Ina Lilahi wa ina Ileyhi Raji'uun. Allah ha u naxariisto.

Ya Viking, how interesting, a while back you were brave and persistent enough to spew your gross lies chaotically under the umbrella of defendingâ€an intellectualâ€! and now look at this, it was all based on your Feelings! Habibi, YA Habibi you found solace uh, are your desires a legitimate proof that one cannot use the refutation of a scholar to enlighten others? The notion of someone being guilty of sins (slander & attacking) by conveying the fatwah of a shaykh to others is frankly pathetic! It is not "lies" or any "umbrella". I told you to stop attacking scholars/intellectuals et al. because it causes nothing but fitna. You take your fatwas from Saudi Arabia, another one takes them from Cairo, others from Qom etc. If others did the same, we'd be in a big mess that we are unable to handle. I might not agree with ibn Baz in some issues but I will not stand back while someone 'cuts n pastes' from other sites where another scholar "disagreeing with him" and calls him apostate. For you, it is a simple matter of "dacwa", but you'll find another person's dacwa offensive when they come with fatwas from outside Saudi Arabia that are critical of Saudi scholars (calling them apostates). At the end of the day, we'll find ourselves in hot soup! Many people have tried to warn you, but your obstinate nature decided to make it a game of "tennis", that's your chosing mate. Saxib I commend you for the following words, had you pen them when you first decided take a ride in this threat, our little skirmish would have ended awhile back! But your spiteful antics began a game of tennis! you see my dear brother you accused me of a great offence that I did not appreciate! 'Gross lies', 'spiteful antics', you call them what you want. Whatever words people chose to use when adressing you on this issue, the message from practically everyone here has been quite clear for some time now, STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING! I'm glad you finally got the message and sincerely hope that there won't be similar "skirmishes" in the future.

Salafi, Ya Allah, hii ni kama kupigia mbuzi guitar! You still don't get the point do you? At some point in my life, I used to be like you, criticising Islamic scholars, thinkers, intellectuals, Muftis etc., call them what you want here. I used to criticise people like Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab, ibn Baaz, Al-Albanee et al. and all "my words" were from other very distinguished scholars. I found solace in the fact that I wasn't actually the one criticising them (that scholars with immense credentials had done the job for us), the same defense you are using here on these boards. But I'd like to believe that I am wiser now for I abtsain from indulging in such discussions because they aren't in my (or anyone's) interest. That it only causes division, hatred and unecessary friction between Muslims. If you want to keep on doing what you are doing, that's upto you mate. Originally posted by Alle-ubaahne: Haye vicking, Where abu Hanifa is saying that, no killing, just imprisonment? I guess you can't prove what Prof. NGONGE has failed to prove. I will listen whatever you present, but be ready for any rejections if that will not comform the purest sense of Islam. Alle Ubaahne, In Islam, women (unlike men) are not put to death for blasmpemy but put in life imprisonment. This is not Abu Hanifa's view but a general consensus among all schools of thought, even the Ja'fari. I used Abu Hanifa's example which says that non-Muslims cannot be sentenced to death for blasphemy (and cannot be apostates since they aren't Muslims). This has been my understanding and anyone who finds out otherwise is welcome to share their findings.

Salafi, What you and I say (that is negative) about a dead intellectual is slander, because that kind of thing is 'above our league'. Notice how I didn't use the word 'slander' in describing the manner in which the scholar criticised Sayid Qutb? There is a reason for that. In English, when someone starts by saying "correct me if I'm wrong...", it usually means that they are going to make an assumption (or a statement that you might not agree with). It doesn't mean that what the person said is "based on mere conjecture, devoid of knowledgehas already made up their mind", as you so eloquently but erroneously put it. It is a kind of invitation for you to prove the person wrong (which you haven't). And if you have read all (or most of) Sayid Qutb's works, just say so. Stop being so damn evasive, for this is getting monotonous now! Alle Ubahanane, I think that (atleast according to Abu Hanifa), a non-Muslim cannot be senteced to death for blasphemy. Women (like in the case of Ayan Hirsi) are NOT to be killed according to Islamic jurisprudence, they are given a chance to reiterate and then imprisoned if that doesn't help.

About the England game ...am I the only one missing Scholes?? I felt sorry for the England side when he announced his retirement, for he was their playmaker. He made sure the team keeps possession and passes well on the opponents half, creating chances for the forwards. Xavi was a giant in the midfield and Lampard was forced to sit on Ferdinand's lap throughout the game. Totti, I think you are referring to Engonga who also played for Mallorca, he's the only black player I've seen play for the Spanish national team. I've also been watching Spanish football for some years now and haven't heard of any racial issues. There isn't much racism (at club level) in the top footballing nations, but East European nations' fans are known to racially abuse black players. Among the top leagues in Europe, the most racist club is found in Italy (Lazio). Sven Goran Eriksson wanted to buy some black players to change the supporters mentality. He was targetting Thuram (who was sometimes abused when playing for Parma and Juve at the Olimpico) for some time but failed to secure a move. Vicente Engonga

Originally posted by Salafi_Da3wa: You have some powers there, Are you sure I have not read any of his books? or listened to and read the refutations of the 10+ scholars! See when your not sure of something, its best to ask first,then remain patient until your given a response! seems your convinced though! You must have missed the part where I said... "Correct me if I am wrong and please don't be shy; you haven't read Fi Zilal al-Qur'an and Macalim fi'l-tareeq (In The Shade of The Qur'an) but still endorse the view of "other respected scholars'" verdict on his ideas and works?" This is where you were to come in and say ..."I have read his books and agree with Sheikh X's accusations , or alternatively, I haven't read any of his books but agree with anything Sheikh X says since he is a such a revered scholar . Viking perhaps my words and Shaykh Muqbil do not carry weight in your sight, if such is the case, then please Ask Brother Nur! since I have discussed this with him before! Neither Nur nor Shaykh Muqbil will get me to slander someone else, especially deceased Muslim intellectuals. The last time about, you were slandering the late Maulana Mawdoodi and Nur asked you how many of his books you had read. Your elusive answer said it all!

Fulham, Tottenham and Charlton.

Salafi, You still don't get it do you? I'll serve you some cud if you are too obtuse to go easy-grazing... Correct me if I am wrong and please don't be shy; you haven't read Fi Zilal al-Qur'an and Macalim fi'l-tareeq (In The Shade of The Qur'an) but still endorse the view of "other respected scholars'" verdict on his ideas and works? You are brave in protecting the corrupt Saudi monarchy but quick to call anyone who doesn't conform to your narrow-minded views an apostate! Akhi, I have been reading what you have posted here for some time and I think you are moving too fast; you can't run before you can crawl or walk. You are today in the business of calling people 'apostate' even without reading their works just because another learned mortal criticised him. This is a dangerous path you are taking, save your skin instead of (as sahal tells you) chewing the flesh of dead Muslim intellectuals (I'll resort to the term 'intellectual' because 'scholars' isn't good enough for some people - despite the term also meaning "a learned person" in the English lexicon). I sincerely suggest that you do not mix in affairs that are above you! Swahiliga wexeey ku maah maahan "nyani hajioni kundule"! Daayerku futadiisu uma muuqato. This is the same damn message I've been trying to convey to you in vain! PS: Here's some Milestone for any interested persons... http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/index_2.asp

Ciid Wanaagsan!

Originally posted by Salafi_Da3wa: ^^^ Please do not misconstruct my post again SXB, (this is not the first time) the intention of the post is NOt to attack but simply Draw attention to those who used Mr Qutb as source of dalil for their argument! in addition it was a heads up for those those who are urge to read his works! This is a public form after all, exercising ones opinion is still permissable right? I will leave you with this and hope you get the meaning "addeena an Naseeha"(bukhari) Salafi, If the attacks towards Sayid Qutb were from you (assuming you were qualified to do such a thing), then people would give it much thought and look into your words. But copying what you have seen another person say about him doesn't give you the right to spread mischief on these boards. Am I the only one critical of your ways? No! Everyone (including the admin) was on your throat last time you did this. But it seems you never learn from your mistakes. If you don't like Qutb and the others, just say so. Don't resort to saying that he makes things up to satisfy his whims. As much as I don't like to engage you in these sticky issues, you leave me with no option when you come and defile a topic like you did earlier. I hope you come to your senses and stop this constant attack on scholars! PS: I didn't get the meaning of 'adeena wa naseexa' Please break it down for I am just a mere simpleton.

(I'll be less diplomatic than the two Nomads above) Salafi, No one had questionned or even highlighted the 'short-comings' of a scholar until you stepped in. It would be better for all of us if you refrained from such attacks mate.

I would say the same but the problem with Juventus is that they don't have a big squad like Milan. Milan can replace almost any player and bring on an equally talented player. They have without doubt the strongest bench in the world with the likes of Stam, Rui Costa, Crespo, Kaladze, Serginho, Dhorasoo et al. players who would be in the starting line-up of almost any big team. If Juve go all season without losing Nedved or Emerson, then they might clinch it.

De Rossi is indeed a talented player. Roma has some interesting players but they play untactically (but entertaining to watch) just like players do in Serie B and C. I liked the way the coach removed Delvechio (in their game against AC Milan) and Mancini was brought to the left side, Cafu's runs were blocked effectively and that's one of the reasons Milan played worse in the 2nd half. Del Neri is a tactician but would require to rule with an iron fist in order to keep all those egos in check. I think Roma would be a better team if they bought some experienced players who would help them play better tactically, young players tend to be over-zealous and tend to score in the beginning only to lose a game in the end. They miss players who play like Thern, Aldair, Emerson et al.

The most passionate derbys would be Celtic-Rangers and Roma-Lazio. The best Rome derbys were during the time Sven was at Lazio and the Rome teams won the Scudetto in successive years (Capello winning at Roma the year after Sven helped Lazio win the title). Many people thought for some time that Rome would be the football capital of Italy but things changed dramatically since Cragnotti's pockets 'emptied'. But the most talented players to be found in a derby is by far the Milano derby; seeing passinonate and talented skippers like Bergomi and Baresi fight throughout the years for their sides was always pleasurable to watch. That's why it's my favourite derby

I read an article about a goalie who played briefly for Arsenal called Rami Shaaban, he said regarding fasting... "I spoke to Kolo Toure about that because he is a Muslim too. He said that the day before and the day we have a game we eat but after Ramadan we will fast more days." Originally posted by Bachelor: I dont think he is that good player though honestly, he deosnt carry himself professionally. I watched Bolton's last couple of matches and Diouf was by far the best player on the pitch. He worked tirelessly and played like the guy we saw in the Korea/Japan world cup. He acts like a brat but is a very good player. I think in Bolton he has found a stern coach and an experienced group that can help him mature somewhat.

J11, You seem to have misunderstood my points. I wasn't discussing the 'intentions' of the western govts who call for "integration" of Muslims. I know very well that what they are calling for is (atleast in most cases) assimilation, hence my emphasis on semantics. When a western country wants to fund the training of Imams, it is clear that they want to "moderate" Muslims, making us (and especially the up-coming generation) the kind of Muslims THEY want them to be and not what Allah SWT expects from us. I know their intentions very well, the Qur'an is an ample warner for anyone wanting to know what we are up against. Regarding education, you also misunerstood my point. It is true (as you say) that not everyone who wants has access to higher education or a decent job. But I believe that even those who are TRYING to get into this position (i.e. study or work) are integrated. They are in some way part of the society when compared to healthy seemigly young guys who chew khat and sit in cafes all day discussing decade-old clan politics. I also consider a housewife who is taking care of five children, taking them to school, helping them with homework etc to be an integrated individual. Even though she is not studying, working or paying taxes, she is actively contributing to the future of the society she is living in. Let me ask you, (am assuming by reading some of your posts that you are an active member of society) do you consider yourself integrated, assimilated or alienated? And, if I work (or study) and at the same time remain a good Muslim (praying, fasting, abstaining from what is forbidden etc.), should I be referred to as assimilated, integrated or both? The point Mutakalim brought up about voting (and Qutbi's view) is important in knowing the extent of one's 'integration'. Because if you vote in the west and Islam forbids it, then you can be considered as assimilating (not integrating), eagerly trying to be part of the society to an extent that you are breaking the Law of Allah SWT. As for the reason the French have banned the hijab in schools, it is the same reason the Turks have banned hijab in universities, to nurture secularism. It has (in my view) nothing to do with integration, they want Muslims to "absorb" (assimilate) into the system leaving behind their beliefs and values.

assimilate • verb 1 take in and understand (information or ideas). 2 absorb and integrate into a people or culture. 3 absorb and digest (food or nutrients). 4 regard as or make similar. — DERIVATIVES assimilable adjective assimilation noun assimilative adjective assimilator noun. — ORIGIN Latin assimilare ‘absorb, incorporate’, from similis ‘like’. integration • noun 1 the action or process of integrating. 2 the intermixing of peoples or groups previously segregated. — DERIVATIVES integrationist noun. J11, I have always known these two words to mean quite different things. Integrated individuals are those who study, work, pay taxes and follow the laws of their adopted countries as long as it doesn't interfere with their own beliefs (which they haven't abandoned even after migrating), just like the posters here on the forums. Assimilation has a "negative" connotation and examples of assimilated individuals are people like Jack Straw and Micheal Howard. They are Jews who have absorbed into the system and even taken on gentile names (Micheal Howard used to be Micheal Hecht). If you look closely at the quote you posted from Oxford dictionary, it says "absorb and integrate" , meaning that one cannot be assimilated without being integrated but can be integrated without being assimilated. That is why the word 'assmilition' has not been used to describe integration. The word 'assimilation' is used when describing absorption (in plants) during photosynthsis and the absorption of nutrients through the roots. This is referred to 'assimilation' and cannot be described as 'integration'.

Shyhem, You clearly have not read the article, it is not a conspiracy theory but a view that is different from what is served to you by the mass-media. It must be difficult for you to hear about another side of the story after being fed the usual crap day in day out eh? As for "what really hapenned", I am familiar with that site and can even recommend others crap sites to your list I personally prefer sites like www.yellowtimes.org they don't serve the "dish of the day" (xaar) 24/7 like the others. No one but you can change your situation, but that doesn't happen when you sit with your buddies and play "grand theft auto" or "vice city" all day

Faan! No one watched this programme?

2. It is permitted to transplant an organ from one person’s body to another, if it is an organ that can regenerate itself, like skin or blood, on the condition that the donor is mature and understands what he is doing , and that all other pertinent shar’i conditions are met. In that case, what would be the ruling on a youngster (about 10 years old) who donates bone-marrow to save another sibling? The kid does not fully "understand what (he/she) is doing".

Ameenah, Nice but faulty! I got 1 wrong out of 30 but it told me that I had got 11 right :confused:

Mutakalim's response is not out of context and made sense. What's all the fuss about?

juba, I think that all sciences that are progressive for humans are encouraged, but under Islamic guidelines. For instance, if genetic engineering is applied to feed the hugry, then it is allowed; but if it is used for creating "designer" babies, then it isn't. Theory of evolution? Have they found the missing link :confused:

It is indeed difficult to recognise when one is afflicted with secterianism It's comparable to having one eye, which makes you lack 3-dimensional view, no depth.

Did anyone watch the interesting 3-part documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" on BBC 2? The last part aired today at 9pm. It confirmed what many Muslims have been suspecting (or saying) for some time now, and I applaud them for having the nuts to air such a documentary that can be seen as 'controversial' by Bush-Blair supporters or the govts of USA and GB. I couldn't imagine it being shown on American TV, it would just be too much for them Here's an article from the Guardian talking about it... --------------------------------------------------------- The making of the terror myth Since September 11 Britain has been warned of the 'inevitability' of catastrophic terrorist attack. But has the danger been exaggerated? A major new TV documentary claims that the perceived threat is a politically driven fantasy - and al-Qaida a dark illusion. Andy Beckett reports Andy Beckett Friday October 15, 2004 The Guardian Since the attacks on the United States in September 2001, there have been more than a thousand references in British national newspapers, working out at almost one every single day, to the phrase "dirty bomb". There have been articles about how such a device can use ordinary explosives to spread lethal radiation; about how London would be evacuated in the event of such a detonation; about the Home Secretary David Blunkett's statement on terrorism in November 2002 that specifically raised the possibility of a dirty bomb being planted in Britain; and about the arrests of several groups of people, the latest only last month, for allegedly plotting exactly that. Starting next Wednesday, BBC2 is to broadcast a three-part documentary series that will add further to what could be called the dirty bomb genre. But, as its title suggests, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear takes a different view of the weapon's potential. "I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year. During the three years in which the "war on terror" has been waged, high-profile challenges to its assumptions have been rare. The sheer number of incidents and warnings connected or attributed to the war has left little room, it seems, for heretical thoughts. In this context, the central theme of The Power of Nightmares is riskily counter-intuitive and provocative. Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power." Adam Curtis, who wrote and produced the series, acknowledges the difficulty of saying such things now. "If a bomb goes off, the fear I have is that everyone will say, 'You're completely wrong,' even if the incident doesn't touch my argument. This shows the way we have all become trapped, the way even I have become trapped by a fear that is completely irrational." So controversial is the tone of his series, that trailers for it were not broadcast last weekend because of the killing of Kenneth Bigley. At the BBC, Curtis freely admits, there are "anxieties". But there is also enthusiasm for the programmes, in part thanks to his reputation. Over the past dozen years, via similarly ambitious documentary series such as Pandora's Box, The Mayfair Set and The Century of the Self, Curtis has established himself as perhaps the most acclaimed maker of serious television programmes in Britain. His trademarks are long research, the revelatory use of archive footage, telling interviews, and smooth, insistent voiceovers concerned with the unnoticed deeper currents of recent history, narrated by Curtis himself in tones that combine traditional BBC authority with something more modern and sceptical: "I want to try to make people look at things they think they know about in a new way." The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence. Curtis' evidence for these assertions is not easily dismissed. He tells the story of Islamism, or the desire to establish Islam as an unbreakable political framework, as half a century of mostly failed, short-lived revolutions and spectacular but politically ineffective terrorism. Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation. Curtis also cites the Home Office's own statistics for arrests and convictions of suspected terrorists since September 11 2001. Of the 664 people detained up to the end of last month, only 17 have been found guilty. Of these, the majority were Irish Republicans, Sikh militants or members of other groups with no connection to Islamist terrorism. Nobody has been convicted who is a proven member of al-Qaida. In fact, Curtis is not alone in wondering about all this. Quietly but increasingly, other observers of the war on terror have been having similar doubts. "The grand concept of the war has not succeeded," says Jonathan Eyal, director of the British military thinktank the Royal United Services Institute. "In purely military terms, it has been an inconclusive war ... a rather haphazard operation. Al-Qaida managed the most spectacular attack, but clearly it is also being sustained by the way that we rather cavalierly stick the name al-Qaida on Iraq, Indonesia, the Philippines. There is a long tradition that if you divert all your resources to a threat, then you exaggerate it." Bill Durodie, director of the international centre for security analysis at King's College London, says: "The reality [of the al-Qaida threat to the west] has been essentially a one-off. There has been one incident in the developed world since 9/11 [the Madrid bombings]. There's no real evidence that all these groups are connected." Crispin Black, a senior government intelligence analyst until 2002, is more cautious but admits the terrorist threat presented by politicians and the media is "out of date and too one-dimensional. We think there is a bit of a gulf between the terrorists' ambition and their ability to pull it off." Terrorism, by definition, depends on an element of bluff. Yet ever since terrorists in the modern sense of the term (the word terrorism was actually coined to describe the strategy of a government, the authoritarian French revolutionary regime of the 1790s) began to assassinate politicians and then members of the public during the 19th century, states have habitually overreacted. Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at Oxford, says that governments often believe struggles with terrorists "to be of absolute cosmic significance", and that therefore "anything goes" when it comes to winning. The historian Linda Colley adds: "States and their rulers expect to monopolise violence, and that is why they react so virulently to terrorism." Britain may also be particularly sensitive to foreign infiltrators, fifth columnists and related menaces. In spite, or perhaps because of, the absence of an actual invasion for many centuries, British history is marked by frequent panics about the arrival of Spanish raiding parties, French revolutionary agitators, anarchists, bolsheviks and Irish terrorists. "These kind of panics rarely happen without some sort of cause," says Colley. "But politicians make the most of them." They are not the only ones who find opportunities. "Almost no one questions this myth about al-Qaida because so many people have got an interest in keeping it alive," says Curtis. He cites the suspiciously circular relationship between the security services and much of the media since September 2001: the way in which official briefings about terrorism, often unverified or unverifiable by journalists, have become dramatic press stories which - in a jittery media-driven democracy - have prompted further briefings and further stories. Few of these ominous announcements are retracted if they turn out to be baseless: "There is no fact-checking about al-Qaida." In one sense, of course, Curtis himself is part of the al-Qaida industry. The Power of Nightmares began as an investigation of something else, the rise of modern American conservatism. Curtis was interested in Leo Strauss, a political philosopher at the university of Chicago in the 50s who rejected the liberalism of postwar America as amoral and who thought that the country could be rescued by a revived belief in America's unique role to battle evil in the world. Strauss's certainty and his emphasis on the use of grand myths as a higher form of political propaganda created a group of influential disciples such as Paul Wolfowitz, now the US deputy defence secretary. They came to prominence by talking up the Russian threat during the cold war and have applied a similar strategy in the war on terror. As Curtis traced the rise of the "Straussians", he came to a conclusion that would form the basis for The Power of Nightmares. Straussian conservatism had a previously unsuspected amount in common with Islamism: from origins in the 50s, to a formative belief that liberalism was the enemy, to an actual period of Islamist-Straussian collaboration against the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan in the 80s (both movements have proved adept at finding new foes to keep them going). Although the Islamists and the Straussians have fallen out since then, as the attacks on America in 2001 graphically demonstrated, they are in another way, Curtis concludes, collaborating still: in sustaining the "fantasy" of the war on terror. Some may find all this difficult to swallow. But Curtis insists,"There is no way that I'm trying to be controversial just for the sake of it." Neither is he trying to be an anti-conservative polemicist like Michael Moore: "[Moore's] purpose is avowedly political. My hope is that you won't be able to tell what my politics are." For all the dizzying ideas and visual jolts and black jokes in his programmes, Curtis describes his intentions in sober, civic-minded terms. "If you go back into history and plod through it, the myth falls away. You see that these aren't terrifying new monsters. It's drawing the poison of the fear." But whatever the reception of the series, this fear could be around for a while. It took the British government decades to dismantle the draconian laws it passed against French revolutionary infiltrators; the cold war was sustained for almost half a century without Russia invading the west, or even conclusive evidence that it ever intended to. "The archives have been opened," says the cold war historian David Caute, "but they don't bring evidence to bear on this." And the danger from Islamist terrorists, whatever its scale, is concrete. A sceptical observer of the war on terror in the British security services says: "All they need is a big bomb every 18 months to keep this going." The war on terror already has a hold on western political culture. "After a 300-year debate between freedom of the individual and protection of society, the protection of society seems to be the only priority," says Eyal. Black agrees: "We are probably moving to a point in the UK where national security becomes the electoral question." Some critics of this situation see our striking susceptibility during the 90s to other anxieties - the millennium bug, MMR, genetically modified food - as a sort of dress rehearsal for the war on terror. The press became accustomed to publishing scare stories and not retracting them; politicians became accustomed to responding to supposed threats rather than questioning them; the public became accustomed to the idea that some sort of apocalypse might be just around the corner. "Insecurity is the key driving concept of our times," says Durodie. "Politicians have packaged themselves as risk managers. There is also a demand from below for protection." The real reason for this insecurity, he argues, is the decay of the 20th century's political belief systems and social structures: people have been left "disconnected" and "fearful". Yet the notion that "security politics" is the perfect instrument for every ambitious politician from Blunkett to Wolfowitz also has its weaknesses. The fears of the public, in Britain at least, are actually quite erratic: when the opinion pollsters Mori asked people what they felt was the most important political issue, the figure for "defence and foreign affairs" leapt from 2% to 60% after the attacks of September 2001, yet by January 2002 had fallen back almost to its earlier level. And then there are the twin risks that the terrors politicians warn of will either not materialise or will materialise all too brutally, and in both cases the politicians will be blamed. "This is a very rickety platform from which to build up a political career," says Eyal. He sees the war on terror as a hurried improvisation rather than some grand Straussian strategy: "In democracies, in order to galvanize the public for war, you have to make the enemy bigger, uglier and more menacing." Afterwards, I look at a website for a well-connected American foreign policy lobbying group called the Committee on the Present Danger. The committee features in The Power of Nightmares as a vehicle for alarmist Straussian propaganda during the cold war. After the Soviet collapse, as the website puts it, "The mission of the committee was considered complete." But then the website goes on: "Today radical Islamists threaten the safety of the American people. Like the cold war, securing our freedom is a long-term struggle. The road to victory begins ... " · The Power of Nightmares starts on BBC2 at 9pm on Wednesday October 20. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004