^^ Oh! Another one-liner! You know full well that his was a rhetorical question, Viking. If there is any *****footing around being done here, it’s coming from both of you. Three other people (in addition to myself) have replied to the original topic. We all gave our take on the questions and issues presented. Jamaal, as he always does with Islamic topics, chose to pick on one word without contributing a thing from his side and now that I’m done with him, you pop in? My words are clear, people. If you want to challenge them, go ahead. I’d only request that you do me the courtesy of posting well thought and detailed replies instead of the chat room one line drivel.

^^^^ Sheekado waa Damned if I did and damned if I didn't maya? Never mind, I answered your original questions and I’m sure that, in spite of yourself, you probably picked up a pearl or two from that free wisdom. To say it’s I that advocates for these articles makes it sound as if I posted dozens of pieces on this site (it was only the one and you deleted it in no time, saaxib)! Are we moving from bad comprehension to over overstatement now? I said it before and I’ll repeat it again, I don’t enjoy rolling in the lower and muddy echelons of discussion. If you wish, we can talk about Islam, the problem with it, the problem I have, the one you have, etc. A discussion where we both hopefully will learn, saaxib. What’s taking place right now is senseless; I’m doing all the teaching here!

Good morning, Jamaal. I see you’re still insisting on carrying on with your pedantry. Now, I’m not sure if this is genuine naïveté (not meant in a disparaging sense mind) or just a game of words. I shall not assume anymore, for despite the clear evidence in front of me, you keep telling me that my assumptions are wrong! Now call all your one-liner friends and those that zealously guard Islam, over. I’m about to impart a lesson in comprehension, saaxib. I’m not sure what levels of competency I’m dealing with here but I’ll base this on Jamaal’s question (those of a lower level of comprehension I’m afraid I can’t help, and, luckily for all of us, it’s also unlikely that they can understand any of this anyway). Now, Jamaal sees my comment about something being wrong with Islam and despite my quote being very clear and scornful of people that would jump to the rescue of Islam when reading such a comment, he nonetheless, dives in headfirst! I’m sure that if I said I thought this site was full of smelly topics, Jamaal will not suddenly brandish an air-freshener and try to literally disinfect the site (though such a thing would be very handy I must admit)! No, I believe that you have the competence and ability to understand the meaning without any further explanation. Similarly, if I said that the standards of this site were dropping and that I could KILL the admin for letting things deteriorate in such a way, I’m again sure that neither Jamaal nor the admin would hurry to hire personal bodyguards. Do you follow my drift? Now time for a story: Once upon a time, a man was sitting down with a group of children and telling them a story about dragons. The children were being naughty and wild. So, the man just walked away and left them to their unruliness. The above is a simple and meaningless off the cuff story. Any normal adult should be able to understand it without the need for further explanation. However, a child with reading comprehension difficulties might find it hard to decipher. The story states that the man was sitting down; it implies that the children were sitting round him (as happens when stories are being read); it clearly talks about how unruly the children were, but does not describe it. It then goes on to inform us that the man had had enough and walked away! Here, it does not explain the thought process of the man. It could have said: faced with this rowdiness, the man knew how pointless it was to read a story to such uncontrollable children and reasoned that the best course of action was to walk away. So, he stood up, ignored the queries of the kids and walked nimbly away. As you can see, the extra detail does not change much of the story – if anything; it makes it sound even more boring than what it originally was. Still, I’m hoping that those with even the slightest ability to comprehend understood the meaning and aim. Now let us talk about writing and reading... The author has the licence to use words, phrases and expressions to gain the maximum dramatic effect (providing of course that he’s not being completely insane). The reader’s job is to selectively skim through a story, article or piece of writing and decode all the words, their connection to each other and meaning, and then finally (based on all of that) arrive at the overall aim of the piece. If the reader is a child, then he/she is probably not fully developed (cerebrally) to comprehend every piece of writing - fortunately for humanity, children eventually grow up. However, if the reader is an adult, one has to question this person’s abilities of grasping small ideas and word interplay! If the reader is a chronic pedant then one could at least regard it as an affliction and point out how inappropriate it is (pedantry) in some topics. There is a third explanation for the lack of comprehension. This one is more underhand and treacherous. In this example, our reader’s ability to comprehend is all perfectly in good working order, but the reader chooses to act obtuse and pretend not to understand! It’s possible that the reader disagrees with the piece but lacks the intellectual courage or the ability to respond in kind. Therefore it’s easier to go down the pedantic route and nit-pick on random words that the reader already understands the meaning of! The cure for the child and the habitual pedant is to read more, write more and force oneself to eventually comprehend (here, force does not carry any physical meaning, Jamaal). In addition, those that wish to improve will need to read loudly and repeatedly. With time, the child will improve and the pedant will learn to choose his targets more carefully. As for the intellectual coward! I’m afraid (literally shaking here) that he’ll have to face reality (make sure you’re dressed to impress) and concede (as in: giving way) that though he/she may dislike the feel of some topics, he/she are not able (as in: can’t) to fully (as in: altogether) engage it. Now Jamaal, do you finally understand what the problem with Islam is? PS All of the above should be regarded as common sense and not some philosophical theories on education. PPS If my words seem mocking of scornful, it is no coincidence; this is the only way to reply to such queries. My disdain is with the level the topic is at and not the questioner.

Jamaal. Now you’re arguing for argument’s sake, saaixb! If you actually bothered to read my quote before hastily copying it, you would have noted that I’ve already conceded this trivial battle of words. One can’t even give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn’t read my post (you’re quoting me after all!). So, are you being pedantic? Is it a case of not grasping the point being made? Maybe you’re bored! If you have the capability to deal with the original article and ‘rethink Islam’ I’ll be more than happy to read and fully engage any of your points. However, and you can take this in any way you like, if you want to stay in the superfluous edge of arguing semantics and simple word interchanges, I’m afraid I neither have the patience nor the humour for such a game of amateur pedantry. Trust me brother, it does not make me happy at all to see you lower yourself to the level of asking obtuse questions that lead nowhere. I’m seriously tempted to give a long lecture on reading comprehension and break down this trivial issue sentence by sentence, alas this will only lower me to the rank of the one-line-reply-brigade and will be (going by previous evidence) a waste of my time. Therefore, I will not. My words are as clear as day, can you comprehend them?

Jamaal, saaxib, I’ve never known you to be this sloppy in the past. This is a case of semantics and not dogma. Islam and Muslims are interchangeable words. An aim of a piece of writing is understood by reading the entire piece and comprehending it rather than picking out random words and protesting at their meaning. Most of these writers that announce a problem with Islam go on to spell out their meaning and criticise Muslim practices rather than Allah’s message. You and I might disagree with their outlook and their logic but we can’t accuse them of claiming to have a problem with ‘Islam’. To make an issue of that one word either indicates that one has been educated beyond his cognitive capacity (i.e. many of the one line crew found on this website) or that one is deliberately being obtuse to avoid the countering the original argument. The above article is full of controversial issues that one could ponder. The replies that followed (including my own) all contain the opinions and thoughts of the various Nomads on this subject (some even contentious)! It’s therefore baffling (not to mention a great shame) that you chose to ignore all of that and deal with the inconsequential and pedantic issue of there being a problem with Islam or not, instead! I personally blame that dreadful chat room for this new trend of replying to what is essentially a debate forum with pernickety one-liners and senseless drivel. This is not directed at your personally, saaxib (though as I’ve admitted earlier, you seem to have caught the bug too). It’s directed to all those who have opinions (or disagree with opinions) but neither put in the effort of providing a satisfactory reply nor stay away altogether! Though it’s predictable, it’s still grating.

Any Beatles fans in the house? You say you want a revolution Well you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it’s evolution Well you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don’t you know you can count me out Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright Alright alright You say you got a real solution Well you know We’d all love to see the plan You ask me for a contribution Well you know We’re doing what we can But when you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell you is brother you have to wait Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright Alright alright You say you’ll change the constitution Well you know We all want to change your head You tell me it’s the institution Well you know You better free your mind instead But if you go carrying pictures of chairman mao You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow Don’t you know know it’s gonna be alright Alright alright PS These lyrics can be found in any song lyrics website.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Can't we play this on a case by case basis? I do not wash dishes and would not wash dishes. I refuse to discuss the rational, theories and laws connected with washing dishes.

And yet, despite all of that, he still makes many good points. Watching contemporary Islam is like being caught between the rock of reformation and the hard place of conservatism. Neither side is willing to give an inch. The good news is that Islam today is under the control of the rigid dogmatists. They’re not very nice bosses to have. They order one about and all their conversations are mostly littered with the words YES and NO, with more of the latter than the former. They preach a version of Islam that’s full of anger and fury. They point to and accuse those that are different to them. They see a heretic in every shadow and behind every wall. They honourably remind Muslims of their duties to Allah. Sometimes, they forcefully remind people of their duties to Allah. They carry lists of groups of Muslims whom they deem deviant! Some get so consumed by such trivial pastimes that they forget their original intention and, instead, spend their time trying to prove the deviancy of abovementioned groups . But, all is not lost. The good thing about our conservative brothers is that they try to stay close to the essence of Islam. Though they habitually err, though the more they zealously resist the more they move away from the original message, and despite the occasional deviancy, they still remain the closet thing to the spirit of Islam. One hopes that with more awareness and more reflection most of these (well meaning) zealots will eventually loosen up. The bad news is that the number of reformists is on the rise! They’re everywhere and are commenting on all Islamic issues. In the recent past, most of the Muslim world was shielded and isolated from the glare of such reformers. Books, magazines and publications that carried any ideas that were incompatible with Islamic doctrine were banned. Individuals that spread any thoughts that were contradictory to Islam were jailed (or killed). The Islamic world (at least in relation to matters of faith) was inward looking and insular. Nothing was allowed to penetrate or question the traditional idea of Islam. There was nothing there to challenge the faith, and as a result, there was hardly anything there to rationally defend it. The people (and governments) got used to the easy way of beating others into submission (see our brothers in Saudia Arabia who are not police officers yet still beat up people for the tiniest assumed lapse). The BAD news is that the number of reformists is on the RISE! With the introduction of Satellite Television and the Internet, their reach has become limitless and unrestricted! The conservatives are fighting a losing battle. Even if the conservatives somehow contrive to win, it will simply be a Pyrrhic Victory! The end result is likely to be something the reformists (such as the author of the article above) would love. The curious thing about most Muslim ‘moderates’ and ‘reformists’ is that many of them are really not that knowledgeable about Islam. A substantial number simply started off by having their queries ignored, crushed or ridiculed. Many of them have a grievance against Islam (or, for the pedants here, the conservative elements in Islam). What is even more curious is the large number of self-appointed Mullahs who are no better (knowledge-wise) than these ignorant reformers. Should one pose a question to either of these groups (regardless of their level of knowledge) all would volunteer with a juicy answer. While the reformists are calling for a new interpretation of the Koran, many ‘conservatives’ are already doing that in their attempts to rebuff the reformists! Many Muslims (liberals and conservatives) are offended and upset by comments such as “ there is a problem with Islam†or “Islam needs to changeâ€! They resolutely argue that the problem is not with Islam but Muslims! The Muslims they speak about of course (the ones with the problem), are not they. It’s other Muslims! Ones that live in far away lands and give Islam a bad name (bad bad people). They interpret the religion wrong, you see. Islam is PERFECT it’s the interpretation that is not. Yes, yes, it’s the interpretation. This is the shallow end of any argument about Islam. Every imbecile can safely join this argument. Islam is from Allah; Allah is the creator of the whole entire universe; Allah is perfect; All Allah’s creations are perfect; Islam is perfect. When you say there is a problem with Islam you imply (god forbid) a fault with Allah! For a simplistic pedant, this is the best style of argument to have. No believing Muslim could possibly carry on with such an argument you see, ergo certain win. But, does it deal with the point about there being a problem with Islam? As time goes on, people will find more and more articles like the one written above. Simple brush-offs and dismissals will not suffice. I personally, despite not being in total agreement with him, enjoyed reading this article and did not find many flaws in the professor’s logic. There is a heavy liberal tint in his words that I don’t feel comfortable with but I have to admit that he presents powerful arguments. Such arguments will have to be tackled and dealt with sooner or later. The price of not responding to such fierce (and fair) criticism of Islam is immeasurable - though it’s safe to say it’s likely to involve more erosion of Islamic values, how more, is anybody’s guess.

The problem is that if you listen carefully to her words, Ayan Hirsi’s, Ibn El Waraq’s (he’s done a couple of articles for the Guardian newspaper) and a dozen other former Muslims, you will notice a very peculiar similarity. You will also realise that many non-Muslims peddle these exact arguments. There is a biography of our prophet written by a non-believer (in fact, there are several). This can be found in any ordinary bookshop or can be bought online (try Amazon). The ideas that Irshad, Ayan and Salman try to flog us are mostly found in such books! Many of us are fortunate enough to have come across the “right†literature and interpretation of our faith before we had to face any of the vomit that Ms Hirsi & co spout. When we’re faced with these people and their rhetoric, it’s easy for us to dismiss them and refuse to engage them (they’re plainly wrong). But, how many potential Irshad or Ayan live amongst us? How many enquiring minds are there that are not satisfied with these empty dismissals and would want to know why people dismiss such ideas? In all the threads on SOL about such people (Irshad, Ayan, etc) how many people actually dealt with the ideas instead of the people? How many can? Sometimes, silence is the worst ever policy.

That was a deliciously educational post. It gave us all a nicely summarised background of the situation. Of course, it hardly deals with any of my questions, but I’m at least relived that it’s out now and we would not have to refer to history again on this thread (I hope). I must congratulate you on the last paragraph. The idea was beautifully expressed and clearly received. Now, in between sips of coke and mouthfuls of popcorn, let me first agree to the cartoon idea. I dislike Jerry, because Jerry is a deceitful kind of vermin. Worse still, I can’t stand TOM. All that violence, all that aggressiveness and all that tension should really have an 18 certificate and not the Universal one that it has. Still, with this show being universally accessible to everyone, I’m more concerned with the SOL Mice being influenced by Jerry’s unacceptable behaviour, simply because Jerry happens to be a fellow mouse! I might hate Tom, I might disagree with him and I might even fight Tom. I can do all of this without compromising my mousy rules and laws. A true mouse need not employ, support or excuse any ‘caty’ tactics. This whole scenario reminds one of George Orwell’s Animal Farm! Those that read it will recall how the animals rebelled against Man. How the Pigs led the revolution and how, with time, excuses and deceit the Pigs finally got to rule the rest of the animals and eventually ended up having friendly dealings with Man! The book ends with the rest of the animals looking from side to side and not knowing which is Pig and which is Man! That book was a scathing attack on Stalin’s communism and how Stalin distorted the original concepts to fit in with his own needs, prejudice and desires. Should we, like Stalin and the animals, allow others to shape our morals? You see, it’s easy for one to lose one’s temper ( I almost thrashed a rude Bus driver yesterday - I‘m still annoyed at his behaviour even now). It’s easy for one to lash out. It’s easy for one to stir up an angry crowd and fuel the wrath of the mob. Anger, rage and fury can be summoned within seconds, there really is no great skill involved there. Calm on the other hand, is viewed with disdain! What are you scared off? Is the first question an angry person would ask. Why are you not as upset as we are? The mob would shout. We’ve been oppressed for so long, that we now rejoice when we hear our enemy almost chocked on a pretzel! Do you not rejoice with us? The pretzel-eater is killing our people. Do you not lament the dead? What is this calm and sense you preach? Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, saaxib. They killed our brothers and sisters, and you’re expecting us to be rational with our analysis? No, no, no we’re too angry and emotional for sense and prudence. We want vengeance and if getting this vengeance means compromising our faith then so be it.

Originally posted by Nur: Afromali bro. Killing of innocent civilians is forbidden in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, secularism or by Athiesm. Simply it is plain evil. As for those who've committed the attrocities against innocent civilians in New York and London, whoever they are, and whatever their religion, ignorant zealots, masterminds who brainwashed them, or any other political beneficiaries Framers from this mayhem, there is no justification in our faith, and those who have committed these crimes against defenseless civilians going about their daily lives, have indeed committed a crime against all of mankind, they will have to answer to Allah SWT for their crimes, in addition to their painting of our faith a non befitting image which is contrary to all of basic tenets in Islam. It is important not to religiously label the criminal by his religion, because like we agreed, no faith approves of such heinous crimes. Finally we have Bin Laden the alledged 911 mastermind, who the only link to 9/11 is his admission and tapes, ( no neutral commission like the Hague, has so far verified the authenticity of thesae tapes, but the man is the Terror Icon of the century . A man who has worked closely with the US in Afganistan as an ally against the Soviets in the eighties, who only sends his tapes at crucial election seasons to scare voters to stand behind their incumbent president each time their populatities poll slips below 50%. Conspiracy theories claim that Bin Laden, like Elvis Pressley, may have died long time ago ( Hollywood Digital Video editing technologies helped create the tapes they claim ), but may have been kept alive for political purposes, we all know that conspiracy theories are only true when no one believes them, but if this man is never found, and a lot of draconian policies are passed, it would be too late to rewind reality back to where things were before 9/11, we may never reclaim the lost freedoms, and human lives, in addition the freindship bewteen well meaning Muslims and the tolerant American people. Nur Oh! The evading of the question continues and the game of politics is in full flow. I’m in awe saaxib, I really am. You’re all over the place, Nur. You seem to be using the conventional definition of politics to argue your case now. You’re saying not to religiously label the criminal by his religion! How do you label them then? Politically? Do you actually realise how confusing your message is, saaxib? So now you condemn these acts, right? Are you then going to also excuse them by blaming America? You do realise you can’t have both things, don’t you? Note that I didn’t quote your entire post and only took the parts I want to comment on ( I trust that I have not taken anything out of context here or displayed your words in a way that makes them look more incoherent than when you first penned them). Though talking about Bin Laden is a boring subject, I feel I’ll have to address it one more time. You are probably right. These regular ‘coincidences’ are very worrying. The conspiracy theories might even be true! Still, since we have no solid proof of the validity of such conspiracy theories, we have no reason to believe any of them are true. The ‘coincidence explanation’ is therefore as good as the conspiracy itself. Neither can be said to be a fact (not without some proof anyway). What is a fact, one that I and (I’m sure) you have come across on many occasions, is the fanaticism of our fellow Muslims. I know I’ve met many ignorant brothers in the past that talk of death and murder in the name of faith as a scared duty! There are many out there (in the Arab world, Asia and now Iraq) that would have no scruples with killing innocent people if they believed it will further their warped idea of Islam. You must have met such people, saaxib! You must have seen the Salamn Rushdi demonstrators (or were you too young then?), you must have seen the recent Murder in Holland (not a conspiracy theory again!). There is so much real, solid, visual evidence to prove that people like Bin Laden do exist. That those behind the London bombings were REAL Muslims and that many that carry the Iraq attacks are real Muslims. Why then does such an intelligent man as yourself still attempt to flog the dead horse of conspiracy? If you don’t think the nineteen that brought down the Twin Towers were Muslim that’s ok. Let us assume they were not and that all the conspiracy theories are true. Still, there are groups of Muslims in London (Al Muhajeroon ) who believed them to be Muslim and celebrated the “great†act of the “magnificent†nineteen! There are “Muslims†kidnapping and killing children in Russia, hijacking theatres in Moscow and now blowing up police stations in Iraq! Is it all a conspiracy theory? But what about the many that write articles, send e-mails and phone TV debates to praise Bin Laden and ‘his’ acts of terror? Conspiracy theory too? I’m not going to carry on with real life evidence for fear of discovering that the whole world are conspiring against me and you, saaxib. Time for more reflection, saaxib. EDIT I was about to delete this post (after reading Nur’s last post). However, and without any offence to Nur, I decided to leave it as an illustration of one of the points I was making all along. Viking, Why do I feel like I’m answering the same question over and over again? Ok, let us go back to the beginning. The Iraq invasion was wrong. The Iraq occupation is wrong. The Afghanistan invasion and occupation are/were both wrong. I always went by the principle that some obvious points need not be mentioned and that people read between the lines. Only a mad man would justify the Iraq and Afghanistan war, in the same way that only a mad man would justify the London bombings. Some people here sought to justify the latter, therefore, using similar weak arguments I sought to justify the former(I believe I did a better job). I suggest you read everything I wrote on this subject to know why I disagree with your last post.

Nur, Though you still didn’t answer my question CLEARLY, I shall not pester you for an answer anymore and will instead use your arguments as an indication of your stance. But first, let me swiftly deal with your questions. My allegiance will always be to my faith. My faith is not a custom, tradition or culture that I can discard when I move from country to country. It’s not open to question or compromise. I’m a Muslim because I believe in Islam and not because my father was/is one. I think, and hope, that there was nothing vague or ambiguous about my answer to your question. I notice that you tried to give me a helping hand there with that hint of yours. This is where I disagree with you and this whole situation. I believe that I follow and adhere to a morally superior set of values and beliefs. I don’t believe that I should base my judgments, moral positions and even political decisions (taking into account your decorated explanation of the word ‘politics’) on the actions of the Zionists, Capitalists, Imperialists, Communists or people that follow other faiths. To disagree with the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir or any other place where Muslims are oppressed does not and should not equal agreeing with unlawful acts committed by fellow Muslims too. One should not try to explain the latter away simply because one is unhappy with the former. This, I’m afraid to say, is what many of the people I’ve been debating with on this forum have been doing. I don’t believe any of them are intentionally being duplicitous. However, and in keeping with traditional Muslim reactions, they’re instinctively thinking of their own people (i.e. our brothers and sisters in Iraq) and letting their emotions blinker their judgment (or maybe even their ignorance). Brother, there is a big difference between saying “ I denounce the bombings in London but I’m frankly more concerned with the invasion of Iraq, because they’re my peopleâ€, or saying “ I denounce the bombings in London but they really had it coming, because of the invasion of Iraqâ€. This is why Anglo Saxons in London lament and feel for the dead of NY more than they would the dead of Iraq (there is a hint of ‘our people’ involved there). Empathy with one side or another is not something to frown upon or criticise. However, when that empathy is the driving force behind making moral judgments, I’ll strongly oppose, criticise and resist it. Have sympathy, have compassion, have hate even. But, one should try to prevent such sentiments from clouding one’s judgment. It is really simple, Nur. Try to control your emotions and isolate your anger. Try to remember all those lectures you habitually give on Islam and Muslim behaviour. How were we supposed to behave? Why were we behaving in such a way? What is the Ajer in doing this and the punishment in doing that? What are the benefits? What are the ills? You know the drill, saaxib.. Once you’ve done all of that, maybe you’ll find a way to explain to me how the morality of the IRA, Israel and America (or lack of) fits into the way we adjust and interpret our own values (those that you tirelessly remind us off on this site). Wrong is wrong and it should not change from one place to another or depending on who committed the wrong. However, if we decide to ditch our principles and play the game according to western rules and regulations, then we are being two-faced and we doubly lose the moral high ground. This is what is happening here. PS I can’t let this quote of yours pass without comment: You write: Shout it out clearly and support your brothers in Jihad. If on the other hand, you think this whole thing to be wrong and not compatible with your religious beliefs or morals, denounce it, shout about how wrong it is and argue until you’re blue in the face . Saaxib I am sure we heard this question from Bush before, and before him Mussolini, ( Chi e non con me , a contra di me ) Brother, Allah provides rizq, and protects life and causes security, be true to Allah, your logic is so warped, you would have sent Moses and the oppressed Israelites to work with Pharaoh, because, their weakness was their sin, you are indeed a great deliverer of the oppressed. Heh! Though my words will make no difference to you, because you obviously made up your mind on this (are you always so hasty?), I’ll still respectfully state that these opinions of mine are not made with Brits or Americans in mind. I have had such opinions from the days I lived in the Arab world and heard ****** legalising the blood of non-believers; for the simple reason that they’re non-believers! And treating every wrong action by a Muslim against a non-Muslim as correct and just, while treating all exact actions by non-Muslims against anyone as wrong! People dying in Iraq, Palestine or Chechnya become regrettable statistics when viewed alongside the more alarming menace of such duplicitous and, frankly, immoral views. I have no idea how you managed to fit prophet Musa and the Israelites into this discussion! Still, I shan’t patronise you with an Islamic anecdote in reply. I’m sure you’re intelligent, resourceful and knowledgeable enough to find an opposing story all on your own (it might even have our great prophet in it and might involve times of weakness, etc).

Nur, As for the article, I believe I’ve pre-empted such logic in my earlier replies on this site. I needn’t’ split hairs here by referring to all the terrorist attacks before September 2001 or the Iraq War. What I found fascinating in your reply and, is also really the crux of this matter, was the tentative way you seem to be supporting these terrorists! Do you BELIEVE in their cause, saaxib? If you do, why are you sitting on the fence? If you don’t, why are you trying to explain it away? Nur, I’m afraid that in spite of the several posts you’ve made on this topic, I still can’t tell what side of the fence you’re on. I’ll return later insha allah with a more detailed reply. Have to go home now.

That’s the beauty of it all. I can’t tell if you’re into stamp collecting, eighteenth century corsets or the mummification of tiny insects. Even if you do cheat, the hope is that you’ll choose an interesting topic, saaxib.

Rejoice, rejoice! Here is your chance to paraphrase, openly plagiarise or copy. Are you up for a Google challenge? The Challenge: 1. Randomly choose a subject you’re not familiar with (e.g. operating a nuclear submarine). 2. Google as much information as possible on the subject 3. Write a post on the subject making sure that you convince your readers of your knowledge on the subject Rules: 1. You have to write an initial post indicating your willingness to take up the challenge 2. The challenge only lasts one week (i.e. One week from the day you indicated your willingness to take part). 3. You’ll have to be able to answer with questions (if any should arise) on your topic. If you do cut and paste, you’ll have to provide a link. PS The challenge will only be interesting if the topics chosen are exciting, fascinating or plain weird.

^^^ Still doing the tedious one-liners I see! Care to explain that one line with another? It wasn’t very clear, see.

This thread makes some sporadic sense. However, the predictable Islamic apology and rationalisation are still clearly evident. There is a good debate to be had when discussing the encroachments of laws specifically introduced to deal with “terrorâ€. There is an even better one regarding the differences between terrorists, gorillas, rebels, insurgents, resistance or freedom fighters. There are arguments about cot death, domestic violence, crime, drugs and a dozen other subjects that deal with death. There is even the customary debate about Israel and its special relation with the United States! All these are good discussions and are worth examining, on their own. There is also the veiled ‘understanding’ and sympathy for ‘terrorists’. The one that makes light of their despicable actions just because the mighty superpower with the mighty navy has done ‘worse’ things! Ah! Right in the end, you come back with a post questioning if any of these ‘terrorists’ actually exist and linking the actions (and timing of them) to the popularity of Bush and Blair! This is a question of morality. Yours and mine, not America’s! There is no point in one mincing one’s words, avoiding the glaringly obvious questions or burying one’s head in the sand. Having listened to and read people’s opinions (Muslim people) on this terror issue, I still find it shocking that the overwhelming majority are indifferent to the whole thing (unless it affects them directly). In the aftermath of the September events in America, many Muslims worried about the implications and consequences of such an act! After the events of last week, many Muslims, again, spoke about how bad things are going to get and how new draconian laws aimed at Muslims might be introduced! Even here, on this site, the first reaction of many was “I hope the consequences of this are not bad for Muslimsâ€. It’s all self-indulgent nonsense really. There is no question of RIGHT and WRONG here, it’s all relative. Big navies and pirates; big cluster bombs and ‘desperate’ tube train explosions; superpowers and lashing out victims! It’s all nicely explained away and put into neat and acceptable compartments. I don’t buy this. I spent all my life being told and believing that I come from the best nation in the history of the world. I was brought up hearing and believing about the tolerance of my faith. I still hear the same stories, still get lectured with the same historical anecdotes and still believe every single word of it. What I don’t believe or can understand is that the same people that share such beliefs and stories with me, the same staunch, pious, devout and fearful people are now indifferent to obvious wrongs committed by those that claim to be part of us! In fact, for many, indifference is not even the correct description. Many seem to be overtly supportive of such acts and would explain it away with the ‘tit-for-tat’ reasoning! Now, that’s not the only problem. The same group of people that are indifferent, supportive or undecided are also the same group that falls for conspiracy theories and would bring out the Zionist coat hanger at every opportunity! Conspiracy theories are all good and well, and some of them might even be TRUE! However, when we as Muslims use these conspiracy theories, we use them to excuse, overlook and hide from problems that exist within our ranks. It is amazing that many Muslims, the world over, cry havoc and swear vengeance on the West at every given opportunity. That many Imams in Mosques talk about the destruction of Israel and pray for Allah’s help to defeat the occupiers. That everyone is calling for Jihad in Kashmir, Russia, Bosnia, Thailand and every place where Muslims are oppressed. That they all blame the West (and Israel) for this and talk of a day of reckoning! Yet, despite all of that, in spite of the obvious unrest found amongst Muslims at large (and the youth in particular), people still BELIEVE in conspiracy theories! Muslims talk about the West’s plan to destroy Islam, yet Islam is destroying itself from within. They talk about the clash of civilisations, yet we’re slowly abandoning all that was civilised about us (with no prompting or force from the West). They talk about holding on to our values, yet we’re letting those gradually slip. My advice to all the readers here is to engage oneself in some serious self-examination and contemplation. Think about your faith, your morals, what you deem to be right and wrong (without the interference of politics, conspiracy theories or games). Think about your duties to your fellow Muslims, to yourself and to your creator. If you still believe that this is a fight between two sides and that the actions of the weaker side are justified by the transgressions of the stronger side, then don’t play with words, hide behind slogans or arguments and stay silent. Shout it out clearly and support your brothers in Jihad. If on the other hand, you think this whole thing to be wrong and not compatible with your religious beliefs or morals, denounce it, shout about how wrong it is and argue until you’re blue in the face.

^^^ Not bad for a first post. Welcome aboard.

^^^ WoL: Robert Frisk should visit this site

Though this is one of those monotonous topics where females with bullets search from someone to shoot, and therefore, not my kind of topic. I’ll still respond. The song above put me in mind of another song that’s always been popular with women the world over. Sing with me, girls.. Early in the morning I put breakfast at your table, and make sure that your coffee has its sugar and cream... Your eggs are overeasy, your toast unlikely, all that's missing is your morning kiss that used to greet me... Now you say the juice is sour, it used to be so sweet, and I can't help but to wonder if you're talking about me... We don't talk the way we used to talk, it's hurting so deep, I've got my pride, I will not cry, but it's making me weak... I'm not your superwoman... I'm not the kind of girl that you can let down, and think that everything is okay... Boy I am only human... This girl needs more than occasional hugs as a token of love from you to me... I fought my way through the rush hour trying to make it home just for you... I want to make sure that your dinner will be waiting for you... But when you get there, you just tell me you're not hungry at all, you said you'd rather read the paper and you don't want to talk... You like to think that I'm just crazy when I say that you've changed, I'm convinced I know the problem, you don't love me the same... You're just going through the motions and you're not being fair, I've got my pride, I will not cry, still I can't help but care!!! I'm not your superwoman...(oh no no no!!!) I'm not the kind of girl that you can let down and think that everything is okay... Boy I am only human...(I'm only human!!!) This girl needs more than occasional hugs as a token of love from you to me... I'm not your superwoman... I'm not the kind of girl that you can let down and think that everything is okay... Boy I am only human... This girl needs more than occasional hugs as a token of love from you to me... Oooh, baby!!! Look into the corners of your mind, I'll always be there for you through good and bad times, but I can't be the superwoman that you want me to be!! I'll give my everlasting love if you'll return love to me!! I'm not your superwoman!!!! I'm not the kind of girl that you can let down and think that everything is okay... Boy I am only human... This girl needs more than occasional hugs as a token of love from you to me... Oh!!! If you feel it in your heart and you understand me, stop right where you are, everybody sing along with me! (hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo...) I'm the kind of girl that can treat you so sweet, but you got to realize that you got to be sweeter to me!!! I need love, I need just your love, I'm not your superwoman. Source

If that’s the case, are you then saying that the ends justify the means and that the London bombing is no big deal? After all, America did it in Hiroshima so why shouldn’t anyone else do it in London? We can talk about the different theories all day, saaxib. We can speculate and guess as to the reasons behind dropping those bombs. We can even question the morality of the whole situation. But, we can’t rewrite history or complicate simple acts. The bombs were dropped at an enemy state. One that America was at war with for several years. One that America was still at war with when the bombs were dropped. The American government at the time reasoned that the bomb was necessary because it saved lives (American lives). It took its decision in accordance with the circumstances, climate and outlook of the time (remember that World War II lasted several years). How and in what way can that (revisionist or not) be compared to acts of terror against civilians by ‘unknown’ aggressors? You say: “This is a psychological tag of war. A different kind of war where many people's loyalty becomes misplaced. A moral game of manipulation. Who will fall for it? Maybe most of us willâ€. That’s fine, but I’ll repeat my original question: who is the other side in the fight? Do you approve of this ‘war’ then?

And the moralising and straw clutching carries on and on! It wouldn’t be so bad if the comparisons were remotely similar, however, they are not. First of all, let us deal with the argument that the London bombings were a result of the Iraq war. The argument seems to be that if there were no Iraq war, there would not have been any London bombs! I’ll concede this as a remote possibility. There is a distant chance that those that carried the attacks in London are a new breed of terrorists who are totally unlinked to any other ‘movements’ and ideologies. But, with it being a very unlikely (remote) possibility, it also should not become the main argument when making this comparison. The overwhelming evidence suggests that this (new breed of terrorist) is not the case. The attacks on the world trade centre in 1993; the bombing of the American Embassy in 1998 and the 2001 plane bombings of the world trade centre (again) in 2001 ALL took place way before the Iraq war! Bombings and terrorist attacks, you see, did not start with Madrid and Turkey or London (or even Bali). Will you now attempt to explain away each and every incident and try to link it to Iraq? This type of fraudulent, blinkered and apologetic view of such murders should really stop. The wicked people that intentionally blow up civilians at least seem to have some sort of ideology and conviction. Wrong and evil it may be, however, all those observing it, know that it would stand up to scrutiny. Their basic argument is that the end justifies the means; the end seems to be the destruction of all non-believers and the waging of war in the name of Islam. The American message will also easily withstand any scrutiny. Theirs is to spread liberty and freedom to whatever place they deem in need of such qualities. It’s imperialistic, some might argue. It’s immoral, some might say. But wasn’t that always what superpowers did? Didn’t the Romans do it? Didn’t the Brits do it? Didn’t WE in our old Muslim Empire (Khilafa) do it? Aha! Hang on a minute there old chap, some would say. We did it to spread the message of Islam, not to exploit the wealth of nations! It’s a more noble cause, you see. And I’d say it certainly is/ was. But, would a non-Muslim agree? If you can justify this one, the Americans can also justify theirs. Are things getting clearer or are we still blindly trying to look for excuses and make allowances? Now let me turn my attention to World War Two and the outrageous attempt to compare what took place there to the motives and consequences of the London events. You ask why should the world swallow the Hiroshima bombings with much more ease than the bombing of the World Trade Centre? I can’t decide here weather you’re being stubborn and argumentative for the sake of arguing; or unaware of the history of that war; or, which is the worst of the three really, your moral judgment is flawed! Without needing to give you a history lesson here (you can Google the details), World War II started in 1939 and ended in 1945. There were millions of deaths and unnecessary losses of life. Almost all of Europe, much of Asia and Africa (not to mention Australia and the United States) were involved in this war (at one time or another). Japan WAS the aggressor (along with Germany of course). Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. Japan carried on fighting long after Germany was defeated. Japan still fought even after the Hiroshima bomb. Japan only surrendered when Nagasaki too was bombed and it saw what devastation such a weapon can unleash. The world understood then, and understands now that such a bomb (at the time) was a necessity and helped in ending a long and brutal war. The London incident last week, my dear irksome Nomad, makes no difference to the conflict between the West and these terrorist individuals. Bombing London will not make the British government change its policy. There, simply, shall be NO surrender. To read you even attempting to make the comparison gives the impression that you actually APPROVE of such terrorist actions. If you do, it would go against all your ‘beliefs’ not to be man enough to admit it.

What I don’t agree is the argument that those civilians who die at the hands of stronger state waging UNJUST war is justifiable or less evil. “Collateral Damageâ€, “Surgical Attackâ€, and “Smart or guided bombs†do kill innocent people. They are dropped intentially in a metropolitan area like London (in this case Baqdad) as long as they do the job regardless of the human cost. The priority is to handicap the regime by any means necessary and to lessen the casualty of invading army. You seem to be arguing that this kind of loss of civilians came about in a familiar War declared and waged by known state that loudly claims her willingness to follow the rules of engagement at the discretion of its generals on the field! But you leave one glaring fact: the fact the war in itself is UNJUST! Because it is unjust war, any civilians killed in circumstances they didn't create is as evil as the ones that lost their lives in London. If the argument here was simply war in Iraq and the justifications for it, questioning of methods used and conduct of the coalition forces (from a Muslim point of view), I might have tuned my rhetoric down and conceded a few points, saaxib. However, I did not set the course of this discussion. Rather, it was decided by those that chose to compare WAR with terrorist actions (therefore seeking to minimize and lessen the appearance of the latter). Some Nomads chose to bring Iraq into the discussion and attempted to use it as an excuse for this atrocity, saaxib. Some continue to do so. It’s not, or at least that’s how I read it, some throwaway comment uttered in anger. They were actually “moralising†the issue and judging one in relation to the other! I still insist that no such comparison exists. For to apply a comparison, and a moral one at that, only strengthens my own case when justifying the actions of the coalition in Iraq. This habit of “comparative†moralising goes both ways, saaxib. To say that the bombs in London are as evil as those in Iraq throws up a whole lot of moral and ethical questions. That death occurred in both places is not enough reason to construct such a comparison. Death and war happens the world over. Are all forms of death evil then? Would someone killing in self-defence be regarded the same as someone killing in cold blood? Is accidental death the same as intentional murder? As you can tell by now, I disagree with the notion that all death is evil (as your post above implied). Some cases of death are unavoidable, such as the issue of collateral damage. Yes, one can argue about the morality of collateral damage, but that would be an entirely different discussion. Here you see, collateral damage would be LESS evil than intentional damage. For collateral damage (as the term is used) implies lack of intention or desire to kill civilians. It’s purely a consequence of war. It’s avoided if it can be helped and regretted when it occurs. It’s not the intended target of whoever commits it; it’s not an end in itself. On the other hand, bombing tube trains or lines of unarmed men standing outside police stations, is the actual target and aim. When one attempts to moralise and pass judgment on the one act (London bombings) based on the results of the other (Iraq, collateral damage, etc) is it not then clear who would hold the moral high ground there? Is it also not right to justify the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? The moralists amongst us are applying their own arbitrary rules and principles here. It is akin to saying “ I condemn the war in south Somalia, however, it’s not half as bad as the one WE had to suffer in the northâ€. Note the similarity? It’s in the use of the “weâ€. How much different is that from the use of “our brothers and sisters in Iraqâ€? Morality seems to be applied in accordance to what side of the fence you’re on. These murders (which can or can not be attributed to me) though bad, are not half as evil as your murders! To put it in other words, the consensus seems to be “it’s no big dealâ€. Now to move to your point about war being unjust! This was an oversight on your part, saaxib. I’ve already stated that war was unjust (see why I keep telling people not to hurry reading?). Be that as it may, war is a fact of life. Civilians, throughout history, got caught up in war (many died). Had the words “War is UNJUST†been the cry and practise of all humans, I would also be screaming that slogan at the top of my lungs. However, that is not the case and hardly ever been the case. War, by the evidence we have from all time, is indeed just. Might is right and to the victor the spoils, etc.. Slogans and perfect truths aside, what makes war just or unjust are the people involved in it and the side of the fight they’re in. For example, many of the anti-Saddam people in the West, Arab world and Iraq regarded that war as justifiable, fair and necessary (some even excused the ‘collateral damage’ as a small price to pay when getting rid of such an ‘evil’ dictator). The anti-America brigade on the other hand, could never see any reasons to justify that war! What makes the second group right and the first not? Is it because Islam said so? I suppose not even I could argue with divine authority! However, Islam also said many things about the killing of innocent lives. Should it not apply here and completely relegate the comparison between War and the London events into an insignificant rant? Zigzagging round topics, ethics and principles to fit in with one’s own prejudices is fraudulent and will, almost always, render one’s grievance null and void. Which is why the invasion of Iraq is justified and the invasion of Afghanistan is justified.....

^^^^Absolutely. Though there is such a thing as scale, as you kindly just demonstrated.