France may answer terror with Nuke

[Reddy]

Yeah, but you're our moron. 

 

I Kid Because I Care®

 

awww thanks. that makes me feel a little better.

[samclemens]

grey puopon and wine- thats all that damn country is good for. certainly not security or war issues. chirac is attempting to capitalize on the xenophobia that is still prevalent in france due to those muslim riots. too late, chirac, you are going to lose badly in the next election, and sarkozy is going to take over. sarko is claiming to be much more pro-america than chirac and will hopefully get france off of the track to pure communism (they cant get much closer, socialist bastards)

[kevin57]

Wow.  Just... wow.

 

Didn't you say you were a Priest?  Are you really prepared as a representative of a faith to intentionally target the holiest site for all Muslims?  Thus indicting the entire religion as being fanatical and dangerous?  Maybe we should target Rome because of all the Catholic a**holes out there in the world.  How does that sound?

 

Trying to say MAD was a positive thing is like that episode of the Simpsons, where Mr. Burns is only healthy because so many diseases are trying to get him at once that they all get stuck in the door trying to get in.  Sure it worked, in a fashion, but is that a chance you are prepared to take?  And do you really think that's all that kept us from going to war?

 

GMAFB.  Some messenger of peace.

:headshake

 

Good military strategy should rarely take anything off the table. Remember how there were those who said that we should not take any military action during Ramadan (while our troops were being fired on from mosques)?

 

Your comparison of these fanatics with "all the Catholic a**holes out there in the world" is comical and absurd. Tell me how many Catholics have used airplanes as missiles. GMFAB

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

grey puopon and wine- thats all that damn country is good for. certainly not security or war issues. chirac is attempting to capitalize on the xenophobia that is still prevalent in france due to those muslim riots. too late, chirac, you are going to lose badly in the next election, and sarkozy is going to take over. sarko is claiming to be much more pro-america than chirac and will hopefully get france off of the track to pure communism (they cant get much closer, socialist bastards)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Damn "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys"!

 

[Credepopsup]

 

Damn "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys"!

 

       

 

As an Englishman, it's my duty to never miss an opportunity to break this gif out..

 

 

 

I can't stand him, the two faced bastard..

Edited January 21, 2006 by Credepopsup

[Reddy]

Good military strategy should rarely take anything off the table.  Remember how there were those who said that we should not take any military action during Ramadan (while our troops were being fired on from mosques)? 

 

Your comparison of these fanatics with "all the Catholic a**holes out there in the world" is comical and absurd.  Tell me how many Catholics have used airplanes as missiles.  GMFAB

 

but the problem is that not all muslims are "these fanatics". if you actually are a priest then i should hope that you would have the sense not to group all muslims together because of the fanatical ones.

 

and by the way have you visited Ireland? The catholics do some s***ty stuff there dont they? so how many protestants have you killed?

[Steff]

then we're agreed.  i seem to have issues understanding your posts... it's been happening a lot lately.  i guess i'm just a moron.

 

 

 

No biggie. I'm a complex poster ya know..

[sox4lifeinPA]

France may answer terror with Nuke

 

when did Nuke join the French Foreign Legion????

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

when did Nuke join the French Foreign Legion????

 

 

UGH! The day after never.

[southsideirish71]

but the problem is that not all muslims are "these fanatics".  if you actually are a priest then i should hope that you would have the sense not to group all muslims together because of the fanatical ones. 

 

and by the way have you visited Ireland?  The catholics do some s***ty stuff there dont they?  so how many protestants have you killed?

 

I doubt if Kevin is a member of the IRA. So please get off of your soapbox.

 

I have visited Ireland, I was born there, I have family in Ulster, and I am sure I have been there a hell of a lot more than you. I would suggest that you do a bit of research into the problems in Ireland before you cast broad statements based on some news reports you have come across. I would suggest that you ask the Ulster Defense Brigade on how many Catholics they have killed. Both sides are dead wrong on this and both sides have too much blood on their hands. Thank God things look a lot better today. Peace is the only way to solve this issue.

 

BTW Religion is not the original cause of this conflict. It wasnt some Protestant walking down the street getting his head bashed in by a Catholic that started this or vice versa. Remember the colonization of the land you call the United States before 1776. Remember how the English here and the French in Canada took large parts of the land and in the meantime drove off the locals. Well at the same time it was going on here, it was going on in different parts of the world. It was going on in the Ulster part of Ireland. The religion of choice by the invading party was Protestant. Laws were created that a catholic couldnt own land, catholics couldnt do this or that, penal laws were passed. To the victors go the spoils I guess. Well the catholics for some reason didnt like this and fought back. And I am not talking about the morons who blow up a store in England. Those people are criminals and should be treated as such. Now if you were taxed, fined, or had laws passed by a group because of your religious choice, can you see now how a endless circle of hate can ensue. Yes the problems are catholics and protestants. However I would suggest that if the Battle of the Boyne had gone the other way, maybe we wouldnt have the same issues today.

 

I pray for a day that there is no talk of violence in any part of Ireland. It is something that I am saddened by. It would be nice not to worry about marching season, the marking of the neighborhoods, or the violence and hate. I hope to see Ireland united once again, peacefully as one country were protestants and catholics and whomever are a single Ireland. In the end, the people that started this conflict are long since dead, everyone there now is Irish.

Edited January 22, 2006 by southsideirish71

[FlaSoxxJim]

Both sides are dead wrong on this and both sides have too much blood on their hands.  Thank God things look a lot better today. Peace is the only way to solve this issue.

 

Ach, Irish71, eventually we were bound to agree on something.

 

My family are also historic Ulstermen (Cavan), and while I can spit and curse the "To Hell or Connaught" policies of Lord Protector Cromwell as fiercely as anyone, I'm appalled by and ashamed of the behavior of both the Papists and the Prods over the last 50 years.

[NorthSideSox72]

Your comparison of these fanatics with "all the Catholic a**holes out there in the world" is comical and absurd.  Tell me how many Catholics have used airplanes as missiles.  GMFAB

 

I find nothing absurd at all in the comparison. Point stands: there are catholic a**holes, and muslim fanatics. Choosing a strategy that tries to solve the problem by making an entire religion evil is childish and dangerous. Methods of destruction are irrelevant. The fair, right and American thing to do is to punish the GUILTY, not everyone in the same RELIGION as the guilty.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

However, Islam is the ONLY religion wherein it's basis is to destroy all of those who do not believe in it.

[mr_genius]

However, Islam is the ONLY religion wherein it's basis is to destroy all of those who do not believe in it.

 

 

Christians used to be crazy like that too, think Europe a long time ago.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Christians used to be crazy like that too, think Europe a long time ago.

 

 

Yeah, the Jews were wiping out "non-believers" long before there was an Islam.

[Reddy]

However, Islam is the ONLY religion wherein it's basis is to destroy all of those who do not believe in it.

 

you obviously havent read the koran.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

you obviously havent read the koran.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have read the Koran.

 

Non-believers are referred to as "infidels"; the Koran as all about eliminating the "infidels".

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Yeah,  the Jews were wiping out "non-believers" long before there was an Islam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is just flat-out incorrect.

 

There has never been a time in history in which Jews killed non-Jews because they were non-Jews.

[NorthSideSox72]

the Koran as all about eliminating the "infidels".

 

That statement is just not even in the vicinty of the truth.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

That statement is just not even in the vicinty of the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Weblog

Can Infidels be Innocents?

August 7, 2005

Three so-called fatwas (even a novice in Islam knows they do not fulfill the definition of a fatwa, which has to be written by a Islamic jurisprudent in response to a specific query) came out in July condemning the 7/7 attacks in London.

 

British Muslim Forum: "Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives." (July 18, 2005)

120 Canadian imams: "Any one who claims to be a Muslim and participates in any way in the taking of innocent life is betraying the very spirit and letter of Islam." (July 21, 2005)

Fiqh Council of North America: "Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives." (July 28, 2005)

Non-Muslims can be forgiven if they assume the reference to "innocent lives" includes those traveling on the Underground and bus lines in London earlier in the month. But the term "innocent lives" can be much more restricted in application, as a fascinating article in today's Sunday Times (London) makes clear.

 

Titled "Undercover in the academy of hatred," it is based on the covert research by Ali Hussain of the newspaper's Insight team. Ali joined the Saviour Sect in June, a few weeks before the 7/7 bombings and took along his tape recorder. What he heard is hair-raising – it is imperative for Muslims to "instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar," "I am a terrorist. As a Muslim, of course I am a terrorist," "They will build tall buildings and we will bring them down," the bombings were "a good start" and Allah should "bless those involved"

 

He also heard two speakers discuss whom they consider to be innocent.

 

Zachariah, referring to the London passengers: "They're kuffar [infidels]. They're not people who are innocent. The people who are innocent are the people who are with us or those who are living under the Islamic state."

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the sect's leader, who publicly condemned the deaths of "innocents," but at the Selby Centre in Wood Green, north London, on July 22 referred to the 7/7 bombers as the "fantastic four" and explained that his grief for the "innocent" applied only to Muslims. "Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar."

Comments: (1) Muslim statements condemning the killing of "innocents" cannot be taken at face value but must be probed to find out who exactly are considered innocent and who not. In brief, Can infidels be innocents?

 

(2) For other assessments of the U.S. "fatwa," see the critiques of Abul Kasem, Yehudit Barsky, Steven Emerson, Christopher Orlet, Steven Stalinsky, and the United American Committee, as well as the interesting quotations in an Associated Press report. For an analysis of the Canadian one, see the one by David Ouellette.

 

(3) These documents fit a pattern of dissembling by Islamist organizations; for another example, see "CAIR's Phony Petition." (August 7, 2005)

 

Aug. 30, 2005 update: In a bellicose interview in Lebanon (where he may feel he has nothing to lose in being more candid), Omar Bakri Mohammed publicly came close to confirming the above sentiments. He was questioned by Sanaa al Jack of Ash-Sharq al-Awsat:

 

(Q) you said that you are against killing innocent people and have nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda Organization. Now you are calling for jihad. How do you explain your position?

 

(A) I have often repeated that I am against the killing of innocent people anywhere in the world but who are the innocent? I keep the answer to myself.

 

Q) Who do you define as innocent?

 

(A) The innocent people are specified by Islam. I denounce killing innocent people regardless of who kills them. However, who are the innocent? I do not have to explain this issue.

|

(Q) Does this mean that you support killing those whom you consider guilty and those whom Islam as you understand it describes as not innocent?

 

(A) I support what the Sunni Muslim youths in Lebanon believe in.

 

(Q) What about killing in general?

 

(A) Sister, I do not say that I support killing in general. You said that.

 

(Q) But you alluded to a classification of innocent people. Does this mean that you support jihad in certain areas because of things that are being done against Islam?

 

(A) Do you think that the Palestinian resistance is not right?

 

(Q) I am not giving an opinion, I am asking about your point of view.

 

(A) I am against killing innocent people and I repeat this everywhere. This is my personal position.

 

Sep. 15, 2005 update: A Pakistani veteran of the jihad, Khalid Khawaja, explains his understanding of "innocents" this way to Steward Bell (as quoted in Bell's new book, The Martyr's Oath, p. 81): "We don't believe in killing innocent people but we would certainly like to send you into the Stone Age the same way you have sent us into the Stone Age."

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TrackBack URL for this post: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog_trackback.php/488

 

Comment on this weblog entry

Name

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Violence, terror, and Islam:

A plea to abandon the cocoon

Mahfuzur Rahman

 

Early in January 2003, in Kashmir, three Muslim women were slaughtered for showing their face in public.

 

Also in January 2003 three Christian missionaries were gunned down in Yemen. In November 2002 Nigerian Muslims took to the street and at least two hundred people lay dead and hundreds wounded.

 

In October 2002, in Bali, Indonesia, a bomb claimed nearly two hundred lives. In September 2002, in Karachi, seven Pakistani Christians were gunned down, execution style, at a charity organization.

 

In January 2002 Daniel Pearl, an American journalist was abducted in Karachi and was later butchered.

 

In March 2002 five people were killed in an attack on a church in Islamabad, Pakistan.

 

In October 2001, in the Punjab, Pakistan, sixteen worshippers were killed in an attack on a church.

 

In September 2001 two aircraft, piloted by suicide bombers, crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, killing three thousand people.

 

This is not meant to be a catalogue of violence committed around the world in recent years. Such a catalogue would be unconscionably longer than the above account and would, for example, include the Gujarat riots of last year that claimed a thousand lives. Going only a few more years in the past, it would include the massacre of twenty-nine Muslim worshippers in the West Bank of Palestine by a Jewish fanatic.

 

What, however, distinguishes the events listed above from some of the other acts of violence is their common denominator: all of them were acts by Muslims who were waging war against the infidels or against those fellow Muslims who did not conform to their idea of Islam. This is not to suggest that violence by Islamic fundamentalists is entirely new. In Algeria, dozens of women have been killed over the past decade for not wearing the hijab. State- sponsored terror in various forms to enforce strict Islamic tenets is endemic in Iran and was notorious in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

 

How does one, especially a Muslim, look at the increasing use of violence and terror, whether to defeat the infidel or to make better Muslims out of otherwise ordinary Muslims? "What went wrong?", a leading western scholar of Islam has asked in the title of his latest book and that question has probably been on many minds. One might even ask whether there is anything "wrong" at all. Among the Muslims themselves a systematic examination of such questions has, however, been rare. It is as if Muslim thinking has shelved itself in a cocoon, from which it is unable to extricate in order to have a better look at Islam in a changed world.

 

How have Muslims reacted to some of the most recent acts of terror and violence? In most cases, in must be acknowledged, the silence was deafening. Apart from official condolences and assurances that the culprits would be brought to book, few voices have been raised against atrocities committed on innocent non-Muslims and non-observant Muslims.

 

Newspapers have certainly not filled with protests. People have not demonstrated in the streets, either in the country where the violence was committed or elsewhere. Massive street demonstrations to protest oppression and injustice are a normal feature of the political landscape in most non-Arab Muslim countries.

 

How many people took to the street in protest in Pakistan, for example, when the Christian worshippers were gunned down or when Sunni fanatics butchered Shias or when Shia extremists murdered Sunnis? Or in Kashmir, when the three women were murdered?

 

This is not to suggest that nobody worries about the increasing incidence of violence. But the worry is strangely muted and, more importantly, couched in distinctly defensive terms. The dominant reaction to acts of violence by fellow religionists has been to point out that Islam does not approve of them.

 

It is enough to summarize here the arguments generally put forward. For that purpose I shall use below a newspaper article that I came across immediately after the Bali bombings, and a number of others that appeared since September 11, 2001. These are fairly typical and the arguments can be stated in general terms without attribution.

 

Islam was never a religion of violence and intolerance and therefore, so the argument went, the Bali bombing and other acts of terror were unIslamic and hence condemnable. The Prophet of Islam himself was a kind and compassionate man and was opposed to any unjustifiable violence. A number of ahadith have been cited to suggest how he abhorred violence and intolerance.

 

One hadith, for example, states: "He is not one of us who incites class prejudice or fights for class interest or die in its pursuit". In another he said: "Seek refuge from the curse of the oppressed ….for the portals of God are always open to the oppressed and innocent ones". Furthermore, "He who knowingly lends support to tyranny is outside the pale of Islam".

 

I am not sure that the ahadith cited are strong evidence of indictment of violence and terror in the present context, and those who cite them have probably not done a good job in scouring the relevant literature. But I shall leave it at that for the present and move on to the Qur’an. Among the verses of the Qur’an that have often been quoted to show that Islam does not condone violence are the following:

 

" Let there be no compulsion in religion "[sura Baqara. (II.256). (Translation by Yusuf Ali in this and in the rest of the quotations from the Qur’an)]; " Those who believe (in the Qur’an) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians….shall have their reward from their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" [ ibid. II:62]; "Thus have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced…." [ ibid. II: 143]. In some translations the last citation is "We have made you a moderate sect", the emphasis here being on moderation. It can be argued that all of these statements can be interpreted in ways other than in defense of Islam as a religion of peace, but this need not detain us here.

 

In one of the latest writings (after Bali) I also found this quotation: " O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other" [sura Hujurat. (XLIX: 13)]. Also cited as codes of modesty and decorum required of a Muslim: " When a (courteous) greeting is offered to you, meet it with a greeting still more courteous, or (at least) of equal courtesy" [ Sura Nisa. (IV:86)].

 

The idea behind the last citation is, of course, to suggest that a people who are required to be so polite cannot be expected to be violent or cruel at the same time.

 

Perhaps more immediately relevant to the issues of intolerance, the breeding ground of violence, is this verse: "To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single People, but (His Plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues." [ Sura Maida. V: 48 ]. This has been seen as an affirmation of pluralism.

 

On the other hand, Muslims whose acts of violence the above quotations are meant to decry can come up with an array of quotations from the Qur’an and hadith as well as instances from Islam’s history to bolster their point of view. They could, for example, cite the following from the Qur’an: "….fight and slay the Pagans whenever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" [sura Tauba. (IX:5)].

 

There is, in the same verse, advice to relent but only if the adversary becomes true Muslims, " if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity…." . A comparable verse is: " Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" [sura Tauba ( IX:29)]. It is easy to bring in more quotations in the same vein but this is unnecessary. This also ends my reference to recent writings.

 

The history of mankind is spattered with blood and religious wars have been among the bloodiest. The wars among Catholics and Protestants in Europe and the Inquisitions stand out in the history of man’s cruelty to man for the sake of his soul. Islam’s history was no exception. And, again, those who wish to find support for their cult of cruelty can find a great deal of it in history. That history, for example, tells the story of the massacre of the entire male population of Banu Quraiza believed to number between 600 and 700, soon after the Battle of the Trench in the year 627 AD/ 5 AH.

 

There have been differences of opinion on the circumstances of the massacre, but the magnitude of the blood bath has never been in question. The enormity of the massacre was such that some Islamic commentators have found it necessary to point out that it was done according to Jewish law. This is a reference, specifically, to Moses’ command to his people in the Old Testament: "And when the LORD thy God hath delivered [the besieged city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.[ Deuteronomy:20:13 ]

 

Those who are willing to murder for religion can also find sustenance in what I believe to be the first assassination in Islamic history. The Jewish poet Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf , of the tribe Banu Nadir, was a sworn enemy of Islam and was writing slanderous poems about the religion and its prophet. He soon become insufferable to the Muslims and a group of assassins, led by Muhammad b. Maslama, and with the express blessing of the Prophet (SM), tricked him out of his house at night and murdered him. Ibn Ishaq ( d. 622 AD/ 151AH.) the Arab historian, describes the assassination in gory detail.[ Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, English translation entitled The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume. Oxford University Press, Karachi. 1967.p.368.] The Sahih Al-Bukhari [ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Darussalam Publishers, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Vol. 5. 1997. pp. 221-223] fully confirms the story.

 

A Muslim who does not condone violence would of course point out that Arab society, both Pagan or Jewish, in the early days of Islam was a violent one and that certain events and Qur’anic statements should be judged in their historical context. That violence is easy to illustrate, and some of that were meted out to the Muslims in the early days of Islam. For example, the Prophet (SM) had sent a group of six Muslims to some Bedouin tribes of Najd, at the latter’s request, to instruct them in practices of Islam. All of them were brutally killed. Two of them were sold to the Quraish in Mecca and were killed by crucifixion, a practice not considered unusual in those days.

 

This, however, is unlikely to sway those who see themselves as custodians of ‘true’ Islam which to them is unvarying and eternal, and to whom there is no ‘historical context’ to necessary cruelty. They would only point out that the six murdered Muslims were among the early martyrs of Islam and would commend them. And they could claim to be able to reel off from history a whole series of events and actions, which are cruel only to the infidels and today’s Muslim bleeding hearts who do not want true Islam established. They could, for example, cite the following punishment meted out by the Prophet (SM) himself as an example of legitimate cruelty:

 

A group of people from out of Medina lived in the city for sometime and then expressed their desire to return home. The Prophet (SM) provided them a shepherd on their return journey. At one point these ungrateful people killed the shepherd. According to the Sahih Al-Bukhari, "When the news reached the Prophet (SM), he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron". [ibid. Vol.7. p.329]

 

It is impossible for two opposing points of view of Islam -- one that sees only peace, harmony, and humanity in Islam and the other that legitimate violence and even cruelty -- both to be right. This also makes it impossible to take a dispassionate look at violence that uses religion as its springboard through the lens of religion itself. Religion, or rather its standard bearers, when it sought peace in its dealings with people of other faith, has done so only on its own terms. Islam, the newest of the great monotheist religions was no exception.

 

Some of the quotations from the Qur’an given above illustrate this. To attempt to examine the violence we have been talking about from an ‘Islamic’ viewpoint alone would be to entangle oneself in the cocoon I alluded to above. Muslims who protest against violence, cruelty and terror and believe in non-violence would do far better to look at these issues through other lenses as well.

 

It is all too easy to forget that, in large parts of the world, society is more humane and tolerant today than it was only a couple of hundred years ago, and that this had little to do with religion. Neither is formal religion the only or even the main fountain of morality and human decency. The abolition of slavery was brought about by voices of protest that drew their strength from liberal thinking, as well as by changing economic necessity. Formal religion never called for its abolition.

 

The Quakers had a role in the abolition of the institution, but they were themselves persecuted by mainstream Christianity, which was more concerned with the soul of the slave than with his status. While Islam has called for treating slaves humanely and in some cases encouraged freeing them, the abolition of the system was never the idea. It certainly was no sin, either in Christianity or in Islam, to own slaves, and the institution flourished throughout the ascendancy of both religions.

 

Back in Bengal, to two great Bengalis belong the credit for the abolition of the suttee and the introduction of laws that allowed young Hindu widows to marry. Both of them held unorthodox religious views. In fact, both Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Ishvar Chandra Vidyasagar had to fight the bigotry of their co-religionists to bring about the two great reforms in eighteenth century Bengal. In both men their religion paled beside their humanism.

 

It is through the lens of what is broadly called secular humanism that Muslims who are against violence and terror waged in the name religion has to look at the world and the place of Islam in it. Not incidentally, this is also the most effective way one can stand up to bigotry that undoubtedly exists among people of other faiths as well. Secular humanism might mean somewhat different things to different people but its broad features are too well known to need elaboration here. It suffices for me to conclude by illustrating what it is not.

 

In the month of Ramadan last year, I read a brief article in a premier newspaper in New York. It was written by a young Muslim woman, an immigrant brought up in America, and an ardent new lover of Islamic ideals. Dwelling on the beauty of fasting, she pointed out that giving in charity was its most glorious complement. And she went on to narrate how moved she was by the idea, put to her by an Islamic charity foundation, that only a modest donation could feed a Muslim family in Bosnia for a month. The idea that there were, in that same holy month, millions of other hungry human beings around the world, but who happened not to belong to her faith, probably never crossed her mind. That was NOT secular humanism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article, written some six weeks ago, was originally meant for the print media and was sent to a leading English daily newspaper in Dhaka to which I occasionally contribute. It was not published for reasons not made known to me. Past experience tells me, however, that any writing that even remotely looks ‘critical’ of Islam stands little chance of acceptance in the print media in our society. ]

 

So much for our freedom of thought! It saddens me to publish an article on a particular strain of violence, just as the violence of a war rages. I almost wish I had published this article in quieter times. But the issues raised here remain valid even as a war is being waged and will not go away after it is over. ( Author )

 

 

Author Mahfuzur Rahman is a former United Nations official.

 

 

 

 

NEED I SAY MORE???

[NorthSideSox72]

Weblog

Can Infidels be Innocents?

August 7, 2005

 

 

1. This is not the Koran. This is the opinion of a few whack-jobs who, by the article's own words, are not nearly the higher-ups in Islam that they claim to be.

 

2. If you read the Q&A, even from the whack jobs, they don't sound too interested in killing "innocents".

 

3. The information flowing out of organizations that are recon=gnized as real islamic experts, as seen in some recent news stories, specify that the only "infidels" are those at war with Islam (that's not the same as saying not IN Islam).

 

I'm sorry, but if you want to use a handful of self-appointed faux-leaders as your representation of Islam, then I'm going to start using the KKK as my guide for the conduct of Christians.

 

Instead, I'd rather choose fairness and some perspective on reality.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslims

The Qur’an’s View toward Christians and Jews:

 

Muhammad’s actions against the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir Jews, the Qurayza Jews, and several individuals identified as Jewish in the Qur’an have been previously chronicled and will not be repeated here.

 

An important principal in the Qur’an holds that humanity is divided according to a strict hierarchy of worth. The "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) come in behind all other Muslims, including Women and slaves, but they do come in slightly ahead of Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists and others who are regarded as worthless and having no soul. In fact Muslims are forbidden to even have Jewish or Christian friends, which will be further studied in the chapter "The Psychology of Jihad".

 

58:19 Shaitan (Satan) has overtaken them (the Jews). So he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, it is the party of Shaitan (Satan) that will be the losers!

 

4:76 Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).

 

With quotes referencing Christians and Jews from the Qur’an like: – "Worst of Creatures, Perverse, and Friends of Satan", it seems impossible to characterize Islam as tolerant and harmless. By one widely accepted definition of a ‘Religion’ ("An organization dedicated to raising the spiritual awareness, the moral standards, the civil conduct and actions of its members, and in improving peaceful relationships with all others"), Islam seems to fall well short of qualifying. Clearly early Islam was neither harmless nor tolerant of non-believers. Intolerance seems the cruel norm in Islamic societies throughout history, while tolerance, charity and kindness towards different cultures and religions is glaringly absent. The fruits of orthodox Islam are bitter indeed, and it is by their fruits that they can and should be judged.

 

Christians and Jews then and now hold a special place in Islamic theology. In the end, they were regarded with contempt by Muhammad, and were presented in a hateful manner in the Qur’an and in modern Islamic theology today. The final direction appears to be this; When Muslims have the upper hand, they are not to seek peace, instead they are expected to be ruthless in the continued destruction of all their enemies.

 

47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.

 

48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

 

The final words reported from the mouth of the dying Muhammad were a curse on the favored ‘People of the Book’. From Ibn Sa'd page 322: When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over his face; but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said: "Allah's damnation be on the Jews and the Christians who made the graves of their prophets objects of worship."

 

His appetite to do violence to non-Muslims remained unquenchable his whole life, the final words coming from his mouth a curse on those he had spent his life destroying. Despite his victories and the multitudes he had murdered, he left this world bitter he could not have done more, with instructions to his followers to carry on in that effort. The bitterness of this final utterance from their beloved prophet, as he died a painful death at the hands of a Jewish girl, obviously still weighs heavy on the minds and hearts of all of Islam. With revenge a glorified mandate for Muslims, it seems unlikely they will ever collectively ‘get over it’.

 

In its attitudes toward Jews today, the Muslim world resembles Germany in the 1930s. That was a time when state-sponsored insults, cartoons, conspiracy theories, revisionist history, and sporadic violence prepared Germans for the wholesale mass murder that was to follow. Outside Israel, violence against Jews is also persistent: Jewish buildings blown up in Argentina, France, and elsewhere, Daniel Pearl's murder in Pakistan and other Jews targeted for stabbings worldwide. The essential training of their young to vilify Jews and Westerners continues to serve as the psychological preparation for this kind of murder and mayhem against Jews, and now against Americans, and tomorrow against Japanese, Chinese, Australians, New Zealanders, Vietnamese, etc etc etc, …and on and on, …until the vision of the whole world as Islamic is achieved. To decide if Islam promotes bigotry and racism, the rules governing killing of non-Muslims should always be compared to the following Islamic rule governing the killing of brothers enshrined in the Qur’an:

 

And whosoever killeth a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be Hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath shall be on him and His curse, and (there) is prepared for him a great torment (4:93)

 

The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslim Family Members:

 

Earlier it was pointed out that Muslims broke ties of allegiance and friendship with allied tribes and near family members. The Qur’an takes this a step further. Sura 58:22 shows that family blood ties are broken. Islam has an anti-family element, causing Muslims to fight and kill relatives if they reject Muhammad’s rule. The principals (and purpose) governing Muslim conduct with non-believing relatives will be further studied in the chapter "The Psychology of Jihad".

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Please check out

 

Islamundressed.com

 

thereligionofpeace.com

[YASNY]

The Koran is like the Bible. It can be intrepretted to justify or condemn damn near anything. It all depends on who's reading it.