Tragedy in process in Russia

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

Jihadists Failing to Win Muslim Minds

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

Greetings to All,

There have been numerous tradegies carried out by terrorists groups claiming to be working in the name of God (Allah). I have been loathe to identify these scum as Islamic as they do not reflect Islamic values and tradition. And I would appreciate it if you did not refer to them as Islamic terorists, or IslamicSickpunks.......if you choose to call them sick ***** or low life terrorists, that is up to you, but I would most appreciate if you did not slander Islam by connecting it with the despicable acts of terror that have been occurring of late in many parts of the world.

I have been looking for the terrorists myself so that I could turn them in to the proper authorities (CIA, FBI, Homeland security, etc.) and so that I could tell them that they should not be claiming to be fighting in God's cause as clearly God does not support them.........and neither do the vast majority of Muslims......

That is why I take such offense.......They don't represent the Muslim majority, despite their claims.........Many have claimed that we Muslims have not spoken up loudly enough denouncing terrorism.......I say, do you even bother to listen to us?


By Gilles Kepel http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions
Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the hostage-taking in North Ossetia and its horrendous outcome and the capture of two French journalists in Iraq have shed new light on the challenges facing Islamist terrorism.

In his 2001 pamphlet, "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner," Ayman Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's chief ideologue, reminded his readers that the "jihadist vanguard" was always at risk of being isolated from the "Muslim masses." He wrote that the jihadists needed to find ways of mobilizing those masses toward the supreme political goal: the triumph of the Islamic state and the implementation of Islamic law worldwide.

Zawahiri considered the 1990s a decade of failed opportunities. Jihad had been unsuccessful in Algeria, Bosnia, Egypt and Kashmir because militants had proved unable to galvanize civil society. To reverse this trend, he came up with the idea of using spectacular terrorism to shock the enemy and make the Muslim masses see the jihadists as knights. The Sept. 11 attacks were conceived by Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden as a way of "magnifying" jihad against Israel and "burning the hands of the U.S.," Islam's "faraway enemy" and ally of the Jewish state.

But three years on, this ideology has not achieved its goal. Although Al Qaeda has resisted Cold War-inspired U.S. military strategy (Bin Laden and Zawahiri remain on the run) and directed a succession of bloody terrorist attacks from Bali to Madrid, jihad activists have not seized power anywhere. They have lost their Afghan stronghold, and U.S.-led coalition troops have pursued the war on terror to Iraq, occupying Baghdad, erstwhile capital of the Muslim caliphate.

For the ulema, the Islamic scholars, this is a catastrophe. Instead of making inroads into enemy territory, jihad has backfired and led to what they call fitna — a war within Islam, pitting Shiite against Sunni, Arab against Kurd, Muslim against Muslim — and brought nothing but chaos. Among Palestinians, jihad has also so far led to fitna: The Palestinian Authority has lost influence while Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government has built a fence that blocks most suicide bombers and will choke the Palestinian economy.

Jihadists are at a crossroads: They are looking desperately for new slogans and modes of action to trigger mass mobilization. This is the context for the North Ossetia massacre and the abduction of the French journalists in Iraq.

Even though large numbers of Chechens resent Kremlin policy and desire independence, only a few identify with Islamist radicals, who have tried to hijack the Chechen independence movement. Taking hundreds of children hostage was supposed to show that Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's policy toward Chechnya had failed; jihad activists had hoped to compel Moscow to come to terms. But even before bombs exploded, the tactic had alienated Muslim opinion. Putin could have exploited this revulsion without storming the school and turning the Beslan massacre into the worst terrorist incident since Sept. 11 in terms of casualties.

Russia's politicians have demonstrated that they do not understand the nature of the challenge. They are using obsolete methods and weapons designed in Soviet days to curb dissidents, but these are ineffectual in ending 21st century Islamist terrorism. The United States, despite its "smart" weapons crafted to win the Cold War, has fared no better in its attempts to destroy the Al Qaeda leadership.

The abduction of the French journalists by the "Islamic Army in Iraq" provides another opportunity for an alternative approach to fighting terrorism. The group tried to blackmail French President Jacques Chirac into canceling the law banning religious symbols in French schools and met near unanimous condemnation by the Muslim world. Even Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah have been adamant in their denunciation of the hostage-taking, not out of love for impious France but because they believe the kidnapping will provoke fitna.

The Islamic Army thought it had a winning strategy: On Arab television stations, Islamist activists daily portray French secularism as persecution of Muslims. But the strategy backfired. France's policy in the Middle East, its criticism of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and its view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more important to opinion in the region than its stance on secularism. Scores of French citizens of Muslim descent have appeared on Arab TV since the kidnapping, vehemently opposing the Islamic Army's claims that it speaks in their name. Jihadists have had to backpedal and are now seeking a ransom rather than a change in the law.

The Muslim reaction to these incidents suggests that Al Qaeda could be beaten at its own hearts-and-minds game. Instead, by concentrating on the military option, Russia and the U.S. are missing an opportunity to mobilize Muslim civil society against Islamist terrorism and dry out the social swamps from which it springs.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
Posts: 6073
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Contact:

what should we call them?

Post by gmattson »

The terrorist certainly justify their actions by wrapping themselves around a religious cloth, so I guess more effort should be made by the religious group the terrorist are misrepresenting. . . To take whatever action necessary to stop them! Or at least take a more sympothetic position regarding what others are doing to clean their house.
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

It's been a while, Akil. I wish you well.

First, I'm glad you are here to balance the international perspective on the subject.

Second, your points about Islamic prejudice and unfortunate language are well taken. I stand by your sentiments.

That being said...

The LA Times article by Gilles Kepel is fascinating and problematic at the same time.

He lays out the thinking of a group I like to call Islamofascists (OK, I hope) quite clearly. I sure hope some on these WebPages who doubt their determination and ultimate goal are listening.
In his 2001 pamphlet, "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner," Ayman Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's chief ideologue, reminded his readers that the "jihadist vanguard" was always at risk of being isolated from the "Muslim masses." He wrote that the jihadists needed to find ways of mobilizing those masses toward the supreme political goal: the triumph of the Islamic state and the implementation of Islamic law worldwide.
Indeed.

That being said, what's the solution?

Kepel's hypothesis is that the French approach will win out over the U.S. and Russian approach because somehow they will gain support and sympathy from the Muslim majority.

Hmm...

Will the French or any other country find themselves less vunlnerable to terrorism in the future?

Pardon me if I remain skeptical.

And I might add that the French often are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Historically speaking, France and the French care about themselves, and that's just about it. They will dance with the devil if it gets them the competitive advantage they want. And they will avoid confrontation if it means they can escape the attention of terrorists and - yes - fascists. And we all know the history of success there.

I'm not entirely convinced that the Muslim majority would object to the objectives of this minority if it could be achieved by less brutal means. And I happen not to want anybody's religious laws imposed on me, thank you very much.

It's hard enough battling Fallwell (in Lynchburg) and Robertson (in Virginia Beach) in this state. The Muslim majority should take solace that folks like me aren't supporting THEIR crusade-like goals. Don't pi$$ me off (not you, Akil). I don't think any non-Christian wants me turning my back on the activity of those idiots.

We should not be trying to get sympathy from others. Instead, we need to confront the bastards on their turf - wherever it may be - with no apologies given.

IMO

They've shown their hand. Now I prefer to show my own. I'm not of the opinion that they will stop until physically stopped. And I'm not impressed that anyone is going to step forward and provide my country with defense from their insanity. Talk, prayer, and candlelight vigils fall on deaf ears here.

We've had our own Jim Jones's, KKK's, and Waco's in this country. We don't tolerate that crap.

- Bill
benzocaine
Posts: 2107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Location: St. Thomas

Post by benzocaine »

Sorry to offend you with the term Islamo.

I suppose I would use a different term except that these acts of terrorism[are done by people who] happen to beleive themselves to be muslim. I do acknowledge that the NRA is not Islamic.
I have been looking for the terrorists myself so that I could turn them in to the proper authorities (CIA, FBI, Homeland security, etc.) and so that I could tell them that they should not be claiming to be fighting in God's cause as clearly God does not support them.........and neither do the vast majority of Muslims......
I'd be interested to know just how you are doing this Akil. Is there a certain group of people you have targeted? God Bless!
KZMiller
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:08 pm
Location: Washington State

Post by KZMiller »

Hi Akil! Very good to see you again. I hope you feel welcome in this thread.
Jihadists are at a crossroads: They are looking desperately for new slogans and modes of action to trigger mass mobilization. This is the context for the North Ossetia massacre and the abduction of the French journalists in Iraq.
Setting the means aside for a moment (I think we're all in agreement that some of the means are not appropriate, to say the least), I'd like to look at the goal because this is new to me. Mass mobilization to convert people to Islam. Christians, Mormons, all kinds of folks have tried to do this with their religions and it's built a lot of resentment (and in the case of Seventh Day Adventists, a lot of jokes). I understand that folks of various religions consider theirs the one true way and their God the one true God. I'm content to leave them with their belief. They may be right, after all. But going out to convert folks to the religion with the goal of majority or total global religion ... um ...

I have problems with this goal. It's a very big world. It's a very diverse world. Monoculture, speaking in agricultural terms, is bad. Even if we all agree there's One God I don't think this Being would practice monoculture. But that's my belief, not a true knowledge. I understand that. Nonetheless I think that if a religion is truly better than another, and backed by The True One, that conversion would be natural and inevitable for all right-thinking people.

But then I think that this direction of logic is natural and an inevitable conclusion ... I just won't take that final step and say all right-thinking people ought to see it my way.

Anyway, this goal is something I hadn't considered. I wasn't actually aware of a well-outlined, clear goal at all. So I'm grateful for the knowledge, but yet I'm disturbed. Is this a belief of jihadists only, or is this the general goal/hope of most Muslims (except that they hope to achieve it by different means)? I was under the impression that Muslims, very generally speaking, draw a line. They draw a line around their country, or if they're not in a Muslim country, their town, their family, themselves. They don't like uncouth and immoral influences crossing into their lines, like radio programs spouting profane subjects, sex on tv, things like that and that much of their beef with other cultures, nations and religions is that they're being constantly bombarded from the outside and are sick of it corrupting their youth. And they're sick of seeing it themselves. I draw lines around myself too. There are things I don't allow in my household. There are things that sicken me on tv and radio that I wish weren't publicly broadcast. I'm just different in that I restrict my exposure (and the exposure of my children) to that nonsense. I have a choice whether or not to subject myself to it. Yet I understand the desire to restrict it. Even in the US, we have standards for this sort of stuff. (I'd hate to see what it would look like without standards. Yikes.)

So now I'm really wondering what's going on as far as the relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim. Is it too diverse to even describe? Or is it more of an attempted movement in one or more directions?

Kami
One seed, many lives.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Interesting... I thought Akil would come back and chime in.

He gets beat up a lot when he comes on board, but I like having him around. He's never afaraid to offer an "in your face" Muslim perspective. I like that.

Just like I need my friend Gene around whenever I opine on the subject of trial lawyers... ;)

- Bill
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

That is the warmest welcome I have had here in a long time,

Not enough to get me to stick my neck out any farther on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary, a time when poeple's anger rushes up anew, almost as powerful as it was way back when it happened 3 years ago......

Many thanks....You all have been missed on my part as well......

Sayeth the Sensei.......
so I guess more effort should be made by the religious group the terrorist are misrepresenting
It seems a very reasonable request, does it not, that those who are of a moderate position work to put an end to the most extreme elements of the group that are giving the group a bad name (and doing despicable deeds in their name or in the name of their deity).

I agree, the moderate Muslims in Saudi Arabia need to stand up, and force its govt to stop funding these terrorists. Do you suppose these moderate Muslims in Saudi Arabia have a better chance of changing the course of their govt or getting thrown in jail for political insurrection?

Well, for those of you who are ignorant, often deliberately so, we recall that Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that we (yup, that's us, the U.S.), we actively support and have lovingly done so for over 50 years so that we can safly assure ourselves of unfettered access to oil (and conversely, none of our enemies gets that oil-why do we have so many enemies anyway? What have we done to piss everyone else off? is it that we have worked to destabilize their governments and replace their democractically elected leaders with despots.

And now that their countries are ruled by despots (usually with the nefarious help of the cia), and what freedoms previously existed are now just a memory, and now we make friends with those despots and see that they get enriched via the IMF and the world bank and their people get saddled with the debts when we whisk their dictator away, with no hints even of attempting to bring their despot to trial, we wonder why the moderates, who cower in fear of their despotic rulers, don't speak up more against the terrorist..........


Let us not forget that there are propagandists on both sides and both are fanning the flames of hatred. So if we want to get past the bloodshed and start moving toward some peace....both sides must respond to the extremists......your Falwell, your general boynkin, and your perhaps your Rush Limbaugh, need to be reckoned with.........Wasnt rush busted with thousands of oxy contins?......I thought getting busted with even a single one of those was a felony? I guess if your lawyer is good enough and your friends are in high places, justice means different things to different people.......so much for the rule of law......


Is this a belief of jihadists only, or is this the general goal/hope of most Muslims (except that they hope to achieve it by different means)?
Is it not a hope of ALL Christains that someday the whole world will become Christian. Seems a rather baseless hope when you consider all the different sects of Christianity. Even if you got eveyone to be Christian, they couldn't all agree on the same version.....Same thing with Islam.....

Some Muslims have the notion that someday everyone will be Muslim. The Quran, however, to my recollection (and I plan not to support this with research at the moment), gives instruction to live peaceably with the other religions when they chose not to take up arms with you. Quite literally, when they stop taking up arms against you and stop invading your homes........You must, at that point, put down your weapons or be the aggressor (which is not such a bad thing in our society as long as we are the aggressor).......
so I guess more effort should be made by the religious group the terrorist are misrepresenting
Or perhaps more effort should be made to investigate the reality of the claims before we broadcast their claims as if they are fact.

Let's suppose that I go to a bridge in San Franciusco and I decide I am gonna end it all now (I feel mistreated and misunderstood and I feel there is little to live for, hypothetically)....But before I go, I want everyone to know the reasons why I am pissed off.......so i bring with me a megaphone to announce my concerns to the world.......

Here is my anouncement, "I am an unhappy polar bear whose habitant has been destroyed" and I jump........

The next day, you read in the newspaper, the following headline, "Polar Bear jumps to his death decrying deplorable living conditions".........

Are you gonna say what an awesome job of reporting these supposed journalists did? No, they got it all wrong. Some stupid jerk who thought he was a polar bear jumped off a bridge, that is the reality.

The ethical reporter can write that this guy thought he was a polar bear, but that significant and overwhelming evidence to the contrary is that, in fact, he was not a polar bear.........

And Osama bin dirtbag can claim all day long that he fights in the name of Islam, his working in contradiction to Islamic ideals and laws is evidence to the contrary. Killing women and children is forbidden in Islam, so I wouldn't call the deeds of the 9/11 wackos Islamic, no matter how many times they tried to call it such........

Anyone who calls the despicable actions of 9/11 Islamic are either doing it out of ignorance or malice......Either way, those acts have nothing to do with Islam, regardless of who tries to make such a claim.

I can claim to be a compassionate conservative, for example, but that does not make it so........

Ignorance exists on both sides and as such I blame both sides.......

It is a little disappointing to have to repeat myself so many times. We keep coming back to the same issues.......

I'd be interested to know just how you are doing this Akil. Is there a certain group of people you have targeted?
Don't forget your biggest allies in the war on terror have for the most part been Muslim nations..........without the Muslim translators where would you have been? Without the Muslim Mujhideen, you might still be fighting the cold war with the Russians........

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al..............It's time for regime change......

Akil
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Problem is, we get Edwards the ambulance chaser, who played an integral part in the unscrupulous and unjustifiable litigation against 3 out of every 4 OBs in this country.

Dirtbags them all, Akil. Be careful what you wish for... At the end of the day, all the problems we speak of still exist no matter which eligible politician is in the big white house.

I'm still scratching my head about Saudi Arabia, Akil. I agree that a representational government would be a great idea. But just how is that going to happen? Look what success we have in Iraq right now. It's one of the few places in the Middle East where there is such a possibility right now (forget about arguing how that came about). And what do we have? It's a friggin' magnet for every extremist whacko to come and foment anarchy so they can impose their own brand of tyranny. Oh boy, oh boy...

The biggest problem with creating a democracy is that the people of the nation where it is to be have to want it badly enough to overcome all barriers - no matter how life threatening - and make it happen. I don't see that right now. I see the most willing (and attention getting) parties as a small minority of extremists who know how to attract attention through terror and fear. So what happens? The only solution today seems to be replacing one evil, threatening bastard with another. Gee, that's a positive change! :?

It's going to take a long, long time, an some brave visionaries to get folks to the next step. I have faith in the people of the Middle East, but not many others do. Most would rather turn the place into a political football.

- Bill
Last edited by Bill Glasheen on Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KZMiller
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:08 pm
Location: Washington State

Post by KZMiller »

Hi Akil! I'm glad you're back.

CIA supporting despots in the M.E. for unfettered access to oil ... I could see that (and despise it), and yet I can see the other side of the coin too, that if we tried to subvert the government then we're interfering with that nation's 'free will' (though the people seem far from free). Or we can do nothing and try to be independent of the politics of oil -- I'm pretty sure that's not realistic, but personally that would be my favorite. If we can't aide a country in a correct and morale way then we can just stay out of it and I'd hope the rest of the world wouldn't complain about *that* too.

It reminds me of a weird feudal system, where people are unhappy and they blame the king for doing nothing, and then the king does something and they're unhappy about that, and then the king withdraws and they're unhappy that he didn't finish the job, or didn't do it their way. I sure wouldn't want to be king. How about we give the most powerful nation status to Russia? Oh, wait, we don't like what they're doing in their own country. China? Well, if everyone wouldn't mind being communist. The list goes on ...

As for Christians wishing the whole world was Christian, yep. I agree, they do. Some of them even blow up things in the name of God and the right to fetus' lives. Is that becoming more rare these days? Man, I sure hope so. Most Christians seem content with missionary stuff. They'll feed you if you listen. I'm not sure what the Muslims do for more usual ways of conversion, or if conversion is really all that important to them right now.

Anyway, being neither Christian nor Muslim (or Jewish, or Buddhist), I'd rather there wasn't domination of any of these religions (or mine). I like the diversity. It's beautiful. I wish everyone could see and appreciate the beauty of it, the exquisite tapestry of human faith and human science. There's pain too, and suffering. No getting away from that, but hopefully we'll learn to keep from adding to the suffering of others in unnecessary ways. As long as I'm a meat eater I'm contributing to the death and suffering of cows, but I don't have to kick dogs and drive like a maniac on freeways and blow innocent people up.

I do think that the Muslim people who do covert work, translations, and otherwise help fight terrorism deserve major applause. They are sometimes seen as traitors, put their lives on the line, and we don't hear about them very much. I think part of that is to protect them. If we start shouting out praise and handing out awards this will put the terrorists even more on their guard, and make their lives more dangerous. But in quiet places like this forum, I think we can all extend a heartfelt thank you to them all, and wish them a safe return home every night.

I'd also like to remember the people who, when they joined their fellows at the school, lost their lives for protesting the taking of children as hostages. They did the right thing, at the end. They shouldn't have been there in the first place, IMHO, but at least they made a stand and agreed that blowing up children is wrong. They lost their lives for it. May they RIP.

Kami

Oh, had to add to this because Bill posted just before me and I wanted to comment. I hate the two party system! I really do. I wish I had a candidate up for vote. I'm of the opinion that if the president isn't dragged kicking and screaming into the oval office and has to be hogtied to the chair, he's not the right guy (or she's not the right gal). But we don't do things like that 'round here, not since Washington, who had to practically be forced into office if my history books aren't written all goofy (sarcasm on: They would never do that! sarcasm off). I wish I could vote for someone I could depend on and trust.
One seed, many lives.
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

Demonizing Moderate Muslims

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

Kami,

As you will have noticed I dont hang out here long. I dont feel especially comfortable here (not exactly welcome, not a criticism of you personally, your welcome seemed sincere and meaningful) and have not felt that way in a long time........

When they said the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms.....they must have meant that they would welcome us with open arms caches.......

When they said weapons of mass destruction were a fact......I knew they were lying, and our web thugs tried to silence me.......probably cuz I knew the truth, that the administration was encouraging the CIA to produce lies that would support the goal of going to war.....a la wag the dog......

Somebody once put a lot of emphasis on regime change for a mighty dangerous regime.......I agree with conclusion, dangerous regimes need to be changed. The only difference is I believe that the way to do that is through the electoral system (perhaps the next time we decide our thirst for oil, or some other resource that we want, but dont have, is sufficient reason to put a dictator in place, maybe we should think again, because dictators dont back down easily and maybe our boys (n girls) is gonna have to do some dyin' to get rid of the dictator that we put their in the first place........just so we could have some of that black gold (or ensure that others dont get it) that we cant figure how to live without (even though we dont bother trying-and anyone who suggests that there even exists other options is clearly deranged)

dude, dont you know the only way to fuel our economy is via fossil fuels and nucular (its how our president pronounces it).....i mean heck, its not like you can put a meter on the sun and start making money off er that solar power....same thin' with wind power, cant be metered so it aint feasible (fundable).......

Safest nuclear power comes from the sun............

Regime change will make the worlds safer I believe I was once told.........but only if done in a proactive manner with half the world forced to join you out of fear of losing precious foreign aid money (so we bribed the coalition of the willing to be ever so willing)....

Regime change wont change the course entirely, although it is ever so critical, Kerry is still for global domination, he just wants to do it in a warm and fuzzy manner......

I met Yusuf Islam, the former singer Cat Stevens, in the early 1990s when he attended an Islamic conference in San Jose, Calif. I was then the editor of a Muslim magazine and interviewed him about his views of the Muslim world.

Among other things, we talked about his alleged support of the late Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa (religious ruling) of death against Salman Rushdie for his novel "The Satanic Verses." The singer-turned-teacher, who converted to Islam in 1978 and founded a Muslim school in London in 1983, said he was frustrated that the media quoted him only partially on the subject. He told me that although he advocated a ban on a book he considered blasphemous, he also reminded Muslims to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they lived.

He expressed regret at the violence that erupted in several Muslim countries and cost many lives following the publication of the book. Under no circumstance, he said, were people to take law into their own hands. In other words, while he supported the seriousness of the fatwa in principle as a warning against anyone maligning the prophet of Islam, he did not wish for Rushdie's head.

I recall this meeting with much sorrow, because my government has decided that this soft-spoken man has suddenly become a threat to America, so much so that he cannot be allowed entry into the United States.

How did the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) arrive at this conclusion?

Islam, after all, had visited New York in May of this year to promote a DVD of his 1976 MajiKat tour and launch his charity organization called Small Kindness. In just four months, the singer had apparently metamorphosed into a threat because of his alleged past support of certain terrorist organizations.

A provision in the USA Patriot Act states that anyone who uses his position of prominence to endorse terrorism or terrorist organizations may not enter the United States. This was what a DHS spokesman was referring to when he said that Islam was denied admission to the United States "on national security grounds."

Islam has denied link to any organization such as Hamas. He states that he is an unabashed supporter of Palestinian rights and has made humanitarian contributions to charities that he felt were building schools and orphanages in the Occupied Territories. But he is also on the record stating that he has never knowingly supported any terrorist groups, past, present or future. His Web site (www.yusufislam.org.UK) gives a summary of his unequivocal opposition to terrorism, and includes a condemnation of the recent massacre of teachers and students at the school in Beslan, Russia.

Just last month a similar fate befell a Muslim scholar widely regarded as a progressive thinker. Author of "Western Muslims and the Future of Islam" (Oxford University Press, 2003) the Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan was scheduled to teach at the University of Notre Dame's Institute for International Peace Studies this fall. At the last minute, the DHS revoked his visa, under the same provision used to bar Islam from entering the United States.

Ramadan, too, has denied any link to terrorist organizations and has challenged his detractors, including the DHS, to prove their case. Notre Dame officials and prominent American scholars have vehemently protested the government's decision. Members of a Jewish student group at the Notre Dame Law School have joined in the protest.

Regarding the charge that he is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Ramadan has asked that he be judged on his own life, not his genealogy.

Time and again, sane voices remind us that to defeat the terrorism unleashed by groups like Al Qaeda, America must build the trust of moderate Muslims around the world. The recently released 9/11 Commission Report states as much (p. 375-376): "The small percentage of Muslims who are fully committed to Usama Bin Ladin's version of Islam are impervious to persuasion. It is among the large majority of Arabs and Muslims that we must encourage reform, freedom, democracy, and opportunity ...." The report recommends that the United States "offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors ... If we heed the view of thoughtful leaders in the Arab and Muslim world, a moderate consensus can be found."

How can Muslims help reach a "moderate consensus" if America continues to arbitrarily pull the rug from under their feet? How can we fight the real terrorists if Muslim teachers and scholars who preach pluralism and peace continue to be demonized before the whole world?

It is activists and scholars like Yusuf Islam and Tariq Ramadan, both of whom denounced the Muslim extremists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and demanded that their leaders be brought to justice, that America should court in order to marginalize groups like Al Qaeda. Instead, we American Muslims are left wondering if our government is really serious, or even interested, in building our trust.


Hasan Zillur Rahim writes on Islamic issues and has been an editor of Iqra, a national Islamic magazine.
[/quote]
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Akil

Ok, I'll bite.

You mean the Jordainians were lying when they told us that Iraq had WMDS?

You mean the Syrians were lying when they ALSO told us that Iraq had WMDs?

And the Russains were also lying when THEY said Iraq had WMDs.

Or the Kurds?

Or did the CIA somehow "force" them to lie as well?---heck brother if the CIA was that powerful we hardly would need actually fight anyone at all.

But you, "YOU KNEW"--(at least you claim to know that) they were lying--wonderful--Heck, why bother even ask the guys that share a border with Iraq--we can just ask you.

And now we "bribed a coalition" as you put it, would that be anything like all the millions of dollars that Saddam paid to the French, Germany and Russia NOT to join us?

Would that be like the payments--err, excuse me "missing money" that the UN pulled in with the corrupt "food for oil" campaign.

Oh, and just because your rant failed to be accurate--we did NOT put Saddam in power--he seized it by the murder of his boss.

We did support him at a time when Iran was a bigger threat--hey, they took our citizans hostage for pete's sake.

But we most certianly did put him into power.

And again, and again, and again, we stropped a geneocide of mostly Muslium folks in Bosnia and Kosavo--and they had NO oil--excuse me "black gold" as you put it for us to take.

So an objective person would be forced to conclude that other reasons exsist for the intervention of the USA--like most things, its not as simple as folks would like to make it.
KZMiller
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:08 pm
Location: Washington State

Post by KZMiller »

I don't think Akil went on a rant, IMHO. I saw nothing rant-ful there, and I hope you don't drive him off. I like reading his opinion. It's good for balance and it's good for thinking. There's plenty of rah-rah on the opposite side of his spectrum of thought that no one needs to feel threatened here by anyone's opinions.

I personally am saddened by the whole Cat Stevens situation from beginning to present. I miss his music very much. I think a lot of people don't trust him. Regardless of the truth of the matter, he's stuck with that reputation and so the powers-that-be found the nearest excuse to keep him out of the US. You're right, absolutely, that it's going to be very difficult for Americans to connect with Muslims if we push high-profile Muslims off like Cat Stevens, and we will make unnecessary enemies. I don't think it would have been a terrifically big risk to let him enter the country, but it's not my call.

On the other hand I don't think it's possible to use the electoral process in countries like Iraq unless the regime is removed *first*, and you need a reason to go into a country and disassemble, by force, the government in charge. Even then, it's very difficult to get people to come out of hiding and trust that voting isn't a nasty trick to get you to admit you support the government's opposition, which may get you on an executioner's to-do list.

On the third hand (foot?) I was born in a country where the government was ousted by mass peaceful protest. It's not perfect there. A lot of the socialist ideas are still in place, allowing coal companies to bulldoze villages as the 'people' have a right to 'free coal' (that's a whole essay worth of pain there) and other ridiculous situations. Because the people themselves took back the control, the ideal situation, they now have to figure out how to do things differently, and the hodge-podge thrown-together system is not doing so well. We'll see if Iraq fares better. Only time will tell.

Kami
One seed, many lives.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

My understanding with Cat Stevens (or the artist formerly known as...) is that he was banned from entry for funding a terrorist organization - Hamas. I don't have the data so I can't speak one way or another on the source information. But if it's true, then he shouldn't be surprised at being banned from entry into this country. I suspect that this wouldn't sit well with you, Akil, but if you were a Jew, you might feel differently.

But since I don't have the information, then I don't know what to say about it. However last time I checked, it wasn't a crime to be a Muslim in this country.

- Bill
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

KZ

I am not trying to drive Akil off--quite the reverse.

I'd love for him to stick around and stand up for what he says.

His MO is drop by, grace us with his opinion, post long articles penned by other people, loudly proclaim what he see's as "the truth" then run away really quickly--without providing any support for what he says.

Or bothering to defend his points.

We are just supposed to accept what he claims? Just because he says so?

In this little go round for example he mentions a couple of things that I for one would like him to back up.

1-That he somehow "knew" that Jordan, Syria, and Russia were "lying" to us.

2-That the CIA--and by the way go back and count how many times actually he blames the CIA for some kind of deep dark international plot.

Its pretty clear the CIA don't know what the heck is going on--let alone have any abilty to manupulate the entire planet.

Unless of course that exactly what they want us to thinK

(yes thats a joke)

3-That we "bribed" our coalition of the willing--again he totally ignores the vast bribes paid to the French, Russian, German, and the vast sums of money UN leaders skimmed off the top.

See, in Akils world the only "real" crime is to be the United States.

Everyone else gets a "pass."

Thats a rant.
KZMiller
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:08 pm
Location: Washington State

Post by KZMiller »

Okay cxt, I'll bite. :lol:

I don't see Akil's opinions and sources of knowledge being that different from yours, just very much the opposite of the spectrum. And maybe I don't know him as well as you (or as well as you think, since we're all subject to the limitations of this medium) but he doesn't strike me as anti-US, just anti-US foreign policy. But I'll let him speak for himself. That's just how he seems to me.

*Anyway* ...

I know very little about the Cat Stevens situation. Like you, Bill, I can't say one way or another whether the accusations leveled against him were valid. If they are, then the right decision may have been made to keep him out of the country. If they aren't, then he's a victim of an inaccurate reputation. This wouldn't be the first time someone has been the victim of their reputation, deserved or not, and it won't be the last. Look at Sinead O'Conner. As she's aged she's tried to rewrite herself so many times and she's just ended up looking like a complete wacko. She may or may not *be* a wacko, but she'll always come off that way. Now the poor woman is trying to support a lice eradication program and, well, she shaves her head so everyone is making fun of that. Cat Stevens (if I use his Muslim name, which I never can remember, most people *still* wouldn't know who I was talking about) is quite a bit more mellow and seems like a nice enough guy, yet he will be stuck with his statements, misunderstood and misquoted or accurate or whatever. I think he would have received less hassle if he was less public, but I may be deluding myself on that point. I haven't tried crossing the border as a Muslim.

Kami
One seed, many lives.
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”