Muslims

[Insidious Rex]

(cont. from previous post)

While Yaalon's staff attempted to make a distinction between his concerns and those of the pilots, military officials and analysts said frustration and disillusionment within the military -- not only over tactics that punish innocent civilians but also with the stalled peace process -- had spurred large numbers of troops, from infantrymen in the field to reserve officers to the chief of staff, to speak more openly against the policies of Sharon's government.
"We feel there's a real problem here," said one military officer, who agreed with the chief of staff's assessment. "The public should be made aware how we feel. There should be a public debate in Israel on where we're going and how far we can push the Palestinian public."
Yaalon also criticized the government's decision to expand the barrier being built between the West Bank and Israel deep into Palestinian territory to encompass more Jewish settlements and cut off tens of thousands of Palestinians from their agricultural lands and families. The Finance Ministry estimated this week that the barrier would cost about $2.3 billion, more than three times the original estimate.
A civilian government official accused Yaalon of hypocrisy, alleging that the military commander carried out many of the orders that hampered Abbas without raising objections.
Some military analysts and officials also note that Yaalon has supported some of the armed forces' most controversial tactics in the Palestinian territories, including targeted killings. Human rights groups have criticized such killings because they impose a death sentence on a suspect without due process. In addition, bystanders are frequently killed in such operations.
Mofaz summoned Yaalon to his office for a reprimand on Wednesday, the day the Israeli newspapers printed their first accounts of his remarks, according to government officials familiar with the meeting. Although Yaalon was not identified by name in the news columns, which referred to him as a senior official, the army's chief spokeswoman, Brig. Gen. Ruth Yaron, monitored the meeting with the journalists, and defense officials did not try to hide the source of the story when Israeli radio and television identified the source as the chief of staff.
Two military officials said Mofaz ordered Yaalon to release a statement that said: "No uniformed officer has expressed criticism of the government. The articles reflect the fundamental deliberations and the discussions that take place in light of a complex situation. The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] is subordinate to the political echelon and carries out its orders precisely."
On Thursday, a military officer familiar with the dispute said that Yaalon "stands behind everything he said."
Mofaz's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Sharon's office made no official response to the controversy. The prime minister spent almost seven hours under interrogation Thursday by police investigators probing allegations of bribery and illegal campaign donations involving him and his two sons in his 1999 election campaign.
One military official said Yaalon expressed reservations about the government's treatment of Abbas, who was Palestinian prime minister from April 30 until Sept. 6, because his nominated successor, Ahmed Qureia, must decide next week whether he would accept the position. Yaalon and other military officials fear that if a second Palestinian government fails, the Palestinian Authority could disintegrate, creating chaos in the territories, the official said.

Israel's senior military commander. hmmm.....

[Radagast The Brown]

I didn't read it all, because I didn't have time.
I wasn't at home in the last three days and don't know what exactly happpened.
But: the letter of the pilots was signed by 27 pilots - another letter was sent, with more then 100 signs against the first one.

The barrier may cost a lot, and I do believe it's not fair in some places, and that the Palestinians should get more, but it would prevent the death of any people. I do think it worth it.

That's what I have to say right now. I do know about something with Yaalon, not sure what. It didn't seem interesting - and now it can't be find in the media.

[Grey_Wolf]

This might be slightly off-topic but I think it was important to bring up.

Many muslims find western culture abhorrent. For example, in Sweden immigrant men murder their women just because they want to live the way Swedish girls live and in doing so these women shame the family. Several times this has happened. One man was waiting outside a discoteque and when his sister came out he stabbed her 41 times. Another man had threatened to kill his daughter and when she went to visit her family he was waiting outside the appartment and shot in the head coldbloodedly.

OK. There exist sociapaths among western men as well who beat up their wives and molest their children but that doesn't excuse what muslims have been doing for thousands of years to their wives and daughters and still do.

[Lotesse]

Here's a bump. This topic never gets old or boring.

Is it primarily Muslim kids who are rioting like crazy in Paris and elsewhere in France right now?

(Like Lief was saying over in the Paris is Burning thread earlier,) Is it because the secular French nation and the very religious immigrant muslim minorities cannot integrate? Should they even HAVE to? Why, why should the French nation be obliged to integrate people they do not want there? And yes, I'm well aware of how controversial it is for me to say that, but frankly I don't care. If conditions are so unfavourable for the Algerian muslims in Paris, perhaps they might do well to consider returning to their own respective original country, whatever country that might be, and make things better and life better for themselves, there, rather than torch everything in France because life's so rough for them in France.

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting bump Lotesse. I don't know if all or even most of the rioters in France right now are Muslim.

I don't think I know anyone who's Muslim. But if I did meet someone, the first thing I'd probably think is, "I don't know anything about Islam."

I am under the impression that it is a peaceful religion though, and moderate Muslims insist the Jihad is a spiritual battle within oneself.

[Linaewen]

Quick post cause I really should study, but you're right Nurv, "Islam" actually means "peace" in Arabic. ("to be in peaceful submission; to surrender; to obey; peace")

At its core, I think Islam is quite a beautiful religion (although admittedly, I don't particularly like institutionalised religion.) Their prayer chants are lovely! It's such a shame that the fundamentalists had to distort their religion in such a manner that Westerners just think the whole religion is about global domination with Muslim beliefs.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Why, why should the French nation be obliged to integrate people they do not want there? And yes, I'm well aware of how controversial it is for me to say that, but frankly I don't care. If conditions are so unfavourable for the Algerian muslims in Paris, perhaps they might do well to consider returning to their own respective original country, whatever country that might be, and make things better and life better for themselves, there, rather than torch everything in France because life's so rough for them in France.

Many of the immigrants came to France in the first place because of poverty in their home countries. France was known as a wealthier nation, and that was a major incentive to come. So going back to their home countries wouldn't be a very helpful option, for many of these people. Also, I bet that many can't really afford it.

My personal view is that if these immigrants are now legal citizens of the country, the French have a responsibility to be welcoming and to enthusiastically embrace the newcomers into their society. The immigrants also have a responsibility. There responsibility is to seek to fit in, and to respect and hopefully adapt to the culture they enter.

If the French truly have a problem with the immigrants (as many seem to), I really think it's their responsibility to change their immigration policy. They must embrace those who are citizens, but they shouldn't be required to accept more and more citizens when they're already struggling with unemployment and poverty. If France is unable to cope with open immigration laws, perhaps they should tighten them.

Originally Posted by Linaewen

At its core, I think Islam is quite a beautiful religion (although admittedly, I don't particularly like institutionalised religion.) Their prayer chants are lovely! It's such a shame that the fundamentalists had to distort their religion in such a manner that Westerners just think the whole religion is about global domination with Muslim beliefs.

I read that "Islam" means submission in my history textbooks. I know the other translation is also in circulation, however.

There certainly are some very beautiful teachings in Islam. However, I'm afraid the ugly is also present. I've encountered some very fine Muslim teachings, but also some which are very violent, and would seem to justify many modern terrorists. I don't believe that the suicide bombers are misinterpreting the Koran at all. Though some interpret Jihad as spiritual war, history tells us that Mohammad and his immediate followers interpreted it as physical warfare. Mohammad took Saudi Arabia through force of arms, and his immediate followers attacked the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires, and defeated both. Violence became part of the religion when Mohammad experienced persecution from his native tribe the Qur'aysh, because Mohammad and his followers felt the need to defend themselves. They went beyond defending themselves, however. When they wanted control of a town, they took it and expelled those who disagreed with them on religious grounds. They raided caravans, plundering and taking hostages. They attacked peaceful Jewish settlements because they were allied with the Qur'aysh, and slaughtered many innocents. That was all under Mohammad. The Sassanid and Byzantine conquests, along with most of the major Muslim expansion, came under his immediate successors.

So anyway, from the history I can see that Islam from the beginning was not a peaceful religion. It did have some marvelous moral teachings, however. Many of its teachings were far superior to the teachings of the pagan polytheist animist tribesmen who lived around him. Muhammad's teachings had many of their roots in Jewish and Christian theologies. The civilization Muhammad's successors established was very sophisticated. It passed down wonderful things to us in literature and medicine. They were highly advanced people, and we owe much to them. Violence was also part of their religion, however, right from the beginning. This is different from Christianity, which in the early centuries of its birth was peaceful and accepted unjust punishment meekly. In the early centuries of Islam's birth, a vast, sprawling new civilization was carved out of the world in bloodshed. It had wonderful as well as terrible aspects to it. It was a mixture of both.

I don't believe that the modern Muslim moderate is at all following in Muhammad's footsteps, however. The modern moderate is a different person completely from the zealous and violent warriors that the early Muslims were- and that the modern terrorists are .

[Lief Erikson]

Bump.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Many of the immigrants came to France in the first place because of poverty in their home countries. France was known as a wealthier nation, and that was a major incentive to come. So going back to their home countries wouldn't be a very helpful option, for many of these people. Also, I bet that many can't really afford it.

Also, a large number of them seem to be second-generation immigrants who were born in France, so they don't really have another "home country" to go back to.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If the French truly have a problem with the immigrants (as many seem to), I really think it's their responsibility to change their immigration policy. They must embrace those who are citizens, but they shouldn't be required to accept more and more citizens when they're already struggling with unemployment and poverty. If France is unable to cope with open immigration laws, perhaps they should tighten them.

This sounds pretty much like the rhetoric of the extreme right in France. Tightened immigration laws would upset even more people both in France and in the rest of Europe since it would put wind in the sails of the extreme right which, by many Europeans, is not very well-liked. Besides, the immigrants already in France would probably not like the idea of a tougher immigration policy either.
No, the key here IMO is better intergration and not stricter immigration. However I'm not sure how the French should procede to achieve that.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I read that "Islam" means submission in my history textbooks. I know the other translation is also in circulation, however.

And I read somewhere that "Islam can be translated to "peace through submission" . Since Dar es Salaam, the capital of Tanzania, means "haven of peace" in Arabic I guess there's a connection between the words "islam" and "salaam". Just speculating here.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't believe that the modern Muslim moderate is at all following in Muhammad's footsteps, however. The modern moderate is a different person completely from the zealous and violent warriors that the early Muslims were- and that the modern terrorists are .

I always enjoy your postings Lief.

I don't know a lot about Islam, as I said before. But I think there is one important difference between extremists and moderate Muslims.

Do you want to live in the past, and try to recreate a carbon copy of history? Do you want to avoid all change and growth, and in the end, stagnate? If the extremists want to recreate exactly what Mohammed was doing (or more accurately, only one thing that Mohammed did), then they are not applying Mohammed's teachings to life right now.

On the other hand, moderate Muslims seem to be recognizing the postive teachings of Mohammed, living by them, and abhorring violence. This is quite parallel to moderate Christians.

I agree with you that Christianity was very peaceful from its beginning to, I would say, 400 years into its existence when the Roman Emperor Constantine made it the state religion. [facetious]It has all been downhill from there.[/facetious]

But really, after we became "offocial", there was a lot of violence in Christianity. We repressed other religions and murdered their followers (Druids and Witches). We fought amongst each other because of theological differences (ongoing violence between Protestants and Catholics). Does this mean Christianity is a violent religion? I don't think so, just like I don't think Islam is a violent religion. People are violent, and they merely use religion as an excuse because of hatred and fear.

The Bible might say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (does it really? That's just embarassing. ), but I will never put that into practice! I, and I imagine, moderate Muslims, are free-thinking people who are thoughtful about their religions. Religion does not mean mindlessly carrying out orders.

[rohirrim TR]

Nurv- the witch thing well,that particular verse is old testament, and used in a modern day context is terribly out of place.

[Linaewen]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And I read somewhere that "Islam can be translated to "peace through submission" . Since Dar es Salaam, the capital of Tanzania, means "haven of peace" in Arabic I guess there's a connection between the words "islam" and "salaam". Just speculating here.

From Wikipedia

In Arabic, Islām ("the submission to God") derives from the three-letter root S-L-M reflecting the meaning "to be in peaceful submission; to surrender; to obey; peace."

You're right Jon, Arabic builds words upon such three-letter roots to give you new words which are related semantically.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The Bible might say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (does it really? That's just embarassing. ), but I will never put that into practice! I, and I imagine, moderate Muslims, are free-thinking people who are thoughtful about their religions. Religion does not mean mindlessly carrying out orders.

I agree. Such 'teachings' in the Bible or Qur'an or whatever reflect the followers' understandings of such matters at the time. Social values have changed and religious teachings have generally adapted. Christians would find you insane if you believed wholeheartedly in following the Bible literally, just as Muslims would if you followed such 'violent' teachings in the Qur'an (just going by what Lief said.) The moderate Muslims I have met do not try to impose their religious values on others at all; instead, they seek ways to better themselves spiritually.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Nurv- the witch thing well,that particular verse is old testament, and used in a modern day context is terribly out of place.

Thanks for confirming that it is in the Bible. I agree that it is out of place in today's world. A number of teachings in the Old Testament are totally inappropriate today. But that was my point, we must question and think about our religion and apply its teachings in an approriate way. (In other words, what Linaewen said. )

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This sounds pretty much like the rhetoric of the extreme right in France. Tightened immigration laws would upset even more people both in France and in the rest of Europe since it would put wind in the sails of the extreme right which, by many Europeans, is not very well-liked. Besides, the immigrants already in France would probably not like the idea of a tougher immigration policy either.
No, the key here IMO is better intergration and not stricter immigration. However I'm not sure how the French should procede to achieve that.

That the French extreme right believes that immigration laws should be tightened does not to me constitute a firm argument that they should not be . The fact that Adolf Hitler believed there is a God does not make me automatically think there isn't one .

But anyway, I personally don't yet know enough about the French immigration situation to have any views on whether or not France should change its immigration laws.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Do you want to live in the past, and try to recreate a carbon copy of history?

If I could "stagnate" as Jesus, I would be happier than I can say .

Originally Posted by Linaewen

Such 'teachings' in the Bible or Qur'an or whatever reflect the followers' understandings of such matters at the time. Social values have changed and religious teachings have generally adapted. Christians would find you insane if you believed wholeheartedly in following the Bible literally, just as Muslims would if you followed such 'violent' teachings in the Qur'an (just going by what Lief said.) The moderate Muslims I have met do not try to impose their religious values on others at all; instead, they seek ways to better themselves spiritually.

An important difficulty with this is that Islam and Christianity claim to present timeless absolute truth. That has little to do with relativistic, fluctuating moral values.

Some parts of the teachings of both scriptures are obviously only for a certain era. For example, if Muhammad says, "destroy that Jewish village!" that does not mean, "All Muslims are to destroy every Jewish village!" In the same way, when in the Old Testament, God said, "invade Canaan and kill every living thing," he did not mean, "invade any non-Jew (or non-Christian) land and kill every living thing." Passages of this sort are clearly referring to a specific time period. Acting on them in all contexts would be simply ridiculous, to the people of the time as much as to us.

Islam and Christianity both should be, I think, interpreted literally except when it's absolutely clear from the text that it's not intended to be taken so. For example, there are times in the Bible when people see visions or have dreams. Because of the very nature of these experiences people had, it is plain that they often are intended as symbols, metaphors or allegories for other things, and are not intended to be taken literally. However, when a passage makes a declaration of a historical fact, for example, "the armies of Assyria surrounded Jerusalem in the time of King Hezekiah," it is clear from context that they are intended as historical fact. Actually, many times these passages have actually been since proven to be historical fact because of archaelogical finds.

Muhammad claimed to receive his instructions from angels, who received their instructions from God. Muhammad claimed to be presenting timeless truth, many times, when he presented moral teachings or commands for his followers throughout time to obey. Jesus took the same attitude (though slightly different, as he believed he was God). He too prayed for his disciples in future generations, and talked about those who would follow him all the way up to the end of the world. He clearly was thinking in advance about future generations. In many of these cases, it would be inappropriate to say that the words of Jesus or Muhammad can be adjusted to fit with our more advanced modern moral understanding. The only way we could get away with this is by saying that they were not hearing from God. And that would make Christians not Christians and Muslims not Muslims.

[Rían]

My husband told me about this last night, and I thought it would be interesting to post here and discuss:

Five questions non-Muslims would like answered

By Dennis Prager, Dennis Prager's nationally syndicated radio show is heard daily in Los Angeles on KRLA-AM (870). He may be contacted through his website: www.dennisprager.com.


THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims.

Here are five of them:

(1) Why are you so quiet?

Since the first Israelis were targeted for death by Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up in the name of your religion and Palestinian nationalism, I have been praying to see Muslim demonstrations against these atrocities. Last week's protests in Jordan against the bombings, while welcome, were a rarity. What I have seen more often is mainstream Muslim spokesmen implicitly defending this terror on the grounds that Israel occupies Palestinian lands. We see torture and murder in the name of Allah, but we see no anti-torture and anti-murder demonstrations in the name of Allah.

There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies. What are non-Muslims of goodwill supposed to conclude? When the Israeli government did not stop a Lebanese massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, great crowds of Israeli Jews gathered to protest their country's moral failing. Why has there been no comparable public demonstration by Palestinians or other Muslims to morally condemn Palestinian or other Muslim-committed terror?

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

If Israeli occupation is the reason for Muslim terror in Israel, why do no Christian Palestinians engage in terror? They are just as nationalistic and just as occupied as Muslim Palestinians.

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

According to Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy, of the world's 47 Muslim countries, only Mali is free. Sixty percent are not free, and 38% are partly free. Muslim-majority states account for a majority of the world's "not free" states. And of the 10 "worst of the worst," seven are Islamic states. Why is this?

(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

Young girls in Indonesia were recently beheaded by Muslim murderers. Last year, Muslims — in the name of Islam — murdered hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia. While reciting Muslim prayers, Islamic terrorists take foreigners working to make Iraq free and slaughter them. Muslim daughters are murdered by their own families in the thousands in "honor killings." And the Muslim government in Iran has publicly called for the extermination of Israel.

(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. Sudan's Islamic regime has murdered great numbers of Christians.

Instead of confronting these problems, too many of you deny them. Muslims call my radio show to tell me that even speaking of Muslim or Islamic terrorists is wrong. After all, they argue, Timothy McVeigh is never labeled a "Christian terrorist." As if McVeigh committed his terror as a churchgoing Christian and in the name of Christ, and as if there were Christian-based terror groups around the world.

As a member of the media for nearly 25 years, I have a long record of reaching out to Muslims. Muslim leaders have invited me to speak at major mosques. In addition, I have studied Arabic and Islam, have visited most Arab and many other Muslim countries and conducted interfaith dialogues with Muslims in the United Arab Emirates as well as in the U.S. Politically, I have supported creation of a Palestinian state and supported (mistakenly, I now believe) the Oslo accords.

Hundreds of millions of non-Muslims want honest answers to these questions, even if the only answer you offer is, "Yes, we have real problems in Islam." Such an acknowledgment is infinitely better — for you and for the world — than dismissing us as anti-Muslim.

We await your response.

I think these are good questions, and I hope no one here calls this "bashing". I think all too often, calling things "bashing" is just the easy way out.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This sounds pretty much like the rhetoric of the extreme right in France. Tightened immigration laws would upset even more people both in France and in the rest of Europe since it would put wind in the sails of the extreme right which, by many Europeans, is not very well-liked. Besides, the immigrants already in France would probably not like the idea of a tougher immigration policy either.
No, the key here IMO is better intergration and not stricter immigration. However I'm not sure how the French should procede to achieve that.

Well, that's the problem - if you can't manage what you have, it might be the wisest course for everyone involved to slow things down a bit until you can get a grip on the current situation. I think that's all that Lief meant, and it doesn't have to be hate-motivated or racially-motivated.

Originally Posted by Nurvi

The Bible might say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (does it really? That's just embarassing. ) ...

You know, as C.S. Lewis said, if you REALLY KNEW that there was a person around who had the power to hurt and/or kill people by saying spells, and DID it (which would identify them as such), don't you think that line would be on par with "Thou shalt not suffer a child molestor/sacrificer to live"? Just a thought ...

[brownjenkins]

(1) Why are you so quiet?

google under "muslims peace"

one example of many

the short story... peace doesn't sell... just because you don't see it on the nightly news does not mean it does not exist

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

the vast majority of the palestinian population is muslim, and since it is not just about nationalism, but religion, it is not likely that the terrorists would trust those outside their own faith to participate

muslims are far from unique when it comes to terrorism... christian terrorism

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

history, culture, beliefs... see this article

(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

religion is a very powerful motivator, especially to those who have little to live for and look only to "the life after"... leaders take advantage of this, much as the popes did in the middle ages

(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

it goes back to (3)... authoritarian governments typically persecute all but one religion and cultural background... it provides a scapegoat and helps to perpetuate fear and dissent, which perpetuates their own rule... hitler did the same in germany, and their belief system was based upon the christian god

[Insidious Rex]

Sorry but that qualifies as "bashing" as far as Im concerned. Several of the questions just make wrong assumptions (no muslim ever protests against terrorism? come on...) and several others are disingenuous and meant only as a poke at islam and to show the superiority of christianity. This must be anti-anything but christianity day on the moot or something...

What these kinds of posts always prove to me is not that one religion is bad and one is good but that religion IN GENERAL is such a dividing phenomenon when placed in the hands of humans... Shows the flaws of a religious construct in a system flawed by definition because its designed and run by humans

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Several of the questions just make wrong assumptions (no muslim ever protests against terrorism? come on...)

I don't know what happens when my posts come up on your computer Do they get changed or something? Since he explicitly refers to the protests in Jordan, how can you say he's inferring "no muslim ever protests against terrorism? come on..."? Please read what I post.