Islamics Need to Speak Up

[Chip McDonald]

On two things: A) That bin Laden does not speak for all of Islam B) That bin Laden is a murderous cretin. I hate to say it (said it before) you *must* take responsibility for demonstrating that he and his message is NOT what Islam is about. Both for the purpose of preventing an incorrect negative stereotype from occuring, but also to take the power out of his rhetoric. I say "responsibility" because from my vantage point, I do not see overt consternation and condemnation from "moderate" Islamics. I do see Pakistanis who are apparently "neutral" in the situation, some that are for bin Laden. It's up to the rest to show that that is NOT what Islam is about for the sake of preventing him (and his ilk) from being the *de facto voice* of the religion. By doing so he is declawed, merely someone shouting. With a world of "neutral" Islamic followers, with no solid outcry against him, that is *effectively* the same as giving him support. This is really the only way to get out of the situation we're in. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[AliAlexandre]

You are 100% right. I also think they are very discreet. Interesting however the way the French secret services managed last week to make an Algerian terrorist who was planning to bomb the US Embassy in Paris confess his intentions : they asked muslim authorities to be present with them while they questioned him, and these people together managed to make him understand that his acting were far from Islam's word, and he finally confessed the whole thing. No violence and good results.

[Tedster]

I agree.

[surfjunkie]

[i]...bin Laden does not speak for all of Islam[/i] in fact, he doesn't even speak for all [url=http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011007/ts/attack_brother_dc_1.html]Binladins[/url] . i've heard lots of condemnations by Islamic groups, from around the world. it sounds like what you're saying, though, is that ALL Muslims need to take a side. if you're not against bin ladin, "that is *effectively* the same as giving him support." George W. agrees.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by AliAlexandre: [b] they asked muslim authorities to be present with them while they questioned him, and these people together managed to make him understand that his acting were far from Islam's word, [/b][/quote] Exactly. It needs to be made high profile by "major Islamic Proponents" how irreconcileable terrorist behavior is with the teachings of Islam: how you can't be proporting the Word of God when you're being deceptive and manipulative - lying to get to a position, while in the process of killing innocents (who *potentially* *could* become muslim in theory). That as a concept that is akin to heresy. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by wager47: [b][iit sounds like what you're saying, though, is that ALL Muslims need to take a side. if you're not against bin ladin, "that is *effectively* the same as giving him support." George W. agrees. [/b][/quote] No, that's not really how it should be couched. In fact, that's... not imprecise and unwieldy because of the connotations it casts. It has nothing to do with "some" muslims being against bin Laden and "some" muslims being FOR bin Laden -- * It's that it's *NOT* muslim *to be for bin Laden * The point being it's not a polarization of Islam, but that he needs to be ostracized. That ostracization is prerequisite to (again) taking the psychological fangs out of this followers. You can't tell a group of people "ok, which side of the Islam fence are you on" and expect everyone to make the rational choice. BUT - if you do the equivalent of excommunicating him, it then makes his followers *rogues*, instead of "radical fundamentalist Islamics". Instead of referring to him as "radical" they should be refering to him as simply "murderer". You do see that: muslims refering to him as being not of *their* variety of Islam, but "radical". I think that is a mistake, they should be more aggressive in their response and more concise in differentiating that he is outside the tenets of their belief completely. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]I say "responsibility" because from my vantage point, I do not see overt consternation and condemnation from "moderate" Islamics. I do see Pakistanis who are apparently "neutral" in the situation, some that are for bin Laden. It's up to the rest to show that that is NOT what Islam is about for the sake of preventing him (and his ilk) from being the *de facto voice* of the religion. By doing so he is declawed, merely someone shouting. With a world of "neutral" Islamic followers, with no solid outcry against him, that is *effectively* the same as giving him support. [/b][/quote] Ummm well I don't entirely agree that Muslims "need" to speak up. Yes, it would help if they did, but their lack of doing so doesn't really mean they support bin Laden or terrorism. I think many Arabs feel they are between a rock and a hard place. Most of the terrorist networks are funded by rich oil dudes like bin Laden, who are well connected, and moderates may well be afraid to speak against them. Particularly Saudi Arabia is in this position. Also, although they may not support bin Laden, the moderates don't necessarily support the U.S. either - many of them still don't like us (and often for good reason) even if they have no desire to kill us. They may well question our methods and motivations in this war. I think once America shows that we are serious about protecting the lives of innocent Muslims in this anti-terrorist campaign, we will get more support from them. Until then I don't blame them for being relatively silent. --Lee

[meccajay]

Anyone see the WEST WING episode last week. They used an analogy that was something like this: The Taliban/Al Quaida(sp?) is to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity... Both use terrorist tactics and have killed in the name of religion, but neither is using the religion's true principles.....Anyone see this one? Any thought's??

[vintagevibe]

meccajay, I say that episode and thought it was a great analogy. Overall excelent writing.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b] Ummm well I don't entirely agree that Muslims "need" to speak up. Yes, it would help if they did, but their lack of doing so doesn't really mean they support bin Laden or terrorism.[/b][/quote] It doesn't mean they support terrorism per se, but it means by default they're supporting it in inaction because he's doing what he does to be a figurehead in the Islamic world. By not decrying him that allows him to win. [b]I think many Arabs feel they are between a rock and a hard place. [/b] Which they are. It's bin Laden's fault. [b] Most of the terrorist networks are funded by rich oil dudes like bin Laden, who are well connected, [/b] Now THAT is our fault, and something I alluded to in another post. I find it utterly ironic that we announce days after the attack "we're freezing financial interaction with affilliates of known terrorist groups" Well fuck - WHY THE HELL WAS THAT ACCEPTABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE????? That's such a surreal thing, and no one bats an eye. Because it's such a comfy arrangement: don't rock their profitable boat floating on oil, don't upset our applecart made (poorly) in the western/Japanese auto industry. You know, it's utterly absurd: *we're still using oil that comes out of Iraq*. That's so messed up: we're willing to put our footdown, there is a WAR, terrible affront to the American way of life, babies being starved because of the embargo... but WE GOTTA HAVE THAT OIL. Unreal. For that matter, how does that arrangement even occur? We annouce that we're "normalizing" relations, that we're buying oil from Iraq - HOW do we buy oil from Iraq? The gum arabic thing - we KNOW we're buying stuff coming from bin Laden's coffers... That's so insane. All of this is akin to making sure we could have bought a Mercedes from Germany in WWII, *despite* WWII. Hmph. Of course, Prescott Bush made money from oil dealings with the Germans, but that's a tangent... ANYHOW... (rant mode: off) [b]and moderates may well be afraid to speak against them. Particularly [/b] I agree. BUT that's the problem. That's what allows the radicals to become more powerful, because they fill in the void. [b]Laden, the moderates don't necessarily support the U.S. either - many of them still don't like us (and often for good reason) even if they have no desire to kill us. They may well question our methods and motivations in this war.[/b] The problem is that while bin Laden is trying to polarize all muslims, the U.S. doesn't care to try to place anyone in a position to TAKE a position, and then we do business with them out of convenience. That has to stop. [b]support from them. Until then I don't blame them for being relatively silent.[/b] I blame them, because they know they theoretically should be the true target of bin Laden, since they're the ones that are cooperating with us. He should be mad at them, not us. They make their money off of selling oil to *us* - their whealth is resultant of our money. If they don't want our money, they can turn it away under the pretense we're infidels. If they want our money and good graces, the Powers That Be should make it clear we expect them to take a hardline, or else. We're not willing to do that because we need the oil. It's all about oil. It's hard to say that, because if we *did* take that hard stance and gas went up to $5 a gallon - well, Atlanta would be impossibly far away then for myself I suppose, wouldn't it? But consistency in political affiliation is what's needed if we want things to get better I think, and doing business with those who are sitting on the fence is ultimately probably going to cost us down the line. [/B][/QUOTE] ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[good morning]

Moderate Muslims risk death -- and we haven't exactly been a friend. Why should they speak up, and what will that do, anyway? Words alone won't topple bin Laden. Action will, and there already are Muslims working against him. Action is easy when it's somebody else's job. Chip, what are you willing to give up or risk for the war? Will you even sacrifice convenience by not putting gas in your car, or by refusing even bus/taxi services because they also consume oil from the Middle East? It's pretty harsh and simplistic to say that Muslim silence makes them bin Laden supporters. That's kind of borrowing one of Bush's lines -- but he needed to make that "for us or against us" speach to wake up allies and others. We can't go this alone. The military element of power is but one; we need cooperation from all, and we're getting it. I'm still in mild shock we've got ground troops in the former USSR. And even China is talking to us about terrorism.

[Pro Jules]

One fly in the ointment is that Arab & Muslims the world over have a great difficulty getting past the widely televised harsh treatment meeted out by 'rich' Israel to 'poor' Palestinians. That is is past tense a done deal and one would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to have picked up on this by now. They are pissed off, hopping mad - call it what you want - agitated. Short of tossing all the keys to the illegal Israeli settlers houses to the Palestinians shoved into refugee camps when their own homes were bulldozed.. I think peace in that region remains bleak. Sharon has been slapped down by Bush and apologized for recent 'but they have to start first' whining..the childish logic of which I think the world will soon be tiring of. I think the US will start to force Israelis hand in the coming months.. Arabs and now Muslims the world over will want to see more fair play in that region.. Isreals own religious fanatics - the settlers will have to give up the land they illegally occupied. Give em the fucking keys to those houses and access to 50% of the religious sites.. Then we can all get back to normal... [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/mad.gif[/img] I saw this coming. Jules BTW the Pakistani President was crystal clear on how he thought the attack was outrageous and that violent extremism needed to be wiped out and stated so in CNN & BBC interviews last week. So that was the President of the giant contry NEXT DOOR to the Taliban... However a fiercly disagreeing 10% of his country are furious about the deal he has made to assist the USA & the international coalition against terror. This message has been edited by Julian standen on 10-08-2001 at 08:40 PM

[trick fall]

Should all the Moderate Christians be speaking out about Fallwell? Should Reform Jews be speaking out about the Hasidim? There's all kinds of religous fanatics causing all kinds of problems in the world why just pick on the Muslims?

[Tedster]

Because Jerry Falwell supporters haven't flown a hijacked airliner into a building lately? But, true...people should speak out against injustice. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but that right ends at the other person's nose. In other words...people have the right to express an opinion that may disapprove of something, but if in so doing they are depriving that individual of their rights, then that's where it ends. Unless that person is doing something illegal and it's in the interest of public safety to do so.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by trickfall@yahoo.com: [b]Should all the Moderate Christians be speaking out about Fallwell? [/b][/quote] Uuh, I did, and so did many others. See this thread: http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002587.html Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html pokeefe777@msn.com

[henrysb3]

I'm not saying this is cause & effect, because these attacks appear to have had lots of advance planning, but ponder this: Ariel Sharon - radical right Israeli who singlehandedly provoked the radical right Muslims by a symbolic visit to a holy site - becomes prime minister. George W. Bush - the first right wing fundamentalist Christian to become U.S. President. Has tight ties with oil industry. His father is the object of widespread hatred among the Islamic community because of the Gulf War. The U.S. begins another "energy crisis", which G.W. more or less ignores, especially in California. The Israelis begin heavy retaliation against the Palistinians, which G.W. more or less ignores. The above two policies are consistant with his overall conservative philosophy of free market control and foreign isolationism. The attacks happen, and we are agahst, but Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson imply that our sinful behaviour has prevented God from preventing the horror. Dr. Laura agrees in her own way, that if we didn't let our daughters dress like "sluts", we might not be driving those Arabs mad (maybe she could help out in a "she brought it on herself" rape defense). Many in the third world, especially men who had been masters of their women and families see our money and culture as usurpers of their lives and power. In a way, they are correct in that perception. When people taste freedom, it's hard to go back. Maybe it's time to look at that isolationism idea in another light. If this conflict continues, we may be looking at lines at the gas pumps again. If those nozzles were dispensing ethanol, we just might hold the key to a future where we wouldn't need troops in Saudi Arabia, or bring our ugly culture to places where it's unwanted. Ethanol is clean, renewable, and ours. It would help the farm economy, and maybe give tobacco farmers something else to grow, as it can be made from several different crops. It would offer employment and investment opportunities to hard working folk all over rural North America. It's in a form (liquid) that we already use to fuel our wheels and mixes well with regular petroleum products. Let's use oil for its excellent lubrication and plastic foundation qualities and let's burn moonshine in our cars. There was thunder, thunder Over thunder road Thunder was his engine and white lightning was his load... namaste Henry

[dansouth]

Some helpful notes and terminology hints. Islam is the name of the world's second largest religion in terms of numbers of followers. Islamic is an adjective which associates nouns and noun phrases to Islam: Islamic nation, Islamic conference, etc. A person who practices Islam is called a Moslem, not an Islamic. Also not a Mohammedan, as Moslems do not worship Mohammed. They see him as a prophet, not a deity. The word Moslem is sometimes spelled Muslim by American Moslems, particularly Americans of African ancestry (e.g. Malcolm X). Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, is the birthplace of Mohammed and the destination of the pilgrimage that every able bodied Moslem is expected to take at least once in his or her lifetime. Medina is where Mohammed went when he and his followers were persecuted in Mecca by the Arabs, who at that time worshipped multiple deities. Mohammed build his following in Medina and returned to Mecca later in life and converted most of the population of Mecca (except the Jews) to Islam. The book that contains Mohammed's prophecies is called the Qur'an, which means "the recitation." The Qur'an was not written in Mohammed's lifetime, however. It was written decades later by those who were in charge of directing Islam. However, when Mohammed died, he did not leave instructions on picking a successor, so the first three successors were chosen by a group of influential Moslems. After that, Islam became so large that a central organization proved problematic. The fact that the Qur'an was written after Mohammed's death opens the speculation that these successors may have embellished his ideas. But it is important to keep in mind that Christianity has a parallel, as the four Gospels were written decades after the death of Christ. Contrary to popular belief, the Qur'an does not contain the old and new testaments. The Qur'an accepts the old and new testaments, along with other ancient texts, as legitimate prophecies from God/Allah. Most Moslems live in Asia, not in the Middle East. Indonesia has the largest Moslem population of any country.

[AliAlexandre]

[quote]Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: [b]Some helpful notes and terminology hints. . However, when Mohammed died, he did not leave instructions on picking a successor, so the first three successors were chosen by a group of influential Moslems. After that, Islam became so large that a central organization proved problematic.[/b][/quote] Very good idea to add this short lexicon. You have good information on this religion. The point you mention about the succession of Muhammad is also the origin of the separation between the 2 main trends of Islam : Shiites , who believe that Ali, son in law of Muhammad, was to be his successor in order to carry the message, and Sunnites. The Sunnites represent around 90% of the muslims in the world, the only exception being Iran, where the muslim population is 90% Shiite. Alex This message has been edited by AliAlexandre on 10-09-2001 at 03:42 AM

[trick fall]

I did read that thread Phil, but I also just heard about a sermon praising Falwell's statements at a 5,000 member church in Houston and really I was just pointing out that intolerance, hate and religous evil exist in all the fanatical religions of the world. They should all be condemned.

[inadequate.com]

Here's something a bit controversial but see what you think. If the West put Ariel Sharon in the Hague I strongly suspect the majority of the Muslim world would be happy to put Osama bin Laden there as well. Both have been accused of orchestrating mass murders and both of them deserve a chance to defend themselves in court. Such a move, although it wont happen, would be face-saving enough to allow the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. It would also put incredible pressure on Hammas & Islamic Jihad to negotiate with Israel. But most importantly it would show many people who would (do) otherwise support terrorism that this war is being waged against injustice and is not just an excuse for some colonial expansion by the West. Peace

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by swright50@excite.com: [b] Moderate Muslims risk death -- and we haven't exactly been a friend. Why should they speak up, and what will that do, anyway? Words alone won't topple bin Laden. [/b][/quote] We *have* been friends, where they allowed it. Where it is allowed, we've generally been very good friends; Kuwait? Speaking up is what keeps the tyrants at bay. Tyrants will take advantage of a situation and manipulate it for their purposes. If no one is speaking out where an injustice has occured, it's going to happen again. [b]Action is easy when it's somebody else's job. Chip, what are you willing to give up or risk for the war? [/b] Don't give me that line. It's not my people that caused this. That's the point. [b]Will you even sacrifice convenience by not putting gas in your car, or by refusing even bus/taxi services because they also consume oil from the Middle East?[/b] I'd sacrifice the convenience if it meant a consistent foreign policy, and a deliberate move to more sustainable resources, yep. Refusing bus/taxi services? That won't change anything. [b]It's pretty harsh and simplistic to say that Muslim silence makes them bin Laden supporters. [/b] I did not say it makes them bin Laden supporters. I clarified that is supports his aims, which is a different concept. In fact, I just saw last night/early this morning a French report on CSPAN that outlined the same conclusion: bin Laden seeks to become an Islamic figurehead, the mouth piece for it, and he does so by having muslims accede to his power. By not decrying his power, he wins. By not decrying his position of authority, borderline muslims who may be thinking radically are going to go to his way of thinking more easily, than if he was ostracized as a rogue. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Alon]

I'm no mideast expert, but I really doubt that there will ever be any negotiations with the hamas or islamic jihad, as these groups are clearly barbaric terrorist organizations, whose days are numbered [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] As has been proven time and time again, one must not negotiate with terrorists. The only language these cowards understand is brute force. alon

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com: [b] Uuh, I did, and so did many others. See this thread: http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002587.html Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html pokeefe777@msn.com [/b][/quote] Exactly my point. You have to establish Falwell as being a rogue: otherwise, he represents YOU. Otherwise, fringe elements who thought they were "fringe" - become mainstream, and others who share Falwell's view become more powerful in return. People from the outside shouting about it doesn't accomplish anything, it has to come from inside. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by henrysb3: [b]Ariel Sharon - radical right Israeli who singlehandedly provoked the radical right Muslims by a symbolic visit to a holy site - becomes prime minister.[/b][/quote] Agreed. [b]The Israelis begin heavy retaliation against the Palistinians, which G.W. more or less ignores.[/b] Agreed. In fact, somewhere around here you'll find a post I made last month about King George playing golf while Israel was bulldozing settlements and basically going nuts..... [b]horror. Dr. Laura agrees in her own way, that if we didn't let our daughters dress like "sluts", we might not be driving those Arabs mad [/b] Dr. Laura, who once posed nude.... [b] When people taste freedom, it's hard to go back.[/b] That's what brought down the Soviet Union. [b]this conflict continues, we may be looking at lines at the gas pumps again. [/b] We shouldn't, but we will - and the American oil companies will reap the rewards. [b] If those nozzles were dispensing ethanol, we just might hold the key to a future where we wouldn't need troops in Saudi Arabia, or bring our ugly culture to places where it's unwanted.[/b] That's the hilarious part! From a "protecting the liberties of America" point of view, WE SHOULD ALREADY BE MOVING TO ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES. There should be subsidies, get the gorilla off of our back. We don't, because the people in power are put there by the people that are making money off of it, plain and simple. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Pro Jules]

"If the West put Ariel Sharon in the Hague I strongly suspect the majority of the Muslim world would be happy to put Osama bin Laden there as well." Seems fair "As has been proven time and time again, one must not negotiate with terrorists. The only language these cowards understand is brute force." Not working very well though is it? Margarett Thatcher took that tack and it was a failure with the IRA. Taony Blair has been talking and dealing with the IRA, and things have settled down a fair bit, progress has been made..inching along... Jules

[inadequate.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Alon: [b]I'm no mideast expert, but I really doubt that there will ever be any negotiations with the hamas or islamic jihad, as these groups are clearly barbaric terrorist organizations, whose days are numbered [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img][/b][/quote] You may see terrorists but these organisations have the support of large numbers of Palestinians because they are demonstrably concerned with their welfare in a way that Mr Arafat's government has never been. When you say their days are numbered do you mean the US will send troops to fight them or that the US will bomb the West Bank? Coz Israel has had very little success in eradicating them. [quote][b]As has been proven time and time again, one must not negotiate with terrorists. The only language these cowards understand is brute force. [/b][/quote] Actually negotiations with terrorists has led to the Oslo accord and the Good Friday agreement to name only 2. The term terrorist is meaningless outside of propaganda value as that form of warfare is the only means of self defence available to small & impoverished populations. Under the definition of terrorist you would be calling the people who resisted the Nazi invasion of their homeland cowards. And the US & UK were nations that sponsored terror. Tricky, ain't it? Peace.

[Alon]

[quote]Originally posted by inadequate.com: [b] Actually negotiations with terrorists has led to the Oslo accord and the Good Friday agreement to name only 2. The term terrorist is meaningless outside of propaganda value as that form of warfare is the only means of self defence available to small & impoverished populations. Under the definition of terrorist you would be calling the people who resisted the Nazi invasion of their homeland cowards. And the US & UK were nations that sponsored terror. Tricky, ain't it? Peace.[/b][/quote] I guess who is considered a terrorist, depends upon which point of view you're looking at it from. I have no hesitations in labelling those two groups as terrorist groups. They're considered terrorist organizations by the US, and that's a good enough definition for me. Let's face it, we're in a state of war, and I've seen the damage first-hand, brought on by another crazed terrorist group (Twin Towers). I'm a native New Yorker, and the whole situation is very tragic . We're talking about Crazed Suicide Loving Radicals who love to blow themselves up in crowded civilian places. The more dead, the better. I have no respect for these people. Also, I would hardly call the resistance fighters who fought the Nazi Scum for terrorists. I suppose if one were a nazi sympathizer, then these people would be considered terrorists. But, looking at the situation with my Western World American eyes, these people were and clearly are heroes who fought for the defense of their homeland. I also doubt that these resistance groups targeted innocent civilians as do the cowardly organizations which I mentioned. My statement regarding that their days were numbered, is simply wishful thinking. I believe the World will become a very unwelcome place for terrorists to operate/train and carry out their missions in, after the US/Coalition gets done with erradicating the appropiate parties. Exactly who these parties are remains to be seen, but no terrorist & terrorist supporting nation should feel safe. As has been hinted by the US govt many times; Afghanistan is just the first step in the fight. alon