What's happened to Islam?

[Friend]

Someone needs to bomb this thread.

Ok...

As I'm muslimah...then I'm terrorist as your perceptions about us

I will do

.
.

I'm sorry...it Just attic wit

 

[bananabrain]

hilarious.

and you're muslimah as well, are you? well that explains a lot. i remember *your* views pretty well from this thread:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/palestine-is-it-the-jews-6108.html

it's people like you that make it possible for the terrorists to claim that what they do is supported by muslims.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Muslimwoman]

not by me. however, the allegation of jewish complicity with the holocaust (naturally, for nefarious zionist reasons) has, in my experience, always, always, always been both a holy grail and a cause celebre for anti-semites, so you'll forgive me if i give it the short shrift it so absolutely deserves.

Okay lets get this sorted. I am not, I repeat, I am not an anti-semite but can understand that they exist even here on CR which would make a discussion on this issue difficult. I do however find that if I have read something that is incorrect it is better to explain and correct my kowledge than to make personal insults and simply say you are wrong. So either we need to agree that the issue is off limits, bearing in mind that opens the door to all sorts of subjects being off limits, or we need to engage in constructive discussion and ignore any posters that do not engage in constructive discussion.

One of the reasons I spend so much time posting on CR and other forums is to try to correct, politely, incorrect things that people believe about my faith. So rather than name call tell me where my knowledge is wrong, point me at reliable information that can possibly change how I see things. This is not directed solely at you BB just a general remark.

frankly, like bob says, 10% of a billion muslims (or however many it is) is enough to be seriously, seriously worrying - to call it "small" smacks of rhetorical fidgy-widginess. like he says, it is "far from negligible", just like the 130K muslims in the *UK* who want me dead. and they live in my neighbourhood!

Go back through the posts. When I was talking about an insignificant number I was talking about terrorists I believe - 0.01% is an insignificant number to me. Their actions are not insignificant by any stretch of the imagination but their numbers are in comparison to the whole - as a representation of our faith. As for Shia being 10% of the whole I have to agree to disagree, 10% to me is a small percentage -it may be a large number of people because of the number of Muslims worldwide but as a percentage it is small. If you said Zionists make up 10% of the Jewish nation I would also call that a small percentage.

As for people wanting you dead for your religious belief or something happening in countries most of us have never been to is sheer insanity. Of course it is worrying for you and if you have children more so I should think. I cannot explain their views any more than I can explain why people turn to terrorism, I cannot speak for those people as I am not one of them but I will object if anyone suggests my faith has taught me their views.

quite. perhaps abdullah and friend would like to acknowledge this as well?

You're not holding your breath are you?

but i am 1000% certain that he would be as appalled as i to discover their putative actions being used to delegitimise the state of israel and transform jewish victimhood to jewish culpability. only in a universe as twisted as that of the anti-semites could such a thing occur.

I have a problem with your use of the words anti-semite here BB, not everyone that tries to get to the truth of this matter is an anti-semite. Not everyone is trying to turn this into 'the Jews did it to themselves'. One issue for me is whether these people went to work in the Israeli government and therefore shaped Israeli policy. I accept that anti-semites will jump on this information and use it for their nasty minded purposes but does that mean it should be ignored? There are bigots everywhere and sometimes we have to stand up and be counted even if that is painful to do. Perhaps it would even pull the rug from under some of them, if people stood up and said this is the truth of what happened (maybe I am doing my niave bit there?)

i think you'll find that the difference is that in one case you are talking about the actions of 20-30 people being extrapolated into an international conspiracy that has little basis in fact

Clearly I believe it is more than 20 or 30 people and that there are facts to support it. As I say above my issue is whether some of these people ended up in a government.

and in the other you are talking about a systemic, ongoing refusal to take responsibility for demonstrable views and actions that continues to perpetuate a cycle of violence and vainglory which causes each and every one of us personal grief and considerable inconvenience.

Oh no you don't, I am always the first on CR to say that we Muslims are stuck in the dark ages and must reinterpret the Quran in light of modern knowledge and morals. And for those that think I am one lone fruitcase voice I suggest you do some research, millions of Muslims feel the same way. The vast majority of Muslims do not agree with terrorist activities (until it comes to Palestine then the Arab Muslims get all political and their thinking goes wonky). I nearly fell off my seat when a Saudi cleric wrote to bin Laden to tell him he was acting in an unIslamic way after the 9/11 attacks - a Wahabbi - blow me down with a feather.

if they weren't, then i don't know what the side of right and good actually was.

Are you joking? That is way off topic but the British have a lot to answer for during WWII both in actions but particularly in lack of actions at time. In the end we did the right thing but not for the reasons people like to think. Hell we invented concentration camps long before the Nazi's introduced them.

an interesting idea, but like you yourself have said, a committee that lacks the wherewithal to devise a religiously acceptable solution will also lack the ability to make it acceptable to the substantial minority to whom these are the only real solutions. hence previous ceasefires have had to be reinforced with the islamic concept of "hudna".

Well it will have to be the aliens then because I am out of ideas.

Oh now come on BB 'islamic concept of "hudna"'. Find me the word hudna in the Quran. If I can work out it isn't there I would think Israel could do the same.

i personally don't see a solution until jewish and arab neighbourhoods are mixed, but the trend, as you know, is for the communities to separate, unfortunately.

Bravo, see that is all it takes, I now understand the issue of 'Jewish only' or 'Arab only' land - thank you for the explanation. Much better than finger pointing.

I agree re the mixed community but I have no idea how the clock could be turned back that far. Without it though there will be seperated communities and the 'hatred' will just be passed from generation to generation. You can just see the day trips now 'see kids, we used to own that bit of land over there but now 'they' have it'. The whole situation is so sad.

i'm pleased to hear about this palestinian human rights monitoring group if it does focus from the palestinian side on these sorts of problems; certainly the palestinian christians are on the receiving end from their muslim co-citizens often enough, not just jews. i've heard of bassem eid, too.

There are a number of such organisations I believe but they tend to record the wrongs of both sides, not just their own. To be fair if they only listed their own they wouldn't exist for very long. However they are out there, they may have a small voice but they do speak out and I take my hat off to them for their bravery under the conditions they are living.

1. the rockets are not as sophisticated, reliable and accurate as the israeli military make out
2. the israelis deliberately set out to kill children

I am ex military BB, I know what these weapons can do. My concern is the children that are dying on both sides. I do not deny Palestine target civilians and I in no way attempt to defend this policy. But for Israel when you look at the numbers for the dead children in just one year compared to the number that died by accidental fire in Ireland over a 30 year period I am left with serious questions. I would not suggest they set out to kill children specifically but clearly they do not care about avoiding them - sorry but the statistics just do not support any other view.

Personally if was possible I would go and take every child out of the area, they could stay in Disneyland until the bloody 'grownups' either sort themselves out or kill each other. I do not want to see one more dead child on my tv screen, be they Muslim, Jew, Christian or whatever.

same goes for the US and UK's "technological superiority" in iraq, actually. you must surely concede that

once again, we seem to be unable to discuss the failings of islam without reference to how much worse the jews are. how typical.

Erm are you not doing the same thing above BB? I talk about the number of children killed by Israel and you talk about the US & UK in Iraq. Perhaps it is a natural reaction when faced with something unpleasant to say yes but look at that?

if you held extreme islamic views, you could, in the UK, talk about them at length in the street, in your mosque, at home, on TV, on the web and in print, because of free speech.

Doesn't the new law state that I could be arrested and imprisoned for inciting hatred and violence?

goodness knows i hear enough of them. on the other hand, if you were extreme enough to travel to afghanistan or iraq

Now be fair, even as a Muslim in Afghanistan or Iraq I would be fair game to be kidnapped and killed, I am British and a woman So suggesting that it is because of Islam that it would be dangerous to go and shout anti Islamic cr*p in those countries is just utter nonsense. They hate everyone not in their gang with equal avengence.

hmm. i think given the conduct of hamas in gaza since they got their territory returned to them (and hizbollah in south lebanon) you might forgive the israelis for not finding this argument terribly convincing nowadays.

Wow I must have missed the news report where Israel returned the occupied territories and retreated back to the agreed lines.

Neither side trusts the other and quite frankly neither side have shown themselves to be trustworthy. However Bob's comment that if Palestine stop the killing Israel will GRANT them their independence sort of smacks of the arrogance of the Israeli government. They are the occupiers so who are they to GRANT anything? Yes Palestine should stop the killing but Israel should get off their land and get back to the original land they were granted. Two wrongs are never going to make a right.

i don't think that's the point. the point is that their parents should not allow them to act in such a way, nor for others to encourage them to do so. if i encouraged my children to do so, i would expect to face some kind of legal sanction, i would have thought.

Both sides have kids that throw stones BB. I posted a video of Jewish children throwing stones at peace workers and the Israeli soldier doing nothing about it except watching and laughing but I did not suggest the children be beaten with a baseball bat. AND I didn't post it to say 'well Jewish kids do it', my suggestion is that the environment these children live in is creating this behaviour. Yes in the UK we would face legal action but we don't live in a war zone. The idea of defending killing or breaking bones of children that throw stones at tanks and soldiers is quite frankly outrageous.

Stop the bloody killing, stop teaching children to hate and have a football match in the street.

but, as to the david irving link... "no axe to grind"?

WHAT? ARE YOU FECKING KIDDING ME? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHO THIS GUY IS? i mean, seriously!!

LOL never heard of him, it was just a site that had the book on I was talking about. I have posted the same info from other sites including a Jewish one. It was a serious study and had some very good information and imo reliable. I obviously just picked the wrong site to link to So who is he?

Salaam
MW

 

[bob x]

When I was talking about an insignificant number I was talking about terrorists I believe - 0.01% is an insignificant number to me.

The polls that were cited showed 13% of British Muslims supporting suicide bombings. Of course it is far higher in other countries.

I cannot explain their views any more than I can explain why people turn to terrorism, I cannot speak for those people as I am not one of them but I will object if anyone suggests my faith has taught me their views.

What we are saying that THEIR faith has taught THEM their views. When you keep insisting that Islam has nothing to do with it, I tell you Islam has everything to do with it. Islam lacks any ethical core beyond "Do whatever you are told", and this is why it is so easily twisted.

not everyone that tries to get to the truth of this matter is an anti-semite

You don't show any signs of "trying to get to the truth": you look desparate to find somewhere else to point fingers, preferably at the Jews.

I would not suggest they set out to kill children specifically but clearly they do not care about avoiding them

I would agree with that.

However Bob's comment that if Palestine stop the killing Israel will GRANT them their independence sort of smacks of the arrogance of the Israeli government. They are the occupiers so who are they to GRANT anything?

Israel already has a state. Palestine does not. They are asking to be GIVEN what they have made themselves too weak to take. They chose the path of violence, and I will not hear them complain that the violence has gone badly for them, particularly when their violence has largely been pointless violence that could not possibly advance their own purposes in any way. If they are ever to have self-governance, it will be because they have finally shown some capacity to govern themselves. Preventing their citizens from attacking the neighbors is the very minimal responsibility of any government that wants recognition by other nations: when Baruch Goldstein started shooting at Palestinian worshippers, he was shot down and killed by Israeli soldiers, naturally, this being what any decent person would do; so, when someone tries to lob a rocket over the border, do the Palestinian security forces shoot him? Of course they should.

I posted a video of Jewish children throwing stones at peace workers and the Israeli soldier doing nothing about it except watching and laughing but I did not suggest the children be beaten with a baseball bat.

I would.

LOL never heard of him

You just happen to read neo-Nazi websites and cite them first?

 

[Muslimwoman]

The polls that were cited showed 13% of British Muslims supporting suicide bombings. Of course it is far higher in other countries.

And the number of people that actually commit acts of violence is 0.01%. If people are to be arrested for their views the prisons are going to fill up very quickly. Even so that means 87% do not agree - that I would suggest is a significant number. I accept it doesnt make the 13% right but you can't blame our faith for teaching this if 87% do not agree.

The polls show that the British Muslims that support suicide bombings was with regard to Palestine, the same people do not agree with suicide bombings in general and objected to the 9/11 attacks etc. Even Saudi clerics have come out speaking against suicide bombings - until it comes to Palestine, because of the political situation. I am not trying to distance the faith from the issue, I accept a majority of Muslims support Palestine defending itself any way it can on a moral and religious basis (ie our faith grants us permission to defend ourselves against aggressors).

Now if Palestine had the weaponry to attack purely Israeli military positions I would support that very strongly, as I strongly disagree with the actions of the Israel government in recent years and the holding of the occupied territories. And I would support it both politically and religiously but only if it was army against army. My views have nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the people in Israel, this is what you seem to fail to understand.

What we are saying that THEIR faith has taught THEM their views. When you keep insisting that Islam has nothing to do with it, I tell you Islam has everything to do with it. Islam lacks any ethical core beyond "Do whatever you are told", and this is why it is so easily twisted.

And I disagree with you very strongly. I read the Quran every day and see a strong ethical core, I also see nothing that incites me to violence unless in self defense. What I do see are the verses that forbid me from killing rom aggression, the verses that say if I kill one person it is as though I have killed all of mankind - you call that unethical? Any scripture can and has been used to fuel and incite hatred, that doesn't make the scripture wrong or unethical, it makes the followers that twist the faith wrong and unethical.

So why don't the other 87% agree? Are they lacking in faith or lacking in undersnding of that faith?

You don't show any signs of "trying to get to the truth": you look desparate to find somewhere else to point fingers, preferably at the Jews.

Paranoia - interesting.

To point the finger for what? The Palestine/Israel situation - that is political and fault is on both sides as I have said repeatedly. The terrorists outside Palestine - that is a bunch of nutcases with a political agenda and a very twisted version of our faith. So what am I desperately trying to blame anyone else for?

If you choose to read the Torah and use the verses that speak of horrific violence to kill people, do I assume the Torah has no ethical core or do I accept you are a nutcase with an agenda?

Israel already has a state. Palestine does not.

And why do Palestinians not have a state? Who are the occupiers? Isn't that sort of the point of this whole part of the debate?

They chose the path of violence, and I will not hear them complain that the violence has gone badly for them, particularly when their violence has largely been pointless violence that could not possibly advance their own purposes in any way.

Unlike the violence of Israel which has given them exactly what they want. Yet now they complain that the other side are still using violence and won't shut up and go away quietly. Are you really so one sided in your views of the political situation or so devoid of feeling for humans not in your 'gang'.

so, when someone tries to lob a rocket over the border, do the Palestinian security forces shoot him? Of course they should.

Yes they should but no they don't because they feel it is unfair to be kicked off their land, have people threatening to cut off their electricity and water, breaking multiple international laws and generally being a bloody bully. I do not defend rocket attacks on civilians but to dismiss the rights and grievances of the Palestinian people just adds to their feelings of isolation and desperation.

You just happen to read neo-Nazi websites and cite them first?

No I just google a book I have read and post the link for the first site that comes up. Never seen the site before and never likely to see it again. When you pointed out it was an anti-semitic site I searched and posted alternative sites.

I apologise that I posted such a site and would not have done so had I known anything about its origins or views.

 

[Tao_Equus]

TABLE II: MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL
YEAR FMF ESF SUPPLEMENTALS
NADRATA
TOTAL
2001 $1,975,644,000 $838,000,000 -- -- $2,813,644,000
2002 $2,040,000,000 $720,000,000 -- $28,000,000 $2,788,000,000
2003 $2,086,350,000 $596,100,000 $1,000,000,000 -- $3,682,450,000
2004 $2,147,256,000 $477,168,000 -- -- $2,624,424,000
2005 $2,202,240,000 $357,120,000 $50,000,000 $210,000 $2,609,570,000
2006
(estimated)
$2,257,200,000 $273,600,000 -- $526,000 $2,531,326,000
2007
(requested)
$2,340,000,000 $120,000,000 -- $320,000 $2,460,320,000
TOTALS
2001-2007
$15,048,690,000 $3,381,988,000 $1,050,000,000 $29,056,000 $19,509,734,000

What percentage of this would allow the people of Gaza a standard of living decent enough to accept the "west" did have their interests at heart?

APPENDIX I: U.S.-SUPPLIED WEAPONRY IN
ISRAEL’S MILITARY INVENTORY
WEAPONS SYSTEM
NUMBER IN
INVENTORY
MANUFACTURER*
F-16 combat aircraft
236
110 fighters and 126
ground attack versions
Lockheed Martin (formerly
by General Dynamics)
F-15 combat aircraft 89 Boeing (formerly by
McDonnell Douglas)
A-4 attack aircraft 39 Northrop Grumman
(formerly Grumman)
C-130 transport plane 5 Lockheed Martin
C-47 cargo helicopter 11 Boeing, Allied Signal
Gulfstream G-550 transport 8 Gulfstream (now owned by
General Dynamics)
B-707 transport 7 Boeing
Cessna 206 utility aircraft 22 Cessna
TA-4 training aircraft 26 Northrop Grumman
AH-1 Cobra attack 55 Bell/Textron helicopter
AH-64 attack helicopter 40 Boeing, Lockheed
Martin/Northrop Grumman
(for AH-64D)
CH-53 Sea Stallion
attack helicopter
41 United Technologies
(Sikorsky unit)
Black Hawk support
helicopter (S-70 and UH-
60A)
48 United Technologies
(Sikorsky unit)
Utility helicopters
(Bell 206 and Bell 212)
77 Bell/Textron
Stinger man-portable air
defense missile
390 Raytheon (formerly by
General Dynamics, Hughes)
Redeye surface-to-air
missile
1,000
General Dynamics
Tactical Air-to-Ground
missiles (AGM)
Hellfire, Walleye,
Maverick, Standard
(numbers unknown)
Lockheed Martin/Boeing
(Hellfire); Raytheon
(Standard, Maverick);
Martin Marietta – now
Lockheed Martin
(Walleye);
Tactical Air-to-Air
Missiles
AMRAAM, Sparrow,
Sidewinder (numbers
Raytheon (AMRAAM,
Sparrow, Sidewinder)Air-to-Surface missiles,
PAC-2
48 Lockheed Martin/Vought,
Raytheon
Bombs (Joint Direct Attack
Munitions)
Numbers unknown Boeing
M-60 main battle tank 711 General Dynamics
M-113 armored personnel
carrier
6,131
United Defense, joint of
FMC and Harsco
(Purchased by BaE systems,
mid-2005)
M-109 self-propelled
155mm artillery
350 United Defense (purchased
by BaE systems, mid-2005)
MLRS multiple rocket
launcher
60 Lockheed Martin/Vought
Harpoon missiles sea-to-sea 444 Boeing (formerly by
McDonnell Douglas)

Remember this dont include anything they make themselves or buy elsewhere, (China, UK, Holland, France etc).

I can see why Israel feels so threatened by a few guys in a pick-up with a home-made rocket.

Apologists for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians need forced to live in Gaza for a year or 3.

Tao

 

[Muslimwoman]

OMG Tao if that is true it is totally outrageous and unacceptable. Do you have a link I can see where the info came from and try to verify it?

Okay don't both I found it, I checked on the authors of the report and they appear to have no particular axe to grind that I can find.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel.lebanon.FINAL2.pdf

America - be ashamed, be very ashamed.

Something I have been looking up is the number of times the US has used it's veto to stop UN resolutions critical of Israel - shocking really and so blatant and our countries all sit back and go 'oh okay then Sir'.

 

[bob x]

And the number of people that actually commit acts of violence is 0.01%. If people are to be arrested for their views the prisons are going to fill up very quickly.

I didn't suggest imprisoning them all. All I am saying is that there are a lot of those supporters, even in Britain (they are a majority in many Muslim countries), and of course, that 0.01% could not exist at all without this huge support group.

I accept it doesnt make the 13% right but you can't blame our faith for teaching this if 87% do not agree

Yes I can. 13% is still a large number to have such views, and we only find percentages as small as 13 when what they are being "taught" is a mixture of Western ideas and Islam: when people are only taught Islam, the percentage is higher.

The polls show that the British Muslims that support suicide bombings was with regard to Palestine, the same people do not agree with suicide bombings in general

Yes, yes, you only hack babies into pieces and feed them to the dogs on very special occasions.

I accept a majority of Muslims support Palestine defending itself any way it can

What the Palestinians do does not "defend" any Palestinian in any manner whatsoever. This is a very basic point here.

I read the Quran every day and see a strong ethical core

Then show me. Way back when we started, you were going to tell me what positive things the Qur'an had to say to you, and never got around to it.

I also see nothing that incites me to violence unless in self defense

Or retaliation.

To point the finger for what? ...what am I desperately trying to blame anyone else for?

For the Holocaust.

And why do Palestinians not have a state?

The Egyptians suppressed the "Government of All Palestine" in 1951 because of the Palestinians' manifest incapacity for self-governance, and no Arabs ever considered letting the Palestinians have a state after that.

Who are the occupiers? Isn't that sort of the point of this whole part of the debate?

Israel controls, now. That is why there will be no Palestinian state until Israel accepts it. Before 1967 it would have been up to Egypt and/or Jordan.

Yet now they complain that the other side are still using violence and won't shut up and go away quietly.

They don't just "complain" about it, they act to minimize the chances of the Palestinian violence injuring Israelis. That is, of course, what a government's job is, to protect the citizenry. They built a wall because the wall saves Israeli lives, and they are not particularly interested, or interested only to much lesser extent, in whether it inconveniences or damages the lives of Palestinians. When Palestinians, similarly, start to act in such a way as to minimize the damages to Palestinians, instead of just to maximize damages to Israelis, there will be hope that they can be trusted to govern themselves. Until that point, they cannot. And who is to judge when it is that the Palestinians can be trusted? Not me, and not you: the only opinion that matters is the opinion of the Israelis, because they are the ones who control the territory at present.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Yes I can. 13% is still a large number to have such views, and we only find percentages as small as 13 when what they are being "taught" is a mixture of Western ideas and Islam: when people are only taught Islam, the percentage is higher.

So ends our discussion. When you cannot accept that if 87% of people (who are mainly from Arabic and Indian cultures and about half of which do not even speak the english language to any degree beyond basic conversation) do not learn this from our faith, then your bias and bigotry is beyond comprehension to me.

Salaam

 

[bananabrain]

So rather than name call tell me where my knowledge is wrong, point me at reliable information that can possibly change how I see things. This is not directed solely at you BB just a general remark.

a good point well made.

When I was talking about an insignificant number I was talking about terrorists I believe - 0.01% is an insignificant number to me. Their actions are not insignificant by any stretch of the imagination but their numbers are in comparison to the whole - as a representation of our faith.

i think we've got an issue with statistics here. there are 1bn muslims, right? so, if as you say, 0.01% is the number of terrorists, that translates into 100,000 actual people worldwide. how many iraqi insurgents, taleban fighters, iraqi revolutionary guard, mahdi army, hizbollah commandos and so on would you say there are? i suspect that just the taleban have more people in their army than that. so, for a start, i think your percentage is questionable. secondly, a percentage is a comparative tool. there are 1,000,000 muslims (as far as i know) in the UK. if, as has been reliably attested by reputable polling done on behalf of channel 4, 13% of them support suicide bombing and terrorism against jews, that's 130,000 people, as i have already pointed out. if only 0.01% of them actually *act*, that's 13 people. that number is almost certainly too small for the UK. even if it's 500 people, which is far less than has been suggested by the UK government, that's still 0.05%, which is *five times more* than you're saying. extrapolate that worldwide and you get 500,000 terrorists, against a *world jewish population* of 14,000,000, which means each terrorist has to kill 28 jews. with suicide bombing i reckon this is pretty possible. now, perhaps these numbers might be a bit silly, but you must be able to see from this just how un-comforting your statistic actually is considering i live in london in close proximity to large numbers of muslims, which means on any given day at least one of the 20 muslims i've come into contact with wouldn't object if one of their co-religionists killed me. now call me mr paranoid, but i think that's a little too much. and as bob puts it:

All I am saying is that there are a lot of those supporters, even in Britain (they are a majority in many Muslim countries), and of course, that 0.01% could not exist at all without this huge support group.

furthermore:

As for Shia being 10% of the whole I have to agree to disagree, 10% to me is a small percentage -it may be a large number of people because of the number of Muslims worldwide but as a percentage it is small.

ok, my objection to your use of percentages notwithstanding, if you look here:

Major Branches of Religions

you'll see that shi'ites make up 11.2% of world islam. you'll also see that there are about 8 1/2 times as many of them as there are of jews. considering that the largest shi'ite countries are both pretty anti-jewish i don't think that reassures me terribly much.

If you said Zionists make up 10% of the Jewish nation I would also call that a small percentage.

umph, i think that depends what you think a zionist is. there are lots of different types of zionism, from religious to secular, from right-wing to left-wing, from vague identification with other members of your ethnic group to utopian, messianic idealism. not all jews are zionists, some are downright anti (although almost none are as bad as neturei karta) - they're, ironically, almost exactly as representative of judaism as your 0.01% terrorists. i'd call myself a zionist, for example, but i would almost certainly mean something different by that from what most would assume, even other zionists. as it is i'll settle for "thinks there ought to be a jewish state of some sort in the general area of israel and doesn't want people to kill his auntie for living there, but doesn't see how this precludes a palestinian state, but frankly doesn't think much of nation-states as a concept in general, they're soooo C19th".

I will object if anyone suggests my faith has taught me their views.

i'm not suggesting that - but i would definitely suggest that someone's faith which claims (although it really substantively isn't) to be the same as yours has definitely taught them theirs.

I accept that anti-semites will jump on this information and use it for their nasty minded purposes but does that mean it should be ignored?

ah, there's the rub. i don't know. i'm for free speech, but i don't think that translates into the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

And for those that think I am one lone fruitcase voice I suggest you do some research, millions of Muslims feel the same way.

ok, but very few of them appear to be influential clerics, unfortunately. irshad manji and ali eteraz do not make a "consensus of the scholars", hence my argument with you-know-who in which i was very much in your corner.

I nearly fell off my seat when a Saudi cleric wrote to bin Laden to tell him he was acting in an unIslamic way after the 9/11 attacks - a Wahabbi - blow me down with a feather.

indeed - and it only took him 6 years to leap into action, if it's the bloke i'm thinking of. and in any case, i think if this guy can get a letter to bin laden, it was his duty to humanity to give it to the americans to deliver.

Are you joking? That is way off topic but the British have a lot to answer for during WWII both in actions but particularly in lack of actions at time. In the end we did the right thing but not for the reasons people like to think. Hell we invented concentration camps long before the Nazi's introduced them.

i know all about the boer war *and* bevingrad, internment on cyprus, etc. goodness knows i'm not an uncritical admirer of anyone, but if it wasn't for the british - and the americans and russians - the nazis would certainly have won and where would cock BB be then, poor thing?

Oh now come on BB 'islamic concept of "hudna"'. Find me the word hudna in the Quran. If I can work out it isn't there I would think Israel could do the same.

er... just because a technical term isn't in the Qur'an doesn't mean it isn't valid. the term "prosbul" isn't in the Torah, yet it's perfectly valid.

I am ex military BB, I know what these weapons can do.

fair enough, but i am ex IT and i know what happens when "nothing can possibly go wrong with the system". certainly - as i think bob pointed out - the israelis aren't as concerned as they could be with accuracy. on the other hand (and without excusing them) from what i know of the israeli military their policy is "we'd rather someone else got killed than our own people".

But for Israel when you look at the numbers for the dead children in just one year compared to the number that died by accidental fire in Ireland over a 30 year period I am left with serious questions.

and the main question should be "did the irish use their own children as human shields and so-called martyrs?"

I do not want to see one more dead child on my tv screen, be they Muslim, Jew, Christian or whatever.

i don't want to see one more dead human on my tv screen.

Erm are you not doing the same thing above BB? I talk about the number of children killed by Israel and you talk about the US & UK in Iraq. Perhaps it is a natural reaction when faced with something unpleasant to say yes but look at that?

oh, you're probably right, but i was talking about supposed smart bombs and the only example i can think of is the US & UK armies going on about how "clinical" and "surgical" their "strikes" are when clearly the language is coming from PR and marketing. i object to that too, as well as ghastly euphemisms like "collateral damage".

Wow I must have missed the news report where Israel returned the occupied territories and retreated back to the agreed lines.

it was called a) the gaza disengagement and b) the withdrawal from lebanon. in both cases it suited hamas and hizbollah to fall back on, respectively, "every inch of palestine must be liberated" (which includes tel aviv, by the way) and "the sheba'a farms must be liberated" (when in fact according to the UN they actually belong to syria), so frankly, don't give me that. by any light that is getting something back that you wanted - and was there any corresponding change? noooooo, not one iota. just move the rockets up to the new border and off you go.

I posted a video of Jewish children throwing stones at peace workers and the Israeli soldier doing nothing about it except watching and laughing but I did not suggest the children be beaten with a baseball bat.

if the children you refer to were those of the settlers then they are perfectly happy to throw stones at the soldiers and call them nazis when it suits them. that's not a terribly good example i'm afraid. this is a pattern, you know, apparent behaviour that is supposed to show religious jews to be really great mates with muslims, or really mean to non-religious jews and it always turns out to mean something completely different to me than it appears to to you. the issue between the settlers and the state has yet to be resolved and it is my hope that this can be done with out a civil war, in case you were unaware of this.

Islam lacks any ethical core beyond "Do whatever you are told", and this is why it is so easily twisted.

bob, this is way out of line. i suggest you moderate your tone, generalise less and avoid the condemnatory rhetoric, especially given you are not, unless i have been misinformed, a great authority on islamic jurisprudence. dial it down, or any hope of actual dialogue here is doomed.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

Muslimwoman has already indicated that she wants no more dialogue. I will not continue to argue with her, but neither will I withdraw the statement "Islam lacks any ethical core beyond "Do whatever you are told" " which is entirely accurate: the Qur'an contains some good ethical advice, and some dubious advice, and some I consider very bad, but a Muslim cannot distinguish the good from the bad, because all of it is based on "whatever you are told, that is from God"; if someone comes out with a different interpretation of the Qur'an (which is easy to do, since it is written in an archaic dialect that no-one properly understands anymore), a Muslim cannot say "If the Qur'an says THAT, then the Qur'an is wrong".

 

[wil]

a Muslim cannot say "If the Qur'an says THAT, then the Qur'an is wrong".

Namaste Bob,

What if I replaced Christian and Bible in your statement....what would most Christian churches /bible thumpers have to say?

 

[bob x]

I have an equally low opinion of Christians of that type.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I have an equally low opinion of Christians of that type.

And me of Bob X's of that type.

 

[bob x]

Of what type? Are you even paying attention to the conversation, or do you just want to follow me around and snipe?

 

[Muslimwoman]

i think we've got an issue with statistics here. there are 1bn muslims, right? so, if as you say, 0.01% is the number of terrorists, that translates into 100,000 actual people worldwide.

The statistics are not my own BB, they are estimated active terrorists and are western governments statistics. I assume they are the estimated number of active terrorists cells with the desire and ability to commit attrocities outside their own 'war' zone.

I do not deny that 100,000 terrorists is 100,000 too many but I also do not accept that my faith teaches violence and terrorism. Yes a lot of Muslims support suicide attacks when it comes to Palestine but oppose them when it comes to US or UK, saying suicide is a sin and we are not allowed to kill civilians - sheer hypocracy I agree but I would suggest Palestine is a different issue, as it is an occupied territory and it does cloud peoples usual judgement. I agree with Palestine fighting the Israeli army but not, I repeat not, attacking civilians - that goes against our faith which is the poi I am trying to make.

I also accept that a majority of terrorist cells in the world today are Islamic fundamentalists. What I do not accept is that this is taught by Islam (where suicide and killing civilians is forbidden). No amount of telling me 'but they are Muslims and they are doing it' is going to change the fact that both are forbidden in the Quran so these Muslims are going againt the teaching of our faith).

that number is almost certainly too small for the UK.

Of course it is too small for the UK. The UK & US are the 'enemy' for these people, we have occupied Iraq for oil and supported occupying Palestine to provide a Jewish state. I would suggest if you go to a country without US or UK army bases, etc you are unlikely to find an Islamic terrorist. Even if you forget about the politics of oil and land, surely we can agree that what has and is being done to the ordinary people in Iraq and Palestine is shameful, no matter what the excuses/reasons for military action in those countries?

i live in london in close proximity to large numbers of muslims, which means on any given day at least one of the 20 muslims i've come into contact with wouldn't object if one of their co-religionists killed me.

I don't know what it feels like to have people, outside of a war zone, wanting me dead because I belong to a group of people but I can imagine it angers and upsets you and I take my hat off to you that you have not allowed that to blind you to good Muslims that follow the faith correctly. For every one of these people there are so many of us that do not share their view (I know that doesn't help when people are shouting abuse at you in the street). Even Abdullah, who in my opinion holds some very extreme views does not for a moment want you dead, he just thinks you are going to hell.

I can't apologise for it BB because I do not share that view and accept that the Quran has many passages that can be used to support hatred of Jews but you and I both know that when those verses are put into historical context they are talking about one small group of Jews in Arabia at the time of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). Maybe it comes down to a persons mindset? If you want to find peace and tolerence in the Quran it is easy to find but if you want to find hatred and violence it is easy to ignore context and find that too. We know the Torah and Bible are exactly the same, it is just that people, these days, choose not to use them in that way.

I have never attempted to defend these people BB but I would suggest you also live near to more Muslims that bear you no ill will other than disagreeing with your religious practices. Would I want to live near people that want me dead, of course not I would want them imprisoned and re-educated. Do you remember the Muslim family that turned their own son and his friends into the police because they were going to afghanistan to learn to fight? Would you agree with Bob that those parents follow a sick and vile religion? Of course not, they follow the real Islam. This is all my argument is about, not to defend unacceptable attitudes or practices but to point out that for every idiot that holds these views there are many more that do not, therefore how can my religion be based on vile and disgusting teachings?

you'll see that shi'ites make up 11.2% of world islam. you'll also see that there are about 8 1/2 times as many of them as there are of jews. considering that the largest shi'ite countries are both pretty anti-jewish i don't think that reassures me terribly much.

It is not meant to reassure you, I believe Israel is surrounded by Shia majority countries and it looks like Iraq will end up the same. Shia's now see Jews as the absolute enemy. But we have spoken before about the centuries that Muslims and Jews lived in that area in relative peace before the political wranglings began. That is largely why my discussions always end up moving away from religion and into politics and why I object to people that say Islam itself teaches this hatred (or did all of those generations of people just miss the point?).

umph, i think that depends what you think a zionist is.

It is not something I have ever looked into to be honest. I think my idea of a zionist is probably the opposite of what it really is. I believe a zionist in the religious sense is someone that believes all Jews will one day return to the promised land and herald the day of judgement, I have no problem with that. But when I say zionist it is not in the religious sense but in the political one, someone that wants a state for only Jews to live in and thinks Jews are superior to others. So when I say I am not a fan of zionists, they are the group I refer to.

(although almost none are as bad as neturei karta) - they're, ironically, almost exactly as representative of judaism as your 0.01% terrorists.

Excellent bit of info, now I know where to go when I want to incorrectly state what Judaism teaches .

as it is i'll settle for "thinks there ought to be a jewish state of some sort in the general area of israel and doesn't want people to kill his auntie for living there, but doesn't see how this precludes a palestinian state, but frankly doesn't think much of nation-states as a concept in general, they're soooo C19th".

Now here we can agree as long as we add that a Palestinians auntie should also not be killed in order for your auntie to live in her house.

That is the stupid thing, if you turned the whole situation over to women we would all just make food and force everyone to eat too much - instant peace because no-one could get off the couch to fight.

i'm not suggesting that - but i would definitely suggest that someone's faith which claims (although it really substantively isn't) to be the same as yours has definitely taught them theirs.

I have to disagree, the faith comes from the Quran for both Sunni and Shia so the teaching of Allah remains the same. It is the political wranglings that twist those teachings into the hatred we now see, you know all the man made add on's and (mis)interpretations to fit in with their argument. Also I go back to the point of the centuries of relative peace - so it is quite a new 'teaching' I would suggest, as Shia's have existed for approx 1300+ years but seem to have avoided calling for the extermination of the Jews for most of that time.

ah, there's the rub. i don't know. i'm for free speech, but i don't think that translates into the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Well maybe we can ask Brian to have a selected members only thread where people that show they can discuss rationally and without personal insult can be invited to discuss such sensitive topics?

Whilst I understand why this may be appropriate I am left with the question why it is ok to call me a 'lump in a bag' and say my religion is 'vile and disgusting' but to question the actions of another faiths followers should be done behind closed doors? That is not to say 'if you can insult me I should allowed to insult you' but I am hoping you know who (on both sides) will read this comment and take note).

ok, but very few of them appear to be influential clerics, unfortunately. irshad manji and ali eteraz do not make a "consensus of the scholars", hence my argument with you-know-who in which i was very much in your corner.

Not a good attitude BB, no they are not the consensus but they are new voices in the ME, they have recognised how far astray the Ummah has become and are speaking out (not an easy thing to do in an Islamic society). We need to encourage these voices on both sides and shout down the voices of hatred on our own sides.

indeed - and it only took him 6 years to leap into action, if it's the bloke i'm thinking of. and in any case, i think if this guy can get a letter to bin laden, it was his duty to humanity to give it to the americans to deliver.

Again not a helpful attitude. The point is he has at last spoken out. Did you ever think you would hear such a voice come from Saudi? Did you ever think his head would reamin in contact with his body? Okay so it is not ME peace but it is a small step in the right direction and unless we back and encourage such voices others will not follow.

Now you know I am not an idiot and I accept that a lot of this condemnation came after al-Q started bombing Muslim countries too but are you aware that a minutes silence was held in the Iranian football stadium after 9/11 (and no it was not for the terrorists that died), that the Palestinian Legislative Council condemned the attack, Muslims in Jerusalem held a candlelit vigil, the Grand Mufti of Saudi condemned it, etc. Muslims are not animals whose only desire is to wreak havoc in the world. Okay they haven't got their act together yet in finding ways to strongly condemn these actions but to be honest when your are not related to bin laden it is difficult to know where to start. Can you imagine my letter being addressed to 'Mr Bin Ladin, Terrorist Stronghold, Mountains of Afghanistan'!!

Sod America, why should it be his duty to get it to America? America are not the king of the world and if it came from America it would be dismissed as western propaganda. The condemnation was a personal message from an Islamic cleric to a terrorist that is damaging the name of Islam and causing hardhsip for Muslipeople all over the world - where does America come into that equation? It is all over the web if anyone cares to look so you can bet your bottom dollar the CIA saw it the moment it went out but did the newspapers hail it as progress? Did the mass media publish it to send a message to all Islamic extremists? Did Bush hold a press conference to advertise it? NO and one has to ask why not?

i know all about the boer war *and* bevingrad, internment on cyprus, etc. goodness knows i'm not an uncritical admirer of anyone, but if it wasn't for the british - and the americans and russians - the nazis would certainly have won and where would cock BB be then, poor thing?

Well if you want to discuss the issue of how many Jews and others the UK & US government could have saved but chose not to or the actual reasons we went to war with Germany, we will need to start a new thread. But I can assure you it had very little to do with saving anyone in the death camps or ghettos. Yes a positive result came out of it for humanity but that was just an added bonus for our goverment.

er... just because a technical term isn't in the Qur'an doesn't mean it isn't valid. the term "prosbul" isn't in the Torah, yet it's perfectly valid.

I disagree, stoning is not in the Quran but is accepted by the consensus as valid because of the hadiths. I do not have a voice on the world stage but those that do should stop accepting this 'validity' and start challenging "where did Allah say that".

Even if we accept it as a valid argument, for a country that is annually armed to the teeth by the US to say we are not accepting a 100 year truce because you will use it to re-arm (I suppose you can make a lot of home made rockets in 100 years) is just off the scale of hypocracy. Is Isreal really suggesting that in 100 years of truce some progress to genuine peace cannot be found?

I do not know what prosbul is but if it is not in the Torah how can you calim it is from G-d? (I think you know I had this argument with you know who regarding the hadiths too).

 

[Muslimwoman]

and the main question should be "did the irish use their own children as human shields and so-called martyrs?"

Yes they used their children as human shields and yes they taught their children to throw rocks and broken bottles at soldiers and armoured vehicles (would you like to see the scars? And I am not spinning a yarn to make my point, look at my photo in the what you look like threat, that is a NI ribbon I am wearing). The small kids also used to bring fruit for the soldiers, with crossed razor blades in them. Yet in 30 years of violence only 7 children were killed and not one of them was sitting at their school desk at the time. Do you not think the British soldiers had the attitude of better them than us, better they die than another London bombing?

I know the inhumanity of war BB, I have arrested soldiers that got 'bored' so used civilians as human target practice, it happens in every war zone without exception. War dehumanises the victims and the perpetrators. Maybe you could read the link and then tell me how 25% of dead being children can justify your comment (not belief) that it is better them than us?

Palestinian doctors despair at rising toll of children shot dead by army snipers | Israel and the Middle East | Guardian Unlimited

If you don't like the Guardian (maybe it is anti-semitic) the same story is carried on a few non-Muslim sites.

ghastly euphemisms like "collateral damage".

I don't see how you can say that after you said above that the soldiers have the attitude of 'better them than us', which sounded like 'well it's not acceptable but you can see their point'. When anyone can show me a single justification for shooting a 9 year old in the head or how that death stopped Israeli's dying I shall hang up my keyboard. All that killing does is create future bombers, friends that go the funerals of their classmates and vow to take revenge.

Sorry but I think we should be posting on our relevant religions sites that killing civilians, on both sides must stop now. We should be emailing everyone we can think of to say we as a Muslim or Jew do not support their actions. I see pictures of small kids with their jihadist headbands and Jewish kids signing rockets and quite frankly I want to puke and go to bang everyones heads together.

just move the rockets up to the new border and off you go.

I was being sarcastic BB, giving bits back but keeping other bits does not constitute a unilateral withdrawal behind agreed lines. I have no problem with a buffer zone but to then build settlements in the buffer zone is just extracting the urine imo, not to mention endangering your own people just to grab more land.

if the children you refer to were those of the settlers then they are perfectly happy to throw stones at the soldiers and call them nazis when it suits them.

I have no idea to whom the children belong BB, they were just Jewish children throwing rocks at US peace monitors. My point was simply that it is a behaviour endemic to war zones, kids throw rocks no matter what side they are on, so Bobs assertion that Muslims teach this to their children, because we are from a violent religion, is just utter utter rubbish. Children see such violence and they copy it any way they can.

To make my point, sit a dozen Jewish and a dozen Muslim 7 year olds down and ask them what the fighting really about - they have no idea about the issues or understanding of politics, they just know we belong to this group and so we throw stones at the other group because they try to kill us.

I have no idea about the internal strife inside Israel, perhaps you could explain it to me. I hope civil war doesn't break out, the ordinary people have enough to condend with.

Sorry it is such a long post but so much to get through and understand. (oops had to split into 2 posts as it was too long )

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Muslimwoman has already indicated that she wants no more dialogue.

Only with you because:

a Muslim cannot distinguish the good from the bad

You are a bigot and need to take a long hard look at yourself. As I told Abdullah I shall tell you, I will not allow you to fill my head or heart with hatred so keep it to yourself or take it elsewhere.

 

[bob x]

I am left with the question why it is ok to call me a 'lump in a bag' and say my religion is 'vile and disgusting'

The 'lump' was in response to you saying you were MORE of a person when you are muffled up to look as little like a human as possible-- with the offensive implication that a woman who is visibly human is LESS of a person. I told you flat-out when we first met that the veil was very repellent to me, but you wanted to talk on and on about the veil (on the assumption that if I just "understood" I would be less repelled? Rather, the more I understand of it, the worse it seems), instead of telling me what you saw of good in the Qur'an as you had first said you would. Now that you are doing so (on the other thread), I encourage you to continue, and though you say there that you would welcome certain kinds of questions about the verses you present (not, of course, "Oh YEAH, well how about these OTHER verses..."), I am going to refrain even from that (because I will say "I don't see these verses in a positive light like you do" and it might slide into mud-wrestling again).

What I said was "vile and disgusting" was the Qur'anic injunction to respond to sexual unfaithfulness with murder and/or sadistic violence. There is no way I will ever see that as anything but an evil: not even if it is supposed to be "rare"; that is not a defense, it is evil always. You cannot say, "Well this is a part of the Qur'an that is just wrong":

a Muslim cannot distinguish the good from the bad

meant, you cannot distinguish the good from the bad in the Qur'an. I can respect a Christian who is able to say, "This in the Bible is good; but that part is just a primitivity from those early times"; I cannot respect a Christian who says that everything in the Bible is from God and therefore good by definition, no matter how evil by any objective standard of morality. Unfortunately, I do not see Muslims who are able to distinguish what parts of the Qur'an are teaching what is good from the parts that are just preserved primitivity.

 

[bananabrain]

I also do not accept that my faith teaches violence and terrorism.

i know *you* don't. however, there are some who would agree with you that they are part of the same faith, who would, nonetheless, consider that the violence and terrorism they practise were taught by this faith. they interpret it into action one way, you interpret it into action another way. there are people in my faith who interpret it in such a way as to suppose that it gives them the right to treat non-jews in general with disdain, or actively persecute palestinians. i may be of the same faith as them, consider them to be jews, but consider them to be completely in error in terms of what the faith teaches - and i would and do go out of my way to point this out to them by any means in my power. what you are objecting to is *categorical* statements without context, nuance and distinction - as do and would i. that's the point.

I agree with Palestine fighting the Israeli army but not, I repeat not, attacking civilians - that goes against our faith which is the point I am trying to make.

sometimes i think you fail to appreciate the depth of doublethink and hypocrisy that occurs - the "logic" goes something like this:

"we only attack military targets"
"all israeli citizens are conscripted"
"therefore all citizens are military targets"

as well as:

"we are only against settlers"
"all of palestine is occupied land"
"therefore tel aviv is a settlement"

you can see, therefore, how these fine distinctions are meaningless if you can justify a bus bombing in tel aviv on the grounds that every israeli is a "military target" and tel aviv is a "settlement". i know most journalists fail to point this out - it's the same doublethink and hypocrisy that allows certain people to go on about how wonderful the ahle qitab ("people of the book") are without pointing out that no christians and jews have actually qualified for that label since the revelation of the Qur'an, so it's effectively meaningless except for pretending to be tolerant. of course, i know you do not define these terms in this manner, but that is why it is interpretation and action that are the keys, not nominal membership of this or that tradition or ethnic group.

No amount of telling me 'but they are Muslims and they are doing it' is going to change the fact that both are forbidden in the Quran so these Muslims are going againt the teaching of our faith).

i agree - but equally, no amount of temporising and equivocation is going to change the fact that *they consider* themselves muslims, consider themselves driven by their faith and followers of the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah in every detail. thus we can have people saying that "well, the 9/11 hijackers and 7/7 bombers weren't muslim", meaning (at least if they're not making out it was a cia/zionist plot) that *at the time of committing these actions they were acting in an unislamic fashion and therefore could not be defined as muslims*, again a fine distinction that is lost on journalists and the uninformed, where it just comes across as weasel words or downright denial. i personally understand the difference, but it's not the message that is sent.

Of course it is too small for the UK. The UK & US are the 'enemy' for these people, we have occupied Iraq for oil

ok, so because the UK is the #3 target for terrorists there will be a statistically higher concentration of them here, right? at least we can agree on that, even if it's cold comfort to me personally, mind you, it's not safe to be jewish anywhere really.

and supported occupying Palestine to provide a Jewish state.

that is *so* glib. what the US did (and the UK sort of did whilst at the same time sort of trying to not do) was support the right of the jewish people to national self-determination, just as they both (and as i myself) eventually came to support the right of the palestinian people to national self-determination, recognising the *legitimate* historical and cultural connections and claims both have to this tiny bit of land. my hackles start to rise when i feel that the jewish connection and claim to the land of israel is negated in the name of such a paltry thing as the C19th nation-state.

I would suggest if you go to a country without US or UK army bases, etc you are unlikely to find an Islamic terrorist.

i'm not sure there are many US and UK army bases in iran, lebanon and syria.

Even if you forget about the politics of oil and land, surely we can agree that what has and is being done to the ordinary people in Iraq and Palestine is shameful, no matter what the excuses/reasons for military action in those countries?

fine, i agree that, just as long as we also agree that the way they have been treated by their "own people" is also shameful, whether we are talking about the dreadful rulers or the rabid insurgents.

but you and I both know that when those verses are put into historical context they are talking about one small group of Jews in Arabia at the time of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

exactly - and the louder people yell about this the sooner it will get noticed and become more widely understood - by muslims as well as by others.

Maybe it comes down to a persons mindset? If you want to find peace and tolerence in the Quran it is easy to find but if you want to find hatred and violence it is easy to ignore context and find that too. We know the Torah and Bible are exactly the same, it is just that people, these days, choose not to use them in that way.

*claps loudly* - this is known as "confirmation bias"; look it up.

Would I want to live near people that want me dead, of course not I would want them imprisoned and re-educated.

although not in guantanamo bay, eh, or those camps that mubarak has.

Shia's have existed for approx 1300+ years but seem to have avoided calling for the extermination of the Jews for most of that time.

they did consider us to convey a form of ritual contamination at one point, i forget what it was called, but it wasn't very pleasant and began with a "t". the actual extermination stuff, as you will discover if you get through that bernard lewis book on anti-semitism i recommended, was imported originally by the christian clergy (as in the damascus blood libel of 1840) but ultimately by the nazis during the arabs' love affair with fascism, which is where the ba'ath party originates.

I believe Israel is surrounded by Shia majority countries and it looks like Iraq will end up the same. Shia's now see Jews as the absolute enemy.

ok, i can accept that, but sunnis also have to stop looking for an external scapegoat and come to terms with their own very real issues as you have so eloquently outlined.

But we have spoken before about the centuries that Muslims and Jews lived in that area in relative peace before the political wranglings began.

as long as this peace did not depend upon either side being treated as dhimmi were in practice, as contemptible, somewhat laughable second-class citizens.

It is not something I have ever looked into to be honest. I think my idea of a zionist is probably the opposite of what it really is. I believe a zionist in the religious sense is someone that believes all Jews will one day return to the promised land and herald the day of judgement, I have no problem with that. But when I say zionist it is not in the religious sense but in the political one, someone that wants a state for only Jews to live in and thinks Jews are superior to others. So when I say I am not a fan of zionists, they are the group I refer to.

i think that is a really important statement. i am a zionist in the religious sense. i am a zionist in the political sense, BUT i do *not* think that implies a state *only* for jews AND i do *not* consider hat that also implies jewish superiority within this state. i think we know what sort of people you are not a fan of and i am not a fan of them either - but they are not the only people who are entitled to call themselves zionists.

Now here we can agree as long as we add that a Palestinian's auntie should also not be killed in order for your auntie to live in her house.

precisely. in fact my auntie's moshav is right next to an arab village. we also need to understand that both aunties need to have the same rights and responsibilities and treat each other with dignity and respect. as it happened i got my auntie to give one of my palestinian friends a lift to brent cross the other day, so i suppose it's a start, they just both happened to be at my house at the same time!

Again not a helpful attitude. The point is he has at last spoken out. Did you ever think you would hear such a voice come from Saudi? Did you ever think his head would reamin in contact with his body? Okay so it is not ME peace but it is a small step in the right direction and unless we back and encourage such voices others will not follow.

look, as tesco say, every little helps, but we are so far away from that being an action that would stop someone murdering me (or my auntie) that it won't make any noticeable difference. i'm sorry - although perhaps the actions of the clerics i noted above in the link constitute a more impressive stand; i'll know when i've read the entire 29-page letter in more detail.

you can bet your bottom dollar the CIA saw it the moment it went out but did the newspapers hail it as progress?

asharq al-awsat did; that's where i read it. they at least seem to agree with you, mind you they're published in london, where the lumpen-mujahidin can't get at them so easily.

Well if you want to discuss the issue of how many Jews and others the UK & US government could have saved but chose not to or the actual reasons we went to war with Germany, we will need to start a new thread. But I can assure you it had very little to do with saving anyone in the death camps or ghettos.

yes, i know all about that, they could have bombed the tracks that went to auschwitz and didn't, there are still some *very* raw feelings about that. i can understand, however, that they had to concentrate their resources on military targets rather than moral ones.

I do not have a voice on the world stage but those that do should stop accepting this 'validity' and start challenging "where did Allah say that".

well perhaps - except that making it theologically based would make it more difficult to get consensus, people would nit-pick over terminology, whereas if you simply legislated it out of possibility using countervailing Qur'anic principles (e.g. "we can't be sure that the person is 100% guilty") that would have a more effective, er, effect.

I do not know what prosbul is but if it is not in the Torah how can you claim it is from G-d? (I think you know I had this argument with you know who regarding the hadiths too).

because we have a principle that human interpretation is valid as well and sometimes has to overrule revealed truth for the sake of practicality, equity and the sanctification of the Divine Name (i.e. making G!D look good) - to our way of thinking, G!D thoroughly approves of us using the *rules of argument and logic* that came from G!D to come to a conclusion that may *appear* to overrule G!D.

Even if we accept it as a valid argument, for a country that is annually armed to the teeth by the US to say we are not accepting a 100 year truce because you will use it to re-arm (I suppose you can make a lot of home made rockets in 100 years) is just off the scale of hypocrisy.

but all the high-tech weaponry in the world doesn't stop low-intensity, low-tech irregular warfare, as the israelis ought to bloody know, at any rate you can't stop 80,000 rockets; they found that out the hard way last summer.

Yes they used their children as human shields and yes they taught their children to throw rocks and broken bottles at soldiers and armoured vehicles (would you like to see the scars? And I am not spinning a yarn to make my point, look at my photo in the what you look like threat, that is a NI ribbon I am wearing). The small kids also used to bring fruit for the soldiers, with crossed razor blades in them. Yet in 30 years of violence only 7 children were killed and not one of them was sitting at their school desk at the time. Do you not think the British soldiers had the attitude of better them than us, better they die than another London bombing?

i understand this, of course, but i am still not aware that the irish encouraged their children to seek martyrdom and aspire to it religiously. there was none of this "when i grow up i want to be a shaheed" stuff. there was no mickey mouse on children's TV and books and textbooks teaching them to hate. some of my family comes from northern ireland - they might have hated the english but they didn't try and get this over by intentionally sacrificing their children. once you factor that in, it becomes quite understandable how so many of them have died, israeli attitudes notwithstanding. i can assure you i know plenty of israeli soldiers, my cousins all serve - and all of them are appalled at being put in a situation where they might be forced to make a split-second decision about whether a kid has a bomb belt on or not.

incidentally, i've got no problem with the guardian. or this neo-marxist site, though i don't care for their politics or their tone sometimes: Stop mothering the Middle East | spiked

b'shalom

bananabrain