Islam: A Religion of Peace?
I attended a debate recently. The issue: Is Islam a Religion of Peace, and is Shariah, or Islamic law, consistent with the U.S. Constitution? Arguing in the affirmative was Suhail, whom I would consider a moderate Muslim. Arguing in the negative was Frank, an American who considers Islam to be a threat to Western civilization. The following is an abridged version of the actual debate. See what you think.
Suhail: The U.S. Constitution protects us all from discrimination on the basis of religious belief. All faiths are American faiths, and are protected. There are no religious tests here, and American Muslims have integrated themselves into American life. They serve their country, even in the military. Muslims respect Jews and Christians as “people of the book,” and all three religions worship the same God of Abraham. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, and play by the rules. Racists want hate, not the truth. They say that Islam is violent, but similar racist remarks were said about Catholics and Jews. Anti-Muslim is Anti-Semitism on training wheels. Many Muslims condemned 9/11. Racist rhetoric leads to violence, and we must not succumb to prejudice.
Frank: I look at this from a national security perspective. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Shariah law finds its roots in the Quran. There is a principle in the Quran called “abrogation” (Sura 2:106) by which earlier Quranic passages, which are more tolerant of other religions, are superseded by later passages. Therefore, the Medina passages, which are extreme and intolerant, are seen by the Islamic authorities as replacing previous passages. “Fight and slay the unbelievers where you find them.” “Fight them, even the people of the book.” “Take not the Jews or Christians for your friends…” The early, peaceful passages are superseded by these Medina passages, and are a part of the directive to assure the triumph of Islam. This is according to the 4 Sunni schools, and the Shia schools as well. It is God’s will for Islam to rule the world and Jihad is the obligation of all Muslims. If you disagree, you are an apostate. Ultimately, Jihad will call for violence, but until that is possible, a “soft Jihad” is recommended, by which Muslim are to work from within to destroy Western civilization, so that Allah’s religion is made supreme. Therefore, some Muslims are a 5th column which promotes the destruction of the Constitution in the form of Shariah law.
Suhail: “Abrogation” is generally not accepted, except by terrorists and racists. All religions contain perverse passages in Holy Scripture, exhorting people to violence. The Medina period was a time of war, which explains the Prophet’s rhetoric. History proves that Islam was tolerant of other religions. Mainstream Muslims believe in peace. Shariah is interpretive law, and is not dogmatic. The word “Jihad” conflates Islam with politics, which is what Bin Laden wants. People who support terrorism do so for political reasons. People who oppose terrorism do so for religious reasons. We should not give our religion to the terrorists. We cannot allow the terrorists to set the agenda with regard to religious belief.
Frank: As part of its “soft Jihad” agenda, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks the following:
1. To dominate Muslims, to radicalize them, and to recruit them to Jihad.
2. To intimidate opponents.
3. To create parallel societies, with their own sets of laws, preferential arrangements, dress codes, etc., by which Shariah is used to subvert the U.S. Constitution.
Sahriah is a very strict regiment in 75% of U.S. mosques. The “stealth” or “soft” Jihad will eventually lead to violent Jihad.
Suhail: Terrorists are trying to co-opt Islam. I don’t want to give them my religion. Mainstream Muslims are not extreme, and wearing a headscarf is no “soft Jihad.” People should be able to practice their faith without being suspect.
Frank: Other religions, like Judaism and Christianity, acknowledge the national authority of the state. Shariah does not. All the recognized authoritative Islamic sources endorse using Shariah to displace secular law. Islam seeks to curb free speech in order to stop criticism.
Suhail: Islam is an interpretive law. You interpret it for the land you live in.
Frank: Shariah is not a matter on interpretation. Non-Muslims will have 3 choices: 1. Accept Islam, 2. Accept dhimmitude status, or 3. Die. It’s not just Al Qaeda’s whack interpretation. No. Al Qaeda reflects authoritative Islam.
Suhail: Is there a clash of civilizations? No. It’s a clash between those who believe in civilization, and those, like the terrorists, who don’t. Three Muslim countries elected women as heads of state. Most Muslims are comfortable with modernity. The terrorists are not manifesting Islam, and should not be allowed to set the agenda. When Jews were persecuted by the Christians, where did they go? To Muslim states. Many scholars interpret Shariah as consistent with the Constitution and with modernity.
Frank: Many moderate Muslims reject Shariah, but Wahabbis are winning in many areas. They will extinguish the moderate practice of Islam. Islam is waging Jihad against the civilized world. It’s not just the extremists. The mainstream accepts this authoritative version of the faith. Just look at the authoritative texts. Our country is on the line.
Suhail: You see before you two worldviews, extreme and moderate. It’s up to you to decide. Bin Laden, and other racists like him, foster hate. Terrorism is political, not religious. Faith brings strength to America, and all faiths should be allowed to participate in American democracy.
Frank: We are confronting a dangerous ideology bent on our destruction. A 5th column is working to do us in and we should fight back. This ideology wants to impose Shariah on the whole world. It’s not just Bin Laden who says this. The authoritative interpretations of Islam concur. Our only hope is to mobilize the support of Muslim moderates against the supporters of Shariah.
Who do you think is right? Or could they both be right and wrong at the same time?
Join the Conversation
They’re both wrong.
Frank of course because he generalizes Islam – it’s not scientology, dude! Islam and the Islamic world are too diverse to fit into his world view. Especially as he is so proud of the US constitution he should acknowledge that Muslims are thinking individuals with differing opinions…
On the other hand, Suhail makes the failure to draw a strict line between “civilized” Muslims and extremists. That’s a line that doesn’t exist that way. If it would be that easy the world would be so much easier…
And then they’re both right in a way.
Frank makes a point when he emphasizes the importance of the Sharia. As the legislature and the judiciary are both monopoles of the state it is definitely not consistent with the US constitution.
On the other hand Suhail is right saying that there is no clash of civilizations, though some researches show the resentments on which it builds in both the Western and the Islamic world.
They both discuss problems of some importance, but being that polarized it leads to nothing.
(Why doesn’t everybody become atheist? it would be soooo much easier to have this discussion without the factor of faith. That’s also for Frank, the believer in the constitution)
I watched a most interesting 2 part documentary called zeitgeist. The movie won the activist film festival and is well done. It respectfully discusses religion, islam and christianity. They post it free on their site so everyone can watch it.
Click here to check it out, you will be glad you took the time to watch it.
Because many people believe in God (myself included). Also, its not like atheism solves any problems. people will always find reasons to fight. Excluding religion, people can still fight over race, class, and political identity. Sometimes they will even fight over trivial things like sports.
In addition, atheists often have faith other things or ideas, such as science, money, or human nature. I would argue no one is without faith in something.
As for the main question, whoever wants Islam to be violent will find evidence to support his opinion. Likewise whoever wants Islam to be peaceful will also find evidence to support his opinion. This debate reinforces a main point illustrated by many commenters here: that the human mind creates more mistrust and resentment than inanimate pieces of paper.
I think they were arguing for the undecided members in the audience. They were certainly not going to convince each other of anything. I also doubt that they came up with an answer – that would be too controversial. Someone would get upset either way.
This puts it really nicely. Religion is often a cover for things that have nothing to do with it, because, since it’s often the most personal and passionate thing in a person’s life, it’s the easiest propoaganda tool one can use to win public support and opinion. Most leaders in the Middle East, when they have purely political agendas in mind, they claim that it’s for the sake of religion in order for people to blindly support it without questioning. They do this in such a convincing manner that sadly, it works.
Rarely is religion the cause of conflict unless more than one religion is at fault, often it’s not even the case, especially in any current wars in the Middle East which are much more about power, and political/territorial control. Phrases like “Islam’s War on the West” is a fake spin on what’s actually going on.
Atheism, the removal of Islam, et al, it won’t change a thing. People will just have a harder time winning people to their side if religion is out of the question.
That’s why I wrote
(It was meant a bit sarcastically, too)
You see, in this discussion why have two intelligent people who make their points. Problem is just that they have their faith in some things that they won’t discuss. If that’s a religion or an ideology doesn’t matter. That’s often something which prevents a consensus which would help everybody.
You’re certainly right with this. I don’t think they should convince each other, but that they’d rather try to find out how the position they stand for can be combined to the good of the people. That’s what discussing should be about in my opinion (I know I’m not always good at that, too).
That’s totally true (I mentioned what I think about generalizations in my previous comment). But fact is that some groups use the cover of Islam to base their worldly empires on it, mixing “back to the roots” religious conservatism with a (reasonable) anti-Western position.
The Muslim Brotherhood or the Hizbollah are that powerful because they present themselves as a religious opposition to Western politics. People are more than dissatisfied with Western politics in the MENA region, which have supported their dictators and have done the political rick roll game with the people in these countries over and over again. So it’s no wonder they turn themselves towards the religious opposition which has to be conservative, because liberalism is often seen as a Western value.
It’s not that “Islam” was in a war on the West, but some groups base their politics on this idea in order to gain importance.
(Would laicité make a difference here? I think, in a society with a tradition of the separation of politics and religion it would. If not for a better outcome, so at least for a better process.)
I believe that religion, in a broad sense, is part of human nature and has a purpose in binding humans together. To form societies, there will always be a shared ideology. This shared ideology can be based on shared belief in a divine revelation (like Christianity, Islam etc. and perhaps also Buddhism). Otherwise (or in addition), an ideology based on ethnicity, nationality or secular philosophy (like communism) will be the strongest binding forces.
All of these ideologies can be harmful. The danger is always that the binding ideology becomes hostile to ‘outsiders’. Yet, I don’t think it’s realistic to do away with (a particular) religion and expect a society of ‘liberated’, enlightened individuals to somehow spontaneously emerge. Religion can and will bind people together for good or for bad, and humans united are a phenomenal force that is in a way always ‘political’.
If religion, in the sense of a binding ideology, is indeed inevitable the question becomes: what kind of ideology/religion is strong enough to unite people accross the world (which may in fact be required to save the planet from destruction …) but is at the same time not hostile to those who do not share that ideology/religion?
@Martijn Rep
100% acknowledgment. There’s nothing more I can say about that. If I knew the answer to your latest question I’d start my way as the next Messiah
I would say it’s a stretch to describe this exchange as a debate (and I did read the entire transcript before commenting).
Frank Gafney is right, as far as he goes. The evidence in Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence is crystal clear and beyond doubt.
Al-Anfal 39 & Al-Taubah 29 are outcome oriented imperatives to conquest. They have neither chronological nor geographic limits. This fact is confirmed by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir. See my blog post ROPMA for links to the relevant tafir.
Further confirmation comes from Islamic law, found in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 8 & 9. You can look it up at SCRIBID. It says “The Caliph makes war…”, “The Caliph fights all other people…”. O9.1 tells us that it must be done every year.
FYI – This thread is a magnet for Islamophobes.
Esra, Islamophobia implies irrational fear & loathing of Islam. Given the death & destruction involved in recent terror attacks and Islam’s 1400 year track record, fear & loathing of Islam is well founded, not irrational.
Moe wanted his victims to fear him, to be so weakened in their resolve that they could not mount effective resistance. He bragged about winning with terror. This fact is documented in a new blog dedicated to the subject, Islamophobia: Exposing Malicious Malarkey.
It’s indeed irrational; you are implying (and wrongly so) that somehow “Islam” is the only religion with such track record. It’s a tedious discussion and one that is ill-founded considering the fact that most Muslims condemned these “recent” attacks and most are never involved with them; however I do not see you linking Christianity with the war in Iraq (which is much more than a terror attack, but is an entire terror occupation) despite Bush claiming that it’s a task from Jesus/God. Why?
I also don’t see you acknowledging the simple fact that Muslims are the actual victims of “Islamic” extremists. I should remind you that extremists also exist in every religion on planet earth, and anyone who claims otherwise is either in denial or is a bad liar.
In short, Islamophobia is almost always synonymous with idiocy and hatred in today’s world.
There are so many holes in the holy books (perhaps that why they call them holy)
that im not convinced a god or allah exists. Now wouldnt that be the worlds biggest lie!
Why is that religious people believe in angels and imagine a god, and yet dont believe in neandathal man?
There is only one problem in the whole world , the rest stem from this………mistaken identity, all of us!
I would agree with Esra’a here. In fact, the more I think about it, the more the lines become blurred between politics, economics, and religion. You don’t have to look far. When a Rabbi, or an Imam, or a Priest want to raise money for a new school, or some such project, don’t they have to become very political, and don’t they have to stroke the egos of the wealthy in just the right way, and doesn’t the religious aspect of it get swallowed up by the economics and the politics of the moment?
Simon is naturally wondering how two very divergent views could somehow come together for the good of everybody. In other words, people can argue all they want, and each side becomes convinced of its own position, but where is the general good in all of this? How do we make our divergent positions inure to the benefit of the vast majority of people? Or is it more important to feel that we are right?
I agree with Martijn that ideology is inherent to the human condition. But false belief can also become our undoing. People with divergent ideological beliefs cannot all be right. Something has to give.
Very excellent question, to which Simon responds:
In a very real sense, Simon, you are the next Messiah. In fact, we all are. To paraphrase the cartoonist Pogo, “We have seen the Messiah and he is us.”
And actually, you do have the answer. Remember, you were the one who called for an interpretation of the debate which benefits humanity at large. That’s the answer.
I believe, for what its worth, that the next phase of human development, if we even get that far, will be an Ideology of Common Sense, by which we learn to speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. Common sense, the collective wisdom born or shared experience, will guide our thinking and inform our speech. In our fractured world, common sense, the wisdom of the common man, is the common denominator. Instead of believing what we want to believe, we will begin to believe in what makes sense. We will use the universal filter of common sense to filter what we come to believe.
If and when this finally occurs, then Martijn’s question will have been answered. There will finally be an ideology in place which binds people, but not at the expense of excluding others. All will come to know and believe in those principles, such as The Golden Rule, The Golden Mean, and The Greatest Good, which are the foundations of common sense, and we will finally come together not only ideologically, but economically, and environmentally, as well.
This should become the trajectory of our efforts.
In a way, it is. If I believe in something, than it is the importance of open questions. And how I wish everybody would do so, seeking the answer instead of thinking he possesses it! But this answer gives birth to new questions: How do we get there?
Ché Guevara forced people into reeducation camps because he saw no other way to convince them of the necessity to change their whole set of mind (from “having” to “being” in the meaning of Erich Fromm’s “To have or to be”). He failed.
So how do we get there? Force didn’t succeed. Fromm’s work didn’t change the world. How do we get there? Should we just be waiting for the evolution to work for us? What can we do?
If there is a God, He will surely help us. Perhaps – why not? – in the way he has done before, by revealing Himself. Divine revelation has a way of inspiring people to give all they have for the common Good, which seems to be what is required. I guess, Simon, you may have realized this as well by considering a career as Messiah
But seriously, can we dismiss such a possibility out of hand as either outdated (“in the distant past perhaps but no more”) or simply impossible (“God doesn’t exist so He can’t very well reveal Himself”)?
Then again, even when admitting that it just *might* be possible, why have we not seen the stupendous evidence of a new Divine revelation on world-scale? Where is the Messenger? Where is His Message? Where are His followers? Are any of the new religious movements serious candidates?
It may be far-fetched but on the other hand if God has initiated something real than we are wasting our time trying to devise our own plans and convince the rest of humanity of the wisdom of our ideas.
In any case, striving to change the world for the better, also when unbelieving in the possibility of God or Divine Revelation, is noble, worthy and heart-warming even (or especially) because despair and disappointment must be overcome.
I have never seen opinions that were so nice concerning this subject; especially when it concerns the life of every freedom loving human being on this planet. islam teaches no matter moderate or radical the same thing, all non-believers on the planet will submit to sharia and islam or pay a tax or die. All believers who practice this ideology truthfully will submit to jihad and fight, peace has nothing to do with islam, it means submit, submission and that’s to all of you. Hate and destroy all other religions, through violence, robbery, lying, murder whatever you have to do and then when you’ve won you can beat your wife, rape kafir females to your hearts content and the prophet’s favorite, child molest underage females and call them wives. I guess you just don’t appreciate what this ideology wants from the world. Hitler had nothing on these guys; praise God that there are people like Robert Spencer out there who tell people the truth and there aren’t all silly discussions like this on such a dangerous and serious issue.
We shouldn’t dismiss the possibility. But as we can’t count on it we should take on the work ourselves. If you were stuck in the ice of the north pole, not knowing whether help will come – would you wait and hope or try to break out yourself, Martijn?
If we don’t think of an expedition, but of a god to come: If there is a god, it will help our just case (well, if it is a good god. you never know…). If not, we’ll have to do the work all alone.
No matter which is the case, it’s our job to start. I’m not a friend of the idea of fate. Fatalism may be proven right, but we never know before. That means we have to do the work, even if we may fail. It may be this failing is, as you call it, Martijn, “noble, worthy and heart-warming”. I don’t know. All I know is that it’s our job.
It’s indeed irrational; you are implying (and wrongly so) that somehow “Islam” is the only religion with such track record.
Moe fought in 19 battles; how many did Jesus fight? In what New Testament Book, Chapter & verse do you find the functional equivalent of 8:39, 9:39 & 8:67? What religion, in the 21st century, preaches war & genocide? What religion has a mandate for offensive holy war in its canon law? Christians have commited excessive violence; in contravention of Christ’s teaching. Should religions be judged by the excess, or the rule?
It’s a tedious discussion and one that is ill-founded considering the fact that most Muslims condemned these “recent” attacks and most are never involved with them; however I do not see you linking Christianity with the war in Iraq (which is much more than a terror attack, but is an entire terror occupation) despite Bush claiming that it’s a task from Jesus/God. Why?
Which Muslims, other than Khalim Massoud, condemned the Qur’an verses which sanctify & mandate offensive Jihad against pagans and “people of the book”? They condemn killing ‘innocents’, but do not define the term. In Islam’s view, Jews & Christians are rebels against Allah, who must be punished by Muslims in this world and Allah in the next. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir of 5:33 states that disbelief is sufficient to warrant the listed hudud.
The battles in Afghanistan & Iraq are just war, sponsored by a state, not a church. President Bush’s use of “Crusade”, which was quickly retracted, and reference to divine mission do nothing to alter the fact that the conflict was joined by a state, not a religion.
I also don’t see you acknowledging the simple fact that Muslims are the actual victims of “Islamic” extremists. I should remind you that extremists also exist in every religion on planet earth, and anyone who claims otherwise is either in denial or is a bad liar.
I have acknowledged the fact that most Muslims are descended from victims of Islam’s conquests. The majority of Muslims are victims of Islam; they would not be Allah’s slaves if their ancestors had not been reverted at sword point.
I do not accept the ‘extremists’ shibboleth. That which was exemplified by the founder of a cult is the standard, not a deviation from the standard. Moe sanctified casting terror in two explicit ayat and exemplified its application in three more. He also bragged about being made victorious by its application. He never threw a bomb because his death predated the invention of explosives.
In short, Islamophobia is almost always synonymous with idiocy and hatred in today’s world.
The American branch of Al-Ikhwan made the Qur’an & hadith available on the web, where we Kuffar can access them. Others scanned and posted Reliance & Ibn Kathir. A few of us have taken advantage of those resources and we are sharing what we have learned with our uninformed countrymen.
Dajjal (and William),
After all these years, I’ve come to learn a valuable lesson when it comes to discussions on Islam: when a person mentions Al-Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood), any attempt at a discussion will almost always lead to a dead end. This is why I rolled my eyes at the “Islam: A religion of peace?” debate – Frank simply responded with rants of “dhimmitude!” and the Muslim Brotherhood and so on, and given the fact that the debate catered to a right-leaning audience, the effect it had on listeners can easily be guessed (and for the record, I wasn’t impressed with Suhail’s responses either).
I will never be seen advocating for Shariah, but it really irks me when individuals with qualifications that do not go beyond lurking about Jihad Watch and Daniel Pipes feel they are “insightful” enough to comment on and condemn Islam. I’ve met Muslims who have studied Shariah academically for years yet would never claim to be that.
As mentioned by Suhail, sharia laws are based on interpretation and have undergone many transformations and evolved over the centuries. To claim that it’s unchangeable and cannot be reinterpreted is ridiculous – a basic example is family law in Muslim nations – while always based on shariah, each country has its own application.
When you think of it, how many religions in this modern day are consistent with the US constitution? Not many really, but all have reinterpreted their principles and the same is happening with Islam.
And while we at Mideast Youth do not discourage discussions on religion, we do expect and enforce rules whereby commenters must respect the religious sensitivities of others. “Jeebus” “Moe” and their likes fall under that category, so please watch your words.
We also disapprove of statements that condemn entire groups, whether ethnic, religious, etc. Be mindful of that in your future comments.
Had a good laugh at this one. How many “Christian victims” are there then? Let’s start by making a census of Africa.
Oh and…
Google “Muslims against terror”.
Kawthar, I am not troubled by generic condemnations of terrorism, but I look for something more substantial. The Fiqh Council and similar bodies in other countries condemned specific acts, ignoring others and playing semantic games. I have neither seen nor heard any of them specifically condemning al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah or similar organizations.
I don’t trust FMCAT because I view its founder as a shifty lawyer. I believe that AIFD & Muslims Against Sharia are sincere. I suspect that they suffer from a cognitive dissonance peculiar to moderate Muslims.
Of those groups, to my knowledge, only Muslims Against Sharia has called for the violent verses to be stricken from the Qur’an. They commenced an editing project on line, which left some of the most egregious verses in As-Saff. I am not optimistic about their chances of success.
Dajjal,
Why should Islamic reformation be pinned down to striking off violent verses in the Qur’an? I’ve read quite a few religious, and many contained verses that made me flinch.
Here’s what just aggravates me about comments like yours: they function from a basic assumption that Muslims are barbarians, and will always remain barbarians. They condemn us all, and decry “moderate Muslims” (…when will we ever get past those darned labels?) as “ill-informed”, “brainwashed” and the like, all the while exhibiting a very superficial knowledge of Islam, its laws and history.
And the groups you’ve mentioned above are not representative of over one billion Muslims, and they certainly do not represent me. For the past years, Muslims have condemned terrorism over and over and over again, fatwas have been issued, awareness campaigns launched. And not only by organizations but also by individuals.
I do not believe that MAS has a chance of having violent verses stricken from the Qur’an, but I am certain that we Muslims can face the challenge of reforming our societies.
If violent verses of the koran were struck off , then hamas, hezbollah etc, would have no need to exist.
Similar with the bible. I am not optmistic of chances of their success either. Everyone knows how these religions of peace and tolerance work. Very sad!
If some muslim woman or man can give me some confidence or explanation on this article, i would be grateful http://www.dhushara.com/book/sakina/fatwah/purdah.htm
Please read the entire article.
Holy books are full of “holes?” Good line Straliangirl. But do you really think that the existence of God has anything to do with religion? Relgion seeks to describe God, just as science seeks to describe nature. But science is not nature, and religion is not God. Therefore, it may be a stretch to taint God with the fallacies of religion.
Who is God? I’ll give you my two cents, for what it’s worth. God is The Big Bang. Some 13.7 billion years ago there was nothing, not even time or space. And then there was a great explosion, and suddenly there was everything, the entire universe in all its glory. The energy that it took to make that happen, to create everything out of nothing, is God, and it is that energy that is in all things, and that all things are a part of. Even inanimate objects are full of God’s energy, as Einstein showed that mass and energy are related to one another. It’s just a thought.
Simon asks a big question here. We should be thinking about an answer, not convincing ourselves that we possess it. That’s the problem with ideologues. They often think they have the answer, before thinking it through. They jump to belief, even if it is false belief. But being earnest in what you believe doesn’t make it so. Instead of jumping to false believe and rationalizing that you are right, why not use rationality in the first place to figure out what is worth believing?
I’m willing to make a wager with you, Martijn. I bet that in our time, we have seen at least as many miracles, and evidence of Divine revelation, as did the ancients, the people whose stories are retold in Holy Scripture. Perhaps we don’t recognize a miracle when we see it. But it’s still there nonetheless.
As for the messenger and his message…guess who that messenger is, and guess what his message is? As we said before, we are the messenger, and the message is common sense. I hate to be so mundane. But I’m pretty sure that that’s the game we’re in.
God never set out to make it simple. That’s not the game He’s playing in our world. If He wanted perfection, He would have made this world to be like the moon, a perfect rock. That’s not what He was shooting for here. Our world is like a satellite floating in space on which is being conducted an experiment of sorts. You take equal parts of good and evil, add in a pinch of common sense, and a whole bunch of nonsense for good measure, and see which way things will go. That’s the game, and that’s the message, and it’s up to us to get that message out there. Our destiny may not be fully in our hands, but enough of it is, that it is worth giving it a shot to make things better.
Like Simon says,
And as Kawthar says,
Well, in a very real sense, the same goes for all societies, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. We all need reform. We know it in our gut that we’re all heading in the wrong direction, no matter what we happen to believe. It’s time to take the plunge, and to make it better. If we leave it all up to our leaders, we’re going down. They certainly don’t have all the answers. Believe it or not, we have more than enough answers in our heads. But we have to find the courage to do something substantive about it.
Ok, I’m not really interested in this debate, but I came across this by Kawthar:
Which was in response to the question of how many Muslims condemn verses in the Qur’an like 9:29. To be fair, there is a difference between condemning the actions of individuals in the worls today, and condemning or rejecting previous passage of the Qur’an. I understand that people have different interpretations of the verse, I choose to interpet it in the historical context of the last two years of Muhammad’s life, but I know of no large group of Islamic scholars or school of thought within Islam that rejects this verse.
That being said, I could really care less how Muslims view passages and I’m not here to tell them how to interpret these passages. Again, I could care less.
As for some of the posters, do you really think that:
1) Your knowledge of Islam is great enough to prove the Muslims wrong? Muslims have 1400 years of theology under their belt, what do you have?
2) Do you think your approach is actually going to have Muslims think about their Holy book (at least in the way you would like them to view it)?
This approach by inter-web experts of Islam is really no different (IMO) than the Muslims that spam message boards about the scientific miracles in the Qur’an. Just remember that while most non-Muslims will ever be convinced by the views of non-experts regarding the science and the Qur’an, Muslims will never take your writings very seriously. And to be fair, they shouldn’t.
sorry about all those errors. Messages keep popping on my libraries computer and that distracted me from my train of thought and looking over to check for any mistakes.
How many Muslims now alive were alive in the seventh century? Islam’s theology is mainly expressed in the Qur’an.
3:7 says …”In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkâm (commandments, etc.), “…
Ibn Kathir wrote in his Tafsir of 3:7: “The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented.”
Is 9:29 clear or unclear, imperative or declarative? According to Ibn Kathir, …”Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination.”…
Al-Jalalayn assumes understanding of the major theme and explains a few details. Likewise Ibn Abbas. Abdullah Yusuf Ali details the Jizya, assuming comprehension of the rest of the verse. Muhammad Assad claims that such Jihad can only be defensive in character against those who attack Muslims. Muhammad Taqi Uthmani presents a straight up translation without comment.
Hilali & Khan frustrate the reader with a letter designated list without placing the letters in the context. They quote Bukhari4.52.177, the infamous genocide hadith, and refer the reader to footnote on 2:193. That footnote quotes a hadith similar to Bukhari4.52.196 and further directs the reader to 8:39′s footnote. That footnote goes into some end time prophecy and directs us back to 2:193.
The Pooya/Ali commentary says: …”Allah enjoins upon the believers to fight against the disbelievers and the people of the book until they are subdued and agree to pay jizyah (the root meaning is compensation) with willing submission to live under the protection of Islam, enjoying personal liberty of conscience, free to profess and practice their own faith, not interfering with the preaching and progress of Islam. “…
F.G. suggested in the debate, reading Reliance of the Traveller. My guess is that few in his audience are willing to shell out nearly $30. for a 1250 page book; fat chance they’d actually read it. Having read the relevant parts on the web, I can report to you that Book O, Chapter 9, paragraph 1 states that Jihad against Kuffar is a communal obligation upon the Muslims once a year. That is consistent with Al-Shafi’i & Al-Ghazali who ruled that military expeditions must be mounted annually. O9.8 cites 9:29 as the basis for this:
The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians”…
O9.9 says: “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim”… . Why would Islamic law require making war against disbelievers every year? Could it be Allah’s commands found in Al-Anfal & Al-Taubah? Could it be Muhammad’s exemplary conduct described in Bukhari’s books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition?
The short course: Hassan Al-Banna’s The Way of Jihad. The intermediate course: Riyad-us-Saliheen, Book 11, Chapter 234
My citations to Ibn Kathir are from http://www.tafsir.com. I posted a list of relevant tafsir topics in my blog post: ROPMA. Each of the topics is linked to the source document. http://www.qtafsir.com has the same text with a search engine so that you can look for the explanation of any verse.
The other tafsirs I cited are found at http://www.altafsir.com, along with the Yusif Ali, M. Abbas & M.T. Uthmani translations. Scribid has a searchable scanned image of Reliance. The Resources post at my website has download links for various Qur’an & hadith translations & formats. I did not list all the variations available, follow the site links and browse at leisure. Note: some of those files are huge. The Noble Qur’an pdf is about 30MB.
I think, that we are taking about 1/4 or less of whats known of history and considering it the whole truth. How can one possibily prescibe to knowing the absolute today, when so much of history we have no record of.
Take mohummad and jesus for instance, why are we not allowed to scrutinise these characters? Its unholy?
If there is a God or Allah , would it really be so insecure that it required worship from us, or would care about what we eat, or drink or what we wear?
To me, Allah and God sound very male (not divine) and im suspicious about that.
Dajjal, are you just copying/pasting your comments from other people’s work on the web?
No, teddo, everything I have posted here is original, I do not practice plagiarism. In various blog and forum posts, I quote Islam’s canon of scripture & tradition, always attributing the quotes and usually linking them to source documents. I do not claim anyone else’s writing as my own.
I haven’t visited this site for a while, and this is a fascinating post, but it seems to have gone a little off topic. The question here is, if I read it correctly, relates to Islam being a religion of peace, and whether it’s judicial component, Shariah, is compatable with the US constitution. The answer to this, in my opinion, is yes to the first assertion and no to the second.
The first assertion is validated by the peaceful, productive lives lead by the overwhelming majority of the adherents of Islam, both in the US and abroad.
The litmus test, as it were, of a religion is the behavior of it’s followers, and I have yet to see statistics or proof of a higher degree of criminality or violence in Muslim populations compared to other religious groups.
As to the second, the answer is no. The constitution of the US expressly separates Church and State (IN PRINCIPLE), and Shariah demands exactly the opposite. While there are many similar principles in both sets of laws, the fundamental differences regarding freedoms, rights, and responsibilities, the very world outlook that the two represent, most certainly render them incompatable.
In all honesty, however, since the Muslim population in the US is a minute fraction of the overall, and will most probably not increase significantly in the near future due to ‘ahem’ the current political climate, the bulk of Frank’s argument, being a Fifth Column subversion philosophy, is illogical. There is and will continue to be legal frictions between Shariah and US law; debate, discussion and consesus are critical to the evolution of both systems.
Will the two become compatible in the future? I would think that such a question is the topic for another debate…
Dajjal, the problem with your approach is that you seem to be relying too much on Tafsir to explain what the Qur’anic passages mean. While I understand this approach, your method is faulty. Ibn Kathir’s tafsir is not the be all, end all approach to understanding the Qur’an. What will you do when other Tafsir’s inevitably contradict each other? Will you take the most recent, the one that suits your pre-established beliefs on the meaning of an ayah?
You mention Ayah 8:67 as allowing for the execution of prisoners of war. From my understanding, the meaning of this verse has changed since the days that Ibn Kathir and other early commentators understood it as. You need to also realize that the commentaries were written at a time when Islam was expanding militarily. Caliphs would ask scholars if the Qur’an allows for offensive war (I’m not saying it does or doesn’t), so the scholars would tell the Caliphs that the Qur’an abrogates itself in order to scripturally justify the conquests that Islamic empires engaged in. Seen in this context then, the early commentaries of the Qur’an should be ignored in favor of modern Qur’anic exegesis.
I am certainly not a scholar of Islam. But it seems to me, as a lay person, that Dajjal does a decent job of showing that at least some of the notable authoritative sources in Islam do in fact support the more severe interpretations of certain intolerant passages in the Quran. And Dajjal makes the important point that the Holy Scriptures of most religions similarly contain extreme passages. The Book of Revelations comes to mind, as do certain passages in the Torah.
However, the debate does not end there. I think that the common sense and common practice of the people often trump religious interpretation. As Eric points out, regardless of what is contained in the Quran, and the various interpretations thereof, the vast majority of Muslims do live a life of peace, and have chosen to live their lives in accordance with a more moderate reading of their religion. And Teddo points out that even in ancient times, the Quran was interpreted in such a way so as to accomodate the political and military realities of the moment. So that if a Caliph was engaged in battle, and needed a certain interpretation to facilitate his efforts, such interpretations were not withheld.
So what does all this mean? It means that no matter what is written in Holy Scripture, and no matter what interpretation is given to such passages, there is often an over-riding logic that prevails, and that is accepted by the vast majority of adherents, and that universal sense of logic is what we call common sense. Let’s take Judaism, as an examlple. It says in the Torah that if you marry a woman and she turns out not to be a virgin, you’re to kill her on her father’s doorstep. To my mind, Jews don’t do this, nor can I recall any time when they did. Why? Because it doesn’t make sense. So even the most devout Jews have chosen to “white-out” this passage, as it relates to how we should behave.
Similarly, as Eric points out, the vast majority of Muslims have chosen to lead their lives consistent with a version of Islam that accomodates modern notions of how we should treat each other. The extremists think otherwise, it’s true. But even the extremists can be contained if they find themselves out of step with the will of the majority. It becomes incumbent on the West, therefore, to win hearts and minds, to the extent possible, so that the will of the people will become further distanced from the will of the extremists.
And Straliangirl, you wonder if God or Allah really cares about what we eat, or how we dress, etc. My guess is, probably not. For me, God is the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe. He is all about creating every conceivable possibility. His energy flows through us, and ours through Him. All these religious rules we impose upon ourselves are our attempts to bring spirituality into our lives, so that we come closer to God. But there are many ways to God. That’s why you have so many religions, and so many rules.
You once mentioned Neanderthal Man. As far as I’m concerned, Neanderthal Man was as close to God as we are. Maybe even closer. He didn’t have much time for BS so he approached God in the fastest way possible, by using his God-given common sense to live his life as best he could. God probably appreciated that. It probably gave Him less of a headache.
Nissan, you make alot of sense. Seems like common sense aint so common though.
The proof if in the pudding, the most unsettled, hostile places on earth are the most religious ones.
One of the most devious aspects of the religious texts on the planet is that they artifically try to instill in each and every one of us a sense of separation from everything else in creation, including the ‘Father’. That is what the word sin means ‘ without’. Since this is impossible in any sense of the word, it is only the perception of separateness that can instead be created with us. Virtually the whole idea of the partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil making us get cast out of the garden of eden and making us ‘fall’ is nothing more than a lie to make us all feel self conscious and inefective, thereby giving us an excuse never to try to be what it is we truly can be.
Eric, I do not accept argumentum ad numerum in the present context. Neither might nor numbers make right. Was Germany a peaceful nation because the majority of its citizens were not enlisted & mobilized in the Wermacht?
Jihad is a communal obligation, upon emancipated adult males of full mental capacity, from which they are released once a sufficient number have responded.
Jesus said “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” Mt7:16[KJV] What is the fruit of Islam, gathered from Yatthrib to Hindu Kush, from Beslan to London & Madrid?
Teddo, I use Tafsir to confirm, not explain the meanings of the verses I quote. The meanings of Allah’s clear commands are obvious on the face of the text. Muhammad confirmed them with his Sunnah, and the exegetes provide wrap it up by combining the scripture & traditional sayings.
Which exegete contradicts Ibn Kathir on 8:39 & 9:29? Who can trump Islamic law [Reliance O9.8-9]as an authority on the matter?
No, I cite that verse as sanctifying genocide. It specifically sets making a great slaughter as a prerequisite for ransoming captives.
How can the meaning of 8:67 be other than what Allah said and what his Messenger revealed? Did not Muhammad exemplify that verse when he executed the men and adolescent boys of the Banu Qurayzah [Abu Dawud 38.4390].
Why did Islam expand militarily? Who initiated that trend? Were Al-Anfal, Al-Taubah & Al-Fath reveled for any purpose other than warmongering?
Whose exegesis is more modern than that of Maududdi & Qutb? While I have not read the In the Shade, I have read Milestones, and it is not peacemongering.
I pointed this thing out before, and I will repeat it here. Unfortunately, we muslims, have decided to go on the defensive, and try to explain to people why our religion is a tolerant religion and is not a violent one. Here, we have a platform for all those who want a chance to express their sick ideas about Islam.
I have a question for Nissim. Why are Suhail’s answers so short and irrelevant to the point Franck is making? Why is he always repeating the same answer ” You need to differentiate between extremists and Moderate Muslim”. If this is what Suhail actually said, then he doesn’t have the capability to take part in this debate and for some reason I don’t buy that!!
Now, since this post is focused on attacking Islam, and some participants are so keen on quoting from the Quran out od context, I decided to go for a different approach. I believe there is no reason for me to justify what Muslims do, nor call any of them extremists!! and I’ll explain why.
I’m a believer of Newton’s Law!! Every action has a reaction, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Now, if we look at how Muslims have turned into suicide bombers, we find very interesting facts.
1) Suicide bombers in Iraq are a result of the war waged on their country, by a non-muslim (to be polite) country. This war resulted in more than a million refugee, and 600,000 deaths!! Please bear in mind, that the reason for this war, as told to the global community was to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, and as we know none was found. Also, i think it is very important to remember that this war was waged against the international law, which we are often accused of breaking. The country which broke this law is “non-Muslim”. To wrap up this point, I just need to remind everyone that Saddam Hussein who was shown to the entire world as a DEVIL was a good friend and ally of the west. They used him, and his country, as puppets to fight Iran. Fed him with money and weapons, while Israel did the same with Iran “Which is ironic” so that they kill each other. When they were done with him he became a devil. He might be, but I’m sorry to see they are too. I think people should learn to acknowledge their resposnibility when they screw up.
2) Suicide bombers in Palestine, are a result of the continuous racist and viloent treatment they are receiving from the Israeli government. A systematic methodolgy of ethnic cleansing. They steal their land, demolish their homes, send them to exile and imprison them. 60 years of occupation “Against international law”, hundreds of ignored UN resolutions. It is only logical that these people “palestinian” who are so helpless and foresaken by the international community develop some kind of desparate approach to fight back. If you put a cat in the corner and make it fear for the life of its childern it will “rest assured” fight you!! Cats have reactions, i don’t see why you find it so weird that humans do too.
Just to remind everyone. The only two countries effectively occupying other nations lands are Israel & USA!! Christian and Jewish!! Again, Not muslim.
3) In Afghanestan, both USA & Russia used this country as a playground to play their cold war game. Osama Bin Laden was America’s man in Afghanestan. Now, after they’re done with the soviets they play their old game, and the Jihad Cult they fed and sponsored in Afghanestan is a terrorist organization now!!
I don’t think I need to remind you that it was George W. Bush who called this war a Crusade. Now, people will tell me that Bush is an idiot and he is not someone whom you take seriously!! I’m sorry but this idiot changed the lives of millions in Iraq, Afghanestan, Palestine & Lebanon. He is powerful enough to have this devastating effect, so I think I have the right to take him seriously. After all, we were made to pay for the mistakes our stupid leaders made by our friends. Also, this guy was chosen by the american people through a democratic process, TWICE!!. And since Democracy is effectively “The people’s government” and in American terms ” A government from the people, for the people and by the people” it only makes since that those who made this choice are held resposnible for it!! 9/11 was a sad event, but I really find it funny that Americans don’t see th logic behind it!! Your government “Which is non-Muslim” screwed around with other people’s life long enough.
Now, for those who use history as a proof that islam is violent, let me remind you of some simple facts:
1) the Holocaust was a german product “Christians”, and if you argue that Hitler doesn’r represent Christians, well Bin Laden doesn’t represent Muslims as well.
2) Muslim reached as far as indonesia & China in the east without fighting one battle.
3) When the spaniards took back Iberia from the Muslims they forced everyone either to convert, leave or face death!! I’d say the choices muslims give you are far better!! Thousands of muslims were forced to convert, thousands were killed, and thousands were forced to leave to northern Africa. And guess what, Jews left with Muslims!! They prefered to live under Muslim rule rather than under christian rule!! They ended up in morocco, turkey among other muslim countries. Spaniards did the same in The Philippines. Conquered, forced muslims to convert, gave them Christian names, and killed those who refused to convert. Let me remind you, spaniards were not Muslims!!
4) Saladdin didn’t masacre the population of Jerusalem when he took back the city. I’m afraid I can’t say the same about the Crusaders!!! These guys were trigger happy. I think we all know that.
5) Americans “Non-Muslims” are the only nation up to date that used Nuclear bombs on Civilans. Tens of thousands of civilans died in minutes in a savage demonstration of power!!
6) Al Qaeda killed 3,000+ people in 9/11 !! Americans killed 600,000 in iraq alone as a retaliation!! I’d say this way to violent!!
… I can write a book on these examples.
Finally!!! For those who quote from the Quran. When you choose to quote from the Quran, please do quote the entire Sura. I know it is long, but i think that for integrity purposes “If you know what that word means” you should show to your readers in which context such statements were mentioned. I’m willing to bit you that there isn’t a single rule about the treatment of Jews & Christians without a condition tied to it, and it is very simple. But those who are blinded by hatrade and phobia refuse to see it. Quran clearly states that if People of the Book treat you fairly and peacefully you should treat them the same. If they violate your rights, you should protect yourself, your family, your land, and your property. To me that sounds so peaceful. Unfotunately, non-muslims weren’t big on respecting our rights in the past few hundred years! Colonization is your disgrace, during which people were killed and tortured like sheaps. And for that I think you have a lot of explaination to do!!
There is a lot more to say, but I don’t want this to turn soarer that it already is.
I assume that Nissim had good intetions behind his question, but there are some sick minds out there who refuse to see the blinding truth.
SO, NO APOLOGIES!!..
1) Take your troops out of muslim lands.
2) Stop killing people right, left and center.
3) Stop accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with you of being a terrorist.
4) Take your hands off those countries resources
If you undo your actions, there will be no reaction.
But you can’t, Can you?!?!
The same old repetition, that goes on and on and on, never leading anywhere, but whos to blame.
Every religion has had a hand in some form of genocide.
I think many muslims have left these places for a better way of life in the west.
The question now is, is democracy and freedom of speech and women controling their own lives (including choice of clothing) including some very unislamic things, like birth control,wine, going to offend them endlessly?
Muslims in the west require constant appeasing, they can also be very arrogant i dont think the west will tolerate it for long.
When the europeans came to australia, they came in thousands, and they came with song and dance and good food, they didnt buy a neighbourhood and move in, they lived amongst everyone else. We didnt even know what religion they were and didnt care either.
We must look at the future and stop reiterating the ugly past. While you think in the past its in your now.
Here is the opposite view in a nutshell:
The holy land is not Muslim land. In fact, for 60 years The Israelis have merely responded to hate-inspired racists who want to drive them into the sea and rob them of their ancestral home. Given that the enemy mercilessly blows up their children, of course the Israelis are going to respond! Why should they follow to any pseudo-international legislation passed at the behest of hostile nations whose desire is only their blood.
Another short opposite view:
1. Pack up and go back to wherever you came from.
2. Stop murdering our countrymen because we do not follow your religion.
3. Stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a zionist.
4. Stop blaming us for all your problems.
If you undo your actions, there will be no reaction. I’m sure you have good intentions but there are some sick minds who refuse to see the truth.
The lesson behind this is twofold: Firstly, extremists have similar thought processes that differ only in technical detail. Secondly, everyone thinks they are the victims and they have the right to react. Further complicating the situation is the fact that people are myopic and tend to follow through on their reaction. Which causes another reaction. Ehab touched on the mechanics of 99% of human conflict but failed to realize that by placing blame entirely on non-Muslims, he just helped perpetuate cultural/political conflict. The tension only diffuses when people stop thinking that they are the entitled victims. Being a victim is painful, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The hardest part of conflict resolution is getting both sides to turn the other cheek and call it quits.
On the note of territory, people have migrated throughout history and it becomes very hard to tell who actually belongs on a certain piece of land. It is even harder to claim that land belongs to any religion – especially considering that abstract theological concepts cannot own land.
Lastly, Muslims treated Jews and Christians terribly at many points in history. Some examples:: There were riots in Syria and Iran in the mid-19th century and the laws placed on non-muslim communities within many Islamic civilization forced a multitude of restrictions upon them. some of these policies included the wearing of specific clothing, paying of a poll tax (and being slapped while doing so), having your testimony be invalid against Muslims, having to refrain from defending yourself if a Muslim attacks you, and in some cases converting or being killed. The problem with identifying Islamic civilization as hateful or tolerant is that it was not monolithic. There were many different Islamic empires with different sets of rules. Some were intolerant while others were not. In addition, the written law was not always enforced because many rulers simply did not have organized governments that could do so. Furthermore, people tend to behave differently in practice than they should according to theory. Main point: there was no unified treatment of non-Muslims throughout the scope of Islamic civilization. At times, they were oppressed, at other times, they thrived.
straliangirl,
it’s the first time for me to hear that version of australian history. my “slight suspicion” is that the people who had been living in australia long before europeans came have a quite different standpoint after years of discrimination and forceful assimilation.
Madmax,
Very nice reasoning. But do westerners put some blame on themselves as well?! No. It is always the muslims. I’m not usually a confrontational person, but it it just disgusting to see how some people victimize themselves in everything.
Just to clarify something for you on the palestin/israel issue. As a non-jew, I don’t have to believe that Palestine is a land GOD promised to the Jews. I don’t thik you will appreciate a debate with a muslim if he is using Quran as evidence to convince you! You don’t believe in Quran or Islam, so Why would you take it as a judge. Claiming that Palestine is a land for the Jews is basically forcing everyone who is not a JEW to believe in their Holy texts!! Aren’t we supposed to build politics on Secular basis? Aren’t Muslims being criticized for involving Islam in everything?! So, how can the west ask us to take a moderate stand by building politics and international relations on a secular basis, and at the same time asks us to acknowledge the fact that god promised this land to the Jews?!
And when you say that this is their ancestors land, I agree that Jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago. But, if you want to take the old testimont as an evidence for that, which is the case here, please don’t forget that in that holy book the Israelis were asked to invade palestine, fight and kill the PALESTINIANS. If you go back to the text, you will see the word Palestinians. So, going back to the secular concept that the west is bragging about, This land was inhabited by palestinians before the Jews came. Moreover, the JEWS took control of the country only by war!
Keeping that in mind, please don’t forget that the occupiers “in international law” is always responsible for the relationship with the occupied. They are responisble for their well-being. It is very silly to compare the Palestinian attacks, and the killing of the israeli children, to the horrors Israel make the palestinians live in. Please remember that the first attack and aggression was an israeli act.
My mother was a peaceful innocent 4-year-old child in the outskirt of Haifa in 1948 when she and her famiily were driven out terrorist by the jews militia. A 4-year-old seeing her family members being killed, she and the rest of the family fled to the west bank!. 19 years later she had to run away again accross the mountains of jerusalem, jordan valley, and to jordan. Seeing more family members being killed. Only this time she was a mother, carrying across the land my 4-month-old sister!!
We didn’t start it. so please don’t tell me that Israelis are reacting to palestinian violence. If you want to be fair, don’t listen to me. Just go and check all the reports from Amnesty Internationa. You will realize how that story goes!!
Jerigol, i was talking about 60 years ago, not 230 years ago.
Madmax, you are not mad at all!!
To answer your question, Ehab, I would say that to the best of my memory, Suhail was a bit more subdued in his approach than Frank. But in all fairness, it is much more difficult to prove a negative. If you are trying to show, for example, that Islam is peaceful, you have a lot of ground to cover, and you better do it politely, if you know what I mean. But if you’re trying to show that Islam is violent, you only have to point to a few examples to make your point. You can listen to the entire debate at http://www.theharbourleague.org and judge for yourself.
As to the larger points made by Ehab and Madmax, I have to say that the interplay between these two is both fascinating and informative. Both made some very good points, and it would be very difficult to prove one completely right, and the other completely wrong. Both justified their positions well, and both could rightly claim that at least some truth was on their side.
So how could two people be on opposite sides of the fence and still be right, and what does that tell us about our future?
The simple truth is that if you have a good head on your shoulders, and a few facts on your side, you can pretty much make a decent case for almost anything. Israel is good, and Israel is bad. The U.S. is good, and the U.S. is bad. Islam is peaceful, and Islam is not. Almost anything goes when it comes to arguing your point, and there will always be people who see things differently from one another.
So how do you ever settle the argument? You fight. And in victory goes the spoils.
But here’s the problem: when you’re dealing with thousands of nuclear weapons, who will be left to enjoy his victory? And when you’re dealing with problems like Global Warming, even if you win, what kind of world will you inherit? So we can continue believing we’re right, but at some point or other we’re all going to realize that we’re all going down, and by that time, it will probably be too late to do anything about it.
So what’s the answer? Winning the argument will not cut it, that’s for sure. For what it’s worth, I think that Madmax gets close to the answer when he says,
I would agree with this. I like arguing as much as the next guy, but we will be no closer to peace no matter how winning our argument is. If we want peace, and frankly, peace is quickly becoming a moral imperative instrinsic to our survival as a species, then we will have to create facts on the ground which speak louder than words, and which point to the possiblity of peace.
For peace to happen, we will have to put aside being right, in favor of being reasonable. We will have to put aside some of our beliefs, in favor of believing in what makes sense. We will have to put aside who we are, in favor of becoming something more that we could ever imagine. We will have to step out of the box that is us, and move beyond our differences. We will have to let go of some of what we think is true, and begin to embrace what we know is true.
It’s asking a lot, I know. And it’s certainly more than we’ve ever done in the past. But as Ehab and Madmax demonstrate, we’re quickly approaching the point where everybody thinks he’s right, and where everyone is willing to fight to the death to prove the point. But what point are we really proving, except our own vulnerability, even as we sharpen our debating skills?
This is an excellent discussion. Best one ive seen yet.
We should take heed, religion and beliefs could be the least of our problems soon.
If you throw a stone at a monkey, the monkey will throw something back at you. Now this is pretty much what the West vs Islam world is all about. We just need to stop being monkeys and become humans and problem solved. Ok, thats too much to ask for, so keep throwing things at each other and in the process kill millions.
Madmax, your 4 points to the other 4 points don’t make any sense. Apples and oranges, you know what it means right?
Since you are concerned with people acting more like humans, it would make sense for you to follow your own advice and have a little common courtesy. Simple showing others basic respect does wonders for interpersonal relationships. Being a smartass impedes dialog.
Both sample arguments of my previous posts are extreme anti-Muslim views that are designed to contrast the extreme anti-western views held by ehab. In my explanation, I noted that the method of thinking (holding others entirely accountable for the current situation) is the same on both sides while the ways in which it manifests itself are different. Obviously, the reasons won’t be exactly parallel, as peple have different grievances about each other. However, the kind of worldview motivating these statements is the same. Do you understand?
Ehab, with whom are you arguing here? I think most of the “Westerners” involved in this discussion are far from not blaming their respective countries for some – not all – of the problems in the Near East.
I see you all arguing about the past. This discussion has gone the way of some many discussions: It’s ended up at the question whether Israelis or Palestinians are to be blamed for the opposites’ situation.
Shouldn’t this discussion be about how the situation can be solved? It’s useless to complain about the founding of Israel 60 years before and whether or not you can still claim a country your own after 2000 years.
Yes, it is useful to know the past – to learn for the future! The question now is: What can be done so that all or at least as many as possible people involved become happier with the situation?
Nobody is satisfied with the past. Stop arguing about it and find a solution for the future!
No matter what the religion, the peace would emerge from within. Religion of peace has no name, its a quality that the followers of any religion, or people of no religion even could have that. The density of this quality differs from person to person and from place and time to the other. Blissful are those of higher concentration of this quality, who are peaceful no matter what, no matter where, when, no matter what religion embraces them.
Thanks elinor, there lies a solution for our future!!!!
How can that happen, elinor? Peace loving Muslims, who shunned Jihad were viewed by Muhammad as “hypocrites”, whose actions deviated from their speech. Allah commanded fighting the hypocrites along with Kuffar.
How can Allah’s word change? [6:115]
Hey starli
I was really begging peace from the religions and regions, and I concluded a peace from within is preemptive in seeking a peace binding regions and religions and visions 
Hi Dijjal
Do you think a peace loving person would say things to spread violence? Perhaps people whose speeches incite hatred ( from any given religion my dear) would need to calm down and overcome the conflict from within, so that the words produced would spread blissfulness instead?
Ok.. fair enough. I’m going to stop arguing about the past, and instead I will try to find a solution for the future. I’ll take the arab/israeli conflict as the basis, since a lot of people on both sides of the equation believe that if this conflict is solved, most of the other conflicts will either be solves easily or simply disappear.
Now, since many people find it hard to prove who is the party that holds the right to this piece of land, I will propose a solution that is totally independent from religion, and is only based on the current situation dated back to 60+ years.
Solution Number 1:
we take the UN resolution “international law” as the basis.
- Israel withdraws from all lands occupied since 1967, including Golan hights and the entire west bank, andeverything goes back to the division plan passed by the UN in 1947.
-All the Jews are granted access to the lands given to israel in 1947 ,and all palestinians granted the right to return to their homes whether in the west bank, Gaza, or the areas inside the green line.
-Arabs, collectively sign a peace treaty with israel.
-Jerusalem is declared an international zone. No Israeli or palestinian military should be present there. An international force from the UN is stationed there to keep order, and selected police power from Muslims, christians, and jews are deployed for the administration of their respective holy sites. The Church, the holy mosque, and the wailing wall.
-Tel Aviv becomes Israel capital or any other city inside the green line except Jerusalem. For the palestinians, any city inside the west bank of gaza, except jerusalem.
-Access to River Jordan is given to Palestinians and jordanians, and to syrians for the see of Galilee.
-All illegal settlement in the west bank, are evacuated, and the land given back to their owners.
-International community makes sure that whoever violates the agreement suffers the sequences in the process of returning everything to its legal stance.
Plan II:
-One country, made of palestinians “all palestinians” refugees and current residents of palestine/Israel, and israelies “All jews around the world”.
-The state is a democratic, secular state.
-Jerusalem is the capital.
-Free elections monitored by the international community is held, and the winners run the first government.
-To ensure the rights of the losing party, the constitution is drafted under the supervision of the international community, and some points are made unchangeable to protect the party that is not currently running the government.
-Racism, and ethnic discrimination is no tolerated, and is observed constatly by the international community.
There you go. I think we established the basis for a solution that is completely independent of Religion, or history.
You tell me if this is fair.
I personally am all for it.
Hi Ehab.
You and me, we live outside that territory, any plan that both people stick to, it would be appropraite for us to respect as well. Because we don’t live there, we don’t know how exactly the two people find their balance solving their problems, but any thing they agree on, it would be wonderful that the rest of Middle East respect and I hope that would be wonderful. What A Middle East 
Interesting to read your post
Hi Nissim, Thank you for reporting this converstaion, it was interesting, and I guess we all long for peace here. I won’t call any religion for peace or against it, and I believe the peace from within would alter our perception of the religions and our perception of life altogether.
elinor, I doubt that the peacelovers say much. I do not have any evidence that they make rabble rousing speeches exhorting the faithful to make war.
It appeared to me that Frank Gaffney was attempting, ineffectually, to adopt one of Robert Spencer’s themes to his debate argument.
From Spencer’s viewpoint, Islamic scripture, tradition & jurisprudence are the sources of violence. Not being a scholar, I view the issue from a different angle. I see scripture as defining Islam and tradition as exemplifying it. Both scripture & tradition are the sources of jurisprudence. All three are sources of violence.
I view violence as intrinsic, built into the system by design, for a mercenary purpose; situational scripture. I am not the first to draw such a conclusion, though Aisha was referencing revelation of ayat related to marital matters:”I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” Bukhari6.60.311.
Entropy happens, over time, deviations occur. While the scriptures remain intact, there is always the chance that someone will demand a return to strict observance. “The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it.” Abu Dawud37.4278 Wahhab can be viewed as one such renovator raised up to renew Islamic orthodoxy.
do you really think, that is what the prophet mohummad was proposing? Im sick of this guess and tell :s
Hi Dajjal
Well, not trusting the peace lovers might later on lead some one to being face to face with war mongers and trying to bear the, and that is hard
How a single religion is pinpointed and called a religion for war or a religion for peace, well this would be effective, influential, but not necessarily rational. It is also inevitable that the followers of a religion go one way and the rest of the world attach that file to their profile for as long as things are the way they are. We can interprete whatrever is exposed to us and within our reach today of the sources of religon in hundreds of ways. If today the reputation of a single religion, or the followers of a single religon are singled out and thought of as parallels to war and hatred, that shows how the course of history, time and modern life and the fall of a great Empire have created an atmosphere of mistrust and anger and all the other negative consequences that follow the fall of a great Empire as Ottomons.
I guess less time and enegry is needed if the followers of the great religions try to assemble the good bits they possess with the good bits of the other great religions to create a very meaningful, functional whole embracing the followers of all these religions, helping them all overcome the sense of mistrust and move on for promoting love, life and spirituality. Here the differences could well serve as the defining outlines which would create a beautiful perspective of this unity. Me wrong?
Simon’s call to action is right on point. Much of the discussion focuses on the past, and since the past has brought us to the mess we’re in, how about focusing instead on the future.
And Ehab, I agree with you that the Israel/Palestine issue must be solved, with fairness and justice, but I doubt that a solution in this regard will solve the problems in the world, or even in the Middle East, for that matter. I think that for people like Bin Laden, Palestine is an afterthought, and is used as an effective tool to rally the troops. Their agenda goes beyond Palestine, to say the least.
So what is the answer? No one knows for sure, but the problems we’re facing seem to point in a certain direction.
What are the problems we face in our time? Most of the problems seem to fall into three general categories: the threats posed by ideological extremists on all sides of the political fence, the threats facing our environment, and the threats facing our economies. I call these the 3-E’s for short.
Since the 3-E’s are so inter-related, and so inter-connected, it makes sense that you can’t solve one, without solving the other two, and it also makes sense, that a solution may be possible which solves all three in one shot. As most of you know, I call that solution Selling a Vision of Hope.
Selling a Vision of Hope has five parts to it, like the five fingers of your hand. In a very real sense, as Elinor suggests, the solution for world peace is literally in our hands?
1. The thumb is for Ideology: We must break the shackles of ideolgical idiocy. As Simon suggests, a preoccupation with past thinking will not bring us a brighter future. We need a new ideological framework, one based on common sense principles, by which we speak to one another with common sense, and with a sense of personal dignity. And yes, such universal principles do in fact exist, and are written into many of our Holy Scriptures. Principles like The Golden Rule, The Golden Mean, and The Greatest Good. Why are these principles universally accepted as true? Because they are as perfect as mathematical truths. We’ve had enough of false belief. Would it be going too far to say that most of what we’ve come to believe is BS? We find ourselves trapped in a room that is so full of BS that we only have two inches of air left near the ceiling. Isn’t it time to break free of old ways of thinking, in favor of an ideology which makes more sense, and which is more suited to the needs of the moment? In our fractured times, common sense, the collective wisdom born of shared experience, is the common denominator.
2. The index finger is for Investment. We should invest in one another to create jobs which protect the environment, and which help to neutralize the hold of extremist thinking. Most of the issues we face are economic in nature. If a poor man looks at the table, and sees only an ideology of hate, and some charitable handouts, then that’s what he’s going to buy into, because that’s all there is. But if he looks at the table, and sees a job, and an ideology that makes more sense, then now there is a choice, and the vast majority will choose a life, and will fight the extremists who would take that like away. In the final analysis, the extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves. The West, and the wealthy Middle Eastern states, including Israel, and including Saudi Arabia, are well advised to put that alternative on the table.
3. The middle finger is for Hope: We should use An Ideology of Common Sense, along with some well placed Investment Dollars, to sell people on a Vision of Hope. Albert Einstein came up with E=mc2. Thankfully, the formula for world peace is a lot simpler: Ideology plus Investment equals Hope, and with hope, all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace. As many of you have demonstrated in this thread, people the world over need hope like air to breathe. Give the man on the street a sense of hope, and he sill give you back his heart in return.
4. The ring finger is for Public Diplomacy: Once we sell people on the possibility of hope, it will become incumbent on us to sustain the hope, by launching a series of Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to prop the vision up, and to carry it forward, such as: a program to Empower Women, a Media Campaign, a Student Exchange, a Cultural Exchange, an expanded version of the Peace Corps, and a series of International Conferences on the economy, environment, religion, and education. Take, for example, the program to empower women, by investing in female entrepreneurs, and promoting women’s rights. Who are women? They are the givers of life, and the caretakers of life. And as such, are uniquely qualified to reconstitute their societies consistent with a Vision of Hope.
5. The pinky is for the willingness to Fight: If we already have to fight against the forces of ideological extremism, and we do, then we will fight, and fight hard, but we will also position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We will raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain, by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. People, including moderate Muslims, will fight harder once they know what they’re fighing for. We’re not fighting a “war against terror.” We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There’s a big difference. We’re not fighting to “protect the environment.” We are fighting, quite literally, for our lives. And in the fight that lies ahead, we will use all the tools at our disposal, and in so doing, we will beat the extremists at their own game. We will do what they do, only better. We will co-opt their strategy and marginalize them in the eyes of their own people. If they are ideological about violent Jihad, we will be ideological about common sense. If they invest peanuts in charitable handouts, we will invest some serious dollars in jobs, jobs which protect the environment. And if they sell hope for martyrdom, or paradise, or virgins, or what have you, we will sell a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. At every turn we will cut them off at the pass, and beat them at their own game. And I am not discounting the fact that there are extremists on all sides of the political fence, not just in one country or the other, and not just in one religion or the other. Extemism is extremism, wherever it is found.
Some of you may naturally feel that some of these ideas are just a little bit over the top. But considering the alternative, this may well be the time, before time runs out, to dream the impossible and to make the impossible come true. There are signs in the air that change is coming. But it is up to us, like Elinor says when she speaks about “peace from within,” to make sure that the change is in sync with what makes sense, and that enables us to build a future that diverges from the past, and that unleashes the God-given potential that lies within each and every one of us.
Elinor, I doubt that syncretism is the answer. Judging by the persecution suffered by Alawytes, Bahais & Ahmadiyas, I think it would be rejected by the diehard fundamentalists.
Attaturk tried to demilitarize & secularize Turkey, now it appears that his work is being undone.
@Nissim
You should post that comment as an article at MEY so that everybody get’s to read it!
Is it really so simple, Nissim? Many of the Splodydopes were practicing professionals or students in the fields of law and medicine. They had plenty of potential and hope for achievement, but sold it all for the ‘world to come’.
In this world we will surely suffer and die; we don’t know with certainty what comes after. Whether we prosper or suffer poverty in between is subject to many complex factors, not all of them within the scope of our control.
It is better that suffering and death be put off as long as possible, and be of natural/unavoidable causes, not generated by our fellow man.
There will always be some who seek power & wealth, and are impatient to obtain them. Those will seek shortcuts involving the use of force.
It is better that the use of force be restricted to defensive purposes, and that the agent of force be prevented from converting from defender to predator.
230 years ago a great experiment was commenced, which produced unparalleled freedom and prosperity for us. It was not perfect, and remains imperfect, and now it is threatened with a disaster that could wipe out much of the gains it has brought forth.
60 years ago, another great experiment was commenced, and, despite great optimism, enthusiasm and idealism, it has become corrupted, failed, and become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Simon,
He actually has written a post about it in the past, throughout several posts.
Nissim,
My first impression upon reading about SVOH was to feel that it’s rather simplistic and it came off to me as if it were treating populations like two-year-olds on a tantrum who need to be appeased. But I’ve always wanted to take the time to read extensively about it before engaging you in a discussion.
Dajjal,
I know the groups you mentioned have suffered and they have suffered much, but the suffering is bearing fruits right now. The extremest of the situations is the treatment of Bahais in Iran. Iran cannot manage to treat Bahais as such any more, the world reacts, because world is conscious now, they cannot just keep going with maltreatment of Bahais and going scout free, at least not for long.
Attaturk might have implemented some not very democratic measures in creating what he thought would be a uniform and functional Turky. Same thing happned in Iran, Rezah shah, inspired by Attaturk and his reforms tried to modernize Iran his way, one of his ways was banning veils for owmen and turbins and traditional hats for men, or banning the traditional mourning over the slain saint of shiites. Later on his son, our last king did not put that much pressure on people over their cultural or religious traditions, but the effect later on helped the creation of a totally religious state, fundamentally religous, which would impose veil over all the females over 9 years old, in a nation of 70.
The peculiarities of a given tradition could be left to the context to gradually tune up to the necessities of the people, as long as violence and injustice in a graphic sense is not disrturbing people. The societies are now more intertwining, we talk about a network of people all over the globe, we are much more conscius about one another and our similarities and likes and dislikes than supposedly some 50 years back.
Nissim
How could laws be enforced in a society which is tending toward the change we were discussing? Who could and how could one enforce the laws that promote more tolerance? Who should legislate?
Suppose we are in a number of countries whose authorities or people have the tendency for change, how would the sensitivities of different people, followers of different religions be taken into account? How would one try to respect at the same time be effective in making this change happen when change is needed so much?
Some people leace it to G-d, and the change process they attribute it to G-d as well, because they believe that he is the Almight and encompassing, that he creates the change, as he created every thing.
There is a Persian verse signifying this vision:
به جد . جهد چو کاری نمیرود از پیش
به کردگار رها کرده به مصالح خویش
translation: Now that the efforts are not bearing the fruit of sasitsfaction, it is advisable to leave every thing in the hands of G-d, to the G-d’s will.
No Dajjal, it’s not at all simple. But it helps to have a conceptual framework which gives direction to our efforts. I think that Selling a Vision of Hope could be of help in this regard. It is attuned to the needs of the moment:
If current ideologies are divisive, then come up with an ideology that brings us together.
If current economic policies are misguided, and are implemented at the expense of the environment, then come up with economic policies which work, which are just, which protect our place on this good earth, and which give everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future.
If currently people are being taken down the dark road of despair, then sell them on a Vision of Hope, and sustain the hope, and be prepared, when necessary, and it will be necessary, to fight for the hope, against those forces which would render the possibility of hope null and void.
They “sold it all,” Dajjal, because they were sold on an ideology which makes no sense. Instead, we could have sold them on something better. I don’t take much stock in the “world to come.” It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and even if it exists, it makes more sense, while we’re still alive, to create a paradise among the living. That way, if heaven does exist, then we will come to enjoy it, after first experiencing heaven right here on earth. And if heaven doesn’t exist, then we still would have had the pleasure of experiencing heaven right here on earth. That’s the power of common sense. It covers you, so to speak, both coming, and going.
As to your assessment of America and Israel, as “failed experiments,” I don’t deny that both nations have lost their way in certain respects, and are unfortunately paying the price for mistakes that were made, and for roads not taken. But on the whole, and I’ve said it before, I still believe that the hope for mankind lies in America, and the hope for the Middle East lies in Israel. Selling a Vision of Hope will be a daunting challenge, and I believe that these two nations are best positioned to make something happen in this regard, and to inspire the rest of the world to follow suit.
And Kawthar, it would be my distinct honor to discuss my idea with you at any time. Right now, it’s just an idea. But if the idea is to be given any substance, it will be because of people like yourself, and like Esra’a, and like all the various participants of Mid East Youth. It is your future, and we all may have to stick our necks out, even a little further, to realize a version of the future that is worth living, and that is worthy of our potential.
Fair enough, Elinor. But let me ask you this: What do you think is God’s will? When He created us some two million years ago, and put us in this wondrous place called earth, didn’t He make His will known? And when He kept us going as a species for all that time, wasn’t His will made manifest as He pointed the way to our survival? And isn’t it just possible, as we begin to sort out the mess we’ve created in recent years, that the problems we face are not at all God’s will, but are of our own making, and are a result of our ignoring the common sense principles with which He endowed the whole of His creation?
To my mind, for what it’s worth, we were put on this good earth to live, not to kill, and not to die, before our time. That’s God’s will, and we had better come to embrace it as our own.
This is whats scares me about religions of peace.
Today a woman demands to be stoned to death for adultery, so 50 men do it.
Islam has turned this women into a horror story. This is wrong!
And the 50 men who did it!
Elinor, we ain’t willing to invade Iran, engage in battle and cause & incur casualties & great expense to secure the rights of Iran’s minorities. Most of the Europeans are likewise unwilling. Russia might be the exception. Do we really want the consequences which would flow from that?
Economic sanctions are more likely to lead to extensive suffering and antagonism than to improved minority rights.
There are some things that should be excluded from the set of legislative subjects. I would include beards, shaving and clothing styles in the excluded set. When legislation or a monarch’s dictates conflict with one’s faith in such matters, trouble is brewed.
Nissim, one of the Fallestinian complaints is that they are not experiencing progress. While they breed like rats and dedicate all their assets to genocidal policide, they won’t make genuine progress [economic/social]. Unfortunately, their definition of progress varies from ours. Their highest priority is getting rid of Israel. Promising paved streets, running water & sewer systems will not alter their hierarchy of priorities. Enrich the Fallestinians, and Israel will have better armed enemies, not friendly neighbors.
Nissim,
Indeed G-d would want life for his creatures, or that I assume. But when one believes in the holy scriptures and sees how G-d has even annihilated a hole nation when they are expremely oppressive, then that is some times how G-d deals with his creatures when they misbehave? Maybe G-d in the modern times would not focus on a specific nation, as every where evil is dancing around, but perhaps G-d will have a collective or random ways of scaring people, or maybe G-d, influenced by the results of the psychological research papers of the academics have altred his ways of treating the evil?
Just joking, but what I want to assert is not giving up on creating a better life, but not getting hopeless when that change doesn’t happen overnight. Or when it seems whatever you do is merely futile and you better give up. I feel that G-d supports these efforts and he would take the wheel when you have no more power to go on.
Hi Stralin
I haven’t seen many women who approve the stoning of women or stoning of any indivitual. The laws are not appealing to women n general terms.
Dajjal,
As I understand the frustration of people living there in the region, I would really hope that the attitude of conflicting people channe toward one another. I am definitely aware of people who do not share your views on Palestinian people, even though they live in the region, even though they have paid high prices in this never-ending conflcit. What I am aware of is a growing tendency of both people to solve this problem to leave behind problems cause in the course of history, accepting one another and moving toward a better future. I am sure gradually when things change your view would change as well. If a group of people want to invest in destruction, as Nissim purports, that is due to their lack of hope. I try to forget about the politians who tend to talk on behalf of every one and generalize every thing, I try to forget about how voices of people stiving for peace is not reflected through the media. I am not there in the region there and perhaps I cannot understand like others do, but we had a war against Iraq and that lasted some 8 years and the scope of destruction was way above all what has happened in the conflicting part of Middle East the last 60 years. it is over. people are going bakc and forth to one another’s countries. Although Iraq is still suffering from violence there is a promising relationshop between the countries and the people. Things will change and I am very sure of that. by the way, not that I don’t want peace for my country, but the peace that would only apply to my country is baseless, we need peace all over the Middle East. How can i be alright when you guys are not alright? Or vice versa, we are somehow bound.
Well Elinor, i guess the woman knew what would happen to her is they didnt stone her to death. Isnt stoning people to death for adultery a part of sharia law?
Perhaps the word peace has one meaning for muslims and another for the rest of the world.
I come from a country that has no death penalty. An australian father of a victim of the sari club bombing in bali, is even against the death penalty which is supposed to happen next week for the bali bombers.
You might not agree with the stoning penality, but it seems like muslim women just have to accept it. Pretty heart wrenching stuff.
straliangirl.
It is good that there is no death penalty in your country. I guess Middle East is far from that at least for time being. Stoning had been practiced in Iran after the revolution, not in many cases, but it happened. Right when the laws enforce such a measure,what can people do? Unless the laws change. Unfortunately some years back, after a ban on the practice again it reemerged. What is evident is that these laws usually target people of lower income, it is not only women, men are stoned as well, but according to the laws women are less likely to escape the whole thing, men have more opportunity to run out of the situation, and if they do. I guess the acceleration of the enforcment of this law here was more a demonstration of power, because it was banned ( the international activism and UN helped that happen). I guess now that is banned again, I hope not to happen again and I guess lately they have accepted not t0o hang teenagers or criminals who committed their crimes bellow the age. This Bali victim’s father in Australia, he seems to be a wonderful person, a loving soul. May G-d bless him and help us all get rid of crimes and criminals, specially the ones who feel so riteous while commiting a crime against other men!
All I can say to that, Straliangirl, is: Poor woman, and poor women, and poor men, who may have thought, as they reached for the stones, that they heard the voice of God, but who listened to their own demons instead.
That is the risk, Dajjal, but considering where we’re at, it may be a risk worth taking. I have no doubt that there are some Palestinians who want to destroy Israel. But I also have no doubt that the vast majority of Palestinians are good people, who want a life, and who would make that choice if it were put on the table. Once you become inspired with a sense of hope, and once you restore your sense of dignity, and once you can a earn a decent living, and live a reasonably normal life, then to that extent, you are less likely to succumb to extremist thinking. That, at least, is the case with the vast majority of people.
Even if such an outcome were to occur, there would still be extremists lurking in the midst, ready to pounce, and to wreak havoc wherever possible. These people will have to be fought, but by investing in the common man, you will have credibility in the fight that lies ahead, and you may be able to recuit his help in the process. When you have nothing to lose, you can easily be manipulated to partake of some very unsavory things. But when you have a life, and the hope that things will get better, then it becomes much more difficult to recruit you for martyrdom. I wonder sometimes; what if a suicide bombing was scheduled, and no one showed up?
Elinor, I don’t think God sets out to scare people, or even to punish them. He operates a bit differently. He is like an artist on a rampage, with every brush stroke containing billions of heavenly bodies. But despite the wonder of it all, He still creates the universe in accordance with certain common sense principles, gives people a certain measure of choice, and then allows things to play out. God is more than prepared to take as much risk as is needed. If people choose Holocaust, He says, “Go ahead, see how that works out for you.” If people choose Global Warming, He says, “OK, go for it, let’s see how this works out.” It’s not that He wants to punish us. But for us to be like Him, and I think we are, we had to be created with the power not only to succeed, but to fail as well.
But to make it fair, He created us in His image, and therefore, like Him, we too are creators, and we can create the world as we see fit. If we want this world to become a living hell, God will not stand in our way. But if we choose instead to create a heaven on earth, He has given us the wherewithall to do that, and the common sense to do it right. It’s our choice. It always has been. And everything we know and love hangs in the balance.
Elinor, both you and Nissim have opened the door of collectivism, so I will attempt to illuminate the scene beyond the door.
In my country, we choose the men who run our government by elections. Every registered voter has one and only one vote for each office. While the number of candidates varies, in many cases there are more than two.
My vote determines nothing unless the plurality votes for the same candidates I select. My state will go for Obama; I will write in Alan Keyes, since I refuse to vote for a Socialist or a liar. My vote for President will have no effect.
The rare Gazan pacifist who wishes only to raise his children in peace and prosperity & live to see his grandchildren prosper, has no effective input in a society where the majority seeks the genocidal policide of their neighbor. If he seeks to resist their efforts, he will lose his life in the conflict because his opponents are armed and dangerous but he is not.
Nissim, what happened when Israel turned over administrative authority over 95% of the territories to Arafat? Did his flock take hope? Did they act hopefully? Yes, they hoped that Israel was so weak that she could be easily knocked over with a hail of stones. They continued to support corrupt & power mad dictatorship which shared their lust for Jewish blood.
What happened when Israel evacuated Gaza? What happened every time she made ‘good faith’ concessions?
To this observer, it seems that Israel is as stupid as Charley Brown, who perennially hands Lucy the ball hoping against objective fact that she will steady it instead of snatching it away as his toe approaches.
I doubt that we can ever completely extinguish the predatory instinct. At best we can suppress it or redirect it against other species. Certainly that goal can not be achieved while intra species predation bears the Almighty Creator’s seal of approval.
Nissim
I guess you are right 
I never cease to admire your remarks
Elinor, you are welcome to join my fan club. In fact, you are my fan club. Thanks as ever for your support, and your kind comments.
Dajjal, you bring up some good points, certainly deserving of some attention. There is no question that the cards are stacked against us as we try to sell a Vision of Hope. For example, the notion that “God is on our side,” certainly doesn’t help any, especially if both sides come to believe it. The fact that there are strong equities, and issues of justice, on both sides, doesn’t help, as well. The fact that there is greed and corruption on both sides does not help. The fact that both sides have come to represent forces beyond themselves, is also an obstacle. Israel, for example, is fighting for the survival of the Jewish people. Palestine is coming to represent the dignity and honor of the Arab world. And the fact that the military solution often seem easier than any other solution, is also a problem for both sides.
But here is the thing, eventually, both sides may come to conclusion that a deal must be cut, and that a deal is in their best interest, long term. In a way, you can look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a paradigm for all sorts of conflicts worldwide. Many of the same obstacles pertain to other issues around the world. Take Global Warming, as an example. There are literally trillions of dollars invested in a system based on fossil fuels. These dollars are invested in the status quo. And many people worship the all mighty dollar as if it were God. What will it take to transform all that investment so that it becomes eco-friendly? Do you think it will take any less determination than solving the Israel/Palestine issue?
We have brought ourselves, as a species, to the point where there is no choice but to make sense of our lives. You are right to say that current ideological perspectives with respect to God, are troublesome. So? Change how you think about God. Change what you believe about Him. If your interpretation of the Almighty encourages you to kill innocents, then guess what, you’re off the mark. You have misinterpreted His intentions. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that God wants us to live, and to be kind to one another. That’s how we made it for some two million years, and that’s the only way we’re going to make it for the next two hundred years, let alone two million years. How do I know this? Well, I studied about the cavemen, but also because it makes sense, that’s how. And in the final analysis, that’s what He gave us to sort out the vagaries of our precarious existence on this good earth.
Now Israel has made concessions, it’s true. And so far, those concessions have not yielded peace. But I submit to you, Dajjal, that Israel’s concessions fall far short of her ability to make something happen with respect to peace. What Israel, and the Western World for that matter, has to do, is to create new economic and ideological realities on the ground which speak louder than words. Business, and good paying jobs, will create their own ideological imperatives. As people begin to improve their ilves, their sense of the ideological will change, especially if a change in economic reality is accompanied by all the other elements of Selling a Vision of Hope, including: a new ideological framework, speaking to one another with dignity, investing in one another, protecting the earth, neutralizing extremism, selling one another on hope, sustaining the hope with public diplomacy, and fighting against the forces of extremism, but within a new context, within a vision of hope.
Can it honestly be said, Dajjal, that Israel, or the U.S., or any other nation has even come close to Selling a Vision of Hope? My answer is no. Pulling out of Gaza is not enough, not even close. Considering the history here, and the symbolic aspects of this conflict, we will have to go way the hell out of our comfort zone to effectuate substantive change. And a lot of what we have to do can be done even without a final peace deal.
And just as we have to solve this conflict, something seemingly beyond the realm of possibility, so too will we have to solve some big ass problems like Global Warming, Ideological Extremism, and the Economic meltdown. I do believe in God. I think He’s giving us clues as to His gameplan here. He’s basically saying: “Look, you’ve all created this mess, now do something about it. I know it’s hard, perhaps close to impossible, but that’s the game we’re in, and I’ll do what I can to help, but most of the help I’ve given you already; the ability to think straight, and to do something about it.”
So I can appreciate your reluctance. But I see no reasonable choice but to try. Our fate is sealed if we don’t, so we might as well give it a shot, and see what happens.
This debate can go for ages!! I just everyone watches a documentary called” Muslims and the west” … it’s done R.Frisk a BBC Reporter. Maybe it will give you a better insight into things!
Salam
Essays online service has to follow your useful note reffering to this good post in argument essay creating. So, you could be a good instructor in that business.