The War Within Islam ..... growing rifts within, and between Muslim extremist factions ...

Several recent articles in The New Yorker, The New Republic, and Newsweek have explored the growing rifts within and between Muslim extremist factions over the use of violence against civilians in the waging of jihad. A major al Qaeda theorist and former comrade of Ayman al-Zawahiri's, Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, has condemned al Qaeda's terrorism as un-Islamic. In Newsweek, Christopher Dickey and Owen Matthews write that "important Muslim thinkers, including some on whom bin Laden depended for support, have rejected his vision." This debate within the jihadist community was ongoing well before 9/11, but has become more pronounced as Arab publics have expressed revulsion at al Qaeda's brutality against civilians in Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere. While it is important not to overstate the ideological cleavage within al Qaeda (its Islamist critics do not question the justice of resistance in Iraq, the Palestinian Territories, or Afghanistan, only the tactics used), this is certainly a welcome phenomenon, which the United States should encourage as much as possible. These developments offer a rebuke to President Bush's anti-terrorism policies, as they demonstrate that victory against al Qaeda's ideology will not come from the barrel of an American gun but from the condemnation of fellow Muslims.

CONSERVATIVES MISREPRESENT THE EVIDENCE:

In the past several weeks, several prominent conservative voices, including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt, and former Bush administration officials, have conflated the revolt within jihadist groups with recent events in Iraq to falsely represent them as a vindication of the Bush administration's so-called "war on terror," and to argue for staying the course in Iraq. A May 31 Wall Street Journal editorial cited CIA Director Michael Hayden's acknowledgment of "significant setbacks for al Qaeda globally" and then claimed that "the U.S. offensives in Afghanistan and especially Iraq deserve most of the credit." On June 1, the Washington Post's editorial page, which has long supported the Iraq war, joined in, celebrating "the Iraqi upturn," praising the recent successes of the U.S. and Iraqi armies against al Qaeda in Iraq, but ignoring the fact that the stated goal of the surge -- political reconciliation -- has not been met. The focus on the drop on violence, welcome as it is, also obscures the fact that increased Iraqi security has come through the creation of numerous Sunni militias that express no loyalty to the central government. Peter Wehner, a former assistant to Bush, wrote that "the tide within the Islamic world is turning strongly against al Qaeda and jihadism," and gave credit to "the success of the Petraeus-led strategy in Iraq." Wehner also claimed last March that "large drops in support for Mr bin Laden...have occurred since the Iraq war began."

more :
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/prog...8/06/pr20080604

Osama is losing support among whackadoodle clerics, and now average citizens. whoop.

You run the buis into the ditch, people start not to like you much. Ask a certain cretin from Texas.

That doesn't mean that they like us any more, or than war is the answer to our problemns, or that, if we fight for it, we can convert all them thar heathin A-rabs.

There is a prophesy in The Book of Daniel that addresses what will happen if we make a Holy War against islam in the area once rules from Babylon.

I don't think even the GOP wants that sort of settlement and denoument.

There's three theological problems with Islamic terrorism as it is currently practiced.

1. The Quran says the People of the Book are not to be targets. That means pagans are fair game. But Jews, Christians, other sects of Muslims, and Sabeans are not. (Sorry, board neopagans, but that is what the Quran says.)
2. The Quran values martyrdom and says it is good to give one's life in the defense of Islam. However, one is not to attack innocents, or take the lives of the old, women, or children who cannot fight. Suicide bombing and other forms of indiscriminate attack violate this precept.
3. The Quran says it is right and necessary to fight in the defense of Islam, but does not necessarily agree in offensive war against its enemies. It too says "pre-emptive" war is not acceptable; one can attack the enemies of Islam as they are attacking Muslims, but one cannot attack an enemy of Islam on their own soil while it is not engaged in such.

BTW, one final theologico-political point; not all Muslim scholars agree that the Jews have no right to the land of Israel or Jerusalem.

According to this scholar, the Quran itself validates the claim to Jewish sovereignty.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...limscholar.html

There is absolutely no excuse for the woeful ignorance of the American public about Islam. It is pathetic. The United States itself has one of the higher populations of Muslims - so one can find out about Islam just by asking one's neighbor.

It is sad and absurd that America can place such a single absolute upon a religious system that itself is far from monolithic. There is a consensus of one book and a handful of practices, and that's about it, as far as I can tell.

If one translates the terror towards Islam into other processes of thought, one can reasonably say that it is only wise and prudent to immediately confiscate all firearms from all Americans not holding them in law enforcement or military duties. A certain percentage of gun owners are clinically insane. Due to this threat, all guns should be immediately confiscated, and all gun owners classified as clinically insane and homicidal. Such an argument is self-evident rubbish. And yet, we can see it when we are talking about lethal instruments, but not when talking about religions.

Pathetic.

Agreed. On the other hand, I am also amazed at the woeful ignorance that many Americans have about JEWS in 2008 ... and we've been here 400 years (the first Sephardic synagogues date from the 1600s).

I still run into people who do not seem to understand why we do not celebrate Easter or Christmas.

What? Are you telling me you don't do the Easter Bunny and the colored eggs? And no Santa? What are you, some kind of heathen?

Interesting to ya, perhaps - there are remnants of the Spanish crypto-Jews who fled the pogrom of Isabella to Mexico, and made it up to New Mexico. Some families know why they retain their traditions - some don't. Some refer to God as El Dío - which was an entirely Jewish turn of phrase in Spain, but safe enough to use here. Some families keep Pesach, and there are traditions of keeping kosher lite amongst the old NM Hispanic folks.

We once were, and will hopefully still be again, the land of Freedom. L'chaim, amigo.

Hell..many of them don't even practice their "virgin birth" religion with an amount of accuracy of Christ' message...
let alone know anything about another!!!
They're too busy building their idols, committing gluttony, greed, and the other seven deadly sins.

How Christianity can be pretzeled into a form unrecognizable to the Little Rabbi (Jesus) is amazing.

Hey, here's a little test!

Run the cursor over the blacked-out text to get the answers!

• There is an entire chapter devoted to Mary, mother of Jesus, in the Bible. No, it's in the Koran.
• In the Bible, Jesus spoke to Mary while still an infant, a miracle. Nope, ditto in the Koran.
• In the Bible, the Angels will read one's deeds on Resurrection Day. Koran again - And We have made every man's actions to cling to his neck, and We will bring forth to him on the resurrection day a book which he will find wide open: Read your book; your own self is sufficient as a reckoner against you this day.
• The Koran doesn't mention Jesus or the Holy Spirit. 2.253 We gave clear miracles to Isa (Jesus) son of Marium (Mary), and strengthened him with the holy spirit.
• In the Bible, God speaks of the Gospel to Jesus. No, but the Koran does. When Allah (God) will say: O Isa (Jesus) son of Marium (Mary)! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel); and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission...

Kinda gets you thinking, if them ol' Christians would read EITHER the Bible OR the Koran, they might get a clew...

I'm still amazed at the "non-help" and nonsense [ HERE ] , that contributes to that ....

not from antagonists - but supporters :
with bullshit, spin, obscuration and intimidation,
instead of rational explanations and participation
... frequently rude, arrogant and hostile.


i.e.
current issue/post


http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...ost&p=35870
seems to imply and contradict the previous articles sited ... - moderate Muslins are against "...the use of violence against civilians ...."


Is it important to spin what seems to be progress from moderate elements.

................................................................................
.............................

Robert F. Kennedy issue/post ....
..."The Jews point with pride to the fact that over 500,000 Arabs, in the 12 years between 1932-1944, came into Palestine to take advantage of living conditions existing in no other Arab state..."
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...l&pid=31979


Ignoring the subsequent atrocities that ran 700,000 Arabs out about 4 years later ........
And seems to have been the birth of modern conflict between Israel and the Arab states.

The Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers
.... Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."


Culpability for escalation of the fighting

... But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date and which necessitated Arab states' intervention." Sami Hadawi, "BitterHarvest."


What was the Arab reaction to the announcement of the creation of the state of Israel?

"The armies of the Arab states entered the war immediately after the State of Israel was founded

in May. Fighting continued, almost all of it within the territory assigned to the Palestinian

state...About 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled in the 1948 conflict." Noam Chomsky,

"The Fateful Triangle."



The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict ... JEWS FOR JUSTICE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html


................................................................................
.............................

On the Finkelstein issue/post ...
... Who is sitting on more Palestinian land? Israel or Jordan? .... totally out of context to the discussion - amount of land taken since 1948 - where is your map ?????
The obscuration is just loosing credibility and respect.
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...ost&p=22890

................................................................................
.............................
................................................................................
.............................


Atoning for the Violence by Rabbi Michael Lerner
...

Days later, with dozens of Palestinians shot dead by Israel's overwhelming military force, Israeli Knesset chair Avram Burg, writing in the New York Times, purported to be puzzled at the Palestinian reaction. This was a willed ignorance characteristic of many Israelis and American Jews who imagine themselves to be the height of reasoned liberalism and can't understand why everyone doesn't love them. After all, Burg argued, we offered them a peace agreement, and of course we would never give up our control over the Temple Mount (which just happens to be the site of one of Islam's holiest places of worship).

And so, the disconnect grew between many Israelis, who felt they had no choice but to cheer on Ehud Barak's massive use of unrestrained force against the rioters, and the rest of the world.

...
http://www.shalomctr.org/comment/reply/78



March 14, 2003



Lerner: Israel would have a far better chance of retaining its soul if it stopped tearing down houses of Palestinians, stopped torturing Palestinian civilians and then later releasing them because they had committed no crime, stopped punishing the families of people who do engage in horrible acts of terror (the torah explicitly forbids punishing person x for the sins of person y), and started modelling the non-violence that all of us want to see from the Palestinians.

A first step might be to unilaterally end the occupation.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6651



September 12, 2001
A World Out of Touch With Itself: Where the Violence Comes From
...


There is never any justification for acts of terror against innocent civilians—it is the

quintessential act of dehumanization and not recognizing the sanctity of others. The

violence being directed against Americans today, like the violence being directed

against Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists, or the violence being directed against

Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army occupying the West Bank and Gaza, seem to



point to a world increasingly irrational and out of control. It's understandable why many
of us will feel anger. Demagogues will try to direct that anger at various "target groups"
(Muslims are in particular danger, though Yassir Arafat and other Islamic leaders have
unequivocally denounced these terrorist acts). [/size]

[size="2"]http://www.futurenet.org/article.asp?id=743

................................................................................
.............................


1. Quit killing at a 300 to one ratio - and blaming them, and distorting the statistics !

2. Both sides Admit you have done wrong ...

3. Make concessions, that the both sides can agrees to ....

4. Really, really, really, really work for lasting peace .....


My feeling is, if the bullshit continues, that Israel will eventually be destroyed, because the opponents know the media manipulation is nonsense.

And it is not fair to the rest of the Middle East, the world and the US - to make innocent people pay for the blowback caused by false, disingenuous, arrogant and stubborn posturing.

Riddle me this, mr. hackit.

This post is not about Israel. Nor did I mention it.

What makes you think it was appropriate to insert discussion of it because I mentioned "Americans do not understand Jews".

Are you angry at Jewish people? Why? Just the ones on the board who won't give you the answers you WANT, or ones in general?

What makes you think I was disagreeing with your observations about Islam? The reason I mentioned my points was precisely to agree that extremist elements within Islam don't have a theological foot to stand on, and that is exactly why moderate/mainstream opinion is turning against them!

We could debate the various geopolitical-historical points you have mentioned; I know we have many times. I'm tired and this is not the thread in which to do it.

You throw Michael Lerner at me as if I have never read him. I have three of his books. His viewpoint on Israel and mine are about the same.

You throw Jews for Justice at me as if as a Jew I must agree with all of their beliefs and points of view. It's fine. They're Jews. They have an opinion. So does Norman Podhoretz, Michael Savage, Joe Lieberman, Norm Coleman, and so did Meir Kahane. I do not agree with those Jews, either. I do not have to agree with people just because they are Jewish. Whether on the right - or even if they think they are on the left. I agree with Jews for Justice that the occupation must end and so must Israeli HR violations. I do not agree with their viewpoint on history, because it is one-sided and incomplete.

Oh and BTW - as far as getting back responses that are "rude, arrogant, and hostile" ... perhaps you ought to consider that you get back the vibe you attack other people with. Your mean-spirited staccato posts regularly accuse people of ignoring the points you make -- then you turn around and do the exact same thing to your 'opponents'.

As far as your final four points.

1. I have never killed a Palestinian. I have given at least three of them "A's" in my class, however, and recommended one for a scholarship.
2. Both sides have done wrong. Happy?
3. I agree. Negotiations mean coming up with a settlement both sides can agree to.
4. That's why I support Combatants for Peace, Seeds of Peace, Peace Now, and OneVoice Initiative. And you? Oh yeah, you run your mouth. I forgot.

Michael Lerner on Israel's 60th anniversary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michae...s_b_100599.html

When I was a child, Zionism was the national liberation struggle of the Jewish people. While the United States and all other countries-including the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist countries-closed their doors to Jews seeking refuge from the murder of millions of Jews by the fascists, and while the Palestinian people's leadership used their influence with the British to ensure that Jews would not be able to settle in our ancient homeland both during and immediately after the Second World War as hundreds of thousands of survivors languished in displaced persons' camps in Europe, the Zionist movement championed the need for a state of the Jewish people with its own army and its own territory. For a people who had been stateless for twenty centuries, who were forced to depend on the often-absent "good will" of their hosts in Europe, Africa, and Asia, the prospect of a homeland, prayed for everyday by Jews around the world for two thousand years, seemed to be at once impossible and yet the only imaginable redemption from the trauma of the Holocaust and the previous centuries of suffering and insecurity.

Jews jumped from the burning buildings of Europe into Palestine not because we were servants of imperial or colonial interests, but because we were desperate and because no one wanted us or would protect us. Unfortunately and tragically, we landed on the backs of Palestinians who were already there, and we hurt many of them in our landing. So scarred were we by our own pain-having just witnessed the death of one out of every three Jews alive on the planet-that we were unable to notice or take seriously the pain that we were causing to the Palestinian people in the process. When our army uprooted Palestinians from their homes and villages, it was in the midst of a struggle for survival in which Jews were determined to be as ruthless towards others as others had been towards us.

[snip]

A central ingredient in any serious strategy will be the task of reassuring people in both societies that they are not hated and demeaned by the peoples of the world, but rather than they are understood in some deep way. (*) That's why in Healing Israel/Palestine (North Atlantic Books, 2003) I try to tell the history in a way that shows that both sides have a legitimate story, both sides have been unnecessarily cruel to the other, both sides need to do repentance and atonement. Sure, the story can be told in a blame-oriented way. But that will only make it less likely that we can heal the two sides enough that they could actually imagine feeling safe enough to make compromises for a real peace. Those who want to advance social healing should begin writing the texts, composing the songs, and creating the t.v. and movie documentaries, that have as their goal the presentation of this kind of balanced and non-blaming compassionate perspective.

[snip]

So what can we who love Israel, want to see it survive and flourish, and feel that its current path is self-destructive, actually do politically? At least for the short run, we've found that lobbying Congress is a dead-end, because most of the Congressional leaders who agree with our "progressive Middle Path that is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine" feel scared to say so publicly, and will continue to feel this way until some mainstream political candidate is willing to run for president and make this Middle Path his or her own. Similarly, and for reasons explained above, there's no point in demonstrations that one-sidedly fault Israel, even though Israel, at the moment, has far superior power and hence far superior responsibility to take the first steps to change the situation. Of course, we'll work with the "J Street" project to help create an alternative to AIPAC, but the pressures on that "alternative" to moderate its message in ways that make it less effective will be huge, and the tendency to focus only on policy issues and not on the underlying mass psychology that has contributed to AIPAC's power is going to be immense.

[snip]

I wholeheartedly endorse all the points in bold.

(*) Part of understanding might be doing some asking and discussing as well as accusing.

Just a thought. But those often seem lost on you.

Maybe hope is stronger than fear after all

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1162787420071011

Since when does "hope" come from the sky?(regarding the emoticon)
That's very nice and I wish it could come true, but the the US gov't and their corporate cronies want to continue selling war in the Mideast. And Muslims will not rest till we are out of their territories. I can't say I blame the terrorists. It's THEIR land, not ours.

If by terrorists you mean people who kill innocent civilians, then I damn well do blame them. I believe that people can get along and that a lot of the time they already do. We can start to reign in our corporations and all sides can put a greater check on their extremists and we can make progress. That 'hope' coming from the sky is a metaphor. But, like a lot of things, we have to believe that we can do it. We have to have hope in humanity.

Muslim scholars back call for interfaith dialogue, June 6th 2008

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/110...conference.html

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Muslim scholars meeting in Saudi Arabia wrapped up a three-day conference Friday by calling for efforts to ease tensions within Islam and boost dialogue with Christians and Jews.

The conference in the holy city of Mecca was designed to reconcile brewing discontent between Islam's two main branches, Sunni and Shiite, before the kingdom launches a landmark initiative for talks with adherents of other monotheistic faiths.

In a statement reported by the official Saudi Press Agency, the scholars stressed the need for dialogue with other religions to give a "correct picture of Islam" and to reach "out to other sects of Islam, which will lead to uniting the nation."

They also called for "solving the problems and disagreements that might take place among Muslims and other (non-Muslims) ... and to achieve an understanding among civilizations and human cultures."

Saudi King Abdullah, one of Sunni Islam's most prominent figures, spoke at the start of the conference and urged Muslims to get on the same page ahead of opening dialogue with Christians and Jews.

Shiite Iranian politician Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani also attended the conference, and on the first day sat at Abdullah's left in a gesture of unity between the two major sects.

Saudi Arabia has presented its proposal for interfaith dialogue as a strictly religious initiative.

But the initiative also is an effort by Abdullah to present oil-rich Saudi Arabia as a force for moderation in the Middle East, despite the kingdom's adherence to the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Sunni Islam and its religious restrictions at home.

Religious practice is so restricted in Saudi Arabia that even certain Muslim sects, such as Sufis and Shiites, face discrimination, while conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death.

The US forces (and Blackwater) have killed thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq.

Peace in the Mideast is highly unlikely when the US is selling arms to opposing forces.

Christians and Muslims will not have peace until both are extinct! They both talk "peace", but they advocate violence on a daily basis. Both have waged war time and time again!

Now that's the kind of positive thinking I've been waiting to hear.

"...woeful ignorance that many Americans have about JEWS in 2008 ..."


?? did not say American Jews ???
is that what you ment ????


in context to ..... The War Within Islam ..... growing rifts within







cont.

~


My contention exactly - do not address then in the relevent threads.


They were just specific examples of it ... !





"... as if I have never read him ..." ????

Yes [thought crime ] that is exactly why .... !!! ROFL ....

No it was in context ... The War Within Islam ..... growing rifts within


No just a historic perspective .... from many different individual sources old and newer - in context !



Only respond to the obvious nonsense, non-participation or cop-outs ...
... withdrawl from the convesation, offer niether logic nor credible source/s ...

as noted with the specific example in the previous posts ....



... killing at a 300 to one ratio - and blaming them, and distorting the statistics !

And it is not fair to the rest of the Middle East, the world and the USA - to make innocent people pay for the blowback caused by false, disingenuous, arrogant and stubborn posturing.



ignorant of the nuances of Mormans, various Protestants , two tangents of the Catholic church - not to mention the more rational Asian belief systems.

we have to be less ignorance about Jews ? why ??? kinda pretentious ... !!!!!

I never said ignorance about any other religion was acceptable. I also remember a moment here when there were people applauding a Quran being flushed down the toilet at Gitmo - and I was one of the few people saying that was a distasteful act.

I am not anti-Islam, never have been. I applaud opportunities for dialogue between Muslims and Jews. However, such discussions have to, as you say, engage all historical realities.

There is a reason many Arab Jews left Arab countries for Israel, and that is because they lived as second-class "dhimmi" in those countries.

The Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews are more nationalist than the Askhenazim. People don't seem to understand that.

I think Muslims also need to address the Muslim scholar's point, made earlier in this thread, that there is no Quranic basis for considering Jews in the land of Palestine to be "invaders" without a right to live there.

I hope the moment of dialogue mentioned in this thread will go forward.

Some of the highest moments of Jewish learning occurred in Muslim Spain. There could be another era like that again. But it will not occur as long as Muslims call the Jews of Israel "invaders" on "their" exclusive lands.

Nor did i say that ......
my point was - Americans know little about the majority of "belief systems" popular here - why are you amazed they do no better understand the Jews.



Nor did i say that ......



Nor did i say that ...... or have any idea what you are referring to.
Obscure ??? context ... ??? irrelevent ... translation ???







...... have no idea what you are referring to.
Obscure ??? context ... ??? translation ???



...... have no idea what you are referring to.
Obscure ??? context ... ???




... translation ???

Dhimmi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

A dhimmi ([ðimi]; Arabic: ذمي‎, collectively: أهل الذمة, ahl al-dhimma, the people of the dhimma or pact of protection, Ottoman Turkish zimmi) is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia law. The term connotes an obligation of the state to protect the individual, including the individual's life, property, and freedom of religion and worship, and required loyalty to the empire,[1] and a poll tax known as the jizya.
This status was originally only made available to non-Muslims who were People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians), but was later extended to include Sikhs[citation needed], Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and, in some areas, Hindus[2] and Buddhists.[3][4] Dhimmi had fewer legal and social rights than Muslims, but more rights than other non-Muslim religious subjects.[5] This status applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India from the 7th century until modern times.[6] Over time, many dhimmis converted to Islam. Most conversions were voluntary.[7][8] Forced conversion played a role in some later periods of Islamic history, mostly in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus

[snip]

Dhimmis were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim supremacy.[11] Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"[12] (but now lower under the Muslim rule[13][14][15]) and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of the dhimmi's subjection.[12] Various restrictions and legal disabilities were placed on Dhimmis, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[16] Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character.[17] Although persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical,[18], the limitations on the rights of dhimmis made them vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs[19].

[snip]

BTW, some progressive Muslim scholars are also starting to call for renunciation of sharia law regarding dhimmis, too, so I don't want to again suggest the position on it is monolithic. Of course, if Muslim states were completely secular, this religious matter would not have legal expression.