Pardon me but it was the Muslims cheering (i'm a christian, born in Beyrout w/family still there). The christians supported Israel's incursion into Lebanon in the 80s & many cheered when Bush won. Lebanon is no longer 50% Christian. That number has been falling ever since Palestinian refugees (mostly Muslim) were admitted in Lebanon. There is a mistrust among Christians in Lebanon that the Muslim's would transform their govt into a theocracy. This led to govt sponsored unfairness toward Muslims & voting rights/opportuniy in the past decades .
The fact that some Christian Lebanese supported a foreign enemy to come in and invade Lebanon is treason, and not something to be proud of (I am not saying you are, but just a general statement not directed towards you). When Egypt was involved in wars with Israel, the large Christian community there (the Copts as they are widely known) were as patriotic, if not more so, than their Muslim counterparts. Muslim and Christian Egyptians stood side by side and fought for the honor of their country, and didn't aid the enemy from within. Same thing during the British occupation of Egypt. That's how fellow countrymen should act, regardless of their religious/ethnic affiliations. Same thing African-Americans did during the major wars the U.S. fought, they aided their country in its time of need, despite the deplorable intolerance/terrorism that was directed against their community as a whole.
Political group? How are they a political group if all they do is give their fellow Muslims two choices: either be with us, or you will be blown up just like the infidels?! Lunatics are more like it, although there are many that share their view about common Arab/Muslim issues today (occupied Palestine, Israeli hegemony in the region, corrupt governments, perceived American imperialism, etc.), it would be difficult to find the average Arab/Muslim in agreement with their methods, i.e. "blow everyone up and their momma even if they claim they are Muslims" method. Heck, even the Iraqi insurgency is turning against the Zarqawi group in Iraq, and that should tell you something.
Local terrorism has been a constant problem for our authoritarian friends, which is why their intelligence and interrogation methods are graciously accepted and approved by us. It is why they are targeting us now because of their frustration with their failure to bring down those rulers and their rationalization that the West is the source of those rulers' control. It's the lack of political groups in those hotbed countries that fosters the acceptance of local terror groups. The act of terror is to use timely and extreme moments of violence to carry out their message. Since there isn't freedom of speech or freedom of press or suffrage in countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt, those messages are given as the unofficial alternative. I assume Hamas would be considered a political party, but in other countries smaller parties are usually jailed, confined, or serve as stalking horses for the lifetime presidents or royals.
What do I mean? I mean that the greatest restraint on human behavior is never a policeman or a border guard. The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed. Many people said Palestinian suicide bombing was the spontaneous reaction of frustrated Palestinian youth. But when Palestinians decided that it was in their interest to have a cease-fire with Israel, those bombings stopped cold. The village said enough was enough. The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden. I just don't understand why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp. Well first of all, Muslim clerics and Islamic organizations are constantly denouncing terror and condemning Al-Qaeda. Anyways, my point is that these calls for Muslims to denounce terrorism are ludicrous because this is a plague which spans beyond religion. What good is it if John Q. Muslim, the head of Orange County Mosque denounces terrorism? Ahmed Abdur Rahim living in Palestine is suddenly going to say, 'oh sh*t! they said what we did is wrong!? maybe this is wrong...'. this mental disease which overcomes the would-be terrorist is independent to his cultural, political, individual, AND religious experiences/affiliations. Of course the Muslim living in Dallas, TX or Kuala Lampur, Malaysia isn't going to blow up a train - he doesn't feel like he has been victimized by foreign occupation or that his low quality of life and frustration is due to American foreign policy. That's why we will never win this war on terrorism until we understand this - this spans beyond religion. Islam is not some trendy brotherhood with 500 members with a set of similar beliefs. That's where the West is so, so, so very wrong in failing to understand what they're dealing with. There are so many vast interpretations of the religion within the community of Muslims, and no uniting body of final say. This isn't like the Pope bringing down some edict. Hell, you'll even find condemnation of differing actions within single cities varying from mosque to mosque. And now, we're talking about a GLOBAL scale. You think Bin Laden gives a rat's ass about other Muslim's opinion? Laughable to say the least. Finally, this writer is completely confused with his comparison of Rushdie with Bin Laden. He is completely clueless in regards to Islamic law. There is precedence in regards to the slander of Muhammad. An outright verbal assault on Muhammad is a crime punishable by death. However, Khomeni seemed to think of himself in charge of Islamic jurisprudence when he issued the "fatwah". He was wrong in this. Without a Caliphate, and a governing body with a judicial system, one cannot bring down such a ruling. Similarly, noone can outright issue a "fatwah" for the death of Bin Laden when there is no single Islamic governing body - afterall, this is an international situation, so who really is going to give any credence to some sheikh's ruling when there is no power to back it up? All they can do is condemn the actions, and condemn they have. It's just gone unheard by those who don't want to hear it. Like I said in another thread, you can't defeat your enemy if you don't even understand them.
I saw one of the leaders of a London Mosque being interviewed on television would not admit to Bin Laden and Al Queda being behind 9-11. Why is that? I really don't know. When people see and hear that they will not believe that Muslims are doing enough to condemn these groups. I think that is why I used the term "political group" in my previous post. I wasn't sure how other Muslims truly view them. Outsiders get mixed messages. We are not asking to try to get other Muslims to change Bin Laden's mind. We would like to know that John Q. Muslim is doing everything possible to let the youth and other Muslims who are not convinced know that what these terror groups are doing is horrible. If solidarity on this is too much to ask, then people will belive it is the Muslim religion that the problem. Especially if they say denouncing terrorist is ludicrous. How could it ever be? At least humour us...
Dude, you can't have solidarity between members of a faith that span the world over, and account for nearly a fourth of humanity. thecabbage just told you why that is impossible: there is no central authority in Islam like in Catholicism. There are hundreds of different denominations within Islam who each interpret the text and hadiths in a different manner, and who have different interests in life than other Muslims have. As for denouncing terrorism, there have been millions of people denouncing it everytime something happens, from the grand muftis in Saudi and Egypt, to the smallest cleric preaching at a smalltown mosque in Any-town, USA. It's up to you and others to learn about these denounciations, it isn't my fault that some people are lazy or the mass media is dishonest when it comes to covering this stuff. Hopefully the new english Al-Jazeera channel will give Muslims in the West/worldwide more access to get their message across to Westerners. We will see... As for people thinking that Islam tolerates terrorism as a religion, my answer to you is that those who say such things already believe it, are oblivious to facts, and could care less if they are right or wrong about it, they just find comfort in believing what they wanted to believe all along to begin with. Those people are a lost cause, and frankly most Muslims could give a **** about what they think to begin with. With ALL what's happening and all the bad press our religion is getting, it is STILL the fastest growing religion in the world, especially in the West, where you can't be converted "by the sword" as many like to say, so go figure!
Like I said, it's not as cut and dry as you put it. Asking for solidarity on an issue shows just how much misunderstanding there is in the West. We're talking about 1.3 billion people here. You won't even find solidarity among the Muslims within a mosque. Islam isn't a religion to Muslims - it's their way of life. Every Muslim has his own idea of worshipping or interpreting the religion. It's not as easy as the West's outrageous categorization of "progressive, moderate, and extremist" Muslims. Like I said, things have been done to denounce these acts, it's not their fault if the media continues to turn a blind eye towards it. You can only do so much to denounce the red headed stepchilds of the religion. At the end of the day, we're still talking about a group of people which takes up a 1/4th of humanity....and you're asking for solidarity with no uniting governing body? A cure for AIDS is more likely. It's their way of life, they don't have anything to prove if people want to ignore the facts.
Brah, I'm one of the ones that defends Islam here. Quit being so defensive. Did you miss the part about the Iman at the London Mosque denying Al Queda was responsible for 9-11? I saw him say it. Why wouldn't that concern me? Why does he believe that? I'm curious. In the other thread it states that some Muslims are sympathetic to the action of terrorist due to the actions of Americans. Which is it? I'm really trying to figure this out. Wouldn't a group of people hijacking your religion, leading attacks on Mosques be a cause for solidarity? At least in the west? Cancer grows pretty fast too btw. That proves nothing to me. Nice takeover message though.
Not defensive at all, just trying to give you reasons as to why what you may want to happen won't happen, because it's difficult to coordinate soo many people to agree on the same thing. Heck, even Arab leaders can't agree on any given issue on any given day. So it's nice in theory, but hard in practice. Moreover, there are extremist imams (obviously) especially in places like Britain and France who would preach that terrorism against the US and Britain is fair enough as a retaliation for their slaughter of innocent Iraqis/Afghanis since 9/11. The irony here is that a country like Britain willingly lets extremists/terrorists into their country and gives 'em asylum, which they have been criticized for by Arab leaders and the Russians before. Now, it seems to have come back and bit them in the azz. What do you want me to say? Extremists exist, and as long as there are issues that fuel them they will continue to exist and prosper. And no, I didn't ignore the part about the extremist Imam from London denying 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims, that is sadly one of the favorite "conspiracy theories" in the Arab world, for if nothing else Arabs love a good conspiracy theory, and they love fictional stories in general. Didn't you enjoy "1001 Nights"? But they are mostly just that: fictional stories that circulate long enough until a few idiots start to believe them. They should have asked that Imam from London the following: "Forget 9/11 then, do you still deny that there are terrorists that have committed atrocities who call themselves Muslim? What about the London attacks recently, was this a conspiracy too?" There are plenty of idiots around, that much I can't deny. Anyways, as I said before, extremists exist, and Britain just happens to harbor the largest number of criminals/extremists/radicals/terrorists in the world. I don't know why, but they have been doing this for decades. So Islam = Cancer in your opinion and you are "defending Islam"? Yah, sure, whatever.
Yup, that certainly is true. Some Muslims view the U.S. as the greatest evil in the world. Why? Multitude of reasons: Israel, Iraq, supprting tyrannical regimes, and a bunch of other reasons. Is it a widespread sentiment? As far as US foreign policy is concerned, yes, the majority of Muslims hate US foreign policy, but so do the majority of Europeans. However, is there widespread support for terrorists blowing up anything in their face be it man, woman, or child? Nope, because if there were, there certainly would have been a LOT more than the estimated 30-40k people who are Al-Qaeda members (that's a high estimate, actually, but just to give you a figure). Let's say there are 100k "jihadists" out there carrying out attacks (or waiting to do so) against the West, what would that account for among the Muslim population of the world? Not even a fraction of a percentage. However, their actions always make the headlines, so that makes them one hell of a noisy minority, and when that's all a Westerner sees on his TV screen, he/she starts to think that this is how all Muslims are. Those same Muslims that view the US as the greatest evil would like nothing more than to have the country they hate get a bloody nose, and if it will take Al-Qaeda to do so then so be it. Hope that helps answer some of the questions you have.
how do they treat women? (are they allowed in Mecca?) how open/permissive are they to others' faiths? (how many churches in Saudi Arabia? how many mosques in Italy?) what is their position on secularism? These are questions i'll try to answer for myself this week. A trip to Borders, quiet nights & more confusion will ensue.
That's not what I said and you know it. I just pointing out that growth does not prove righteousness for any religion. As a Muslim I wouldn't take them lightly or consider them a lost cause. Talk about bite you in the azz... I don't know what I want you to say. Something positive and pro-active I guess. I would like to hear some proposed non-violent solutions within the Muslim community. Anyone can use anything as a justification for violence. Maybe anyone excusing that is a big problem for humanity as a whole.
Obviously no one country or religion or group has a monopoly on evil. I truly belive that real enemy of man is not man. The real enemy is our ignorance, discrimination, fear, craving, and violence.
Who said that I am taking them lightly? I don't, and neither does many, many Muslims who are taking pro-active positions in denouncing these terrorists, nor do the governments around the world who have dealt with these terrorists in the past, including mostly Muslim-majority countries who have dealt with these terrorists in the past. Non-violence should be the way people express their grievances, I agree. Unfortunately, some like Al-Qaeda think that the only way you fight back is through violence, and nothing will change their minds. The easiest thing to do is to just try and kill those existing members of these terrorist groups, while at the same time finding real political solutions to make sure that future generations of terrorists aren't recruited. In essence, that's what PM Tony Blair pointed to when he talked about addressing the political grievances in the region that would lead to such extremism as a long-term solution, while immediately dealing with those existing terrorists who are willing to carry out those attacks. I completely agree with him, and like it or not, that's the only solution.
The Israeli issue is one of the last great taboos. Forcing Israel to follow UN resolutions on the Occupied Territories and withdrawing from Iraq will do much more to combat terrorism than any amount of ikilling and being killed by American troops. Forcing Israel to give up their illegal settlements, after pouring of billions into them in an attemtp to permanently annex the area , will be a tough compromise, but so will it be tough for the Palestinians to give up the rest of their lands seized by Europeans Jews before 1967. The legal thing to do turns out to be the tough compromise that leaves neither side feeling like the complete victor and it is what is needed. Too bad the US is simply on the side of Israeli intransigience.
Speaking of Israel, from today's NY Daily News. Israelis: Pullout tab 2B JERUSALEM - Israel is seeking $2.2 billion from the United States to help pay for its planned withdrawal from the occupied Gaza Strip, Israeli political sources said yesterday. In a meeting with senior U.S. officials in Washington, an Israeli delegation gave the White House an assessment of Israel's "needs and requirements" for relocating military bases from Gaza, and for developing regions where many Jewish settlers are likely to be moved, Israeli sources said. The Bush administration supports the withdrawal as part of a "road map" for a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. http://www.nydailynews.com/07-12-2005/news/story/327299p-279778c.html
Hey, think about this way: American taxpayers have already forked up nearly hundred billion dollars to finance Israeli military and Israeli economy. What are another $2 billion+ to secure withdrawal from Gaza and hopefully work towards some lasting peace? I would be more than willing to have some of my tax money go towards helping Sharon overcome the Jewish extremists who are intent on keeping their settlements in place.
