Don't confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU

[nbarzelay]

I see. And what would you call an aerial raid on a convoy by drone planes? Or missiles sent into a neighborhood. These are acceptable methods of modern warfare and the casualties are known as collateral damage.

Besides, I haven't heard anyone here condemning either the bombing of neighborhoods in southern Lebanon or the bombing of Fallujah as any sort of wrong at all. Are you saying those methods were wrong?

You're befuddling the two the argument again here.

What do the Hadiths have anything to do with the wars in Iraq/Lebanon? Well, except in Andak-world...

As Parsi was correct in assessing, your arguments are strewn with faulty comparisons fallacies.

Another failed attempt at moral relativism.

[scattergood]

I'm not the only one that thinks Taheri is a liar. I have no doubt that you are aware of this as well, since I've exposed him before. Here is a journalist whose own paper has to retract his story, but who stands by it after being confronted by the truth. And that isn't even an isolated incident.

Critics have questioned Taheri's journalistic integrity, alleging that Taheri's writings contain deliberate misrepresentations and, in several cases described in further detail below, fabrications.[1] [2]

1988 Nest of Spies book
Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University has accused Amir Taheri of concocting nonexistent substances in his writings, and states that he "repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist. Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... [He] repeatedly reads things into the documents that are simply not there."[6] Bakhash has stated that Taheri's Nest of Spies is "the sort of book that gives contemporary history a bad name."[6]

[edit] 2005 Javad Zarif accusations

Dwight Simpson of San Francisco State University and Kaveh Afrasiabi accuse Taheri and his publisher Eleana Benador of fabricating false stories in the New York Post in 2005 where Taheri identified Iran's UN ambassador Javad Zarif as one of the students involved in the 1979 seizure of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran. Zarif was Simpson's teaching assistant and a graduate student in the Department of International Relations of San Francisco State University at the time.[6]

[edit] 2006 Iranian sumptuary law

Main article: 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy
On May 19, 2006, the National Post of Canada published two pieces, one by Taheri, claiming that the Iranian parliament passed a law that "envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public."[7] Iranian sources say Taheri had taken an Iranian Parliament discussion on a dress code law to have Muslims wear garments that showed you were a Muslim, and reported the event as a law being passed requiring Jews to wear badges as under the Nazis. Current Iranian law does require Jews and other religious groups to identify themselves as such if they sell food, but Iran claims badges for Jews and other religious minorities was not actually under discussion nor in the law. Taheri states that his report is correct and that the dress code law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. He does not claim badges for Jews are in the law, but does say that special markers for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism are under discussion as a means to implement the law.[8]
The National Post retracted the story several hours after it was posted online. The newspaper blamed Taheri for the falsehood in the article,[9][10] and published a full apology on May 24.[11] Taheri stood by his reportage.[8]

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

And what pray tell is the false information in the article that was posted? What statement is incorrect. Oh, that's right, you know more than Islamic scholars who have written scores of books and are considered, and I quote, "He is viewed as the key member of the influential Asharite school of early Muslim philosophy and the most important refuter of Mutazilites."

But again, all of your points miss the point. Whether YOU think Islam is the nicey nice religion that you want it to be is immaterial to this conversation. That Islamists have texts from the Quran, Hadith, fatwa's, religious writings for the last thousand plus years to today that support their contention that the murder, enslavement, rape, and pillaging of 'innocents' that they use to justify their actions isn't.

See, you can't answer simple textural refutations so you go around just calling people liars instead. You can't answer, because you are both wrong on the facts and wrong on logic. But please keep going ahead and smearing everybody and their mother who disagrees with you. I couldn't have written a better script that would discredit your own points than your constant avoidance of questions directed directly against you.

[andak01]

See, you can't answer simple textural refutations so you go around just calling people liars instead. You can't answer, because you are both wrong on the facts and wrong on logic. But please keep going ahead and smearing everybody and their mother who disagrees with you. I couldn't have written a better script that would discredit your own points than your constant avoidance of questions directed directly against you.

The alternative to denying the truth of your worldview is to accept that of Zarqawi. I see you are more than happy to do so. It rather disgusts me that you would be argueing his side of things, given that there is another side to be argued. But you seem so enamored of the Dar al Harb that you won't accept even the existence of another interpretation. Why don't you go break up an interfaith rally somewhere, since you seem so sure of yourself? Better yet, go make a video for Bin Laden, your pal.

[scattergood]

The alternative to denying the truth of your worldview is to accept that of Zarqawi. I see you are more than happy to do so. It rather disgusts me that you would be argueing his side of things, given that there is another side to be argued. But you seem so enamored of the Dar al Harb that you won't accept even the existence of another interpretation. Why don't you go break up an interfaith rally somewhere, since you seem so sure of yourself? Better yet, go make a video for Bin Laden, your pal.

Now you are being blind and foolish. I have said no such thing that I 'accept' the worldview of Zarqawi. All I have said, and documented to be true, is that Muslims who kill, murder, behead, blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings, torture, and use little kids to do these same things in the name of Allah and Islam USE ISLAMIC TEXTS, IDEOLOGY, AND RELIGIOUS RULINGS TO JUSTIFY SUCH ACTIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL AND CURRENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THESE TEXT.

But it isn't just Zarqawi that they follow. They also follow the likes of, Ibn Tayimiah, who was the guide for:

More modern thinkers include an 18th century Arabian scholar named Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, who studied the works of ibn Taymiyyah and aimed to revive his teachings.

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

You know the guy who developed the whole 'it is ok to kill and fight other Muslims because they aren't really Muslims' version of Islam known as Wahhabism?

If you think guys like al-Wahhab, ibn Taymiyyah, and al-Maqdisi are completely wrong, that they don't have the first clue of what Islam is, then please tell us why. They have written scores of books on Islamic thought, Quranic texts, and Islamic jurisprudence, they are revered by millions to hundreds of millions of Muslims as theologians of the highest order, but for some reason we should close our eyes, ignore these facts and believe you?

See you don't dispute these facts, because you cannot. You instead rant on and on and on and on about how everbody who points this out is a liar, facist, Islamophobe, or what not. But please, by all means, keep showing through your own behavior the vacuousnous and falsity of your own position and ideas. You do a better job at discrediting yourself and your points than anybody else. Isn't free speech grand? I think it is!

[bararallu]

And yet some among us prefer to look upon the rantings of Zawaheri as the true Islam. It's bad enough that a single Muslim would follow such a leader, worse still that non-Muslims assist in playing out that script of violent, nihilist misdirection.

Is it just Zawaheri? That's news to me

[andak01]

But it isn't just Zarqawi that they follow. They also follow the likes of, Ibn Tayimiah, who was the guide for:

I'm quite familiar with Ibn Taymiyyah. I can even spell his name. He grew up as a refugee from the Mongols for gosh sake! His world outlook was a little different to say the least. That said, I think that what he wrote was distorted and selected by later, less important scholars for their own political purposes. It's like the way that Niezche or Martin Luther were exploited by the Nazis.

If you think guys like al-Wahhab, ibn Taymiyyah, and al-Maqdisi are completely wrong, that they don't have the first clue of what Islam is, then please tell us why.

I think Taymiyyah had a much broader view of Islam and a tremendous intellect that is lost completely in your retelling of it. He studied under Sunni instructors, Shiite instructors, Sufi instructors and at least 4 women. That shows how much extremism has pushed the state of Muslim scholarship backwards in modern times. He went to prison for a good portion of his adult life simply because he refused to make up a fatwa to allow a local ruler to divorce.

They have written scores of books on Islamic thought, Quranic texts, and Islamic jurisprudence, they are revered by millions to hundreds of millions of Muslims as theologians of the highest order, but for some reason we should close our eyes, ignore these facts and believe you?

I really don't recognize Islam when you write about it. You've gone about researching it with a preconception that it's nothing more than a monsterous cult. Anything that gets in the way of that preconception, you want to silence. You've thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

[Soup du Jour]

You're absolutely right. The punishment for suicide in the afterlife is to relive the moment of suicide for eternity. On top of that, killing women and children non-combattants is specifically forbidden in the Sunna. Killing or punishing someone with fire is forbidden. Killing fellow Muslims is forbidden. Burning a Quran is forbidden. None of that seems to matter and all Muslims are getting painted with the brush of those who do wrong.

So education is the key it seems as opposed to "brainwashing" and the misinterpreting the Quaran. How do we resolve this? The extremist Imans are preaching garbage - the young and poor are listening to this because they are uneducated and left ignorant - The "educated" are the more prosperous and the leaders who encourage these people and "reason" has been replaced by hatred. The Imans and leaders never offer themselves up as suicide bombers because they are cowards & know that of which they speak is wrong and evil. They are simply after power & control.

Somehow, this must be brought to light to the muslim masses. I certainly don't know how to do that, especially since any muslim person who advocates moderation ends up with a fatwa or whatever it's called & end up dead. I find it hard to accept that muslims who follow these cowards haven't figured it out yet.

It's most likely me - sometimes I'm a little slow.

JMO

[andak01]

So education is the key it seems as opposed to "brainwashing" and the misinterpreting the Quaran. How do we resolve this? The extremist Imans are preaching garbage - the young and poor are listening to this because they are uneducated and left ignorant - The "educated" are the more prosperous and the leaders who encourage these people and "reason" has been replaced by hatred.

Contrary to what you may believe it is being resolved. Throughout the Muslim world, governments are putting into place programs to combat extremist teachings. What they don't do is send in Western economists or apostates. There are programs where highly regarded scholars are sent both to teach and to monitor what is being taught to insure that it doesn't include violent political rhetoric. Textbooks are being revised and extremists are being fired.

There isn't a single state in the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia, that doesn't feel its security is threatened by extremist teachings. As opposed to 20 years ago, when they were busy firing up jihadis to fight the Russians, it is now clearly to their disadvantage to turn out nihilist maniacs upon the world, many of whom return to attack them.

The Imans and leaders never offer themselves up as suicide bombers because they are cowards & know that of which they speak is wrong and evil. They are simply after power & control.

Ain't that the truth!

Somehow, this must be brought to light to the muslim masses. I certainly don't know how to do that, especially since any muslim person who advocates moderation ends up with a fatwa or whatever it's called & end up dead. I find it hard to accept that muslims who follow these cowards haven't figured it out yet.

Problem is, for a Muslm scholar to survive in the western media, he or she has got to do more than just condemn terrorism, they must be cheerleaders for Israel and condemn anyone that criticizes Israel as well. They've also got to smile and agree with everything that Britain and America do. That's a pretty hard pill to swallow for some. If it were as simple as condemning terrorism, we could have a Sheikh per day do that. It's got to include condemning all insurgient and sectarian forces in Iraq and anyone who so much as flips a bird at the IDF.

[bararallu]

Contrary to what you may believe it is being resolved. Throughout the Muslim world, governments are putting into place programs to combat extremist teachings.

Links?

[andak01]

Links?

As part of a sweeping reform of religious life in Morocco, women have been receiving training as religious counsellors for the first time ever. The intention is that they will assume religious and educational tasks - but they are not permitted to lead prayers. By Mohamed Massad

| Bild: http://www.qantara.de/uploads/478/23...uhamadiyya.jpg
http://www.qantara.de/default_images/zoom.gif A possible training centre for female religious counsellors in the near future? - the Muhamadiyya mosque in Casablanca | Morocco is making a conspicuous effort to curb religious extremism by giving women access to mosques, not only as believers who would like to pray, but also as religious "guides" whose duties include counselling and religious instruction.

This phenomenon is part of what has become known in Morocco as the "restructuring of the religious sector" and is one of the many reforms in operation across the country.
www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-664/i.html?PHPSESSID=5

[andak01]

Is it just Zawaheri? That's news to me

Of course not. But neither is it that Zawaheri is like the Pope to us and there isn't any dissenting voice. There are many scholars that disagree vehemently with his views, but they are almost entirely absent from the media. Muslims minding our own business, obeying the law and suceeding in western society is a yawner compared to some wack job tossing a molotov cocktail in front of a camera.

[scattergood]

I'm quite familiar with Ibn Taymiyyah. I can even spell his name. He grew up as a refugee from the Mongols for gosh sake! His world outlook was a little different to say the least. That said, I think that what he wrote was distorted and selected by later, less important scholars for their own political purposes. It's like the way that Niezche or Martin Luther were exploited by the Nazis.

Again with the chage of subjects. Nobody said anything about his living during the Mongols or not.

So let's get to the meat of the issue, you at least finally admit that somebody is using his line of thought and reasoning. You say, and I quote, "That said, I think that what he wrote was distorted and selected by later, less important scholars for their own political purposes." You also compare their use to the use of the Nazi's, which I agree with. They are Nazi like. But to say that Lutheranism didn't contain anti-semitic ideas and that Lutheran's didn't commit anti-Semitic acts is just patently false, just as to say that Islam doesn't contain anti-semitic ideas and that Muslims don't use those ideas to commit anti-semitic (and in this case anti-everybody) acts is equally stupid.

But the point is that they do USE HIM and HIS WRITINGS. Now you say that they are a distortion, but millions upon millions of people disagree with you, and that's the point. As I have said a kabillion times, if your view held sway then life would be better. But it clearly doesn't, and to bury your head in the sand and say that it does is idiocy of the highest order.

I think Taymiyyah had a much broader view of Islam and a tremendous intellect that is lost completely in your retelling of it. He studied under Sunni instructors, Shiite instructors, Sufi instructors and at least 4 women. That shows how much extremism has pushed the state of Muslim scholarship backwards in modern times. He went to prison for a good portion of his adult life simply because he refused to make up a fatwa to allow a local ruler to divorce.

Well, bully for you. He also contained justifications to kill people, and was a proponent for a literal view of the Quran. It is these ideas that seem to have stuck in the minds of future Muslims from his time forward to today.

I really don't recognize Islam when you write about it. You've gone about researching it with a preconception that it's nothing more than a monsterous cult. Anything that gets in the way of that preconception, you want to silence. You've thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Well, again, bully for you. I wish all Muslims didn't recognize the totalitarian version of Islam that their scholars have in the past and currently bring up. But millions, upon millions upon tens of millions do.

And please stop lying, as hard as that is for you. I have not said that Islam is a monsterous cult. I have said quite the opposite, time and again. As I have said before, you never let a fact get in the way of what you believe. This is just another example. Thanks for providing it, yet again, to discredit yourself and your own position.

[Mil]

Anyways - whatever the Islamic world is was Mahmud in Columbia. Apparently there are no homosexuals in Iran. In USSR there was NO SEX. IDIOTS!!!!!

Those Islamic countries are governed by idiots. The same idiots who brain-wash the likes of andak.

Pretty sad stuff.

[ShimonG]

The same idiots who brain-wash the likes of andak.

I think you are wrong. It is the other way around. I think we are pre-disposed to finding decency in others and that prevents us from recognizing this form of bile for what it is. Were islam ever to get the upper hand, you can bet your last dime that the likes of andak would throw all this "islam is peaceful" BS to the wind and hunt you and your family down - its convert or die. That much is clear from the writings of this apologist for islam and its terror.

[Mediocrates]

I see no apologetics. What I see is not claiming responsibility for something outside of one's control. There are all sorts of white people, Americans, Jews and such who claim all sorts of heinous things in my name. Sometimes I can understand it sometimes not. Often I don't take it personally. All one need do today or yesterday was to toddle off to Kos or Salon.com and listen to the barely contained antisemitic hatefest pouring out of the letters to the editors sections for all of the articles on near daily basis. Apparently according to the esteemed self professed San Fran Liberal Progressive Activist Jew of Salon.com either I'm with them or I'm an evil colonialist zionist bastard. Sure it's infuriating to listen to my oh so liberal Jewish brethren tell me their newest bestest friend in the world is the holocaust denier President of Iran but I'm not going to try to defend it to the goyim either. In all honestly I don't really care what they think and trying to change their mind, trying to change the mind of any bigot is impossible.