muslims we meet here in america are that way. i remember being SHOCKED to see looting take place in Baghdad. ANd then, when the bloggers started reporting that gangs were kidnapping other iraqis for ransom at a high rate, I couldn't understand it. We thought that islam would bind these people to lawfulness.

We should have listened to the Egyptian diplomat, who, before the war, said that Iraq is made up of many tribes with many centuries old feuds, and that the land is only governmable by someone with an iron fist, like Saddam (although the diplomat said that one could do it without being quite as cruel as Saddam). this Egyptian noted that Americans are just not cut out to rule with an iron fist. it is not in our nature, he said. We stupidly expect people to be like us, lobvers of liberty asbove all, and willing to settle differences politically. We are sadly mistaken, he said, and would be in for a lot of trouble in iraq.

i remember wishing that he was wrong. but he wasn't.

Azmat: "I think that this Christain dude will be saved."

Turns out you were right. i don't think it has much to do with Rice. You may have noted that the UN was against it, it is against the UN declaration of human rights, the Pope spoke out, and many other nations.

I also note that Afghanis were urged to find the man and tear him to pieces if he was let go. Sounds like a good, old-fashioned, wild west lynching. ya hoo. String 'im up, cowboy.

But i know that you hav thatnice little brainwashing in you, and you probably think Condi simply told the judges to let him go, and they did.

Azmat: "\"Don\'t be stupid,Azmat\" Hey AV I can\'t help it I was born stupid."

Azmat, if i had any notin that you were stupid, i woujldn't bother. That is why it distresses me when you stop making intelligent points to recite hogwash, like some religious fanatic who has spent his life chanting ritual propaganda. That stuff is a waste of both of our minds.

Azmat: "But tell me why would the US military still be in Afghanistan if the power has been succesfully transfered to Afghanis?"

I should let you figure this one out yourself. but, let me give you a hint. for the same reason that the US mnilitary stayed in Germany long after the power had successfully been transferred back to (West) Germany. Note that for another scenario, consider the relationship of East Germany and the USSR. what was the difference?

Another hint: our troops are still in Afghanistan because the elected government of Afghanistan has requested that they stay. You DO remember that he was originally chosen by an ancient Afghani traditional process? Bu Afghan tribal leaders? Oh, i know, what's the truth when you have propaganda to spit out?

Azmat: "Might is Right again: Fredrick Neitzsche?? "

You obviously know as little about Nietzsche as you do ths situation.

Azmat: "If Afghanis were to determine there own destiny we would not even hear of this christian dude, he would be killed quietly. And his death would be called an accident. But this whole hopla of court and clerics, smacks of US media and propaganda."

So, you are proposing that anytime one hears of a court and judges, that means it has someting to do with American propaganda? huh? Afghanistan doesn't really have courts? The American ministry of propaganda just made them up? Really, man, this is funny stuff. Who writes your material. you should take it down to the comedy club. you know:

"Did you hear the one about the Afghani courts? yeah, really. where did that come from. Really. You just know that the Amerifdcans made that one up!" (Rimshot)

Azmat: (concerning the report from the man in karachi) "I have some wonderful property for you near the beach, in Pakistan."

Did i say anywhere that i believed it? No. in fact, since this particular man was hard at work telling me that America was going to be defeated, that Karachi had more jihadists ready to fly planes into american buildings per square hectare than any other city in the world, and that everyone in karachi had posters of osama, named their children Osama, etc, I didn't really take him that seriously.

After all,he was merely talking to me as a Muslim courtesy, he said, to allow me to prepare for my imminent death.

Well, it's been 3 years now. i'm still waiting.

Azmat: "Oh and I did not bother to look at the Afghani constitution, I suspect it is the Sharia Law. Wow that IS a victory for the Bush administration,"

This couldn't be more silly. bush's objective is to "stand up" a democracy. What Bush doesn't get is that those in other countries often think that democracy is merely whatever the majority can vote in. actually, American democracy (it's called a "liberal" democracy) includes limits on the power of government, limits to what the majority can do to miniorities, and forbids the voting out of democracy. it alsio includes the normal rights of man, some of which are in conflict with Sharia law.

Now, i don't think you are so stupid or ignorant to make the statement you made, just that you are in brainwashed propaganda mode, and unable to think for yourself here.

In fact, if you follow politics in america, you will realize that the installation of an islamic government with sharia law would be the greatest defeat for Bush, because it would unermine his whole justification for the interventions.

Azmat: "Note the repubs have more in comman with the Sharia then these liberal nut jobs. "

OK, tell me which Republicans you know who agree with executing people because, say, they leave the Baptist church to become Buddhists.

this is one of those facile and silly things one finds on antiAmerican and antiBush wacko websites.

Azmat: "just wanna let you know Mr or Ms. Averroes, that it has been my pleasure to interact with you, Now if we could only talk in Urdu, I have a couple of choice shares for you."

It has been my pleasure to listen toyou, and to interct with you, likewise. unfortunately, I am a typoical American, and can really only do English. Heym, it is the easiest language in the world to learn to communicate in.

We are not all this qway. one of the Muslims on a board i used to frequent was a good old, family on the Mayyflower, new England American, a revert, who couold speak and write in about 11 languages, including Arabic and Turkic. in fact, he often used these languages on the board, where appropriate. Quite an amazing fellow.

he was one of the people in on the discussion i described above.

He also described how he became very upset and agittated, a couple of decades ago, with the way Islam was being used by some tosupport terrorism, but, he told us, one day, God grabbed him by the backof the neck, and "told" him that his faith was his faith, and he should not let the acts of others shake it. it was enough to simply stand up against them.

btw, he also recommended the Yusef Ali translation, but suggested getting a plain copy (he mentioned the edition and publisher) without Ali's footnotes. Why do you think that is?

Dear Mr. Averroes,
I read carefully what you have written, and I have thought about it,and I agree with you entirely. I was wrong in my interpretation of Islam, I have had a biased view because of my upbringing and forty-seven years of interacting with muslims who have the same interpretation as me. Your persuasive arguments, and astute observations and perspicasious ideas have convinced me to re-think my whole philosophy.
I am having a \"crisis of conscience\" so I have decided to give up teaching philosophy, logic and ethics. Because I can\'t stand in front of students when I am so full of it. Instead I will learn more about Islam, and tell others about how and what muslims should really think, feel and believe. I hope that you can help me in that area. Tell me where you learnt to be so knowledgable about Islamic history, hadith and Fiqa. Maybe I can enroll in the same institution. Oh forgive me, maybe I am assuming too much again, perhaps you were self-taught. From all those sites on the internets. Perhaps you can guide me and send me to those sites.
Yes I admit I have been brainwashed, by this western education and eastern upbringing. Also I have many friends here in the USA who are in the same position. Please enlighten us all and tell us how we can learn about Jihad being not internal struggle against evil, but instead it shoud be as you so aptly put it: \"What the conclusion was here is that islam means to conquer the world in the name of religion, by force\" My fellow muslim brothers decided that without informing the whole of the Ummah. I know I have said a lot of stupid and silly things in my previous posts, I appologize for that sincerely. I can now see clearly that the USA policy is to minimize killing, that is why the death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan is so low. It could have been a lot higher if they were being careless and not watching out for innocent women and children. And I see now clearly why the policy of not handing out candy is designed to save children. Thanks for pointing these out to me, I now have a new found regard for the US Army, Marines and Navy. Before, I just thought that they were doing there duty, now I see them as real human beings, who are concerned about the welfare of their fellow human beings. I can see the level of love and comapssion that this army brings to this crazy situation.
You have contributed in my life in so many ways, taught me about logic, about brainwashing and propaganda, about freedom and democracy. And lets not forget about Islam. Most importantly, you have taught me to think for myself. You have given me the courage to go out and share this version of Islam with my brothers and sisters. With your help I will be able to convert them all into getting the mission of Islam straight.
I hope that you realize how with you as our leader we can all be on the path of righteousness. I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Love and Peace,
Azmat Hussain
Please continue to give me guidance: my email address is azzerism@yahoo.com
All the muslims in the USA are looking to you for leadership, don\'t let us down, when we need you the most.

OK, you've had your tantrum. You have answered what i said by misinterpreting everything i said.

But i am rather inclined to take uyou up on your offer IF you want to discuss thngs, not simply engage in half-truths and sweeping accusations.

Firstly, let me quote you: "I was wrong in my interpretation of Islam, I have had a biased view because of my upbringing and forty-seven years of interacting with muslims who have the same interpretation as me. Your persuasive arguments, and astute observations and perspicasious ideas have convinced me to re-think my whole philosophy."

Surely you realize that this is childish. i haven't challenged your interpretation of Islam, i have agreed wtih you that islanm is a kind of "protestanism" where everyone is allowed to reach God on their own, and so on. All I have said is that SOM

An example of your childishness: I made clear that I, myself, havfe argued to others (westerners, you know) that jihad meant struggle and not holy war, yet you say "Please enlighten us all and tell us how we can learn about Jihad being not internal struggle against evil, [but about holy war.]"

Azmat, you KNOW that you can go many places, including some Mosques, where this is taught. Why play this game?

My point, which i made explicitly several times, was NOT that I was making any claims for what Islam was, but that others who identify themselves as Muslim did. I merely reported what they said. Why are you so dishonest that you now say that i am interpreting, telling you what islam is, and so on?

You offer this:

"\"What the conclusion was here is that islam means to conquer the world in the name of religion, by force\" My fellow muslim brothers decided that without informing the whole of the Ummah."

Azmat, if you are unaware of any Muslims trying to inform the Ummah of exactly this, then there is no hope for you.

I easily found this from just one person, a very popular Muslim with a large following, in fact, this tract (excerpted):

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

This call is backed up with many quotations from the scriptures, both here and in many other writings by this man. I am SURE that you are aware of them. aned yet you play dumb. Again, i feel it necesasary to make clear: I am quoting one MUSLIM here, not ISLAM, not YOU. I am making the same claim that i have always made, and which you have chosen to ignore: There are Muslims who make threats and attack people from the west and use their interpretation of ISLAM to justify such actions.

Now, if someone tpold me that someone of my religion was doing this, i would be angry with those who did it, NOT the persoin who told me that. I wouldn't get all sarcastic with them and pretend i was Naom Chomsky or something.

Now, one last time, slowly, so that you can ignore it once more, i suppose: I am not making any claim about ISLAM, am not making aaany interpretation, am not pretending to instruct. I am simply reporting what Muslims have said.

If you told me that some Christians had said that their religion required them to drink the blood of unbaptized babies, i would tell you that I doubted it. but if you then showed me where they had said that, I would say simply that they ere wrong. But if these Christians were in the news every day, saying that, and there were common reports of their carrying it out, and you told me about it, i wouldn't get all catbacked and play sarcastic with you. Geesh.

Was it Islam that tought you to be so dishonest? I don't think so! Maybe you have been corrupted by the west, as people like Sayyid Qtub say is bound to happen. Now, since it seems that i have to spell it out, I am saying that Sayyid Qtub says this, NOT that Islam says this, NOT that I am saying this, NOR that you are saying this. Is it that hard to understand?

Azmat: "Yes I admit I have been brainwashed, by this western education and eastern upbringing."

I have no idea where and how you were brqinwashed, but when you make statements with no backup chanted by, say, the political left or the political right, it is obvious that you are chanting something faith-based, not something that comes as the result of a search for the truth.

Azmat: "Also I have many friends here in the USA who are in the same position."

I believe that. you know, the "blame America first" crowd, among whom one shows their membership in the religion by bing as quick as poissible to be negative about the US.

Anyway, as Mencken reminds us, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." most Americans seem willing to accept anything at fqce value so long as it it is in concord with their cherished beliefs.

For instance, many Americans believe that Muslims are all out to destroy any other religion, and to establish Muslim rule everywhere. Other Americans want to believe that there could be no part of Islam that wants to kill americans every where you can because it is a religion of peace.

You must forgive me. i am ignorant, and when i am ignorant, I ask those who might know. That is why I have actually asked Mslims! i know you find such a course of action to be stupid, but i can think of no better. in fact, this is why I wished to interact with you. but instead of enlightenment about what is gpoing on inIslam today, you seem to have been more interested in condemning anything american, and of "knowing" the bad intentions and motibves of, for instance, any American involved in Iraq.

I won't expect otherwise from you in the future. You have amply demonstrated that this is a part of your faith that you are not likely to call into doubt. personally, i am not interested in challenging people's faith. i am only interested in getting information, and engaging in rational discussions.

Azmat: "I can now see clearly that the USA policy is to minimize killing, that is why the death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan is so low. "

Despite the sarcasm, you have it right. in fact, the policy IS to minimize killing, AND the death tolls are low, AND you know it! For instance, you KNOW that in any other war, "dumb" bombs were used which increased the "collateral damage," both because they were less accurate AND because more of them had to be used to achieve the same end. Turns out, dumb bombs can achieve the same objective much cheaper than smart weapons. Why do YOU think they weren't used? Why do you think that when the iraqi Fedeyeen disappeared into Baghdad, Baghdad wasn't carpet bombed, the usual strategy in such situations?

You seem like a smart man. To what should i attribute this willful ignoring of the truth. You should know that the invasion of Iraq was sure to involve deaths, and those who did so are certainly responsible for every death that occurred as the direct result of that invasion. Isn't that enough? Why do you have to insist that americans went in trying to MAXIMIZE the number of deaths, as your argument suggests?

You know, i don't know everything. If you have evidence that it was not the policy of the US in invading Iraq to avoid as much as possible unintentional deaths and the deaths of civilians, please show it to me. i actually can learn. i have made this requewst many times in the past, but no one has ever had any. maybe you do. Remember, evidence, not assumptions. Remember, policy, not some evil American throwing three iraqis in a canal, leading to the death of one (which happened).

Azmat: "It could have been a lot higher if they were being careless and not watching out for innocent women and children. "

You've got that right, and you know it. Are you, with your sarcasm, meaning to argue that the death toll could NOT have been any higher? Seems to me that the iraqis themselves are much more efficient than the vaunted US military at killing women and children. And they are doing it in the name of Allah!

Azmat: "And I see now clearly why the policy of not handing out candy is designed to save children. "

Again with the cowardly sarcasm, istead of real rational argument. if you have evidence that that commander changed the policy for another reason, please show me. I would be interested. Even the cynical might think that being kind to children and giving them gifts is a policy designed to win the hearts of the people, and would think that it would be maintained whereever possible. What is your evidence for another reason for stopping it? Remember, evidence, not assumption. (For this story, you might check out Michael Yon's site.) Oops, sorry, i forgot, he's just one of those lying americans who can't know as mucyh as you about Iraq because he makes the mistake of actually going there and reporting, instead of just making assumptions based on a faith from here. (See, I can do sarcasm, too. Does it help?)

Azmat: "Before, I just thought that they were doing there duty, now I see them as real human beings, who are concerned about the welfare of their fellow human beings."

know a little logic, do you? Well, you certainly know the strawman fallacy. You use it at every opportunity.

You might show me where i ever said that the army was composed of "real human beings who are concerned about the welfare of their fellow human beings."

What i would assert is that the army is like any other collection of human beings. It has people with a range of temperments and spoiritual qualities. indeed, I will bet that there are people in the american army wyho are concerned with their fellow human beings. however, as always, i will accept any evidence YOU have that there is not one person in the US army who is concerned in any way with his fellow human beings. Again, evidence, not assumptions.

note that i also would say that there are bad apples in the army. We have the pictures to prove it, in fact. But if you sarcastically said, "Oh, now i understand that the army is compposed of real human beings whose only concern is to hurt, torture, rape, and kill their fellow human beings," I would treat that the same way. i would ask for evidence, not assumption, that it was the case. i would ask you to prove that there is not one person in the army concerned about his fellow man.

Azmat: "You have contributed in my life in so many ways, taught me about logic, about brainwashing and propaganda, about freedom and democracy. And lets not forget about Islam."

Strawman.

Azmat: "And lets not forget about Islam. "

Strawman.

Azmat: "Most importantly, you have taught me to think for myself."

Strawman.

Azmat: "I hope that you realize how with you as our leader we can all be on the path of righteousness."

You know, Azmat, that is simply idiocy, AND you know it. i have not made any of these claims.
But, if it conforts you to cling to these fantasies, be my guest. otherwise, i would be interested in rational conversation.

Unlike you seem tho think of YOURseolf, I have a lot to learn.

But learning does not come from people who deny reality (like thgat some Muslims want to destroy America and kill Americans, and use Islam to justify it) or sling tired lies about American motives (like "it's about the oil"-I realize you haven't slung this one, Azmat, but you have slung others).

Love and Peace (for real)
Averroes

(You can reply,if you wish, at the adress here. it is also available on Attila's site.)

PS-I note you like the "100,000 killed" meme that comes from that British study. Please check it out, read their methods and assumptions, and expecially visit their statistics to realize that there SD is almost as large as their range. the study is meaningless, for the most part. There are better accountings. None of them are low. but this one has been accepted uncritically by those of a certain faith, if you know what i mean.

PPS_ When responding, please respond to what i actually say, por favor, rqather than ascribing to me things i didn't say, motives i don't have, or ascribing to me things i quote from others. please do not ascribe to me anything i did not say.

You know, i spent a lot of time in Academia. such things were called "intellectual dishonesty" there. My colleagues took a dim view of such things. your mileage may vary.

You might also give me a real address--nice, Azmat.

btw, here is a link (cut and paste variety) to a muslima who has written an article arguing that the Palestianian use of suicide bombers is not grounded or justified by Islamic scripture. It has six comments on the bottom.

My question to y9ou is why do you think she felt it necessary to write this?

If i were concerned that islam was distorted, i would do what i could (and i have) whether that distortion comes from within or without Islam.

but hey, that's just me.

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000188.htm

AV: If you go on the web there are lots of so-called muslim sites run by christians, jews, and bahais, some are run by wahabis, some by Ismailis, and then there are all other 72 sects who have there own agendas. There is a lot of misinformation out there. You are more than welcome to focus on it. For most muslims these matters are not up for debate. They believe what they believe and not what someone says they ought to believe. Now someone calling himself a muslim can say that we should all fight Americans, the value of that statement is determined by how many respond to such a call. If out of one-billion muslims only twenty respond, can you see that this is a miniscule amount. Now as far as the response to such a declaration? I for one do not take them seriously. You do! So you should do something about it. Don't call on muslims, they are not even listening to such trash. People can say all kinds of things, that only makes a difference if it moves you into action.
I don't know the meaning of strawman? Is that the same as sarcasm?
Yes you made it abundantly clear that muslims are making death threats to the USA, and you also told me what I should do about it. Get angry and respond to them. The fact of the matter is I don't think that these people can deliver on such idle threats, and the real ones already have and they are dead.
I don't know how to explain this to you, but Averroes my friend the last time I went into a mosque was maybe 15 or twenty years ago. So I really don't know what they are saying lately. But you are right If they are saying death to America that is wrong.
But please also grant me that continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is also wrong. That the death of all those civilians was unneccessary. And once 2008 comes along the truth will rear its ugly head. Already on PBS there were soldiers on who were saying that this war is a sham. That we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yes I am only saying what your own soldiers are saying, hey don't blame me.
I am trying to read your whole essay and figure out your central thesis: It goes something like this: Some muslims say things: that I should for whatever reason be concerned about. And not only that I should fight them and set them straight. I don't care what some so called muslims have to say about islam. But I do care when someone who knows little about Islam runs with it as if it is true. I can't engage in a dialogue with some one living turkey, egypt, malaysia, nigeria or Iran. But I can engage in a dialogue with YOU.
As far as the intellectual honesty is concerned, I didn't know that we were being judged on that category. Now that you have set me striaght I will try my best. I hope I am responding to what you actually say, and not what my misinterpretations are of you. And I gave you my correct email address.
By the way the opposite of minimize is not maximize. That is like saying that the opposite of red is purple. Or the opposite of black is white. Or the opposite of passive is aggresive. The opposite of minimize is not minimized. and the opposite of passive is not passive.

So first to respond to "Azmat, you KNOW that you can go many places, including some Mosques, where this is taught. " Last I checked you go to a mosque to pray. And I have already told you I am not much of a muslim.
"Azmat, if you are unaware of any Muslims trying to inform the Ummah of exactly this, then there is no hope for you."
I am unaware, so sue me! Never have I heard such nonsense. And If I did I would address it right there.
I know that you are really focused on this idea, I wonder why? Only you have brought it up, so I am addressing it.
AV: Why are you so dishonest that you now say that i am interpreting, telling you what islam is, and so on?
Because by focusing on this particular interpretation you are saying what Islam is!
AV: We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded ..... Averroes, you found that because you were looking for something like that. Does not make it true, nor does it make it relevent. Yes You say that you are quoting one muslim, who might not even be a muslim for all you know. This is not like the Pentagon, that they call a press conference and speak on behalf of the US Army. All I am saying is that there are all kinds of lunatics in the world, question is why are you chasing them? And are fascinated by them.
AV:"There are Muslims who make threats and attack people from the west and use their interpretation of ISLAM to justify such actions."
Just because someone calls themself a muslim, does not make him so. Only God can judge that. Not you Nor I. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not make him so. They have to have actions alligned with that.
AV:"I am simply reporting what Muslims have said." Yes and I am responding to that by letting you know that those idiots have an incorrect version of Islam. They are intentionally misinterpreting Islam, for whatever purpose. Just like you are, And why would you be so focused on people who are misinterpreting Islam? You seeker of knowledge you!

AV:Was it Islam that tought you to be so dishonest?
Hey man I told you I am not much of a muslim. And here in the Usa, its even harder to be a muslim, have some compassion. You try having a last name like Hussain, and get a free proctology exam every time you cross the border (Joke) Actually I have no trouble crossing the border, these days with the Bush Administration, the border is even more relaxed.
AV: "believe that. you know, the "blame America first" crowd,
I am not in the blame America crowd, checkwith those soldiers who served in iraq and afghanistan and then spoke out against the war ON TV? does that mean they are part of the blame america crowd?
AV: wished to interact with you. but instead of enlightenment about what is gpoing on inIslam today, you seem to have been more interested in condemning anything american" I don't condemn anything American. Just Gm and maybe Ford and chrysler. But other than that America stands for a lot of great things, you got Disneyland, Yellowstone Park, I love NY city, and LA with all the freeways. I like hanging out with my gay brothers in San Fran. And Chicago has a huge desi (thats Indian) community.
Now The thing I liked about America was that you could speak your mind, well lately that is not a good idea. So I have to resort to rhetorical devices. When a country goes on the agressive, there is a price to pay. You can read Lao Tzu on that one. That is what USA has done, without a backup plan. And all reasonable voices are silenced. so no I am not bashing USA, just this particular aspect, and it will be over soon and we can go back to beaches and volleyball.
Yes I was being sarcastic, because any death that is unneccessary is unacceptable. Low or high, it is just wrong. You can take your accurate bombs and do what you think is right:) Like not dropping them.
AV: invasion of Iraq was sure to involve deaths
Precisely, that was the mistake. Why kill people for know reason, and it is still going on.
Av: policy of the US in invading Iraq to avoid as much as possible unintentional deaths
Were you asleep through Shock and Awe? Maybe you were not In Baghdad at the time.
Av: if you have evidence that that commander changed the policy for another reason, please show me
The command makes policy to protect soldiers.
av: please in your own words describe the strawman fallacy?
I think you are using it slightly differently, then I am aware.

Hi Av.

“the best selling book translated into Arabic in Palestine was Mein Kampf.� Second is probably that famous piece of fiction “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion�

“UN declaration ~ has no legal force behind it.� True, but for the fact that It was agreed upon by all the nation’s representatives except for 8 (Saudi Arabia being one of them.) Few if any documents in the history of the world hold that kind of Universal acceptance. Yet, sadly, now the UN IS irrelevant.

“It did. Christians didn't listen to them.� What religion was this “older brother� to Christianity? Please give references. Thank you.

“It is not in the nature of those who think they have the God-given truth to listen to others.� That describes some radical Muslims to a T!

“The same argument can and is made against America's use of lengthy sentences.� Well of course!

“You are arguing that what you say is true because the UN says so. � No, I’m not saying it is true, that’s your word. I’m just saying that the largest most diverse group of representatives of all nations (except for 8) agrees with me.

“I assume here that you are, as you state, Catholic, and not a pseudoCatholic of the cafeteria variety� You know what they say about assumptions… and your assumption is wrong.

“So, the question here is whether any religion should change its values and laws simply because the UN and Yolanda see it differently. �UN, Yolanda and computer models on adversarial social relationships and stable strategies! LOL

“Do you think the Catholic Church whould change things because most people in the world, including the UN, disagree? � I wish!

“I have conversed with many Muslim women� SO HAVE I! Although, I to be fair, most are Somali, (some from Iran). The veil seems to be the least of their concerns. Freedom of movement, job choice, education, spousal abuse and child custody are their big issues. I don’t doubt your experience, but maybe what Muslim women speak of to Muslim men is different than what they talk about to a non-Muslim female.

“You simply made a statement that was not true� I think you meant: “You simply made a statement I disagree with� You are no more right than I am wrong. We just have different sources of information.

“which i corrected� "Oh! arrogance! though raiseth thy ugly head! If you noticed in my previous reply to you, I never presumed to say that YOU were WRONG, just that my sources contradict you (we could argue the veracity of our sources, if you like). You are guilty of doing what you accuse Azmat of doing.

“probably an improvement from the Hebrew view� Yes, except that unlike Muslims and Sharia Law, the “Hebrew view� on women as property, is no longer practiced.

“I take it that you are not married. Or, if you are, your husband has not committed adultery.� There we go with the assumptions again, (you’d fail in a debate team)... However, if my husband commits adultery, I’d get a divorce, not kill him.

“Yolanda's SO: Oh, btw, I hought you should know. I have been screwing your best friend for a year 'cause she is just such a good lay." Yolanda: Cool. I'm glad you enjoyed it.� That was in poor taste. I may disagree with Azmat more than with you, but at least he is above this kind of tactic. Conversation over.

Hey Yolanda,
I think you should stay away from Al-jezeera, A Jazeera is an island, in my language and perhaps in Arabic. So it is by its nature going to be controversial, not giving in to journalistic ethics. I would recommend, the Pakistani news paper \"The Dawn\" it is available on line. I have no objection to BBC.
You say: \" I just want to hear more Muslims speaking to radicals on how their behavior is detrimental to Islam.\" I wonder why you would want that? First of all I don\'t know any radicals, second, why would I wanna mess with people like that, heck I stay away from born again christians. Besides it won\'t make any difference. What makes a difference is if we moderates can actually change how YOU percieve us. Note: I am unable to do that as well. Also I looked at Memri read articles by the president \"Yigal Carmon\" and others. Along with all the muslim website with the fatwas. I have said this with Mr. Averroes as well, there are many websites that are run by non-muslims and claim to be muslim. Also the people giving fatwas really have no authority to do so. So the credibility of Memri as an objective and non-bias source is in question. I went to one muslim site bouti.net here is what it said about Jihad.
\"The most important Jihad is that the Muslim undertakes fostering and educating his soul in order to purify if from bad morals and customs, such as pride, grudge, envy, clinging to wealth and the like.\" Hey that one passed the litmus test. But here is what memri says :
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3504
Some links simply do not work like http://www.awajy.net/
I looked at the muslim brotherhood dude, who emphasizes Jihad without realy saying what it is... Hmmm Don\'t think he is a real muslim. One of those fake christians that are trying to give Islam a bad name(Joke). But seriously, any one can make a website, question is do they have a following seriously? Who has time between raising kids and doing their jobs to go out and convert others into their particular worldview.
Next I read the Malawi fatwa: In a sense he is right if you are attacked,self defense is Jihad.So anyone fighting in self defense in Iraq and afghanistan are doing Jihad. He is not saying that Jihad is required of anyone outside Iraq, he is saying that it would be desireable to help your muslim brothers.
In all I did not find anything very objectionable, what I did find was that a lot of links simply didn\'t work and the names as far as I am concerned are pure fiction.
here is one: www.members.lycos.co.uk/abugaith1 of Shiekh Sulieman ghieth supposedly from Kawait. Poor guy does not exist!
Here is another one:http://www.almaqdese.com/
Of sheikh Abu mohammed Al-Maqadsi Go to the link and you are given someIslamic catogaries but they are all fake links to search engines: Big surprise hey this guy does not exist either.
I went to alsalafyoon.com. He does not say anything controversial,just simple questions like can I have 401 K or is that unIslamic, or someone who converted to christianity is he still entitled to recieve money from his fathers will. I know you can\'t read Arabic,sojust trust me on that one. al-fhd.net does not exist surprise surprise,
went to saaid.net,nothing controversial there either. http://saaid.net/Warathah/hmood/index.htm
here is one where memri is making up what the website is saying.
I guess you get the picture Yolanda. The mission of memri is biased. I could care less though:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3504
I am sure that someone is doing this because they get paid. And this is about dollars.More power to them hope they make up more names.
Help them by donating money, if you want to spread that kind of garbage.
Cheers,
Azmat Hussain

Azmat: "Now someone calling himself a muslim can say that we should all fight Americans, the value of that statement is determined by how many respond to such a call."

The statement i quoted was from someone called Osama boin Laden. At least 20 people responded to it. That doesn't count the first
WTC bombing (where the bombers got caught because they tried to claim the truck was stolen at the rental place, and ddemanded their money back! It doesn't count the USS Cole. It doesn't count the operations in the far east. It doesn't count...

Well, you get the idea.

I realize that this one man and his semi-organized bunch of men are not so much of a real threat numerically. hey, i live in a place that would never be targeted, so I have about a zero chance of getting hurt in a terrorist attack. But somehow, turning my back on those who aren't quite so lucky would be a little like you saying that people are dying in Afghanistan and iraq, so you don't care.

I will make a point i've made at least four times now. i realize that anyone can get up and say that what they say represents Islam. I remember a mulima telling me "what do i care what he says; he's got no authority. He has no right to issue fatwas." My bet is that this is the attitude of most Muslims.

All i have been saying is that Muslims (I am not cdounting you in this) need to respond to those who would usurp Islam, especially as it seems to others to justify a negative view of the religion as a whole.

Answering Yolanda above, you said this:

What makes a difference is if we moderates can actually change how YOU percieve us.

This is a most concise statement of what i have been trying to say! i realize that when those outside of Islam start making accusations about "all those Muslims," it is easy to get defensive. that is what is natural. but it is better to draw the distinctions, make things clearer. I find it frustrating that i spend so much of my time in political discusiions trying to 'correct" inaccurte views of islam. As you might have noticed, the media gend to focus on blood and guts, and aberage religious practicioners of any stripe are not good television.

"The fact of the matter is I don't think that these people can deliver on such idle threats, and the real ones already have and they are dead."

I would say that this is sticking one's head in the sand. i think it is more realistic to say that Americans (and other westerners, and probably even Muslims) will continue to be attacked by these groups.

Like i said, my German friend thinks aAmericans are sissies. AHe points out that they had much more terrorism in the '70s, and just learned to live with it.

"But please also grant me that continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is also wrong."

Yoiu should note that i was against the war, protested against it, etc. I ended up being very discouraged because most of those i protested were more ointerested in damning Bush than in stopping the war, and they actually, by m,aking stupid antiBush epithets, made the war more likely.

But i am not so sure as you are that simply walking out of Iraq right now would be the right thing to do. Perhaps you could tell me hjow that would be the best for the iraqis.

As for Afghanistan, there is no occupation. unless you are willing to say that we are also "occupying" Germany or Cuba.

And you also know this, but will probablyu deny it: when we are asked to leave, we will. Either place. You DO remember thqat when Uzbekistan asked us to leave, we were out in a few months. Real occupiers don't act like that.

So, to repeat, i don't really know whether ofr not our leaving Iraq right now is the best thing for iraq. I just don't have enough information for judging a situation that is very complicated. The people in iraq that i have talked to since the war started (even during "shock and awe," are mostly against our leaving right now.

"Already on PBS there were soldiers on who were saying that this war is a sham. That we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yes I am only saying what your own soldiers are saying, hey don't blame me."

Yes, our soldiers can express their own views. Most soldiers believe in the war, however. For what it's worth. the fact is that while i try to learn from soldiers when they come home here, there opinions on the war's right or wrong are no different than anyone else. I try not to settle such questions by taking a vote. I don't find it useful to gtake a poll to determine ethics. And i find those who quote soldiers to support their own views beneath contempt.

In other words, i don't think people for or against the war trotting out statements by soldiers for or against the war accomplishes anything honest. In other words, you say that you are only repeating what our own soldiers are sayong, but that is not trfue. You are only repeating what SOME of our soldiers are saying, and just like those right wing war mongers who do the same, you are "cherrypicking" which ones you quote. The ones who agree with you.

My method is to concentrate on those who disagree with me. One learns nothing by paying attention to those who agree with him.

"By the way the opposite of minimize is not maximize."

OK. My dictionary gives one as the antonym of the other. I'll send them a note so they can correct the next edition.

"So first to respond to "Azmat, you KNOW that you can go many places, including some Mosques, where this is taught. " Last I checked you go to a mosque to pray."

That's what i thought. When i saw those films of the "sermon" being given in the Detroit Mosque, i was shocked. It reminded me of Baptist "fire and brimstone" sermons. I have since learned from many sources that sermons in Mosques are not that uncommon. I especially remember a reference to a Shia leader in Baghdad "preaching" against looting just after Baghdad fell, and the next day, some from that Mosque were actually returning things they had looted. i was impressed!

"I am trying to read your whole essay and figure out your central thesis: It goes something like this: Some muslims say things: that I should for whatever reason be concerned about. And not only that I should fight them and set them straight."

No. You made a great statement of my thesis above, which i noted.

"I can't engage in a dialogue with some one living turkey, egypt, malaysia, nigeria or Iran. "

Sure you can, the same way you can engage in a dialogue with me. Except you are better at languages than i am!

"AV: Why are you so dishonest that you now say that i am interpreting, telling you what islam is, and so on?
Because by focusing on this particular interpretation you are saying what Islam is!"

No. I am merely saying what someone says it is. i have little idea myself. I DO know that I had a much higher opinion of Islam years ago when i was studying the Sufi.

Remember, i wouldn't be "focusing" on these interpretations if they didn't have real-world consequences. in addition, if you said something like, "Yeah, i know those people, but i don't think they will catch on," this conversation would be different. Instead, you tried to pretend they didn't exiost, and now you minimalize them.

Here's the problem, from a western perspective. It may not applyk and you can say so. We have had two great human tragedies ibn a hundred years, the Communists and the Nazis. In both cases, these tragedies came about because of ideologies. In both cases, a wsmall group if ideologues took power. in both cases, they did so in a religious country. In both cases, most people didn't see them as a threat, even laughed at them and their funny clothes, and dismissed them.

When i read someone like Qtub, it is clear that he is well-versed in both Communism and Fascism, and, although he despises their ideology,k he loves their methoids, and that he wants Islam to become an ideology, which he callls "bringing islam back to its roots," He proposes to do this by basing all human diceisions in musings "In the SHade of the Koran."

He is a very intelkligent man, and some of his criticsisms of the west and Christianity or incisive (he lived in colorado for a while, and was sickened by what he saw. Apparently too many scantily clad women.) Hew is a very persuasive writer, even in translation. (His great work is not fully translated yet.) Although many Muslim scolars have said that he is wrong about his interpretations, all admire his scholarship. And, using you criteria of judging an idea by its results, he has been influential. in fact, he wasd executed for being influential. But his students, and their students, like Osama bin laden, are themselves becoming influential.

I think it is always dangerous to dismiss people with what we consider stupid or funny ideas. As you pointed out, James Jones got a lot of people to drink Kool-Ade.

To me, there is evidence that bin laden and others with similar ideas are getting traction in some parts of the world. The Taliban would be an example. So they have already had some success.

'm not supposing that a billion Muslims are going to change tomorrow. i'm just saying that we need to keep an eye on such people.

You must realize that the US has plenty of weirdo groups that bear watching.

"AV: We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded ..... Averroes, you found that because you were looking for something like that. Does not make it true, nor does it make it relevent. Yes You say that you are quoting one muslim, who might not even be a muslim for all you know. This is not like the Pentagon, that they call a press conference and speak on behalf of the US Army."

Of course, this was from bin laden, and, rather than be fascinated by him, when he WAS holding press conferences and posting this sort of stuff on the web, I wasn't fascinated with him. Didn't pay any attention to him. Somehow, he came to my attention a couple of years later.

You know, a couple of kids from a town down the road from me actually went to Afghanistan to "seek jihad" and train with him. They seemed like Moonies before they went, like they had their minds ripped out.

I don't want to make more out of it than it is, but i just think it bears watching, and is dangerous because there is an ideology behind it. You know, one man who can run swiftly can kill seven men in one night.

"Just because someone calls themself a muslim, does not make him so."

I haven't made such a claim. But even you have said that anyone can make their own interpretation. So how would YOU say that he is not a Muslim just because his interpretation differs form yours?

"AV:"I am simply reporting what Muslims have said." Yes and I am responding to that by letting you know that those idiots have an incorrect version of Islam. They are intentionally misinterpreting Islam, for whatever purpose. Just like you are,"

I didn't think that this would be so hard. Because i dexscribe what someone says, that does not mean that i am saying that what he said is true. If I say that Ptolemy thought that the earth was at the centre of the universe, and the planets and stars move on cryustal spheres around it, that does not mean any more than i am te;lling your what Ptolemy thought. You seem to think that my reporting what Ptolemy thinks means that i think it also. Not true. Point: I haven't made one interpretation of Islam in my entire life.

And this presses on you point, which i said sums up mine. YOU have a different view of Islam from bin ladens because you were trained differently. You assure me, and i believe, that most Muslims had a different training.

But here in the west, if you want to learn about Islam, you have to use the resources available. for most people, that means the most available. There is a reason that the nuts use the internet.

The only real headstart i had was that i had studied some Sufis years ago, and that Averroes (Ibn Rashd) was a philosopher in whom i have always had an interest. i had some knowledfge of the Miliki school, and, therefore, i knew that there were juridical schools, and a little bit about how questions are settled. But i can assure you that most people in the west know not even that about Islam. What they know is that people keep blowing things up and killing people and keep saying that they are doing it because Islam says they should.

Believe me, if Tim McVeigh had more friends in those crazy militisa, and they had blown up a few more buildings, people would have the same reaction to them. they'd all be reading the "Turner Dearies" to find out what was behind it all, and they would be calling on the government to invacdxe Michigan to wipe them out.

"And why would you be so focused on people who are misinterpreting Islam? You seeker of knowledge you!"

Duh! Because they are blowing things up and killing people. SOMETIMES when people do things lkike this over a decade or so, one gets interested in finding out what's behind it. it occured to me that these wern't just some teenagers out on a lark.

"You try having a last name like Hussain,"

I can imagine that it could cause you some grief in some situations. I have a funny name myself, but one that doesnn't draw scorn.-

"AV: "believe that. you know, the "blame America first" crowd,
I am not in the blame America crowd, checkwith those soldiers who served in iraq and afghanistan and then spoke out against the war ON TV? does that mean they are part of the blame america crowd?"

One can tell the "blame America first" crowd because they reliably blame America in any situation. if, for instance, and American soldier breaks American military protocal, like at Abu Ghraib, then that's America's fault, and shows what bad people we are. Now, there is some justification for this view. but if someone, say, flies planes into Amedrican buildings and kills 3,000 americans, well, for this crowd, that's America's fault also. With this crowd, any situation is America's fault.

For example, i was talking to a person from turkey a couple of years ago just after thyere had been a major earthquake there, killing many people. he was making the case that it was America's fault that Saddam gassed the Kurds (a people which has been more oppressed than the Palestinians), and that all the deaths of anyone in iraq (before the war this was) are america's fault, and that Saddam bore no blamd. i remarked that he was probably balming the earthquake on america. He told me, to my surprise, that many people in Turkey thought that the americans had set off a nuclear bomb in the mouintains to cause the earthquake to kill Muslims. i asked this intelligent young man what he thought, and he said he wasn't sure one way or the other!

You know, Axzmat, i just don't like people whose bviews can be reliabvly predicted in advance. At least not for discussion. Why bother? What are you going to learn? In the last couple of years i have been asked to cease blogging on both right wing and left wing boards because i wasn't the right "faith." in fact, i avoid those kinds of boards anyway. In other words, if bush comes out tomorrow and says "we need to allow more cod fishing this year in the north Atlantic fishery," we both know that there are all sorts of people who will agree just because Bush said it, and all sorts of people who will disagree just because Bush said it. To me, such people add heat but no light to a discussion, and outght to be stoned. (that's sort of a joke. I really think they should have a wall pushed over on them.)

"When a country goes on the agressive, there is a price to pay. You can read Lao Tzu on that one."

The sage does not contend, therefore, no one can contend with him. but As Bush said, no American president wants war. Yet, it has happened more than once, when the American president thought it was necessary. Sometimes, I think, a president may have been wrong in his judgement. the llast time i checked, the president puts his pants on one leg at a time, and is human. So, even when i think a prewident's judgement is wrong, i don't therefore judgte that he is evil. That would be a little like saying that if he doesn't agree with me, he is not only wrong, but evil.

btw, when a country stays passive, sometimes there is a price to pay. What has to be weighed, in advance, with little knowledge, is which way is the least expensive.

"That is what USA has done, without a backup plan."

Yes, the Bushies greatly overestimated the Iraqis. it was almost as if they didn't expect them to be ordinary people. i mean, they really did think that a government would be in place and that we'd be out of there by late 2003.

"And all reasonable voices are silenced."

Really? I haven't been silenced. People speak for or against the war just as they always have. i haven't heard of one person spending years in jail for his views on the war. No one had to shut down his website (like the Suadi Arabian "religious policemean" did) because of government pressure. Antiwar.org goes on. The Socialists still publish their papoer and their website.

In short, i have no idea what you are talking about. I hear George Bush savaged everyday on mainstream television. He's called a liar, a warmonger, a childkiller, a drunk, etc. Who has been silenced?

"Yes I was being sarcastic, because any death that is unneccessary is unacceptable."

OK. Interestingly, a few years ago, before the Iraq thing, when lopts of the Muslim boards were more welcoming (they would have sections with names like "Muslim and Christian discussion," I suggested that the palestinians had lost the moral high ground, but could win it back AND win their objectives (except the destruction of israel) IF they merely adopted the strategy of Ghandi-ji. I suggested this to approxiumately 1000 Muslims. Sokme said that they were sure it would work. but All of them said that the strategy wasn't available to Muslims, even if it works because no Mulsim is allowed to suffer an attack without retaliation uif he is able to retaliate. I used to ask if Mohammed would avoid a tactic he was sure would win, and take a chance on a tactic that might lose and was bound to cost lives. i was assured that mohhamed would not use anything like passive resistance if he didn't have to.

Interesting.

"You can take your accurate bombs and do what you think is right:)"

What you do is take your bombs and do what you think is necessary.

"AV: invasion of Iraq was sure to involve deaths
Precisely, that was the mistake. Why kill people for know reason, and it is still going on. "

The people who did it had a reason. I didn't think they had made their case for the necessity of the attack, but they thought they had. Unfortunately, it seems, I wasn't elected.

"Av: policy of the US in invading Iraq to avoid as much as possible unintentional deaths
Were you asleep through Shock and Awe? Maybe you were not In Baghdad at the time."

No, but i watched it, and i was on the internet with the then small Iraqi blogging community. I remember a man from Baghdad telling me a few days later that the bomboing was so precise that he and his friends took to going out and standing across the street from placews they guessed would be targets. I'm not saying it was perfect. But you might compare it with the bomboings of Dresden of London. It was more effective militarily than either of those, and killed a lot less.

But next time i will report to my government that you would prefer a good old fashioned carpet bombing.

"Av: if you have evidence that that commander changed the policy for another reason, please show me
The command makes policy to protect soldiers. "

How can anyone afford such cynicism? you seem to ignore the fact that commanders put their soldiers in danger every day. In fact, they were putrting themselves in danger leaving the compound to hand out candy. they stopped doing it when it wasn't only their dying (say from IED on the road on the way), but the children dying as well. Abd it tended to be more children than Americans killed.

In fact, YOU must agrtee thatr the iraqis have killed more iraqis since the war than they have killed Americans, and than americans killed iraqis.

I notice that in your answer to Yolanda, you mentioned that some are urged to go tto iraq on the "helping the iraqis defend themselves" argument. I've heard that one many times, and i always ask why they didn't go there to help the iraqia defend themselves 30 years ago, or 20 years ago, or when the Kurds were being slaughtered, or when the Shia were being slaughtered. i guess they didn't count then.

You know, i don't know just how much tis entered into things, but many americans felt guilt when the Shia in the south revolted after the Gulf war, and Saddam dccut them down. Seems they were led to believe that we would help them.

Interestingly, when the Amnericans showed up again, they were surprised to find these same Shia (the survivors) less than helpful. A blogger said at the time that they had learned their lesson 10 years before about counting on the americans for help.

It was at that exact point, before the fall of Baghdad, that i knew that there was going to be more trouble than we thought.

btw, was it ok to come to the aid of Kuwait? ASnd drop bombs. was Saddam's invasion america's fault?

Before the iraq war, there were a bunch of us who used to meet to demonstrate and arguer, from both sides. Among them was a young Kuwaiti, who had been a teenager in Kuwait during Saddam's invasion, and had moved to the states shortly thereafter. i don't need to tell you what he thought about the war.

He had a lonjg scar on the side of his faith. he never said where he got it. Could have fallen asleepo shaving for all i know. But usually , one of us antiwar people would get u p and pronounce, "Saddam is not a threat to any one." Whenever this happened, this man would simply stand up and look everyone in the eye. He usually didn't say a word, but he always managed to silence the anti-war people, on that point at least.

I'm using "strawman" loosely to mean the setting up of an argument that womeone deosn't realluy m,ake, ascribing it to him, and then arguing against it. Naturally, such arguments will be purposely weak or ridiculous. More formally: (a cut and paste)

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

For example:

""Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that.""

This kind of argument is extremely common. I've been known to use it myself. Yolanda got angry with what she thought was a straw argument fromj my last post to her! I thought i was simply offering a descriptive example well within what she had actually said.

Well Mr Averroes, we have come full circle I finally understand your position. When you quote someone you are niether agreeing with them nor disagreeing. Nor do you mean to use that quote to bolster what you are saying. You just want to quote for the heck of it.
An argument is a set of premises and a conclusion. So what I am understanding is that you don;t want to use any of the quotes as part of your argument. Correct?
AV: "Because i dexscribe what someone says, that does not mean that i am saying that what he said is true."
Very interesting, I never thought of quoting someone that way. So If I quote Jesus that does not mean I agree or disagree with him that just means I am quoting him. I will try that next time.
Av: "i live in a place that would never be targeted, so I have about a zero chance of getting hurt in a terrorist attack"
I sense your isolation, I feel the same way. Hey at least if I was in a more populated area I would have a legitimate fear.
Av: "All i have been saying is that Muslims (I am not cdounting you in this) need to respond to those who would usurp Islam, especially as it seems to others to justify a negative view of the religion as a whole."
I think they do, and you can't see that, cause your focus is elsewhere.
Av: "when we are asked to leave, we will." Haven't iraqis already done that? Asked US to leave?
AV: "My method is to concentrate on those who disagree with me. " Please go and find someone who disagrees with you then, cause I am finding very little disagreement here. After all, you can only disagree with assertions and Averroes, you are not saying anything. You back out of your assertions by saying that it was a quote, I didn't say it.
AV: "One learns nothing by paying attention to those who agree with him. " I guess you won't learn anything from me then:)
AV: "No. You made a great statement of my thesis above, which i noted."
Like I said before, instead of a regoinder like, No my central thesis is... All you do is denounce anyone who says what they interpret you to mean. You can always claim that people are misunder standing you or misinterpreting you or making a strawman of your arguments.
AV: "No. I am merely saying what someone says it is. i have little idea myself. " Ask yourself why you are saying what someone says? Is it because you want to denoune that point of view, or do you agree with it or niether, in any case put a disclaimer beside the quote, saying I am not using this quote as a premise, or to bolster my position. This quote just sits here to look pretty.
AV: " In both cases, a wsmall group if ideologues took power. in both cases, they did so in a religious country" Are you suggesting that Nazism and Socialism were a byproduct of religion?
AV: "Although many Muslim scolars have said that he is wrong about his interpretations, all admire his scholarship" Even you from this blog are infulencing people. And you maybe wrong about a lot of things but I admire your abilty to hang in there.
AV: "To me, there is evidence that bin laden and others with similar ideas are getting traction in some parts of the world. " Yes you are right Averroes, now the question is what is your Bush administartion going to do about it. Let me guess, they are going to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it working? seems to me they have made more enemies, and now you have a greater threat. And Osama, well he is how they say (ROTFLMAO)
AV : " I don't want to make more out of it than it is, but i just think it bears watching,"
I think you should do that and keep the rest of us informed if you find anything. Heck let the CIA know, or the military intelligence. And keep an eye out for what Bin Ladin says next, could be important.
Av: "So how would YOU say that he is not a Muslim just because his interpretation differs form yours?" Oh I don;t think I am the one who judges that one. You see we are all muslims in the eyes of God and only He can be the judge. Even you Averroes are following the same religion of abraham.
AV: "Because i dexscribe what someone says, that does not mean that i am saying that what he said is true" This is so brilliant it is worth repeating. When you describe what someone says generally you are either bringing it in the discussion to bolster your point of view, or to condemn it. but Averroes you have taught me that I can bring in something to not bolster my point of view, nor to diminish it. But just to say it. Excellent stuff, I like it.
AV "I haven't made one interpretation of Islam in my entire life." Cool !
I have never heard of Ibn Rashid but I will look him up.
AV: "Duh! Because they are blowing things up and killing people" Did you ever find out why they were doing that?
AV regarding blame america, I think you should replace the word with responsible. I have done a lot of things in my life and a lot has happened to me. I know one thing stuff just does not happen. When I got robbed at gunpoint, I took a good hard look at my responsibility in that happenstance. What was I doing there I asked my self, my whole life changed when I realized that I didn;t need to be there. After that I went on to become a teacher. I could blame the robbery on just the robber, but I was there also at the same place at the same time. Similarly, the USA can look at what it is that they are contributing to the world that is the cause of this reaction. If someone looked at the terrorism picture in that way, we might have a different policy and perhaps the end of terrorism. Its not about fault or blame, responsibility allows you to get to the appropriate response without assigning blame.
Have you ever thought that the rest of the world looks up to the USA and that is the reason why USA gets the responsibility for evrything. We send images in movies to the rest of the world that we can pinpoint a guy reading a newspaper, and that we have the power to do anything with our superior technology, no wonder the world thinks that the USA is behind everything. Plus you have a history, which suggests that the USA has done covert opps all over the world.
AV: "In the last couple of years i have been asked to cease blogging on both right wing and "
I can see that Averroes, because you have a lot to express, perhaps you should write a book.
AV:"As Bush said, no American president wants war." do you agree with him,or disagree iwth him or are you just saying that?
AV: "Really? I haven't been silenced. " that is because you have nothing to lose. If you were a reporter, or a public servant or even part of the Bush administration, hey it would be a different matter. Do you know how many people have resigned or quit or been thrown asside, and how many are threatened with their livelyhood if they do not tow the partyline?
AV: In short, i have no idea what you are talking about. I hear George Bush savaged everyday on mainstream television. He's called a liar, a warmonger, a childkiller, a drunk, etc. Who has been silenced?
Oh that just increases his popularity. Just like Clinton actually enjoyed the negative publicity. Being notorious is one way to gain publicity.
I agree with Ghandi, and that would work, but palastinians are too stupid for that strategy, it has to do with ego and honor and stuff.
AV:" The people who did it had a reason. I didn't think they had made their case for the necessity of the attack" Once more you are neither agreeing or disagreeing, so your position cannot be challenged.
AV: "Baghdad telling me a few days later that the bomboing was so precise that he and his friends took to going out and standing across the street from placews they guessed would be targets"
You do not know what it is like when the bombs are slowly coming your way and every new blast gets closer. I have seen two wars in my life and it is not a pleasant experience.
AV: "In fact, YOU must agrtee thatr the iraqis have killed more iraqis since the war than they have killed Americans, and than americans killed iraqis." Only because the Law and order that the USA was suppose to maintain by being there was not done. Remember not too long ago the slogan was we can't leave Iraq, otherwise they will kill each other, well how is staying there preventing that. Especially if the USa is now going to hide behind, well we can't be seeing as taking sides.
You are misunderstanding my response to Yolanda, the Fatwa said do not help either side, but if you must pick sides, help your muslim brothers. In case of Shia and Sunni that is what happened, some helped the Sunni and some helped the Shia. The USA helped Your Buddy Sadam.
Averroes, the reason why you think I am attacking a different argument then the one you are presenting, is because you are not clearly articulating any argument. In fact as soon as someone (namely me) gets close to identifying what you are saying you say, oh I never said that you assumed I said that, and then you do not articulate your position as clarification. So yes, I can see why you would think that I am attacking the strawman, because your original argument is an illusion. That is why I said I have no disagreement with you, cause there is nothing to disagree with.
Now I know that you enjoy discussing things on the internet, please you are more than welcome to do that with me over email, we don't have to take this space for our private discussion. Otherwise am I to think that you want your voice to be heard by everyone, the sane voice in an insane world. Yes I feel like that sometiomes too. We live lonely isolative lives in small towns and it is nice to be able to interact with someone.
But keep articulating your thoughts, I think that exercising that muscle will only improve your abilities. Let me guess you are a student of philosophy? Or at least a student of Life?
Oh by the way, please ignore my typos, I am typing in the dark.
Cheers,
Azmat