Julie Wilhelmsen at NUPI explains why Islamist Chechen terrorists took an entire school as hostages this week.

It is difficult to explain terrorism, but this is clearly an act of revenge after Russia went into Ingushetia. They've carried out arrests and torture, and now we have the response. .. Russia has behaved with extreme brutality in Caucasus. This has been well documented. There's massive bombing of civilians, murder and torture of people who are arrested. Detained young men disappear, and there's large scale rape and looting. .. This is what triggers these new terrorist attacks. But we must keep the resistance groups separate. There are some who fight to liberate the Chechen republic, while suicide bombers are usually recruited by radical Muslims.

All of this is true. But why is religion not mentioned with a word? Oppression does not cause terrorism. Being angry does not make you blow yourself up on a subway, or take hundreds of children as hostages. You need to channel your anger through a terrorist ideology to be able to do those things. People who do that become terrorists. Those who don't become guerilla fighters.

As I write this reports are coming in that many hostages have been freed. Russian special forces have or haven't taken control of parts of the school, there may or may not be hostages left. Hundreds are being taken away to hospital. Sounds ugly.

A Norwegian officer, Thomas Brevich, says to NTB that the rescue appears to have been "fairly successful", and that the Russians are "well equipped" to carry out such operations. That's premature. I thought the storming of the Dubrovka theater went "fairly successful" as well - at first. There were, what, 50 reported causalties? Then a hundred, then 150. And according to one Russian newspaper, 300 of the original hostages were dead one year later, apparently killed by the secret gas used by the special forces. It's hard to know if this is true. This isn't the West, where major terrorist attacks are investigated in detail by public commissions. This is Russia, where the former KGB is taking hold of the reins again.

That's worth keeping in mind when Russian officials announce there's been "several victims", and are corrected shortly afterwards by 100+ bodies lying in a gym, or when official estimates of 500 hostages are contradicted by escaped hostages who saw 1500. "Fairly successful"? Let's wait until the smoke clears - and then a little while longer.

But, Bjørn, she does mention religion:

She thinks that the Russians have had better control in the region the last couple of years, and that most [human rights] violations happened in the beginning of the war. But young men are still disappearing.

- This is triggering these new terror attacks. However, it is necessary to see different groups apart from each other. Some are conducting a resistance war to liberate the Chechen republic, while suicide bombers often are recruited by radical Muslims, Wilhelmsen states

Øyvind

As I said in another thread here:

"There must be a special place in hell reserved for the "people" who took the school children hostage in Russia. When they let several parents and children go, the Chechens told the parents that were hostage and who had two children there that they had to chose one child to go and one to stay. You may recall that the perpetrators also threatened to kill 50 children for each Chechen killed and 25 children for each Chechen wounded.
>
At some point actions go so far beyond the pale of humanity that the perpetrators should expect to lose all of the laws protections including their own "innocents".
>
In his book "Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations" by Michael Walzer, he recounts two actions that one would have thought were war crimes, but were on trial found not to be. In the first the Germans forced back into the Leningrad the civilians
trying to escape to put pressure on the Russian troops knowing that the civilians would die. When the German generals were put on trial
they were acquitted on the ground that this act was not a war crime. In the second, French Resistance took about 30 German soldiers
prisoner and threatened to kill them if the Germans did not stop torturing captured Resistance members. The Germans did not stop and all of the captured German troops were executed. Thereafter the Germans largely stopped torturing captured Resistance members. The persons killing the German prisoners were not, after consideration indicted.
>
I see not reason why the Russians does not have the right to take an equal number of Chechens prisoner and execute them if the Russian
children are harmed. At some point horrific acts must be made to be so very costly to the perpetrators that such acts will no longer be
worth the cost.
>
> I understand the arguments against such a position and the morality urged. However, in my view you reach the point where there must be
some equilibrium restored in human relationships.
>
> The Romans established that a flag of truce was inviolate. When their enemies at first killed Roman soldiers who approached them under a flag of truce, the Romans responded by butchering all of the solders and civilians that were associated with them. After this happened a number of times, the entire world accepted the fact that a flag of truce was inviolate. In the end the world became a better place. I am of the view that when civilians are targeted and attacked that the response should no longer be targeted but should be in the form of such retaliation that the cost to instigator will be so high that such acts will be given up or the population that the attacker is part of
will face being destroyed."

Øyvind: "But, Bjørn, she does mention religion:"

Not as a cause. She's just clarifying that there are different kinds of Chechen rebels, that not all of them are terrorists.

Herbie: "I see not reason why the Russians does not have the right to take an equal number of Chechens prisoner and execute them if the Russian children are harmed."

You don't? Not any reason? How about most Chechens being fully innocent of terrorism, or that this is the logic behind blood feuds? Russians have been taking Chechens prisoner for no reason at all and torturing/raping/executing them or extorting their relatives for years. By your logic, this justifies that Chechens take a relatively small number of Russians prisoner and threaten to kill them. Which is what these people did.

Don't get started down that road.

Bjorn, I do not agree with you. You say "how about most Chechens being fully innocent of terrorism." How about the school children?. No, at some point actions are so far beyond the pale of humanity, as here, that the perpetrators have put themselves and their group at risk. Once being put on notice of the response that will follow then it seems to me that the moral consequences of such an act fall on the Chechens first. They Chechens can fight as they see fit for their independence by responding violently to military targets; beyond that they must and should, in my view, bear the consequences of this horrific act.

They are reporting now that 9 or 10 of the kidnappers were Arabs. This hasn't been simply a Russian/Chechnyan affair for a long time. The Wahabhis have been supplying weapons, money and expertise. This whole conflict has been turbocharged by Islam.

Joe: This conflict has been about Islam for centuries.

As I've said before: What we're dealing with now is indeed a World War. It has already started, it will last for a couple of decades, and it will end with the global destruction of Islam.

Herbie: "Bjorn, I do not agree with you. You say "how about most Chechens being fully innocent of terrorism." How about the school children?."

How about both? We have to choose, now?

"No, at some point actions are so far beyond the pale of humanity, as here, that the perpetrators have put themselves and their group at risk."

Themselves, yes. Their "group"? Their group based on what, ethnicity, culture, religion, geograhic location? Would it be right for Russians to round up Chechens living outside of Chechnya and threaten to execute them? Would it be right to round up and threaten to execute random people in Chechnya, people who have been heavily persecuted for years, seen friends and family killed or taken away, who have never been terrorists, and never supported terrorists? Why?

Joe: "This whole conflict has been turbocharged by Islam."

It's more complicated than that. There are indications (such as this story by a former Russian soldier) that the conflict has become a scam for the personal enrichment of the Russian army, and the political benefit of Putin. This is no Palestine. There are Islamists in Chechnya, but without significant support by the locals. And then there are the Islamists outside of Chechnya who have adopted it as part of their global struggle - without bothering to ask the Chechens.

Bjorn uyou say "We have to choose, now/" No they have to chose. As for definition, you are free to chose. Ideitify the Terrorists and kill theri wives and entire family. Identify the village they came from and destroy it. You can draw this out to absurd lengths. My point is simple: it is appropriate to respond in a way that makes such actions unacceptable. I quite agree that my view is harsh; indeed quite harsh.

Bjørn the Russians haven't become choirboys overnight. What does that have to do with Wahabh and Al Qaida involvement in Chechnya? Or is that also just a scam that Muslim clerics and "fundraisers" are using to pad their Swiss back accounts? Chechnya is certainly a popular cause for the masjids and MSAs here in the States.
And don't be too shocked at the GRU shooting Army troops. That was part of their job description back in the Soviet days.

Many things have been going on for centuries, Ali Dashti. I quote from Leo Tolstoys half-biographic novel Hadji Murat, written after he served as an officer in the Russian army in Caucasus:

His son, the handsome bright-eyed boy who had gazed with such ecstasy at Hadji Murad, was brought dead to the mosque on a horse covered with a barka; he had been stabbed in the back with a bayonet. The dignified woman who had served Hadji Murad when he was at the house now stood over her son's body, her smock torn in front, her withered old breasts exposed, her hair down, and she dug her hails into her face till it bled, and wailed incessantly. Sado, taking a pick-axe and spade, had gone with his relatives to dig a grave for his son. The old grandfather sat by the wall of the
ruined saklya cutting a stick and gazing stolidly in front of him. He had only just returned from the apiary. The two stacks of hay there had been burnt, the apricot and cherry trees he had planted and reared were broken and scorched, and worse still all the beehives and bees had been burnt. The wailing of the women and the little children, who cried with their mothers, mingled with the lowing of the hungry cattle for whom there was no food.

The bigger children, instead of playing, followed their elders with frightened eyes. The fountain was polluted, evidently on purpose, so that the water could not be used. The mosque was polluted in the same way, and the Mullah and his assistants were cleaning it out. No one spoke of hatred of the Russians. The feeling experienced by all the Chechens, from the youngest to the oldest, was stronger than hate. It was not hatred, for they did not regard those Russian dogs as human beings, but it was such repulsion, disgust, and perplexity at the senseless cruelty of these creatures, that the desire to exterminate them -- like the desire to exterminate rats, poisonous spiders, or wolves -- was as natural an instinct as that of self-preservation.

In our own century Human Rights Watch has called Chechnya 'Europes worst human right crisis', and civilian casualties in the first of the two Chechnya wars amounted to 'tens of thousands' (an estimated 25000 civilian casualties by April 1995, according to www.globalsecurity.org. 200.000 people may be 'displaced'.

So, Bjørn is absolutely right. This is not Palestine.

Øyvind

P.S: A long report about Chechnya in Norwegian can be found here.

Herbie: "I quite agree that my view is harsh; indeed quite harsh."

That's one, euphemistic way of putting it. I would call it barbaric, or worse, terrorism.

Joe: "What does that have to do with Wahabh and Al Qaida involvement in Chechnya?"

You wrote that the whole conflict has been turbocharged by Islam. But Islam has been a small part of the conflict, essential to the terrorist attacks carried out outside of Chechnya, but complemented by many other factors inside of Chechnya. Al-Qaeda certainly has a presence in Chechnya, just don't take Putin's word for the extent of it, and don't take his word for what it means. His war on terror and our war on terror overlaps, but they're not the same.

"Chechnya is certainly a popular cause for the masjids and MSAs here in the States."

Yes. As I said, their cause has been adopted. But that does not mean that Chechens have adopted Islamism, or that Putin is Bush.

"And don't be too shocked at the GRU shooting Army troops."

Very well. I reserve the right to be outraged, though.

Bjorn Barbaric, terrorism. Hardly. The objective facts are that the Chechens have taken children hostage, are prepared to kill them and also prepared to die in the name of their cause. There is no negotiation to be had with these terroirists. My "solution" is that the cost be made so heavy that in the end the people they hope to "liberate" will be dead. I offer them a choice: stop or face the consequmnce thatr your group will suffer the same or a worse fate. What do you offer? What solutions have been tried that have worked to date? None that I can see. Moralize as you will, I vote for making sure no more children are victims. Is it a nice solution no, but it puts the burden where it should be on the terrorists.

Oyvind "This is not Palistine"? What does that have to do with the issue.

Islam is a small part?

Here is a recent declaration of jihad by The Ingushetian Shura Council in Chechyna.

Even the effete Council on Foreign Relations admits to these ties between Chechans and Islamic terrorists:

The late Chechen warlord Khattab, a Jordanian-born fighter who was killed in Chechnya in April 2002, and Osama bin Laden. Khattab apparently first met bin Laden while both men were fighting the 1979-89 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, said shortly after September 11, “We have long recognized that Osama bin Laden and other international networks have been fueling the flames in Chechnya, including the involvement of foreign commanders like Khattab.”

Individuals connected to the September 11 attacks and Chechnya. A Moroccan man charged with abetting the hijackers told a German court in October 2002 that the plot’s ringleader, Muhammad Atta, initially planned to join the fight in Chechnya.

Zacarias Moussaoui, whom U.S. authorities have charged with being the “20th hijacker” in the September 11 attacks, was reported by the Wall Street Journal to be formerly “a recruiter for al-Qaeda-backed rebels in Chechnya.”

Chechen militants reportedly fought alongside al-Qaeda and Taliban forces against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in late 2001. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was one of the only governments to recognize Chechen independence.

And we can't say for sure if all the money is used for it's stated purpose, but the fundraising effort for Chechan rebels is enormous in the Islamic world.
Internet Haganah has also done a tremendous job documenting numerous jihadi websites in support of Chechnya.
One of the most notorious, www.qoqaz.com, seems to have finally shut down, thank God.

Herbie: "The objective facts are that the Chechens have taken children hostage, are prepared to kill them and also prepared to die in the name of their cause."

No. Those are not the objective facts. The objective facts are that a group of Chechens and Arabs have done this, not the Chechens as a people. You do see the difference?

"What do you offer? What solutions have been tried that have worked to date? None that I can see."

The Russians will have to solve this the same way we do - which is not by deliberately killing the families of terrorists. You Americans did not arrest the bin Laden family after 9/11, and you did not threaten to kill them unless bin Laden gave up his war on the West. Do you believe this should have been done?

"Moralize as you will, .. Is it a nice solution no"

I'm not impressed by your tone of grim, regretful harshness. You either believe it is right to kill the innocent families of terrorists, or you believe it is wrong. Let your decision stand on its own, and not on some bravado about how you're somehow more willing to make "harsh" decisions than the rest of us. Please. That's not what this is about. It's about killing innocent people to put pressure on terrorists. Right or wrong.

I say it is wrong, and I insist that your tactic would be very similar to terrorism. In both cases innocent civilians are deliberately killed or held hostage to change the behavior of others. I don't see a large difference. I don't mean to "moralize", whatever you mean by that, I'm just pointing out to you that to be consistent in your views, you need to accept that some forms of terrorism, under some circumstances, is acceptable. That's what you're saying, and no amount of euphemisms can change that.

Joe: "Even the effete Council on Foreign Relations admits to these ties between Chechans and Islamic terrorists:"

Of course there are ties. There are commanders in Chechnya who are funded by and connected with foreign Islamists. I don't dispute that. But the conflict as a whole is much more than another example of Islam's bloody borders.

First off, we have to admit, all of us, that we don't know much about what is happening inside of Chechnya. Chechnya is a journalistic dead zone, largely because the Russians prefer it that way. What we do know is that this began as a war of independence, (a centuries-old war revived by the fall of the Soviet Union), not a war of religion. We know that the Russians have committed countless atrocities against a defenseless civilian population. We know that foreign Islamists came into Chechnya some time during the last ten years, and that some commanders cooperate with these Islamists. We also know that most Chechens are sufis who despised these foreigners when they arrived, and probably do so still.

All I'm saying is that the role of Islamism in this conflict is 1) young, and 2) limited. It's vital to acts like the one in Beslan, but the conflict as a whole is more complex.

"And we can't say for sure if all the money is used for it's stated purpose, but the fundraising effort for Chechan rebels is enormous in the Islamic world."

Well, yes. Of course it is. Chechnya has been adopted by the Islamists. But Chechnya has not adopted Islamism.

Bjorn, So far as I am aware the Bin Laden family disowned him. Therefore striking at them would not accomplish anything. There is nothing bravdo in my statements. I accept that what I proposed may be a form of terrorism (depending on how one defines terrorism) and I find it acceptable in the circumstances that I laid out.

I am off. Have a good weekend

I'm not advocating punishing all Chechen for the actions of the terrorists, but I still think you are downplaying the role of Islam.
For example you seem to have bought the notion popularized by Indres Shah that all Sufis are the equivalent of a kind of Zen Islam. While they are comparatively more civilized than other sects, lets not forget that dervishes fought with the Madhi in the Sudan and the janissaries were Bektashi Sufis. I've had this argument with Stephen Schwartz about whether Sufism represents hope for a kinder gentler Islam. I'm not completely ruling out the possibility, but it's a long shot.
Unlike Europe, the US still has enough of a Jacksonian non-PC tradition that make us a little less susceptible to the kind of self defeating breast-beating that comes into play whenever Islam is discussed. It seems to be hard-wired into the standard issue secular humanist worldview, but I don't pretend to really understand it well enough to comment with authority. It's good to question one's values from time to time, but this guilt at the dominance of Europe over the rest of the world is getting ridiculous. Do you think this nonsense went on in the Caliphate during the Middle Ages?

Joe: "For example you seem to have bought the notion popularized by Indres Shah that all Sufis are the equivalent of a kind of Zen Islam."

The Chechens are well known for their history of insurgency and war against the Russians. A lot of the barbarity in Chechnya is caused by Chechen bandit groups. They're not Zen Muslims, and they're not noble savages.

My point is that the Islamists do not just represent a much more extreme form of Islam, as it does in most of the Arab world, but a different branch of Islam. From a Chechen perspective, the Islamists are arrogant foreigners, trying to hijack their war. That naturally causes resentment it takes more than a few years to overcome. My impression is that the Islamists support specific rebel groups inside of Chechnya, but that these groups do not have the cultural/religious backing of the general population.

But then again, the area is closed. Who knows what's going on?

"It's good to question one's values from time to time, but this guilt at the dominance of Europe over the rest of the world is getting ridiculous."

Which guilt do you refer to? Don't recall anyone talking about feeling guilty here.

I've met several muslims in my life. I know of only one muslim who was against terrorism. And he was a black african who wasn't very religious. All the rest weren't pro terrorism but at the same time were not against it. Of course this was all in America. I wonder how they really talk when they are among their own kind.

If the muslim separatist succeed in russia, it will be just another terrorist state.

I think if this war on terrorism is about our survival then there is nothing we do to win it that I would consider immoral.

I'm sure many more people would be thinking this way if terrorists nuked a western city.

So maybe the argument isn't about what is moral, but more about how much danger we are in.

D:

"So maybe the argument isn't about what is moral, but more about how much danger we are in."

I think that's what a lot of discussions on Bjorn's site boil down to. Since most of the people who write here haven't personally suffered huge atrocities, the back and forth seems to be kind of theoretical. That's a good thing--we don't really want to be proven right or wrong on issues pertaining to massive casualties.

D: "If the muslim separatist succeed in russia, it will be just another terrorist state."

If the Chechens were made independent today, and the Russians pulled out all their forces, I doubt there would be much of a state for a long while. It would be 90's Afghanistan all over again, and possibly, eventually, your "terrorist state".

That does not change the fact that the Russians could have solved this conflict at many times during the last 10 years, and left a relatively stable state behind them. They chose not to. Let's not forget that.

"I think if this war on terrorism is about our survival then there is nothing we do to win it that I would consider immoral."

Are you then willing to absolve the Russians for what they've done to Chechnya? Think carefully about that. As I said, they're not fighting our war on terror.

There have been reports that many of the child casualties were shot in the back. My guess is that the "negatiations", if there really were any, were a form of hudna. The terrorists probably intended to kill all of the children anyway.

Russia borders a number of Islamic states that are independant now, like Uzbekistan, so the reason(s) for non-recognition of a Chechen state can not be based on that. Certainly many other people, both in Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union suffered as much as the Chechens, if not more so. They are not blowing up theaters and shooting children in the back.

For whatever reasons, the Chechens, seem to have come under the control of the Wahabbists. As much as I believe that Russian policies have been loathsome, I must say that I can understand that the Russians cannot tolerate a Wahabbist controlled, fanatical state at their border. If the Chechens had simply wanted an independant state, like some of the other groups, they probably could have gotten it, but they have become a tool for fanatical Islam. And please don't tell me it's because they are "oppressed" - they are certainly not more so than many other groups in that region.

It may be true that many of the Chechens don't like the Wahabbists or the foreign terrorists. But how do you tell them apart from the next door neighbor who has a lucrative deal smuggling weapons? I understand that the Chechen region has a long history of smuggling and criminal activity, and hence little real leadership, so perhaps the Wahabbists smelled weakness there and went to fill in the vacuum.

The Chechens, whether as a group, or a hijacked "cause" are no longer fighting for an independant Chechnya, even if some of the Chechens don't want Wahabbist/Islamofascists there. The Islamofascists are looking for any excuse to commit atrocities against infidels - to expand the ummah, or whatever. They don't really care about Chechens, who are just useful fools and cannon fodder, and will take the brunt of Russian vengence while the Saudis and their sympathizers sit back and sip mint tea.

The problem here is that Islam allows for any justification of atrocities against infidels, and so blinds many (if not most) of the moslem population to this kind of manipulation. Other religions have to be twisted around to accomplish this - but Islam can be used "as is". That's what makes Islam such a convenient tool for depraved despots.

Giving in to Chechen demands for an independant state won't create a Chechnya. All you will have there is a front for Islamic extremism and expansionism that is called Chechnya - and the Chechens will swallow that hook line and sinker. Plus, not a whole lot of Moslems seem to have a problem with that - and why should they, since that is the objective of Islam. You know, the end justifies the means or something.

I think I've heard that one before too, somewhere.

Tears of Jihaad (Chechnya)

The issue of religion is for the terrorists the main issue, - and the only one.

I found some lines about the war, written by Momin Saeed (read more at blog.willy.no):

We are the soldiers of Islam you see,
we fight day and night for Allah's command no matter what our condition may be.
-
Jihaad is the way to justice in this Russian land today,
and if this the only way to let our religion flourish, then so let it be,
let it be this way.

Sylvia: "If the Chechens had simply wanted an independant state, like some of the other groups, they probably could have gotten it, but they have become a tool for fanatical Islam."

What do you base that on? At what point during the last 10 years has the Russians shown any willingness to help Chechnya create an independent state of their own? Remember that there were no Islamists in Chechnya before the first Chechen war - which started precisely because Russia did not want to allow an independent Chechnya.

As for the brutal Russian behavior in Chechnya, that is not an excuse for terrorism. But it is evidence that the Russians have no interest in an independent, peaceful Chechnya. Their interest is primarily selfish - financially and politically. Chechnya is not Palestine - and it's definitely not Iraq.

It's my understanding that initially the Chechen independence movement was as much a maffia-power grab as legitimate political movement. The Chechen maffia was one of the most successful and ruthless in early 90's Russia and a some of the leaders of the movement had definite maffia ties. They've since been adopted by jihadis.

I understand Russian hesitance to grant independence for a number of reasons. Russia was more brutal than necessary but that's always been a violent part of the world where people shoot first and ask questions later.

It's also obvious that the slime that carried this out was not really interested in having their demands met (either they _knew_ could not be met or were incredibly stupid).
They were interested in
a) killing people
b) scaring people
c) publicity (this is the terrorist equivalent of a power-point presentation: we can do _this_, imagine what we could do with more resources!)

Religion has nothing to do with this, you kill Muslims, Muslims will kill you. you dont need to be that clever to understand this.

What is it going to take? How long is the civilized world going to just passively analyze and academically digest this ever escalating, ever expanding procession of atrocities? Will it be a nuclear detonation in your city bfore you wake up? I am afraid it is. The deliberate, targeted butchering of 300(maybe more)children is not a surprise to me. Jorma has it right. We should kill all the muslims. That way there wont be any left to kill us.

"Remember that there were no Islamists in Chechnya before the first Chechen war"

Bjørn:

I think saying that there were NO Islamists might be to somewhat overdo your point.

Also, I think we should be willing to make a comparison with Tatarstan - not very well known in the West, Tatarstan is another predominantly Muslim republic in Russia where the Russian federation and the local authorities managed to find a peaceful solution.

Read some more on Tatarstan at for instance The Carnegie Moscow Centre.

There is, however, no doubt that there are many more Islamists in Chechnya today than before the first Chechen war, Chechnya is one of the best examples showing us that the rise of Islamism is a result of political and historical circumstances.

Øyvind

Bjorn,

I'm not only willing to absolve the Russian, I'm willing to endorse it and support it with my tax money.
Better them them than us and I've thought very carefully about that.

We kill countless civilians in every war because we need to achieve something. That is just an extension of that.

We are already fighting chechens in Afhanistan. The muslims are united against it. They are global and networked and they cheering each other on while the western countries are busy accusing each other of war crimes.

Bjørn:

Chechens had their chance for independence in 1996. Of course, it only resulted in an increase, rather than decrease in organise crime and terrorism against Russia. This is the same pattern we have seen in Israel, Pakistan and Kosovo. Muslims infiltrate a region and make separatist demands, ethnically cleanse it of non-muslims then use that a base for further imperialism. It is the same with all totalitarian ideologies - appeasement only worsens the situation.

As for the principal of collective punishment, the practical argument against it is that it turns friendlies or neutrals into enemies. I'm not sure, however, that this argument applies in the case of muslims, given the widespread celebration of terrorist atrocities by muslims and their general silence in condemning them, together with the demonisation of the terrorists' victims. This even occurs among western muslims who would have nothing to fear from their governments, and much to gain in public trust, if they condemned terrorism publicly, loudly, and openly. Thus, there is little risk of killing genuinely innocent muslims. That said, a staged approach would be desirable, killing first the terrorists, then if that didn't work, their families, then if that didn't work their extended clan, mullahs, teachers, village elders, political leaders etc. That would then concentrate the minds of muslims on how to eradicate terrorists within their community themselves. At the moment, too many of those muslims/appeasers who should take on this task only fear the terrorists, and not the response to the terrorism, and with good reason. This must change.

As to the morality of all this, frankly I no longer care. I believe muslims deserve to be treated with the same tolerance, decency and respect they show to others, until they learn to understand the principal of reciprocity. If it's a choice between killing innocent muslims or, through insufficient aggression, allowing islamic terrorists to kill innocent westerners, that's a very straightformward decision.

I don't think there is a big possibility of turning the neutrals against us if we use collective punishment.

I'm not even that there are that many neutrals out there.

But more importantly people who think like that are only projecting Western culture on muslims. I don't think muslims are anything like us. Their religion is primative and tribal. Any charity or mercy given to them will be seen as a sign of weakness.

In their world the strong murder, rape, and take everything for themselves. Our mercy only renforces that. They believe we are weak. and maybe they're right.

Clem Snide: "Thus, there is little risk of killing genuinely innocent muslims."

Wow. Did I just read that? Seems I did. Not sure what to say, except that this is the most evil suggestion I've ever read in my blog. Herbie is flirting with terrorism. You're openly embracing it.

"As to the morality of all this, frankly I no longer care."

Very well, then you won't protest when I call your ideas evil.

Perhaps you will protest when I tell you that defining innocence and guilt on the group level is a collectivist idea incompatible with individual rights. You can't have individual rights and collective guilt at the same time. And you're not just making a wartime exception - you include Western Muslims as well, citizens of Western democracies. That's not just Islam you're fighting, but democracy and rule of law.

D: "I don't think muslims are anything like us. Their religion is primative and tribal. Any charity or mercy given to them will be seen as a sign of weakness."

Wow again. Are we still talking about the murder of random Muslim civilians to discourage terrorists? I'm too stunned to express my outrage here. Perhaps the words will come later.

Bjorn, Islam is not a race. It's even more political ideology than religion. Their prophet was a sexual deviant, and a mass murderer. He invented a religion which would allow him to conquer. Islam is nothing more than Arab imperialism.

Now you can argue that I am wrong. and you can quote moderate muslim scholars, and you can quote specific passages from the Koran out of context. But the bottom line is that there is no place in the world where a significant amount of muslims could ever live with non muslims.

Islam is the same as Nazism. I'm sure there were just as many moderate nazis who believed the death camps were just sausage factories.

Bjorn, maybe you can tell me why you think it is reasonable to build nuclear missles and point them at Russia during the cold war. Isn't that preparing for genocide? Sure the Soviets were willing to kill us all. But so are the muslims.

The only difference is that the Russian won't dance around like monkeys when the first Western city is nuked.

Which could be the greater threat to Western values?

Islamist fanatics mostly angered by and attacking governments in their own countries, or Western fanatics willing to sacrifice the very ideas they pretend to be defending and throw the world into an endless circle of blood, irrational hatred and mindless attacks on civilian citizens?

When will white roses be cut?

D,

"Their prophet was a sexual deviant, and a mass murderer. He invented a religion which would allow him to conquer. Islam is nothing more than Arab imperialism."

Bingo.

Yes. And the fact that the Taliban would refer to non-Arab muslims as "low Moslems" reinforces this. Not to mention the atrocities against black African Moslems in Darfur (and quite frankly the rest of North Africa).

I also find it interesting that the way in which Islam is structured (in this case Shia) only the Black Turbans - the Mad Mullahs, can rule over what was Persia. Only the descendents of Mohammed - who would be by definition Arab descendents in the male line can rule over the Persians. What a tragedy.

While there are certainly local exceptions, typically it is Arab descendents who assume poitions of power, if not right away then eventually, with the rest of the now Islamized population little more than "dhimmi Moslems" to their Arab rulers (especially the closer you get to the Arab heartland of Arabia). Afganistan comes to mind.

This is not specific to Wahabbism, for it seems to me that Whahabbism is Islam unmasked. "Moderate" Islam with the resources to become fanatical and expansionist, once again. Chechnya is just another front on Islam's bloody borders.

Øyvind, Bergen

Maybe you can ask the parents of dead children in russia what is the bigger threat?

What western values are you claiming that we are willing to sacrifice by defending ourselves?

Was the western world built on the concept of suicide?

I think you only prove that those who call for restrain are really just people who fail to see the danger we are facing.

There are people out there who have dedicated their lives to destroying us. Every hour of every day they work to build a bigger bomb. To kill more people. The more the better.

The fact that you talk about the danger to "Western values" and not about physical danger just shows how unserious you are about the threat we are facing.

D: "Bjorn, Islam is not a race."

Nobody has mentioned race here. Collective guilt and innocence is not wrong because racism is irrational, but because the right to be treated as an individual is one of the cornerstones of a free society. We can argue for a long time about what rights individual should have in a free society, but the moment you create concepts of collective guilt, you no longer have a free society.

"Their prophet was a sexual deviant, and a mass murderer."

Why is the behavior of a man dead 1400 years relevant to the Western concept of individual rights? You're dragging a lot of things into this that are not relevant. Muhammed was a pervert, Islam is Nazism, whatever. Different debate. Now explain to me why it is right to hold groups accountable for the crimes of individuals?

"Bjorn, maybe you can tell me why you think it is reasonable to build nuclear missles and point them at Russia during the cold war."

You know the logic of MAD as well as I do. The whole point of that logic was that only by being willing and able to carry out mutual destruction, could both sides of the conclict be certain to avoid that destruction. That was a terrible but rational gamble, unique to that conflict and that weapon. You're proposing a different solution to a different conflict. Even if terrorists had nukes, MAD would not work. MAD threatened fairly rational Soviet leaders with destruction of something they cared about - their lives and power. Islamic terrorists are not that rational, and do not care about such things. There's no relevant analogy here.

Sylvia: "Bingo."

No, not bingo. He's changing the subject, from "we should hold all Muslims collectively accountable for terrorism", which is an evil, un-Western idea, to "Islam is Islamism", which is just a descriptive claim, and one which is easier to defend than the first.

"Chechnya is just another front on Islam's bloody borders."

Just? Sure that's the word you're looking for? Yes, it's a front on Islam's bloody borders. It's also a front on Russia's (historically) bloody borders, and a new chapter in the long book of Russian imperialism and cruelty.

D: "Maybe you can ask the parents of dead children in russia what is the bigger threat?"

Oh come on. You're not writing a convention speech here. That's a cheap emotional appeal, irrelevant to the issue.

"What western values are you claiming that we are willing to sacrifice by defending ourselves?"

The concept of individual rights. You want to punish people collectively for terrorism carried out by individuals belonging to what you define as their group. The concept of individual rights tell us that guilt is individual. This does not mean that bombing an enemy target is wrong if civilians may be hurt. Those civilians are not the target, and we don't hold them collectively guilty of any crimes, they're just in the wrong place. The problem begins the moment you introduce the concept of collective guilt, and start handing out collective punishments.

The simple fact of the matter is that terrorists are Baby Killers. The Viet nam vets never earned that name. The monsters who did this to the school have. I don't care what has gone on before, there is NO excuse for this.

Terrorists are baby killers.

You are missing the point Bjorn.
When I was equating Islam with nazism, imperialism and communism, I was making a point about all muslims being our enemy. It's not a different argument at all. Islam is an ideology, an individual choice. They declare themselves our enemy. They shout it out as loud as they can from the towers of their mosques.

When their men come to rape and kill. The women will wait with sacks outside the village to loot whatever is left.

How many times have they bragged about how fast they multiply?

Araft said it himself said that the womb is their greatest weapon.

I'm sure you watched the videos of their summer camps where ten year old children learn how to kill without mercy.

Those are the extremes I admit. But all muslims do their part.

The vast majority of them are more than happy with what happened in Russia. The rest are making excuses or claiming that israel did it.

If you have a problem with killing so many people, then you should make the argument that is better to be conquered, raped, and murdered than to fight back. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who would sign up for that in your country.

I am stunned seeing some hypocrites here cry about some Russian kids hold hostages for 3 days and some of them died but they dont cry about the muslim chechen kids hold hostages for 10 years by the Russian terrorists and thousands of them were killed in their own country ? I found that really sickning.

I found it even more sickning the attempt to blame Islam for what had happened in Russia and not the Russian sadistic terrorism against the Muslim chechens which lasted for more than 10 years !

Look at these pictures, they show the muslim chechens who were massacred in their hundreds of thousands by the Russian terrorists, some of these chechen muslims were childern burnt alive in their own homes

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/chechnya/index.html

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/chechnya/index2.html

Grozny, the capital of Chechnya was leveled to the ground with massive Muslim civilian casulties, are the Russian lives more valuable than muslim ones ? I dont think so.

Look at these pictures from the Muslim captial, Grozny:

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/grozny2.jpg

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/grozny1.jpg

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/grozny4.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/chechnya/images/photo8.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/chechnya/images/photo9.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/chechnya/images/photo10.jpg

Terrorism stems from Terror and violence will only generates more violence. let us remember it was the Russians who invaded Chechnya not the other way around.

Jorma don't be such a hypocrite.
My blood lust is only a result of centuries of attacks on Britian by your blood thirsty race.

you also fail to note that Russian gave up Chechnya after the first war, but only went back in after the muslims continued their aggression.

Give the muslims an inch and they'll take a mile.

This is a pain. Stupid ISP...bloody conversion...I spend two weeks and I can't even get back to some of the websites I enjoy. Rune I've got your e-mail, the last couple I've sent have bounced(thanks to my ISP again!) Grr.

I hope this isn't off topic too much, forgive me if it is. I'll try to answer the question tho.

Bjorn you said:
"Why is the behavior of a man dead 1400 years relevant to the Western concept of individual rights? ?...? Now explain to me why it is right to hold groups accountable for the crimes of individuals?"

It is relevant to this, their belief that this individual and their creator supersedes all western ideals. It's a fundamental aspect and a part of the psychology and reasoning. It is taught that both their prophet and creator are greater then everything, that the Koran is the divine will, that it should be followed to the letter. That the hadiths of Mohammed are divinely inspired and should also be followed. To do otherwise is to make one a non-muslim and to be cast-out. A question that I could never answer is...do secularists believe that?

To the second point, "why it is right to hold groups accountable for the crimes of individuals?"

The groups do not denounce condemn, protest, work against, villify, harass, or humiliate them. We have heard individuals in some cases speak out against them. Scanning the news wires, I've heard the British Muslim council denouced it; but another "radical" group(Al Muhajiroun) supported them and lended their solidarity to them, both are large groups. I haven't heard anything from the Canadian so far, or American. The silence is...so thick you could cut it with a knife. In fact the biggest news today in Canada was the Muslims women group(forget the name) who held a rally against hijab ban in France.

We hear nothing when we learn about the latest kid who tried to blow himself up at a checkpoint in Israel, or was transporting explosives for a "martyr" operation either. The lack of concern for the children of their own religion is well...disconcerting. We've seen a callous disregard for all life by these groups tho, they simply don't care. Old, young, infirm, innocent...it doesn't matter. They delibertly seek out where they can inflict the most horror and do it.

Maybe the newswires are just 'dead' wrong and it's a vast conspiracy in non-reporting. I doubt it tho. I didn't even hear anything from the mosque in any of the major cities near me(Toronto, London, Kitchener, etc). I even checked the papers, the websites and TV stations.

Just to toss it in...the Jews were behind it all.

"Ali Abdullah, a Bahraini religious scholar who follows the ultraconservative Salafi stream of Islam, condemned the school attack as "un-Islamic" but insisted Muslims weren't behind it.

I have no doubt in my mind that this is the work of the Israelis who want to tarnish the image of Muslims and are working alongside Russians who have their own agenda against the Muslims in Chechnya," said Abdullah.

Once more...an individual condemns it...but someone else is behind it.

I'm going to add something else. Stan is translating from Russian newswires over at Logic & Sanity

Far too much to post, read it. 323 dead, 156 children, 260 are still missing. I hate to consider what 'missing' means. Hostages reported that the terrorists raped some of the older students.

When confronted with a rabid dog that has already killed several innocent people, you don't stand around lamenting that the owners failed to give the dog rabies shots! Instead, you kill the dog as quickly and cleanly as possible.

The monster is being raised in its cradle by religious clerics who want the world to run with blood. The monster is still mostly in its crib, but soon it will have the power to destroy millions at a time. There is still time to kill the monster in its cradle. Soon there will be no more time for anyone.

R:

You write like a true "Jacksonian." I wish more people would study the recently popularized idea of "Jacksonian" thought by Walter Russell Mead in "A Special Providence."

I only mention it here, because I've been following the arguments that go back and forth on this and other threads (like the Banning Islam thread). Bjorn is usually outraged when a poster suggests violence. Oyvind finds a lot of hypocrites who don't know enough Islamic history and who aren't consistent in their views over space and time.

What is the answer to dealing with terrorist attacks that are backed by important suppliers like Iran and Saudi Arabia?

I haven't made up my mind as to what actions should be taken in North Ossetia, against Iran, etc. Also, I'm not a military person, so I don't know much about warfare. However, since 9-11, I find that my views have become much more "Jacksonian".

I only mention this because it's worth discussing the uses of violence as well as the importance of understanding root causes, the presence of innocent civilians, the fact that not all Muslims are murderous jihadists, and all the other civilized things that we discuss on this website.

Above post was mine. Sorry.

If a deadly disease is confined to mosquitoes from a particular swamp, it is wise to drain that swamp to deny the deadly mosquitoes the chance to breed, multiply, and continue killing. The solution in the early stage is local.

Once the disease has spread to swamps around the world, and become far more lethal, people will have to come up with both global and local solutions to the problem. The problem is now much more difficult. Immunizations, chemotherapies, insecticides, repellants/nets, in addition to swamp drainings. The human death toll is much higher, for having waited indecisively. You may feel your motivations for waiting were pure, but millions die because of it.

If you know where the disease is centered, you concentrate your efforts there. You do what has to be done to protect the part of the world that is working toward a better future, from those dedicated to wreaking destruction in a bid to recreate a questionable past.

R:

"The human death toll is much higher, for having waited indecisively. You may feel your motivations for waiting were pure, but millions die because of it."

This is my view, as well. I admire Bush's restraint in the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, but I hope there are plans to do serious damage in appropriate places before things get worse and more people die.

Of course, no one can see the future, but it's worth trying to look through the prism of the 1930s. As I recall, 50 million people were killed in World War II. How many millions--including 6 or 8 million Germans--could have been saved if Hitler had never been allowed to march into the Rhineland or dismember Czechoslovakia. (I won't even mention the Jews, since they seem to be on everyone's hit list anyway.)

Many of the people I know who are "antiwar" haven't given much thought to the victims of terrorism. During the Iraq invasion, I was the guest of two "antiwar" people who were so smug in their moral preening that they refused to give one minute of their time to celebrating the fall of Saddam.

Is that "moral purity" or something else?

Totoro: "R: You write like a true "Jacksonian.""

That's not Jacksonianism. Remember the context. Several people above would like to use terrorism against Chechen civilians and other Muslims to discourage Islamic terrorism. In that light, R's proposal that "you kill the dog as quickly and cleanly as possible" becomes a lot more disturbing, and will remain so until he stops using bloodthirsty metaphors and say exactly what he means by killing the rabid dog.

Mashiki: "The groups do not denounce condemn, protest, work against, villify, harass, or humiliate them."

Yes, but remember what kind of group accountability we're talking about here. Muslims have a moral obligation, I believe, to speak out against their own extremists, and they have a moral guilt if they fail to do this. But that should not become a legal guilt or a military guilt, allowing us to deliberately imprison or bomb civilian Muslims simply for not standing up against extremism. I know it sounds hard to believe, but that's actually what people are suggesting here, to fight terrorism with terrorism.

I see more and more "nuke Mecca" suggestions on all the forums I frequent. Being a rather peaceful person myself, I was horrified the first time I heard it. Frankly, I'm not so sure anymore. Nuking Hiroshima was harsh, but the argument that it may have shortened the war should not be dismissed too easily. What it did was breaking the illusion that Japan and the Emperor were "divine" and invincible. It might have something of the same effect on Muslims today. Nuking Mecca would destroy any notions they have about Islam being "unstoppable".

What it boils down to is your view of the world. If your view is that we should avoid a Clash of Civilizations/World War at any cost, this suggestion is horrible. If you, as me, believe we already HAVE a World War, the perspective becomes very different. Millions of people will die, anyway. The point is to WIN. And the longer we delay, the more people will ultimately be killed. Just as in WW2. If war is indeed unavoidable, there's no point in waiting.

Ali is suggesting nuking Mecca ! hmmm how lower can you go ?

''Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all when he lives without law, and without justice. ''
- Aristotle

Ali Dashti: Well that's clever. You argue for dropping nuclear bombs on Mecca not by explaining why we should drop nuclear bombs on Mecca, but by explaining why it was right to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Again, for the record, and because the normal reactions of people who read evil proposals (kill the Jews, massacre Muslims) in a peaceful context is to shrug and say "well they don't really mean that", let's summarize this discussion. So far we have Herbie wanting to terrorize Chechen civilians to discourage Chechen terrorism, we have "D" endorsing what Russia has done in Chechnya and proposing collective punishment of Muslims, Clem Snide implying that we can do almost anything to Chechens because "there is little risk of killing genuinely innocent Muslims", and Ali Dashti here saying that we should nuke Mecca.

There used to be a neo-nazi commenting in this blog. He was an extreme anti-semite, but I don't recall that he ever suggested that we should murder civilian Jews. A few weeks ago, there was an Islamist writing here. He too was an anti-semite, who shared and approved of bin Laden's hatred for the West, but I don't recall that he actually proposed the use of terrorism against Jews and Westerners. That line has been crossed by you four. I'd like to congratulate you with that. It's something I never expected to hear from fellow Westerners within three years of the September 11 attack. There were a lot of people warning in those days against anti-Muslim bigotry and violence. I thought, well it's important to say that, but of course it's mostly for show, because we as a culture have outgrown that.

I've changed my mind. We have not outgrown irrational hatred of foreigners, we have not outgrown terrorism, and we have not outgrown cruelty and authoritarian ideas. The next time Islamist terrorists carry out a major attack against the West, I'll think of you four, and what you would do if you with the press of a button could eradicate the village those terrorists came from, or the holy cities of their religion, and I will join those people who three years ago warned against responding with Islamophobia. They were right, or at least they have become so in the meantime.

Hatred of particular groups becomes rational from time to time. A culture may outgrow such hatred, and then be forced by circumstances to re-acquire the hatred temporarily in order to survive. Then the hatred can go away again, until needed again.

Hatred can be like the body's antibody reaction to a deadly antigen. The antibody isn't needed until the antigen threatens to overwhelm the body's defenses. Then the antibody is lifesaving.

After the body is saved, the antibodies go away, until needed again.

Bjorn's right. You can't claim to be civilized and advocate genocide in the same breath. I'm amazed, reading some blogs, how those 26 or so terrorists have become the entire Chechen people. We don't even know the ethnic composition of the terrorists in the school for sure yet. Arabs have been mentioned but no photos of the dead gunmen have been released. It's also been claimed that other North Caucasians may have been among them and some North Ossetians are pointing the finger at Ingush involvement. If this situation is not handled carefully we might have another outbreak of the war between North Ossetia and Ingushetia which raged in the early 1990s. One thing we can presume is more such chaos and bloodletting in the Caucasus region was just what these terrorists wanted.

I have just read through this thread and I would like to make a few general and some not so general comments.

The thread began with a discussion of the culpability of Islam as a religion in Islamo-fascism. Obviously there is much culpability in that there were ready made tenets that could be co-opted directly to the requirements of terror-masters. In fact, Islam’s only real hope if it is to ever establish itself as a source of something good and enlightening in the tapestry of human history is, in my opinion, to do what it has never done: To open itself to the marketplace of ideas. Islam’s main obstacle in this is its own complete rejection (presently) of the idea that there is no virtue without freedom. But even this can perhaps be overcome, and whether (as D seems to imply), Islam is irredeemably evil, is presently unproven. What we KNOW, is that the Islamists are ruthless and that the ideology they promulgate is nakedly evil. My greater point in this area however, is to address the implication in several posts, the idea that this is really an indictment of religion per se That insidious conceit so often argued by relativists, is a truly sad commentary on what has infected our idea of “progress”. It is a self-satisfying equivalence of the highest order. Marx once declared in an iconic call to address injustice that “Religion is the opiate of the people”. What an ironic deception! Religion has indeed often been the opiate of the people… and so have calls to tear down religion in toto, and calls of a master race, and illusions of “Social Justice”, and the “inevitability of history” and any number of other illusory visions that allowed a ruthless few to subsume the free will of the many. That last Marxist tenet is perhaps the most pernicious of all, and we are still struggling with it. Belief by the many of the inevitability of history as it is envisioned by an elite few, can make it so, but only as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is indeed possible for people to become mere automatons in a “historic” venue… but they must elect to give over their will to permit it, usually through some flavor of hatred disguised as superiority. (Perhaps in the desire to be included in the ranks of “freethinkers” for example.)

On that note I want to express my utter contempt for Clem Snide’s position of nascent genocide. This is as much a face of evil as the position he claims to stand against, and Bjørn rightly confronts it on that level. To me, this shows the pernicious seductiveness of what is often called pragmatism/realpolitik. Essentially, Clem has begun the first critical step that leads to mass madness and genocide: He has taken up dehumanizing his enemies. Obviously, the only way to wipe out an entire swath of humanity for the crime of hatred… is for your own commission of that act to be against non-humans. Our strength in the West is indeed the idea (and Bush by the way often cites it) that every individual is inherently imbued with dignity. It can be co-opted yes, and it can be disdained, and it can be denied… but it can also be redeemed. If this is wrong, then Marx is right, and there will be no bright future in mankind’s destiny. I will not go softly into THAT “good” night!

If the Wests response to the Islamists who have opened the bloody gates of naked nihilism is to declare “How dare you”, and proceed to open our own, then we will hardly be in a position to claim the moral high ground, or indeed anything fine and good at all in the catastrophic wreckage that follows. This is again why we must reassert what has always been that most important strength of the Western free world: The dignity of the individual. Indeed this is why the moral equivalence that says there is no meaningful distinction between this and other "ideologies" (an abuse of that term in this case) is a form of nihilism in itself. It both enables terror and tyranny and, when they manifest themselves in murderous form, gives them succor by acting directly or indirectly as apologist (usually with intellectually artful and convoluted "reasoning") for "root causes"… which invariably are in ourselves.

This is in many ways, rather ironically, the very source of the rage that many here feel over the unfolding saga of this strife. One thing is the understandable anger at the horrendous fact of Islamism's death cultism so reminiscent of Nazism's black heart. But the other is the seeming impossibly obtuse refusal of the "progressive/transnationalist/multiculturalist et al" mind which so dominates the public discourse, to assert any defense of that which has given rise to modern freedom in the first place. The sad truth behind this in my opinion, is that for them to acknowledge there has been, metaphorically speaking, a great big fire burning in the theatre for a long time, would be to acknowledge that their worldview is and always has been fundamentally flawed. It is interesting that in this, the emerging global strife has at last revealed the inherent moral weakness of the "Left" (I use the term loosely because I think it is very deceptive and easily skewed) in that respect. And it is the massive implications on power both politically and socially (metaphysically if you like) of the changes this implies, which is the source of the exploding schism within the West that is occurring at the same time we face Islamic terror.

Regarding Herbie’s position of collective response to mass murder. I do not endorse it for the reasons I stated above. Restated: As simplistic as it may be, if our reaction to the beckoning nullity of this abyss, is to boldly take a few steps closer to it, we have won nothing. If there is no way to win without doing this, then there is little worth fighting for. However, I think that the implication of Herbie’s point that we need to think very carefully about is this: Morally tortuous dilemmas like these have sadly, reached the point where we now need to coolly consider them. If indeed we must disenfranchise this nihilism from its foundation of direct or tacit support in the Islamic world and elsewhere, we must, because of its almost surreal ruthlessness, weigh options heretofore unthinkable… while yet preserving the hope for humanity for us all (including those who seek to destroy us). This is no easy task obviously (and I’m not being coy), and it must NEVER include the murder (for that’s what it would be) of innocents in the name of the murder of other innocents… but it may include things that we would blithely call “warcrimes” in the intellectually indulgent halls of “International Law” today. Indeed, for clarity’s sake we should note also, that it has been the fatuous disconnect from a moral center in those postmodern schools of thought, which are the very source of the nuanced ambiguity that has cast the shadows permitting Islamo-fascism to gain purchase and thrive. Our meaningless posturing was (rightly) seen by the ruthless (who never lack "clarity") as signs of moral weakness. And our continuous appeasement of it (also rightly) as cowardice. There are indeed "root causes" ... and they are mostly found in the empty and infinitely malleable "morality" that has been projected by the West, especially when it comes to Justice (The UN in its present state, perfectly embodies it). It is this which has permitted naked hatred to fester and tyranny to self perpetuate as though both were merely "other" (ho hum) valid forms of "cultural" expression.

So... in the relentless and ubiquitous public imagery of our collective discussion, we have focused our self righteous solipsism against easy targets with twisted and empty indignation (see Israel is committing another holocaust, Bush is the biggest terrorist etc and so on), TRUE atrocities were happening in parts of the world that were altogether too messy to consider. Now the nature of evil is again revealed and we are not going to be able to "move on" from it.

Along those lines I wondered about Jorma’s declared indignation at the atrocities committed in Chechnya by the Russians, which is fine. But what does that sensitivity towards their rage do to address it? Does the history in Chechnya justify what has happened now. And have you considered how slippery is the slope you are on Jorma? Does the bombing of the Taliban in Afghanistan and its liberation/occupation constitute a wrongness that will justify the explosion of murderous nihilism? The same question goes for Iraq. Does the explosion of terrorism there, which is inarguably subject to the machinations of forces outside of Iraq who are the same forces who are the source for this event in Chechnya, mean that the war there is de-facto… wrong? What do we do to address the explosion of murderous nihilism in your world of righteous indignation?

By the way, D’s response to Jorma there… says all I ever need to know about anything D will ever say. There’s a lot of seething hatred in that post. Enough to make a comparative equivalence with Islamo-fasicsm that doesn’t require convoluted reasoning or deconstructive techniques… just common sense. That’s the only worthwhile lesson from the post.

In any case, a very interesting and important discussion. I look forward to reading more.

Cheers,

Kevin

Bjorn you're avoiding the argument.

Why was it right to bomb the japanese because it was thought that it would bring peace sooner and save Allied lives?

What if the Russians made the same calculations in their war in Chechnya? You can argue that their tactics are bad, but you can't argue bombing a village off the face of the earth because they are giving sanctuary to terrorist is any more immoral.

What if countries that gave aid to terrorists were nuked? don't you think that would cut down on terrorism? you say that terrorists are irrational, but most of the people who fund and support them are much clear headed and concerned with earthly things.

you said I was over the top when I said that a poster should ask the russian parents of the dead children what they think is the bigger threat. But I was really being straight forward. I think people who experience this conflict have a clearity of mind that people like you can never have.

It's unfair of you to compare us to nazis or islamists. None of us ever cared to conquer or convert by force. This war is against us. We are only defending ourselves.

I would really like to hear what policies you would support in this war.

What would you think would be the right thing to if nuclear bomb was set off in a major western city. millions are dead. A muslim terrorist group anounced that it was responisble a few hours before it went off. The terrorists themselves were vaporized too, along with any evidence of where the bomb came from. All the muslims around the world dance in the streets. The governments denie any knowledge.

What would you have us do then? What would be the moral thing to do? I'm very curious.

Personnaly I prefer to be preemptive.

Kevin

What part of my response to Jorma did you find so hate filled?

You do realize that I wasn't being serious in the first paragraph right? right?

D: "Why was it right to bomb the japanese because it was thought that it would bring peace sooner and save Allied lives?"

You're assuming it was right. I only assume that it happened, I have not decided if it was right. I do know why many say it was right, though. They say Japan was prepared to fight for every inch of territory, and that it was better to kill 50-100 000 in a few bombing raids (including with nukes) if it could save many American lives and many more Japanese lives by convincing them to give up. That argument does not apply here, for reasons that should be obvious. The war we're supposedly fighting is abstract and non-territorial - we can't even agree on who the enemy is. There's no clear goal that would signify victory, and no particular behavior it would be realistic to expect our enemy to follow after, say, us having nuked Mecca. Do I have to go on? I can't see any similarities here. You're bringing Japan into this because you like the (more or less agreed upon) conclusion of the Japanese dilemma: That it was right to kill several hundred thousand civilians. Aha, so it's right in this case as well! No it's not. If it was right in Japan, it was right for a specific reason, which does not apply here. At least you haven't made any argument that it does.

"What if the Russians made the same calculations in their war in Chechnya?"

They don't. The Russian army is corrupt, greedy, cruel and out of control. Putin is an authoritarian crook. Do you know anything about what's going on there?

"you said I was over the top when I said that a poster should ask the russian parents of the dead children what they think is the bigger threat."

No I said it was an irrelevant emotional appeal. You're trying to bypass rational debate about your ideas by playing on sympathy for hundreds of dead Russian children. I refuse to follow along. We're talking about murder of Muslim civilians to discourage terrorism. What those Russian parents think about that is irrelevant - it's not an argument for if they agree, or against if they don't. And what if some agree with you and others don't? Maybe we should hold a vote. Or maybe you're right or wrong independently of who supports you.

"It's unfair of you to compare us to nazis or islamists."

I just pointed out that, unlike Nazi's and Islamists who have commented in this blog, you're openly advocating the murder of innocent civilians. That's a fact. If you don't like the company that puts you in, that's not my problem.

"What would you have us do then?"

You speak as if "us" are the majority and I'm the skeptical outsider. But you're on the fringe here. You don't have anyone in the American government with you, nor any major politicians in any Western country I know of. I don't know what we should do when that happens. I do know it would be evil and counterproductive to nuke Mecca, round up and execute Muslim civilians, or whatever. And even more so to do it preemptively. You're just going to have to find a solution that doesn't turn is into barbarians and terrorists. I'm kind of picky that way.

Bjorn your still avoiding my argument.
You said it would be counter productive to nuke meca or round up muslim civilians and maybe your right.
Is our argument all about tactics?
YOu say that it may have been right to bomb japan if it could save more lives.
What if bombing meca would save more lives?

I am not arguing that we should kill all muslims because I hate muslims or because I want revenge. I'm not even arguing that we should kill all muslims at all. All I am saying is that we should start looking at Islam as the enemy, and that means all muslims are our enemy. In the same way that all soviets and all nazis are our enemy. and we should do whatever it takes to defend ourselves.

Maybe our all disagreement is about how much danger we are in.

And if we only disagree about tactics then you shouldn't bring morality into the discussion.

D,

No I didn't realize you were joking. I guess thats completely my bad. But I am going to inject that the extenuating circumstances are in my reading of some of the points you have made.

It is good to learn from history and include it in your calculations. It is on the other hand, HORRIBLY bad to deconstruct history, parse convenient slices, and then produce metaphors that can dress even the most atrocious meanderings in a positive light(whether the vehicle is a supposed realpolitik perspective, and/or a cold rationalist perspective, or whatever... matters little).

We are at war, yes. It is a new kind of war, yes. Our enemy however, is not inclusive of everyone who these ruthless men claim to represent, any more than the French in toto are responsible for Pol Pot... (although for my part, I'd actually be happier having a debate attempting to explore the nature of THAT connection more clearly :-))

You seem to think that clarity denotes ruthlessness and reason implies heartlessness. For more reasons than I could count, and in the name of anything beautiful and true... I disagree and implore you to think carefully on where the world came from. It is not the way it is by happenstance. We have ALL been involved in making it thus.

If that seems a bit melodramatic, so be it... we live in interesting times and it is called for.

Still... as per your comment that I misjudged... my apologies.

KM

PS Bjørn. Just for the record, and I'll probably irk you with this... but like it or not, you are a Christian philosophically... and thats a good thing even when (and sometimes actually BECAUSE) "Faith" is not inclusive of it. I may digress here, but I am keeping it in the thread somewhat by wanting to point out that you have not donned the seductive garb of secular humanism ala the "Brights" et al, and that is to your credit. That particular nascent ideology is as intolerant intellectually as anything one can find in history, so I chafe at it.

I'm just noting that you should have it clear in your mind, how much in the way of philosophical truths which have been explored in depth in Christian philosophy you (and the best of Western Civilisation) owe to that body of beliefs. In fact, I'm a big advocate of defining the US political foundation in terms of Judeo-Christian... and not just because it tends to piss off "progressive thinkers"(that's just a bonus).

I say this by the way, as someone for whom "Faith" has always been problematic due to the simple fact that I have never met God and cannot ascertain whether the universe is His artifact, or a random flux. Yet... I know a dogma when I see it. And I figure I can tell the difference between good and evil nine times out of ten, given half a chance to look, before someone "sophisticates" it.

Just thought I'd mention that. Don't know why exactly.

Bjørn:

I have not advocated the genocide of civilians. That's what Islam does, both the Koran and the sunna of Muhammed. First of all, no politician in the West would ever use a nuke until we are hit first, for instance by an Islamic terrorist attack.

Second: I talk about Mecca because I am trying to figure out ways to minimize civilian casualties on both sides in this World War. And it IS a WW. My enemy isn't "Muslims", it is ISLAM. If I considered everybody born in Muslim countries my enemies, that would include Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, wouldn't it? Ali Sina advocates intensive education of Muslims as the cure. I support that, and I believe it can work on many. But not everybody. We cannot win this war by pacifism alone.

Pakistanis or Arabs are not born evil, any more than you or I. ISLAM, however, is evil. We didn't fight WW2 to get rid of Germans, or the Cold War to get rid of Russians. We fought them to break aggressive, totalitarian IDEOLOGIES. By taking out Mecca, perhaps you could force all those hundreds of millions of Muslims to think that Islam isn't "God's plan", it isn't divine, it isn't invincible. And it isn't right. If this could be achieved, it could save millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of lives, both ours and theirs. If possible, the city itself could have been evacuated in advance. I'm not looking to kill ANYBODY, I'm looking for ways to break the attraction of Islam. You still think I'm crazy, but I truly and honestly believe Islam is even worse than Nazism. And I want it to kill as few people as possible before it disappears. That's my one and only motivation.

Islam may not be evil, but it is certainly intolerant. And Islamic intolerance is the father of much of the evil in the world. Islamism is one example of distilled Islamic intolerance. Christianity had its eras of brutal intolerance, but unlike Islam's sins, those sins of Christianity are centuries old.

If Islamic intolerance and ambition acquires the nuclear weapon, the world will suffer as never before. All moral posturing and sensitivity will avail nothing.

And then, Bjorn, the hatred and violence of your Viking ancestors will be unleashed. Like the latent violence of the Celts, the Goths, the Franks, the Huns, and the Slavs. The latent violence of the European tribes is there, is always there. It will only come out if those in charge are too foolish to take care of the business at hand, before it runs out of control.

Ali Dashti,

I meant to address your post earlier. I just want to say that I don't necessarily disagree with you. In the last two years I've spent a lot of time going through a variety of analyses and commentaries in Islam including reading the Koran at least once in toto, and a lot of it several times. I've come to the conclusion first of all that comparisons that assert the equivalence of the Koran and the Bible for example are almost beyond absurd. Reading the Bible through and through can at times be startling, but the built in "safety" mechanism, especially in the Old testament is that it is in a larger context to which the disturbing parts are set against. Reading the Koran however is often deeply shocking with the add on effect that it is the overall context which is the most dosturbing of all. One begins to latch onto the occasional assertions of Truth and Beauty in the language tightly... because they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Others can argue this, but I think that most of the arguments that have occurred in the public discourse, have played on the ignorance of people, because I have seen positions taken that can only be considered deliberate mendacity there. There are serious problems with the socializing influences of the Koran, that make many of the internally conflicted and occasionally breathtaking actions among large groups of Muslims make "sense".

However... is it irredeemably evil? I'm not at all sure. Some have said that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I'm not sure if thats possible... I have my doubts, but I would be pleased if it seemed to begin to happen. Others have said it has been twisted and distorted by Islamofascists who "hijacked" the religion. Frankly I'm not sure that is much the case either.

Ultimately though... I agree heartily with your position that we must truly begin to look at Islam and the Muslim world OPENLY and without reservation or caveat, especially when it comes to connections with terror and tyranny. This we have not done, in no small part due to the illusory and effete conformity of political correctness as defined by the multicult. We do a dis-service to ourselves and we demean Muslims as human beings in that endeavor. We can pretend this is "respect", but it is disdain at its core and little different in effect (in that it perpetuates barriers and ignorance) from the colonialist attitudes it smarmily decries.

on the muke nekka subject, i remember in the days after 9/11 this was a subject on afghanistan. we didnt use WMD so that was a moot subject. now we are faced with iran getting nukes [if they dont have them already] now iran funds supports aids and assists hezbollah and hamas so therefore when iran achievs building these things they will be essentially in the hands of two of the top three islamic terror groups. now the problem is when one or more of these devices are detonated in the US, britain, france, germany, or israel what will be the response? also remember iran will claim its a small group of extremists that stole the weapon [which will be another lie]how will we respond? will we respond and tear out the black heart of arab imperialism [mecca] or will we cower like good little dihmmi's? ive noticed after every one of these atrocities committed in the name of allah [not my god]more and more people are moving towards the jacksonian type of thought. as for what happened in russia i commented to someone that the locals were hunting the escaped terrorists with there deer rifles. not one person said that those citezans were wrong in hunting them down and killing them. this is a change from a year or two ago when many would have gone for trial and imprisonment.

just my 2 cents

Hi.

Bjørn, If what I'm about to do is a faux pas in discussion thread, then feel free to remonstrate me, but I just happened to hop over to The Corner and immediately came upon two posts by Andrew Stuttaford in a row that would be extremely poignant here.

To Wit:

FROM AL-ARABIYA [Andrew Stuttaford]

“It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims... We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women. We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the Sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people’s sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleagues.”

Meanwhile, here in Britain the Sunday Telegraph is reporting that “an Islamic cleric has announced that he would support hostage-taking in British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.”

Posted at 01:13 PM

BESLAN [Andrew Stuttaford]

Nothing can ever excuse the horrors of the Beslan massacre or the guilt of the revolting butchers who carried it out, but we will, doubtless, be hearing a lot from some sources about how the Russians at least partly brought this massacre on their own heads by their terrible mistreatment of the Chechens over the years.

It is, of course, certainly true that imperial Russian and, far more so, Soviet treatment of the Chechens was disgusting and, during the 1940s, frankly genocidal. Adding to the misery, the brutality of the wars waged by Yeltsin and Putin against their Chechen opposition has, at times, been staggering. Nevertheless, we should be careful about the extent to which Moscow can be blamed for the current nightmare. Russia did offer Chechnya independence in all but name in the mid-1990s. The result was the creation of a slum statelet that combined religious bigotry, military adventurism and aggressive banditry in roughly equal measures.

It’s also worth noting that the guerillas now in the vanguard of the resistance to Moscow want far more than independence for their own country. As this piece from the Sunday Telegraph explains, the objectives of their leader, Shamil Basayev, now include the establishment of an Islamic emirate across a wide swathe of the northern Caucasus.

And is there evidence that these guerillas gets at least some funding from sources linked to the cesspit ‘kingdom’ now known as Saudi Arabia?

Well, what do you think?

Isnt sign of intellectual bankruptcy to attack Islam and its great prophet and demonise it the way some posters do like Ali for example ? I mean it is easy to describe Islam as evil but I am sure if you conduct serious debate with any muslim you will lose it very easily.

Islam's history is filled with great examples of immense tolerance toward the others, this fallacy that Islam is intolerant cant stand the test of reality on the ground and indeed the history of Islam itself, I remember before converting to Islam watching a BBC documentry about Salahuddi Al Ayoubi ( Saladin as we call him in the west )and the amazing tolerance he showed toward the christian crusaders who invaded the Muslim levant killing hundreds of thousands of muslims. After defeating them in the battle of Hitin in 1088 AD, the Christians of Jerusalem feard for their lives because 88 years earlier the Christian crusaders massacred 70,000 muslims when they entered Jerusalem, but the great muslim hero did not touch any single christian, he even asked his commanders to look after them and to treat them well based on the teachings of Islam.

Muslim Spain ( 711-1492 AD ) is another shining example of unheard before tolerance granted by Muslims to the others who have different faith.
Indeed, Jews who were burnt alive at that time in Europe found refuge in Muslim Spain and made it to the highest ranks of the muslim state, many of them became wizir ( prime minister ) and many of them ran the state financial affairs.

It is wel known fact that the muslim armies never reach Indonesia which now has the largest muslim population, can someone tell me how Islam spread there ? the same applies to Malaysia and western China.

History tells us about the Moghuls, a barbaric tribes from Asia who in the 12th century swept accros the Muslim world destroying Baghdad, the capital of the Muslim empire, burning everything in their way, they had immense military power that if they wished they could have converted all muslims by force into paganism, but what happened is really unique ! for the first time in the history of all mankind an invading force so superior in its military power embraces and converts to the religion of the invaded nations, indeed the Moghuls converted to Islam and after they used to pile skulls as towers, Islam civilized them and they started building schools and hospitals, mosques and gardens and so they took Islam with them to spread in Asia Minor.

The same with the Turks, they were pagan tribes roaming the plains of Asia and they too embraced Islam and later formed the magnificent Ottoman empire.

Thousands of ancient churches and synagouges and indeed pagan temples are still standing in the Middle East, I have seen so many by myself, if Islam was so intolerant, how come all these non muslim buildings survived the rule of Islam for 1400 years ?

Ambassador Herman Ellis, in a testimony in front of the committee on Foreign Affirs of the House of Represntatives of the United States Congress on June 24th, 1985, said, "The Muslim community of the globe today is in the neighbourhood of one billion. That is an impressive figure. But what to me is equally impressive is that Islam today is the fastest growing monotheistic religion. This is something we have to take into account. Something is right about Islam. It is attracting a good many people."

Yes, something is right about Islam and that's why it has attracted so many people throughout its 1400 years of history including me.

This is interesting discussion. I am only a construction worker, far away from home. But I worry about the changes brought by muslims when they come to countries that are not muslim. I don't see respect for their new country, only for the old ways that have made their old countries unlivable. I think the prisons in my home country will soon be full of muslims.

I think the Hispanic immigrants who live in America would love to hear what Philippe said but 'en Espanol por vapor ' ?

Hello, Muslim. Yes please, tell us about your great Profet. Allow me to begin:

the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (milch) camels and told them to go out and drink the camels’ urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the camel herder and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought to the Prophet before midday. He ordered their hands and legs to be cut off and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water.

And this:

The Murder of Asma bt. Marwan at Medina by Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi —March, 624CE

Immediately after his return from the victory at Badr, Muhammad felt strong enough to put a halt to his critics who were displeased that his arrival at Medina, along with his horde of marauding Jihadists, had caused fear and serious divisions among the Medinites. During those days, the most successful method of hurling epithets and criticisms at opponents was through poems. Therefore, poets in those days were what journalists are today. One such poetess was Asma bint Marwan. She belonged to the B. Aws and did not hide her dislike for Islam. After the Badr war she composed some satirical poems. The verses spread from mouth to mouth and finally reached the ears of the Muslims and they were greatly offended. Muhammad could not endure satire or vituperation.2 Therefore, an incensed Muhammad decided that it was time to get rid of her.

In his mosque, at night, Muhammad sought a volunteer to assassinate Asma bt. Marwan. A blind man, Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi, belonging to the same tribe as Asma’s husband (ie Banu Khatma) stood up to complete the job. In the dead of night he crept into her apartment. Her little children then surrounded Asma while she slept. Hugging her bosom was her infant, suckling her breast. The blind man, feeling stealthily with his hand, removed the infant from her breast and plunged his sword in her belly with such a force that it passed through her back. This severe blow killed Asma on the spot. It was just five days prior to the end of the month of the sacred month of fasting, Ramadan, when Muslims are not supposed to shed blood.3

The morning after murdering Asma, the killer Umayr went to pray in the mosque while Muhammad was there. Muhammad was quite anxious to learn if the mission of Umayr was a success or not. He said to Umayr the killer, “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?” Commenting on this Ibn S’ad 4 writes, “This was the word that was first heard from the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him.” When Umayr replied that the job had been carried out with success, Muhammad said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O ‘Umayr!’ When Umayr asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences, the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her.”5 Muhammad then praised Umayr in front of all gathered for prayer for his act of murder, and Umayr went back to his people. (Note: Some biographers suggest that Omayr was Asma’s former husband). Five days later, the Muslims celebrated the first Eid (the end of fasting)!

When Omayr, the killer returned to Upper Medina, he passed the sons of Asma who were burying their slain mother. They accused Umayr of murdering their mother. Without hesitation, Umayr admitted the accusation boastfully and threatened to kill the whole family if they dared to repeat the satires their mother had composed deriding the Prophet of mercy. This threat of terror worked wonderfully. The entire tribe of Asma’s husband (i.e., Banu Khatma) who secretly hated Islam, now openly professed their adherence just to save their lives. Ibn Ishak writes, ‘That was the first day that Islam became powerful among B. Khatma. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.’6

Muhammad and his followers were now convinced that terror, plunder, political murder do indeed work for Islam.

Terror Eleven

The Murder of Abu Afak at Medina by Salim b. ‘Umayr—April, 624CE

Abu Afak, a Jew of Medina was a very old man, about 120 years old. He was active in the opposition of Muhammad’s religion. He too, composed some satirical verses that annoyed the Muslims. One month after his victory at Badr, Muhammad showed his limit of tolerance to his intellectual opposition by expressing his wish to eliminate this old man. At his mosque, the apostle of Allah sought the service of a volunteer killer saying, ‘Who will deal with this rascal for me?’7 A convert by the name of Salim b.‘Umayr, brother of B. ‘Amr b.’Auf from the B. Amr tribe came forward to do the job. He killed Abu Afak with one blow of his sword when the latter slept outside his house. (Some say that Abu Afak was murdered first, then Asma). Ibn S’ad describes this gruesome murder in this way:

“He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim b. ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed him, took him to his house and interred him.”8

and this:

The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet married Ayesha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

We don't need to argue about history to know that islam is evil. Just turn on the news.

Islam is evil but not always violent. Islam is above all other things cynical. Sometimes making peace is better when you are weak, so you can rape and kill when you grow stronger. This is where "moderate" muslims come in.

Hi Ali:

I noticed you did not quote a single verse from the Holy Quran, you only quoted some fake hadiths and stories, cant you see how weak your argument is ?

Here are some 'Authentic' hadiths that I am sure you will not be able to even look at because they expose your prejudice and your unjustified hate against Islam:

The great prophet Muhammad (pbuh ) said:

''He who believes in God and the Last Day should honour his guest, should not harm his neighbour, should speak good or keep quiet." (Bukhari, Muslim)

"Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari)

"He who hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his adversary, and I shall be his adversary on the Day of a Judgement." (Bukhari)

"Beware on the Day of Judgement; I shall mysefl be complainant against him who wrongs a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him." (Al-Mawardi)

"Anyone who kills a Non-Muslim who had become our ally will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." (Bukhari)

More:

(1). 'A'isha said that the prophet Muhammad said : "The deeds most loved by Allah swt (are those) done regularly, even if they are small". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(2). 'Abdullah b. Umar said that prophet Muhammad said : "The muslim is he from whose tongue and hand a Muslim is safe, and the muhajir he who gives up what Allah has prohibited for him ". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(3). Abu Hurairah said that Prophet Muhammad said : "Beware of envy, for envy devours good (deeds) like fire devours firewood". (Abu Dawud)

(4). Jabir b. Abdullah said that prophet Muhammad said : "Allah is not merciful to whim who is not merciful to people ". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(5). Abdullah b. Umar said that prophet Muhammad said :"The Merciful One shows mercy to those who are themselves merciful (to others). So show mercy to whatever is on earth, then He who is in heaven will show mercy to you " (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)

(6). From Abu Hurairah : Prophet Muhammad said : "He who does not thank people, does not thank Allah". (Ahmad, Tirmidhi)

(7). From Anas : prophet Muhammad said : "By Him in whose hand is my soul, a servant (of Allah) does not believe (truly) until he likes for his brother what he likes for himself ". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(8 ). From al-Miqdam b. Ma'dikarib : prophet Muhammad said : " When a man loves his brother he should tell him that he loves him " (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)

(9). From Abu Ayyub al-Anshari : Prophet Muhammad said : " It is not right for a man to abandon his brother for more than three days". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(10).Jabir said that Rasulullah saw ( prophet Muhammad ) said : " If one makes excuses to his brother, but he does not excuse him, or accept his apology, he is as sinful as one who takes an unjust tax " (Baihaqi)

(11).From Abu Hurairah : Rasulullah saw said : " The strong man is not the one who is strong in wrestling, but the one who controls himself in anger " (Bukhari, Muslim)

(12).Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn Ali b. Abu Talib said : I preserved the following words from Rasulullah saw : "Leave what you have doubt about for that you have no doubt about; for it is truth that brings peace of mind and it is falsehood that brings doubt". (Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i)

(13).Abu Yahya Suhaib b. Sinan said that Rasulullah saw said : " Wondrous are the believer's affairs. For him there is good in all his affairs, and this is so only for the believer. When something pleasing happens to him, he is grateful, and that is good for him; and when something displeasing happens to him, he is enduring (sabar), and that is good for him " (Muslim)

(14).From Uthman ra : Rasulullah saw said : "The best of you is he who has learnt the Qur'an and then taught it " (Bukhari)

(15).Ibn Umar ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "Each of you is a guardian, and each of you will be asked about your guardian- ship. The leader is a guardian, and the man is a guardian over the people of his house, and the woman is a guardian over her husband's house and children. So each of you is a guardian, and each of you will be asked about your guardianship". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(16).Abdullah b. Amr b. al-As ra said that Rasulullah saw never used obscene talk nor did he listen to it. (Bukhari, Muslim)

(17).On the authority of Abu Hurayrah ra, who said that Rasulullahsaw said : Allah swt said : "Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servants draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religous duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servantcontinues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him, I am his hearing with with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask (something) of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about (seizing) the soul of My faithful servant : he hates death and I hate hurting him " (Bukhari, hadist qudsi )

(18 ).From Anas : Rasulullah saw said : " Make thing easy, and do not e make them difficult, and give good tidings and do not make people ay " run away (Bukhari)

(19).From Abu Mas'ud al-Badri : Rasulullah saw said : " When a man spends to support his famili hoping (for Allah's reward) it is counted for him as sadaqah " (Bukhari, Muslim)

(20).From Amr b. Shu'aib, from his father, from his grandfather : Rasulullah saw said : "He is not of us who has no compassion for r our little ones and does not honour our old ones " (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)

(21).On the authority of Abu Hurairah ra, who said that Rasulullah saw said : Allah swt said : " I am as My servant thinks I am. I am with him when he makes mention of Me. If he makes mention of Me to himself, I make mention of him to Myself. And if he makes mention of Me in an assembly, I make mention of him in an assembly better than it. And if he draws near to Me a hand's span, I draw near to him an arm's length. And if he draws near to Me an arm's length, I draw near to him a fathom's length. And if he comes to Me walking, I go to him at speed " (Hadist Qudsi: Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah)

(22). Ibn 'Umar ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "Do not talk for long without remembering Allah swt, for talking much without remembering Allah swt is hardness of the heart. The most distant among man from Allah swt is one with a hardened heart". (Tirmidhi)

(23). From 'Iyad b. Himar al-Mujashi'i ra : Rasulullah saw said : Allah swt has revealed to me : "You should be humble so that no one boasts over his neighbour nor anyone oppresses his neighbour " (Muslim)

(24). From Bahz b. Hakim ra, from his father, from his grandfather : Rasulullah saw said: "Woe to him who tells lies to make people laugh -- Woe to him -- Woe to him " (Ahmad, Tirmidhi)

(25). From Abdullah bin Mas'ud ra : Rasulullah saw said " Try to earn a lawful livelihood is (also) an obligation like the other obligation (in Islam) ". (Baihaqi)

(26). Abu Abdullah, who was called Abd al-Rahman Thaubah b Yujdud , the maula of Rasulullah saw said : Rasulullah saw said : " The best dinar a man spends is the dinar he spends on his family, and the dinar he spends on his riding beast in the path of Allah swt, and the dinar he spends on his companions in the path of Allah swt ". (Muslim)

(27). On the authority of Abu Said ra, who said that Rasulullah saw said : " Let not any one of you belittle himself. They said : O Rasulullah saw, how can any one of us belittle himself ? He (Rasulullah) said : He finds a matter concerning Allah swt about which he should say something, and he does not say (it), so Allah swt says to him on the Day of Resurrection : What prevented you from saying something about such-and-such ? He says : (It was) out of fear of people. Then Allah swt says : Rather it is I whom you should more properly fear " (Hadist Qudsi, related by Ibn Majah with a sound chain of authorities)

(28 ). On the authority of Abu Hurayrah ra, who siad that Rasulullah saw said : Allah swt said : " Spend (i.e. on charity), O son of Adam, and I shall spend on you " (Hadist Qudsi, related by Bukhari and Muslim)

(29). From Ibn Umar ra : Rasulullah saw said : "The muslim who meets with people and endures any harm they may do is better than he who does not mix with them and does not endure any harm they may do". (Tirmidhi)

(30). From Sufyan b. Asad al-Hadrami ra : I heard Rasulullah saw say : " It is a great treachery that you tell your brother something he accepts as truth from you, but you are lying" (Abu Dawud)

(31). Abdullah b. Amr ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "There are four traits; he who has all of them is a certain hypocrite and has one of them has some hypocrisy, until he gets rid of it : when being given a trust, he betrays; when he speaks, he lies; when he promises (something), he breaks it; and when he quarrels he commits excesses" (Bukhari)

(32). Ibn Mas'ud ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "Abusing a Muslim is sinful, and fighting (making war, qital) with him is (tantamount to) kufr." (Bukhari, Muslim)

(33). Abu Hurairah ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "Beware ofsuspicion, for suspicion is the greatest falsehood. Do not try to find fault with each other, do not spy on one another, do not vie with one another, do not envy one another, do not be angry with one another, do not turn away from one another, and be servants of Allah, brothers to one another, as you have been enjoined. A Muslim is the brother of a muslim, he does him no wrong, nor does he let him down, nor does he despise him. Fear of God is here, fear of God is here, and he pointed to his chest. It is evil enough thata Muslim should look down on his brother. For every muslim is sacred to one another : his blood, his honour, and his property. Allah does not look at your bodies or your forms, or your deeds, but He looks at your hearts". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(34) Abu Musa ra said that prophet muhammad saw said : "Visit the sick, feed the hungry and free the captives". (Bukhari)

(35) From Abu Hurairah ra : Rasulullah saw said :"One who visits a sick person, or visits a brother of his for the sake of Allah swt, a caller calls him (saying) :"May you be well, and may your passage be well, and may you occupy a place in paradise " (Tirmidhi)

(36) Muadh b. Jabal ra said that he heardRasulullah saw say : Allah swt said : "My love is due to those who love each other for my sake, who sit with each other for my sake, who visit one another for my sake, who spend on each other for my sake" ( Malik )

(37) Abu Musa al-Ashari ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "Permission to enter is to be asked three times. If permission is given to you, then enter, otherwise leave" (Bukhari, Muslim)

(38 ) Abu Dzar ra goes on saying that he asked for more advice. Rasulullah saw advised that he should cultivate fear of Allah swt, because it is the root and basis of all spiritual actions.
Abu Dzar ra then begged for more advice. Rasulullah sawsaid : "Be consistent in recitation of Al-Qur'an and remembrance of Allah, because it is 'nur' in this world and 'zakhirah' in the heaven.
Abu Dzar ra again sought further advice and was told : "Abstain from too much of laughter, because it causes the heart to wither, and the faceloses its lustre".
Abu Dzar ra sought further advice, whereupon Rasulullah saw said : "Stick to jihad, because this is the 'ruhbaniat' (monasticism) for my ummah.
Abu Dzar ra asked for more advice, and Rasulullah saw said : "Associate yourself with the poor and the needy, be friendly with them and sit in their company".
When Abu Dzar ra requested further advice, Rasulullah saw said : " Look towards those who rank below you, so that you may get used of being thankful, and do not look at those who rank above you lest you should despise the favours of Allah swt upon you ".
When Abu Dzar ra again asked for more advice, Rasulullah saw said : "Let your own faults prevent you from criticizing others and do not try to find fault with others, because you commit those faults yourself. It is enough to prove you guilty that you should find in others such faults as you yourself posess, though you may not be aware of them, and that you should find in others such misdeeds as you yourself commit".
After this Rasulullah saw patted the chest of Abu Dzar ra with his loving hand and said : "O, Abu Dzar, there is no wisdom better than prudence, nor any piety better than refraining from the unlawful, nor any nobility better than polite manners" (Narrated by Ibn Hibban)

(39) It has been narrated on the authority of the authority of 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As ra that Rasulullah saw said : "The world is but a provision and the best provision of the world is a pious and virtous woman ". (Muslim)

(40) It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah ra that he heard the prophet saw as saying : "The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character, and the best of you are those who are best to their wives". (Tirmidhi)

(41) It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Umar ra that Rasulullah saw said : "All of you are guardians and are respon- sible for your wards. The ruler is a guardian of his subjects and the man is a guardian of his family, the lady is a guardian and is responsible for her husband's house and his offspring; and so all of you are guardians and responsible for your wards". (Muttafaquun 'alayh)

And here are some verses from the Holy Quran that show the true merciful nature of Islam, I hope you can comment on them:

The Noble Quran:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion , for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you).

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them.

4:79, 80 (Say to everyone of them,) 'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have (O Prophet) sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 (Noah to his people) He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If 1 act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°

17:53, 54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith.

21:107 to 109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour (of Judgment) is near or far."

22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites (of prayer) which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord (since that is the main objective of religion). You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, (then say,) `God best knows (the value of) what you do."

88:21, 22; also see 24:54 And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the (task of spreading) Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every (false) religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

36:16, 17 (Three Messengers to their people)Said (the Messengers), "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

42:6, 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

67:25, 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

60:9 Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

Also Ali, I noticed you did not comment on the various examples I provided about Muslim tolerance throughout history, is it your habit just to copy and paste from anti muslim hate sites and then disappear ?

It might very well be the case that dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in the end saved lives. In hindsight, we know that the Japanese regime surrendered and that Japanese militarism/imperialism ceased to be a force. That's in hindsight; we don't know for sure whether that might not have happened without the use of nuclear bombs and whether another course of action would have cost more lives. But there are arguments supporting that theory. Even so, this is perhaps less relevant in judging the MORAL value of the US decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. Can you judge the moral value of an action just by looking at its end result? When deciding to nuke Japan, the Americans did not know, and could not know, what would be the end result. And was the cost of lives the only factor taken into account when the Americans made their decision? Is it not conceivable that other motives (eg testing new technology) might have played a part? Even if you accept that the use of nukes in this context ultimately saved many lives (which there are good reasons to say it did), that does not mean that it was the MORALLY right thing to do. (Even an action performed with the most evil of intentions might sometimes have a positive end result and vice versa).

I'd actually say that the Japanese case and WW2 has some relevance also in this discussion, because in both cases we're dealing with ideologies (Japanese militarism/nazism/Islamic fundamentalism) and how to defeat them. The historian Andrew Roberts, in a book where he compares Hitler and Churchill as war leaders, makes a good case that allied governments were right in not supporting the failed assassination attempt on Hitler in 1944. A new German leadership, and some sort of settlement with the Allies, would have enabled a new "stab in the back" legend like in 1918 to spread among the Germans. Instead, what was needed was to inflict a total and final defeat on Nazism and German militarism. Although I dont know what were the actual reasons why the Allies didn't want to support the coup attempt, in hindsight they were proved right in so far as German militarism is dead and buried. You can also see the bombing of German cities in this context: the objective was not just to defeat Germany militarily, but to defeat an ideology: German militarism, to say to the German population: this is what happens to you if you let yourselves be seduced by genocidal maniacs.

So maybe you can argue that mass murder of civilians can in some cases save the lives of an even larger number of people, especially when you're dealing with murderuous ideologies. Still that doesn't justify it morally. If you say that the US were justified in using nuclear bombs against Japan, then you also say that the use of nuclear bombs is an option which must be considered among other options. So why not against Mecca as well, if you can argue that that might put an end once and for all to Islamism?

I think it's more consistent to say that targeting civilians is ALWAYS morally wrong. This position has nothing to do with pacifism. War without civilian casualties is of course impossible; bringing down Saddam cost lives of innocent people too, still it was the right thing to do. But specifically targeting civilians is something different altogether; I dont think there is any word for it but terrorism. Israel target terrorists and sometimes kill civilians; Hamas goes after civilians and blows up night clubs and buses. The first isn't terrorism, the second is. I am very grateful to the US for having liberated Europe from Nazism and for having protected us against communism, but Hiroshima/Nagasaki (as well as the large scale bombing of Dresden and other German cities) is something I find very hard to defend, morally.

And yes, I know that if Al Qaida got their hands on nuclear weapons, moral considerations would be the last thing on their mind. Still unlike them, we can't afford ourselves the luxury of disregaring ethical aspects, for the reason that we are defending morally superior values (Western civilisation and liberal democracy).

Of course, nuking Mecca would probably be disastruous realpolitik as well…

Ex-christian,

It's interesting that converting to islam has filled whatever emptiness you had in your life.

It's too bad that Islam does not allow muslims the same right to convert to another religion without being marked for death.

Do you find the promise of naked women chained to rocks in the afterlife appealing? Is that the big mystery of the universe? Is this what christians mean when they ramble on about the love of God?

So many talk about "morality" on this blog, but so few talk about how to stop the terrorist activity. Any thoughts, anyone?

How can a repeat of the Beslan horror be prevented?

[i]Essentially, Clem has begun the first critical step that leads to mass madness and genocide: He has taken up dehumanizing his enemies. Obviously, the only way to wipe out an entire swath of humanity for the crime of hatred… is for your own commission of that act to be against non-humans.[/i]

Kevin I enjoyed your posts but disagree that people of the west cannot wear both hats, one of tolerance and one of hatred.

Americans during WW2 portrayed the Japanese as bucktoothed - slant eye'd - yellow bellies. Germans were presented as bullwhip weilding - monocle wearing - thugs and murderers.

While the stigma/propaganda of the slant eye'd Jap remained in American for many years, we as Americans no longer view our Japanese [b]allies[/b] in this manner.

As a first step, all the clerics who indoctrinate the children into a life of child bombers and assassins of children and civilians, must be dealt with, with utmost prejudice. No mercy.

"I think you only prove that those who call for restrain are really just people who fail to see the danger we are facing"

Back in primary school I had the elderly headmaster at our school as a teacher in history. Eventhough it was not on the curriculum the year we had him he chose to tell us much about the war known as World War II. Sometimes when I can not sleep late in the evening I turn on the TV and instead of the news on the last violence somewhere in the world I watch the American drama series 'Nuremberg'. Last year I went there myself. A few years ago I visited Terezin, perhaps better known as Terezienstadt.

Those are the dangers we are facing. I rarely make comparisons to those sad years in European history - it is often a cheap trick in debates and it is hardly a good way of convincing people they are wrong. Surfing around blogs these days, though, I can not see how I have any choice but making these very comparisons.

I find more and more hatred towards people belonging to a certain religion, these people are portrayed as monsters, never truly innocent, as child molesters and criminals, they are described as being a part of a grand conspiracy to gain control over the entire world. I find calls for killing civilians, for 'butchering' them, in fact, and for bombing religious centres. Sometimes I even see calls for a strong leader.

These voices are still fringe voices. Still, I worry when ideas like those are spreading, and when I see symptoms of the same disease entering mainstream political parties and academic circles, and into widely published newspapers. Sometimes it depresses me. There are two fascisms on the rise. In the Muslim world we see an Islamic one. In the Western world we see a Western one.

So, when are the white roses going to be cut? Kennst du das Land, wo die Kanonen blühn? Du kennst es nicht? Du wirst es kennenlernen!

Øyvind

Øyvind,

I agree with you that there is indeed hatred spreading, and it is spreading not just within the Muslim world. There are few safety valves to its tipping point left... as they have been in disrepair in the West for more than a generation. But are you willing to really and truly examine causes? Its rather satisfying I'm sure to make the sweeping declaration that in your pensive moments you see fascisms rising in both the Islamic world, and the West. But I'm not at all sure that that kind of equivalence isn't just the kind of doorway that nihilistic hatred loves to step through. What exactly do you mean by that comparison?

If as you say, it is a cheap rhetorical trick to make unanchored references to Europes sad history to score points today (and I agree), then shouldn't you explore your own position and justify it?

Because I will tell you something Øyvind... the hatred that is being enabled in the West is something that is a rising reaction to much more than just the atrocities coming from the Islamic fascists. Hatred always needs shadows. Its a metaphysical fact of life.

Calls for a strong leader? Who would that be for example? I'm genuinely curious.

Hatred is funny that way you know. It always arrives in the most fashionable clothing... so one has to be mindful of who and what sets the fashion.

KM

Hooboy! Call me a skeptic, but I'm just not worried about the excessive anti-Muslim reaction from Westerners. Why? Because we have something that proto-fascist, pre-WW2 societies never had: a culture of mass media that extols narcissism, personal achievement, and the pursuit of happiness. In the long run, the anger against Muslims (I wouldn't call it hatred) will run out of steam - at least in the US (perhaps not in Russia, where narcissist media is being strangled by the state) - because people will eventually get distracted by entertainment provided by a varied and multi-faceted mass media that fulfills their lives more readily than any ideology can.

Hatred takes a lot of time, effort, and energy. As such, it won't take long until the average American will ask is it necessary to expend all that energy. As we all know, American society excels in coming up with the best emulative models for how to expend these commodities: time, effort, and energy (and Americans are constantly prioritizing one over the other, according to consumer needs). In fact, it's the main reason why America succeeds in being the number one economy in the world. Anger and hatred can be consuming and entertaining in the short term - the post-9/11 reaction is witness to that - but, once certain thresholds have been achieved, it will succumb to the fickle tastes of the consumer, whose attention span always fluctuates.

Is this a pessimistic assessment? Absolutely not; it is, actually, our best hope for a better world. For as soon as the world puts a premium on entertainment, like Americans do, can the world learn to overcome a reliance on destructive ideologies.

In the long run, it is the fate of Wahhabi Islam - as it stands now - to disappear. It simply does not know how to survive in a consumer society. It rants and raves, but it will eventually die out, simply because it takes too much effort to live according to its strictures.

Oyvind,

I always find your posts annoying because you always find fault with other posters, but you never propose any concrete solutions to the problems that we now face, i.e. terrorism that can be escalated at any time.

What solutions do you propose?

Quite a bit of the commentary is on the "nuke 'em and let God sort them out" response from a lot of the non-muslim/sympathetic commentators. I have to say that one reason may be that there really haven't been any hard, objective discussions regarding Islam in the mainstream press, or at least very few.

The press (and most radio) while not in full appeasement mode is often very close. The PC crowd has shut off much critical and analytical commentary. Europe in particular seems to have caught a case of "Neville Chamberlainitis".

I have seeen a number of articles in my local papers about how Islam is liberating for women, and other tripe. There is no discussion of the Quoran or what it actually says. If the politicians would say something like "Certain elements in Islam have adopted a fascistic interpretion of Islam. At this time we are uncertain if this is an aberation or if it is in fact imbedded in Islamic theology." Then at least people would know that the powers that be are looking at the issue.

But we aren't really seeing that. The butchers in the caucasus are being refered to as rebels or insurgents or something. This is nonsense. So frustration ensues. (mea culpa)

But I would also like to add this: for those Moslems who are not actively supporting terrorism, but remain silent, quietly approve, or do not care, you too may be targets. It isn't only because western and other armies will get to the point where they will feel that they have no choice but to inflict horrific collateral damage if the terrorist elements imbed themselves in a civilian population.

The Wahabbists will kill you too, if you are not the right kind of Moslem, and chances are that you are not. Are you Asiatic? Black African? And don't think that if you are Arab, that you are safe. Do you have the right family and political connections? Chances are that you do not.

Weblogs are wonderful (thank you Bjorn), but until these types of discussions get into the mainstream there will only be greater frustration and anger. The longer that takes, the fewer options we will have.

Hi D:

I dont know where did you get that Muslims cant convert to another religion ! it is interesting to note that not a single verse in the Holy Quran order the killing of those who leave their religion unlike the bible which is filled with death sentences not only against those who change their religion but also against those who preach different religion:

Deuteronomy 13:6-11 "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.''

Stoning for practising a different religion: Deuteronomy 17:1-7

Stoning for blasphemy: Leviticus 24:10-16, Leviticus 24:23

I advice you to read the Holy Quran, please dont listen or read what some anti muslim christian missionaries write about Islam, if you want to know about Islam, ask about it from Muslim sources.

Those Islamophobes are promoting so much lies and fallacies against Islam, they know very well that Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth, they are trying to stop it by any mean including lying and fabricating false stories about prophet Muhammad (pbuh ).

I am sure you will be very interested to read what the famous German Newspaper, Welt am Sonntag , reported recently about the church plan to stop the spread of Islam:

In a report headlined "A million against Muhammad" Welt am Sonntag said Sunday, May 30, that huge amounts of money will be allotted to the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, a reportedly secret organization.
The report, prepared by Andreas Englisch, said the organization is now mainly concerned with stemming the rising reversion to Islam by tarnishing the image of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

The article in German:

http://www.wams.de/data/2004/05/30/284942.html

The report in English:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-05/31/article09.shtml

Hi Sylvia:

You mentioned the articles in your press that talk about how Islam liberates women but you were wondering what the Quran really say ! well, why you dont find out by yourself ? why you dont get a copy of the quran and read it ?

Due to Space restrictions and rule no.4 in this blog, I cant post everything so I am going to help you by giving you a link that explains what are the rights of women under Islam:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/womens_rights_references.htm

And thess 2 links are specially important:

The Muslim Women League in America:

http://www.mwlusa.org/

Muslim Women and their Islam:

http://www.maryams.net/

I hope you will find them informative.

Hi Kevin McDonnell

In your post to Øyvind you talked about the causes for the rise of hatred against Muslims in the west, but you failed to tell us about the causes for the hatred against the west in the Muslim world !

Last night I was reading very very interesting article written by Sasan Fayazmanesh, a professor of Economics at Fresno State University about this very issue, you can read it here:

The Holy Empire, Who We Are and What We Do

http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan09042004.html

He wrote in his very informative article:

''An empire whose citizens are fed fantasy, and not facts, might be in for a very long and costly war which could destroy the fabric of its society, both economically and socially. The length of the war and its cost could become so intolerable to the citizens of the empire that they might ultimately prefer capitulation to a state of permanent war. ''

The above is very true, you are fed fantasies about why the Muslims hate you, the muslims dont hate you for who you are but for what you do.

He then concludes his excellent analysis by saying:

''Ironically, one has to say that the answer, "they hate us for who we are," is correct, but there is a catch: "we" are everything that we say "they" are! This solves the puzzle of "why do they hate us?" It resolves the dichotomy and produces a single answer: They hate us for what we do and who we are, since "what we do" cannot be separated from "who we are."

let us remember it is not the Muslims who are bombing and shelling the western cities, it is not the Muslims who are invading the west, raping, killing, looting, imprisoning and torturing the westerners, it is you who are doing that against Muslims.

And this also bring me to very informative article written recently by western writer called Gavin Gatenby in the Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat titled:

Ninety-three Years of Bombing the Arabs

http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/09-2004/Article-20040901-b9af6e63-c0a8-01ed-0022-da1762c93d93/story.html

True, for 93 year we have been oppressing the arabs and the muslims, no wonder they hate their western oppressors so much, but they dont hate all the west in general, they dont hate countries like Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand..etc countries which did not oppress nor have any muslim blood on their hands.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan09042004.html

Ex-Christian,

I've asked several muslims about the death for apostacy issue. Not a single one tried to denie that this was Islamic law before. Although some said that an Islamic state has to first be established in order to carry out this punishment (First things first). Or that the convert is first given a chance to repent before being put to death. Very progressive...

a quick search on google shows me that this law comes from "Islamic Manuals of Fiqh" and that both Sunni and Shiite scholars agree on it.

I can already see that you will argue that since this is not in the Koran than it's not islam. So maybe you can start your argument by denouncing the 99% of muslims who do recognize this as law. Better yet, why not start your own religion?

And why didn't you address the last paragraph of my last post? I was very curious about your view point. Let me repost it for your convenience:

"Do you find the promise of naked women chained to rocks in the afterlife appealing? Is that the big mystery of the universe? Is this what christians mean when they ramble on about the love of God?"

Hi D:

First I need to stress that not all muslims agree on this issue, many scholars refer to the hadith ( saying of prophet muhammad ) in which he said: ''kill those who change their religion''

The occasion of this hadith came when jews who were living in Arabia at that time used to send fake converts in order to confuse the early muslims and then leave Islam after few weeks, the prophet Muhammad (pbuh ) realized what the jews were doing and so to test who is really heartful convert and who is jew, he issued this hadith or this order.
As you can appreciate, this order is related to certain historical context which no longer exist.

The laws in the holy quran cant be disputed, but the hadiths are subject to so many interpretations and analysis. I dont think those muslims you spoke with really represnent the nearly 2 billion muslims all over the world.

As to your last paragraph, I am sorry but I did not understand what you mean by '' the promise of naked women chained to rocks in the afterlife '' !!!

As to your question about what christians mean when they ramble about the love of God, this question should be directed to the christians, I am no longer christian, Alhamdo llah ( Praise be to Allah Almighty ) I found the truth, the infinite light, I am now Muslim.

Ex-christian

First you claim not to know what I'm talking about:
"I dont know where did you get that Muslims cant convert to another religion ! "

Then when I confront you with evidence you say:
"First I need to stress that not all muslims agree on this issue..."

I can't help but think you are being dishonest.

You are right that the muslims I talk to don't represent all muslims, but they are a pretty diverse cross section of muslims in America.

As for the last paragraph I was refering the muslim concept of the afterlife promising 72 virgins chained to rocks. and something about a river of milk if I remember correctly.

I believe this written in the Koran.

I was asking if this is what you look forward to as a reward for being a good muslim. Do you think of this as paradise? As this how you want to spend eternity?

But I think you knew perfectly well what I meant. You just needed to avoid the question. Still waiting for an answer by the way.

My main point was to show Islam's view of God's reward is so earth bound compared to christianity. It seems like the fantasy of a sexually deviant 12 year old boy.

Or on another level it is what makes Islam so dangerous. It does not stress universal morality. It is a gangster religion. Conquer in the name of Islam on earth and you will be rewarded with whores and riches in heaven.

Totoro:

The ideas of several people in here are, by the way, not 'faults'. They are - I ask Bjørn to forgive me for breaking his rules - both stupid and evil.

I do not see the need to write books worth of posts on what we should do to make my points on the rise of fascist-like ideas. Fascism is a bad thing even if I had no alternatives. Neither do I need to come up with alternatives to point out factual errors or total lack of nuance (Look! I found a Muslim site writing terrible stuff! All the Muslims are terrible!)

But still I have repeatedly said what I believe we should do, and if you have not seen this, you have not been looking. To summarize it in one sentence, stolen from the movie Starship Troopers: 'To kill the bug, we must understand the bug'. Crazy ideas about bombing Mecca - or ideas about killing civilians - is not 'understanding the bug'.

Islamism does have roots in Islam. It also has roots outside Islam. Today those roots are nurtured and extreme Islamism is - once again - on the rise. What nurtures them? Why are Islamism rising again?

Because of a lack of democracies in the Arab and Muslim world. So, we should support democrats, not the Saudi royal family. Because of a lack of any political alternative for those fighting for a modern society. So, we should help those who want to build that alternative. That's a major task. Because of the violent political culture already present in many of those countries. So, maybe we should protest against atrocities committed by our so-called friends.

Let me give you a quote of a Norwegian leftie author, Gert Nygårdshaug (you can go fisking afterwards):

The United States, to accumulate profit and increase their own wealth, both through their military and their economic policy, is creating poverty and suppression around the world. As long as they continue doing this there will, sooner or later, pop up an intelligent and wealthy terrorist capable of actions like these .

He said that back in the eighties, referring to his book 'Mengele Zoo', where terrorists - amongst other things - blow up a building much like the World Trade Centre. Well, Osama bin Laden is both wealthy and intelligent.

Nygårdshaugs statements might be considered anti-American, and he is definitely wrong if he points at the US alone. You could say that he gives the victims the blame for terrorist atrocities. However, I do not think that is what he really is trying to say. Terrorists are responsible themselves. Nothing makes terrorism okay. That is, by the way, equally valid for anti-Islamic terrorism, terrorism of the kinds suggested here.

However, terrorism does not come out of a vacuum. It is not created merely as a result of crazy ideologies. Most people are not crazy. Ideologies that are need fertile soil to grow in. And it is true that we are helping out dictators in many countries around the world. It's 'realpolitik'. It's the policy of 'free trade brings happiness'. But even those of you who believe in the magnificence of 'free trade' must agree that trade is not free when dictators are ruling.

It is easy for extreme Islamists, and for other extremists around the non-Western world, to point out Western hypocrisy. It is easy for them to blame us. Sometimes, far from always, they are even right. And they will continue doing it. Maybe we should make it more difficult for them. Maybe we should start exporting the many qualities of the Western world for real? Maybe we should stop using so many empty words, and stop befriending dictators and corrupt regimes merely because it pays off? Maybe we should have a little less of realpolitik.

Øyvind

This is what the Qu'ran actually says about Paradise (ad-Dukhaan 51-57)

'As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security, among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each other; So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes. There can they call for every kind of fruit in peace and security; Nor will they there taste Death, except the first death; and He will preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire,- As a Bounty from thy Lord! that will be the supreme achievement!'

For more descriptions of paradise, look here. Although Paradise does sound like a pleasant place there's no virgins chained to rocks. The descriptions of Paradise is also often seen as allegorical.

Hi D:

I dont think you are in a position to judge wether I am honest or not since you are not even Muslim nor you have any knowledge of Islam.
I asked you where did you get that Muslims cant convert to another religion ? and you said it was by ' HERESAY '. it was me who provided you with the evidence ( the hadith ) not you, so who is dishonest here ?

D : ''As for the last paragraph I was refering the muslim concept of the afterlife promising 72 virgins chained to rocks. and something about a river of milk if I remember correctly.
I believe this written in the Koran.''

This is another fallacy and no where can you find such thing in the holy Quran. It is the western obession with 'virginity' that produces all these amusing stories.

D : ''I was asking if this is what you look forward to as a reward for being a good muslim. Do you think of this as paradise? As this how you want to spend eternity?
But I think you knew perfectly well what I meant. You just needed to avoid the question. Still waiting for an answer by the way.''

I already established your statement to be false and has no basis in the Quran.

I did not avoid your question, I was trying to determine whether you are an average street person who repeats what he hears about Islam or wether you are geniune researcher and true seeker of truth.

D : ''Or on another level it is what makes Islam so dangerous. It does not stress universal morality. It is a gangster religion. Conquer in the name of Islam on earth and you will be rewarded with whores and riches in heaven.''

I dont need to comment on the above nonesense, I dont need to lower myself any further.

Thank you Øyvind for your quote from the Quran, I hope our friend D is reading.

First, killing innocents because they are born into Islamic societies is abhorrent; no child is guilty by birth. I suspect those advocating genocide against Muslims have suspended their imaginations, unless they really are evil.

The Islamic savagery in Russia is hardly unprecedented in recent times but is particularly egregious in its details. The toll in Algeria exceeds 100,000; in Kashmir 60,000; in the rest of Africa much more but I don't have the figures at hand. Of course, one mostly hears about the poor oppressed Palestinians in Europe and it took 9/11 to even bring the issue of Islamic terror to the attention of most people in the West.

But the ideology of the terrorists hasn't changed overnight though their tactics have evolved. The 9/11 terrorists, the Chechen/Arab 'rebels', and the Saudi/Algerian/Paki fundamentalists are all alike in their worldviews; most in the Muslim world detest the murder of children but will not act against Islam on their own and are indeed unable to so long as the West tolerates the suppression of modernity in their countries. The tragedy is that the West has ignored them so long and continues to pussyfoot around the unwanted truth that the real problem is Islam itself. There is nothing in Islam or in Islamic societies today which makes it likely that a more modern or tolerant strain will emerge spontaneously.

How should we in the West deal with this? I believe in a calibrated fashion. First, recognize that the religion and the ideology is a noxious one and at odds with most of what we hold dear, and not exempt from criticism just because a whole lot of people subscribe to it. Second, restrict all further immigration of Muslims (there are plenty of non Muslims to trade with and to fill our needs for labor and they are more successful than Muslims anyway); people who abandon Islam for the West must be permitted to come but kept under close watch. Take control of all Muslim religious organizations in the West and over the long term set up an alternative version of 'Islam' which would have nothing in common with the Arab original. Third, make it stated policy to pursue Muslim terrorists wherever they might be and whoever they might attack. Finally, be prepared to seize the oilfields, with clear notice that we will do so at any cost to Arab lives if interfered with, with the option of the full use of our arsenals. This would be a good start. From experience I know that the only thing really respected in Islamic countries is force; it is silly to project Western modes on thought onto them.

However, none of this is likely to happen until, as I think is inevitable over the not too distant future, there is a terror attack on the US using WMD. Any restraints we might have about an all out attack on Islam will disappear and we won't hold back, regardless of what multi-cultural apologists in Europe might say. But the cost in lives will be much greater.

Of course, you might object that I'm speculating wildly about the future but my conclusions about the nature of Islam or Islamic society are not fantasy, are based on experience (on which I won't elaborate-discount it if you wish), and we need to decide for the future based on what we know and not on what we hope might happen.

Ex-christian

I called you dishonest because you pretended not to know anything about the death for apostacy law. But you knew all along what I meant.

By the way what's the allegorical meaning of "...When a man desires a beauty, he will have intercourse with them."?
See the full context in the passages below.

It seems obvious that Islam promises sex and orgies in exchange for faith. After all the prophet and his followers engaged in this same behavior according to the Hadith.

It seems the prophet also liked little boys...
Nice religion you picked.

Notice how many times it mentions that they are virgins. And you call it a Western obsession. I remember reading that when girls are executed in Iran, they have to be raped first so they won't die as virgins. But I guess thats just one more of those things that not all muslims agree on...

Koran 78:31
As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high- bosomed virgins for companions: a truly overflowing cup.

Koran 37:40-48
...They will sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches.

Koran 44:51-55
...Yes and We shall wed them to dark-eyed houris. (beautiful virgins)

Koran 52:17-20
...They shall recline on couches ranged in rows. To dark-eyed houris (virgins) we shall wed them...

Koran 55:56-57
In them will be bashful virgins neither man nor Jinn will have touched before.Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?"

Koran 55:57-58
Virgins as fair as corals and rubies. Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?"

Koran 56:7-40
...We created the houris (the beautiful women) and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand.. "

Koran 55:70-77
"In each there shall be virgins chaste and fair... Dark eyed virgins sheltered in their tents whom neither man nor Jin will have touched before..

Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 172, No. 34
Ali reported that the Apostle of Allah said, "There is in Paradise a market wherein there will be no buying or selling, but will consist of men and women. When a man desires a beauty, he will have intercourse with them."

Koran 52:24
Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.

Koran 56:17
Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.

Koran 76:19
And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.

By the way Ex-christian I would be careful about contradicting these passages in the Koran. You never know if your muslim brothers are reading this. They might take offense, and you know what happens when muslims are offended.

Oyvind,

OK, let's agree that being stupid and evil is wrong, and we will eliminate any views that include those attributes.

You say that to prevent further terrorist atrocities like Beslan, democracy should be exported to the Islamic world. I agree. Now, how can that be done? Should we send them copies of the Norwegian constitution translated into Arabic and Farsi? Noam Chompski writings? John Locke writings? Adam Smith writings? Probably writings alone won't work. So...

Give me your summary of a specific plan--just the big ideas. For example, (1) Hunt down and kill or jail terrorists, (2) Remove the terrorist-enabling regime of Saddam Hussein, (3) Get a more stable oil supply by establishing a democratic government in Iraq, (4) Find a way (military? supporting democratic elements?) to eliminate the terrorist-enabling regimes of the Saudi Wahhabists and the Iranian Mullahs.

Oyvind, you get my drift. This is a summary of the Bush administration's plan. Please don't argue the details of my summary. I want you to give me a brief summary of YOUR plan.

Thank you,

Totoro

D : '' I remember reading that when girls are executed in Iran, they have to be raped first so they won't die as virgins. But I guess thats just one more of those things that not all muslims agree on...''

Oh come on, for virgins sake, do you really believe this nonesense ?

D: ''Koran 78:31
As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high- bosomed virgins for companions: a truly overflowing cup.''

I think you really dont know what you are copying and pasting, here is 78:31 from the Quran:

31. Verily, for the Muttaqûn[believers], there will be a success (Paradise)

Where is the reference for virgins ?

D: ''Koran 37:40-48
...They will sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches. ''

Again, you dont know what you are quoting, 40-48 constitutes 9 verses, I dont know how you can, or the one where you copied them from, gather all in 1 line ?

Here are the verses:

40. Save the chosen slaves of Allâh (faithful, obedient, true believers of Islâmic Monotheism).

41. For them there will be a known provision (in Paradise).

42. Fruits; and they shall be honoured,

43. In the Gardens of delight (Paradise),

44. Facing one another on thrones,

45. Round them will be passed a cup of pure wine;
46. White, delicious to the drinkers,

47. Neither they will have Ghoul (any kind of hurt, abdominal pain, headache, a sin, etc.) from that, nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom.

48. And with them will be chaste females, restraining their glances (desiring none except their husbands), with wide and beautiful eyes.

Where is the reference for virgins chained to rocks ???

D: ''Koran 44:51-55
...Yes and We shall wed them to dark-eyed houris. (beautiful virgins) ''

Again, you are inserting the word virgins in the verses, the original arabic does not have any reference to virgins, even the english translation has no reference to virgins:

51. Verily! The Muttaqûn (pious - see V.2:2), will be in place of Security (Paradise).

52. Among Gardens and Springs;

53. Dressed in fine silk and (also) in thick silk, facing each other,

54. So (it will be), and We shall marry them to Houris ( fair ones) with wide, lovely eyes.

55. They will call therein for every kind of fruit in peace and security;

Again, where is the reference for virgins chained to rocks ???

D: ''Koran 52:17-20
...They shall recline on couches ranged in rows. To dark-eyed houris (virgins) we shall wed them... ''

again you with so much dishonesty inserted the word virgins, it is not there, nor the reference for virgins chained to rocks ?

D: ''
Koran 55:56-57
In them will be bashful virgins neither man nor Jinn will have touched before.Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?"

I dont know where are you getting the above from, here is 55:56-57:

56. Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna

57. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny?

Where is the reference to virgins chained to rocks ?

You see, I dont need even to carry on, you dont even know what you are quoting from the Quran.

As to the hadith, you just wrote 'Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 172, No. 34 ' what is Al hadis ? as you know there are 4 major names for Al hadith and each with many volumes, so which one you are refering to ???

You see, you have shown once again great deal of ignorance about islam , all your information is cut and paste from anti muslim hate sites.

I advice you to read about Islam from its sources not from its enemies.

I must admit that I've not read through the entire discussion yet, as it has grown quite lengthy -- I've got a couple of comments though.

Herbie. You're arguing that one should kill innocent chechens as retaliation. It's a tactic that has proven to be fruitfull in the past, but you're forgetting a few things.

Turn it upside down. The chechens will claim that russians are killing their children and THEIR civilians. I quote you as saying the following:

In the second, French Resistance took about 30 German soldiers prisoner and threatened to kill them if the Germans did not stop torturing captured Resistance members. The Germans did not stop and all of the captured German troops were executed. Thereafter the Germans largely stopped torturing captured Resistance members.

The chechen resistance can claim doing approximately the same - or at least can cling onto your words and captuer a bunch of russians - and tell russia "Stop bashing us, and these will survive. Don't, and we'll kill them".

.. which also is what muslims are doing in Iraq (beheading americans and others).

Your idea is what we're calling "terrorism" these days. If you want to be able to call the islamists that behead americans terrorists, you also have to agree that your suggestion is terrorism.

I have given that outline before. But okay. The Bush administration has not only waged war in the Middle East, they have also launched praiseworthy democracy initiatives.

Sadly these are poorly funded, especially in comparison with recent military actions. So, let's begin with that, shall we? Let's fund democracy iniatives properly. The US has used billions of dollars on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Using billions on dollars on democracy initiatives could absolutely pay off. Throw in some more money on humanitary work, fighting diseases and stuff, and the public image of the US might change quite a lot as a nice side-effect.

Furthermore, as stated, we can start being a bit more critical towards our 'friends' than we are.

These days Norwegian government and companies seem to have this kind of critique of human rights violations: "Okay, I have to tell you that's bad. That's bad. Now, let's get on with business".

The US acts in quite a similar way. So, let's tell our dictator friends that we don't really like having dictator friends. As mentioned, we need a bit less of realpolitik.

Hunting down terrorists? Well, it's not like this is a bad idea. But it has little or nothing to do with spreading democracy. Establishing a democratic regime in Iraq? Sounds nice, and we've all played with dominos. This far the process haven't been very convincing, but even lefties like me should join in the fight for building a democracy there.

I do not know the best ways to spread democracy in the Middle East. Asking Middle Eastern democrats might be a good start. I do know a couple of things, though: All-out attacks on Islam is not a good beginning. Confusing Islam and Islamism is not a good idea. Disregarding social and political reasons behind terrorism does not make it any better.

And that's what my posts are about.

Øyvind

Ex-Christian,

allah is the imagination of a ruthless criminal named mohammed( piss be upon him ).islam is an invention of men to justify brutal conquests.The koran i've been reading is full of violence and tribal crudeness. You really have to look hard for passages about peace and love for anyone who is not a muslim. The majority of the book is about the punishment of non-believers in this life and in hell. My question is: How can any one really believe in this madness?

The Russian Government and all of Russia, which is a multi-national state, condemn this barbaric act and grieve and pray for the innocent victims. The public is in danger of being brainwashed by the TV sound bites and news-stories, stories which present extreme viewpoints to increase the audience figures and which are often exaggerated. Back in 1999 there was the absurd talk of Putin being behind the 1999 apartment block bombings in order to bring him to power, in 2002 Putin was blamed for handling the theatre siege situation wrongly, few mention that 800-900 people were saved, now in 2004 the Russians are blamed for handling the school siege badly. Hundreds more people were saved than killed in the Beslan school, most people killed were killed by the terrorists, Russian troops did not plan to use military force at all, but had no choice in the circumstances that developed rapidly on Friday. Russian troops shielded the victims when the terrorists, who were on drugs, and who actually raped young girls during the siege (according to the victims's accounts) opened fire on the fleeing hostages. How dare we criticise how the Russians managed the situation!? Has this happened in your country? Can you predict if some crazy terrorists decide to attack a school anywhere in your country?! No. Putin has pledged to provide everything for the rehabilitation of the victims and to help their families. Russia is not interested in oppressing the Chechen people. Chechnya is rightfully a part of Russian territory for almost 150 years. Before people judge Russian relations with Chechnya, they first should look closer to home, like Northern Ireland (if they are in the UK). They should ask themselves what they would prefer to see – an autonomous Chechen republic or an extremist Jihad state, which certainly won’t hold democratic elections or respect the human rights of women. You have to remember that even if Russia grants them independence, they are interested in seizeing more territory to establish an extremist Islamic jihad khalifate based on Shariah law (as attacks on neighbouring Dagestan in 1999 showed). If Chechnya wants to be an independent democratic state, fine. But surely it’s obvious that certain conditions should be present in the country for democracy to take root and develop. Democracy has never happened overnight, over a decade, it takes hundreds of years. The news should resent opinions as facts and make judgments while events like these develop, and, to gain a storyline, make groundless statements and accusations (and many ignorant viewers take them at face value and start repeating them like parrots). The account of events by some of the survivors disprove quite a lot of what was said in the news during the siege. This kind of tragedy is impossible to predict, and when it happens, there is not a written foolproof plan of action. This week in Beslan, the North Ossetian and Russian people acted as best as they possibly could, including the non-military plan of action, the attempt to exchange the children hostages for adults, and the swift rescue operation that followed (they used all they had at their disposal). Now, before people make ill-informed statements about it all, they should remember that because no terrorist act of THIS kind has, fortunately, taken place in the West, we have no right to accuse the Russians of how they handled this situation. We should shut up, read history, visit the places we don’t know anything about and dare to judge, listen and understand that the truth is not what the news storylines say it is, but is a lot more complex. We should stop expecting results in 5 minutes, like it’s a microwave meal. Who are we to judge how long it will take to solve a conflict and stabilize a society in a country thousands of miles away from our comfortable homes, a country whose history we know little about and care even less? Stop insulting the Russians’ intelligence.

The Russian Government and all of Russia, which is a multi-national state, condemn this barbaric act and grieve and pray for the innocent victims. The public is in danger of being brainwashed by the TV sound bites and news-stories, stories which present extreme viewpoints to increase the audience figures and which are often exaggerated. Back in 1999 there was the absurd talk of Putin being behind the 1999 apartment block bombings in order to bring him to power, in 2002 Putin was blamed for handling the theatre siege situation wrongly, few mention that 800-900 people were saved, now in 2004 the Russians are blamed for handling the school siege badly. Hundreds more people were saved than killed in the Beslan school, most people killed were killed by the terrorists, Russian troops did not plan to use military force at all, but had no choice in the circumstances that developed rapidly on Friday. Russian troops shielded the victims when the terrorists, who were on drugs, and who actually raped young girls during the siege (according to the victims's accounts) opened fire on the fleeing hostages. How dare we criticise how the Russians managed the situation!? Has this happened in your country? Can you predict if some crazy terrorists decide to attack a school anywhere in your country?! No. Putin has pledged to provide everything for the rehabilitation of the victims and to help their families. Russia is not interested in oppressing the Chechen people. Chechnya is rightfully a part of Russian territory for almost 150 years. Before people judge Russian relations with Chechnya, they first should look closer to home, like Northern Ireland (if they are in the UK). They should ask themselves what they would prefer to see – an autonomous Chechen republic or an extremist Jihad state, which certainly won’t hold democratic elections or respect the human rights of women. You have to remember that even if Russia grants them independence, they are interested in seizeing more territory to establish an extremist Islamic jihad khalifate based on Shariah law (as attacks on neighbouring Dagestan in 1999 showed). If Chechnya wants to be an independent democratic state, fine. But surely it’s obvious that certain conditions should be present in the country for democracy to take root and develop. Democracy has never happened overnight, over a decade, it takes hundreds of years. The news should resent opinions as facts and make judgments while events like these develop, and, to gain a storyline, make groundless statements and accusations (and many ignorant viewers take them at face value and start repeating them like parrots). The account of events by some of the survivors disprove quite a lot of what was said in the news during the siege. This kind of tragedy is impossible to predict, and when it happens, there is not a written foolproof plan of action. This week in Beslan, the North Ossetian and Russian people acted as best as they possibly could, including the non-military plan of action, the attempt to exchange the children hostages for adults, and the swift rescue operation that followed (they used all they had at their disposal). Now, before people make ill-informed statements about it all, they should remember that because no terrorist act of THIS kind has, fortunately, taken place in the West, we have no right to accuse the Russians of how they handled this situation. We should shut up, read history, visit the places we don’t know anything about and dare to judge, listen and understand that the truth is not what the news storylines say it is, but is a lot more complex. We should stop expecting results in 5 minutes, like it’s a microwave meal. Who are we to judge how long it will take to solve a conflict and stabilize a society in a country thousands of miles away from our comfortable homes, a country whose history we know little about and care even less? Stop insulting the Russians’ intelligence.

The Russian Government and all of Russia, which is a multi-national state, condemn this barbaric act and grieve and pray for the innocent victims. The public is in danger of being brainwashed by the TV sound bites and news-stories, stories which present extreme viewpoints to increase the audience figures and which are often exaggerated. Back in 1999 there was the absurd talk of Putin being behind the 1999 apartment block bombings in order to bring him to power, in 2002 Putin was blamed for handling the theatre siege situation wrongly, few mention that 800-900 people were saved, now in 2004 the Russians are blamed for handling the school siege badly. Hundreds more people were saved than killed in the Beslan school, most people killed were killed by the terrorists, Russian troops did not plan to use military force at all, but had no choice in the circumstances that developed rapidly on Friday. Russian troops shielded the victims when the terrorists, who were on drugs, and who actually raped young girls during the siege (according to the victims's accounts) opened fire on the fleeing hostages. How dare we criticise how the Russians managed the situation!? Has this happened in your country? Can you predict if some crazy terrorists decide to attack a school anywhere in your country?! No. Putin has pledged to provide everything for the rehabilitation of the victims and to help their families. Russia is not interested in oppressing the Chechen people. Chechnya is rightfully a part of Russian territory for almost 150 years. Before people judge Russian relations with Chechnya, they first should look closer to home, like Northern Ireland (if they are in the UK). They should ask themselves what they would prefer to see – an autonomous Chechen republic or an extremist Jihad state, which certainly won’t hold democratic elections or respect the human rights of women. You have to remember that even if Russia grants them independence, they are interested in seizeing more territory to establish an extremist Islamic jihad khalifate based on Shariah law (as attacks on neighbouring Dagestan in 1999 showed). If Chechnya wants to be an independent democratic state, fine. But surely it’s obvious that certain conditions should be present in the country for democracy to take root and develop. Democracy has never happened overnight, over a decade, it takes hundreds of years. The news should present opinions as facts and make judgments while events like these develop, and, to gain a storyline, make groundless statements and accusations (and many ignorant viewers take them at face value and start repeating them like parrots). The account of events by some of the survivors disprove quite a lot of what was said in the news during the siege. This kind of tragedy is impossible to predict, and when it happens, there is not a written foolproof plan of action. This week in Beslan, the North Ossetian and Russian people acted as best as they possibly could, including the non-military plan of action, the attempt to exchange the children hostages for adults, and the swift rescue operation that followed (they used all they had at their disposal). Now, before people make ill-informed statements about it all, they should remember that because no terrorist act of THIS kind has, fortunately, taken place in the West, we have no right to accuse the Russians of how they handled this situation. We should shut up, read history, visit the places we don’t know anything about and dare to judge, listen and understand that the truth is not what the news storylines say it is, but is a lot more complex. We should stop expecting results in 5 minutes, like it’s a microwave meal. Who are we to judge how long it will take to solve a conflict and stabilize a society in a country thousands of miles away from our comfortable homes, a country whose history we know little about and care even less? Stop insulting the Russians’ intelligence.

The Russian Government and all of Russia, which is a multi-national state, condemn this barbaric act and grieve and pray for the innocent victims. The public is in danger of being brainwashed by the TV sound bites and news-stories, stories which present extreme viewpoints to increase the audience figures and which are often exaggerated. Back in 1999 there was the absurd talk of Putin being behind the 1999 apartment block bombings in order to bring him to power, in 2002 Putin was blamed for handling the theatre siege situation wrongly, few mention that 800-900 people were saved, now in 2004 the Russians are blamed for handling the school siege badly. Hundreds more people were saved than killed in the Beslan school, most people killed were killed by the terrorists, Russian troops did not plan to use military force at all, but had no choice in the circumstances that developed rapidly on Friday. Russian troops shielded the victims when the terrorists, who were on drugs, and who actually raped young girls during the siege (according to the victims's accounts) opened fire on the fleeing hostages. How dare we criticise how the Russians managed the situation!? Has this happened in your country? Can you predict if some crazy terrorists decide to attack a school anywhere in your country?! No. Putin has pledged to provide everything for the rehabilitation of the victims and to help their families. Russia is not interested in oppressing the Chechen people. Chechnya is rightfully a part of Russian territory for almost 150 years. Before people judge Russian relations with Chechnya, they first should look closer to home, like Northern Ireland (if they are in the UK). They should ask themselves what they would prefer to see – an autonomous Chechen republic or an extremist Jihad state, which certainly won’t hold democratic elections or respect the human rights of women. You have to remember that even if Russia grants them independence, they are interested in seizeing more territory to establish an extremist Islamic jihad khalifate based on Shariah law (as attacks on neighbouring Dagestan in 1999 showed). If Chechnya wants to be an independent democratic state, fine. But surely it’s obvious that certain conditions should be present in the country for democracy to take root and develop. Democracy has never happened overnight, over a decade, it takes hundreds of years. The news should not present opinions as facts and make judgments while events like these develop, and, to gain a storyline, make groundless statements and accusations (and many ignorant viewers take them at face value and start repeating them like parrots). The account of events by some of the survivors disprove quite a lot of what was said in the news during the siege. This kind of tragedy is impossible to predict, and when it happens, there is not a written foolproof plan of action. This week in Beslan, the North Ossetian and Russian people acted as best as they possibly could, including the non-military plan of action, the attempt to exchange the children hostages for adults, and the swift rescue operation that followed (they used all they had at their disposal). Now, before people make ill-informed statements about it all, they should remember that because no terrorist act of THIS kind has, fortunately, taken place in the West, we have no right to accuse the Russians of how they handled this situation. We should shut up, read history, visit the places we don’t know anything about and dare to judge, listen and understand that the truth is not what the news storylines say it is, but is a lot more complex. We should stop expecting results in 5 minutes, like it’s a microwave meal. Who are we to judge how long it will take to solve a conflict and stabilize a society in a country thousands of miles away from our comfortable homes, a country whose history we know little about and care even less? Stop insulting the Russians’ intelligence.

my apologies for some of the grammatical mistakes in my note above - I am dislexic

my apologies for some of the grammatical mistakes in my note above - I am dislexic

By the way, about Islam and Koran, take a look at this site:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Women/place.html
It examines quite well the facts about the rights of women in Christianity and Islam as written in the Bible and the Koran.
I am a Christian woman who had been with an nice intelligent well-read Muslim guy for years. I only wish the Muslims would allow for development in their religion to take place. Whilst I have respect for their religion, I can not deny the fact that the Koran as it is written is ambiguous and is open to various interpretation and potential abuse. Look, most Muslims say that the barbarians who carried out the atrocity in Beslan are not Muslims. And yet, the one hostage taker captured kept repeating the name of Allah. The Muslims should make what their religion stands for precicely more public, help to catch the criminals that slaughter innocent children and spread the message that those barbarians are not Muslims and will forever burn in hell for what they did.

Hi Hanna:

You refered to well known anti muslim christian missionary website ( answering Islam ) but I have good news for you, we muslims already refuted everything in this hate site here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com

will you care to have a look?

Ex-Christian
Most of my information come from the website faithfreedom.org

It's a website run by former muslims. It's has a very secular perspective.

I'm sure that many things in the koran can be translated in several ways but you are in denial if you think that the translations I gave are ones that are believed by a minority.

I have no doubt that your translations are probably a stretch and a whitewash of Islam.

I only have to look at the behavior of muslims to see this, and what they have told me themselves.

It's interesting that you don't believe the story about Iran. Maybe you should start researching a little about what your muslims brothers are up to and see what religion you are really in. faithfreedom.org is a good start. read the more personal articles.

Hi D:

Faithfreedom is well known anti muslim hate site, it is not run by former muslims, this is common lie used to christian missionaries all the time.

Nearly All christians I meet on the internet claimed to be ex-muslims! later I found out they were lying just to defame islam.

Nevermind, we are already working on exposing this Ali sina clown here:

http://www.faithfreedom.com

As to my interpreation of the Quran, these are not mine, it is the acutal translation from Arabic, I happen to read and write Arabic ( after 5 years hard study ) so I know what I am talking about.

As to Iran and what you alleged, it is like telling me you make pigs fly before you eat them !

Please D, this is my advice, learn about Islam from Muslims not from their enemies.

Ex-Christian

My dislike of Islam comes from the words of actions of muslims themselves.h

Do you think Iran is a free country run by rational people?
Only a week ago they executed a 16 year old mentally retarded girl because she talked back to the judge. Is it that much of a stretch to believe that they raped her because the same insane clerics told them it is proper?

As for faithfreedom.org
I've read what they had to say and what their critics say. I suggest you do the same.
What evidence do you have that they are secretly christians?
They seem very secular and they are also very critical of irrational hatred against muslims.

Hi D:

'My dislike of Islam comes from the words of actions of muslims themselves.'

I agree with you some muslims behave in unislamic manner, but so are some christians (Bush for example ) and some Jews ( Ariel Sharon), does that justify mindless bashing of christianity and Judaism ? I dont think so.

D: 'Do you think Iran is a free country run by rational people?
Only a week ago they executed a 16 year old mentally retarded girl because she talked back to the judge. Is it that much of a stretch to believe that they raped her because the same insane clerics told them it is proper?'

Iran is not as you might think, what you know about Iran comes from your media, and your media is very biased.

As to the story of this 16 years old girl, I am sure it is fake and another attempt to score cheap points on Islam's expense.

Your own country execute childern, shall I labell all Americans as child killers and terrorists ? shall I hate America for this?

D : 'I've read what they had to say and what their critics say. I suggest you do the same.
What evidence do you have that they are secretly christians?
They seem very secular and they are also very critical of irrational hatred against muslims.'

You know D, you have great ability to reason and I slaute you for this, if you read faithfreedom you will find utter lies and fabrications against Islam, in fact, the founder of this site, Ali Sina has been exposed and defeated in public debate with normal Muslim:

http://www.examinethetruth.com/sina_on_the_run.htm

Ali sina refused even to publish this debate on his site, dont you need to wonder why ?

Christian missionaries are so sophisticated ( I know how they operate ) they dont come and make it clear to you that they want you as muslim to leave Islam, no, they pretend to be ex muslims and then start shaking your belief and your faith ( exactly like this faithfreedom ).

I am appealing to your intellegience and your reason to really invistigate what you hear and what you read, dont take my words for it, take a copy of the quran and read it, it is self explanatory.

Our muslim counter site: www.faithfreedom.com is in its first stages but I am sure what is there already exposes a great deal of deception by those christian missionaries.

Øyvind

Thanks for the links on Chechenya. You're right, this is a conflict that we know far too little about.

"These voices are still fringe voices."

Yes, fortunately. For Norway, only Jarle Synnevåg and Forum mot islamisering springs to mind, and it doesnt get more fringe than that. True, in ITaly, Oriana Fallaci has sold close to 2 million copies of her two books on Islam, but she is not taken seriously by mainstream media or acedemic circles.

"Still, I worry when ideas like those are spreading, and when I see symptoms of the same disease entering mainstream political parties and academic circles, and into widely published newspapers."

Examples, please? The most mainstream of all Norwegian newspapers, VG, ran as their front page headline "Islam er fred" [Islam is peace] just a few weeks after 9/11. As for academic circles, name one islamophobe at Norwegian universities.

What do you mean when you say that fascism is on the rise again here in the west? Are you thinking about LePen type far right movements?

You can't have an event like 9/11, and expect it not to result in a single islamophobe. Sad but true, its human nature, and not indicative of how "fascist" we as a culture have become. The problem here is not that people are mislead by mass media into thinking Islam is evil or anything like that. Of course, a lot of people may have become blinded by the terrible event that was 9/11, and may have arrived at a flawed understanding of Islam (just like many people blinded by colonial guilt fail to see the problematic aspects of Islam). The problem is when you become so obsessed with the ideology islam that you stop regarding muslims as individuals. I agree with you, these ideas (banning Islam etc) have to be fought.

Sadly, disregard for the individual is not confined to islamophobes. Sections of the political left have been doing something similar for years, by embracing cultural relativism, disregarding human rights as a "Western invention" and failing to stand up for the rights of young women of immigrant background (just this morning, I read in Aftenposten, that girls trying to escape forced marriage will no longer be entitled to free legal assistance). True, these people are also a minority (except at institutes of anthropology), but a much more powerful one.

"I do know a couple of things, though: All-out attacks on Islam is not a good beginning. Confusing Islam and Islamism is not a good idea."

Again, examples? Bush, for all his faults (which are considerable), bent over backwards to bring home the point that the war on terror is not a war on Islam. As for your opinion on realpolitik, I totally agree with you. US support for the Saudis is a disgrace (though the US are not alone in this; I cant this of a worse realpolitician that Chirac). And just like I think US support for Saddam for a period during the 80s was wrong, so I think it is right for the Americans to finally get rid of him and try to build democracy in Iraq. Whenever leftists argue about the invasion of Iraq, their arguments seem to go like, Look, it's ruined ME stability (yeah, didn't we all hold that dear)or, look, Bush is fighting an illegal war, or, he lied, there were no WMDs! I have yet to hear leftists arguements like for instance; Our strategy for bringing freedom to Iraq would have been much better than the US one! Because admit it, the left didn't come up with, or didn't even try to come up with, a good strategy for bringing an end to Baathist fascism in Iraq. What happened to the old socialist ideas about internationalism and fighting fascism?

Anyway, what was the European reaction to the US GReater Middle East initiative? We didn't exactly embrace it, did we? I remember Jacques Chirac grumbling something about the Arabs not needing outside help to build democracy.

All this is sad, because contributing to democracy in the ME is a huge challenge, and we need input from both left and right.

When a left wing group like amnesty international reports the execution then I believe it.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15557.html

This has been reported in every major newspaper in the world. Her full name is known and the exact place that she was hanged is known.

I can't find anything about the Iranian government claiming this is a false story, and its silly for you to claim that.

Whenever nazis or communists get cornered in an argument, they attribute all evidence that they don't like to Jewish and capitalist plots.

Do you think this story was spread by the CIA?

Do you believe the terrorists in Russia were really Mossad agents like some of your muslim brothers are already claiming?

Your beliefs about faithfreedom.org don't even make sense. I know that christian missionaries can be dishonest, but that website does not try to convert people to christianity. It tries to convert them to athiesm or secularism. It is does not benefit christians at all, unless you mean that there will be less muslims out there to kill them.

Tell me something. What do you do when one of your muslim brothers claims that the Jews commited 911?
Or that they eat the blood of children for passover?
Or that the holocaust never happened?
Or that the Osama Bin Laden is a great man?

I know you must have encountered some these ideas in your personal life. I know I have and I have known far fewer muslims than you.

So what do you do? Do you nod your head? do you stay silent? Just another one of those things that not all muslims agree on. right?

Don't you think all this barbarism is about getting rid of Putin?

Putin locked up number one tax evading oligarch of the Yukos oil group and is currently trying to extradite a couple of others from the UK and Israel.

Don't forget Russia has more oil than Libya..

Christianity and Islam are religions of which anybody can join. Not anybody can be a Jewish Zionist - they're also a race. They like chameleons will change colour to capture and sway all that they desire in whatever host country they inhabit. They will become christians and muslims if necessary - if it enables/enriches their intricate cause all the while being loyal to their own - a very international one.

If Muslims hated them that much why are there so many trading in the UAE Saudi and now Libya?? Britain's Jack Straw(Jewish)nows grubs around Qadaffi like a mud fly..

I'm not surprised at the rumours that 4,000 zionist workers didn't turn up for work on 9/11/01 because "they knew"?

The zionist russian mafiosi probably knew about this knowing it would hit Putin and hopefully make him unpopular. The plane crashes had as much impact on the world stage as a car crash.

We'll see if it works.....
George Soros Abramovich and Berezovsky who hate Putin must be praying on it....

Ex-Christian, you were NEVER a born of the Spirit Christian.(And you know it) Tell the truth. Is it in you?

If anyone is interested, Dan Darling has done a background post on Chechnya.

Terje: I am NOT a member of FOMI.

Ex-Christian: "www.faithfreedom.com is in its first stages"

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! faithfreedom.com has been in its "early stages" for several years now. I suspect it will always remain there, as the people behind it have been unable to refute pretty much anything from faithfreedom.org. As for faithfreedom being a Christian missionary website, that is more than funny. Ali Sina is a non-religious person today, just like Ibn Warraq. The majority of forum members are non-religious, although there are some Christian members. "Agentazure" is one of the Christian members, and she has complained quite a few times of the "anti-Christian" tone of the forum and the website.

You seem to have become easy prey for Muslim conspiracy theories and paranoia when you converted. That is, if you really did convert.

Hi C,

''Ex-Christian, you were NEVER a born of the Spirit Christian.(And you know it) Tell the truth. Is it in you?''

Christianity did not make any sense, trinity or (1+1+1 = 1 ) was the most pathetic of all christian concepts, praying to naked man on the cross as God was also very disturbing, thinking that circumcised man who was tortured and spat at can be God is beyond logical, the 50,000 + contradictions in the bible was the last straw, I could not really bear all this, I searched and read about many other religions until I read the holy quran, the most beautiful books of all, and there where the majestic light of Islam started to touch my soul leading me into unknown serenity and deep inner peace, Islam is truly the religion of Peace.

Wow - what a diverse mix of rational and lunatic thought! This thread has been both impressive and repulsive.

I agree with the Finnish/NY poster that the power of consumer culture & economics will ultimately eat away the foundation of wahabbi islam, just as it did with communism. I think we're in a cold-war type of conflict that will take decades to play out. Great - that plays to our strengths.

My heart was broken by the news in Russia. I have school age kids of my own, and am reminded that, for all of us, terrorists or no terrorists, life is fragile and sweet. I hope everyone will give a little extra care to the ones they love, and a prayer for all the anonymous strangers who suffer tonight.

Finally I'd like to acknowledge Bjorn for making this site available. You're providing an important service - thank you.

Hi D:

''
When a left wing group like amnesty international reports the execution then I believe it.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15557.html''

But the same source you are quoting reported also execution of childern in the USA:

http://web.amnesty.org/wire/February2004/executions

What do you think ? shall I labell America as barbaric terrorist child killer country ??

You claimed that girls like the one allegedly executed in Iran usually get raped before their death, do you have any proof for that ?

D :''Whenever nazis or communists get cornered in an argument, they attribute all evidence that they don't like to Jewish and capitalist plots.''

As one muslim poster earlier wrote, it is the jews who are working with the neo nazis, I will borrow his link ( from the Israeli haaretz )

The Jews who voted for Le Pen ( Le Pen is well know neo nazi racist leader of the French nation party )

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=160403&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

D : 'Do you believe the terrorists in Russia were really Mossad agents like some of your muslim brothers are already claiming?'

No, I dont beleive this, but I believe the Mossad has a lot to do with so many evil things taking place in this world.

Let us recall just the story that dominated the news last week about the Mossad Spy inside the Pentagon:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1292806,00.html

Why you dont talk about it ? I am just wondering what the reaction will be had this spy was MUSLIM ?? I am sure the hell will break loose.

D: 'Your beliefs about faithfreedom.org don't even make sense. I know that christian missionaries can be dishonest, but that website does not try to convert people to christianity. ''

I know that and I told you already what these christian missionaries do, they cant come to a muslim and tell him christianity is better than Islam, no, they cant. They have to shake his belief first and then once he has doubts about Islam, he can be invited after that to christianity.

D : ''it tries to convert them to athiesm or secularism. It is does not benefit christians at all, unless you mean that there will be less muslims out there to kill them.''

You did not make any sense here.

D: ''Tell me something. What do you do when one of your muslim brothers claims that the Jews commited 911?''

Conspiracy theory.

D ''Or that they eat the blood of children for passover?''

Well, there is no smoke without fire, I heard these stories a lot from non muslim christians as well. I will refer you to non muslim famous greek composer who claimed the same thing based on authentic stories witnesses by his fathers:

http://www.kniff.de/cgi-bin/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/http/www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/469781.html ( from the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz )

If you believe girsl in Iran are raped before killed ( which is myth ) and if you believe that in Islam there are virgins chained to rocks in Paradise ( which is also myth ), how come you are asking others about what they believe ? cant you see hypocrisy here ?

Or is it acceptable to believe any thing about Islam and Muslims even if they were lies and myths but not ok to believe anything about the jews even if they were facts ????

D : ''Or that the holocaust never happened?''

The Holocaust did happen but I dont buy the 6 million jew figure died there, the number of non jews who died in the holocaust is far more than the jews but I dont see memorials for the non jewish victims of the holocaust, why ?

D : ''Or that the Osama Bin Laden is a great man?''

I dont believe he is great man, but why is it ok for many Americans to think Bush is great man while not ok for muslims to think bin laden is great man ? both are criminals, both are terrorists, in fact, the terrorist Bush killed far more innocent people than Bin Laden did.

D: 'So what do you do? Do you nod your head? do you stay silent? Just another one of those things that not all muslims agree on. right?'

Another typical seterotyping, again, I advice you to go out to the wider world and have some fresh air away from the poisonous air of faithfreedom and other anti muslim hate sites.

You take on some muslims believing in conspiracy theories while you are doing just that, believing in conspiracy theories about Muslim.

Very interesting article in today's famous British Newspaper, The Guardian:

Our dead and injured children

Beslan was barbaric - so has been Russia's reign of terror in Chechnya

By:
Ahmed Zakaev .

Ahmed Zakaev is Aslan Maskhadov's representative and was deputy prime minister in the Chechen government elected in 1997. He was granted asylum by the British government in 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1298703,00.html

Terje wrote: "Examples, please?"

You are of course right to demand examples, and to point out what VG wrote a couple of weeks after 911. You are also right to point out that there are few, if any, Islamophobes, in Norwegian universities. However, my post was not about Norway specifically.

The symptoms I am talking about is - in Norway -more comparable to a sore throat than to atrial fibrillation. They're still not that serious. But okay - let's begin with media, shall we?

Back in March (see my article in Journalisten) I entered the news section of the Norwegian searchengine Kvasir and entered the word 'Islam'. The results? They were mostly about terrorism.

Dagbladet and VG told us that the new leader of Hamas had declared war against the United States and called Bush an "enemy of Islam". Hardly very new, but considering the death of the previous leader of the group it can be seen as defendable from the so-called news criteria journalists use. The same thing can be said when Aftenposten tells us about a British cleric who attacks Islam and when P4 has been reading Norge IDAG and discovered that Ludvig Nessa fears Muslim terrorism in Norway. Eva Bratholm in Dagbladet wrote that Salman Rushdie challenges the idea that the 911 terror attacks had nothing to do with Islam.

Newspapers tell us about Islam and terrorism every day. Two questions arise:

1. What are they not telling us about?

Islam is a world religion. There are at least a billion Muslims. There are numerous branches. Islamic mysticism has influenced a rich cultural tradition with music and poetry. Islamic social work is important in many countries. All of this should give the newspapers plenty to write about. They mostly do not. Well, Nitimen told us about Omar Sharif, who converted from Coptic Christianity to Islam and played a halfgodlike Don Juan in movies and got in trouble for kissing Jewish girls.

2. How are media using their words?

Sure, 911 had something to do with Islam, the terrorists had a religious motivation. But what about the terror attack on the Murrah building in Oklahoma city? Timothy McVeigh had connections to the Christian Identity movement. Was it a Christian terror attack? Are Christian 'pro-life' activists terrorists when they attack abortion doctors? Why is Muslim terrorism Muslim, while Christian terrorism is merely terrorism?

Another interesting example: A notice from ANB (a Norwegian press bureau) told us about the local election in Turkey. The government party was named "pro-Western". It's true. It is pro-Western. It wants Turkey to become a member of the European Union. It is also a party with Islamist roots, and this also has something to do with Islam.

In Norway these are the symptoms I am talking about. Not too serious, as mentioned, but they're still symptoms. And don't let me start with the letters to the editor in different Norwegian newspapers. Or with 'Ban Islam'-SMSs sent to the political magazine Tabloid on TV2 and sent rolling over the screen. I see more and more of shit like that.

And let's take a look at books being translated to Norwegian the last few years.

We've got Ibn Warraqs 'Why I am not a Muslim', published by the Humanist Atheists in Human-Etisk Forbund, a book that - amongst other things - use a cut and paste technique on history that makes European imperialism look good while Islamic expansion is described as the purest evil.

We've got Oriana Fallacis 'The Rage and The Pride' published by the major publishing house Gyldendal. It sold good in Europe, so I guess money is the issue there, but still, for once I do not find it difficult to agree with Bernt Hagtvedt:

Describing Islam like Fallaci does is like describing European civilization and culture and only talk about Jean Marie Le Pen

And then there's Mark Gabriels 'Islam and terrorism', where mistaking Islam and Islamism is taken to new extremes. The Christian weekly Norge IDAG - an extreme voice, but not a minor one - constantly recommends that book.

Norwegian political circles? Some claim that the quotes from Carl I Hagens speech that (fortunately) created outrage in Norwegian media was taken out of context. I read the whole thing. I can not see that they're taken out of contexts. This is also far from the first time Hagen uses xenophobic sentiments towards Muslims, back in 1988 he read from a letter written by a Muslim telling us about how naive Norwegians were and that they were to take over our country. The letter was false. But even if one interprets Hagens statements in the mildest way possible he has got party colleagues that are far worse:

Islam is an equally dangerous ideology as Nazism. What makes Islam 'legal' is that its camouflaged as a religion...

Maybe we should reconsider the principle of religious freedom, and ban Islam and other camouflaged religions that in their scriptures promote murder on those who will not submit to the ideology of the religion?

[...]On this basis the ideology of Islam and the practice of this ideology should be just as punishable in Norway and Europe as the ideology of Nazism and its practice'

Source: Letter to the editor in Norge IDAG

"What do you mean when you say that fascism is on the rise again here in the west? Are you thinking about LePen type far right movements?"

Yes. Thanks to the gift of love, Belgium is a country I know a bit about. Vlaams Blok recently received 25 percent of the votes in the Flemish part of the country. That's fascism in a thin disguise.

Finally, my statements on an "all-out-attack" in Islam was in no way about Bush. I will gladly admit that I do not like the guy, but I do not think that he will propose anything like that. He was also sensible enough to 'bend over backwards' to bring home his point that the war on terror is not a war on Islam (though his use of the word 'crusade' was a bit unfortunate, that word has much the same ring in the Arab world as jihad has to us). My statements referred to the four posters Bjørn congratulated on being the first on the blog to actually condone terrorism.

While I did oppose the war in Iraq I see no reason to discuss it on this thread. Maybe Bjørn will start some other thread on it one beautiful day. If you'd like to see my opinion you can read it in Ny Tid - the newspaper of the Socialist Left Party - here you go.

[To summarize it for those who don't read Norwegian: Some of the critique against the Left for being anti-American and for not having a viable alternative to war is correct. But viable alternatives did in fact exist and the war was not a good idea]

"Anyway, what was the European reaction to the US GReater Middle East initiative? We didn't exactly embrace it, did we? I remember Jacques Chirac grumbling something about the Arabs not needing outside help to build democracy"

I did not catch that one, but it doesn't surprise me. In one way I agree with Chirac, the Arabs do not need outside help to build democracy. But on the other hand, we should be helping them out anyway. Today we're helping out corrupt elites instead. And that includes Chirac.

Øyvind

Ex-Christian:

Let me make this clear. When it comes to stories about Jews drinking the blood of children there's loads and loads of smoke without fire.

These very notion comes from the same type of xenophobic urban legends that often portrays other minority groups (Vietnamese, Pakistanis, so on). You have got tales about families who make gardens in the livingroom floor, about restaurants serving rat meat or meat with 'extra sauce' (semen) and girls being kidnapped from testing rooms in immigrant clothstores and sold into white slavery.

These stories are not merely 'myths'. They are lies. And they are worse than that. They are racist lies, and they are not less racist because Muslims are not alone in telling them. Racism like this is against the words of the Qu'ran, "And mankind is naught but a single nation." (2:213).

[Also keep in mind: "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens, and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colours; verily these are Signs for those who know." (30:22)]

To see lies about the Jews repeated by Muslims is sadly far from uncommon. Anti-Jewish sentiments are sickeningly widespread in the Muslim world, and Western converts like you should - instead of accepting sentiments like that - feel an obligation to fight against them.

Ma salaama,

Øyvind

I have two comments to make:

1) to Øyvind, Bergen - it is widely known that unfortunately Islam prohibits music. I don't understand why - and god knows, many Muslims love music, and love watching Hindu musical films. They really should chil out and accept that music is a great thing.
2) I have been thinking about the terrorists that call themselves Muslim and the fact that most decent Muslims condemn them, and have come to a conclusion that these terrorists should in fact be calling themselves what they really are - Satanists. That way, the name of Islam is not being smeared and everybody knows where these savages come from.

Hi Øyvind, Bergen

''To see lies about the Jews repeated by Muslims is sadly far from uncommon. Anti-Jewish sentiments are sickeningly widespread in the Muslim world, and Western converts like you should - instead of accepting sentiments like that - feel an obligation to fight against them.

Ma salaama,''

I did not accept such statements, but I did not make up my mind yet about them.

Thank you for your quotes and I promise you to consider what you said more throughly.

As to the spread of anti jewishness ( and not anti semitism ) in the muslim world, I think it is very well justified seeing what the jews are doing in Palestine ,indirectly in Iraq and directly voting for anti muslim neo nazis in Europe and inciting hate against Muslims in the USA:

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5965.htm

Jewish groups: Raze mosques, rebuild temple

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/58087655-FE76-4764-9598-A952E08FEFC8.htm

Inciting Hate against Muslims : Jewish American Leader Warns of 'Growing US Moslem Community';

From the Israeli newspaper, Maariv

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=printArticle&articleID=10192

Jewish writer wirtes in the Neo Nazi British national party inciting hate and resentment against Muslims:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/islam_menace.htm

The Jews who voted for Le Pen

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=160403&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Faking anti jewish ( anti semitic ) attacks and blaming it on Muslims:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=540658

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/843B1FF4-ED76-45D6-AFAC-74CA089A166C.htm

And many more films, books and websites written and published by jews for the sole purpose of inciting hate against Islam and Muslims.

You cant deny all these facts Øyvind ( specially this disgusting act of jews voting for neo nazi in France ! ) I am not going to bury my head in the sand anymore and pretend nothing is happening, I dont think all jews are innocent or blameless.

I shall wait for your comments on the above links.

Hi Hanna

Islam does not ban Music, only the backward wahhabis do this.

Øyvind, if you work for Journalisten, why don't you also do an interview with or run an article about Ali Sina from faithfreedom.org? He would be more than willing to do so, I think. So would Robert Spencer from JihadWatch.org. If you believe your view is correct, shouldn't it also be able to face the opponent? Isn't that what Journalism is all about? Giving both sides the opportunity to get their voices heard?

Lets see.

Bush=Bin Laden

Rumors of israeli spying=as evil as muslim terrorism

and of course....

Jews drink the blood of children.

This is what the moderate muslim on this thread believes in.

These are the people who defend Islam as a peaceful religion.

Not only does this expose the evil of Islam, but the last part about Jews drinking blood shows that muslims are insane.

Insane is the only word for it.

I've talked to Ex-Christian, Now Muslim for a little while now, and I thought he was really a normal person who misguided by his religous teachers and was blind to the evil of Islam.

But now I see that he is insane.

It's not the first time I experienced this with a muslim.

There you go guys. This is the moderate muslim you keep talking about. They are the sleeper cells. They are our neighbors.

D:

''There you go guys. This is the moderate muslim you keep talking about. They are the sleeper cells. They are our neighbors.''

Watch out D, Muslims are coming after you !!

Ex-Christian,

Have you noticed how many posters here are calling for killing muslims? I doubt many of these posters would have said any of those things a few years ago. Not even after 911. But more and more people are finding out what Islam is all about.

Muslims start wars all over the world. Yugoslavia, India, Russia, Israel, America, Lebanon the list goes on and on...

They are too primative to win any of these wars and always complain when the non muslims fight back using the same dirty tactics as the muslims.

The only way muslims have won in the past is by playing victim and letting the Western world fight it's battles for it.

But we are already seeing less and less of this. Putin can kill a million muslims in the next year and you well get nothing more than quiet complaints.

Even the leftist of Europe are tired of Islam. How long before someone like Le Pen gets elected?

The days are numbered for your retarded religion.

Keep your children close, Hanuaka is just around the corner...

Ali: Sorry, Ali, I do not work for Journalisten. I wrote my article as a letter to the editor, i.e. as an op-ed.

I have also written articles about anti-Islamism. In one of them I interviewed the editor of the Norwegian radio channel Radio Bergen, and tried to get comments from the Norwegian Forum against Islamization (the guys who claims the Norwegian Concervative Party is a party for apartheid and ethnic cleansing). The latter group choose not to comment. Not that brave after all, I guess.

Hanna wrote: "It is widely known that unfortunately Islam prohibits music"

Well, the Qu'ran tells us about singing angels and hadiths tell us about Muhammed ordering Abu Bakr to let the show go on:

Narrated Aisha: That once Abu Bakr came to her on the day of 'Id-ul-Fitr or 'Id ul Adha while the Prophet was with her and there were two girl singers with her, singing songs of the Ansar about the day of Buath. Abu Bakr said twice. "Musical instrument of Satan!" But the Prophet said, "Leave them Abu Bakr, for every nation has an 'Id (i.e. festival) and this day is our 'Id.

You will find some Muslim clerics who, for some reason, agree with you that Islam prohibits music. Most will not, though I suspect Britney Spears is not extremely popular.

Ex-Christian wrote: "I think it is very well justified seeing what the jews are doing in Palestine"

Racism, and this includes anti-Judaism and other anti-Semitism, is never justified. Sometimes it is understandable, but that's it. While it is perfectly okay to criticize Israeli policy or to criticize anyone voting for Le Pen it is not okay to hate an ethnic or religious group because of this, not okay, not justified, not acceptable.

Øyvind

When all is said and done you don't have Priests, Ministers or Rabbis calling for the death of Moslems or for the taking of children as hositages. Yet this is an everyday occurance in the Moslem world. Islam has ceased to be a religon -- at least in how it repsecs humand life. Thus the London based cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, told London's Sunday Telegraph that he would support hostage-taking at a British school if carried out by terrorists with a just cause. The response was silence -- utter silence -- in MOslem community. That silence is obscene.

When all is said and done you don't have Priests, Ministers or Rabbis calling for the death of Moslems or for the taking of children as hositages. Yet this is an everyday occurance in the Moslem world. Thus the London based cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, told London's Sunday Telegraph that he would support hostage-taking at a British school if carried out by terrorists with a just cause. The response was silence -- utter silence -- in Moslem community. That silence is obscene. I think the time has long passed for the burden to be placed on the West as to how to engage with Islam. The burden should be on Islam. Just as all civilized society condemn, slavery, piracy and genocide, it is time to condemn Islam as it is practiced today. -- as voiced from its mosques.

Herbie:

Oh, come on, Omar Bakri Mohammed is so extreme that he did not fit in Hizb ut-Tahrir (an Islamist group), and went on to create his own little sect, al-Mujahiroun (the Migrant's Movement).

And when it comes to your utter silence I guess it's only in your mind, because even Hizb-ut-Tahrir - Islamists dreaming of establishing a worldwide Khilafah - has said the following:

We have all witnessed with horror the tragic scenes on our television sets. The bloody conclusion of a three-day siege at School Number One in the town of Beslan in North Ossetia. Early reports have stated that there are over 150 casualties, including women, and young children. Many hundreds of others have been injured, and the whole town and region will be traumatised by these events.

If indeed the truth is ever revealed and it is suggested that Muslims are behind the hostage taking, then this will truly be a tragedy that will not assist the cause of the Muslims in Chechnya

If you look it up in their web magazine Khilafah you will also discover the following:

The correct way to resist the aggression of the Russians in Chechnya is to establish a Khilafah state that works to protect the Muslims and their lands. In this endeavour we must follow the shariah, which prohibits the killing of innocents.

Come to think of it, they prohibit killing of innocent, while you recently called for it. Seems like we do not need priests to do that work.

Ex-Christian:

Let me quote about from Harun Yahuas site, since you're linking to it yourself:

In the 20th century, antisemitism has signed its name to great disasters, one of the most horrible being the cruelty and murder inflicted by the Nazis on the Jews. Besides this, in many countries authoritarian regimes have targeted Jews and subjected them to cruel treatment. Fascist organizations have harassed Jews and arranged bloody attacks against them.

In our times antisemitism is still an ideology which threatens world peace and targets the well-being and security of innocent people.

So, how should a Muslim regard antisemitism?

The answer is obvious. Every Muslim must oppose antisemitism as he would oppose every other racist ideology; he must resist this ideology of hatred and defend the rights of Jews as he would defend the rights of all other people. Every Muslim must recognize and defend the rights of Jews whether in Israel or in the diaspora to live in peace, to worship, to protect their identity and to express themselves

Must have done something wrong with my HTML tags. The conclusion above is also from Harun Yahuas site.

Oyvind. No you are quite wrong. The over whelming majority of Moslem clerics are either silent or actively support such actions. Indeed, I find it amazing that essentially no fatwas are proclaimed agianst such acts yet many are issued in support of such acts. I am sorry to say that your theory is one that iw in search of facts

Ex-Christian, we will agree to disagree. You will never shake my faith, and you will never be convinced either. But as I "shake the dust from my feet..." I will not call for your death,the way Islam does when an unbeliever refuses Islam.

Ex-Christian, regarding your post about God being 1+1+1=1, is a human being comprised of flesh, bone and blood 3 persons?

Bjorn:
"Yes, but remember what kind of group accountability we're talking about here. Muslims have a moral obligation, I believe, to speak out against their own extremists, and they have a moral guilt if they fail to do this. But that should not become a legal guilt or a military guilt, allowing us to deliberately imprison or bomb civilian Muslims simply for not standing up against extremism. I know it sounds hard to believe, but that's actually what people are suggesting here, to fight terrorism with terrorism."

First excuse the lateness of my reply.

A very fine set of points. I do have a small problem with your PoV tho, even tho I agree with the premise of it. How can you have a reformation of it without concequences for the groups actions? Western religions had their King of England(Protestants), Martin Luthar(Lutherans), etc., who rebelled against the mainstay of the Catholic church. These were individuals who were disatisfied with the Church and fought for the group in order to better everyone. We do not see that here, we sometimes see an individual...not a individual leading a group. If we do see that, the individual is often killed outright, and his followers fall back, or are killed. Perhaps we'll see it in time, the problem is Jihad, hate of the west, and the cult of death is taught right from highest leaders in Islam right to the madrassas around the world. This is a craddle to the grave problem we are facing.

Can we really ignore that this is "fringe" anymore or face upto the truth that every segment is being taught the same thing?

I do not see a 'want' to change. If I ask a muslim; they are indifferent to what they see. Even secular ones, Islam before the west. Now perhaps I'm asking the wrong ones; you'd figure you'd find some in Toronto someplace.

As for fighting terrorism with terrorism. No, I've never agreed with that, and most people shouldn't. I do get a good deal angry tho...turning a chunk of realestate into rubble after Beslan would make me feel better but wouldn't bring back the people tho. What we do have to understand is this, we are in a war that is being supported by various government in the middle east, openly(Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya(at one time tho I don't trust them), or covertly like Saudi Arabi, Iraq(at one time), Jordan, Egypt, etc. If people want to call this a crusade; that's fine by me. The first one to clear up the historical points was defense against muslims who wanted to expand their empire into Europe.

Right now we have both oil rich countries, with despot ridden governments, who do not care for their people who have religious leaders bent on two or three things which they believe they can achieve through religious indoctrination. Once more, I say...how can you have reformation without concequences for their actions? When their response is indiffrence or support.

I hope that makes sense...with a migraine one can never be too sure.

Regards.

Herbie wrote: "The over whelming majority of Moslem clerics are either silent or actively support such actions"

Might I add that the overwhelming majority of Christian priests EITHER are silent or actively support killing abortion doctors? And that a majority of Norwegian EITHER support Saparmurad Niyazovs dictatorship in Turkmenistan or do not say anything about it? Isn't that equally true?

It's a silly demand you're making and you know it.

But anyway - while you have been repeating your usual 'they don't say anything'-refrain while holding your ears as hard as you can, singing "la-la-la, I can not hear you, my father is bigger than yours", I have listed statements from cleric after cleric, including Tantawi - the sheikh of al-Azhar University, by many considered to be the number one authority in Sunni Islam.

And as I just showed you, even the rather fanatic Hizb-ut-Tahrir (also known for an anti-Semitism that would make many Nazists uncomfortable), has made their opinion clear.

What did they say? Let's take it again: The correct way to resist the aggression of the Russians in Chechnya is to establish a Khilafah state that works to protect the Muslims and their lands. In this endeavour we must follow the shariah, which prohibits the killing of innocents.

Øyvind

Okay, turning of the Italics :)

Øyvind

D

''The days are numbered for your retarded religion.''

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein

C, nowhere |

''Ex-Christian, we will agree to disagree. You will never shake my faith, and you will never be convinced either. But as I "shake the dust from my feet..." I will not call for your death,the way Islam does when an unbeliever refuses Islam.''

It is exactly this type of christian sickning hypocrisy that made me leave this cult and embrace the only true religion of Islam.

You talk as if Islam really call for the death of those who leave islam, no where in the holy quran you will find such thing, in fact, you will find the opposite:

''There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way'' The Noble Quran 2:256

And this whole chapter from the noble quran about this very issue:

109. Al-Kâfirûn ( disbelievers )

In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

1. Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)to these Mushrikûn and Kâfirûn ( infidels and disbelievers):
"O Al-Kâfirûn (disbelievers in Allâh )

2. "I worship not that which you worship,

3. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.

4. "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.

5. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.

6. "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâmic Monotheism)."

Notice verse 6: ''To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâmic Monotheism)."

Now, let us compare the above with the Bible, in the bible we see CLEAR death sentences for those who change their christian faith:

Stoning for practising a different religion

Deuteronomy 17:1-7 "You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever; for that is an abomination to the LORD your God. "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the LORD your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses he that is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.

Stoning for preaching a different religion

Deuteronomy 13:6-11 "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.

Stoning for blasphemy

Leviticus 24:10-16 Now an Israelite woman's son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel quarreled in the camp, and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. And they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelo'mith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody, till the will of the LORD should be declared to them. And the LORD said to Moses, "Bring out of the camp him who cursed; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And say to the people of Israel, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

Leviticus 24:23 So Moses spoke to the people of Israel; and they brought him who had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. Thus the people of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

So you see, you accuse Islam falsely of things which is not part of islam while it is very well established in your man worshiping cult of christianity.

C, nowhere

''Ex-Christian, regarding your post about God being 1+1+1=1, is a human being comprised of flesh, bone and blood 3 persons?''

First, cant you see the contradictions in your own question:

you used 2 words in your question, God and then human being, how can you put them together and how can God be comprised of flesh, bone and blood ?

How can 3 very different things ( the father, the son and the holy ghost ) be one thing ?

How can Mary worship her son as god ?

How can circumsied tortured humiliated and naked man on the cross be God ?

It does not make any sense, it is illogical and really laughable.

Here is how Islam view God ( Allah ):

Allah is One, without any partners. He has no sharers in His essence, attributes, actions, or rulings. He is the sole Creator of all that exists, has existed, and will ever exist.

Everything other than Him is His creation – that is, a contingent being that came into existence after it did not previously exist.
He alone controls all events, causes, and effects, and no power exists independently of His power. Nothing happens outside of His will, neither before He willed it, nor after He willed it, neither more than what He willed, nor less than what He willed.

There is nothing like Him, and it is impossible to imagine or conceive Him. He is not qualified by the laws of His creation. He is not encompassed by direction or distance. Allah existed as He has always been before the creation of time and space. He not only created time and space, but He is transcendentally beyond them, such that He cannot be “in” a place, He cannot be “everywhere,” and He cannot be “nowhere.”

Allah is the eternally-existing, necessary first cause. Unlike His creation, which is a possible existent subject to nonbeing, beginning, and ending, Allah has no beginning and He will never perish or come to an end. Scholars have also explained, “Bringing creation into existence did not add anything to His attributes that was not already there.”

He is the Sustainer of everything, directly sustaining every instant of the existence of all things. He alone gives life and He alone gives death, and He will re-create and resurrect living rational beings for judgment and retribution just as He created them the first time. Nothing is difficult for Him.

For more about the concept of Tawhid( monotheism ) in Islam, read the following:

http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/belief/Allah/article03.shtml

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/conceptofgod.html

"What did they say? Let's take it again: The correct way to resist the aggression of the Russians in Chechnya is to establish a Khilafah state that works to protect the Muslims and their lands. In this endeavour we must follow the shariah, which prohibits the killing of innocents."

And how is this in any way a "comforting" thought to those of us discomfitted by the spectacle of Beslan? The Khilafah state envsioned by Hizbut would be a perpetual war marchine that would perpetually declare war against all non-Muslim entities in order to establish a world-wide Islamic state.

Yet Oyvind offers them up as some kind of example for those of us who fear the Islamic world.

Ex-C says "He alone controls all events, causes, and effects, and no power exists independently of His power. Nothing happens outside of His will, neither before He willed it, nor after He willed it, neither more than what He willed, nor less than what He willed."

Right that is why there is not really a future tense in Arabic --it is irrelevant and that is also why rational thought is discouraged and frequently at odds with Islam.

And that is why unless the state is seperated from Islam that no social or scientitic progress is made in ANY Islamic country -- unless, of course, you count a maddrassa as progress

I do not find Hizb-ut-Tahrir comforting at all. They're extremists, fanatics and anti-Semites, but they're still opposed to atrocities like the one we saw in Beslan. It's quite important to notice this.

Actually that's a part of the classical idea of the lesser jihad (holy war) - you are not allowed to attack children, elderly, women or monks. Therefore you will find that many - even amongst the groups referred to as jihadist - oppose such an abhorable strategy. They consider it a breach of sharia.

Same thing with Hamas, they also say that they are opposed to an aggressive jihad.

Does not seem like it, you say? No, it does not, and they actually have to define their actions as 'self-defence' and Israeli children as 'enemies' to be able to defend it from their own radical exegesis of the Qu'ran.

Øyvind

"Essentially, Clem has begun the first critical step that leads to mass madness and genocide: He has taken up dehumanizing his enemies."

No, Kevin, my enemies have taken up dehumanizing themselves.

"Obviously, the only way to wipe out an entire swath of humanity for the crime of hatred… is for your own commission of that act to be against non-humans."

That is correct, and I no longer feel a bond of common humanity with muslims. I don't hate them (except the active terrorists themselves), but I do now regard their suffering with cold indifference. This is not from the individual atrocities themselves and their ubiquity wherever islam spreads, but rather from the muslim reaction to the atrocities, particularly among western muslims. The views of the muslims that I have come to know well enough to understand their opinions on islamic terrorism are mostly supportive of terrorism, though occassionally neutral. Generally their opinions mirror those of the muslims who have posted on these comments - paranoid conspiracy theories demonising the victims of terrorist atrocities, and claims of moral equivalence between the terrorist atrocities and the actions taken to retaliate and defend against the atrocities. I'm sick to the stomach of hearing it, especially post 9/11. I have yet to personally meet a muslim who is actually disgusted by islamist terrorist atrocities, though I'm sure a few must exist. While local muslim rallies in support of terrorist causes have drawn a large and hysterical attendance, I have yet to hear of a muslim rally against terrorism in Australia, although there was a poorly attended one recently in America. Bear in mind that this is in western countries, where muslims should have little to fear from the authorities in expressing opposition to islamism. That is why I fear that trying to spread democratic values to Iraq by toppling the autocratic elites is quixotic. We've already run that experiment in western countries many times without obvious success.

On the other hand, arab leaders have been dealing with their own populations for a long time. They know what works in suppressing arab uprisings. We would be unwise to ignore their experience in this issue. Sure, wiping out entire villages is barbaric, but if such a show of force ultimately saves lives by averting civil or international war then I don't see how it is morally or strategically damnable.

I wasn't necessarily advocating genocide of muslims (reread what I wrote), and nothing I say could make a genocide of muslims happen. Only muslims can successfully advocate genocide of muslims, and they're doing a pretty good job of it. I thought September 11 might give them some pause for thought, and encourage them to make sincere efforts at reforming their behaviour, but it has only made them worse. If nukes start going off in American cities, all our discussions about how to deal with islamic terrorism will become moot, as the problem will be rapidly solved for all eternity.

Russian Muslims Rally Against Terror

MOSCOW, September 8 (IslamOnline.net) – Up to 40,000 Russian Muslims took part Tuesday, September 7, in a nationwide rally in protest at the hostage-taking school tragedy in the southern city of Beslan that claimed the lives of hundreds of people, mostly children.

The deputy chief of Russia’s Council of Muftis, Izzatullah Damir Hezrat, said the perpetrators of the “terrorist hostage-takers have nothing to do with Islam”.

“They are not Muslims at all, rather they are criminals,” Hezrat told the crowd massing at the Red Square.

“Those who killed innocent people, not to mention children, are doomed to the Hellfire. They wanted to spark a religious strife in the Caucasus. But their malicious schemes would prove futile as the entire Russian people stand united against terrorism.”

Read the whole article here:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-09/08/article05.shtml

Samir Quntar is a Palestinian national hero. It is also noteworthy that in the wake of Beslan, the PA would see fit to praise a child killer.

In 1979, Quntar crossed into northern Israel from Lebanon, and took Danny Haran and his four-year-old daughter, Einat, as hostages, to bring them to Lebanon. When the Israeli army arrived, Quntar murdered Danny and Einat. Danny's other daughter also died in the attack. Quntar was captured, and received multiple life sentences totalling 542 years in prison.
PATV and PA leaders see Quntar as a hero, and the hunger strike was used as an opportunity to promote Quntar. His picture was repeatedly shown on TV and he was proclaimed the "model warrior," "brave," and a "leader" and "head" of the prisoners.

PA Minister of Prisoners, Hisham Abdul Razeq, defined Quntar as the leader of the prisoners: "The torch of freedom [that] was lifted by our heroic prisoners and headed by the great warrior Samir Quntar...and our thanks to you."
[PATV, Aug. 15, 2004]

Herbie NY

What has Samir Quntar anything to do with Beslan tragedy ?

I think you did not like what I posted about Russian muslims condeming terrorism, right ? here it is again so that you can keep on track:

Russian Muslims Rally Against Terror

MOSCOW, September 8 (IslamOnline.net) – Up to 40,000 Russian Muslims took part Tuesday, September 7, in a nationwide rally in protest at the hostage-taking school tragedy in the southern city of Beslan that claimed the lives of hundreds of people, mostly children.

The deputy chief of Russia’s Council of Muftis, Izzatullah Damir Hezrat, said the perpetrators of the “terrorist hostage-takers have nothing to do with Islam”.

“They are not Muslims at all, rather they are criminals,” Hezrat told the crowd massing at the Red Square.

“Those who killed innocent people, not to mention children, are doomed to the Hellfire. They wanted to spark a religious strife in the Caucasus. But their malicious schemes would prove futile as the entire Russian people stand united against terrorism.”

Read the whole article here:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-09/08/article05.shtml

Ex C Am I then to assume that you and your felow MOslems also condemn Samir Quntar?

Repeatedly in this thread individuals refer to the proposals to get rid of Muslims as a genocide; this is an incorrect use of the word "genocide" and an hysterical exaggeration. A genocide is eliminating a race, hence its root work "geno" and "genotype." Muslims are not a race, it is a selected religion which is known to produce violent fanatics. It is also not bigoted as that is Old English for “by God.” Since we live in a secular, mostly atheistic time, nothing for most people is “by God.” It is about survival.

Oeyvind wrote

They're extremists, fanatics and anti-Semites, but they're still opposed to atrocities like the one we saw in Beslan. It's quite important to notice this

(AAACHH Soooo you are all excited about this little observation...what does it matter they'll still wring your infidel neck and chop off your infidel head LOL.....oh my so they are against Beslan, but they'll splatter your blood in a hundred different ways.........Oeyvind you are just impossibly dhimm (o.k. its an invented word ..but you get my drift ...nicht wahr? ) )

The problem with you radikal leftist is you can have Shaitan stare you in the face and you'll say : oh, but Shaitan says throwing little babies into the sacificial pit of Baal is bad.........however throwing life virgins into the sacrificial well is o.k. and a lesser 'evil'..........haaaaaah.......time to overhaul your Gehirn ...baaaah.

Sister Sarirot Duangprapha
specialist in irrational adamic cults

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/787