bin laden asks for truce

[Momus--]

DP

[culero]

Originally posted by Momus--
snip
No, I'm quite rational. Delusional is supporting the invasion of a secular regime in Iraq thinking that it will somehow harm islamic radicalism. Delusional is believing that there are millions upon millions of terrorists out to get you, going to war halfway around the world and yet failing to secure your southern border.

Momus, until I reached this bit I was thinking "Quite right, and well stated". I completely agree. While I loathe the radical elements involved in terrorism and probably differ with you regarding how far we are right to go in terms of seeking them out and exterminating them, there's no call for religious bigotry.

However, I beg to differ with you on this last bit. The invasion of Iraq to expel Saddam and allow the formation of democratic government was both the right thing to do and is indeed an important component of the overall strategy to curb islamic radicalism.

We've already been successful in deposing and bringing a mad and murderous tyrant to justice. If we are successful in allowing a democratic regime to develop and flourish, and then leave once its healthy, we will have demonstrated the validity and efficacy of our stated good intent to the Arab world. I believe that we will be successful, and that history will reflect the same results of success that it has in Japan and Germany. The long view here is IMO a worthy one.

As to our southern border, its where I live - in fact in one of its most populous  and most porous areas. I and my family are perfectly secure. Its true that illegal immigration is rampant, and I agree we should work on that problem. Its true that in theory this means terrorists have an opening to exploit in terms of entry to the US.

But, you might be surprised to learn just how much of the flow north is monitored by police on both sides of the border, and how aware they are of its elements. There are political factors involved that mean blind eyes are turned toward the illegal immigration to some extent. That doesn't mean that dangerous elements can't be identified and interdicted to a larger extent than many are aware.

culero

[Momus--]

Your points are well made Culero. In respect of Iraq, my view is that the invasion and subsequent occupation has been counterproductive in respect of fighting terrorism in that it has underlined the radicalist message that muslim lands are under occupation and attack and has thus served to actually radicalise *more* of the region's population. The subsequent rise in terrorist incidents around the globe that followed the invasion might offer some evidence that this is the case. It may well be that in the long term a democratic iraq will stablize the region; if this is the case then it can only be a good thing from any perspective. What I find ironic however is that the usual suspects in this thread are quite happy to condem all muslims as bloodthirsty savages yet at the same time point to the establishment of what looks like being a government dominated by fundamentalist Shia figures in Iraq as some kind of accomplishment. That is not a consistent position.

Regarding border security; my point is that if there are indeed millions upon millions of muslims just waiting to kill innocent Americans as some people here contend, then not addressing what is generally held to be a real problem on your southern border would seem to be an act of negligence at the very least.  However, I don't believe that there are vast numbers of muslims just lining up to kill americans; just a relatively small number. That you feel secure in your home doesn't surprise me, I feel the same way living in one of the British cities with the highest concentrations of muslims in the country.

Hope this clears things up?

[Momus--]

Seagoon, the Sura YOU quoted refers to specific point in the story of Islam in just the same way as the verses from the OT that I quoted do. You used a single verse with no context to make a bogus point about how the Quran allows for truce breaking, when in fact the verses I supply show clearly that there is a clear directive to respect all the terms of such a truce.

You can cite Al-Ghazali all you like: your initial assertions about the concept of Taqiyya are still misleading, since it is by means the universally held tenet that you claim. That is the point.

The problem with your method is thus:

You ignore historical context of a type that you are happy to acknowledge wheen looking at biblical passages.

You cherry pick verses from the quran and ignore verses that undermine your argument.

You give more weight to commentary and the Hadiths than you to more unequivocal quranic verses tha oppose your argument (i.e. your harping on al-Ghazali).

You are using centuries-old work non-authoritative works to define what modern muslims beleive and feel TODAY.

You disregard the political context in which many of todays islamist movements have come about and thus fail to give the full picture in attributing all their motivations to religion.

You seem to think that you can use the actions of a small number of extremists coupled with a handful of sources that *YOU* choose to tell us what the overwhelming majority of muslims who have never engaged in violence against the west really think. In this http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166704&perpage=50&highlight=millions&pagenumber=2 thread I asked you twice to substantiate your claim that there are hundreds of millions of muslims directly engaged in violent jihad against the west.

Perhaps unsurprisingly you failed to qualify your position, perhaps because that despite your apparently fervent desire to turn the War on terrorism into a War on Islam, you really haven't got any evidence backs up such claims.

Originally posted by weaselsan
Osama makes up the rules as he goes along. A simple Quran reading would instantly give him an excuse to ignore any (Treaty).

009.012
YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
In other words accept Islam or you violate the treaty.

You need to read it again. I've italicised the part in bold that you seem to have missed. The verse states that the terms of a truce can be broken only if the other side breaks them first. But yes you're right; I think Bin Laden does make the rules up as he goes along.

[Seagoon]

Hello Again Momus,

Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, the Sura YOU quoted refers to specific point in the story of Islam in just the same way as the verses from the OT that I quoted do. You used a single verse with no context to make a bogus point about how the Quran allows for truce breaking, when in fact the verses I supply show clearly that there is a clear directive to respect all the terms of such a truce.

In the Bible the revelation is progressive and the NT clearly spells out (particularly in Hebrews) that the ceremonial laws of the OT were fulfilled when the one they pointed to - Christ came. The Judicial Laws and those dealing with the Herem (the conquest of Canaan) expired along with the theocracy of Israel. This is the clear understanding of almost every Christian denomination and can be found in most of the Confessional documents coming out of the Reformation. For instance, the Westminster Confession which was drawn up by the Scots and Puritans in London in 1648 states:

"III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament. IV.  To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require." [WCF 19.3&4]

The Quran also has a doctrine of abrogation, that is that the "peaceful, gracious" earlier Suras of the Mecca period, when Muhammad was attempting to get the tribes of Mecca (Pagan, Jewish, and Christian) to become Muslims were abrogated after they for the most part rejected his overtures, and now the warlike Suras about fighting and subjugating unbelievers written after he fled to Medina are the rule.

What this all means, is that for the modern evangelical the passages dealing with the instructions for the conquest of Canaan NO LONGER APPLY. But for the modern faithful Muslim, the passages in the Quran regarding Holy War STILL APPLY and always will till the judgment. Sharia law, which you never seem to bother to mention in your posts, is a binding synopsis of the teaching  of the Quran and the Hadiths on every subject in religion and culture, and Sharia is also the literal law of the land in many countries. So for instance, the reason a woman in Saudi Arabia must wear the Hijab and keep covered up and escorted by a male relative when she goes out is not quaint Arabian custom - it is because the Quran and the Hadiths MANDATE that they must.

The reason I cited Ghazali is because modern Sunni Muslims treat and recommend his work as an authoratative explanation of the teaching of the Quran and the Hadiths. His book is FREQUENTLY given by Mosques to converts to tell them how to live their lives as Muslims. The English translation of the Reliance of the Traveller, and I quote "is the first Islamic legal work in a European language to receive the certification of al-Azhar, the Muslim world's oldest institution of higher learning. He also possesses ijazas or "certifiates of authorisation" in Islamic jurisprudence from sheikhs in Syria and Jordan. "

For a few reflections from Muslims about how authoratative the work is:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/reliance.htm
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/lofiversion/index.php/t2766.html

The work is authoratative and important because it summarizes laws binding on MODERN MUSLIMS so yes, the Sunni version of "dissumulation" is current and binding and not an invention of the "suddenly materialized in the Middle East, doesn't understand Islam and I can't understand why he's so popular" version of Bin Laden that you seem to believe in.

Oy, look Momus is every Muslim a terrorist? Clearly not. Are there "liberal Muslims" just like there are "liberal Christians?" Absolutely. But do the fiqhs regarding Jihad and alliances and lying still prevail in Muslim custom and jurisprudence? Yes.

Look, cut it whatever way you want, neither history, nor current events, nor Sharia, are on your side and the longer we play this silly game of "lets pretend" with the Muslim world, the more inevitable our eventual defeat as a culture becomes.

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

What may be helpful in this discussion is the consideration of Hugh Fitzgerald's 14 rules for discussing Islam properly, I'll only list the first 6 - the entire list is available online here: 14 Rules

   For people to discuss Islam properly, they would need to do a number of things. The first thing would be to recognize that the Qur'an itself is only the major but hardly the sole text, and that the other great source of Islamic beliefs and acts come from the Sunna, which means "Custom" or �Tradition,� and which itself is comprised of the Hadith, records of the sayings and doings of Muhammad, and the Sira, which is Muhammad�s actual biography. (Obviously there is a great deal of overlap between these two). Once all that has been clearly understood, one would have to:

    1) Read, and re-read, together with the most authoritative Muslim commentaries, or at least some of them (as well as �Umdat al-Salik, "The Reliance of the Traveller," which is a most enlightening and helpful compendium of Islamic law put together for the use of Muslims), the three canonical texts of Islam: the Qur'an (available online in various English translations set out synoptically), the Hadith (available online in the recensions of Bukhari, Muslim, Malik, and, partially, Abu Dawud), and the Sira (chiefly the earliest, that of Ibn Ishaq in the recension of Ibn Hisham). For the Sira, in addition to the Muslim version, see also the many biographies of Muhammad by Western scholars of Islam: Sir Wiliam Muir, Professors Arthur Jeffery, and Tor Andrae, and Maxine Rodinson. All are readily available.

    2) Study not only the texts, but how they are received. Are they taken literally? Figuratively? Are there different guides available by which Muslims reconcile seemingly contradictory elements, as for example the doctrine of abrogation, or "naskh"? And is that doctrine of abrogation helpful in smoothing out the harshness and hostility in many passages, or does that doctrine, on the contrary, make the Qur'an far harsher in its impact than a cursory reading, and a misunderstanding, might suggest?

    3) Study the role of Islam in the lives of Muslims. How potent is that religion, how much does it pervade and suffuse everyday life, down to the slightest conversational allusion? For that one would need to read, and not quickly, in both in the historical sources (Muslim and non-Muslim) and in the reports of European travellers, diplomats, visitors, and in modern times, the sociologists who live for a year or two or five among Muslims, or like Fr. Menezes, tended to them over many decades, and left a record of their observations. One would also have to consult the testimony of both those who were born into Islam, and remained Muslims, and those who became "defectors" from Islam, though intimately familiar with it -- such people as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and Azam Kamguian and Irfan Khawaja and a thousand other articulate writers on the subject. Many of these are presently in this country, and the rest, of course, are in other non-Muslim countries where they are safe from the penalty for apostasy � for now.

    4) Study the psychology of Muslims. What does belief in Islam do to one's worldview, one's way of regarding the world, and one�s understanding of facts about the workings of the natural world? How does it affect the way one regards the acts, and attitudes, of Infidels? Several books have been devoted to analysis of "The Arab Mind" (the title of a well-known book by Raphael Patai), but more important, perhaps, is a study of the "Psychology of Muslims." One such study exists -- that of Andre Servier -- but it is out-of-print. But this is a key area of study that someone should take up. The assumption, for example, that both Infidels and Muslims regard treaty-making in the same way is simply false. Infidels adhere to the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda (Treaties are to be obeyed), while for Muslims, the model of all subsequent treaties between Muslims and Infidels is the agreement made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D., the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. Without understanding the significance of this treaty, one cannot begin to discuss the value of, for example, Israel's signing of solemn agreements (or what appear to Israel and the United States as solemn agreements) with Egypt, or the "Palestinians," or any number of others.

    5) Attempt to comprehend how Islam inculcates a manichaean view of the universe, in which the essential division is between Believer and Infidel, and hostility, or even murderous hatred, is so deeply inculcated at every level. This includes even urging Muslims never to take non-Muslims as friends (cf. Qur�an 5:51), never to wish them well on their own holidays, and never to accept even their seeming acts of benevolence (such as the help extended a month ago in the tsunami aftermath) as anything other than a sinister plot designed to soften up Muslims -- the better to then have them heed the "whisperings of Shaytan" (Satan). That this seems incredible to Western man does not mean that it is not true. The general lack of historical training in the West, and of training in the exercise of imaginative sympathy, among not only ordinary people but also among those who have a special duty to learn, and then to instruct, others (which includes journalists, government officials), now can be seen to have practical consequences.

    6) Study, and think about, and study again, and think again -- for it takes time to have this matter sink in � about what it means to be a "moderate" Muslim. Is it a question of simple nonobservance, nonchalance about the Faith? Is it based on ignorance, the ignorance of an illiterate Bedouin, or Afghani villager, or someone deep in the Sumatran jungle, who knows he is a "Muslim" but has no idea what that may mean? To be a "moderate," is it enough not to be a believer or follower of "Wahhabi" Islam? If so, then must we class as moderates such notable non-Wahhabis as Ayatollah Khomeini, or Hassan Nasrallah of Hizballah, or Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood?

    Is a "moderate" someone who opposes the burka? Who opposes the full imposition of the shari'a when it comes to the criminal law? Is it someone who accepts Western dress, Western ways of doing things, Western technology, and yet still believes that Islam has a divine right to spread across the globe -- and that it must, as Muhammad said, come to "dominate and not to be dominated"?

    Is a "moderate" someone who assures you that he is a "moderate," or do we need other proof, given the religiously-sanctioned doctrines of dissimulation (Taqiyya, Kitman) and the existence of people who are well-versed in lying for the Faith and the wellbeing of Believers?

    And is a "moderate" Muslim someone who assures you he fully accepts pluralism? What if you suspect that that is only because he is, for now, living in the West, where Muslims are still in the process of solidifying the position and entrenchment of Islam? Could it be that for that process of solidification he needs the protection of Western pluralism, tolerance, and a highly-developed system of individual rights, but that he has no intention of supporting pluralism in the West when he no longer needs it for his own purposes, and will make no move to ensure that pluralism is accepted in Muslim countries, with full rights for non-Muslim minorities, and the right of freedom of conscience for Muslims themselves (i.e., the right to become apostates without being killed)?

    Is a "moderate" Muslim someone who is now "moderate" but who may, at some personal setback, some disappointment or depression or emotional desarroi, revert to the idea that Islam provides a Total Explanation of the Universe -- and that Explanation includes the Infidel, all Infidels, as the objects of all hatred and blame? Remember �Mike� Hawash, the ideal Rotarian-turned-jihadist? Thus it is that we Infidels, when things go wrong in our own lives, can blame our parents, our siblings, our children, our spouses, Fate, the stars, our cholesterol level, our serotonin level, The System, The Man, Amerikkka, or even, at times, ourselves. Muslims, on the other hand, have it all so simple: they can blame the Infidels."

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, the Sura YOU quoted refers to specific point in the story of Islam in just the same way as the verses from the OT that I quoted do. You used a single verse with no context to make a bogus point about how the Quran allows for truce breaking, when in fact the verses I supply show clearly that there is a clear directive to respect all the terms of such a truce.

You can cite Al-Ghazali all you like: your initial assertions about the concept of Taqiyya are still misleading, since it is by means the universally held tenet that you claim. That is the point.

The problem with your method is thus:

You ignore historical context of a type that you are happy to acknowledge wheen looking at biblical passages.

You cherry pick verses from the quran and ignore verses that undermine your argument.

You give more weight to commentary and the Hadiths than you to more unequivocal quranic verses tha oppose your argument (i.e. your harping on al-Ghazali).

You are using centuries-old work non-authoritative works to define what modern muslims beleive and feel TODAY.

You disregard the political context in which many of todays islamist movements have come about and thus fail to give the full picture in attributing all their motivations to religion.

You seem to think that you can use the actions of a small number of extremists coupled with a handful of sources that *YOU* choose to tell us what the overwhelming majority of muslims who have never engaged in violence against the west really think. In this http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166704&perpage=50&highlight=millions&pagenumber=2 thread I asked you twice to substantiate your claim that there are hundreds of millions of muslims directly engaged in violent jihad against the west.

Perhaps unsurprisingly you failed to qualify your position, perhaps because that despite your apparently fervent desire to turn the War on terrorism into a War on Islam, you really haven't got any evidence backs up such claims.

 

You need to read it again. I've italicised the part in bold that you seem to have missed. The verse states that the terms of a truce can be broken only if the other side breaks them first. But yes you're right; I think Bin Laden does make the rules up as he goes along.

I didn't miss anything, he would simply interpret the taunting of Islam (His Faith) to mean anything he chose to. Thus the making up his own rules (he feels that he is an Islamic scholar equal to the great Imams.

The "War on Terror" is only a politically correct way of saying "War on radical Islam" Terrorism is a strategy used by "Radical Islam." We where not bombing the crap out of "Terrorism" in Afganistan. We where bombing the crap out of the Taliban, a group if Radical Islamists harboring another radical islamist responsible for the death of 3000 innocent people. If we are only at war with terrorism, then in WWII we where only at war with Tanks , planes and ships not the Nazis.

Seagoon understands the fallicy of the existance of a "Moderate". By definition a moderate is neither fish nor foul...on the fence...in the middle of the road. The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead animals. Radical Islam has one goal, to convert the entire world to Islam,at any cost. They have their own definition of Islam.

Biblical passages as passages in the Quran are and have always been open to interpretation. I don't profess to have even the slightest knowledge of either. Even our own Supreme Court can't interpret our Constitution the same way twice. The death penalty is unconstitutional, 20 years later it is Constitutional again. I do know however, that radical Islam must be defeated if our way of life is to survive.

[*NDM*JohnnyX]

I can't believe a Battletech mech somehow made it into this thread. That's great!

[Debonair]

lol, osama is giving out book reviews.
who'd he pick in the NFC championship game?

[AWMac]

Originally posted by Debonair
lol, osama is giving out book reviews.
who'd he pick in the NFC championship game?

Heh the "Raiders"?



Mac

[Estel]

Originally posted by Momus--

Regarding Sura 9:5, and not 9:4 as you incorrectly label it, why didn't you
Comments?

Yep.

Rule #1. Never believe to muslims.
Rule #2. If you think you can believe this muslim look rule #1.

[AWMac]

I have far more better things in life than to worry about Muslims and Islams frikken Jihad.

I say we stop doing the "Cat toying with the Mouse" and Nuke the bastards and move on.

We sit here and waste young lives and we have the weapons to anilate the SOB's..

Nuke the Haji when they are stampeding each other, Nuke Mecca. Nuke Tehran and Damascus at the exact time.  Then tell China to back off.

The only way to win this is being as or more brutal as those we fight.  I applaude the SF'rs that burned the Taliban bodies and taunted the others to come and fight.  A feat short of decapitation on video tape. BTW the Geneva Convention is out...oldtime rules. NATO is out... so frikken corrupt, send NATO to Europe..maybe France, it fits.

Look at WWII. Brutal for a purpose, a goal... to end it. Did the USA media fuss about the bombing of Dresden?  London being bombed over and over again.  Norway, Finland, France, Spain, Poland, Slavac..on and on..What we face here today will not end in lil terrortorial skirmishes, or regional.

We pull all our troops out in a 24 hour time frame, so fast it makes the Worlds Powers and others heads snap and let the nukes fly.
If we sit and wait we have Iran with Nukes, Syria with Nukes and North Korea with Nukes. Notice Egypt has not said anything nor Saudia?  Libya seen the picure quick.

We strike first and make the World a better place.

In 3 days all this would be over.  Of course it would mean Millions dead... but in a Hundred Years how many dead will we count if we continue the course we are presently on?

Just my observation...otherwise we are in a long 100 years battle ~vs~ 3 days.

Mac.

[bj229r]

OBL has studied and copied the methods the North Vietnamese used--- avoid stand-up fights, (which they would surely lose) fight a war of attrition, which the American left can't stomach, and call for a truce every time the war goes poorly---gives him a chance to regroup.

[Gh0stFT]

using nukes against terrorists ?
its like using a shotgun against a fly, killing everything cept the fly.
but maybe in 100 years they would forgive you, maybe.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
using nukes against terrorists ?
its like using a shotgun against a fly, killing everything cept the fly.
but maybe in 100 years they would forgive you, maybe.

Oh I don't know, we seem to have forgiven the Horrible killing of 6 million plus human beings by the Germans.  It has not been 100 years yet.


Hell we even let them spout off about morality without cracking up.