"Jihad" + Terror, what it means

[abu afak]

""... "Jihad does not mean ‘holy war,’" says the IIIT flyer, which originally ran in USA Today. "Literally, jihad in Arabic means to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self defense or fighting against tyranny or oppression."

This is the prevailing notion in academic circles today. Articulating the currently accepted orthodoxy, Duke University professor of Islamic studies Bruce Lawrence agreed that jihad doesn’t mean "holy war": he defines this all-important Islamic concept as "being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one’s anger." To its credit, the flyer’s explanation goes farther than Lawrence by mentioning the battlefield, and in this it is more accurate than the professor’s preposterously innocuous farrago. Islamic theology distinguishes between the "greater jihad," which involves "struggle against evil inclinations within oneself," and the "lesser jihad," which is hinted at here as "struggle in the battlefield for self defense or fighting against tyranny or oppression."

Still, left unmentioned is the fact that throughout history, Muslims have not stopped at self-defense or fighting against tyranny. "In premodern times," observes the noted scholar of Islam Daniel Pipes, "jihad meant mainly one thing among Sunni Muslims, then as now the Islamic majority. It meant the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims (known in Arabic as dar al-Islam) at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims (dar al-harb). In this prevailing conception, the purpose of jihad is political, not religious. It aims not so much to spread the Islamic faith as to extend sovereign Muslim power (though the former has often followed the latter). The goal is boldly offensive, and its ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world."

Pipes adds: "Jihad was no abstract obligation through the centuries, but a key aspect of Muslim life. . . . Within a century after the prophet’s death in 632, Muslim armies had reached as far as India in the east and Spain in the west. Though such a dramatic single expansion was never again to be repeated, important victories in subsequent centuries included the seventeen Indian campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazna (r. 998-1030), the battle of Manzikert opening Anatolia (1071), the conquest of Constantinople (1453), and the triumphs of Uthman dan Fodio in West Africa (1804-17). ......

Has this changed? Certainly it’s quite different from the idea of jihad purveyed by Muslim groups and the major media today. But this older idea of jihad is alive and well in the Islamic world. One manual of Islamic law — said to conform "to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community" by Al-Azhar University of Cairo, Egypt, the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world — calls jihad "a communal obligation" to "war against non-Muslims. . . . The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax . . . The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim."

Some Muslims assert that because there is no caliph today (the caliphate was abolished by the secular state of Turkey in 1924), there can be no jihad. That’s one reason why some radical Muslims urge that the caliphate must be restored. Says Britain’s Sheikh Omar Bakri: "The Muslim Ummah [worldwide Muslim community] has never before been in a position where we are divided into over 55 nations each with its own oppressive kufr [infidel] regime ruling above us. There is no doubt therefore that the vital issue for the Muslims today is to establish the Khilafah [caliphate]."

Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden isn’t waiting for this restoration to declare jihad, and he is by no means isolated in this perspective in the Islamic world — witness the many terrorist groups around the world that rally under the name of jihad. Pipes asks, "And what about all the Muslims waging violent and aggressive jihads, under that very name and at this very moment, in Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, Ambon, and other places around the world? Have they not heard that jihad is a matter of controlling one’s anger?"

3. Islam condemns terrorism. The "Q & A" asserts that "Islam does not support terrorism under any circumstances. Terrorism goes against every principle in Islam. If a Muslim engages in terrorism, he is not following Islam. He may be wrongly using the name of Islam for political or financial gain."

This assertion is closely allied to the differing explanations of the meaning of jihad. There is no necessary connection between jihad and terrorism, and indeed, many moderate Muslims declare that their extremist brethren who justify terrorism on Islamic grounds only do so by distorting the concept of jihad. "Jihad is misused," says an expert in PBS’s documentary, Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. "There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies, uh, the claim of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or other similar groups to kill innocent civilians. That is unequivocally a crime under Islamic law. Acts of terror violence that have occurred in the name of Islam are not only wrong, they are contrary to Islam."

Once again, this is not as much of an open-and-shut case as these authorities would like us to believe. After all, no less an authority than George Bush’s "imam of peace," Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi of Al-Azhar University, disagrees. Bush quoted him in late 2001 at the United Nations as saying that "terrorism is a disease, and that Islam prohibits killing innocent civilians." But evidently his definition of terrorism would differ from that of the average American: according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), last spring Tantawi called suicide bombing "the highest form of Jihad operations," and added that "every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment."

Tantawi is no isolated crank. He holds his position at Al-Azhar by the grace of the Egyptian government, and he uses that position to wield enormous influence in the Islamic world: the New York Times called Al-Azhar the "revered mosque, the distinguished university, the leading voice of the Sunni Muslim establishment. . . . It has sought to advise Muslims around the world that those who kill in the name of Islam are nothing more than heretics. It has sought to guide, to reassure Westerners against any clash of civilizations."

Nor is Tantawi singular in his opinions. Abu Bakar Bashir, suspected mastermind of the 2002 terrorist bombings in Bali as well as bombings of churches in 2000, declared that "martyrs’ bombs are a noble thing, a jihad of high value if you are forced to do it. For instance, in Palestine there is no other way to defend yourself and defend Islam. All Ulamas [Muslim leaders] agree with martyrs’ bombs because we are forced to do it. There is no other way to defend ourselves and to defend Islam. . . . We are obliged to defend ourselves and attack people who attack Islam. In Islam there is no word for hands up, there is no word for surrender, there are only two things, win or die . . . if infidels do want to attack Islam, fight Islam, so we are instructed to fight them."

Instructed by whom? Does Abu Bakar Bashir read the same Qur’an that moderate Muslims say condemns terrorism?

After a shooting at a church in Pakistan, police detained another Muslim cleric, Mohammed Afzal, who is alleged to have told his people that "it is the duty of every good Muslim to kill Christians . . . You should attack Christians and not even have food until you have seen their dead bodies."

Presumably Afzal would not consider Christians "innocent civilians." Osama and other Muslim extremists have maintained that the people killed in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not innocent, but complicit in what they imagine to be the American government’s worldwide oppression of Muslims. Consequently, they argue that they were fitting victims of jihad — even envisioned only as a struggle against "tyranny or oppression."

Disquieting evidence indicates that such ideas are not restricted to obscure covens of ranting radicals, shunned by decent Muslims everywhere. According to MEMRI, "Mahmoud Al_Zahhar, a Hamas leader in Gaza, told the Israeli Arab weekly Kul Al_Arab, ‘Two days ago, in Alexandria, enrolment began for volunteers for martyrdom [operations]. Two thousand students from the University of Alexandria signed up to die a martyr’s death. This is the real Egyptian people.’"

Two thousand students from one university? Didn’t these two thousand students know that "those who kill in the name of Islam are nothing more than heretics"? Didn’t they know that "terrorism goes against every principle in Islam"?

The point is not that the moderates who wrote the flyer are wrong and that these radicals are right. The point is that these radical Muslims use the Qur’an and other core Islamic sources to justify their actions, and their exegesis is compelling enough to win over large numbers of Muslims. Moderate Muslims have thus far not been remotely successful in reading the radicals out of Islam. Certainly terrorism is not universally accepted in the Islamic world, but with terrorist groups rallying under the banner of jihad in all corners of the globe today, IIIT might have performed a valuable service by explaining how this violation of "every principle in Islam" came to be so widely accepted in the Muslim world......""

From the Longer and Very Interesting http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5502

[andak01]

This is the same Daniel Pipes that calls your estimate of 6 million American Muslims a hoax. Well, it happens to be my estimate as well, 6 to 7 million.

Disquieting evidence indicates that such ideas are not restricted to obscure covens of ranting radicals, shunned by decent Muslims everywhere. According to MEMRI, "Mahmoud Al_Zahhar, a Hamas leader in Gaza, told the Israeli Arab weekly Kul Al_Arab, ‘Two days ago, in Alexandria, enrolment began for volunteers for martyrdom [operations]. Two thousand students from the University of Alexandria signed up to die a martyr’s death. This is the real Egyptian people.’"

Mr. Pipes is getting his news from MEMRI. He cannot be faulted for that. Tom Friedman has also mentioned MEMRI as a source. MEMRI doesn't lie, it just makes sure to diseminate only those clippings which are most damaging to the image of Arabs while ignoring anything positive. It's no wonder that our news sources, reliant as they are on translations, fall prey to this sort of spin.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel". Brian Whitaker, The Guardian

[Frans_1]

I like it when people complain about Memri's reporting :) The more bitter the complaint, the more better . They are always forced cover their posterior by first acknowledging Memri's accuracy, but Memri's very accuracy shows it's actually untrustable since it is too accurate. So it must be that the British media must be trusted for it's impartiality because of it's inaccuracy in reporting

I think that particular Guardian "investigation" unintentionally reveals a deep insecurity and anxiety in the viciously anti-Israel British media at large. (Bless 'em. Really)

What does it say of the person who kills the messenger because the unwanted message is the responsiblity of the one who delivers the news ?

[andak01]

...[i]but Memri's very accuracy shows it's actually untrustable since it is too accurate. So it must be that the British media must be trusted for it's impartiality because of it's inaccuracy in reporting

Accuracy in translation doesn't mean that they give an accurate picture of what's actually going on. I recall that Lyndon LaRouche used to have two guys standing in front of my workplace everyday handing out pamplets. If a news camera had come and filmed them or some reporter had written about them, it would have appeared as 'LaRouche Supporters Meet in Front of Corporate Headquarters'. If you put a camera on someone, you add importance to their message. In the case of MEMRI, they are translating the most radical comments of radical people and passing distributing them without comment. This leads to the view that there aren't any other voices out there.

[Mediocrates]

To be fair though the 'Arab Press' or that part of it which is published in English in al Hayat al Quds or 'Arabnews.com'....

or:

http://www.mideastweb.org/mewnewslinks.html
http://www.masnet.org/newstand.htm
http://www.mevic.org/menanews.html


and so on are unapologetically frank about their agendas. Which is fine as far as it goes. Let's just recognize that for the most part press is an organ of the state and is constructed by opinion leaders for consumption across as broad a spectrum as possible. No one would for example actually accuse Fox News in the US as being 'Fair and Balanced' as opposed to say, the Christian Science Monitor (which really is for the most part) any more than someone would accuse National Review as offering a credible forum to non Conservative viewpoints.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
This is the same Daniel Pipes that calls your estimate of 6 million American Muslims a hoax. Well, it happens to be my estimate as well, 6 to 7 million.


Wait a minute my two-faced friend

YOU said, and YOU used, in explaining why Muslims haven't had a National demonstration, Pipes' figure of 1.8-2 million Muslims. Now you want to call this estimate untrue for the sake of a different argument.!!

YOU brought up Pipes and YOU used his number! NOT ME

I used 6 Million, NOT YOU! You used the lower Pipes number to try and excuse away America's unpatriotic Muslims. I allowed it for the sake of argument and buried you anyway, as there were still plenty to have a national Demonstration.

This is Preposterous Duplicity and typical andak/Arab

Unbelievable.

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
[B]Wait a minute my two-faced friend

You already started in a previous post by calling me a liar. So now I'm two-faced? What does that make me, a double liar?

Daniel Pipes, your 'respected expert' on Islam, is a hate monger. I think you and I both know that his estimate of the number of Muslims in the US is way low. He stated it that way in order to reduce our seeming importance. Because if Muslims in America are such a small number, they are easier to marginalize. Make no mistake, that is his agenda. If the world believes what you believe, that the hijackers are representative of the Muslim world at large, then the call will go forth to destroy all of us. Fortunately, clearer heads prevail. That call, a call from which there can be no turning back, is a declaration of holy war by non-Muslims against Muslims. That is the realization of the Dar Al Harb writ large by stupid intolerance. George Bush and the leaders of the western world, to their credit have decided not to travel that road. Whether the war against terrorism is a war for oil or a personal vendetta against Saddam or something else, one thing it is not is a holy war against Islam.

This is Preposterous Duplicity and typical andak/Arab

OK, so now Arabs are all liars. I knew your true face would come forth eventually. You assumed I was a liar by virtue of my religion and now you assume I am an Arab by virtue of my religion. I guess we all look alike to you. This is definitely an improvement over the usual cut and paste.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
You already started in a previous post by calling me a liar. So now I'm two-faced? What does that make me, a double liar?

Daniel Pipes, your 'respected expert' on Islam, is a hate monger. I think you and I both know that his estimate of the number of Muslims in the US is way low. He stated it that way in order to reduce our seeming importance. Because if Muslims in America are such a small number, they are easier to marginalize. Make no mistake, that is his agenda. If the world believes what you believe, that the hijackers are representative of the Muslim world at large, then the call will go forth to destroy all of us. Fortunately, clearer heads prevail. That call, a call from which there can be no turning back, is a declaration of holy war by non-Muslims against Muslims. That is the realization of the Dar Al Harb writ large by stupid intolerance. George Bush and the leaders of the western world, to their credit have decided not to travel that road. Whether the war against terrorism is a war for oil or a personal vendetta against Saddam or something else, one thing it is not is a holy war against Islam.



OK, so now Arabs are all liars. I knew your true face would come forth eventually. You assumed I was a liar by virtue of my religion and now you assume I am an Arab by virtue of my religion. I guess we all look alike to you. This is definitely an improvement over the usual cut and paste.

YOU used Pipes... to make YOUR argument.

YOU brought his number AND link into the discussion to Justify YOUR Lame Excuse! ('that were too few Muslims for a patriotic National demonstration of support for the USA' !! LOL)

What do you call someone who uses a source he knows (or wrongly thinks) is a Lie? Then in the next post, to justify something else, THEN says it's wrong! (YIKES)

Like I said.... You're a disastrous Defender of Arabs/Islam... Please call CAIR and have them send someone....

Your Spiked Shoes are putting Large holes in the Hull while you work futilely to plug pinholes with your Hands.

Glug Glug

[andak01]

And what happens glug, glug if we lose? Are you calling for our extermination?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
And what happens glug, glug if we lose? Are you calling for our extermination?

If you 'lose', you'll proably get offered a state Yet again.

and reject it, yet again. LOL

Apparently the world feels there's no territorial penalty for trying to wipe someone else out 3 times from that same territory.


What would have happened Isreal lost in '48, '67 0r '73.. HMMM?
....

And you haven't answered on your hypocritical, two-faced use of Pipes ... Slime ball

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
If you 'lose', you'll proably get offered a state Yet again.

and reject it, yet again. LOL

Apparently the world feels there's no territorial penalty for trying to wipe someone else out 3 times from that same territory.


What would have happened Isreal lost in '48, '67 0r '73.. HMMM?
....

And you haven't answered on your hypocritical, two-faced use of Pipes ... Slime ball

Well I'm not a Palestinian, so I'm not in search of a state. I'm not an Arab, so racial profiling doesn't work with me. And I don't have to answer anything at all to someone who calls me a liar and a slimeball. I wouldn't go so far as to call you a troll, because you really seem to believe in your line of hatred. Good luck.

[abu afak]

YOU used Pipes... to make YOUR argument.

YOU brought his number AND link into the discussion to Justify YOUR Lame Excuse! ('that were too few Muslims for a patriotic National demonstration of support for the USA' !! LOL)

What do you call someone who uses a source he knows (or wrongly thinks) is a Lie? Then in the next post, to justify something else, THEN says it's wrong! (YIKES)

Like I said.... You're a disastrous Defender of Arabs/Islam... Please call CAIR and have them send someone....

Your Spiked Shoes are putting Large holes in the Hull while you work futilely to plug pinholes with your Hands.

Glug Glug

[Frans_1]

>>> Accuracy in translation doesn't mean that they give an accurate picture of what's actually going on.

thats the problem. An accurate picture (or view) depends on things other than accurate reporting ?

as to whether something is "damaging" or "radical", it's entirely subjective. Memri's stated agenda is not to publish, in it's opinion, the "worst" about the Arab press. If you don't like it's reporting, you can infer that. Maybe it actually presents the best side....

but on the other hand,

just makes sure to diseminate only those clippings which are most damaging to the image of (Arabs) while ignoring anything positive

is not the basic problem with the European/British media and academia's dishonest reporting on Israel. Whereas you can still, arguably, claim that is Memri's problem.

Under that guideline of accurate view, how would one report on eg Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan during WW2 or Rwanda? Eg, just because the Japanese imperial army was slaughtering 300,000 unarmed Chinese in Nanjing doesn't mean there wasn't a lot positive going for it or even that it was a bad thing! It may be unfairly damaging to the Japanese image without also reporting on the atrocities committed by the unarmed Chinese!

But it begs the question of why, if Memri is supposedly accurate, the mainstream press, especially the British Media so studiously avoid such reports. I really want to hear an answer to this one.

[andak01]

Under that guideline of accurate view, how would one report on eg Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan during WW2 or Rwanda?

We're not talking about Nazi Germany, we are talking about the hundreds of millions that make up the Arab world. And the accuracy mentioned, once again is only accuracy of translation.

Simple example.

Qur'an Surah Taubah 9:5

...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them...

Accurate right? So Muslims can kill all infidels?

also 9:5
but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them:

Accurate right? So Muslims can kill all infidels who don't convert?

9:6
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure.

Accurate right? So Muslims can't kill infidels who are even willing to hear the word of Allah?

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them,

Accurate right? So Muslims can't kill any infidels before the forbidden months are past? What forbidden months?

9:1 A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

9:2 Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.

9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

Accurate right? This is a historic reference to a specific event. The Infidels mentioned in the text were the Qaraish of Mecca. They are already dead. So saying that this quote is a general prescription for killing Infidels is a lie. In the first example, we come away with the conclusion that Muslims are enjoined by the Qur'an to kill all Infidels. That, based on a fragment taken out of context is an accurate conclusion. But if we read the entire passage, the meaning is nowhere near that. So translating accurately does not include putting things in context. And putting things in context is the duty of an ethical journalist.

[Frans_1]

If you look at the first 5 verses you just provided, then,

In the first example, we come away with the conclusion that Muslims are enjoined by the Qur'an to kill all Infidels. That, based on a fragment taken out of context is an accurate conclusion.

who is we ? it is not possible to jump to such a conclusion and say that that is the accurate conclusion which is drawn by others.


but We're not talking about Nazi Germany,

we are not talking about the Koran either, we were talking about Memri's reporting.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
we are not talking about the Koran either, we were talking about Memri's reporting.

Was it you that was quoting from the leader of Islamic Jihad to get your statistics for Palestinian support of terrorism? Just because a radical wacko says something, doesn't make it true. It most certainly doesn't make it representative. I also find it reprehensible when Palestinian supporters hold up quotes of violent extremist Zionists. It is not constructive in the least. MEMRI, in case you have forgotten is supposed to be a translation service, not a reporting service. Most translation services translate, they do not deseminate.

[Frans_1]

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD41002

Now it starts off by saying the following are excerpts. (fyi, that actually is my complaint too.)

I'm not drawing any conclusions, but using your reasoning on the Koran post, how would you place this in which proper context ? That is, what should be the proper context of some of these Q's and A's ?

Islamist Leaders in London Interviewed

London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat published a series of articles about the Muslim community in the UK. One of the articles included interviews with two Islamist leaders living in London: Sheikh Abu Hamza the Egyptian,(1) imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque and head of the Ansar Al-Shari'ah organization, and Sheikh Omar Bakri, originally from Syria, who established and heads the Islamic Religious Court in London and also heads the Al-Muhajiroun Islamist organization. The following are excerpts from the two interviews: (2)

Abu Hamza: The West Will Never Reach the Level of Islam; The Only Solution Is to Call on Them to Join Islam

Q: "Do you consider yourself British?"

Abu Hamza: "I consider myself British to the extent that I use my British documents to move around. If the question is whether I consider myself British because I agree with British policy, the answer is, of course, negative... I live here and I hold a passport. It is a superficial identity; real identity is in the heart and in the mind, and this is the [identity] that drives a man. This [identity] is Islam..."

Q: "But in Britain you are respected as a person."

Abu Hamza: "And who said that we do not respect a person?! But must we respect a person even when he wants to be an animal?!...There is a difference between a man of intelligence and a man who is crazy or a pervert; [there is a difference between] a natural man and a criminal man... Must we respect someone who boasts of his bestiality? This is inconceivable. This is incompatible with Islamic religious law, or with reason."

"People get [basic respect] in the religion. Beyond that, there is special respect for believers. Every man... [can choose] whether to be a human being or an ape. For example, if a man wears clothes, he is respected; but if he takes them off, he should not be respected. An adulterer should not be respected. Anyone who attacks little children should not be respected. Anyone who tries to turn himself into a half-man, half-woman should not be respected..."

Q: "How responsive do you think the Islamic community in Britain is to the call to integrate into society?"

Abu Hamza: "Integration... extremism... these are sweeping generalizations. To integrate with whom, and under what conditions? Extremism in what? We can seek to act with extremism in dealing with evil, for example... When you talk of extremism and of integration the question arises: Who is integrating with whom, and in what matter? If you mean that the Muslim integrates with the non-Muslim in matters that Islam does not prohibit, such as protecting the environment, defending human rights, and fighting corruption, usury, and adultery, then yes, there can be such integration. But if we take integration en masse, and we all integrate, the Muslim's daughter will come to him pregnant and he will say: 'Never mind, I'm integrated.' His wife will throw him out of the house and he'll sleep in his car, and she'll bring her lover home..."

Q: "At the Seville Summit [in Spain], Britain demanded more stringent [laws] on immigration. Are you concerned?"

Abu Hamza: "The truth is that I have British [citizenship]. True, it is currently of no value when everything is checked against security [considerations]... I maintain that the talk of more stringent immigration laws is no more than empty talk. The European countries want to choose a specific kind of immigrants, for they need these immigrants. The immigration laws do not interest me. I have been a British engineer since 1985, and I am a member of the [British] Engineers Union..."

"There are British citizens being tortured in Guantanamo, and no one lifts a finger... When the security clock ticks, the foreigner remains a foreigner wherever he may be. You cannot fight deeply rooted racism. It would be idiocy to think that these countries will ever reach the level of Islam. They need much more time to even understand Islam. The only solution for stopping their racism is to call on them to join Islam, so that they will realize what a civilization they are missing..."

Q: "Do you think about the possibility of leaving Britain?"

Abu Hamza: "I meant to go to Afghanistan, and prepared myself to do so, but Allah decreed otherwise - primarily in light of the fact that my passport was confiscated by the authorities. Now I am under house arrest. If I had my passport, I would go. Before September 11, we had all intended to emigrate to Afghanistan - even after the events of September 11. Many wanted to. They did not think that things would turn out like this, especially because in the beginning Al-Qa'ida denied any connection to September 11. It turned out that Al-Qa'ida was not connected to the events. From an engineer's standpoint, I can prove that these buildings did not fall just like that because of a fire... Anyone who knows the properties of these buildings knows that Al-Qa'ida didn't do it. These buildings were blown up from within..."

Sheikh Omar Bakri: We Will Transform the West into An Islamic Regime by External or Cultural Invasion

Q: "I listened to your lesson on the foundations of belief, and it seems that you are not interested in bringing students into British society - that is, you are not helping them to be British Muslims."

Bakri: "In my method of education, I am opposed to the idea of integration. We do not believe that it is permitted to integrate into the societies in which we live. I am not a supporter of seclusion from society, and I am not a supporter of integration into it. I am a supporter of interaction with society, by means of my religion and my belief, in order to change the environment, not to be changed by it..."

Q: "And where will this life of estrangement lead?"

Bakri: "The life of estrangement will lead... to [a] change in the situation of the country in which we live, as the Muslims changed the situation in Abyssinia and Indonesia. Allah willing, we will transform the West into Dar Al-Islam [that is, a region under Islamic rule] by means of invasion from without. If an Islamic state arises and invades [the West] we will be its army and its soldiers from within. If not, [we will change the West] through ideological invasion from here, without war and killing."

"Either we will preach to them and they will accept [Islam], or we will live among them and they will be influenced by our lives and will accept Islam as a political solution to their problems, not as an ideological solution. Islam can be a spiritual faith and it can be a political faith... Islam defended the religion of the Christians, the Jews, and others, and stated that 'there is no coercion in religion.' [But] the coercion is in the laws. Laws can be Islamic-religious and they can be man-made. They [the West] have imposed man-made law on us, and the [future] Islamic regime will impose Islamic religious rulings on them. The Muslim will act according to this law out of obedience [that is, willingly], and anyone who is not a Muslim will do so by force of law. I do not obey the man-made law. Even if I don't break it, I do not obey it. Allah said: 'Do not obey the infidels and the hypocrites.'"

Q: "How can you live in a society in which you are an outsider?"

Bakri: "Islam is a religion of the law of nature. When a man encounters problems he uses the law of nature. In America, a debate has recently emerged about separating [men and women] at the universities. Why? Because there are problems. There are girls who get pregnant at a young age, with no husband. There is no reason to mix [the sexes] within the universities. Why?... I live on the margins of the existing law, as long as it is compatible with the law of nature and does not conflict with Islam. Some countries have begun discussing the matter of punishing thieves. In the former USSR, they said they would amputate a thief's hand. This is the law of nature, because it is the strict law that deters the thief from committing the crime."

[Frans_1]

Was it you that was quoting from the leader of Islamic Jihad to get your statistics for Palestinian support of terrorism?

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=40875

is that what you are talking about ? but the answer is no.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=40875

is that what you are talking about ? but the answer is no.

Thanks for looking that up. That's why I asked rather than stating.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by andak01
You Daniel Pipes, your 'respected expert' on Islam, is a hate monger. I think you and I both know that his estimate of the number of Muslims in the US is way low. He stated it that way in order to reduce our seeming importance. Because if Muslims in America are such a small number, they are easier to marginalize. Make no mistake, that is his agenda.

OK, so now Arabs are all liars. I knew your true face would come forth eventually. You assumed I was a liar by virtue of my religion and now you assume I am an Arab by virtue of my religion. I guess we all look alike to you. This is definitely an improvement over the usual cut and paste.

Very true, I have always said, and have gotten "attacked" for saying Daniel Pipes is a hate monger.

Btw - Abu, only 12% of muslims are Arabs.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
Very true, I have always said, and have gotten "attacked" for saying Daniel Pipes is a hate monger.

Btw - Abu, only 12% of muslims are Arabs.


Well Ilya.. now you are proved right because andak says so.?!*%%&^%$%^#

LMAO!

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD41002
If an Islamic state arises and invades [the West] we will be its army and its soldiers from within. If not, [we will change the West] through ideological invasion from here, without war and killing."


He's talking about the concept of a caliphate. This is a concept of prime importance to the Islamist and almost unknown to the rest of Islam. The fact that he holds these opinions in itself is not a crime, nor would it be here in America. Many Jews in America celebrated Baruch Goldstein when he massacred Muslims at prayer. Although I find that offensive, their opinions are not illegal. Even what he says about acting as a footsoldier would only be a crime if he were in the military or if he incited people in the street. I would say a very large number of religious people of any ilk would consider their loyalties lie more with their religion than with their nation. And Christianity and now Judaeism (backed by Christianity) are involved with active proselytizing. I have seen the call, even on this board to force Muslims to convert. What are we to make of that? Well, let's not make more of it than we must.

No caliph is going to protect us on the day of Judgement. And if we commit sins in order to establish such a caliph, they will count just as harshly.

Let me add one more thought on this. Muslims, Christians and Jews all believe that ALL people are under the influence of God (though we have different words and opinions on what God is). So if a Christian were to tell me that I was living under Christ's rule, or that my future depended on my relation to Jesus, I would take it for what it's worth. Jews tend not to proselytize so much, but if they did, I wouldn't be either offended by it or swayed.

[Frans_1]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003030885,00.html

HATE-FILLED Muslim cleric Abu Hamza is being urged to quit the country — before Britain kicks him out.
Furious opponents, including Muslims, rounded on the hook-handed fanatic yesterday after ricin plot suspects were held at his mosque.
Their calls piled pressure on Home Secretary David Blunkett, who has already ordered cops to nail the 45-year-old Egyptian firebrand — wanted in Yemen over an alleged terrorist bomb plot.
Seven asylum seekers were arrested in the 2am raid on North London’s Finsbury Park mosque. One is thought to be a “major player” in terror group al-Qa’ida.
Police also found a stun gun and a CS gas canister.
Last night it emerged Hamza’s British citizenship could be revoked under the new Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act, due to become law this spring.
Hamza, who lost an eye and both hands fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, became a citizen after wedding Briton Valerie Fleming in 1984.
But a Home Office spokeswoman said: “The Secretary of State may deprive a person of citizenship status if satisfied that person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.”
However, she stressed any foreigner deprived of British citizenship must have an alternative state to go to first.
Hamza accused cops of “Rambo” tactics after 150 swarmed into the mosque hunting members of a gang producing killer poison ricin.
But fellow Muslim leader Dr Mohammed Sekkoum led angry calls for his expulsion.
Dr Sekkoum, leader of the Algerian Refugee Council, raged: “The police should shut down the mosque and remove Hamza and his followers from the country.”
Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the influential Muslim Council of Great Britain, said: “It amazes the Muslim community no action has been taken against a man who’s made the utterances this man has.
“These fringe elements feed Islamaphobia.”
Labour MP Andrew Dismore, who has monitored Hamza’s activities for more than three years, said: “It would be no loss if he was no longer here. There’s sufficient evidence for him to be charged with incitement.”
Anti-crime crusader Norman Brennan added: “My message to him is simple — get out.”

Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin said: “Most people will find it amazing that someone intent on damaging our country has been able to carry on his malign work for so long.”
Hamza, who lives in a council house in Shepherd’s Bush, West London, claimed cops raided the mosque where he preaches in revenge for the killing of Manchester detective Stephen Oake last week.
He said: “We cannot find a reason for this Rambo-like way of attacking the mosque.
“It’s disgusting, heavy-handed and unnecessary. “It was not a shock. It serves a multiple purpose. It serves Mr Blair and the police.
“It gives the message to the Americans and the Israelis from the Government that they are not sleeping.”
Hamza, widely criticised for his inflammatory speeches, said the raid backed up PM Tony Blair’s “war against UK Muslims”.
He added: “The people inside included a cleaner, a chef and two guards. It was a provocative act. You are trying to make an enemy out of nothing.”
The Charity Commission last week withdrew Hamza’s charity status — opening the way for the Government to kick him out of the country.
But he said of any possible expulsion: “I don’t have a place to go.”
Hamza arrived from Egypt as a student in 1981 and boosted his income by working as a bouncer in Soho.
He wed Valerie, but divorced several years later and is now thought to be married to an Arab woman and have “several” children.

Security chiefs had Hamza under constant surveillance, ready to pounce if he put a foot wrong. But they were hamstrung by Britain’s laws on immigrants.
An immigration service source had said: “This man is a UK citizen so we can’t just stick him on a plane out.”
Hamza shocked Britain when he defiantly justified the attacks in New York and Washington in September 2001.
He said: “America is a crazy superpower and what was done was done in self-defence.”
Yemen has accused him of masterminding a plot to bomb British targets in the port city of Aden in 1998.
Security sources claim they have evidence he sent his son, stepson and others from his “Supporters of Sharia” group to training camps run by the Islamic Army of Aden.
His recruits confessed in a Yemeni court to paying a local terrorist leader £2,000 for weapons and training.
The leader, Abu Hassan, led the kidnap of 16 Western tourists and told his gunmen to murder as many as they could when Yemeni soldiers tried to rescue them. Four, including three Britons, died.
Last night a Whitehall source said: “The Home Secretary could look at extradition.
But we’ve no treaty with Yemen and he would not be sent there due to the harshness of the judicial system.”

[andak01]

It actually does, thanks for that. The context is that this guy is a hothead extremist who the local Muslim population is fed up with, not the voice of moderation or someone we should be listening to much less emulating. It is interesting that a UK citizen can be deported for something he says. We are getting to that stage here in America, but it is generally contrary to our Bill of Rights. However there have always been limits to what one can say in public. Just that those limits are being greatly expanded. We can now be arrested at an airport here for even making a joke about security. And that's no joke!

[Frans_1]

And putting things in context is the duty of an ethical journalist.

Advocacy Reporting is not Ethical Journalism. That is the complaint against the pro-Arab anti-Israel mainstream press.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
Advocacy Reporting is not Ethical Journalism. That is the complaint against the pro-Arab anti-Israel mainstream press.

Al Jezira, touted as the epitome of the so-called biased Arab press is an interesting case. Why is it that the Mullahs in Iran and Saddam speak out against them if they are so pro Iraq? And why, if they are so biased, do the major news networks here constantly purchase footage from them? During the war in Afghanistan, we were seeing Al Jezira clips every night. They do have a bias, but so does our own media. Salman Rushdie as the unbiased editorialist on Middle Eastern affairs? Daniel Pipes for the Wall Street Journal? And at the university level in our schools, almost none of the professors in teaching Islamic studies are Muslim. Bruce Lawrence of Duke University has a degree from Episcopal Divinities school. He is the head of the Islamic department there. Do we find a Christian heading the Judaeic studies program?

[elke]

Originally posted by andak01
... Do we find a Christian heading the Judaeic studies program?

Yes, sometimes. I used to work for a company owned and operated by the Episcopal Church. One of my clients was a gentleman who was an Episcopal priest and also professor of Jewish Studies, at Harvard I believe.

His knowledge of both Hebrew and Judaism was very extensive, I learned a lot from him; and his respect and love for it were incredible, too.

[andak01]

Originally posted by elke
Yes, sometimes. I used to work for a company owned and operated by the Episcopal Church. One of my clients was a gentleman who was an Episcopal priest and also professor of Jewish Studies, at Harvard I believe.

His knowledge of both Hebrew and Judaism was very extensive, I learned a lot from him; and his respect and love for it were incredible, too.

That's a beautiful story. Is this the guy?

Jay M. Harris, Harvard College Professor and Harry Austryn Wolfson Professor of Jewish Studies

Sort of the exception that proves the rule. But I will withold judgement until I can do more research.

Here we have Islamic studies.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~mideast/faculty/primary/index.html

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
Al Jezira, touted as the epitome of the so-called biased Arab press is an interesting case. Why is it that the Mullahs in Iran and Saddam speak out against them if they are so pro Iraq? And why, if they are so biased, do the major news networks here constantly purchase footage from them? During the war in Afghanistan, we were seeing Al Jezira clips every night. They do have a bias, but so does our own media. Salman Rushdie as the unbiased editorialist on Middle Eastern affairs? Daniel Pipes for the Wall Street Journal? And at the university level in our schools, almost none of the professors in teaching Islamic studies are Muslim. Bruce Lawrence of Duke University has a degree from Episcopal Divinities school. He is the head of the Islamic department there. Do we find a Christian heading the Judaeic studies program?

Al Jazeera ISN'T the 'epitome' of the Arab Biased press. It's just the most Visible Internationally. Most of the Arab Press is Controlled utterly by the governments of the respective countries.

It does indeed get criticism from many Arab governments who are used to NO criticism.

That doesn't make al Jazira even remotely close to objective by Western Standards. Or even any better than it's Arab counterparts in the Objectivity Department. It may even be worse:


""... November 18, 2001
What the Muslim World Is Watching
By FOUAD AJAMI

Al Jazeera is not subtle television. Recently, during a lull in its nonstop coverage of the raids on Kabul and the street battles of Bethlehem, the Arabic-language satellite news station showed an odd but telling episode of its documentary program "Biography and Secrets." The show's subject was Ernesto (Che) Guevara. Presenting Che as a romantic, doomed hero, the documentary recounted the Marxist rebel's last stand in the remote mountains of Bolivia, lingering mournfully over the details of his capture and execution. Even Che's corpse received a lot of airtime; Al Jazeera loves grisly footage and is never shy about presenting graphic imagery.

The episode's subject matter was, of course, allegorical. Before bin Laden, there was Guevara. Before Afghanistan, there was Bolivia. As for the show's focus on C.I.A. operatives chasing Guevara into the mountains, this, too, was clearly meant to evoke the contemporary hunt for Osama, the Islamic rebel.

Al Jazeera, which claims a global audience of 35 million Arabic-speaking viewers, may not officially be the Osama bin Laden Channel -- but he is clearly its star, as I learned during an extended viewing of the station's programming in October. The channel's graphics assign him a lead role: there is bin Laden seated on a mat, his submachine gun on his lap; there is bin Laden on horseback in Afghanistan, the brave knight of the Arab world. A huge, glamorous poster of bin Laden's silhouette hangs in the background of the main studio set at Al Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, the capital city of Qatar.

On Al Jazeera (which means "the Peninsula"), the Hollywoodization of news is indulged with an abandon that would make the Fox News Channel blush. The channel's promos are particularly shameless. One clip juxtaposes a scowling George Bush with a poised, almost dreamy bin Laden; between them is an image of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames. Another promo opens with a glittering shot of the Dome of the Rock. What follows is a feverish montage: a crowd of Israeli settlers dance with unfurled flags; an Israeli soldier fires his rifle; a group of Palestinians display Israeli bullet shells; a Palestinian woman wails; a wounded Arab child lies on a bed. In the climactic image, Palestinian boys carry a banner decrying the shame of the Arab world's silence.

Al Jazeera's reporters are similarly adept at riling up the viewer. A fiercely opinionated group, most are either pan-Arabists -- nationalists of a leftist bent committed to the idea of a single nation across the many frontiers of the Arab world -- or Islamists who draw their inspiration from the primacy of the Muslim faith in political life. Since their primary allegiance is to fellow Muslims, not Muslim states, Al Jazeera's reporters and editors have no qualms about challenging the wisdom of today's Arab rulers. Indeed, Al Jazeera has been rebuked by the governments of Libya and Tunisia for giving opposition leaders from those countries significant air time. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, for their part, have complained about Al Jazeera's extensive reporting on the misery of Iraqis living under sanctions. But the five-year-old station has refused to be reined in. The channel openly scorns the sycophantic tone of the state-run Arab media and the quiescence of the mainstream Arab press, both of which play down controversy and dissent.

Compared with other Arab media outlets, Al Jazeera may be more independent -- but it is also more inflammatory. For the dark side of the pan-Arab worldview is an aggressive mix of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, and these hostilities drive the station's coverage, whether it is reporting on the upheaval in the West Bank or on the American raids on Kandahar. Although Al Jazeera has sometimes been hailed in the West for being an autonomous Arabic news outlet, it would be a mistake to call it a fair or responsible one. Day in and day out, Al Jazeera deliberately fans the flames of Muslim outrage.

Consider how Al Jazeera covered the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000. The story was a godsend for the station; masked Palestinian boys aiming slingshots and stones at Israeli soldiers made for constantly compelling television. The station's coverage of the crisis barely feigned neutrality. The men and women who reported from Israel and Gaza kept careful count of the "martyrs." The channel's policy was firm: Palestinians who fell to Israeli gunfire were martyrs; Israelis killed by Palestinians were Israelis killed by Palestinians. Al Jazeera's reporters exalted the "children of the stones," giving them the same amount of coverage that MSNBC gave to Monica Lewinsky. The station played and replayed the heart-rending footage of 12-year-old Muhammed al-Durra, who was shot in Gaza and died in his father's arms. The images' ceaseless repetition signaled the arrival of a new, sensational breed of Arab journalism. Even some Palestinians questioned the opportunistic way Al Jazeera handled the tragic incident. But the channel savored the publicity and the controversy all the same.

Since Sept. 11, I discovered, Al Jazeera has become only more incendiary. The channel's seething dispatches from the "streets of Kabul" or the "streets of Baghdad" emphasize anti-American feeling. The channel's numerous call-in shows welcome viewers to express opinions that in the United States would be considered hate speech. And, of course, there is the matter of Al Jazeera's "exclusive" bin Laden videotapes. On Oct. 7, Al Jazeera broadcast a chilling message from bin Laden that Al Qaeda had delivered to its Kabul bureau. Dressed in a camouflage jacket over a traditional thoub, bin Laden spoke in ornate Arabic, claiming that the terror attacks of Sept. 11 should be applauded by Muslims. It was a riveting performance -- one that was repeated on Nov. 3, when another bin Laden speech aired in full on the station. And just over a week ago, Al Jazeera broadcast a third Al Qaeda tape, this one showcasing the military skills of four young men who were said to be bin Laden's own sons.......


..........What's more, Al Jazeera is a crafty operation. In covering the intifada, its broadcasters perfected a sly game -- namely, mimicking Western norms of journalistic fairness while pandering to pan-Arab sentiments. In a seemingly open-minded act, Al Jazeera broke with a widespread taboo of the Arab news media and interviewed Israeli journalists and officials, including Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. Yet at the same time, it pressed on with unrelenting anti-Zionist reportage that contributed to further alienation between Israelis and Palestinians................

...........................That said, Al Jazeera's virulent anti-American bias undercuts all of its virtues. It is, in the final analysis, a dangerous force. And it should treated as such by Washington....

http://www.udel.edu/global/agenda/2002/readings/nytjazeeraview.html


Oh BTW you said.. "" but so does our own media. Salman Rushdie as the unbiased editorialist on Middle Eastern affairs? Daniel Pipes for the Wall Street Journal? And at the university level in our schools, almost none of the professors in teaching Islamic studies are Muslim....""

""..Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, is the author most recently of ''The Dream Palace of the Arabs...''

and he's probably been seen Hundreds of times on the Media and Hundreds More times than Daniel Pipes has since he first appeared for CBS in the 1980's


I think that covers it.

Again

[elke]

Originally posted by andak01
That's a beautiful story. Is this the guy?

Jay M. Harris, Harvard College Professor and Harry Austryn Wolfson Professor of Jewish Studies

Sort of the exception that proves the rule. But I will withold judgement until I can do more research.

Here we have Islamic studies.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~mideast/faculty/primary/index.html

I thought the gentleman's name was The Reverend John Townsend - he may have retired. I haven't talked with him since I left my old job almost 4 years ago (I am notoriously awful at keeping in touch with people! Not because I don't want to, but because I am severely disorganized and lose EVERYTHING, including but not limited to addresses and phone numbers! :( :o )

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
""..Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, is the author most recently of ''The Dream Palace of the Arabs...''

and he's probably been seen Hundreds of times on the Media and Hundreds More times than Daniel Pipes has since he first appeared for CBS in the 1980's

I think that covers it.

Again [/B]

I had never heard of Dr. Ajami for whatever that's worth. And I was surprised that you proclaimed him much more of a public presence than Daniel Pipes. So I did a couple of web searches.

Yahoo search Hits
Fouad Ajami 5,450
Daniel Pipes 179,000

Google search
Fouad Ajami 5,830
Daniel Pipes 171,000

I think that covers it. Again.

And I would ask you why Condoleeza Rice would agree to appear on a station that is as viciously biased as you say Al Jezeera is? Mind you, I have not argued that it has no bias, only that our own media has exaggerated its extent.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
I had never heard of Dr. Ajami for whatever that's worth. And I was surprised that you proclaimed him much more of a public presence than Daniel Pipes. So I did a couple of web searches.

Yahoo search Hits
Fouad Ajami 5,450
Daniel Pipes 179,000

Google search
Fouad Ajami 5,830
Daniel Pipes 171,000



You Never heard of Fouad Ajami...

He's the commentator on the Middle East for CBS News and ..


""Features: Fouad Ajami, The Media's Favorite Middle East Expert
Topic Commentary


Once content to ignore foreign affairs, the American public has been trying to play catch-up since Sept. 11, eager to learn more about the Middle East, its politics, its people and its potential threat to the West. Helping lead that collective teach-in has been the ubiquitous Fouad Ajami, esteemed professor of Middle Eastern studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Ajami has garnered more prime-time airplay than any other commentator on Arab-Muslim issues. But critics say he's far from a representative voice.

By Eric Boehlert (salon.com), 12/21/2001 8:18:00 PM

The master of the trenchant sound bite,

Ajami is also a prolific and poetic writer, author of such books as:

"The Dream Palace of the Arabs,"
"The Arab Predicament"
and "The Vanished Imam,"
as well as a contributor to several influential American magazines.

"My jaw drops when I read his writing," says Mort Zuckerman, publisher of U.S. News & World Report, where Ajami's work has appeared for years. "I think he's the most brilliant authority, with the greatest insight and greatest historical knowledge of the Arab mind-set, in this country."

Ajami has also become that academic oddity: a serious scholar who has crossed over into the mainstream. An electronic database search on Nexis-Lexis retrieves more than 150 Ajami news mentions since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. .."" http://middleeastinfo.org/article111.html


and Once again you switch allegiances to discredit/diminish someone else by using Daniel Pipes as an authority!

Your dishonesty/disingenuity is really too much:

Daniel Pipes you discredit...... when I post it ..

Then YOU try to use his Low Number estimate of US Muslims to explain why there has been no National patriotic demonstration of US Mulims.

Then you Discredit and Belittle him again...

NOW OW OW OW .... He's a much bigger authority than Ajami based on the number of hits you found on Google.

Your tactics are amoral to the point of laughter

[andak01]

Actually, I told you the truth. Fouad Ajami, is not a name I was familiar with, although I was familiar with Daniel Pipes. I do not watch CBS, so that would explain it. I do read the Wall Street Journal and I do read articles on the internet. Perhaps Pipes just happens to have more coverage (33 times more coverage) on the internet. Based on the one article, I don't agree with either of them. If Ajami wants to say that Al Jazeera is biased, I'll certainly buy that. But to say that they are part of some orchestrated plot to deseminate anti-Zionism. It might be called giving the people what they want. Here we call that boosting ratings. Like when America's Most Wanted went after Bin Laden. Hmmm, we haven't had an update on that one in a while. The fact remains that when Al Jazeera scoops film footage, the major networks here buy it and use it.

[abu afak]

Who Cares if you're familiar?

I'm presenting real evidence He IS quite well known.

Thankfully, you're lack of knowledge doesn't affect Mr Ajamis notoriety.

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
""..Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, is the author most recently of ''The Dream Palace of the Arabs...''

and he's probably been seen Hundreds of times on the Media and Hundreds More times than Daniel Pipes has since he first appeared for CBS in the 1980's

I think that covers it.

Again

Originally posted by andak01
I had never heard of Dr. Ajami for whatever that's worth. And I was surprised that you proclaimed him much more of a public presence than Daniel Pipes. So I did a couple of web searches.

Yahoo search Hits
Fouad Ajami 5,450
Daniel Pipes 179,000

Google search
Fouad Ajami 5,830
Daniel Pipes 171,000

[abu afak]

Originally posted by abu afak
Who Cares if you're familiar?

I'm presenting real evidence He IS quite well known.

Thankfully, you're lack of knowledge doesn't affect Mr Ajamis notoriety.
Sometimes Good Fortune Comes to the Prepared: LOL


"AFTER SADDAM?

By DANIEL PIPES

February 11, 2003 --

OUTSIDERS wonder if the U.N. Security Council will endorse Washington's goal of toppling Saddam Hussein. But policy insiders assume an American war and an American victory, followed by Iraq's rehabilitation.

For insiders, the main issue is the extent of U.S. ambition in the Arabic-speaking countries after that's all done. This foreshadows the debate likely to dominate foreign-policy circles for decades: What should be America's role in the world?

Let's eavesdrop.

In the ambitious corner stands >>MIDDLE EAST SPECIALIST FOUAD AJAMI, [my CAPS, abu] a Lebanese immigrant and professor at Johns Hopkins University.<< Writing in the liberal-leaning Foreign Affairs, he comments scathingly about the reigning political culture in the Arab countries ("the belligerence and self-pity in Arab life, its retreat from modernist culture and its embrace of conspiracy theories"). He sees in the vigorous exercise of American power the best chance for improvement: "No great apologies ought to be made for America's 'unilateralism.' The region can live with and use that unilateralism."

Ajami wants American will and prestige to tip the scales "in favor of modernity and change" and calls on Washington to aim high. "Above and beyond toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein and dismantling its deadly weapons, the driving motivation of a new American endeavor in Iraq and in neighboring Arab lands should be modernizing the Arab world."

Only a successful U.S. military campaign in Iraq will embolden those Arabs who seek "deliverance from retrogression and political decay," so he hopes the war will be fought "with the promise that the United States is now on the side of reform."

Over in the cautious corner stands strategist Andrew J. Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and now professor at Boston University whose article, evocatively titled "Don't Be Greedy!" appeared in the conservative National Review. Bacevich admonishes the Bush administration to confine its attention to Iraq itself and not make grand plans to bring democracy to the Arabs.

He dismisses these as "utterly preposterous" on four grounds:

* "Arabs have little affinity for democracy" due to historical, cultural and religious factors.

* Arabs understand that freedom implies disposable marriages, sexual license and abortion on demand as much as it does self-government and the rule of law - and they decline the package.

* Efforts to inculcate democratic values will find few allies from within Arab societies, where "advocates for liberal values constitute at best a small minority."

* Advocates for an ambitious program point to Germany and Japan as models, forgetting the "protracted, ugly and unpopular" U.S. failures in the Philippines, Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and South Vietnam. The Arab countries will more likely fit the latter pattern than the former.

Instead of trying to bring the Arabs into ideological sympathy with the United States, Bacevich argues, the goal should be to improve their governments' behavior. "Concepts like parliaments or women's rights may strike Saudi princes as alien. On the other hand, they have no difficulty grasping the significance of a B-2 bomber or a carrier battle group."

More broadly, Bacevich sees this approach as a proper "modesty and self-restraint" in U.S. foreign policy.

Both Bacevich and Ajami make compelling arguments - and their articles should be read in full - but this analyst sides with Ajami. Addressing Bacevich's four points:

* Japan had about as much "affinity for democracy" in 1945 as the Arabs do today, yet democracy took hold there.

* There is no indication that an open political system inexorably leads to higher divorce rates and the other social changes - again, look at Japan.

* A famous American victory in Iraq and the successful rehabilitation of that country will bring liberals out of the woodwork and generally move the region toward democracy. (Saudi leaders are already leaking their plans to establish electing assemblies, something totally unprecedented in their kingdom.)

* The United States cannot pass up a unique chance to remake the world's most politically fevered region. Sure, the effort might fail, but not even to try would be a missed opportunity.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell last week said that American success in Iraq "could fundamentally reshape [the Middle East] in a powerful, positive way," suggesting that even the Bush team's most cautious member is rightly coming around to the ambitious point of view.


http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/68806.htm

[andak01]

I say get out the steam rollers and keep going until we finish making a parking lot out of the world. Why not a preemptive nuclear strike on the Chinese, they think different from us, don't worship Jesus and don't even look like us? The Vatican needs a MacDonalds. Let's put the arches on top of the cross while we are at it. But don't forget to take the hats off the Jews and cut their tresses as we demolish Jerusalem in favor of a Walmart. Go Daniel go, make the world safe for Monday night football!

[abu afak]

More Disingenuous words from andak; attempting to make absurd, a good faith effort by Bush and the USA, who have also offered, and prefer, to have Sadam just leave rather than fire a single shot.

No doubt like so many other Muslims, he prefers the Biggest Killer of his Fellow Islamics of all time just stay in office and do more dirty work.

Good thing the West (or should I just say the USA) doesn't have the same sick hyper-tribal Mindset as Islam or we would never have stopped Milosevich... FROM KILLING MUSLIMS

How quickly they forget

[andak01]

With Bush I have political disagreements. If Daniel Pipes was running the world with his hate mongers, we'de be nuking the Kaaba. Bush, much to his credit distinguishes between Muslims who terrorize and those who don't. Although, his actions sometimes belie his words. When we see the next terrorist act, and it's coming somewhere, just remember that it only takes 15 or 20 people to put one together. And when the next terrorist act is prevented, it won't make the news that some Muslim spoke to authorities and leaked the plans. Wow, how strange that informants aren't going for interviews on 20/20. Yet somehow, despite the language barrrier, the FBI claims to have prevented hundreds of attacks. The next time a Muslim police investigator in Yemen or Kuwait helps to track down and turn over a terrorist, we won't see his religion in the report. The next time a Muslim government cooperates with Interpol and the FBI, they are not going to get any credit.

I take my hat off to those who have kept us safe thus far, not by dropping bombs, but by instituting security measures. I think that these measures have, for the most part been instituted without demeaning or degrading people. But this is a very tender issue when it comes to civil liberties. Rights once taken are practically impossible to retrieve.