"Islam Can't Escape Blame" - Taheri

[abu afak]

Islam Can't Escape Blame
My religion has strayed far since its golden age.

BY AMIR TAHERI
Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

"This has nothing to do with Islam," British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently told a delegation of Muslims at a meeting at 10 Downing Street, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Mr. Blair was echoing a view, popular both in Europe and the U.S., that it is impolite, not to say impolitic, to subject Islam to any criticism. Yet to claim that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam amounts to a whitewash. It is not only disingenuous but also a disservice to Muslims, who need to cast a critical glance at the way their faith is taught, lived and practiced.

Even worse, the refusal to subject Islam to rational analysis is a recipe for further fanaticism. Unless we believe those who claim that the Sept. 11 was organized by Israel, we have to assume that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible. And since there is no mechanism for excommunication in Islam, bin Laden and his gang have every right to describe themselves as Muslims.


Al Qaeda did not materialize out of thin air. Nor have they been operating in a vacuum. Bin Laden belongs to a prominent Yemeni-Saudi family that makes much of its Islamic credentials. He began his militant career in 1984 as a fund-raiser for Afghans fighting the communist regime in Kabul in the name of Islam. He had offices in a dozen Muslim countries, none of which regarded his activities as un-Islamic.
In 1993 bin Laden was divested of his Saudi passport but was warmly welcomed in Sudan where a fundamentalist regime is in power. Later, bin Laden was the star of an international conference of Muslim fundamentalists organized in Khartoum by the then-strongman Hassan al-Turabi. He was elected a member of the Supreme Council, whose task is to promote a radical brand of Islam throughout the world. That gave him the right to call himself a "sheik" and issue religious fatwas, or edicts. Again, since there is no clerical hierarchy in Islam, there was no reason why bin Laden could not claim such authority.

Once bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan (under U.S. pressure), he was welcomed in his ancestral homeland of Yemen, another Muslim country. From there he went to Pakistan, the world's second most populous Muslim nation, where he was welcomed not only by the army but also by virtually all of Pakistan's Islamic parties, which continue to support him.

From Pakistan, bin Laden shifted to Afghanistan, where the Taliban had established what they claimed to be "the only truly Islamic government." The Taliban continue to shelter bin Laden to this day, even in the face of U.S. attacks. To say that bin Laden has nothing to do with Islam and Muslims, therefore, requires a big leap of imagination.

When pressed hard, some Muslim leaders admit that bin Laden is "part of Islam," but try to minimize his place. Dalil Boubakeur, a French Muslim leader, says that bin Laden does not represent more than 1% of Muslims. Some comfort. That 1% means almost 13 million people.

There is more. All but one of the world's remaining military regimes are in Muslim countries. With the exception of Turkey and Bangladesh, there are no real elections in any Muslim country. Of the current 30 active conflicts in the world no fewer than 28 concern Muslim governments and/or communities. Two-thirds of the world's political prisoners are held in Muslim countries, which also carry out 80% of all executions each year.

Anyone familiar with textbooks in most Muslim countries would know the twisted view of the world they propagate and the hatred they promote. Anyone who follows the media in the Muslim world would know that the verbal version of the Sept. 11 attacks is an almost daily fare. Go to the Internet and check the editorials of virtually any Muslim paper on Sept. 10 and see what they were saying about the West in general and the U.S. in particular. Anyone listening to a sermon in virtually any mosque, including many in the West, would be shocked by the vehemence of the anti-Western, especially anti-American, sentiments expressed.

It is both dishonest and dangerous for Muslims to remain in a state of denial. And yet a state of denial is what we have. When Iran's Khomeinists burned 600 people alive in a cinema, the whitewashers said that it had nothing to do with Islam. When the same gang took the American diplomats hostage in Tehran, again the whitewash party insisted that had nothing to do with Islam. And when the suicide bombings bloodied Beirut we were told that Islam had nothing to do with them.


The Muslim world today is full of bigotry, fanaticism, hypocrisy and plain ignorance--all of which create a breeding ground for criminals like bin Laden. The principal victims of these criminals are Muslims, who are prevented from developing a modern political culture without which they cannot reform their societies and rebuild their economies.

What I am saying is not meant as critique of Islam as a belief system; that's an issue for theologians, and people should be free to believe whatever they like. What is needed is a critique of Islam as an existential reality. The Sept. 11 tragedies should trigger a rethink of the way Muslims live Islam. We should start with condemning those attacks without "ifs" and "buts." Sadly, the way we Muslims live Islam today is a far cry from the way our ancestors lived it in the golden age when Islam was a builder of civilization, not a force for repression, terror and destruction.

Mr. Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist, is editor of the Paris-based Politique Internationale.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001385

[andak01]

"This has nothing to do with Islam," British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently told a delegation of Muslims at a meeting at 10 Downing Street, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Interesting that we like to trust our leaders when they are calling us to war against Muslims, but call them liars when they enjoin us to take a milder stance.

Mr. Blair was echoing a view, popular both in Europe and the U.S., that it is impolite, not to say impolitic, to subject Islam to any criticism.

Really? I guess you don't read Tom Friedman, Daniel Pipes, Salman Rushdie and a host of other highly critical and highly influential writers whose columns blast forth everyday against Islam.

Yet to claim that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam amounts to a whitewash.

I has nothing to do with the tenets of the religion that I follow with the possible exception that they quote from the Qur'an. But their interpretation is antipodal.

It is not only disingenuous but also a disservice to Muslims, who need to cast a critical glance at the way their faith is taught, lived and practiced.

Well, soldiers going to war to kill people are fed a lot of distorted images regardless of what side they fight for. Killing is not a natural state of man.

Even worse, the refusal to subject Islam to rational analysis is a recipe for further fanaticism.

I have subjected Islam to a great deal of scrutiny since September 11th. It was and is still very clear to me that Muhammad (SAW) would not have committed any of the types of acts that these hijackers of Islam have.

Unless we believe those who claim that the Sept. 11 was organized by Israel, we have to assume that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible.

I think there is probably still less than enough evidence to convict him in a court of law, but I am satisfied that Bin Laden was in some way involved.

And since there is no mechanism for excommunication in Islam, bin Laden and his gang have every right to describe themselves as Muslims.

Actually, since we accept that even sinners can be Muslim, he has that right. Christianity and Judaeism appearantly don't have sinners anymore, or they have forgotten it. I hear the Catholic pedophile priests called many things, but they are still called Catholic.

Al Qaeda did not materialize out of thin air.

In addition to a decline in the local education system. There was a segregation encouraged by the colonial powers and made worse by the military training these people received from the US, in order to fight as Mujahiddin/Taliban against the Russians.

Nor have they been operating in a vacuum. Bin Laden belongs to a prominent Yemeni-Saudi family that makes much of its Islamic credentials.

Yes the Saudis and the United States through their close bonds with them have exacerbated the situation.

He began his militant career in 1984 as a fund-raiser for Afghans fighting the communist regime in Kabul in the name of Islam. He had offices in a dozen Muslim countries, none of which regarded his activities as un-Islamic.

He wasn't actively involved or known to be involved with killing innocent people at that time either. Just like the hijackers, we could look at many of the people who dealt with them often, never realizing what they would become. Who could?

From Pakistan, bin Laden shifted to Afghanistan, where the Taliban had established what they claimed to be "the only truly Islamic government." The Taliban continue to shelter bin Laden to this day, even in the face of U.S. attacks. To say that bin Laden has nothing to do with Islam and Muslims, therefore, requires a big leap of imagination.

Or you have to believe that Islam is one big monolith and that differences between the Shiites and the Sufis and the Sunnis don't count for anything. That's a crock.

When pressed hard, some Muslim leaders admit that bin Laden is "part of Islam," but try to minimize his place. Dalil Boubakeur, a French Muslim leader, says that bin Laden does not represent more than 1% of Muslims. Some comfort. That 1% means almost 13 million people.

OK, so it's significantly less than 1%. Even a 1% made up of a trillion people would not be representative of a group where 99% believed and acted otherwise. But in this case, otherwise is just not newsworthy.

There is more. All but one of the world's remaining military regimes are in Muslim countries.

Really? Cuba, North Korea, Cote D'Ivoire, Haiti, Congo, Liberia, Bhutan (I'm doing this from memory). At any rate there are plenty.

With the exception of Turkey and Bangladesh, there are no real elections in any Muslim country.

Morocco just elected a new Priminister.

Of the current 30 active conflicts in the world no fewer than 28 concern Muslim governments and/or communities.

I can think of Basque separatist bombings in the last two months. The IRA, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Cannible armies in Congo, The violent coup in Cote D'Ivoire. Liberia (I think that's still an active conflict).

Two-thirds of the world's political prisoners are held in Muslim countries, which also carry out 80% of all executions each year.

Hard to believe if you count China for anything. Given their population and their policies, I would be surprised if they didn't count for a high percentage.

Anyone familiar with textbooks in most Muslim countries would know the twisted view of the world they propagate and the hatred they promote.

Everyone is familiar with that, they were highly publicized. The world knows a lot less about Israeli textbooks.

[abu afak]

Another Long Babble by Andak...

Looks like a long serious Rebuttal right?

But it actually, and as usual, says nothing really.
The great(read 'obsessive') 'defender of the faith' is only just a poor apologist, and 'you-too-er'.

and certainly never even comes close to touching/impeaching the Main point of the Author

[humus_sapiens]

AMIR TAHERI:
Anyone familiar with textbooks in most Muslim countries would know the twisted view of the world they propagate and the hatred they promote.

Andak01:
Everyone is familiar with that, they were highly publicized. The world knows a lot less about Israeli textbooks.

Andak, bravo! This is hilarious!! Where did you take your logic classes? Wait, let me guess: Peshawar Medrese? You have outdone and overexposed yourself here.

[Mr. Pumps]

What is the problem is that Muslims say they are "mislabelled" and "disrespected"......that militants are only simple outcast Muslims.

Well if that is so what is with all the conflicts around the world????..... huh??? I only see Ireland and Sri Lanka as real non-muslim conflicts as all the rest are Muslim groups agianst other culture groups or Muslims agianst Muslims.

If they want to be accepted by the the rest of the world all these conflicts would not exist or be resolved quickly as possible.

And thier religion would have to be changed in itself to be more modern and democratic in nature...following other religions adjusting in the 21st century. Islamic parties want to introduce things that wipe out freedom and elections...and act like medieval republics of hundreds of years ago. Virtually all religions today and religious partes launch a platform and go throught the democratic ways and do not touch any freedom or rights if given power in a election. So if some BJP, Shas, Christian conservative party came to power don't expect to see some religious backward India, Israel, United States come out of it. They are just modern parties with a religious tinge.....nothing more.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
[B]What is the problem is that Muslims say they are "mislabelled" and "disrespected"......that militants are only simple outcast Muslims.

No, militants are militants. They have militant politics and beliefs, and when these beliefs lead to criminal acts, they should be investigated and detained as criminals. I wouldn't expect Muslims to get special priviledges and I don't expect them to get more punishment. We need to base our actions on what they have done, not upon their religion.

Well if that is so what is with all the conflicts around the world????..... huh??? I only see Ireland and Sri Lanka as real non-muslim conflicts as all the rest are Muslim groups agianst other culture groups or Muslims agianst Muslims.

Look at it this way. Muslims comprise 20% of the world's population. Any conflict that involves them will be either Muslim vs. Muslim or Muslim vs. non-Muslim.

If they want to be accepted by the the rest of the world all these conflicts would not exist or be resolved quickly as possible.

Say this about any other group you want to name and see if it makes sense. "If all Christians would live in peace, there would be no war." "If all Albanians would stop stealing, there would be no more theft in Albania." Great, but humans are humans, and there always will be conflicts, Muslim and otherwise.

And thier religion would have to be changed in itself to be more modern and democratic in nature...following other religions adjusting in the 21st century.

I hear this a lot. Tell me, how have the Hasidic Jews reformed? How about the Copts? What about the Hindis? There are plenty of examples of non-reformed religions that do just fine. For that matter, we still have snake-handling, speaking in tongue Protestants that claim to be completely fundamentalist.

Islamic parties want to introduce things that wipe out freedom and elections...

What, like a popular vote? The Algerians and the Turks tried that and almost ended up with Islamic governments. Fortunately, the elections were stopped before democracy could rear its ugly head.

...and act like medieval republics of hundreds of years ago. Virtually all religions today and religious partes launch a platform and go throught the democratic ways and do not touch any freedom or rights if given power in a election. So if some BJP, Shas, Christian conservative party came to power don't expect to see some religious backward India, Israel, United States come out of it. They are just modern parties with a religious tinge.....nothing more.

Good, like the one that presided over the rape of Gudjarat in India?

[reason]

I actually agree with the writer. I think that was a good article. He isnt challenging Islam as a belief system he is only challenging how todays muslims are practicing it. I also happen to agree with him that alot of muslim today are bigots, ignorant and hypocrites.

[IlyaFurman]

Amir Taheri critizes muslims cause he wants to correct muslims and Islam for that matter. I seen video clips of him praying at mosques frequently.

People like Daniel Pipes, and Krauthammer critize Islam and Muslims cause they hate them and it.

[andak01]

Tom Friedman is another case altogether. I'm starting to think that he genuinely has a misguided concept about an Islamic reformation. "If only Muslims would start eating pork and hanging out at strip clubs, they'd be as good as us." Well we do have Muslims that hang out at strip clubs. Those type also drive planes into buildings. He lauds the Iranian protestors, while failing to mention that they are protesting more against their Shiite mullahs than against Islam itself.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by reason
I actually agree with the writer. I think that was a good article. He isnt challenging Islam as a belief system he is only challenging how todays muslims are practicing it. I also happen to agree with him that alot of muslim today are bigots, ignorant and hypocrites.

Don't interrupt andak

He's too busy Saying Nothing ever happened, and if it Did, someone else also did it. Or to quote Taheri:

"It is both dishonest and dangerous for Muslims to remain in a state of denial."

Originally posted by abu afak

It is both dishonest and dangerous for Muslims to remain in a state of denial. And yet a state of denial is what we have. When Iran's Khomeinists burned 600 people alive in a cinema, the whitewashers said that it had nothing to do with Islam. When the same gang took the American diplomats hostage in Tehran, again the whitewash party insisted that had nothing to do with Islam. And when the suicide bombings bloodied Beirut we were told that Islam had nothing to do with them.

The Muslim world today is full of bigotry, fanaticism, hypocrisy and plain ignorance--all of which create a breeding ground for criminals like bin Laden. The principal victims of these criminals are Muslims, who are prevented from developing a modern political culture without which they cannot reform their societies and rebuild their economies.

What I am saying is not meant as critique of Islam as a belief system; that's an issue for theologians, and people should be free to believe whatever they like. What is needed is a critique of Islam as an existential reality. The Sept. 11 tragedies should trigger a rethink of the way Muslims live Islam. We should start with condemning those attacks without "ifs" and "buts." Sadly, the way we Muslims live Islam today is a far cry from the way our ancestors lived it in the golden age when Islam was a builder of civilization, not a force for repression, terror and destruction.


Same Thing Friedman Says..

Same Thing Pipes Says

and the Same thing I've been saying here.

(the Title article I posted here more than 2 months ago)

And I thank 'reason' for his answer; and other's he's made in the past. HE, and others like him, are the hope for Islam and the way to break the current wrong direction it has been, and still is, on.

Pitiful and transparent Apologists like andak01 will never change the Status quo...
just keep denying it exists, and pave the way for continued terror and backwardness.

[andak01]

Sadly, the way we Muslims live Islam today is a far cry from the way our ancestors lived it in the golden age when Islam was a builder of civilization, not a force for repression, terror and destruction.

Abu, is this what you have been saying? Because I agree with it, and the fact that you bother to post it twice says that you do too.

As for saying nothing. I voice my opinions. I don't use every post to either slam someone's religion or make an ad hom attack. But when your own sources, as above, end up saying pretty much what I have been saying, that Islam doesn't need to change, Muslims do, that Islam is not a source of problems, Muslims who stray from Islam are.

[Simon]

Good, like the one that presided over the rape of Gudjarat in India?


You mean, after your fellow muslims burned a train and brutally slaughtered 60 men, women and children. The heat being so intense that the trapped children melted into their seats.

If one of your fellow muslims did that to my kid, do you think I am going to stand around and wear bangles and turn the proverbial Gandhian cheek.

We hindus/sikhs/buddists/jains of India have been at the receiving end of your "peaceful" religion for over a 1000 yrs now.

And now, finally, when we hit back, you whine like a cry-baby. Oh! those bad hindus, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

[Mediocrates]

I can appreciate your anger. I'm angry too. But where does this line lead? andak wasn't shooting anyone.

[Simon]

M: Almost missed your post. Was about to log-off.

The response was triggered by Andak's accusation that the BJP triggered the violence against muslims. Which is clearly disingenuous.

Had he laid the proper foundation for it, acknowledging that the violence was started by muslims with the brutal murders of 59 hindu, men-women-children, i would not have had to respond.

Further, the retaliatory violence was committed by hindus of all shades who were pissed off at the muslims for not only committing the slaughter of hindus but then coming out with gems like:

"The hindus were not killed by muslims. No muslim would commit such a crime. Therefore, the killers were not muslim." etc, etc.

When andak criticises only the retaliation without the action that caused it or attaches greater weightage to the retaliation than tha action (as I have seen Ilya Furman doing), then he is as guilty as the murderers as he is clearly condoning the murders of hindus.


PS. SO long for now, gotta run.

[Mediocrates]

Personally I think the word retaliation should be removed from use. It's never that simple.

[reason]

And now, finally, when we hit back, you whine like a cry-baby. Oh! those bad hindus, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.


.......

[Simon]

Personally I think the word retaliation should be removed from use. It's never that simple.

M: Could you expand some more on that? Thanks.

[Mediocrates]

Retaliation is never a good word to use. Terrorists blow up a bus and the news prints "IDF Retaliation". But clearly it's not. It's attempting to logistically and politcally and militarily trying to manage a bad situation. One would not say for example that police are retaliating against drug cartels. One would not say that arresting and questioning know terrorists, demolishing bomb factories, confiscating guns is by any means retaliation.

And in kind, terrorist murder is simply not retaliation either. As if they would simply lay down their weapons if no one was looking for them. Nonsense. Terrorists are driven by whatever agenda they have. Counterterrorism tries to defeat that. There is nothing retaliatory about it. All it is is a loaded word that gets mobs aroused.

[Simon]

I understand.

More like the "Cycle of Violence" that one hears about, eh?

[Revkha]

Christianity, like Judaism, runs the gamut of belief. On the left are the Episcopalians, like the Reform, who approach their belief with a certain degree of flexibility that allows them to adapt some aspects to the changing world. On the right are the Southern Baptist, like the Orthodox, who believe in the literal interpretation of their respective bibles with minimal changes, if any. To the far right of the Southern Baptist are the Snake Handlers, most of whom are located in the Appalachian area of the U.S. Snake handlers are Pentecostal fundamentalist Christians who handle poisonous snakes indigenous that area and who ingest poison as testament to their strong faith and belief in the protection of G_d. The snake handlers base their belief on the words of Jesus in Mark 16:17-18 – “….they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; ……” Snake handlers believe in the absolute interpretation and word of the Christian bible.

Southern Baptists do not handle snakes. Their literal interpretation is valid to a certain point. They will review the passage in context with the chapter and give a much different reading as to the true meaning conveyed by Jesus. Who is right, who is wrong. I don’t know. I’m a Jew. However, I vote for the Southern Baptist just on reasonable doubt that Jesus really meant literally that believers should handle poisonous snakes and ingest poison.

The Orthodox follow the same path as the Southern Baptist. Their literal interpretation is valid to a point. In Deuteronomy the parent is commanded to stone to death the stubborn and rebellious son. This was a very difficult law for the Rabbis. They deliberated and found a way to circumvent the law. According to the Talmud the law was never carried out.

Of the 2 billion plus Christians, the snake handlers comprise a tiny segment, much akin to a flea on top of the Empire State Building. If the snake handlers decided to go mainstream with their belief, there would be a public outcry from whole Christian community, liberal and conservative, regarding the validity of this sect’s interpretation of one passage from the bible.

Of the 1 billion Muslims in the world, a segment of Muslims have taken literally some violent passage of the Koran. This segment is much larger than the flea atop the Empire State Building. In the name of Allah and based on these passages, many atrocities and terrorist activities have been committed against whom the Muslims consider as infidels. Where is the loud, public outcry from the peace-loving Muslims who may have a different interpretation. Until these Muslims, particularly the Arab world, make a concentrated effort to publicly denounce these activities, one can only assume that their silence means acquiescence to the literal beliefs.



_______________________________________________

This message brought to you from Tampa Bay – proud home of Central Command-MacDill AFB, Tommy Franks, Stormin’ Norman, world champion Tampa Bay Bucs, infamous USF (Jihad Univ.), Al-Arian (arrested), Sameeh Hammoudeb (arrested), El Shukrijumah (on the loose) and Crystal River Nuclear Reactor – Life is grand when you have everything.

[andak01]

You are entitled to any assumption you wish to make. That doesn't mean that it is correct. What we are seeing is not the result of some violent passage in the Qur'an. In fact, the passages quoted by the unbelievers as 'proof' of the violence of the Qur'an are not quoted by Bin Laden. Because even he doesn't interpret them that way.

For a Muslim to justify an attack on anyone else, he must believe that he is being attacked and that all other methods of diplomacy are closed. That would be the strictest interpretation of the Qur'an. The question is what constitutes an attack and what measures are to be taken against such an attack?

Prior to the WTC incident, Bin Laden is accused of being involved in the SS Cole incident. This, he would probably say was in response to something else.
http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole4.htm
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2000/1031-Cole.html

Whether it is true or not, many of these people equate the policies of Israel with those of the United States. My suggestion would be for Israel, instead of constantly seeking alliances and trade agreements with enemies of the Arabs to see agreements within the region. This may not be possible on a wide scale at first, but with effort, some progress could be made.

At any rate, that attack, though it used terrorist methods, does not fit the definition of terrorism set forth by our own State Department. I.E. it was aimed entirely at soldiers and at the military, a military that was located in a foreign location.

The WTC incident, on the other hand was deliberately aimed at civilians.

Originally posted by Revkha
Of the 1 billion Muslims in the world, a segment of Muslims have taken literally some violent passage of the Koran. This segment is much larger than the flea atop the Empire State Building. In the name of Allah and based on these passages, many atrocities and terrorist activities have been committed against whom the Muslims consider as infidels. Where is the loud, public outcry from the peace-loving Muslims who may have a different interpretation. Until these Muslims, particularly the Arab world, make a concentrated effort to publicly denounce these activities, one can only assume that their silence means acquiescence to the literal beliefs.

[Revkha]

Andak01 -

Again why is there not a loud public outcry from the peace-loving Muslims against the militant elements. Regarding the U.S. Military - refresh my memory -was the military there as invaders or were they there at the invitation of a host country. The U.S. Military presence in Saudi Arabia was definitely at the invitation of the Saudis.

[Revkha]

Originally posted by andak01

Whether it is true or not, many of these people equate the policies of Israel with those of the United States. My suggestion would be for Israel, instead of constantly seeking alliances and trade agreements with enemies of the Arabs to see agreements within the region. This may not be possible on a wide scale at first, but with effort, some progress could be made.

[/B]

What has Israel got to do with the point I raised. Islamic militants attack both Christians and Jews. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, do you actually believe the Islamic militants would discontinue their attacks against Christians and America.

What Arabic trading partners would you suggest for Israel? Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.etc. etc. The level of hatred against Jews and Israel in these countries would make it exceedingly difficult to enter into agreements.

I don't doubt your sincere belief in Islam as a peaceful religion. I just believe that too many Muslims wear blinders (if you are a horseman you will understand blinders) that obstruct their vision. If indeed Islam is peaceful and I know there are peace loving Muslims then they need to forcefully stand up against these militants. When Al-Arian was arrested in Tampa, the Muslim community immediately came to his defense. When Goldman/Goldstein (I don't remember his name) was arrested in Florida, the Jewish community immediately distanced themselves from him.

[Simon]

Whether it is true or not, many of these people equate the policies of Israel with those of the United States. My suggestion would be for Israel, instead of constantly seeking alliances and trade agreements with enemies of the Arabs to see agreements within the region.


Utter drivel.

Arabs hate Jews because Israel is friends with the US.


This is morally akin to blaming a teenage rape victim (the rapist being a muslim) for inviting that rape because she was wearing a skirt. I can just imagine andak saying, "If only she was wearing an islamic burqa instead of a christian-american skirt, this rape would have never happened."

Jeez, the lengths some people will go to in their quest for justifying islamic violence and intolerance.

[IlyaFurman]

Since many people seem to love analogies heres one -

Blaming a religion on making people kill others is like blaming music cause some murderers wanted to go out there and kill.

People are to blame, not music or philosophies.

[Am Yisrael]

Do you blame a child if he/she started smoking underage?

Or do you blame the culture or peer pressure that caused the child to start smoking?

Or do you blame the child for being "stupid" for not seeing that the culture or peer pressure is what caused he/she to smoke?

[Simon]

People are to blame, not music or philosophies.


More useless semantics and obfuscation.


If the music is accompanied by words like go kill the jew, it is the music as well as the person who is to blame.

If the philosophy, or in this case - ISLAM, commands its followers to kill the kufr, just because that kufr refuses to believe in the philosophy of a murderous allah, then it is Islam and the muslim who is to blame. PERIOD.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by Simon
If the music is accompanied by words like go kill the jew, it is the music as well as the person who is to blame.


Nope even then the Music is not to blame, its the idiot that goes and kills the person that is to blame, cause if music makes him kill hes either weak minded or a total idiot.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Revkha
Christianity, like Judaism, runs the gamut of belief....

A Christian Fundamentalist is a Missionary.

A Muslim Fundamentalist Kills him.

[andak01]

I doubt all Christian Fundamentalists would enjoy being characterized by the actions of a few missionaries. They probably prefer to be characterized on the basis of their beliefs. After all, good deeds count for nothing to them until you are "saved".

I don't even want to finish the sentence:

A Jew is...

I've got more respect for Jews than to pigeon hole them in any particular fashion. And I would have trouble empathizing with them as individuals if I strove to lump them together as a dehumanized mass. That is the very problem you rail about when Muslims do it to you. Why do you want to do it to us?

[Batman]

Originally posted by Revkha

I don't doubt your sincere belief in Islam as a peaceful religion. I just believe that too many Muslims wear blinders (if you are a horseman you will understand blinders) that obstruct their vision. If indeed Islam is peaceful and I know there are peace loving Muslims then they need to forcefully stand up against these militants. When Al-Arian was arrested in Tampa, the Muslim community immediately came to his defense. When Goldman/Goldstein (I don't remember his name) was arrested in Florida, the Jewish community immediately distanced themselves from him.

HOW VERY TRUE. THIS IS THE ENTIRE REASON THAT ISLAM FAITH HOLDERS ARE UNDER GREATER SUSPICION THAN ANY JEWISH PERSON WHEN IT COMES TO TERRORISM. JEWS ARE TRULY ACTIVELY PERSUING PEACEFUL WAYS AND NOT WAR WAYS NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT IT AND DOING NOTHING( BEST CASE SCENARIO) OR AS MANY ISLAM GOVERNMENTS/LEADERS ARE PROMOTING TERRORISTS UNDER ALL SORTS OF PRETEXES, & A BOTTOMLESS PIT OF EXCUSES.

The most amazing thing is how much land the Moslems have in the world, and how much land the ARabs have in the world. And yet they are coveting* the tiny homeland of the Jews.

These Moslems and Arabs, not to speak of the UN, do nothing to alleviate the painful sufferings of their brethren by finding a way to provide them with normal lives, rather they keep them in their misery so that Israel will have to always answer to a people that they are (the Arabs and Moslems) actually punishing for centuries.

Amazing (Islam promoted and nurtured) self willed blind devotion to hating the Collective Jew, namely Israel.

*dictionary:1 : to wish for enviously
2 : to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably
intransitive senses : to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another

[andak01]

Originally posted by Revkha
I don't doubt your sincere belief in Islam as a peaceful religion. I just believe that too many Muslims wear blinders (if you are a horseman you will understand blinders) that obstruct their vision.

Blinders work both ways. I notice no fewer than three people have greeted me with the news of the Baghdad terrorist attacks. Does it register at all that Muslim police in Baghdad risked their lives to stop one of the attacks? Does it register at all that many of the victims of these attacks were Muslims? I think it is a discredit to those who risk their lives to fight terrorism that only the attackers are remembered and the defenders get no credit whatsoever.

If indeed Islam is peaceful and I know there are peace loving Muslims then they need to forcefully stand up against these militants.

So you mean with guns, shooting at the attackers as did the Muslim Iraqi police force? Why isn't this part of the story also acknowledged?

When Al-Arian was arrested in Tampa, the Muslim community immediately came to his defense. When Goldman/Goldstein (I don't remember his name) was arrested in Florida, the Jewish community immediately distanced themselves from him.

I'll have to do a follow-up on this story. I don't know what it's status is today. But the one case was, Al-Arian was a member of a group that LATER went on to commit terrorist acts. As I recall, he wasn't a member at the time of the acts. Worst case, he is guilty by implication of being a member of a criminal group. In the case of Goldman (sic?), he was caught with an actual stash of explosives and maps of the places he was going to bomb. I HOPE that if Al-Arian had been caught with a stash of explosives, the Muslims would have not only distanced themselves, but would have reviled him.

[Batman]

tHE ACTUAL INFO RE: AL -ARIAN
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/21/State/Al_Arian_associate_ar.shtml
Terror Indictments

Al-Arian associate arrested on immigration charges
©Associated Press
March 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORLANDO -- A University of Central Florida professor, who is friends with two prominent Palestinian-Americans arrested in recent months, was taken into federal custody and charged with immigration violations.

Hussam Jubara, 42, a computer engineering professor, was charged Wednesday with making false statements on immigration forms used to fight deportation proceedings in 1998, according to a federal affidavit.

Federal authorities allege that Jubara lied about a prior marriage in 1984, misrepresented his immigration history and failed to disclose other names he used. He also concealed $26,000 in "under-the-table" income he received while working for an Orlando gift shop chain in 1995 and 1996, according to the affidavit.

The chain is owned by Jesse Maali, an Orlando resident of Palestinian descent who was arrested last year on charges he hired illegal immigrants for his shops.

Jubara also was an associate of Sami Al-Arian, the University of South Florida professor indicted last month in Tampa on racketeering and terrorism-related charges.

As a Tampa student in 1988, Jubara helped found the Islamic Concern Project with Al-Arian and served as a director and secretary of the organization, which federal agents closed down in 1995. Federal prosecutors have characterized it as a front for a Palestinian terrorist group.

During Jubara's appearance in Orlando federal court Thursday, he was ordered jailed until his bail hearing Monday.

UCF spokeswoman Linda Gray said Jubara, whose contract is up for review in May, will be allowed to teach until the charges are resolved.

[Batman]

"When Goldman/Goldstein (I don't remember his name) was arrested in Florida, the Jewish community immediately distanced themselves from him. "

DO YOU MEAN Irv Rubin??

[andak01]

Nope, Irv Rubin was a separate case.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/23/florida.explosives/
SEMINOLE, Florida (CNN) -- A Florida doctor arrested after police found more than 15 homemade explosive devices in his home drafted a detailed plan to blow up a Muslim educational center, investigators said Friday.

A search of Robert J. Goldstein's residence also turned up a list of about 50 Islamic worship centers in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area and other locations in Florida, according to a court papers.

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/qtr1_2003/0226-131.html

Compare that to the case of Al-Arian:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/19/bubba/
Those charges were that a now-defunct Islamic think tank Al-Arian founded and ran in conjunction with USF operated as a sort of home away from home for radical Palestinians and terrorists. The charges had been thoroughly investigated and rejected by USF, and an immigration judge; the FBI has been looking for years and has never filed any charges.

http://newstrove.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?search=sami+al-arian&title=Sami+Al-Arian&category=war_on_terror&alias=samial-arian

[Batman]

Originally posted by andak01
Nope, Irv Rubin was a separate case.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/23/florida.explosives/
SEMINOLE, Florida (CNN) -- A Florida doctor arrested after police found more than 15 homemade explosive devices in his home drafted a detailed plan to blow up a Muslim educational center, investigators said Friday.

A search of Robert J. Goldstein's residence also turned up a list of about 50 Islamic worship centers in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area and other locations in Florida, according to a court papers.

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/qtr1_2003/0226-131.html

Compare that to the case of Al-Arian:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/19/bubba/
Those charges were that a now-defunct Islamic think tank Al-Arian founded and ran in conjunction with USF operated as a sort of home away from home for radical Palestinians and terrorists. The charges had been thoroughly investigated and rejected by USF, and an immigration judge; the FBI has been looking for years and has never filed any charges.

http://newstrove.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?search=sami+al-arian&title=Sami+Al-Arian&category=war_on_terror&alias=samial-arian

Well now I know, but hold it a minute! tHIS Goldstien guy is obviously a complete LUNATIC! YOu neglected to QUOTE that he was "Goldstein, who was taken into custody after his wife called police Thursday night........Deputies from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department were summoned to the Goldstein home Thursday night, after his wife, Kristi, called to report that he had threatened to kill her, according to the court affidavit. She authorized agents to search the premises, where they found more than 15 homemade bombs. "

Now, why is this comparison of yours does not include this very important detail? This detail itself proves that the Jewish Community does NOT back up terrorists. tHIS IS THE ORIGINAL POINT OF THIS COMPARISON TO SHOW THAT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY DOES NOT BACK UP TERROR WHILE THE MUSLIM ONE DOES. SO AL-ARIAN IS OR ISN'T A GOOD EXAMPLE, THE FACT REMAINS PROVEN.

BUT !!!!!The wives of Muslim terrorists do not call the police on them! And that includes all the Muslim terrorists, from the more or less under suspicion to the proven dead ones. Now how else could so much terror in the name of Islam go on and on worldwide???????how come there is so much of this???????????? because community and family backs it up.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Batman
Well now I know, but hold it a minute! tHIS Goldstien guy is obviously a complete LUNATIC! YOu neglected to QUOTE that he was "Goldstein, who was taken into custody after his wife called police Thursday night.

But she is also heavily implicated and likely to do time. If she is indeed responsible for preventing a disaster, I hope they go lightly on her.

Deputies from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department were summoned to the Goldstein home Thursday night, after his wife, Kristi, called to report that he had threatened to kill her, according to the court affidavit. She authorized agents to search the premises, where they found more than 15 homemade bombs. "

Now, why is this comparison of yours does not include this very important detail? This detail itself proves that the Jewish Community does NOT back up terrorists. tHIS IS THE ORIGINAL POINT OF THIS COMPARISON TO SHOW THAT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY DOES NOT BACK UP TERROR WHILE THE MUSLIM ONE DOES. SO AL-ARIAN IS OR ISN'T A GOOD EXAMPLE, THE FACT REMAINS PROVEN.

My reason for saying it doesn't is that Goldstein was caught red handed, while Al-Arian was only implicated. The Muslim community disputed the evidence against him, which, at the time he was fired, wasn't sufficient to indict him. He had been under surveillance since 1994.

The evidence seems to ammount to some comments made during tapped phone conversations, not bombs laying around his home.

http://www.usforacle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/02/21/3e56268931013

http://www.staugustine.com/stories/022703/sta_1356370.shtml
The government gave no evidence that the men themselves carried out any attacks.

In short, I would say that the Muslim community did not believe that the evidence against him proved he was a terrorist.

BUT !!!!!The wives of Muslim terrorists do not call the police on them!

Perhaps they don't threaten their lives, or perhaps Mrs. Goldstein is more consciencious. If she had faced having her home bulldozed for reporting such a thing, she might have been more reticent.

[ibrodsky]

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A former University of South Florida professor awaiting trial on charges he raised money for terrorists was part of an elaborate international network designed to conceal the funding, a federal investigator claims in a newly released court document. The document also links Sami Al-Arian with Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Islamic spiritual leader considered the inspiration behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. The new information comes from a 101-page sworn affidavit written to support a government request for a warrant to search 14 properties in Virginia and a Georgia poultry business in March 2002.

http://newstrove.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?search=sami+al-arian&title=Sami+Al-Arian&category=war_on_terror&alias=samial-arian

Nope, Sami didn't have bombs in his house. Like many Islamist mass murderers, he supported operations involving brainwashed "suicide bombers." Get somebody to commit mass murder--and kill themself in the process--on your behalf.

If guilty of supporting the Islamic Jihad mass murderers (and the evidence is very compelling), Sami Al-Arian deserves the death penalty.

[ibrodsky]

Sami Al-Arian, in his words
By Times staff
© St. Petersburg Times
published February 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON TERRORISM

"I do not support that. I said that over and over again. . . . Morally, religiously, Islam is against the killing of any civilian, of any mother, of any father, of any ethnicity, and I do not support, you know, Palestinians being killed by the Israeli army."

ON ISRAEL AND JEWS
At the Islamic Committee for Palestine's annual conference in 1988, and again in 1990 at an event commemorating the 1,000th day of the intifada, Al-Arian said, in Arabic:

"God is One, Mohammed is our Leader, the Koran is our Constitution. Struggling in the cause of God is our way. Victory to Islam, death to Israel. Revolution, revolution until victory. March, march towards Jerusalem. There is no deity but God. Mohammed is the Messenger of God. God is great. Victory to Islam."

At another speech in 1991, a few weeks after the end of the Persian Gulf War, he said, "God cursed those who are the sons of Israel, through David and Jesus, the son of Mary. . . . Those people, God made monkeys and pigs."

In the same year, he also said: "Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death."

His explanation:
When he said "jihad," he says he did not mean "holy war." He meant "effort" or "struggle," and he says the Koran teaches that "the greatest struggle is against yourself -- your whims, your desires, your habits, your weaknesses."

When he referred to "the sons of Israel" as "monkeys and pigs," he says he was quoting from a passage in the Koran about those who earn the wrath of God.

When he said "Damn America," he says he didn't mean it literally: "I was very surprised to hear myself say that, and I've never said anything like that again."

Though Al-Arian says he won't say "Death to Israel" now, he maintains it is a "racist, apartheid state" that "has no moral or legal right to exist."

"I despise Israel," he said in an interview last year. "I wish it would go away tomorrow. There are many Jews who do not support Israel. It's unfair to the Jews as much as it's unfair to anybody else."

When he said "Death to Israel," he says he did not wish violence on Jewish people and would never say it now because, "I'd be misunderstood."

ON SEPT. 11
"Whoever did this is not a Muslim, is not a religious person."

He says he never realized Sept. 11 "would affect me personally the way it has." He said he was worried that authorities would arrest him at any moment.

ON TERROR GROUPS
From a letter Al-Arian wrote Feb. 1, 1995, after a terrorist attack killed 19 Israeli soldiers:

"The link with the brothers in Hamas is very good and making steady progress, and their (sic) are serious attempts at unification and permanent coordination. I call upon you to try to extend true support to the jihad effort so that operations such as these can continue."

Al-Arian says the letter was a response to a Kuwaiti friend's inquiry about the relationship between Islamic Jihad and Hamas, and whether to support them.

He says that in his letter, "I ask others to support them, but I don't support them personally." It's really a half-hearted response. The notion I wanted to communicate was, "Do not stay idle.' "

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/21/TampaBay/Sami_Al_Arian__in_his.shtml

My favorite part: ""I was very surprised to hear myself say that..."

Sami Al-Arian demonstrates, above, the kind of doubletalk that many Muslim terrorist supporters and sympathizers engage in. They make statements clearly designed to incite violence and then claim their words were not intended to be taken at face value.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
If guilty of supporting the Islamic Jihad mass murderers (and the evidence is very compelling), Sami Al-Arian deserves the death penalty.

I didn't realize that the evidence was in the public domain. In fact I wasn't aware that any evidence gathered since the inception of the patriot act was required to be or was in the public domain. Do you have a link to this evidence?

At any rate, from what I have read, I don't support Al Arian's politics. I wasn't in court to see any evidence presented and so far I haven't seen enough to convict him on.

Having said that, I would have to give a Jewish extremist like Irv Levin the freedom to make all sorts of vocal attacks on my beliefs up to the point that he plots a violent act. And I would have to defend his right to see the evidence presented against him.

Let me make this clear, if Al Arian is criminally connected to terrorist groups that bomb Israelis, I am all for giving him the strictest sentence.

[ibrodsky]

On second thought, my favorite Sami quote is:

"I ask others to support them [Hamas], but I don't support them personally."

As I've pointed out many times, people who support mass murder operations find lying that much easier.

In closing, I say "Death to Sami Al-Arian!"

Of course, by that I mean that I hope Sami wins his jihad against his whims and desires. I don't really want to see the scumbag have a bad accident.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
I didn't realize that the evidence was in the public domain. In fact I wasn't aware that any evidence gathered since the inception of the patriot act was required to be or was in the public domain. Do you have a link to this evidence?


The fifty-count indictment against Sami and his merry band of Islamist mass murder supporters can be downloaded by clicking on this link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/flm/pr/022003indict.pdf

[ibrodsky]

Read the indictment, and you will see that the evidence against Sami is massive. The Feds have records of fax'es, phone calls, bank wire transfers, and more... all show that Sami Al-Arian was not only a Palestinian Islamic Jihad supporter but was intimately involved in specific mass murder operations.

[andak01]

Thanks for that. That's the first time I have read the indictment. My initial reaction is "string 'em up". There is a lot of information in the indictment and I want to get the details.

I was interested in Executive Order 12947 from 1995 and the Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Title 18, United States Code, Section 219, under which he is charged. Is it fair to say that much of what he did was legal until at least 1995?

Secondly, I'd like to know which groups were strongest in his defense and how many of them stuck with him as the evidence was brought forth.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
Thanks for that. That's the first time I have read the indictment. My initial reaction is "string 'em up". There is a lot of information in the indictment and I want to get the details.

Agreed.

I was interested in Executive Order 12947 from 1995 and the Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Title 18, United States Code, Section 219, under which he is charged. Is it fair to say that much of what he did was legal until at least 1995?

Don't know.

Secondly, I'd like to know which groups were strongest in his defense and how many of them stuck with him as the evidence was brought forth.

There are apparently quite a few notable individuals and groups who are unable/unwilling to admit they were duped by Al-Arian. One of them is John Esposito, author and director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.

One of the risks inherent to leftwing propaganda, slogans, and false accusations: when you fling around wild charges based on hearsay or hate, it becomes hard to disentangle yourself. If the US armed Saddam Hussein to kill one million Iraqis, and John Ashcroft is evil, then why should you believe a DOJ indictment against Sami Al-Arian?

So people back themselves into a corner: either the Liars in the US government are telling the Truth, or human rights activist Sami Al-Arian is an accomplice to the intentional killing of Jewish children.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
So people back themselves into a corner: either the Liars in the US government are telling the Truth, or human rights activist Sami Al-Arian is an accomplice to the intentional killing of Jewish children.

Being as I am not a politician, it's a little easier for me to see when I'm wrong and make ammends. But the government doesn't always tell the truth and the left wing isn't always wrong. I am disturbed by a lot that I hear going on on both sides. I do believe that some people have been wrongly sentenced. One of the upshots of this is that some fairly moderate people are getting radicalized. They are deported back to their own countries where they are prey to any kind of propaganda. And their own bitterness for the experience is liable to create negative propaganda in those places.

But I have the ability to acknowledge when someone I'm not fond of does something right. Ashcroft's enforcement of hate crime penalties across the board whether the victims were Muslim or Jews or whatever is commendable. A couple of his statements regarding Islam were hideous.

And so it goes. I try to give credit where credit is due. But I'm not going to give anyone a free ride.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
Being as I am not a politician, it's a little easier for me to see when I'm wrong and make ammends. But the government doesn't always tell the truth and the left wing isn't always wrong. I am disturbed by a lot that I hear going on on both sides. I do believe that some people have been wrongly sentenced. One of the upshots of this is that some fairly moderate people are getting radicalized. They are deported back to their own countries where they are prey to any kind of propaganda. And their own bitterness for the experience is liable to create negative propaganda in those places.


Please give some examples of people who were wrongly sentenced.

All of the evidence I've seen suggests we are erring in the other direction. Sami Al-Arian was exposed years ago; it took years of warnings to get the Feds to look into his terrorist supporting activities.

[andak01]

That's the way our system works. The FBI can't just pick up people because they are suspected to be ABOUT to do something. And holding unpopular opinions or speaking about them isn't a crime, even if some of them are hateful. You know, we could become Jordan and purge 20 or 30 thousand suspects. However, we would no longer be America. That's not the way we do things here and it causes us greater risks. That's America.

I am pretty proud of the way the FBI has performed. They do protect the rights of Americans and others even when it is unpopular to do so. They get almost zero credit for keeping hundreds of attacks from occurring and saving thousands of lives.

[abu afak]

`
Akbar Ahmed: A message of violence and hatred

I've been denounced as an Uncle Tom, branded a Zionist agent and received threats. My wife begged me to keep quiet
01 July 2004


For me, the enduring image of the poor treatment by modern Muslim society of the gentle voices of Islam is that of Yusuf Ali in the last days of his life: 81 years old, a homeless down-and-out, ill, impoverished and disoriented, sitting on the doorstep of a poor house in London in 1953. Ali had resigned from the élite Indian Civil Service to dedicate his life to scholarship. His monumental translation of the Koran into English is perhaps the most popular version even today.
Ali's reward for attempting to bring together West and East was to be vilified and spurned by his own society. His lament is moving: "I had not imagined that so much human jealousy, misunderstanding and painful misrepresentation should pursue one who seeks no worldly gain and pretends to be no dogmatic authority."

It is a tragic story, but there is an even more tragic story in our midst now. The problem appears to be with the Muslim world itself, which currently is dominated by voices of violence. Osama bin Laden is an icon, a cult figure from Morocco to Indonesia. Here in British the loudest voice is that Sheikh Omar Bakri, leader of the extremist al-Muhajiroun, who speaks on behalf of bin Laden and is a darling of the media. Both bin Laden and Bakri reject any dialogue with Jews or Christians. Instead their message is one of violent confrontation and hatred.

Where have the gentle voices of Islam gone? The problem is not one of religion, it is one of politics. The Muslim states of today have one overriding objective: to stay in power at all costs. If they encourage thinking among their populations, they risk encouraging the very dissent which could bring them down. So they clamp down on knowledge.

As an Islamic scholar, I believe there is a correlation in my history between the great days of Islamic civilisation and the ascendancy of its peaceful, compassionate and universalistic scholars. Knowledge - or ilm - was once highly prized. Ilm is the second most used word in the Koran after the name of God. Scholars such as Maulana Rumi, the great 13th-century Sufi poet, talked of discovering the same spirit in the synagogue, the church and the mosque. Today scholars in this tradition are an endangered species. The pressure on these voices is intense, yet it is almost a taboo subject among Muslims.

The inevitable smear campaign is discouraging enough, let alone the thought of floating down the Nile in the belly of a crocodile (this is not a colourful metaphor: Saddam's henchmen would literally feed critics of the regime to the local wildlife). Of course, the knowledge that persecution of the family will swiftly follow usually breaks most independent-minded scholars.

The poverty of scholarship has long-term consequences for Muslim societies. In the place of scholars advising, guiding and criticising the rulers of the day, the sycophants and the secret services prevail. At the local mosque, the imam is often an apologist for the state - preaching a message of hatred towards America, Israel and the West. Wisdom, compassion and learning is replaced by paranoia and neurosis. This is true whether in Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Afghanistan of the Taliban.

With the scholars driven out, or under pressure to remain silent, it is not surprising that the Muslim world's educational achievements are among the lowest in the world. Literacy figures are poor, and for women they are alarming.
As a result, women in the Muslim world are deprived of their inheritance and their rights, while men convince them that this is Islam.

In spite of the resources at their disposal, the failure of Muslim societies is spectacular. That can only be explained by the general sense of despair, disillusionment and discouragement. Take Pakistan, which once promised to be the model of a tolerant, modern Muslim nation. Scholars - Yusuf Ali, the translator of the Koran, Rahmat Ali, who gave Pakistan its name, Fazlur Rahman, the eminent Islamic scholar, and Abdus Salam, the only Nobel prizewinner of Pakistan - were encouraged to leave by the intolerant and the ignorant. Those with international reputations wishing to work in Pakistan - like Akhtar Hameed Khan, Mahbub ul-Haq and Eqbal Ahmed - died frustrated and broken-hearted.

Crude tactics are used even in the UK to intimidate the voices of Islam advocating dialogue. I have been denounced as an Uncle Tom for being too keen to have dialogue with Jews and Christians and far too impressed by Western civilisation. I was condemned for being the first Muslim Oxbridge don to speak at evensong at Selwyn College chapel in Cambridge. I was further condemned when I became the first Muslim scholar to deliver the Rabbi Goldstein Memorial Lecture for the Liberal and Progressive synagogues in the UK.

For this I was branded a Zionist agent - and received violent threats both from extremist Muslims appalled at my consorting with the "enemy" and from racist Britons who told this "black bastard" to "go home". My wife has many times begged me to keep quiet. Why should I take the problems of the Muslim world on my shoulders, she asks. But someone has to do it.

The issues I have chosen to take on are compounded in Western societies by a growing Islamophobia - a fear and hatred of things Islamic. This does not help Muslims seeking dialogue or understanding. They are seen by Muslims to be lame at best and apologists at worst.

We are living at a critical - and dangerous - time in history when several world civilisations are feeling under siege simultaneously. Muslims feel under siege, and point to the plight of the Palestinians, the Kashmiris and the Chechens. They view the continuing instability and violence in Iraq and Afghanistan with growing anger. They talk of the cloud of Islamophobia that now hangs over them in Western countries. The pictures from Abu Ghraib confirm the worst fears in Muslim minds of the West determined to humiliate them.

As if this was not bad enough, eminent figures in the UK and US have taken to attacking Islam. Vicious personal attacks have been launched on the Prophet of Islam himself. This is the final straw for some, because the Prophet is a highly revered figure for cultural and religious reasons.

Americans feel under siege, especially after 11 September. Israelis have felt under siege for several decades, believing that they are surrounded by Arabs determined on exterminating them. Dialogue and understanding are desperately needed to build bridges. The Western media needs to think carefully about the consequences of giving the oxygen of publicity to men like Bakri. Muslims, on the other hand, need to reclaim their spiritual heritage which once made them the leading world civilisation by rediscovering scholars such as Rumi.

As a Muslim scholar I am inspired, in spite of the discouragement, by the constant refrain in the Koran that God has created us as part of different tribes and nations so that we may come to know each other. We are all - whatever our colour or our faith - the children of God. It is a strong if distant thought to hold on to in our dangerous, changing and violent times.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=536934

The author holds the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University in Washington DC

[David_in_NYC]

Andak, did you ever notice that when others are discussing terrorists, you sound like a defense lawyer?

[golani]

Anne Marie Delcambre is a famed french islamologist
She is less known in the US because her works have not been published in English
I had the honour to meet that lady at a lecture one month ago and was pleased by her deep knowledge of islam since its origins to present days
Her knowledge of the arabic language is stunning and she adores convincing audience of the dangers of islam
She always reminds people that there are nice muslims but the dangers lie in the "sacred" texts (koran,sunna,hadiths)
Intellectuals never stop claiming that Islam is fraternity, peace and tolerance. They are certainly right, but they have no theoretical support to underscore most of their assertions

I let you enjoy a bablefish translation of her most recent article
Enjoy the reading


Islam and modernity, according to A.-M. Delcambre, islamologist, J Benigni Anne-Marie Delcambre are a Doctor d'Etat in right, Doctor in Islamic civilization, Professor d'arabe with the Louis-the-Large college, and it is a l autor d'un delivers appeared in April 2004, L'islam of the interdicts, with the editions Desclée de Brouwer. It had published Mahomet, word d'Allah, at Gallimard, L'Islam, with the editions of the Discovery, and Mahomet at Desclée de Brouwer. Lecturer islamologist, it was l'invitée of l'Institut EURO 92, June 30, 2004. Topic of its conference: Is L'Islam compatible with modernity? For Anne-Marie Delcambre, l'Islam does not differ of anything l Islamism, since obviously, l Islamism refers to the texts founders of l'Islam, and if our elites try to present to us l'Islam like a religion of generosity, peace and of tolerance, in a creditable concern for dedramatisation, d'ouverture to the dialogue and also of fear to pass for racists, "il is necessary to have despite everything courage to look at the truth in face". "Entre l Islamism, qualified d'Islam political, and l'Islam, there exists a difference in degree, not nature". Various movements of thought block the visibility on reality of l'Islam: the new thinkers of l'intelligentsia Moslem, such Mohammed Arkoun, who prefer to occult l impossibility d'échapper with the texts founders; the repenting catholics who should read again what Coran contains of rejection of Christianity trinitaire; Jews like Maxime Rodinson, historian and sociologist, concerned above all not to wound the Moslems and virulent antisionist; and Norman Daniel, whose projector is directed on the medieval European vision with respect to l'Islam; the laic ones of left pro-Palestinians, who, while supporting Community requirements, carry a blow to secularity and, in particular, in the condition of the woman; Jews religious, concerned to undoubtedly protect their own tradition; Protestants, like Bruno Etienne, for whom secularity = racism; freemasons, who see in l esoterism an Islam of science. A good example is l'ouvrage of Jocelyne Cesari, Faut it to be afraid of l'Islam, with the Science-Po Presses, in 1997, which the Father Antoine Moussali answers, in its book, the cross and the crescent with the Editions of Paris, in 1998. "Dans Coran and at the prophet, the Djihad warrior l'emporte". Egyptian L'écrivain Saïd Al Ashmawy l'affirme: "le term exceeds the simple moral direction to include the individual and collective fight against the pagan ones of Mecque". In France, one can take the measurement of l application of these practices thanks to l'?uvre courageous d'Emmanuel Brenner, which denounces the judéophobie and the speeches angelica tending to regard l Islamism as a disease of l'Islam, which, him, would be pacifist. Anne-Marie Delcambre quotes, in her work, Soheib Bencheikh: "Les intellectual claiming Moslem confession repeats unceasingly that l'Islam is fraternity, peace and tolerance. They have certainly reason, but they n'ont no support theoretical to allow d'appuyer the majority of their assertions. The moderate ones want to embellish l'image of their religion but this qu'ils says l'Islam does not translate qu'un souhait". Anne-Marie Delcambre adds: "Il is necessary to have courage to say that, for the piles Moslem, Coran is the word of D.ieu, although Coran contains texts mortifères, retrograde, contrary with the rights of l'homme, [ well ] that the prophet practised terrorism, let massacre a Jewish tribe, and makes practise the lapidation". L'Islam of Islamistes being an Islam of reconquest applying the texts to the letter, "c'est l'aspect legal of l'Islam that l'on wants to hide, one s'entend to mensonges". "L'islam is lived in community d'où it is interdict to leave, it is regarded as the natural religion of l'homme, it s'est established on terror and violence, thus legitimating the recourse to the weapons and the martyre". Avicenne and Averroès, often quoted in examples, were persecuted to have done too much place to the reflexion and the reason. More close to us, L'Egyptien Nasser Hamed Abouzed was translated, in 1996, before the supreme court of appeal of Cairo to have carried out a critical analysis of Coran and Sunna. Anne-Marie Delcambre deplores the assuaging misinformations, veiling the fact that "l'Islam is enemy other religions, that, at all times, the mystics, in l'Islam, were massacred, and that the mystic n'est tolerated that if it obeys the laws of l'Islam... because to analyze Coran for a Moslem is impensable". She denounces the distinction - politically correct - between Islam and Islamism, which bars the road with an authentic and lucid reflexion on l'Islam, like l'emploi of the "islamophobie" term;, begun again by the French intellectuals, and "lâcheté the d'une population which fears d'être marked racisme". "Dans l'Islam, there are the duties of the Moslems and the rights of D.ieu. It n'y does not have d'individu". Between an Islam "immuable", where the rights of l'homme, but only the rights of D.ieu do not n'existeraient, and a reform of l'Islam, essential, an abyss undoubtedly remains to be filled. At least freedom will have to be reached... to leave l'Islam, inter alia... It will be necessary to reach l egality, and above all between men and women... Fraternity will have to be reconsidered, between Moslems and nonMoslem... At one time when we assist with a return in strength to the texts founders... the eager Moslems enlightened of reforms, and this, with the danger of their life, will need well the support of lucid, realistic and courageous partners.

[Achihud]

Of the 1 billion Muslims in the world, a segment of Muslims have taken literally some violent passage of the Koran. (...) In the name of Allah and based on these passages, many atrocities and terrorist activities have been committed against whom the Muslims consider as infidels. Yes and also against muslim civilians. Where is the loud, public outcry from the peace-loving Muslims who may have a different interpretation. Until these Muslims, particularly the Arab world, make a concentrated effort to publicly denounce these activities, one can only assume that their silence means acquiescence to the literal beliefs.
Instead of repeating fake condemnations they should try a statement explaining who is true muslim/apostate. But of course, then they have to read the Qu'ran properly! I guess they prefer the 'agreement' variant of acquiescence!