(As long as Borkan is around and asking)

Islam Can't Escape Blame
My religion has strayed far since its golden age.

BY AMIR TAHERI
October 27, 2001
Wall Street Journal

"This has nothing to do with Islam," British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently told a delegation of Muslims at a meeting at 10 Downing Street, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Mr. Blair was echoing a view, popular both in Europe and the U.S., that it is impolite, not to say impolitic, to subject Islam to any criticism. Yet to claim that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam amounts to a whitewash.
It is not only disingenuous but also a disservice to Muslims, who need to cast a critical glance at the way their faith is taught, lived and practiced.

Even worse, the refusal to subject Islam to rational analysis is a recipe for further fanaticism. Unless we believe those who claim that the Sept. 11 was organized by Israel, we have to assume that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible. And since there is no mechanism for excommunication in Islam, bin Laden and his gang have every right to describe themselves as Muslims.


Al Qaeda did not materialize out of thin air. Nor have they been operating in a vacuum. Bin Laden belongs to a prominent Yemeni-Saudi family that makes much of its Islamic credentials. He began his militant career in 1984 as a fund-raiser for Afghans fighting the communist regime in Kabul in the name of Islam. He had offices in a dozen Muslim countries, none of which regarded his activities as un-Islamic.

In 1993 bin Laden was divested of his Saudi passport but was warmly welcomed in Sudan where a fundamentalist regime is in power. Later, bin Laden was the star of an international conference of Muslim fundamentalists organized in Khartoum by the then-strongman Hassan al-Turabi. He was elected a member of the Supreme Council, whose task is to promote a radical brand of Islam throughout the world. That gave him the right to call himself a "sheik" and issue religious fatwas, or edicts. Again, since there is no clerical hierarchy in Islam, there was no reason why bin Laden could not claim such authority.

Once bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan (under U.S. pressure), he was welcomed in his ancestral homeland of Yemen, another Muslim country. From there he went to Pakistan, the world's second most populous Muslim nation, where he was welcomed not only by the army but also by virtually all of Pakistan's Islamic parties, which Continue to support him.

From Pakistan, bin Laden shifted to Afghanistan, where the Taliban had established what they claimed to be "the only truly Islamic government." The Taliban continue to shelter bin Laden to this day, even in the face of U.S. attacks. To say that bin Laden has nothing to do with Islam and Muslims, therefore, requires a big leap of imagination.

When pressed hard, some Muslim leaders admit that bin Laden is "part of Islam," but try to minimize his place. Dalil Boubakeur, a French Muslim leader, says that bin Laden does not represent more than 1% of Muslims. Some comfort. That 1% means almost 13 million people.

There is more. All but one of the world's remaining military regimes are in Muslim countries. With the exception of Turkey and Bangladesh, there are no real elections in any Muslim country. Of the current 30 active conflicts in the world no fewer than 28 concern Muslim governments and/or communities. Two-thirds of the world's political prisoners are held in Muslim countries, which also carry out 80% of all executions each year.

Anyone familiar with textbooks in most Muslim countries would know the twisted view of the world they propagate and the hatred they promote. Anyone who follows the media in the Muslim world would know that the verbal version of the Sept. 11 attacks is an almost daily fare. Go to the Internet and check the editorials of virtually any Muslim paper on Sept. 10 and see what they were saying about the West in general and the U.S. in particular. Anyone listening to a sermon in virtually any mosque, including many in the West, would be shocked by the vehemence of the anti-Western, especially anti-American, sentiments expressed.

It is both dishonest and dangerous for Muslims to remain in a state of denial. And yet a state of denial is what we have. When Iran's Khomeinists burned 600 people alive in a cinema, the whitewashers said that it had nothing to do with Islam. When the same gang took the American diplomats hostage in Tehran, again the whitewash party insisted that had nothing to do with Islam. And when the suicide bombings bloodied Beirut we were told that Islam had nothing to do with them.


The Muslim world today is full of bigotry, fanaticism, hypocrisy and plain ignorance--all of which create a breeding ground for criminals like bin Laden. The principal victims of these criminals are Muslims, who are prevented from developing a modern political culture without which they cannot reform their societies and rebuild their economies.
What I am saying is not meant as critique of Islam as a belief system; that's an issue for theologians, and people should be free to believe whatever they like. What is needed is a critique of Islam as an existential reality. The Sept. 11 tragedies should trigger a rethink of the way Muslims live Islam. We should start with condemning those attacks without "ifs" and "buts." - Sadly, the way we Muslims live Islam today is a far cry from the way our ancestors lived it in the golden age when Islam was a builder of civilization, not a force for repression, terror and destruction.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001385

"The golden era", is the biggest lie of all islamic myths perpetrated in the West.

A golden era for muslims, perhaps. Hell on earth for everyone else. And this is what we accept as a moderate religious viewpoint now in the west?

Does anybody even bother to understand what something is before they get on board with it? The so called "golden era" of islam is the period of time when violent jihad (the only jihad ever spoke of in the koran - the fluffy "greater jihad" defined as a person's inner struggle is a foreign concept introduced by conquered Hidus) was able to be succesfully waged on Europe, Africa, the ME, and all of the near east. The golden era is when muslims where able to dominate Christians and Jews, forcing them to wear armbands in public under the Abbasid caliphate. Oh, how the muslim yearns for the good old days indeed. Heck, I remeber the good old days in America, when those uppity blacks and silly women were'nt allowed to vote and were kept in their place. Ahhhhh.....sweet memories. And the the good old days in Nazi Germany, when those nasty Jews, Gypsies, and JW's were collected and kept away from the good German population. Ahhhhh, the golden era........alas, I digress - for it could have been worse for the Christians and Jews under the early caliphates of the golden era I suppose. They could have been non-believers (atheists or infidels) or worse yet Hindus! *gasp*
No armband required in such cases.

This "golden era" that you here muslims desiring a return to is imply a return to power over the lesser peoples and faiths, and that is specifically why reform is such a silly statement. Reform to what? Christianity reformed to something more closely resembling it's roots because from the protestant perspective the message had gotten lost through years of empire and collusion in politics. Mohammadanism IS politics and the "golden age" is nothing remotely worthy of return. The reform of Judaism is the only comparative case to use with islam for analysis but folks generally are thinking of the Christian case when the puke up "reform" comments. Can you imagine any Christian seriously proposing a return to 15 century Spain, and referring to it as a "golden era"? Westerners need to get their head around such a perspective before attempting any further analytical steps such as the possibility of "reform".

__________________
"I have been made victorious through terror" ~ the profit mohammed (Bukhari 4:52:220)

The truth hurts, but not as bad as a being beheaded.

Abu-Afak, I applaud your open-mindedness.

As I asked in another post...if Islam is the "religion of peace," where are the outraged Muslims who should be denouncing terrorism? Every day, we are bombarded with images and stories of roadside bombs, children wearing suicide vests, and Islamic clerics spewing hatred that Adolf Hitler couldn't even imagine. We have countries under Islamic, theocratical rule who have openly expressed their desire to destroy other countries, simply in the name of their religion. They HATE in the name of their religion. They KILL in the name of their religion. They instruct their children to do the same.

The problem is that the religion of Islam is a severely outdated ideal. While other societies and cultures have advanced, and changed through the years, the religion of Islam is still stuck in the age of the crusades. Their ideal are the pretty much identical to how they were in the middle ages. This outmoded "live by the sword, die by the sword" ideal is what puts Islamics in the position they are in now. Perhaps that's why the rest of the world views them as "backwards." Not the people themselves, but their way of life, and their attitudes towards other religions and cultures.

Oh, not another "islam" is beiung perpetrated thread please. you failed to mention the threat the religious fanatics have and continue to pose to western countries.

Face it, Islam has destroyed their image, based on their silence.
It's up to the Islamic groups to prove otherwise, it's not up to us to change
our view.

__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

This is true and I/my article stand corrected to some degree.
But it mostly- does give/ADMIT the State of Current Islam from a Muslim point of view.
He's imploring Muslims to change in a positive manner by Not attacking what he also may believe is violent. ala many leaders who say that but also aren't sure.
again..
I think the author is being more romantic than practical here.
But There were times when Islam was more tolerant.
Such as under the Ottomans, when it wasn';t heaven for other religions but there was cwholesale cleansing in Muslim countries as there is now.
50 years ago the M-E was 15% Christian, now 2%.
Asian Muslims also seemed more tolerant pre-1900- maybe it was just not feeling their dominant numbers yet.

More Below on my sentiments re Islam

I would ask the same question

Where Was the Muslims-for-America March on Washington after 9/11!
You vote with your feet.
I'm not at all sure the Fundmantalists/terrorists have Islam wrong nor, I suspect, do a great many Muslims.
Thus very little condemnation.


It's in their book.

I agree with this too.
Thouigh Islam was actually progressive (for Arabia) when given/made-up.
At least somewhat so, though much is just revisionism and incorporation meant to supercede (and still fight) mainly the other two/Judaism and Christianity.

Muslims in general are Holy-Book literalists- perhaps 90%, as opposed to Christians and Jews, perhaps 5%.
Another rough estimation I've been using for years.. Perhaps 1/3 of Muslims are Fundamentalist, perhaps another 1/3 fully condone those beliefs if not hold them, and perhaps 1/3 want some change, or perhaps different literal take on the Koran.

Manji:
"..Even moderate Muslims take the Koran as the final word of God: unfiltered, unchanged and unchangeable.
This supremacy complex inhibits us from asking hard questions about what happens when faith becomes dogma.
Such a path can lead only to a dead end of more violence..."

Their Holy Book Is violent and intolerant and yet when you suggest change on any Muslim message board you will be greeted with unanimous derision.
In fact, Muslims reject the terms 'Moderate' and 'Fundamentalist'.
I'm told by them on even their Western boards such as 'WhyIslam' or Ummah.com that You either follow the Koran and are a Muslim and don't, and arent.

True reformers like Manji Lives are in Danger.
Because "secular Islam" is considered closer to the punishable-by-death crime of Apostasy.

I previously posted here:
"Wanted: a Muslim Reformation"
http://www.jewishtoronto.com/content...rticleID=85448

But alas, perhaps even that article means a second Reformation because Wahhabism WAS the/a Reformation meant to get closer to the Original intent- as was Chrsitianities.
Perhaps it did just that.

You really will never get any truth from the Borkans of the world. They are fully indoctrinated/Brain-washed and once this is made apparent in so many ways they retreat to Muslim message boards. Where they will throw you off for the truth if you follow them back there as well.

They are defending the undefendble both theoretically and in practice.

They oft spout Koranic verses at you and when you spout the nasty ones back...
They try and explain them away with the Hadithes
If you throw Hadiths back at them? They'll tell you that's not a 'Good' Hadith. (Hadith authenticity is a fudgey game)

And when even the Good Hadithes are problematic there's apologism and the perhaps on to the Tafsirs.
Tafsirs, discussion by early and esteemed Muslim scholars.
Though not a Koranic expert I'be been through this game with them many times and can generally even hold my own using Their texts.

There mostly though is this game I call "Definitionalism". I've been exposing it for years.

Oh.. "SUICIDE IS FORBIDDEN in the KORAN" we are told.
But If you call it 'Martyrdom' as the bombers and most muslims do-- it's "Glorious"; and the fastest, Surest way to heaven.

Also see 'taqiyya/Taqiyah' and 'Dawa'.

From Karen Armstrong`s highly acclaimed A History of God, p.303:


This spirit of tolerance and co-operation was strikingly demonstrated in the policies of Akbar, the third Moghul emperor, who reigned from 1560 to 1605 and who respected all faiths. Out of sensitivity to the Hindus, he became vegetarian, gave up hunting - a sport he greatly enjoyed - and forbade the sacrifice of animals on his birthday or in the Hindu holy places. In 1575 he founded a House of Worship, were scholars from all religions could meet to discuss God. Here, apparently, the Jesuit missionaries from Europe were the most aggressive. He founded his own Sufi order, dedicated to `divine monotheism` (tawhid-e-ilahi), which proclaimed a radical belief in the one God who could reveal himself in any rightly-guided religion.

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, can be, and has been, interpreted in different ways.

Your beef is with a particular interpretation. That interpretation has a current, significant following for reasons that are mostly political, not theological.

Nor have Muslims been silent in their condemnation of the atrocities perpetrated in Islam`s name. If your media only shows you the ranting cleric from half a world away blame your media, not Islam.

http://www.al-islam.org/dilp_statement.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm

http://washingtontimes.com/world/200...1407-8186r.htm

Another seventy-odd here:
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

No our beef is with the Interpretation of the majority. Condemnation has been small, qualified and Late Coming.

As I said Where was the Muslims for America march after 9/11..??
Or 7/7 in Britain (where polls have shown 'surprising' support for those bombers, 'extremism' and Sharia etc)

You know, something even approximating the True Muslim outrage over a few cartoons. Or abu Ghraib, or one page of the Koran flushed down the toilet.
Nowhere.
You wouldn't have to go to al-Islam to find it.

.

...open discourse.

Was this amazing sign of graciousness after the Hindu Kush (hindu slaughter) Mountain range came to be called such as a result of islamic jihad against the Hindus?

Oh yes, the period of time you mention is also not generally thought of as the islamic "golden era". But whatever, I doubt the historical record is really of concern to you.

According to your odd application of the term "biggotry", how does this statement not apply. Oh yes, because it is OK to criticize Christianity and any other Western value mercilessly, because "we can take it". But god forbid offering the same set of standards to those 'simple brown people', they just can't take it. Your Western arrogance is greater than you give yourself credit for and results in the acceptance of barbarism as long as it effects non-European blood. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Sunshine.

Your implications are wrong. Christianity, the NT, was never an endorsement of violence until it was wed to gov't. islam and Judaism were wed to gov't from the start, but Judaism was never triumphantlist at least (where Chrisitanity was in fact). Islam adopted the worse of both traditions. To ignore such fundamentals is a clear sign of no serious intent.

Absolute hogwash. Violent jihad and islamic triumphantalism is intrinsic to islamic doctrine, with the exception of Ahmadi's who are not ironically widely persecuted as apostates and not even allowed into mecca. My beef is with islam as it has historically been practiced from inception. Name an islamic school of jurisprudence that does not endorse violent jihad as a legitimate tool, I dare you to try.

Oh yes, we're all just confused. The world is actually comprised of hundreds of millions of muslims dedicated to peace and clearing islams otherwise good name.

Let me ask you why in the midst of these supposed condemnations there has never been any jihad against these "hijackers"? Interesting dearth of action in this regard, don't you think? I mean surely the ummah must be so disgusted with the genocide that has been going on in Sudan since the early 1990's that they must be lining up to go on jihad there the way do in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya, India, etc.

Oh wait.....maybe not.

Hell, lets just take a look at some of the numbers:

In a Pew survey:
~double digits % of muslims in all nations surveyed said they supported suicide bombings!
~Averages over 50% had unfavorable opinions of Christians.
~Almost complete unfavorable ratings for Jews. Where could they get that idea, perhaps from the koran which calls Jews the offspring of apes and pigs? What specific strain of islam might the koran fall under, btw?
~Oh yes and double digit % in about half muslim lands still look at OBL favorably.

More reading for your pleasure here:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

Say it ain't so, Mr. Sunshine!
Tell me these numbers are lies and that the mythical ummah is really of bunch of teddy bears just wanting a good squeeze.
Tell me that beheading videos are not all the rage in virtually every Arab bazaar you might stumble through. Because I know better.

You want to see biggotry, go visit the busiest islamic forums, the ones normally called moderate because ignorant Westerners know no better and have no desire to. The truly interested party will discover the truth there, especially in the Arabic forums.
Maybe invest in this and go take a look:

http://www.translationsoftware4u.com...ranslation.htm

Why when the rest of the world gets on board with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the islamic world refuses and sees fit to establish their own islamic Declaration of Human Rights? Curious behaviour from such well wishers, eh?

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree...claration.html

We recently had a poster here (that I won't name) tell us how the KKK was really just a social club. I suppose we should accept this too to avoid the awful biggot label being applied to us, or not.

PS ~ Karen Armstrong is an apologist, btw. If you are going to read her then you should read Ibn Warraq for balance. Actually not even, because he is too serious - Craig Winn would be more balance for her tripe. What's next, learning about climatology from Gore?
I've read them all, except Gore.

Sorry for the tirade, but you need it.

rgds

__________________
"I have been made victorious through terror" ~ the profit mohammed (Bukhari 4:52:220)

The truth hurts, but not as bad as a being beheaded.