After the London blasts, Jeff Jarvis said he is not sure if the Western world is dealing with the problem of terrorism directly. However, he thinks that Tom Friedman has made it clearer when he said, “it's a Muslim problem, it needs a Muslim solution.” Humoud Abu-Talib, writing for Al-Watan daily, has quoted these words of Friedman:
Either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists - if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings - or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way - by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent.
Abu-Talib wrote: “It is sad that Friedman said ‘every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent', and it seems that this is what is going to happen.” He also blames the British authorities for being indulgent with the extremists. Abdul Rahman al-Rashed expressed the same idea. “Not only are they admitted to the country, they are also provided with accommodation, a monthly salary, and free legal advice for those who want to prosecute the British government,” he wrote for the English edition of Asharq al-Awsat.
Abu-Talib thinks that what happened will open the gates of hell on Muslims, especially Arab Muslims. “Muslims in Europe will pay the price for the idiocy of lunatics who commit crimes in the name of Islam.”
Is it a Muslim problem so Muslims have to solve it themselves, or is it a global problem and the whole world is responsible to find the solution?
Send this by E-mail
What about Christian extremists here in the US who want to create a theocracy?
I’d say it’s a global problem that Muslims are in the best position to solve.
And further, whoever implements the solution will be in the best position to manage the outcome.
At a first level it is a Moslem Problem for sure. Moslems are those who payed
the highest price in Human lives.
But the world’s interaction on global problems makes it also a global
problem since insecurity is every where now and not only in the Moslem world.
We need each one’s help and cooperation to eradicate this new phenomenon.
Here is a very interesting american point of view
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2704
And another one
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2742
I think both appraoches discussed in the first Pipes article, above, have merit.
1) Let Muslim rule follow through with its violent predilictions and it will self implode.
2) Don’t allow unnecessary brutality of elected Islamic rule and persecution when it can be bypassed.
We are doing both. The countries we have intervened in have already been shepherded into civl rule and rights, the likes of which they would not have ever seen under their prior status quo.
The other Islamic threat countries to us, way too numerous to intercede into, have an Achilles heel in the Islamic tradition of using outrageous violence on itself and its closest neighbors, as well as the despised infidels. We have chosen some moments (such as Iran - Iraq) to hold the coats and provide arms to warring Muslim countires and factions. And we have thereby let them thin themselves out at their own expense and a marginal one to us. We thereby neutralize the obliging intercombatants when it proves feasible, reserving our forces for the most serious offenders who will require our blood and treasure to keep tied up.
This approach has been practical and moderate, compared with the impulses terror makes us susceptible to to “take down all Muslims” as eternally self-avowed menaces to civilized global harmony. The only problem with this continued step-by-step management of each developing threat is the changing technology of weapons allowing small, undefensible bands to weild WMDs.
Waiting until that certainty arises is preposterous. But trying to reform a religion based on the war mongering words of its sole prophet, who imposes a death penalty for the aposatcy of altering his scripture, also seems like a crazy aspiration.
I’m out of ideas and ready for some new ones, provided they don’t rely on either of the above two catastrophic formulas.
I’m reminded of a report on The World where Palistinians(sp?) where interviewed for their reaction on London bombings. Although many expressed outrage at the actions of the bombers. Many qualified their statement with an understanding of the bombers actions. Who knows what these people really thought, to an American reporter, they may have decided to appear to condone the attacks while in spirit sort of supporting the attacks.
I don’t think the heart of many Muslim people when there is a deeper problem present. One that the west has much more control.
The dirty secret of a free market/capitalistic economic system is for there to be winners, there have to be losers. Looking at a small scale, at say a community level, there are rich people (who have more then they ever need), middle class people ( who ussually have what they need), and poor people (who dont have everything they need). The same economic ideas apply at a world level, where a rich person become a rich country, and poor person becomes a poor country. It doesnt matter what scale the economy is, you could be poor as a millionare, if everyone else makes more money then you do.
As long as we stay in a free market economy, we always have poor people. So it becomes up to the goverment to control income gaps and distribution and decide what services will be provided by the goverment to those people who cant regularly afford health care, shelter, schools, etc.
We covered the economic stuff, now lets get back to the main topic and specifically focus on the Palistinian / Israel conflict. Although there are other issues in this conflict, I’m going to focus on the economic issues related to this conflict. There are huge economic disparities between Palastinianes and Isrealies, this is due to both how Isreal treats the Palastinians and how the West supports Isreal. Palistinians have high unemployment at about 26% while israel is at a much lower 10%. Poverty rates are 60% amoung the Palistinians and around 10-20% amoung Israelies. Ireal distrupts trade and commerce with thier wall and roadblocks in the name of security.
So in the name of secuity, thier messures have hampered the economic well being of the palastinians, and hence created more fertile recruiting grounds for muslims with extreme agendas. Sort of a self-fufilling prophecy. As we Americans show solidarity to the British as a ally and also where this country has its roots, many Muslims show solidarity to the plight of the Palistians in Israel.
But its not just that, many muslism countrys as well have some of the same economic issues. They may not be influced by Israel, but instead the global free market.
What needs to be done is, not so much packages that provide debt relief (Looks good politically, but does not address the dirty secret of the free market), violently force democracy (true and stable goverment reform takes years and is best done a step at a time), or create trade agreements (simply allows corporations to exploit cheaper labor and resources). But instead we need to look at changing the global economic system. That comes from everyone, the US especially with its egocentric economic polcies.
I’m going to end it there, there are more non economic issues that are also creating this climate for voilence. Somone else can discuss those. I apologize for any grammar and spelling mistakes. Thank You, and Good Night.
Mike Cohen asks:
What about Christian extremists here in the US who want to
create a theocracy?
They’re pretty nasty, but they aren’t blowing anyone up.
Here is an excellent analysis if the Islam issue The Terror Era: http://thinkersroom.blogspot.com/2005/07/terror-era.html
[...] d home The Mother Earth. Amen. As we’ve been experiencing in our comments threads here , here, here, and here, emotions on the issue of religion and terrorism run very [...]
I’m quite taken aback, and frankly stupefied as to how to convey my opinion regarding such biased puzzlements. Nonetheless, I give you my humble attempt.. ..
I as a Muslim myself am beyond appalled at such an inquiry. An immense slice of humanity follows the religion of Islam. This may strike many of you as tired and cliché, however, is it by any means impartial to embark on such horrid criticisms of such a big slice of humanity? Is it by any means fair to refer such a hot and current event to a peaceful and serene way of life that dates all the way back to 1400 years ago?
Could it possibly not have hit the likes of Thomas Friedman that this could be the effect of a certain cause? While I certainly do not sympathize with those who have made the killing of innocent beings a living duty, I can understand the anger and frustration they had been equipped with. Take it as a golden rule, as long as injustice prevails, so will crime. If Islam is the problem why hadn’t this kind of fundamentalist mentality showed up earlier? The world had been in constant wars since 1918 to the 40’s and beyond, and all the while the Muslim world silently watched and did nothing. And please, I kindly request of you not to recite the worn-out “But Islam has a bloody history” speech. I beg for your retort, what religion is without its dark past? For a long period of time the notion that “the rise to glory and power requires bloodshed” was predominant, be it for an Islamic, Jewish, or Christian cause.
What is shocking, however, is that such a reputable journalist; a man known for his objective reporting, has fallen prey to such ignorance. Would the claim that “the war in Iraq is a problem of Christianity” and that the Christians have got to let go of their crusad-esque mentalities, be in any way justifiable? Of course not. We would laugh at such a claim, and call whoever may believe in it one who lives in an age of bloodshed for God, who belongs to the medieval times, who is in short “so naïve”. Well, then, bingo, it isn’t a holy war as much as it is the reaction of some very angry folk whose anger strips them of whatever sanity and mercy they once had.
“Either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists,” this only further fumes those with such rebellious streaks to do more. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the situation here in Saudi Arabia. It is not getting any better but only from bad to worse. This with the Saudi authorities doing everything they can. The kingdom had just gotten rid of every single member of the 26 terrorist they had issued in the first list, only to find another 36, younger, newer, and fresher terrorists popping up.
If they don’t handle it from its roots, it’s never going to be solved. The only way to handle it is to stop the injustice globally and locally.
Anyhow, now that we are on the subject and Ahmed here asks the immortal question: “is it a Muslim Problem?” allow me to answer it for him.
It is, my dear Ahmed, an American and Saud problem. (note: I refuse to call it a Saudi problem, because that would then include the good, oblivious people of Saudi Arabia) It is the problem of America; who had at once encouraged this mentality. (Need I remind everybody of the Arab-Afghanis who were used in order to defeat America’s Soviet opponent. America used the Jihadist militants when they needed them and dropped them like hot potatoes as soon as their task was over and is now complaining when it bit back.
It is a House of Saud problem because they allowed the Wahabist ideology to dominate in Najd and later in the rest of the Kingdome , to ofcourse, secure their monarchy, nothing more. Little did they know that such an ideology (read: NOT Islam) allows such evil-doings to brew.
And are now also complaining when it came and bit them in the back.
I’m no political expert, but that was my, a Saudi girl’s, couple of cents.
Thank you, and good bye.
If Islam is the problem why hadn’t this kind of fundamentalist mentality showed up earlier? The world had been in constant wars since 1918 to the 40’s and beyond, and all the while the Muslim world silently watched and did nothing. And please, I kindly request of you not to recite the worn-out “But Islam has a bloody history” speech. I beg for your retort, what religion is without its dark past? For a long period of time the notion that “the rise to glory and power requires bloodshed” was predominant, be it for an Islamic, Jewish, or Christian cause.
Islam since it’s inception has been an aggressive, conquering, supremecist ideology. It’s followers have to look no further than the Koran to justify their actions. In contrast, while European Christians may have conquered others, and may have even done it in the name of Jesus Christ, there is absolutely no justification for this in the New Testament. Islam is unique in it’s fusion of religion, politics, and lifestyle and as such has a unique history. You’d have to be a fool to ignore the 1300 years of Islamic aggression towards everyone in the name of God. I’m always amused at Muslim cries of anguish over the Crusades, when the Crusades were a reaction, a response to please for help from the Byzantine Christians who being attacked by Muslim invaders. That isn’t to say that Islam hasn’t had its voluntary converts, such as the Mongols( nominal muslims ) or the people of Indonesia.
The problem *is* Islam, no matter how many people try to avoid saying it. Muslims who don’t chop off heads, slay infidels, or treat non-muslims as dhimmis do so because they ignore what’s in the Koran and hadith. They are the radicals. They people who do these things are simply being traditional.
Charles Moore has an excellent piece in the Daily Telegraph highlighting this point:
“But it is an important fact about Christianity in the past two or three centuries that it has conducted a great reinterpretation of these texts and of how the faithful should follow them. The struggle against the enemy in the Book of Joshua, say, or in Judges is now seen as a strictly spiritual one. The idea that these are divine 007 licences to kill has been explicitly repudiated.
Has the equivalent happened in Islam? Certainly, most Muslim leaders advocate peace and most are surely sincere in doing so. But push a bit harder, and you encounter some interesting problems.“
How is it a Muslim problem that the US and European powers have been using force in the Middle East for 50 years?
I am afraid it is more specific than a Muslim problem. It is a Muhammed problem. The man behind this vast religion dictated death and deceit for his nonbelievers and death for any of his believers who try and change his edicts.
So the Muslim violence, which some say has only recently emerged, but in fact has flourished throughout the life of Islam, albeit on a local scale until now technologically feasible to export, will not be the subject of any Muslim solution. Violence and repression are the essence of Islam. As Islam stands, the holy lies and destruction will stand.
I find it amazing that people can make these grand statements about Islam - when Islam has not been responsible for genocides at the scale that the Europeans perpetrated in the New World and then against the Jewish people in WW2?. I also find it amazing since today the US has a military base on every continent in the planet…and people talk as if Islam is uniquely militaristic. If Islam is going to be judged according to such terms then lets be consistent.
I also find it telling that the tone people use in claiming Islam to be a religion of violence is one which brooks no argument. It almost seems that they cannot cope it being any other way and Islam serves as the bogeyman in their psyches.
Dig “a little deeper” into any culture and you will find a history of warfare and violence.
On the subway when an apparent muslim gets on I want to give them the universial “I am watching you” sign (two fingers pointed at your own eyes and then one finger at them). All the PC talk does not relive us of the fact that those who are killing innocents are not Christmas Catholics. (insert Hyperbolic moral equivelency about Iraq here and sleep safe in your deluded liberal self-rightiousness)
Zaid,
Islam is both a religion of violence and of peace, no? I would never say soley one or the other, for the Koran exhorts its follower to both. But what is telling is the Muslims always want to deflect the attention away from their shortcomings or criticism of Islam to other subjects, and say “SEE!”.
That misses the point. Currently, there is no doubt that Muslim societies are at conflict with just about everyone. Be it Christian, Hindu, European, Chinese Han, Thailand, etc. If there were a spate of Hindu suicide bombers, who carried pictures of Vishnu in one hand and a veta in the other, then I’m sure as much scrutiny would be placed on Hinduism as well.
The only boogyman being produced is by Arabs and Muslims. If it’s not the Jews, then it’s someone else. You yourself have said this in your previous posts with your canards about ‘force’ being used over the last 50 years in the Middle East. Fine, but then explain India. Force was used for well over one hundred years there by Europeans. Yet, they don’t exhibit the same problems. In fact, colonialism touched just about every country on the planet, yet the Muslim world is unique in it’s response.
[...] From Global Voices Online: Is it a Muslim Problem? Maybe it’s a “Muslim” problem in the sense that it would work far better if, as Tom Friedman suggests, those in the Muslim world would “restrain, inhibit, and denounce its own extremists.” On the other hand, it is a problem for everyone else when the extremists don’t stay restrained. [...]
I’m trying to think of how many other religions say that God’s only messenger commands the decapitation of all, well…nonadherants and have a large curved sword as their insignia?
But isn’t just asking such a presumptuous question perpetrating another vile Western contextual injustice upon the good denizens of the Koran?
I suppose the dizzying numbers of victims of skyscraper, plane, train, bus, and birthday party annihilations, combined with shamefully ceaseless revelations by the press and police that mosque-based networks of fundraising are behind these spiritual achievements, have just distorted my humanistic tolerance of the nuances of religious diversity. I lost my head. (Figuratively)
And I hope the participants in what more of us now see as an open global conspiracy of violence, even those most peripherally involved, don’t so badly judge the “context” of being placed for safekeeping in wartime detention centers for the duration of this misunderstanding.
Why were my earlier comments removed? Censorship? Cmon.
Anthony, can you tell me what comment was removed and what post you were commenting on?
We’ve tried very hard not to remove comments, except when commenters post the same comment to multiple threads. It’s possible that a) you commented and it was held for moderation, or that b) it moved during our site redesign. If you can tell me a bit more about it, I can try to figure out what’s going on.
Here is an article from the NYT that speaks reasonably. I posted it on my site since the NYT is a subscribers only site.
http://mabb.blogspot.com/2005/07/here-is-article-i-think-it-speaks-for.html
Should we not make a distinction between the aspirations of Islam as a faith and what Muslims do? In the same way that we make a distinction between the idea of democracy and what happens in practice? Why are a different set of standards applied to the aspirations of Muslims and another to “non-Muslims”?
Again, I find all these accusations with nothing to support them amazing. There are people on this thread who seem to think they have done their civic duty by simply making an accusation. Can people not take the trouble of backing up their statements with references? Or perhaps that’s too much trouble? It makes me think that the reason people make such statements is not because they care but because it’s entertaining to level accusations and effectively slander a culture and a people.
I’m saddened to see that this level of discourse.
If you have criticisms of Islam please make them. Being demeaning is not a criticism. It’s simply irresponsible and juvenile.
So to be specific:
“All the PC talk does not relive us of the fact that those who are killing innocents are not Christmas Catholics.” - so tell us, who is killing innocents?
“Islam is both a religion of violence and of peace, no? I would never say soley one or the other, for the Koran exhorts its follower to both. But what is telling is the Muslims always want to deflect the attention away from their shortcomings or criticism of Islam to other subjects, and say “SEE!”.”
Sorry? What do you mean by that? Is democracy not a politics of violence and peace? Is the State not the primary vehicle for violence in the 20th century? Is it not the primary vehicle for peace? So what?
As for “Muslims always want to deflect…” so you’re accusing 1 billion people of a collective actions which they do “always” - gimme a break. 1 billion people don’t do anything collectively, let alone what you suggest. Do you have any evidence for this “always deflecting” behaviour? Do you know about the conversations and dialogues going on within the Islamic world about change? Do you care?
“Force was used for well over one hundred years there by Europeans. Yet, they don’t exhibit the same problems.”
Amazing! In one sweep every single act of violence committed by European powers has been swept away - everything from the genocide against aboriginals to the invention of the concentration camp to the Final Solution to Apartied to the Congo! They don’t exhibit the same problems is right. The fact that the European and US powers are responsible for mass genocide over hundreds of years means that their problems are somewhat more serious - at least in my mind. The end of the world is not going to come from a handful of Islamic terrorists killing 3000 people believe me - it’s going to come from the West doing it’s thing, be that invading another country, deploying tactical nukes in an attempt to gain control of oil or simply through a mistake. The Islamic world does not have the capacity to destroy the world - at least not when compared to the West.
I personally feel quite proud of the Islamic response to colonialism, which is basically that you won’t get away with it.
“I’m trying to think of how many other religions say that God’s only messenger commands the decapitation of all, well…nonadherants and have a large curved sword as their insignia?”
All this is news to me. What is your evidence?
MUHAMMED’S DECAP RECAP:
Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”
Tabari VIII:179 “Abdallah bin Sa’d fled to Uthman, his brother, who after hiding him, finally surrendered him to the Prophet. Uthman asked for clemency. Muhammad did not respond, remaining silent for a long time. Muhammad explained, ‘By Allah, I kept silent so that one of you might go up to him and cut off his head!’ One of the Ansar said, ‘Why didn’t you give me a sign?’ Allah’s Apostle replied, ‘A prophet does not kill by pointing.’”
Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ And he accepted Islam.”
Ishaq:304/Tabari VII:62 “I cut off Abu Jahl’s head and brought it to the Messenger. ‘O Allah’s Prophet, this is the head of the enemy of Allah.’ Muhammad said, ‘Praise be to Allah.’”
Tabari VII:97/Ishaq:368 “We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’”
Ishaq:464 “The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.” Tabari VIII:40 “The Messenger commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.”
Tabari VIII:38 “The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.”
Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.”
A BRIEF SAMPLING OF MUHAMMED’S ZULFIKAR SWORD EMBLEM
On Saudi Arabian flag (home of Mecca and Medina) along with the inscription “There is no [other] god but God ['Allah'], Mohammed is His Messenger” http://www.theodora.com/flags/saudi_arabia_flags.html
Some depictions of Muhammed’s actual sword: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t51084.html
And of others like it: http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=1088
Some history on Muhammed’s Zulfikar Sword emblem:http://www.allstates-flag.com/fotw/flags/tr-zulf.html
Why the Iranians (Persians) took the Islamic Sword off their flag: http://hammihan.20fr.com/articles/flag.html
Muhammed’s sword, “Zulfikar”, means “cleaver of the spine”. http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=zulfikar
“The Islamic world does not have the capacity to destroy the world - at least not when compared to the West.”
Zaid:
I submit to you that the West, i.e., the US, has used nuclear weapons only when it had to defend itself from the Imperial Japanese who, along with the rest of the Axis, came close to defeating the world.
But what happens when Islam and its prophet’s self proclaimed intent to vanquish the non-Muslim world http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html#fighting
becomes armed with sufficient WMD’s to do so?
Mutually Assured Destruction used to be a tool to keep peace, or at least a stalemate against a nuclear Armageddon, using the presumed survivalist instincts of the principal nations.
But when you hear the Koran talking about devine destruction, mutilation, treachery and ascension to heaven through martyrdom and when you see that plan being applied systematically across the world, the security of Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent vanishes.
So it is my assessment that Islam’s suicidal contempt for world peace has brought the world far closer to preemptive nuclear and WMD attacks than the long-existing weapons themselves have.
As I cannot imagine risking Islam’s acquisition of the capability the West has long contained, I would sadly anticipate such a preemptive strategy to surface beforehand, as we have already begun to see.
I’m just a layperson, not terribly well-versed in religion and politics, but here in the US, we have a group of politically powerful people called Dominionists or Christian Reconstructionists. They advocate a Christian theocracy in which all non-Christians would have their civil rights revoked, and in which the death penalty would be brought in for all manner of “crimes”, such as pre-marital sex (applies only to women), adultery, etc. They support, at least in their rhetoric, the firebombing of women’s health clinics where abortions are performed and the targetted killing of abortion doctors. One of their most powerful representatives has weekly phone conferences with Dubya and Rove. [http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist.html and http://www.harpers.org/FeelingTheHate.html and http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/DirectoryRiseOfDominionismInAmerica.html. Obviously, Islam is not the only religion in which there are extremists who are using their religious ideology to excuse the inexcusable.
It seems to me that Muslims and Christians both have a duty to stand up against the extremists and say, “No, actually, we’re not afraid of being painted as not being “true” believers, or of being unpatriotic. You are not welcome in our religious communities.” But it’s not just about that. There will always be some people who will espouse extremism, and some who will always just be thugs looking for the cover of a legitimate cause. But it’s true that repression, poverty, and governmental corruption - all perfectly legitimate grievances - do get used to pull in the lost, the angry, the unstable, and the despairing. It may be in part a Muslim problem, but it’s not JUST a Muslim problem, it’s a global problem.
Kaz
Since you say you aren’t well versed in any religious source material behind the statements you make, can you even find any cited authority in the Harpers Magazine article assertion that
“‘a number of influential figures advocate the death penalty for a host of “moral crimes,” including apostasy, blasphemy, sodomy, and witchcraft.’” ?
I can’t. Though it would not surprise me to hear someone coming up with any kind of beliefs that deviate completely from any Christian doctrines that have ever come to my attention in my Protestant and Catholic upbringing and schooling, (before I became a Zen Buddhist) I have really not heard of this yet. So when the author says “a number” advocates this, it cries out for a little more substantiation, don’t you think? There are a lot of numbers and a lot of shades of advocacy.
I would point out however, that all of these crimes are currently and routinely met with the death penalty in the many Islamic government courts established throughout the world.
So to try and equivocate the threat of these two religions when only one has many factions admittedly and starkly at war with us, committing daily atrocities in its global scourge of wars based on hard scriptural authority, procuring WMDs for the most violent people and intolerant mindsets, I think you are being rather ineffective in an apparent aim to nullify these real crimes and threats against us by distracting away from them.
Your “Dubyah and Rove” linkups with these purportedly imminent horrors seem telling of the level of authentication, or lack therof, which you seem willing to indulge.
So nice try. If you come up with anything that remotely approaches the Mulsim prophet and his followers’ vows to destroy all non-Muslims combined with the commencement of actual combat against innocents indisciminately on every continent by legions of suicidal warriors, you will let us know, won’t you?
Kaz PS
If you can make a connection between any recognizable organization and the abortion clinic firebombings and assassinations you link them to, I would think that there would be some interest in your theroies by the attorney generals and private lawyers who have successfully gone after those kinds of terrorists with death sentences and huge RICO penalties.
Rufus, one quick question before I respond. Where did you get your quotes from the Koran from?
Zaid: I got the Koranic and Hadith quotes posted from the http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html#fighting site I earlier linked to.
Here is an additional source from USC which links to three different Koranic interpreters: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
There is an interesting spectrum of the use of harsh and nonharsh words to bring about various empahsis where desired by each Koranic interpreter. I find that when there is a conflict between interpreters with more gentle results for some (ie. just striking the head instead of striking off the head) it is helpful to me to look to the Hadiths, which are external accounts about the acts and words of Muhammed, to get a better feel as to where his dictated Koran meant to go in its meaning.
In this case we see Muhammed had a definite fondness for striking OFF heads and I can find no account of him just slapping people upside the head. But ultimately each reader has to make an honest judgment for themselves.
Note that I have restricted my above Decap Recap quotes to Muhammed’s explcit decapitation pronouncements for infidels. If you are interested in the much broader topic of his general death prounouncements for infidels, start with:
Quran 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And see the topical general death to non-Muslim quotes here:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes2.html#murder
This is a response to Rufus’ email, starting at the bottom.
“Muhammed’s sword, “Zulfikar”, means “cleaver of the spine”.”
According to Wikipedia:
[Zulfiqar] “The name is variously explained, but is generally thought to mean “the two-pronged one” or “double-edged one”. Also known to mean “distinction between right and wrong” or the “one who distinguishes between right and wrong” or trenchant.”
Back to the “quotes” from the Koran.
Firstly I couldn’t locate any of the quotes from the references you gave here bar the first one. I googled the references and found the bulk of them come from a site called “Prophet of Doom” - the purpose of the site seems to be to simply discredit Islam and the Prophet - through what appears to be pretty shoddy scholarship. Quotes are presented without clearly saying what the sources are and many have comments and clarifications added at the whim of the author - all with the intention of proving one thing - discrediting the Prophet. In short the site is hardly a credible reference.
A quick search didn’t reveal any Surah’s in the Koran referencing “Al Tabri” - where many of the quotes seem to come from. I googled this and looked at the “Prophet of Doom” site and they seem to come not from the Koran at all but a book called “The History of al-Tabari” - which I don’t know much about but claims to be one of the earliest books from the Arab world about Islam. It may well be but I don’t trust the site and verifing the claims would require going back to the book and verifying the quotes, not to mention the translation.
So to the one quote from the Koran that i could locate.
Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”
This fragment is referred to the “unbelievers” and is basically talking about the angels being instructed, not people. The unbelievers are people who have betrayed the truth and their agreements with God.
Then “Why the Iranians (Persians) took the Islamic Sword off their flag” - as far as I can tell, this isn’t the Iranian flag. The cite denounced Islam and the flag on the page seems to be a flag of pre-Revolutionary Iran - so what this has to do with the current Iranian flag, which is totally different, isn’t clear. This is what Wikipedia says about the current Iranian flag:
“However, during the time of the Shahs, the center of the flag had an image of a lion with a sword, which is a classical symbol of Persia. Since the Islamic Revolution, the lion has been replaced by a symbol which has many meanings, but that is essentially a stylized form of the word Allah. The symbol also represents four crescents with a sword in the middle. The symbol was designed by Hamid Nadimi, and was officially approved by Ayatollah Khomeini on May 9, 1980.”
Regardless of any of this. The intention with which these sources have been posted is not one that is concerned with fostering any understanding. What has been done here is to cite very poor scholarship to back up a mindset which has already decided that Muslims are bloodthirsty animals. What’s this mindset doesn’t particularly care about the accuracy of its sources nor of the quality of its evidence.
What bothers me about this is that what Rufus seems to be implying is that being Muslim means that despite your best intentions and aspirations you cannot escape your nature as a bloodthirsty savage intent on ruthless acts of murder.
I feel like I’ve given Rufus and his arguments the benefit of the doubt and examined his claims. I could ignore or look past their multiple inaccuracies if the intention was to foster a better understanding of the problems we face. This is clearly not the case. I refuse however to enter into a dialogue with someone who has clearly no interest in the truth or displays any openess or sympathy for people who are, after all said and done, fellow human beings engaged in trying to live their lives.
I would recommend that people treat any further references with the same seriousness they would treat a National Enquirer article, that is, as harmless entertainment.
Accordingly I’m not even get into a discussion about how successful a strategy MAD was for keeping world peace. I would recommend people read “The Worlds of Herman Kahn: The Intuitive Science of Thermonuclear War” by Sharon Ghamari-Tabrizi.
Here’s an actual Londoner’s opinion:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=66835&d=12&m=7&y=2005&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
Islam is perhaps misunderstood by too many people, especially non-muslims. I recommend http://www.faithfreedom.org as an introduction. It may persuade some of us non-muslims to read the Quran and understand what the prophet of Islam did and stood for. The study of Islam is important if one wants to understand what the Islamic world is capable of doing and not doing.
India, my motherland, has 150 to 200 million Muslims. Yet, it is a matter of shame that the 800 million non-muslims in India have never bothered to read the Quran or understand the history of the religion that has had such a powerful impact on India and which probably will yet meet its doom at the sword of Islam carried proudly by its neighbors–Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Zaid:
Sorry this reply to your message #32 is so late. I just discovered this latest location of our dialog. A short time after you posted your message and I attempted to post a similar response as this one, I found that upon hitting the Submit button, the entire thread had disappeared. I thought it was gone. But now I see we are in the attic.
You demanded specific references behind my assertions. I provided them. Now you use generalizations to try and discredit them, accusing me of not seeking the truth, but using National Enquirer-like sources in an attempt to discredit Islam.
Taking the points you chose to address, in order:
I gave a source devoted to nothing but name originations for my assertion that Muhammed’s sword, “Zulfikar”, means “cleaver of the spine”.” The source page for this “Behind the Name: the etymology and history of first names” website is http://www.behindthename.com/references.php and begins with the “A Dictionary of Muslim Names © 1999 Salahuddin Ahmed”.
On the other hand, your Wikipedia source, which calls itself “the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit”, cannot identify any single meaning of “Zulfikar” but proposes various competing alternatives.
Next, you attempt to discredit the author of the book and website Prophet of Doom, largely on the basis that he admittedly discredits Islam, obviously an invalid purpose for scholarship to your values.
But when you say that his “Quotes are presented without clearly saying what the sources are and many have comments and clarifications added at the whim of the author” you seem to be mistaken. Every quote I see on his Muhammed’s Own Words appendix I linked to has clear and specific source attributions. He also elaborately explains his sources and interpretive method them at the very end of the page I have given before, and now again: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html#fighting
The kind of serious scholarship you say you demand requires reading all the material, I would urge you to read all the way to the end of the page I keep providing.
The Chapter 8:12 quote you attribute to a mere command to angels, not people, to cleave up infidels, is, I agree, subject to that interpretation. It is also subject to a contextual interpretation as being nevertheless relevant for people to follow. The chapter begins and ends by addressing people and how they should behave. To try and excise the part about beheading and dismembering infidels, just because it also “inspired the angels” to hear it, is a bold departure from the context of the dozens upon dozens of Muhammed’s own commands and examples to Muslims to terrorize and kill non-believers.
You chose not to address a single one the other Muhammed quotes I included. If that is an example of the kind of “context” you feel is appropriate to nullify Muhammed’s death messages, then I see that you really know how to otpimize the “con” in context.
But maybe you are still assimilating the information, rather than refusing to speak further on the subject.
One can only hope.
To the question is it a Muslim problem, i have to answer yes.
It’s a Muslim problem because the people at the planning and execution of those terrorists attack are Muslims. And it is also a Muslim problem because the people doing those attack use the Koran to justify their acts.
The Koran may be badly interpreted or not it doesn’t change anything. Any book, in my point of view, may be considered and interpreted as a Bible – let alone be misinterpreted. So i consider the discussion around interpretation between Rufus Lee King and Zaid Hassan to be totally vain and futile.
So it’s a Muslim problem. Does it need a Muslim solution?
Once again I’ve got to answer yes. Simply because these terrorists, even if there attacks are of political nature, use the Koran to justify there acts. [And this is, as i see it, the major problem of Islam: it’s more than a religion, it’s a social and political system disguised as a religion and consequently impossible to question]
So, the solution has to be Muslim, meaning that it has to be applicable and justifiable in a Muslim frame. This said, i’m not saying that the Occidentals don’t have anything to do to solve the problem. There have been injustices and there are still some. Who started? It’s difficult to say because historians, on both sides, always start there story with the attack of the other to be able to present there’s as a justified act and, frankly, it doesn’t change anything to what has to be done.
All of this terror, mutual incomprehension and accusation have to come to an end, and it is together, Occidentals and Muslim, that we have to put a solution in place, a solution that will end all this and that will ensure that none of it starts over again in the future.
.jpm
jpm
So all Muslims and non-Muslims reach a great accord to eradicate terrorism forever. And none of that pesky analysis of the authority Muhammed gives Islam to perpetrate terrorism.
Given your lack of any specifics, it would seem yours is not a resolution we or even you would expect to happen in our lifetimes. Certainly not before the most deadly factions of Islam obtain deliverable WMD’s.
Sorry to disappoint you Rufus, but i haven’t got any precise solution and i haven’t seen any on your side either. I don’t think there’s going to be any great accord as you cynically suggested but having both groups sitting on their positions, arguing on Mohammed authority dropping bombs on each other’s heads is not going to change anything to the situation.
On the other hand if the Occidentals and their Islamic Middle-East immigrants recognise their faults and start talking about a way bring back those extremists on the right track we might get something done.
.jpm
I have seen solutions on our side. To disarm and incapacitate the warring enemy where they live, before they bring their death campaign to more innocent civilians.
And my attempt to acknowledge the death-loving, world conquering aspects of Islam is being stonewalled here as in seemingly every other place. It is too bad. Because for the self-proclaimed moderate Muslims who would presumably yearn to set themselves apart from the crimes for genocidal world domination pledged and delivered by the stated extremist hijackers of their religion, the silence seems to indicate a decision not to set themselves apart from those crimes, after all.
And when you are dealing with an approaching WMD era of Islam which the West cannot possibly coexist with, you are talking about all the factions of Islam, peaceful and not, allowing themselves to be indistinguishable in a time of the most severe kind of civil and military confrontation.
Concerning the violence loving, world conquering aspects of Islam i’ve found an excellent on the subject written by a Muslim. As he explains, Islam is a religion of perfection, so once your in it and seemingly follow every rule you are perfect an cannot do anything wrong…
This doesn’t excuse anything. And it’s very far from excusing the silence of all those moderate Muslims how, when asked, say they condemn those acts of violence but don’t seam to do anything about it.
And we’re back to the starting square: It’s a Muslim problem and the solution has to come from Muslims – the moderate ones.
As for disarming the enemy, how do you disarm someone you cannot find? And furthermore, you cannot disarm every Muslim or Arab looking guy! Especially if you’re an American solider, since it is written in your constitution that it is a right for everyone to be armed.
.jpm
Here the address to that excellent text : http://www.newstatesman.com/200507180004. Maybe the moderator can include it in my text…
.jpm
“As for disarming the enemy, how do you disarm someone you cannot find?”
And worse. How can you disarm someone you refuse to recognise?
How Some Moderate Muslims Won’t Admit the Terrorists Aren’t US and Israelis
http://www.nysun.com/article/17686
I think it’s a general problem. Everybody should work on it. There are some people who destroy everything and the rest of the world habe to live with the consequenses. They should solve the problem by t´hemself
It is a Muslim problem, but there can be no Muslim solution, because Islam without hate and anger is not Islam.
It is almost impossible to reason with Muslims when it comes to their religion and their dear leader. Words mean nothing. You can give them specific references to the hate and and violence in the Quran and they start with the usual excuses: out of context, that was then, bad translation, and so on.
When you talk about Mohammed, it gets worse. Although the hadiths give dozens of examples of the evil things done by Islam’s prophet, Muslims cannot seem to understand even the most simple words and concepts that do not conform to their image of him.
Let me give you an example. Here on ‘Comment is free” I posted a few links to Muslim texts on Muslim sites that describe actions of murder, torture, slavery, rape and even wife beating by Mohammed and his men (and these are things written by the prophets friends and followers, not infidels!). Do you think Muslims will admit these things? Never! They suddenly don’t understand words.
Take the case of Mohammed beating his wife as per this text…
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127
You would think that the words “he hit me and caused me pain” would mean something, maybe even that Mohammed beat his wife.
No, a Muslim here at this site explained to me that it was only a single stroke and “Aisha (ra) does not mention how much it hurt, if it was light pain or a strong strike.” and so on. So, aha, eurika, he did not beat his wife. He says that there are other writings that discourage wife beating - yet he does not mention the Quranic verse that tells Muslims to do it.
Here is the link to this dialogue..
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/paul_hamilos/2006/06/post_126.html
So, Mohammed hit his wife but did not beat her; he caused her pain but it did not hurt. How can you reason with people that think like this? Words don’t mean anything.
When you talk about torture, slavery and rape, Muslims get even more upset, and usually refuse to even consider the Islamic texts. It is hopeless. Muslims cannot and will not face the problem of hate, and violence in their faith. They cannot be honest about Islam. This is why things are going to get worse. Bad times are coming. Sorry, but there is no solution.
John old man Kactuz
One final link to an event in the life of Islam’s great moral example, regarding Muslim justice and freedom of speech:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348.
No condemnation, no sadness, no justice - only the equivalent of a ‘bless you’ ‘good job’ and ‘way to go’. Maybe the two high-fived each other for all we know. Any comments?
:.
.
theysam thios person didin the . The facts are that Islam is full of hate and violence, as is the life of its founder. Islam own accouns tell us of many vile, evil acts done by MUhammud, yet he is considered a great moral example by Muslims. Consider what that means! Do the math.
Muslims are either dishonest or in denial. They blame eveything and everybody but themselves for any problem they have. It is very hard to find a Muslim that will face the reality of Islam. They may read the words, but they don’t want to understand them.
The revelations by “Rufus Lee King” is surely scary. & yes, i now surely believe the words “All muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims”.
For sure, look at one of the comments by Atanu Dey “Yet, it is a matter of shame that the 800 million non-muslims in India have never bothered to read the Quran or understand the history of the religion that has had such a powerful impact on India and which probably will yet meet its doom at the sword of Islam carried proudly by its neighbors–Pakistan and Bangladesh”.
Does he mean that all Non Muslims in India should read Quran and convert or else face extinction from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Surely Atanu`s gone crazy..
Surely scary these fundamentalists. I surely agree with Rufus. They very intolerant and wont let the world at peace. The world should be wary of Islamists. Its high time.
Further to add, yes, its a purely muslim problem. How come no mullah so far has issued a fatwa against OBL. There has been surely acts of violence involving other religions, like the Srilankan Tamil problem, but they dont relate it to religion. Same is it for the Kashmir. If Muslims live in higher numbers, does it mean they should have a separate nation? Why are there very few secular countries in the majorly muslim dominated countries? & these countries have no or little democracy? Isn`t it radical Islam? Why should the governence be under control/Guidance of Islam? Why cant Politics be separated from Islam? Surely, only Moslems have to provide the solution!!
How many millions have been killed in WW1 and WW2 and the Holocaust , those tragedies were caused by Christians if im not mistaken . How many thousands has france killed on the 8th of may 1945 in settif and Guelma or the Million and half of Algerians slaughtered in a violent ugly 132 years of occupation . France also occupied Morocco, Tunisia, Syria , britain occupied sudan , egypt, India , 3/4 of Africa , yemen and left many thousands suffering and dead and maimed too. how many Iraqis died during the British Invasion of iraq in 1917 (stanley Maude will tell you he was a liberator not an invador . )
In the original article by Tom Freidman, he says “The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks.” I think the point here is that the most effective solution to stopping this madness has to come from inside the Muslim village.
We can debate all we want about who is at fault, but that really doesn’t accomplish very much. Let’s look at what needs to be done to make the world a little better, and we can expect some results.
A large amount of the recent terrorism has be conducted by Muslims using some sort jihad-based cover for their crimes. As long as this cover remains in place, the madness will continue. A reasonably concerted effort by some senior Imams could put an end to this cover quite quickly.
I’ve heard a number of the more extreme Imams declare that they simply reflect the beliefs of their congregation. If that’s the case, then it really is time for the presumably moderate majority of Muslims to make their beliefs better known.
REAL QUOTES FROM ISLAM’S QURAN:
http://answeringprophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes.php
Yes it is becoming a real debate.
See this article for an incite into and a history of the muslim headscarf and why the debate is moot since it is not mentioned in the Koran.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/447120/muslim_girl_has_head_scarf_ripped_off.html
Muslims are the problem - there is no such thing as a moderate muslim and this is verified by the “head-in-the -sand” attitude shown by all muslims in response to the almost daily acts of violence perpetrated by muslims on others. I am tired of muslims crying out “it wasnt us!!!”. IT IS YOU!!! I will no longer tolerate muslims, not because i wish to be a racist, but because muslims are racists and supremacists of the worst kind and because muslims cannot be trusted. I also believe that muslims should not be allowed in law-enforcement agencies or our military. W1 and WW2 were not caused by religious fanaticism - they were caused by a complex series of events which were allowed to spiral out of control. The treatment of Jews by the Nazis was only partially based on religious persecution but developed mostly as a convenient political tool. BTW since most muslims claim that the Holocaust never happened it is surprising to see a muslim use it as a tool to try and force an incorrect and invalid point. Muslim violence is created by the inability of muslims to accept that other belief systems can/should exist and that other cultures have as much or more value that a islamic one. MUSLIMS, DO NOT BLAME OTHERS FOR YOUR IDIOCY - BLAME YOURSELVES.