U.S. Army Islamic chaplain arrested for spying at Gitmo

Um, I think trying to "Christianize" tens of millions of Native Americans before slaughtering them is a relatively violent growing pain. As is the Holocaust. The witch burnings. The Inquisition. The Holy Crusades. The Reformation. And these are just large-scale events.

Christianity isn't a "violent" religion, but to deny the horrible violence done in its name denies how much Christianity has grown in 2,000 years.

 

I thought Hitler renounced all worldly religions and taught that his race was descended from a super race of humans from Atlantis or some such. The aryan race or whatever.

Oh...and in my last soci class (I can't name sources, sorry, but my prof was doine research on conflicts in general around the world for his thesis)...he stated that of all the armed conflict in the world going on right now (2002 was when he said this), that 93% involved Muslim violence on one side or the other. I can not confirm or deny this claim, but if this is true...wow.

 

What's worse? Religion or government?

Both "dictate" morals/law to individuals. Both have demonstrated an ability to distort the truth for its own purposes.

 

Please explain why the Koran has to be taken literaly today and the Old Testament, or anything else outside of the Gospels in the NT, especially the Book of Revelation, not.

Is Judaism, the denomination of Jesus, also a violent religion?

All religion is prone to violence. And if you say "my religion is better than yours", you just make things worse.

 

I don't understand the question.

See my earlier quotes from the Old Testament / Torah.

ok, but who knows the absolute truth?

I don't know what you are getting at here. Is this an explaniation for the vengefull God found in the OT? (not Otis Thorpe). This goes back to my original question of why it is ok to to take some religious doctrines literaly but not others.

Tons early cultures were purely ethnocentric, believing they were the chosen people (that is why violence against other cultures is acceptable, they don't matter). But we are past that way of thinking now, right?

 

I'm quite conservative in my thinking, but Bama, you are just being silly if you think people are not using Islam to press their own political and personal desires just as is being done everywhere. And now you are differentiating between those that are 'true' faith christians vs. others.

Their situation is more a factor of economic and social disarray. These nations were under colonial rule for generations and only for the last 50 years have they been free of the shackles. Their populations are some of the most illiterate and poor in the world. This is a breeding ground for religious fanaticism and an environment ripe for dictatorial control in which the governments will usually do anything to stay in power.

Try travelling in Africa and South America and see whether it is more violent or not, or even South Central L.A. or the Fifth Ward in Houston.

I think you need to get out of 'Bama and see the world and not take all your ideals from second hand sources and brief quotations.

As you stated earlier, the Islamic world was the center of learning, technology and science for over 500 years, now do you not see the relationship between education and social and political balance? At this time Jews and Christians resided all over the muslim world with little bother, they were actually treated much better than Jews and Muslims were in Europe.

To state that 95% of world problems today brand Islam as a violent religion is silly. Why don't you look at the number of killings over the last 100 years and i'm sure that stack of bodies by Christians is over 10 times the muslim stack of bodies (1/2 as many muslims in the world as christians)


So what have we learned today: Illiterate, Poor People are going to cause problems. But to demonize a religion because of it is silly. Then you go on to state that those christians that do so 'are not real' christians? C'mon.

 

And on the Topic:

If this guy is guilty of spying we should hang him or place him beside Jonathon Pollard forever.

There is no excuse for treason.

I do wonder exactly what he did do wrong though. What would they tell him, anyway?? Its not like they had any secrets.

He may have simply opened his mouth about the conditions and torture of the people in Guantanamo, many of which may be innocent and have never had counsel and are US citizens.

I'd like to know what exactly he did though. If he had direct contact with Al-Queda then he's toast.

 

I also want to know what the chaplian did. I mean treason is HUGE, but at least we can have some idea what he was attempting to do.

 

Found this; don't bomb the messenger...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=445743

Guantanamo chaplain held for 'aiding prisoners'
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
22 September 2003


The American Army's Muslim chaplain who ministered to so-called enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba has been arrested and detained, apparently on suspicion that he provided aid and comfort to potential terrorists.

James Yee, 35, an Army captain, has been held since 10 September at a Navy brig in South Carolina. Whether he had been charged was not clear from reports, but a spokesman at the US Southern Command, responsible for overseeing the Guantanamo Bay base, said he had been granted access to military lawyers. Under US military law - assuming he is to be prosecuted - a prisoner must be granted trial within 120 days of being arrested.

Although details were still sketchy, Mr Yee's arrest prompted an outcry among American Muslims who immediately seized on the Catch-22 circular logic of a chaplain being arrested for doing, on the face of it, precisely what his job required: providing encouragement and spiritual comfort to the prisoners in his charge.

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations said: "There are those in our society who love to question the patriotism of American Islamics and this, unfortunately, will give them ammunition to do that, no matter what the facts of the case are."

Officially, members of the military and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which contributed to the case, refused to disclose any details about Captain Yee. One law enforcement source, however, told The New York Times that the investigation began before his latest trip to Guantanamo. Captain Yee was searched when he arrived back at the naval air station in Jacksonville, Florida, and was found to have sketches of the prisoners' facilities in his luggage.

That, various US newspapers reported yesterday, might form the basis of a charge of espionage. Lawyers familiar with previous cases involving the violation of secrecy or espionage laws - notably the aggressive, but baseless, prosecution of the Los Alamos nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee - say the FBI and other government agencies often fail to distinguish between non-malicious handling of classified documents and actual espionage. Thus, they said, prisoner locations at Guantanamo might well be classified, but that does not mean Captain Yee had them mapped for any reason other than to help to find his way around.

The arrest is part of a pattern since 11 September 2001 of official hostility towards anyone in direct contact with suspected members of al-Qa'ida, enemy fighters or other detainees. The Justice Department now reserves the right to eavesdrop on conversations between terrorism suspects and their lawyers, in apparent violation of the constitutional guarantee of lawyer-client privilege.

Lynne Stewart, a US lawyer, is herself soon to stand trial on terrorism charges. She was arrested shortly after 11 September on the basis that she may have passed on dangerous messages from her client, the blind Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is in prison for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre.

Captain Yee is a West Point graduate who converted to Islam shortly after the Gulf War in 1991. Changing his first name to Yousef, he left the military to study his new religion in Syria and returned after four years as an imam. He rejoined the Army in the late 1990s as a chaplain, serving first at the Fort Lewis base in Washington state and then, as of 10 months ago, at Guantanamo Bay. He kept a flat in Miami, which was searched by the FBI after his arrest.

He was interviewed frequently on Muslim issues within the armed forces and beyond, and issued many unequivocal condemnations of violence. "An act of terrorism, the taking of innocent civilian lives, is prohibited by Islam, and whoever has done this needs to be brought to justice, whether he is Muslim or not," he said in late 2001.

His work at Guantanamo has presumably included an interest in several dozen suicide attempts among the prisoners. Earlier this year, he told the BBC: "I like to think that whatever I can do, whether in their personal situation or help with them being here in any way, that I have a positive effect on their life."

 

Um, what's the official definition of aid and comfort? I sure hope it isn't verbal support like "Allah will get you through this". That is the stuff Muslim chaplains are supposed to do.

 

Actually if you read the Koran you will see that it says 'He who murders one person murders all of humanity.' That's pretty cut and dry.


Also to claim that the Crusades weren't done in the name of Christianity is ridiculous. Whether that was their true intent can't be proven. Then add to that The Inquisition, and you claim that Christianity never had a violent phase done in the name of religion?

Now I do agree with you that Christians that do violent acts in the name of the religion aren't acting as I believe in the tennants of Christianity. But the same is true of Islamic terrorists. If you want to write off all violent Christians as not actually practicing the faith correctly, then you have to give the same leeway to the violent Muslims if you are going to be consistent.

 

The reverse is also true. If you are to propose that the Cursades/Inquisition etc are a stain on all of Christianity, which is the only real response you and others give to the connection between Islam and violence, then you certainly have to conceed the factual connection between Islam and violence. It is simply indisputable that Islam has a direct connection to violence across the globe TODAY. If you want to condemn Christianity as a violent religion a THOUSAND years ago, be my guest. If you want to say Christianity is violent today, whether it be N Ireland (although that is Christian on Christian violence) or Bosnia (although secular so-called 'Christian nation-states' like the US and Britain intervened to stop it), be my guest. But you cannot factually contend that there is ANY comparison between the violence we are seeing out of any other major religion and Islam. It simply is ridiculous to continue to contend there is no connection between Islam and violence, or that there are 'only a few radicals' propogating this violence. It is too widespread, in too many areas, with too much support among the Muslim populace to contend otherwise.

 

Well, I sympathize with those who say 'but that's not true Islam,' just as you say 'that wasn't true Christianity.' My point really is that Christianity 'as practiced' during the Crusades was excessively violent, and encouraged violence against others. Islam, 'as practiced' today is excessively violent, and encourages violence against others. Does that mean every Muslim is violent? Of course not. No more than every Christian was violent is the time of the Crusades. But there is an undeniable link today between the followers of Islam and violence across the globe, just as there was an undeniable link between the followers of Christianity and violence across the (known) globe in the time of the Crusades. Whether or not one is 'truly' more violent than the other is not my concern. If I had to make a forced choice I would say there is no comparison because the New Testament moderates much of the violent context of the OT, while Islam's Koran has no such change in doctrine. But that is not the question. The question is 'is Islam today a force for violence.' The answer is yes.

 

Actually I didn't make that connection that either Christianity or Islam was a violent religion. It's when someone said that Islam was violent, I and others pointed out that it wasn't any more violent than some other religions. Some people have pointed out that perhaps it's a religion in it's growing pains stage, like Christianity was at it's most violent period.

But I have pointed out time and again other arguments such as the five the pillars none of which advocate violence. I've pointed out the fact that the Koran says he who murders one is guilty of murdering all of humanity. I've pointed out the example of Hakeem prior to re-dedication to Islam, and post re-dedication to Islam. I've pointed to books that delve in depth on the subject. All of these go toward the argument that Islam is not a religion that's inherently violent. None of thopse arguments rely on comparing Islam with anything other than itself.

If you want to talk about violent Christians of today practicing genocide in Bosnia, and point out that other predominantly Christian nations intervened, that's great too. But to be fair we have to point to the many of moderate Muslims who have condemned the violence of extremist Muslims, and we have to also point out the Majority Muslim nations that have taken part in stopping the war on terror which has thus far centered on extreme muslim groups as well.

I most certainly do contend that it's only a few radical Islamists that are the cause of the violence. The fact that there are over 1.5 billion muslims in the world and only a small portion of them are violent would support that claim. The books of and protests of moderate muslims also supports that claim.

The only thing that supports the claim that it's the religion as a whole that's overly violent are the few terrorists, and the media principles of sensationalism and 'if it bleeds it leads'.

How much press has the movement by moderate Muslims received in comparison with the violence of the few? How much hype have books such as 'Taking Back Islam', or 'The Progressive Muslim'. And where was the press when 500,000 Muslims gathered in Pakistan last October rallied for peace. At that rally there were many statements against terrorism, yet it doesn't receive the attention.

The squeaky(violent) wheel of Islam gets the oil and the attention. The face has been put on Islam, but it's not what the majority of Muslims practice.

 

I think a distinction of Christian violence and Islam violence should be made. The Christian violence in the crusade was agressive, and the Islam violence to day is defensive. The Islam violence against the Americans and Isrealis because Islams perceive that their existence have been threatened by the past ACTIONS of the two actors. They think they are the victims of Isreal and America, because their lackluster economical, military and diplomatic resources, they choose to play the underground violence game known as terrorism as a counter measure. That doesn't justify their violent means, or validate their perception, but that's where they come from.

If the situation remains constant and only that Koran advocates peace, do you still think that the radical Islams would just sit there and do nothing? Do you think that there will not be Islamic violence? Are the Arabians peaceful saints who will just pray when they think some people are barging in their house? No. One either pick up a gun and fight against intruders up front or, if they are too strong, snipe them and play it safe. It's human nature to resort to underground violence when they have no other viable choices. To blame it on their religion is fanning religious hate.

If Koran is the source of Islam violence, it's clear that the Islam Jihad won't be just directed towards the Americans and Isrealis but Christians all over the world, which isn't quite the case.

And the Crusaders read the NT that is supposed to "neutralize the violence in OT."

I'm not saying that both religions are violent religions, just trying to maintain consistency.

 

Could anybody blame me if I believe Yee is innocent until proven guilty?

Now back to the violence in religion discussion ...