What's happened to Islam?

[Sean H.]

It seems as though this thread has gone way off topic. The answers to this thread occurred on the first page.

There are a variety of subjects mentioned in this thread which would be better topics individually since by mentioning them all here, there is too much and constructive discussion cannot occur.

Killing
Islam has nothing to do with suicide bombings. Suicide bombings are conducted by people abusing the name of religion to justify their misdeeds. Muhammad cleary stated that killing people unjustly is wrong[17:33] Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law) Very interesting because. Life is sacred and cannot be taken except by just cause (the Law).

[22:39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;

[2:190-192] And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
This is very interesting because here Muhammad makes it very clear that the only war permissible is one in defense. The second quote says it is only ok to kill those who persecute you. However, persecution is murder etc. it is not merely having different beliefs or ideals. A cleric in Britian preaches that Islam is under persecution; I do not believe so.

It's important to look at the circumstances of Islam while Muhammad still walked the earth. He and his followers were bitterly persecuted again and again. They had to defend themselves, and Muhammad gave Muslims permission to do so, not the atrocities the "so-called Muslims" commit.

Sharia
This is an interesting subject because the word Sharia does not appear in the Qur'an. Muhammad made a number of both spiritual and social laws to guide Muslims. Not a lot has been said about the application of those laws. Often too, power-hungry clerics and rulers have ignored certain laws when it suited them, and created laws of which Muhammad said nothing and claimed that they were Muslim laws.

So really, when the same people demanding a Sharia ignore certain laws and make up others, it's rather a non-issue when discussing.

No, nobody in America murdered British schoolchildren or anything comparable, as the Palestinians do.

Americans murdered Native American mothers and children for centuries.

Israel and Palestine?
I really don't see the point in discussing it here. That's another topic. Both sides have extremists that are disobeying their laws. What are their teachings but peace and love? Shouldn't we all just love each other and be friends?


I think so, it's much more fun!

[Muslimwoman]

What wonderful pictures Sean, thank you. That brings me back to my senses.

I wonder if 17th could do a group hug with the various faiths on CR?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it's basically the argument you've seen me having with abdullah; if his values are really those of the consensus of scholars, there is no present hope of political islam coming to an understanding with the rest of the world who refuse to convert, refuse to be dhimmi and refuse to die. i am consulting the islamic scholars i know to try and understand this myself.

Shalom BB

I would be very grateful if you would let me know what you find out. You know I do not accept that view as the concensus but would be very interested to know what comes out of your discussions with Islamic scholars. I am assuming they are in the UK? If so, if you let me know what questions you put to them I shall do the same when I get back home in December and we can see how the views differ between scholars in the west and scholars over there.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

islam will have to accept (as it appears to be trying to do in turkey) an accommodation and it will have to relinquish the idea of a theocracy. it will need, like every other system, to understand how "church" and "state" need to be separated at least in practice.

Yes I agree all Muslims must learn to share the world and 'play nice'. As Sean points out in his post, most of these issues come from political will and not the Quran. I truly believe Islam is in crisis at the moment and it has to decide soon which side of the fence it will come down on. The difficulty I see is that the Muslims outside the M.East far outnumber the Muslims in the ME but it is how to change the thinking in the ME, as that is the birthplace of Islam so is looked at for guidance? Many of the countries have their cultural practices so interwoven with the faith and most of the hate mongers are 'produced' there. I don't see Muslim communities outside the ME that are strong enough to win the intellectual battle at the moment.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'm not sure i agree with your analysis of the original agreement, however. the point of this would be that the palestinians would elect their own government, which would govern like any other respectable democratic authority.

I believe the agreement was that they could elect their own government but would effectively answer to Israel, as a governance rather than a government?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

of course the problem at present is that the israelis don't trust the prospective authority to act sensibly (viz hamas in gaza, democratically elected and still hasn't realised it can't just keep blaming the israelis for everything and chucking rockets over the border) and until they do they won't ease up.

Don't you see change there though, small yes but change all the same? Hamas didn't include the destruction of Israel in their manifesto. OK to you and I that is a given but for them I see it as a small step forward. There is utter mistrust on both sides but I feel if each side would take baby steps, while watching their backs, they could over time find peace for the people of both countries. Both sides have a lot to be angry about and one thing that worries me is the chess playing that the US is still doing. I would be happy to see a totally neutral country appointed to mediate between Israel and Palestine.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

of course abbas and fatah would be a better prospect but they're so hopelessly corrupt and inept that you'll end up with hamas again.

I hardly think a corrupt, US backed government would be a better prospect for the people of Palestine. Fatah had 40 years to provide clean water, electricity and begin to take action against the terrorist groups - they did zip but got rich doing it. I pray Hamas will split between the political wing and military one, as Sinn Fienn did and over time move away from the violence, insh'allah.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it's not exactly like they're short of cash *cough cough saudi cough cough kuwait cough cough etc)

I see that bad cough is back.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

and, of course, the new state would have to allow its jewish citizens equal rights. i'm not holding my breath for that considering that selling land to a jew is punishable by death in the PA.

Well yes that is rather insane. Isn't it illegal in Israel for a Jew to sell land to an Arab? Maybe we should do the pack of cards trick, just throw it all up in the air and sewhat lands where - then no swapping, you just have to accept where you fell.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

nobody is 100% blameless and nobody is 100% guilty. to argue otherwise is futile.

I agree completely.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i think you'd both be happier if you tried to be a little more amicable about it - you're both reasonable people with a great deal to contribute and locking horns about deir yassin or arabic nazi-sympathising simply gives the impression of "hard cases making bad law". you cannot extrapolate generalisations of a faith, culture or religion from singular instances of extreme action as you both must know.

You are right BB but his anti Islamic attitude just presses all the wrong buttons for me, I get really miffed when someone tars everyone of a faith with the same brush. I am tired of saying that both sides do right and wrong and both sides have a case to answer. I believe you are aware how easy it is to get into futile arguments with anti semites, I have read some of your 'forthright' posts. I shall back off and try to hold my tongue.

Salaam
MW

[bananabrain]

MW, the thing that annoys me about discussions like this is the attempt to draw moral equivalence, like bob says here:

Originally Posted by bob x

The support for those Muslims who commit acts of horrific violence, and disseminate Nazi propaganda, etc. is the majority of the population in Palestine, sufficiently large to elect a President like Ahmadinejad in Iran, and so on. Trying to pretend that this is a "small" phenomenon is not going to cut it here.

this is based upon official palestinian polls by, for one, the prominent pollster ghassam khatib (i think that's his name). furthermore this:

Are you now suggesting that Shia Iran is representative of the Muslim Ummah? There are between 130-190 million Shia Muslims and over 1.3 billion Sunni Muslim - I would suggest that is a small percentage.

is like suggesting only a "small percentage" of germans supported the nazis. the supporters of ahmedinejad are decidedly representative of iran, because apparently he was elected democratically. and, as i pointed out above, a representative majority of palestinians support suicide bombings. that's why there's a difference.

on the other hand, i am not suggesting (and, despite his combative tone) i don't think bob is suggesting that al-qaeda's opinions are representative of muslims, but that the general level of anti-semitism in the muslim world is problematic. take a look at this parliamentary report:

The Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism

and the recent channel 4 research which revealed that 13% of BRITISH muslims support suicide bombing. now that may not be even representative, but if, of the 1m muslims in this country, 130,000 of them support suicide bombing and there are less than 400,000 jews, don't you think that is a problem? 130,000 people may not be much statistically, but it's still quite a lot of people who think it's OK to kill me.

as for this absolute repellent nonsense:

Tao said that there were Jews prominent, perhaps even orchestrators, in the holocaust. The suggestion being that his studies were showing that there were Jews prominent in the Nazi holocaust and perhaps his studies would show even orchestrators.

The fact is that there were Jews, working for the Nazi's, prominent in the holocaust. They were few in number but their actions were significant. You disagreed with Tao and I stated there is evidence to support his view, that view being there were prominent Jews.

this is the sort of thing that *really* upsets me. i just have one thing to say:

NAME *ONE*.



the subsidiary question i think i should be asking tao is why is he so interested in finding this evidence? plenty of historians have written about the holocaust, yet the only ones who seem to be interested in proving that there were, as you say "prominent jews", involved, are, in fact, people who have a particular agenda. i've not seen tao as part of this, but perhaps i should revise my opinion.

the other fact remains that given the trauma in the israeli body politic that still festers from the holocaust and the obsessive zeal with which they track down perpetrators *and*
collaborators, would frankly suggest that if there were jewish collaborators, they would have been tracked down. i don't think it is a reasonable point of view to suggest that we jews, who lost millions of our relatives, would protect traitors among us - if you think that, you've never met a holocaust survivor. they would be merciless on someone like that and they would never give up - they would consider this, as i would as someone worse than a nazi. so, i'm not asking you to "hold your tongue", but i am asking you to think very carefully about what you're saying.

I would be very grateful if you would let me know what you find out. You know I do not accept that view as the concensus but would be very interested to know what comes out of your discussions with Islamic scholars. I am assuming they are in the UK? If so, if you let me know what questions you put to them I shall do the same when I get back home in December and we can see how the views differ between scholars in the west and scholars over there.

we'll see. i've got a palestinian friend coming over for lunch tomorrow and she'll have some interesting insight into this.

Yes I agree all Muslims must learn to share the world and 'play nice'. As Sean points out in his post, most of these issues come from political will and not the Quran. I truly believe Islam is in crisis at the moment and it has to decide soon which side of the fence it will come down on. The difficulty I see is that the Muslims outside the M.East far outnumber the Muslims in the ME but it is how to change the thinking in the ME, as that is the birthplace of Islam so is looked at for guidance? Many of the countries have their cultural practices so interwoven with the faith and most of the hate mongers are 'produced' there. I don't see Muslim communities outside the ME that are strong enough to win the intellectual battle at the moment.

on this i think we agree.

I believe the agreement was that they could elect their own government but would effectively answer to Israel, as a governance rather than a government?

hmmm. i don't see how that's a long-term solution; it's not exactly going to satisfy the palestinians if they feel they are still ultimately dependent upon the goodwill of the israeli government.

Don't you see change there though, small yes but change all the same? Hamas didn't include the destruction of Israel in their manifesto. OK to you and I that is a given but for them I see it as a small step forward.

i keep being told things like that and being told what a big deal it is but it is hard to stay optimistic when so many other things seem to be going backward.

I would be happy to see a totally neutral country appointed to mediate between Israel and Palestine.

like...? the trouble is is that there's nobody they'd both agree on. the UN is supposed to be neutral and we all know how well that works, with libya, sudan and iran all sitting on the high commission for human rights (!!!!!!!) i mean, look at the bbc - the muslims say it's biased in favour of israel and the jews say it's biased against. in my book that sounds like effective neutrality but i just don't know how it would work in practice.

I pray Hamas will split between the political wing and military one, as Sinn Fienn did and over time move away from the violence, insh'allah.

a lot of people are putting their faith in that. i personally think that the person to watch is marwan barghouti, currently imprisoned in israel for life for encouraging terrorism during the last intifada. i think part of the reason he's in jail is to give him credibility as a tough guy and moral authority as a victim until it is a good time to release him. he has been acting as kingmaker in much of the centre ground of palestinian politics for some time. he also speaks fluent hebrew and has had many high-level contacts - israeli politicians visit him in jail and speak to him. but he can't possibly be characterised by muslims as a sell-out or a collaborator. that's kind of why he may be the guy. i believe and hope that the israelis are waiting for the time to be right.

Isn't it illegal in Israel for a Jew to sell land to an Arab?

of course not!

@sean h:

this photo you posted of a hasidic jew and an arab embracing is, if you look at the posters in the background, of an extreme fundamentalist sect known as "neturei karta" that hate the idea of a non-fundamentalist israeli state so much that they spend their entire time talking about how "real jews" (in other words, themselves - and there are only a few thousand of them worldwide) think zionism is evil and an offence against G!D, so i wouldn't be using that as an example if i were you.

the reason we are on this subject at all is because apparently we can't discuss the problems islam is facing without comparison to judaism, which is of course going to cause an argument - one should be able to say "X or Y is going tits-up right now and i'm annoyed about it and we have to change this" without adding "but obviously the same thing happens everywhere else so we can understand why" - the point is, if you want your beliefs to hold moral authority, you cannot do it by pointing out how similar its failings are to those of other faiths. i don't criticise UK tax policy by pointing out how the french have screwed up their tax system.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

MW, the thing that annoys me about discussions like this is the attempt to draw moral equivalence, like bob says here:

I have not tried to draw any moral equivalent BB. The thread was about what has happened to Islam. You have read my views many times regarding the closing of the gates, political corruption within the faith etc, so I in no way attempt to blame the Jewish nation for our own faults. However, the discussion moved on to why some young Palestinians feel the need to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people. To me the discussion about faith ends there and we enter the political arena. You cannot discuss the anger of the Palestinians without discussing Israel. You and I both agree that neither side is 100% right or wrong. The difficulty for both Muslims and Jews is that it is very difficult to draw the line between what is a religious matter and what is a political one, because in both Israel and Palestine faith is used by political parties to win the backing of the people but that does not mean they speak for or are a demonstration of that faith.

As a Muslim I have to be able to be honest about the history of Islam, about the actions of evil people who happened to be of the Muslim faith. Because the holocaust is such a sensitive subject for Jewish people it becomes a minefield for people to discuss and any discussion that does not support every aspect of the Jewish version of history is met with accusations of anti semitism and that is very hurtful.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the supporters of ahmedinejad are decidedly representative of iran,

Of Iran Yes, of Islam No. So if you want to discuss the political wranglings of Iran and the Shia sect I would be happy to do so but I obviously object when someone like Bob insists that Iran is the Muslim faith and all Muslims think the same way as this small minority. At the end of your post you comment to Sean:

of an extreme fundamentalist sect known as "neturei karta"

Iran are Shia, they are a small sect when compared to the total number of Muslims. I would be very surprised at you BB if you would accept Bobs attitude that they are wholly demonstrative of the Muslim faith, while pointing out that these Jews are a sect and not demonstrative of the Jewish faith.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

because apparently he was elected democratically. and, as i pointed out above, a representative majority of palestinians support suicide bombings.

Nobody is saying that Palestinians do not support this, what we were discussing is why we believe they feel this way. As Muslims we do not accept this is taught by our faith, so we were looking at the possible political reasons for their hatred.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

on the other hand, i am not suggesting (and, despite his combative tone) i don't think bob is suggesting that al-qaeda's opinions are representative of muslims, but that the general level of anti-semitism in the muslim world is problematic. take a look at this parliamentary report:

I am afraid Bob has suggested that, time and time again, he has stated that this hatred is taught by our faith. This is why I get so angry with him. An anti Muslim, filled with hatred is just as offensive as an anti-semite. He is entitled to that opinion but I am entitled to counter it.

I am fully aware of the anti semitism in the Arab Muslim world, good lord BB I am married to it. It is only with education and dialogue can we change that, not with finger pointing and your side is worse than our side. Neither side are saints. We need both sides to stop all this "you did a & b in 1920" and get on to the important factors - life today, a way for peace for all people in the region. I am married to an anti semite BB, I can either get divorced and move back to UK or I can accept this is his education and try to change that education, in the hope that younger members of the family will grow up with a more balanced and tolerant attitude. This is how we change things, by teaching not by arguing and accusing.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

as for this absolute repellent nonsense:

this is the sort of thing that *really* upsets me. i just have one thing to say:

NAME *ONE*.

Why do you call it repellent nonesense BB? Can you name me any group in history that has not had evil people that sold out their own to either save themselves or get rich? Why should the Jewish nation be immune to such people? It is not a reflection on the Jewish faith or on the poor souls that died in the holocaust. It does not make what the Nazi's did any less abhorrent.

I think that is best discussed in the Judaism section, I shall post there and you can explain where my education is lacking. I do not want to get into a fight with you or cause you offense but we can discuss the information available out there and see if we can learn something.

I did note this:

Simon Wiesenthal said "We have done very little to condemn Jewish collaboration with the Nazi's. When, after the war, I demanded that those who had abused their office in the ghettos or concentration camps be removed from Jewish committees, I was told that 'this would diminish the guilt of the Nazis'".

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the subsidiary question i think i should be asking tao is why is he so interested in finding this evidence?

I am really surprised at you BB and not a little saddened. Can you not see that historical reality exists for all of us, of every religion and nation. Why should Tao not be interested, it is an interesting subject. If nothing else it is fascinating to consider why these people would turn on their own and to consider the immense propaganda by all sides following the war. There is nothing anti semitic in being interested in that subject, the holocaust is a huge event in our recent past. Have we not discussed before that unless the Muslim nation holds its hand up and is honest about it's past and current views and actions that there is no hope for interfaith dialogue? I do hope I have misunderstood you and you are not saying it is ok to examine every history, in its true light, except the Jewish one - or that makes people anti semitic!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i don't think it is a reasonable point of view to suggest that we jews, who lost millions of our relatives, would protect traitors among us - if you think that, you've never met a holocaust survivor.

I believe that Israel has a special law to deal with these people, would that be necessary if they did not exist? One would think it safe to assume that even Jews can fall for propaganda, as we all do at times.

I am also reminded of the writing of Dr Karlebach in Maariv (21 Jun 1955):

"What is going on here? The Attorney General has to mobilize all the goernment power, appeal himself in court to justify and defend collaboration with Himmler! And in order to defend a quisling, the government must drag through the streets one of the grimmest stories of our history!'.

And if you think I am being anti-semitic try saying that Britain was on the side of right and good during WWII and see what comes back.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

hmmm. i don't see how that's a long-term solution; it's not exactly going to satisfy the palestinians if they feel they are still ultimately dependent upon the goodwill of the israeli government.

imo this is a genuine concern for the Palestinian people, you and I would not accept it so why should they. Perhaps your Palestinian friend has given you more insight into this issue?

People often only hear that Palestine were offered their own state and rejected it, they do not read about the strings that were attached.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

like...? the trouble is is that there's nobody they'd both agree on.

I have to admit that when I wte my post I had typed 'like .......' but couldn't think of a country both sides would agree on. What about Iceland, I don't think they have any stroing political views? Or perhaps skip the political animals and make a committee of ecomonists and strategists from around the world, 50% chosen by Israel and 50% chosen by Palestine? But if we leave it to the US & Europe I don't see a solution ever coming about.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

a lot of people are putting their faith in that. i personally think that the person to watch is marwan barghouti,

Interesting, I have never heard of him, I shall do some rooting around and see what I can find written about him and his views.

of course not!

You are right, I looked it up but did find this:

The court case dates back to 2004, when Arab citizens were barred from bidding on an Israeli government tender for housing in Carmiel, northern Israel.

Arab Israelis were excluded for the tender on the grounds that the land in Carmiel belonged to the JNF and was intended only for Jewish use.

I assume this is JNF owned land? Where does the JNF fit into the structure of Israel?

Salaam

[bob x]

The thread was about what has happened to Islam

As opposed to, what has happened to Zionism? I hold Muslims particularly responsible for fighting against evils committed in the name of Islam, just as I hold Christians particularly responsible for evils in the name of Christ (see the "Sexual Orientations" thread on that board). And of course, if I was talking to Jews, on the topic of Israel, I would expect acknowledgement of their responsibilities-- but I don't have the same trouble in getting it; can you imagine banana or dauer trying to tell me that land-grabbing settlers and trigger-happy soldiers who think they have impunity are not really a problem, because there are so few of them they are hardly noticeable, and they are not "real Jews" anyway, and besides, let's talk instead about how bad some other people are? Israel has ha-Aretz and b-Tselem, but where are the equivalents in the Muslim world?

However, the discussion moved on to why some young Palestinians feel the need to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people. To me the discussion about faith ends there and we enter the political arena. You cannot discuss the anger of the Palestinians without discussing Israel.

The question is not why they feel anger, but why they express anger in such an insane and counterproductive manner, unlike other nations who have experienced occupation.

Bob insists that Iran is the Muslim faith and all Muslims think the same way as this small minority

I have never said anything of the sort. This is why I find you such an unpleasant person to try to talk to. Please try to pay attention to what I actually *am* saying.
I do not regard a group that is over 10% as a "small" minority (it is comparable, say, to the number of blacks as a proportion of the United States); contrast, say, "Naturei karta" which consists of one or two thousand out of several million Jews, or the Israeli Nazis, whose known number is six. I am not saying Iran, or Shi'a, consistutes the entirety of Islam, but it is far from negligible. And I mentioned Iran as *one* of the instances of official anti-Semitism in the Muslim world: Iran and Gaza are two places where the government itself disseminates Nazi propaganda; in Egypt and Syria, state-run television has recently broadcast Nazi propaganda; in Saudi Arabia, the state sponsors preacher who spew Nazi propaganda every Friday. This is not a "small" section of the Muslim world.

Why do you call it repellent nonesense BB?

For the same reason I did: because it is so far from facts, or any realistic notion of how people behave, that it can only be considered insane.
There were "Kapos" in the concentration camps, and "Elder Councils" in the ghettos, who tried to save their skins by going along with the Nazis: not everybody behaves heroically under torture and threat. That is a far cry from Tao's picture of Jews being "prominent" in the Nazi regime and "perhaps" orchestrating the whole Holocaust: that is really twisted, and it distresses me that you cannot even SEE how twisted it is. And talking about it as "a fact" and something that "everybody is aware of" and so on... Yeah, and the atomic bombs were developed by the Japanese, who tricked us into dropping them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so they could exploit American guilt and take over our auto industry. And the Russian Revolution was a plot by the Poles, to get one of their own elected Pope. And the whole Zionist movement was an insidious plot by the Muslims, to lure the Jews into the Middle East so they could be destroyed. Everybody knows these facts, right?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

but I don't have the same trouble in getting it; can you imagine banana or dauer trying to tell me that land-grabbing settlers and trigger-happy soldiers who think they have impunity are not really a problem, because there are so few of them they are hardly noticeable

When did I ever say the extreme Islamists were not a problem? What I have said and will stand by is that they are not the true face of Islam, they are a small minority of nutcases and that Muslims must work against them.

Originally Posted by bob x

The question is not why they feel anger, but why they express anger in such an insane and counterproductive manner, unlike other nations who have experienced occupation.

You mean unlike the IRA or FLN or the Partisans or MRTA or Forest Bretheren or Mujahiddin (supported by US against Russian occupation) or ANC, etc?

Yes I can see why you would think only the Palestinians have turned to violence through occupation!! Your opinion is nothing to do with them being Muslim I suppose.

Originally Posted by bob x

I have never said anything of the sort. This is why I find you such an unpleasant person to try to talk to. Please try to pay attention to what I actually *am* saying.

You mean like this:

Nobody had to conspire to make Islam look monstrous. It has looked monstrous to me for decades, well before any "neo-conservatives" existed.

Yes I can see there how you have seperated out the actions of extremists and the actions and teachings of ordinary Muslims. How many times have I said 'Islam does not teach that' and you have insisted it does?!

If I am such an unpleasant person to speak to please feel free to cease communication, I will try hard not to be upset.

Originally Posted by bob x

I do not regard a group that is over 10% as a "small"

And I do not call 10% of anything representative of the whole. I would in fact call it a minority.

Originally Posted by bob x

For the same reason I did: because it is so far from facts, or any realistic notion of how people behave, that it can only be considered insane.

Romkowsky controlled one of the ghettos, he had postage stamps published with his face on them, he declared himself the only person that could perform marriage ceremonies - this is what is insane, not accepting that some people gained power, money and freedom with the blood of others.

A witness at the Eichmann trial was called K. Tzetnik, he chronicled the holocaust. In his words (talking about Eliezer Greenbaum):

“he hated religious Jews with an abysmal loathing. His eyes would shoot flaming sparks whenever a religious Jew, and even moreso a rabbi, fell into his clutches. And so, when he murdered a Jew named Heller, he summoned two other Jews from the barracks. ‘Who is the ray?’ he asked. The one who was a rabbi had his bearded face covered with a rag, which had once been part of a coat sleeve. Fruchtenbaum (Greenbaum) measured the two men with a scornful glare, his features clearly showing how it irked him that such Jews still existed. He turned to the Shilover Rebbe and, in an anti—Semitic tone, rolled out a threatening ‘rebbetzin’ from between clenched teeth, while his brain toiled to devise a method of death for the pair.”

In his book, “In Days of Holocaust and Destruction,” Yitzchak Greenbaum writes, “when they asked me, couldn’t you give money out of the t3 Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said, ‘NO!’ and I say again, ‘NO!’...one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance.”

What about the recorded actions of Nathan Schwalb or Dr Kastner?

I do not accuse these people, I was not alive in the war, they are accused by other Jews.

I shall leave you with the words of Dr Rudolf Verba (may G-d give him peace) who was one of the few survivors of Auschwitz

“I am a Jew. In spite of that, indeed because of that, I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war. This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence. Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all Jews in Hungary...

While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz the number is still on my arm - I compiled careful statistics of exterminations I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers... Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, “I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet."
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in an S.S. uniform and took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid bargaining end there."

Do you know what a quisling is? Was this term coined in order to describe people that simply did not exist?

As a survivor of a death camp please ask yourself what reason this poor man would have to spread such 'insane lies' .......

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

Israel has ha-Aretz and b-Tselem, but where are the equivalents in the Muslim world?

Right here:

The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG)

The group was set up by all sorts of people including religious leaders - that would be Muslim religious leaders. Go to the home page and scroll down to the bottom right, this is where they list reports on Palestinian human rights violations.

On the home page is also a picture link to a very good report on suicide bombers:

This paper outlines the background, the need, and the recommendations that the PHRMG has made to bring an end to the merciless practice of suicide attacks. The goal of this project is to draw attention to its practice, its harms, the reasons for its popularity, and to promote dialogue of this issue amongst the Palestinian community in order to bring an end to such an egregious means…

Please note the name on the report, Bassem Eid - a journalist and Palestinian Muslim.

What saddens me is that you will not even have the decency to be ashamed that you assumed such a thing could not exist......

[bob x]

"Nobody had to conspire to make Islam look monstrous. It has looked monstrous to me for decades, well before any "neo-conservatives" existed...
Yes I can see there how you have seperated out the actions of extremists and the actions and teachings of ordinary Muslims. "

There are the extremists who actively perpetrate the violence, the larger group who actively fund and support them, the still larger group who spew supportive hate-speech, and a lot of ordinary Muslims who do nothing because "what does it have to do with me?" And I am not only repelled by the terrorism: I am repelled by the ordinary Muslims who think women deserve to be hooted at or assaulted if they do not bag themselves, or deserve to be killed if they have sex with or even go out with a boy their family didn't choose, or should have their genitals sliced off. And I am frightened of what would happen to me, personally, if I set foot in one of the Muslim countries.
If you tell me "not all" Muslims are like that, I say: of course not, who (besides you) ever said anything about "all"? But if you tell me only a "tiny" number of Muslims are like that, I will say: the words "widespread" and "prevalent" are more apt. And if you tell me Islam has "nothing" to do with the customs, I tell you again that I disagree completely. Islam fosters the survival of brutal customs from the primitive past, because it teaches that there is no moral principle higher than DO WHATEVER YOU ARE TOLD. That leaves Muslims open to being told anything, anything at all, and "That's from God, how dare you question it?"

"How many times have I said 'Islam does not teach that' and you have insisted it does?!"

You have your version of Islam, Abdullah has his (Abdullah's version has many more followers). What you are saying is "They are being TOLD the wrong things, but they should do what they are TOLD in the Qur'an." You are still working from the principle that DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD is the #1 law. What the Qur'an teaches is sometimes good (I am sure it was an advance, from the primitive state of Arabia before) but often evil: I remember when I questioned you about the sadistic punishments, and you said they were intended to be *rare*, as if that could possibly change the moral nature of the acts. That is like saying, "It is a total lie that he chops infants to pieces, to feed to his dogs, every day! He only does that on special occasions." And warfare is justified not just for defense, but for retaliation: I cannot see killing as justified for any reason except to *prevent* others from being killed, not *responding* because others have been killed (Deir Yassin, for example, was "revenge" killing-- that is why I call it "terrorism").

"The question is not why they feel anger, but why they express anger in such an insane and counterproductive manner, unlike other nations who have experienced occupation...
You mean unlike the IRA or FLN or the Partisans or MRTA or Forest Bretheren or Mujahiddin (supported by US against Russian occupation) or ANC, etc?"

Do you think it justifies evil to point at other people and say they are evil too?
The IRA, I would agree, is a rather comparable case of an evil response to occupation: I would say that the traditional Irish Catholicism, likewise, was a "monstrous" ideology, and not just because of the terrorism it spawned (the Magdalen houses, for example, that came up in our earlier talks about religious misogyny). Note: peace came when even the IRA realized that their non-negotiable demand for British withdrawal from Ulster and its unification with the Republic was just not, repeat not, going to happen; the Palestinians, I tell you again, will have to realize that their non-negotiable demand for the refugees to go back is not, repeat not, going to happen.
The ANC on the other hand was not wholly, or even predominantly, a terrorist organization: it had a terrorist wing, but also a non-violent wing, and much conflict over this tactical difference. If the ANC only had people like Winnie Mandela, the South African government would never have fallen; but fortunately it had Nelson Mandela also.
The "FLN, MRTA, or Forest Brethren" are quite obscure groups: I am afraid I am not sure who you are even talking about.
The other cases are not at all comparable: the Muj in Afghanistan, and the Partisans in WWII, were actually damaging the other side's capabilities of injuring the people they were defending-- successfully. This is the distinction between the Israelis and the Palestinians which you just do not seem to see. The Israelis take actions for the profit of Israelis, or to damage the ability of Palestinians to injure Israelis: they often do not care whether innocent Palestinians are hurt in the process; but they are trying to do something for their own people. If they shoot at a site where rockets are being launched, or manufactured, or where a rocket launcher lives, this is saving Israeli lives; if Palestinians who were just bystanders get killed, they may or may not express any regret-- the callousness of this I cannot morally approve, but I do not see it in the same way as what the Palestinians do. A Palestinian who launches a rocket randomly into a town is not, in any way, damaging the ability of Israelis to injure Palestinians; there is no motive to do good for Palestinians (it accomplishes quite the opposite, of course), only to do evil to Israelis. And when I (or anyone else) point out that this is pure evil-for-evil's-sake, you (or others like you) respond, "Well what about them? They're evil too!" which, I repeat, is not a defense.

"If I am such an unpleasant person to speak to please feel free to cease communication, I will try hard not to be upset."

I have said before, and still mean it: anytime you say you want what you're posting to be the last word, so be it. As long as you keep posting things to respond to, I will respond.

"Yes I can see why you would think only the Palestinians have turned to violence through occupation!!"

I have said the opposite, often. I mentioned the IRA, I mentioned the Tamils (for some reason you left off the Tamils while you were looking for comparators). You shriek at me about things I never said: isn't it about time you asked yourself why you keep doing that?

"I do not regard a group that is over 10% as a "small" minority...
And I do not call 10% of anything representative of the whole. I would in fact call it a minority"
So would I: 49% is "a minority". But I do not call double-digit-percentages a "SMALL" minority, much less a "tiny" minority. Something in the double digits is a "large" minority.

"Do you know what a quisling is? Was this term coined in order to describe people that simply did not exist?"
I DID NOT SAY that they "did not exist": I did mention the "Elder Councils", which included a few more besides the four you list who became active (and vicious) collaborators; as well as the "Kapos", assistant concentration camp guards recruited from the inmates, usually from the common-criminal element but in a handful of cases from Jews. There may have been as many as 20 to 30 of these people. Your claim was that Jews were "prominent" among the perpetrators of the Holocaust, which must mean, according to your carefully defined usages, that *MANY MORE THAN 10% OF THE HOLOCAUST PERPETRATORS* were Jewish.
I am sure there are a handful of blonde people in the Congo. That is far cry from saying blonde people are "prominent" in the Congo.
On the other hand, when I say Muslims are "prominent" disseminators of neo-Nazi propaganda today, I mean that it is quite safe to say an outright majority of the neo-Nazi propaganda being circulated today is from Muslims.

"The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG)
...What saddens me is that you will not even have the decency to be ashamed that you assumed such a thing could not exist"

I never assumed that it COULDN'T exist: I just had not heard that any such thing DID exist. More power to them. But would you think me overly cynical if I ask whether the reason I had not heard of them before is because they do not get much support?
Before the fiasco election, I heard Ashrawi and Naisrullah saying some decent things: but then they got well under 1% of the vote (*that* is what I would mean by a "small" minority; the six known Nazis in present-day Israel, or the couple dozen collaborators during the war, are what I mean by a "tiny" minority). What is small can, of course, grow. One benefit of taking a surly pessimistic outlook like mine is that I can only be surprised in the pleasant direction.

[Eclectic Mystic]

Bob, could you expand on your points more?

[Friend]

Originally Posted by bob x

"Nobody had to conspire to make Islam look monstrous. It has looked monstrous to me for decades, well before any "neo-conservatives" existed...

Hi

Ok ,,,so it is your individual vision

Yes I can see there how you have seperated out the actions of extremists and the actions and teachings of ordinary Muslims. "

It is really separated,,because extremities is not an Islamic attitudes it is a human attitudes from the beginning of the history of this life on this earth.

Originally Posted by bob

I am not only repelled by the terrorism: I am repelled by the ordinary Muslims who think women deserve to be hooted at or assaulted if they do not bag themselves, or deserve to be killed if they have sex with or even go out with a boy their family didn't choose, or should have their genitals sliced off. And I am frightened of what would happen to me, personally, if I set foot in one of the Muslim countries.

If you realy know the tenets of islam ,you can give an comprehensive vision about it .It seems to be you doesn't know the reality about Islam..you have bias previous information...

both men and women will be under the law of penalty if they didn't respect the relations of marriage institution...the issue doesn't linked to women to be women problem in Islamic societies.

"The woman and man found guilty of sexual intercourse lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion (i.e., Law) of Allah…and those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produced not four witnesses (to support their allegation), flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence…” Qur’an, 24:2-4.


The penalty for adultery (made for mischief in the land) is death and for fornication is 100 lashes. The penalty purifies the person from the sin in this world and saves him or her from the punishment in the Hereafter. One can imagine the lesson a particular Muslim society learns from the execution of a case of adultery to one of its members. This lesson is certain to make each member stay as afar away as possible from even thinking of committing such a mischief.

To prove the crime in either of fornication or adultery cases, however, it is required from the accuser to bring four witnesses. Each witness must testify that he or she saw the penis in the uterus. If one of the witnesses was not sure of this act, then all four witnesses must be lashed eighty times for false accusation and for the spread of undesired news. The possible penalty for conveying the fornication news and the condition of four witnesses severely restricts the legal cases in the court of law. These restrictions in turn help contain the sexual news from becoming common occurrence which may ease its acceptance in the community.
While Islam made these severe restrictions for a fornication case to reach the legal system, it has left the door wide open for sinners of such crime to repent and change their bad habits privately.
Islam recognizes that morality and ethics are the roots of every good society. One finds abundance of social and spiritual traits in the fabric of Islam geared for producing a better social living. These traits, however, are not enough insurance against misconduct. Shari’ah, the Islamic Law, is a community moral law used to manage and govern a Muslim society and to control the behavior of its members to ensure its safety. Shari’ah is backed by the power of the state that enforces the law by means of appropriate penalties or remedies. In modern societies, authorized bodies, such as a legislature or a court create the law. While this is also true in Islam, however, the basic rules of Shari’ah are divine in nature.


The spirit and essence of the Islamic Law in its severe penalty is to save lives, stop corruption, disallow mischief, serve justice, build a safer society and apply little or no penalty.

Originally Posted by bob

"The question is not why they feel anger, but why they express anger in such an insane and counterproductive manner, unlike other nations who have experienced occupation...
You mean unlike the IRA or FLN or the Partisans or MRTA or Forest Bretheren or Mujahiddin (supported by US against Russian occupation) or ANC, etc?"

Firstly,You should know what happened here in Islamic world to get the answer.
40 Years Of Israeli Occupation


We Muslims know that Judaism as heaven religion is different than Israeil as occupying state...so there are a realistic Jews people believe in the rights of other to live in peace .


Monitoring Israeli Colonization Activities



Did you know that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections from its sites?


Did you know that Israel stands in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council Resolutions?



Now about your Q...

Did you see like these war image in IRA or FLN or the Partisans or MRTA or Forest Bretheren or Mujahiddin (supported by US against Russian occupation) or ANC, etc....

WARNING / don't see the image if you have sensitive heart

Lebanon's 9/11 or Why Do They Hate Us? Picture Album


Iraq Freedom

Democracy !!

Israeli Crimes

USA Terror On Al Falluja

So If This Was Your Daughter How Would You Feel ?

DO THOSE CHILDREN HAVE AN BELTS OF BLASTINGS??????


Again ,I should say that this discussion here is political ... and Islam is not the core of the issue .

Islam have clear tenets about any conflict or war.







Thanks