Interesting doesn't change my mind. A sympathetic reading of the Quran is no more legitimate or unbiased than a sympathetic reading of the Bible. Either book viewed objectively in the light of history and the actions their adherents shows a much more human motivation for any actions taken "in the name of God". Religion is always perverted to meet the requirements of whoever can get away with it. A violent minority can force anything on a complacent/compliant majority. A simple look at our own history will show that only about 15% of the Colonists initially supported revolution and splitting from England. Independance didn't become popular until it looked like the revolutionaries were winning. The French Revolution is another example of a (violent) minority forcing their will on a mostly indifferent populace. The Islamists may not be the majority, but it doesn't take a majority to wreak havoc and force change. As long as the majority do nothing, they are accomplices. It is only in opposition that they distance themselves from the goals and methods of the terrorists. A few thousand protestations of outrage, the paltry efforts of a handful of governments facing their own demise if they can't control internal disention - these are not the actions of a people (a religion that claims 1 billion + adherents) united in their opposition to the terrorists and their goals. Thankfully we may be seeing a groundswell change in Iraq as the Iraqi people start turning on those who would deny them a chance at a better life. And that has nothing to do with religion either. Bottom line - If we aren't at war with a religion, we are (or should be) at war with people who would use religion to their own ends. Peregrino

Hey Greenhat
 

More on your "PROGRESSIVE MOSLEM COUNTRIES": (This story had me rolling on the floor!)

Saudis Behead Three Convicted Terrorists
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Associated Press



RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi authorities on Friday executed three Saudi militants convicted of assassinating several officials two years ago, Saudi authorities said as this Gulf state continued its campaign to stamp out terrorism.
The three men were beheaded in public in the northern Saudi city of al-Jawf where they carried out their crimes, the Interior Ministry said. After the executions, authorities displayed the executed militants in a public square outside a mosque, tying their bodies to poles on top of which were placed their heads.
Their execution marked the first time Saudi authorities announced penalties against convicted terrorists since 1996. The Saudi monarch had announced an amnesty last year promising that repenting militants will not be sentenced to death.
Militants have carried out multiple suicide bombings and kidnappings and fought gun battles with security forces since May 2003. The attacks have been blamed on Al Qaeda (search), the terrorist group headed by Saudi-born terrorist Usama bin Laden (search), and allied militants.
The men executed Friday — Hisham bin Awwad, Mohammed bin Awadh and Amjad bin Abdul Aziz — were convicted in the 2003 killings of a deputy governor, a religious court judge and a police lieutenant.

muslims against us not assimilating
 

Sorry this article is mostly about culture and apostasy and other intellekshual stuff, but I thought the numbers might be interesting.

http://economist.com/world/na/displa...ory_id=3809802

In fact eh.

What exactly is a "countire"? Is that manufactured by Michelin, Goodyear or who?

And you haven't seen me ever suggest that Saudi Arabia was moderate.

The Middle-East does not represent Islam, and the majority of the 1.4 billion(more or less) Muslims in the world don't live in Saudi Arabia or even in the Middle-East.

"The hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, occurs annually between the eighth and thirteenth days of the last month of the Muslim year, Dhu al Hijjah. The hajj represents the culmination of the Muslim's spiritual life."

I'm sure the millions and millions of moslems that travel to Saudi Arabia every year would agree with you whole heartedly GreenHat.

The middle east is islams heart and soul.

I take it you've been to the middle east GreenHat?

I seem to remember reading a book once that a CIA guy suggested in mid 80's to put defective plastic explosives in cars of Syrian diplomats and make it look like it was Hizballah so that the Syrian leadership would go after them the way they did the Muslim Bros. He couldn't even get approval for the defective explosives.

Maybe approval would be more forthcoming if it were extremist vs extremist (no diplomats). Of course I have no experience to back up this baseless speculation, but it might be more difficult to pit extremist vs extremist since they seem to be so interelated/interconnected.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Article...le.asp?ID=17602
Quote:
The California Suicide Bomber

By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 4, 2005According to a remarkable article by Scott Macleod in the April 4 issue of Time Magazine, the suicide bomber who carried off the worst atrocity in

Iraq since the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime was a 32-year-old Jordanian who had lived for two years in California. Ra’ed Mansour al-Banna was born in Jordan in 1973 and grew up in a religious, economically prosperous merchant family. He studied law at the university, graduating in 1996, and then started his own law practice in the Jordanian capital of Amman. After three years, he gave it up and in 1999 he worked a half year without pay for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Amman, helping Iraqis who fled Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.

In 2001, sometime before 9/11, Banna received a visa and moved to the United States, where he apparently lived in California for nearly two years, moving from one unskilled job to another – factory worker, bus driver, and pizza maker. According to his father, Ra’ed even worked “in one of the Californian airports.” If Ra’ed did not make it economically, he seemed to fit in well, traveling to such destinations as the Golden Gate Bridge and the World Trade Center, growing his hair long, and taking up American popular music. Photographs sent to his family in Jordan show Banna eating a crab dinner, walking on a beach in California, mounted on a motorcycle, and standing in front of a military helicopter while holding an American flag. He even planned to marry a Christian woman until her parents demanded that the wedding take place in a church.



Banna apparently loved America, reporting back to his family about the people’s honesty and kindness; “They respect anybody who is sincere.” Talal Naser, a young man engaged to one of Ra’ed’s sisters, explained how Ra’ed “loved life in America, compared to Arab countries. He wanted to stay there.” His father, Mansour, recounted that, despite the September 11 attacks, Ra’ed “faced no problems with his American workmates, who liked him.”



Banna visited home in 2003 but on his return to the United States he was denied entry, accused of falsifying details on a visa application. He returned to Jordan and became withdrawn, holing up in a makeshift studio apartment, sleeping late, and displaying a new interest in religion. He began praying five times a day and listening to the Koran. In November 2004, he went on pilgrimage to Mecca, returning to Saudi Arabia in January 2005.



On Jan. 27, Banna crossed into Syria, presumably on the way to Iraq. He apparently spent February with Sunni jihadis in Iraq, during which time he called home several times, with the last call on about Feb. 28.



Feb. 28 also happens to be the date when Banna suited up as a suicide bomber and blew himself up at a health clinic in Al-Hilla, killing 132 people and injuring 120, the worst such attack of the 136 suicide bombings that have taken place since May 2003. On March 3, the family received a call informing them of Ra’ed’s fate. “Congratulations, your brother has fallen a martyr.”



A friend revealed that Banna became politically radicalized against American policies in the Muslim world while living in the United States. He was especially distraught about developments in Iraq. A neighbor, Nassib Jazzar, recalled Banna upset with the coalition occupation. “He felt that the Arabs didn’t have honor and freedom.’”



The father notes that Ra’ed wore Western-style clothing, rarely went to mosque, and was ignorant of the names of local sheikhs. “I am shocked by all of this because my son was a very quiet man, not very religious and more interested in pursuing his law profession and building a future for himself.”



As Time cautiously concludes from this tale,

On the basis of accounts given by his family, friends and neighbors, Ra’ed apparently led a double life, professing affection for America while secretly preparing to join the holy war against the U.S. in Iraq. “Something went wrong with Ra’ed, and it is a deep mystery,” says his father Mansour, 56. “What happened to my son?”

Ra’ed al-Banna’s biography inspires several observations:



(1) When it comes to Islamist terrorists, appearances often deceive. That Banna was said to “love life in America,” be “not very religious,” and be interested in “building a future for himself” obviously indicated nothing about his real thinking and purposes. The same pattern recurs in the biographies of many other jihadis.



(2) Moving to the West often spurs Muslims to despise the West more than they did before they got there. This appears to be what happened with Banna.



(3) Taking up the Islamist cause, even to the point of sacrificing one’s life for it, usually happens in a discreet manner, quite unobservable even to a person’s closest relatives.



In brief, Banna’s evolution confirms the point I have made repeatedly about the regrettable but urgent need to keep an eye on all potential Islamists and jihadis, which is to say Muslims.

Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction Publishers).

Another case that fits into what Sageman says in his book.

I just finished the rest of Barnett. I can now concentrate on Sageman.

MFO. Have you been to SouthEast Asia?

As for millions traveling to Saudi Arabia, it might be worth noting that there are over a billion Muslims. So, even if 10 million travel to Saudi Arabia, that is less than 1% of Islam.

As for Saudi Arabia being the heart and soul of Islam, the same could be said of Jeruselum and Christianity. So how many Christians take their direction from Israel? Do you? I don't.

GH,

While on active duty I spent five years in 5th Gp and six in 1st Gp. You do know the area orientation of both these active duty Special Forces Groups?

I traveled in both SW and SE Asia, and even spent some time fighting a war in SW Asia.
I lived in SE Asia for three years, used to speak, read and write Thai, now just speak Thai.
To answer your question in a little more detail, I've spent years studying both these geographic areas, their indigenous peoples, their economic, government, military, religion, etc etc etc etc.

TS

MFO?

The Dead Horse
 

Guys;

It looks like the horse has been beaten to death. One poor old hoof is sticking up flappin' in the breeze. Everybosy is now doing their best to blast that hoof off the leg.

Time will tell. Keep your eyes on the smaller countries of northern Europe over the next few years.

Of course there will be no prblem in SEA. After China takes Taiwan they will expand out and take most of the area. They have a way to take care of most western religions that seems to work well for them.

Pete

Why isn't it possible that al-Banna (POS) did love life in America, but turned against it when he was denyed re-entry? I have no problem in theory with the author's observations, just that the friends observations are treated like the ISO measure of intention.

MFO - Multinational Force of Observers.

And I've lived in SE Asia for the last ten years.

Sir:

An excerpt from Crisis of Islam, by Bernard Lewis:

"....For Muslims, as we in the West sometimes tend to forget, the Holy Land par excellence is Arabia and especially the Hijaz and it's two holy cities - Mecca, where the Prophet was born, and Medina, where he established the first Muslim state.... The Prophet Muhammad lived and died in Arabia, as did his immediate successors, the caliphs, in the headship of the community..... For Muslims, no piece of land once added to Islam can ever be renounced, but none can compare in significance with Arabia and Iraq. And of these two, Arabia is by far the more important...." (pp. xxix, Introduction)

A few other points:

Both Christianity and Judaism, not long after their inception, experienced periods of diaspora and persecution. This forced both of those churches to de-emphasize the geographical significance in maintaining the faith, because their shrines were for long periods denied them. The reformation furthered the de-emphasis on geography in Christianity.

The Islamic world did not meet with such hardships in its inception. It had centuries of uninterrupted conquest and success in which to cement the relationship of the religion with the region and it's shrines. The fact that all Muslims still kneel towards Mecca is symbolic of the predominance of those places as the heart of the Islamic world.

Furthermore, while the majority of Muslims do live in SE Asia, there is an overwhelming dominance on Islamic scholarship and intellectual leadership within the ME, both historically (it was and is the center of Islamic jurisprudence and philosophy) and today.

Read more about Islam and Muslims than Lewis. His books are often the (rehashed) opinion of one man. A number of historians are beginning to challenge his take on things.

What do you suggest and of which historians are you speaking? :munchin

Besides Jimbo's comments, I can make a pretty strong argument that Islam is undergoing a reformation today, and that the reformation in South East Asia is significantly different and more agreeable than the reformation in the Middle East.

The Muslims of South East Asia are mostly interested in partaking of the modern world and the majority of them practice their religion in a manner not dramatically different from Christians in the United States.

I recommend reading as much as you can from as many different authors as you can. This is a good read, and it highlights some of the problems with relying too heavily on Lewis: http://www.mafhoum.com/press7/225C31.pdf

From that pdf:
As to specific historians, this guy, for one: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/humphreys.htm

You might look into books by Fouad Ajami, Rashid Khalidi, Gilles Kepel, Olvier Roy, Hamid Algar, and Ali Shariati.

Thanks for the suggestions, Jimbo. As an unrepentant info junkie, I have been known to hoard reading lists and syllabi. :)

I have read others, Jimbo, that just happens to be what I'm reading at the moment and the reference was fresh. I understand that he may have some ideas that aren't universally popular, but I don't think the importance of the Hijaz to Muslims is one of them.

My only experience with Southeast Asian Muslims is my aunt by marraige, who is Malay and Muslim. I'm very close to my uncle on that side, and lived with them for a summer while I was in college. She is a strict Muslim in some ways, and more typically Asian in others. She is very ritualistic in terms of prayer and other proprieties, but very modern in her fashion, etc. I understand that a population of one is not enough to justify generalizations, so I won't make any. But I do have at least that exposure to SE Asian Muslims.

Also read the text of a speech delivered in '03 (IIRC) by the "moderate" Islamic president of Idonesia, Mohathir Mohammad. At the time he was being heralded as the great hope for Islamic moderation, but I recall the text of his speech being more of a call more complete Islamism than anything resembling reform.

In class tonight we have cultural hour. I'm going to put this to our Egyptian instructor, and see what he says. Surely as a Muslim who spent 25 years growing up in Egypt, he will have some insight.

Well then, have at this site: http://www.sais-jhu.edu/Faculty/pecastaing/

It has some syllabi from one of my old profs. He taught the second best course on terrorism I've ever taken.

Mahathir Mohamad was the Prime Minister, not President, of Malaysia, not Indonesia, until 2003. He was a Muslim, like about 55% of Malaysians, but hardly an Islamist. And he was not a moderate in any sense of the word. He was the authoritarian leader of a political movement rooted in corporatist capitalism. He was the major proponent of the "Asian values" concept that "freedom" and "democracy" are Western concepts and that Asians value community and deference to authority more.

Mahathir's political movement, UNMO (United Malays National Organisation), is a secular Malay nationalist movement, which in coalition with the Malaysian Chinese Association, Malaysian Indian Congress and several minor parties form the Barisan Nasional (National Front), which has ruled Malaysia since independence from Britain.

The main opposition to Barisan National was Barisan Alternatif (Alternative Front). This coalition includes the main Malaysian Islamist party, the Islamic Party of Malaysia (Parti Islam SeMalaysia, or PAS). Running on an anti-corruption agenda, PAS did surprisingly well in the 1999 elections, winning 27 seats in parliament.

After the September 11 attacks, the secular Democratic Action Party abandoned the Alternative Front because PAS would not moderate its Islamist ideology. In the 2004 elections, PAS collapsed, losing 20 of 27 seats. Its remaining coalition partner also collapsed, and the Alternative Front ended up with 8 seats, to the National Front's 198 and the Democratic Action Party's 12.

This, by the way, is the President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono:

Dr. Mahathir's political style was touted by non-Islamists, like China's Communists who also ascribe to the "Asian values" school. And Dr. Mahathir's anti-Semitism probably made him popular among some Muslims, but his political movement had little to do with religion.

General, now President Yudhoyono is a "moderate," but he is also a professional military officer, and leads a secular political movement.

There was a President of Indonesia that has been touted as a moderate Islamist, whom you may have partially mixed up with Mahathir. That would be Abdurrahman Wahid, President of Indonesia from 1999 to 2001, founder of the moderate Islamist National Awakening Party and former leader of the Nahdlatul Ulama, the main organization of Muslim clerics in Indonesia. He has a website with extensive English-language commentary on various issues including religion and politics, if you want to get a flavor of where he stands: http://www.gusdur.net/english/index.php

heck, he has more of our badges, than i do... :boohoo

Abdurrahman Wahid on Indonesian politics:

"Indonesian politics is like a tree full of monkeys. They are all on different limbs at different levels. Some are climbing up. Some are climbing down. The monkeys on the top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but a bunch of assholes."

http://www.gusdur.net/english/index....d=28&Itemid=64

Then-Captain Yudhoyono at Jungle Warfare School in Panama (in the early 1980s, I think):

Lt. Yudhoyono at Ranger School, 1976:

Damn thread is a year old and won't die.

Target rich environment!

UN to monitor defamation of Islam ..... :rolleyes:

Over a year
 

That is because there are those who believe and those who have burkas pulled down over their eyes.

We will all agree when we kneel down and face the east as we pray.

Pete

How Islam is Responsible for Making Terrorists
Excerpts reprinted with permission from Ali Sina
Friday, April 15, 2005

In my previous article Why Good Muslims Become Terrorists I wrote:

“Everyone who has a brush with Islam is at risk. Any Muslim can become a terrorist overnight. As long as people believe Muhammad was a messenger of God, they are at risk of contracting Islamic terrorist fever.”

Not everyone agreed. Mr. Hugh Fitzgerald of jihadwatch.org in a private email wrote: "'any Muslim' and 'overnight'? I think too much is claimed”.

Let me respond to this concern and clarify my position. Of course not everyone who reads the Quran becomes a terrorist overnight. I said "can" not "will". In the same article I wrote:

“Many people are infected by HIV but only a few get AIDS. Many people are Muslims, but only a few become terrorists.”

There are several factors that have to be present and the Quran is one of them.

One factor is xenophobia or the distrust of the non-Muslims. Many Islamic countries actively and systematically promote the hatred of the Jews, the America and the West in general. You must see yourself as the victim and the non-Muslims as the oppressors in order to hate them enough to kill them. A great number of Muslims, perhaps the majority, are at this stage. Not all these Muslims are going to become terrorists, but a great majority of them are convinced that America and particularly the Jews are responsible for everything that is wrong in their lives. Just read what they write on the Internet and you’ll see their favorite line of “defense of Islam” is to blame the Jews and America .

The other factor that makes them vulnerable to become terrorists is being hit by a crisis. Personal problems, especially if they are experienced at youth, seem greater than they actually are and tend to make life look meaningless. During these crises people often seek spiritual guidance in their religions and some youngsters, out of desperation, may even commit suicide. Here is where the danger lies. When young Muslims in crisis seek spiritual guidance from their holy book, they expose themselves to the negative influnce of the Quran and the seed of becoming a jihadi aka terrorist is sown in their minds. Life is already meaningless; suicide does not seem like a bad idea. In Islam you can have your cake and eat it too. You can become a martyr – end your miserable life and gain the rewards of the afterlife too. This is like killing two birds with one stone.

Muslims are led to believe that America and especially the Jews who “run the world by proxy” (as the Malaysian PM, Dr. Mahathir said) are responsible for all their miseries. They see themselves as victims. Once they identify their alleged victimizers, they are ready to take their revenge – a revenge that is glorified by all the Muslims and is encouraged by God himself. Here is where the Quran provides them with “guidance” and confirmation. You take your revenge, you end our useless, worthless life, you will be hailed as a hero and you will go to paradise where a bevy of voluptuous celestial "virgin whores" in their see through lingerie is waiting for you to fulfill all your frustrated fantasies. Suddenly you can kiss goodbye all your failures and succeed. What a bargain! How can anyone refuse that?

But that is not all. You also need the support and encouragement of others. You may get cold feet. You need to be egged on, cheered and reconfirmed. This is readily available through mosques that incite hate and encourage martyrdom and the underground network of terrorism that rouse young Muslims to join their campaign of terror and become the next martyr. The whole Islamic ethos encourages you to become a martyr. You have the support of everyone. Jihad and martyrdom are the essence of Islam. Who is that Muslim who can oppose it?

Therefore to say that just by reading the Quran, loving Muslims become terrorists is not entirely true. A whole gamut of conditions must be present for that to happen.

Take the example of becoming infected by viruses. Two persons are exposed to the same virus; one become infected and the other doesn't. Can we conclude that virus has nothing to do with the disease? Immunities vary from person to person. The person with less immunity will get infected while the one with stronger immunity will not. But ultimately it is the virus that makes people sick.

Likewise, not all those who read the Quran become terrorists. But when all the conditions are met, Muslims become vulnerable. It is like being soaked in gasoline. All it takes is a spark to be ignited and that is what the Quran provides. Others read the Quran and may not be affected. They are like wet wood. They hardly get ignited and worked out by the hate laden verses of the Quran. But if all the conditions are met, every Muslim becomes vulnerable and can become a terrorist.

The problem is that all those conditions that prepare a Muslim to become a terrorist are also caused by the Quran. These conditions are not cultural, ethnic, political or economical. They are religious. The hatred of the Jews and the non-Muslims has its roots in the Quran. Most of the crises that Muslim youth face, like lack of opportunity and loss of hope are also the result of the failure of Islam in solving the real problems of Muslims and particularly the youth.

One more factor that I did not mention but is very important is the lack of self-esteem and the prevalent feeling of worthlessness among Muslims, and Islam’s pedagogic fiasco in rearing confident, positive and successful humans. Terrorists are losers who seek their glory in martyrdom. That too is the direct consequence of the failure of Islamic paradigm.

Therefore, Islam does not only provide the ultimate spark, it also prepares Muslims throughout their lives to become failures, haters and terrorists. It gives them distorted values and trains them slowly to accept stupidity as a praiseworthy sacrifice and murder as a divine act.

Islam is entirely responsible for Islamic terrorism. If we fail to see that, we have failed in our diagnosis.

No doubt I am at odds with everyone again....I read the article and all I read was bad mathematical logic theory; falsity implies anything :o

Horseshit. "Perhaps the majority"? 700 million people?

Yeah, Arafat had a real lack of self-esteem and feeling of worthlessness, huh?

I've met an awful lot of Muslims, and have yet to see this "lack of self-esteem" as any more prevelent than any other group (and significantly less than Catholics or Buddhists in my experience).

I didn't say I agreed with it...I just posted it.

Anybody here have any thoughts on Gurr's "Relative Deprivation" theory?

BTW, if you haven't read Understanding Terrorist Networks by Sageman and this subject interests you, you should buy the book. Jimbo's recommendation is a good one.

Commentary: Al-Qaida's take on the U.S.
By Michael Scheuer
Special for United Press International
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...3338-6777r.htm

Please see link in above post instead.