Islam and Terrorism

Written by Dr. Bilal Philips   

Islaam Spread By The Sword: The common image of Islaam being spread by an Arab on camel back riding in off the desert with a Quraan in one hand and a scimitar (a curved sword) in the other offering a choice of either accepting Islaam or losing one�s head.

1.     As mentioned earlier under the issue of apostasy, forcible conversion is prohibited in Islaam. The religion did not spread by the sword. There were military confrontations between the Muslim state and the existing world powers of Rome and Persia. However, the areas conquered were put under Muslim administration and the populations were free to maintain their own beliefs. Muslims ruled Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon from the 8th century and sizeable Christian communities continued to exist over the past 13 centuries. Muslims ruled Spain for 700 years and India for 1000 years without the vast majority of the population converting to Islaam.

   2.     The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia, having over 200 million citizens, never saw a Muslim soldier. Islaam spread there and in Malaysia and Philippines by trade. That was also the case of Islaam�s spread in West African countries like Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Chad and Niger. Also, Islaam is the fastest growing religion in America today with anywhere between 300 and 500 converts daily. This is taking place without any soldiers or even missionaries.

Terrorism

Terrorism is defined by the American government as the threat or the use of violence to advance a political cause by individuals or groups, whether acting for or in opposition to established governmental authority, when such actions are intended to shock, stun, or intimidate a target group wider than the immediate victims. Actually such a general definition will include all wars of liberation from the American War of Independence to the French Revolution. The worst aspect and perhaps the most common feature of terrorism is the unleashing of violence against innocent civilians.

   1.     The State of Israel is the most recent example of the establishment of a state by terrorism. It was established by Jewish terrorist groups, the most infamous of which was the Stern Gang.

   2.     The term �Muslim terrorist� is used to label Islaam as a terrorist religion. However, it is a misnomer. When IRA bombers struck, they were not labeled as �Catholic terrorists� even though the struggle is between Catholic Ireland and Protestant Northern Ireland supported by Protestant England. Likewise, when Timothy McVeigh blew up the CIA headquarters in Oklahoma City in 1995 killing 168 people, he was not labeled as a �Christian terrorist�, though he was Christian and a terrorist. In fact the �Muslim terrorist� label was attached to the activities of the PLO who were a mixture of Muslims, Christians and communists. The PLO is not, nor was it ever, a Muslim organization. It is a nationalist organization working for the establishment of a secular Palestinian state.

   3.     The face of terrorism can be seen in the extremist movements of Egypt. Al-Gama�a Al-Islamiya (Islamic Group) and Jihaad Movements provided shock troops for a bitter struggle with Egypt�s security forces that caused about 1,200 deaths from 1992 to 1997 but failed to topple Hosni Mubarak�s secular rule. The Gama�a claimed responsibility for the Luxor massacre of tourists in November 1997. However, in March 1997 its exiled leaders declared a unilateral truce and renounced violence. The philosophy of these movements and their program of action have been loudly condemned by leading Muslim scholars internationally as well as local Egyptian scholars.

   4.     The case of Algeria is somewhat more complex. However, it is sufficient to say that the Islaamic Salvation Front (F.I.S.) - which was poised to win the elections cancelled by the Algerian military - renounced violent struggle over a year ago, yet the slaughter of innocents still continues. From the beginning of the civilian slaughters, the F.I.S. disclaimed them and identified the G.I.A. as the main culprit. Recent reports indicate that the G.I.A. was created by government secret service agents to discredit the F.I.S.�s military struggle by alienating them from the masses through atrocities.

   5.     Islaam opposes any form of indiscriminate violence. The Qur�aan states: �Anyone who has killed another except in retaliation, it is as if he has killed the whole of humankind.� (32:5) There are strict rules regulating how war may be conducted. Prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women, children, and old people and the destruction of Churches and Synagogues or farms. Of course, if women, children or the elderly bear arms they may be killed in self-defense.

Jihaad

Usually translated by the Western media as �holy war� is a greatly misunderstood principle in Islaam. There is no term in Arabic which means �holy war�. War is not �holy� in Islaam it is.

   1.     The meaning of jihaad is �striving� or �struggle�. It is used in Islaam to refer to a variety of different efforts enjoined upon the believers. Striving to keep God and His Messenger more important than loved ones, wealth and one�s own self is the most basic form of jihaad prescribed on every Muslim. The Prophet said, �No one has truly believed until Allaah and His Messenger becomes more beloved than everything.� Doing the righteous deeds prescribed by God is itself a jihaad. The Prophet was reported to have said, �The best jihaad is the perfect Hajj.� On another occasion, someone asked the Prophet if he should join the jihaad. The Prophet responded by asking him whether his parents were still alive and when he replied that they were, he said, �Make jihaad by serving them.�

   2.     Defending Islaam and the Muslim community is a primary aspect of the physical jihaad which involves taking up arms against an enemy. God states in the Quraan �Permission to fight has been given to those who have been attacked because they are wronged. And indeed, Allaah is Most Powerful.� (22:39) �Fight in the cause of Allaah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress the limits. Indeed Allaah does not love transgressors.� (2:190). Muslims are also enjoined to fight against tyranny. The Qur�aan states, �Why shouldn�t you fight in the cause of Allaah and for those oppressed because they are weak. Men, women and children who cry out, �Our Lord! Rescue us from this town of oppressors�� (4:75)

Courtesy of : http://www.bilalphilips.com - www.bilalphilips.com

I believe what you have said about the Algerian government.  Back in the 1960's the US military came up with a plan to have special forces dress up like Cuban communists and commit atrocities in Florida as well as blow up planes to fake a pretext for war with Cuba.

Hitler supposedly did the same thing with Poland I have read.  He had German soldiers dress up like Polish soldiers and attack a German town on the border.

Bismillah

Ejdavid... I assume you didn't pass by the affirmation that Islam opposes any form of indiscriminate violence in the above article. 

People can claim anything they like in the same way as Bush claims to be liberating Iraq and bringing freedom to its people. The objective is to invite everyone to study Islam and understand the position of Islam on living everyday life from its very source - the Qur'an and Sunnah, without having to form judgements based on dubious news reports...

Kindly provide evidence to the claim that you make concerning religious authorities in Saudi Arabia, the source needs to be authentic and official.   

Bismillah

Ejdavid,

Joe Katzman is no credible source on Islam for me. In fact, I anticipated your source would be the work of someone like him.

The Saudi royalties and especially those accompanying them during official "pilgrimage" trips to the US have openly betrayed Muslims more than once, therefore what they say as well as what they do is not always in line with the true Islamic teachings. May Allah guide them. In the initial article by Dr. Bilal Philips, Islam's stand on terrorism is clearly defined with relevant support. There is no need to cloud something that is made clear.

The link that you have shared does not seem to be working.

The question in your second post is not very clear. Islam's objective is not to buy and bribe as many people into faith as possible. This is not the election campaign. Similarly, we are not to question the intention of the person upon his acceptance of Islam. For Allah knows best whether it is for food, for shelter, for protection or out of sincere faith that he has embraced Islam. They may succeed in deceiving people, but they will never be able to hide the truth from Allah.

It is more often outside of the madrasa's and in more comfortable worldly environments that Christians turn to Islam. In the modern world you will find some Muslims who have renounced their faith for the shining luxury of this world, for the free gifts and a warm blanket depicting American flag, amongst them you will not find a single Muslim scholar or imaam.

I have personally met Christian priests (both Orthodox and Catholic), theologians and scientists who became Muslims. All of them somehow did not target free lodging, food and sponsored education but became sincere believers helping the Truth reach as many more people as possible.

Perhaps Katzman makes you see the world in his own eyes... 

Bismillah

Ejdavid,

I have answered you at length. The validity of one's conversion, whether it is for material gain or out of sincere faith - is for the Most High to judge. 

I refuse any comments that try to link 9/11 with Islam. Through Dr. Bilal Philips statement, I have made Islam's position on terrorism clear. Do you need more?

If you are not able to comprehend simple things, it seems you are not ready to absorb the subject on female captives and their status at the time of war from and Islamic perspective. They are not as you describe "physical properties of jihadists" but have a status above that of a common prisoners of war and can not be approached against their will.

In fact, Islam always encouraged freeing this kind of women. This kind of treatment is perhaps why throughout history many captives willingly and without force accepted Islam and later fought in line with their brother Muslims.    

Taking into account the importance of the subject of captives, I shall try to contribute a couple of useful and relevant articles for everyone's attention in a separate thread. Stay tuned.

ejdavid wrote: Mockba Reference you asked for, plus, audio (?) Saudi Cleric Wants Jewish Women as Slaves by Joe Katzman at April 28, 2002 04:44 PM Al-Buraik, a Wahhabi cleric with close ties to the king's youngest son Prince Abdul Aziz Ben Fahd, has some fascinating views. He's not a fringe kook, either; Al-Buraik was a member of the Saudi delegation accompanying Crown Prince Abdullah on his visit to the USA. Here's what he had to say in a recent sermon: "Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?" http://media.islamway.com/arabic/images/lessons/burek/monkey .rm Click here to listen for yourself.

And what would your reaction be to a group who has slaughtered your people, stolen your lands, wiped out villages, and massacred captured soldiers yet never went to trial in any court?

1) In Islam, the taking of slaves during war with a people with whome the Muslims have no working treaties is permissible.

2) The Zionists started an aggresive campaign to control, dominate, and himliate Muslims and Christian Arabs in the Middle East.

3) If I knew someone was developing a weapon that would infect me as a race (planned genocide), I would be upset also.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,16272,00.html - http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,16272,00.html

The reaction of some Muslims to the Israeli agression, and the double standard of the US, is much more understandable than the excuses given by the necons as they attempt to carve up the world.

Bismillah

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6632&KW=Captives - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6632& ;KW=Captives

Many, many Moslems condemmed 9/11. That is not often reported by the mainstream western press. They explained this is not something acceptable in Islam.  But considering how much this was mentioned and how much was covered of the people who beat the drums of war... no wonder it can be confusing.

There were many, many Moslems who prayed after 9/11 for the people and their families. What they show is the groups on the outside who had a different agenda.  The most people hear aboyt Moslems is the occasional story during Ramadan. We don't hear about their good works. We don't hear about te Islamic groups that give aid in emergencies.

ejdavid wrote: mockba Hanan Dr. Philips wrote: "5.Islaam opposes any form of indiscriminate violence. The Qur�aan states: �Anyone who has killed another except in retaliation, it is as if he has killed the whole of humankind.� Do either of you consider those who flew into the twin towers justified by the retaliation clause? For arguements sake, I will exclude the pentagon as that is a military target and involves an entirely different discussion. Actually, this matter becomes humorous because those who believe the Mosad did it often time seem glad that it was done anyway. [chuckle] Incidentally, Hanan, the "Christian Terrorist" McVeigh was universally condemned outright by each and every American theologian I ever heard. So whats your point? We "fried" him forthwith whatever you might call him.

After looking at both sides of the argument concerning 9/11, I find the 9/11 truth movement to have extremely valid questions and doubts. All in all, the "official" government explanation about 9/11 is actually a "conspiracy theory". Not only do I believe that some of the power brokers, including Bush, knew about 9/11, I also have strong reason to believe that they orchestrated it simply as a way to gain a foothold in rescource rich regions of the world and to empower global elitists. The US and Britian using false flag operations as pretexts to enter into war is not a new thing, and not beyond these governments, including the deaths of innocents. Your rights are being taken, not by the boogymen you are shown on the screen everyday, but by your own government.  

ejdavid wrote: Andalus - RE False Flag Operations Islamers did it. Islamers danced in the streets.

If dancing imples implication, then Mossad did it. They were caught, on US soil, and filmed cheering at the explosions. Educated, trained, Mossad.

They just happened to be at a good vantage point to watch the fireworks.

Islamers even want more. More, did EYE say?

Irrational. Instead of throwing up juvenile howlers, it move you to provide coherent statements.

Islamers really really want Iran to get The Bomb. Guess what? So do I. Why? Because that will mean real war. War that we prepared for neigh on sixty years now.

Please support your assertions.

Once the maniac Iranians do their thing. Guess what. Ever heard the term Final Solution?

What do Iranians want to do? Please provide evidence.

I can debate the 9/11 conspiracy theory that the US has given as the official truth. But I cannot waste time with common conervative/FOXnews/neocon howlers.

If you have not actually studied the issued, as a fellow American, I ask you to study it, from both sides, as the results effect you as a free human being, going beyond race and religion.

ejdavid wrote: Andalus The time for chit-chat is long gone. Islam and the Christian world have been at war for more then one thousand years. Do you believe it has ended?

That is a really nice deflection. Keep in mind that I did not mention anything about any animosity between the two faiths. The topic was 9/11. 

Islamers chit chat about a reconqista of al Andalus. EYE chit chat about a reconquista of the entire Levant [Egypt can wait].

Spain was Muslim for 700 years. Islam has as much a claim as Catholicism. In fact, Spain never really recovered after the Muslims were thrown out. Duende knows much more than I about the topic. Maybe she can give us some insight.

Christians faired better under Islam than it did under the oppression of the church.

These are not idle matters. I anticipate a nuclear attack by Iran against Israel. Do you believe the Iranians will survive to take possession?

Nice bait and switch!

Now we are back to Planet of the Iranians! Right after you deflected with Spain, you now let out another howler.

Your statement requires waaaay too many assumptions that you have yet to argue. Unacceptable.

ejdavid wrote: Andalus The time for chit-chat is long gone. Islam and the Christian world have been at war for more then one thousand years. Do you believe it has ended? Islamers chit chat about a reconqista of al Andalus. EYE chit chat about a reconquista of the entire Levant [Egypt can wait]. These are not idle matters. I anticipate a nuclear attack by Iran against Israel. Do you believe the Iranians will survive to take possession?

More and more mainstream thinkers are joining the ranks of those who reject the official 9/11 story. This is a link to an article by an ex CIA analyst.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6727&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6727& ;PN=1&TPN=1

ejdavid wrote: Andalus Sometimes I get carried away, and regret it in the morning. Reconquista is a bad idea most Westerners gave up after WWII, given the consequence of that attemp. I hope Muslims give it up before they end up learning the same lesson.

Overly cryptic.

As a preview, just ask Lebanese Hezbollah. Real constructive victory they initiated for Southern Lebanon, right?

No, you should ask the European Zionists who masterminded the entire problem that is occuring to date.

Real constructove victory? That is a real goo question the architects!

As for 9/11? As everyone knows, there is absolutely no evidence any Muslims had anything to do with 9/11. However, there is conclusive proof the Boy Scouts of America are responsible. What else can I say?

How about something coherent and rational for starters.

What else can I say? Really?

ejdavid wrote: Andalus, Andalus, poor besotted Andalus. You wrote: "Spain was Muslim for 700 years. Islam has as much a claim as Catholicism." A poor product of an antique imagination. Spain belongs to the people who live there.

Who were Christian heretics ruled by despotic foriegners under CHurch pressure to conform.

You may attempt conversion. You can try to get their votes for Sharia. It is even legal to outbreed them. But "ISLAM" has no more claim to rule the people then does the Vatican.

incoherent diatribe

Reconquista? I think the ashes and mass relocations of post WWII Europe cured Europe. Iran next? The results won't add up to Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Stalingrad etc etc etc or the ossuaries of WWI. But think Southern Lebanon times, well one or two hundred? Pick a number. Mass relocations? Jihaddists believe those will all be Jews....

More incoherent diatribe. Please make a direct point.

However, Laden was wrong about the Taliban, and his camps are gone.

OBL was trained by the CIA. That is a fact. Those camps are from an era that the CIA set up to fight the soviets.

I still find it amazing that you have yet to make a serious point.

That Quida guy in Iraq was wrong about the Suni diaspora arriving to overwhelm the Shia. The Sunni humpty dumpty is gone for good.

You are now babbling. I beg you to take hold of yourself and make a coherent point.

That Hezzi guy in Lebanon did not expect the Israeli "overreaction". And that Iranian guy in the bad liesure suit claims he will only lose half Iran to eliminate Israel. Ta da....

And the neocon dribble trickles.....and trickles......and trickles

If your contributions continue to be incoherent rants without any real point, the thread will be considered for closure.

Hope this helps 

3)Reconquista? I think the ashes and mass relocations of post WWII Europe cured Europe. Iran next? The results won't add up to Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Stalingrad etc etc etc or the ossuaries of WWI. But think Southern Lebanon times, well one or two hundred? Pick a number. Mass relocations? Jihaddists believe those will all be Jews...."

Your comment: "More incoherent diatribe. Please make a direct point."

My rebutal: Europe has been traumatized by colonizations, recolonizations, and reconquista upon reconquista for millenia. The last one was so severe the people finally gave up on the idea, and accepted the borders they now have. Europe has had peace and prosperity for continuing generations as a result.

My direct point is the Middle East may be heading for exactly the same sort of experience. Carnage and destruction so entirely severe the people will finally give up trying to remove Israel.

May you clarify for me that more please you are saying that ( belfour agreement ) was about to make sure that the muslims wouldnt wipe Israel from the map ?

If that what you mean

Let me clarify something .

Jewish lived many years in the dark ages in the world war 1 and 2

and the only place they had freedom to live peacefully was Spain when there was muslims there ...

Jewish been chased by vatican many years and jewish wouldnt able to claim that they are jewish in public and sometimes they pretend to be christians or athiest so they dont get killed or torture

I hope you remember ( marcus ) who did the marcuxism

his father convert to chistianity to be able to find a job and tht cause him depression and he become athiest ...

My point here ....

Why would after the holocaust and years of torture and genocide for jewish by christians

Why did England and France care to do a country for jewish ?

Lets get back to the crusades ( holy war )

lets say if ( salah el dine didnt win this war ) would the christians gave jerusalem to jewish cuz its their promise land ?

I dont think so

Actually it was a long term plan By england (USA )

their failure to dominate the middle east ,made them think to have a different plan

They have studied the koran , seek the verses that is against jewish and start from here ... make a sedition between jewish and muslims

then send them to middle east ( after abdel nasser kicked them from egypt by order from russia  ) cuz he was russian allies as well

Here my point ( Israeli ) isnt but a tool and puppet in USA , europe hand

to reach their aims in middle east

I personaly believes that jewish and muslims can get along if there was no crusaders who is trying to make sedition all the time in middle east

( I will post my ( antichrist )  theory ) in a new thread ( inshallah )

to let you know that no one wants to wipe israel from the map

but YOu are the one who wants to genocide islam from the earth

anyhow ... lets go back to the main points ..

So I strongly believe that it was so smart from your part to say that England and Europe worked to make sure that Israel wouldnt be thrown at the sea... 

Because I m not sure if any christian really cares that jewish die or live

Dont forget that all jewish do not believe in jesus

So no matter how you would pretend that you are so fine with jewish

we all know that when you will have the chance to holocaust them once more you wouldnt hesistate

and the  ( propaganda ) about that jewish are the one who rules the world is fake

NO one is ruling the world but christians .

Correct me if I m wrong? ( and forgive my poor english )

4)However, Laden was wrong about the Taliban, and his camps are gone.

Your comment: "OBL was trained by the CIA. That is a fact. Those camps are from an era that the CIA set up to fight the soviets."

My rebutal: You did not comment on my statement at all. My comments were A) jihaddists believe they can drive Israel in the sea during a comming war, and B)Jihadists do not have a good history at calculating such things.

Specifically, Laden believe his jihaddists could defeat invading American forces as had been done with the Soviets. He was wrong.

5)That Quida guy in Iraq was wrong about the Suni diaspora arriving to overwhelm the Shia. The Sunni humpty dumpty is gone for good.

You comment: "You are now babbling. I beg you to take hold of yourself and make a coherent point."

My rebutal: I refer you to the September 11, 2006, issue of The New Yorker, page 52, column three first full paragraph. It is an excerpt from "The Master Plan", and details various Islamic approaches to the jihad.

Bin laden become as a fairytale story ...

But all what I m sure of it and positive from it

that Bin laden is DEAD

and Muslims abilities wouldnt really be able to hit this 2 twins in USA

so I m fed up from your fake vidoes ( dont you have a better plots instead of keep showing the world some fake tapes ) about bin laden

In this section I quote ".....Zarqawi explained that "if we succeed in dragging [the Shia] into the arena of sectarian war it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger."

A few paragraphs later "Zarqawi did not heed Al Qaeda's requests [stop beheadings etc as bad PR]. As the Iraqi jihad fell into barbarism, Al Quaeda's leaders began advising their followers to go to Sudan or Kashmir, where the chances of victory seemed more promising." In summary, Zarqawi's predicion for a Sunni victory in Iraq is wrong.

I m sorry if I sometimes reply things off topic

But what I would like to add here

that No one is killing shia and sunni but americans

and Maybe later on the american successed in their plain to make a civil wars but most of the bombs in mosque done by americans agents ... and shia and sunni knows that ...

6)That Hezzi guy in Lebanon did not expect the Israeli "overreaction". And that Iranian guy in the bad liesure suit claims he will only lose half Iran to eliminate Israel.

Your comment: And the neocon dribble trickles.....and trickles......and trickles...

My rebutal: Apparently, no one on the Hezbollah side expected Israel to do as much damage as it did. Otherwise why would they all call it a "massive overreaction". I have read reports that the Hezzi guy his very own self has said as much openly. Accordingly, the Hezbollah puppet/Iranian predictions were wrong.

the hezzi guy you are talking about is ( SAYED hasan nasrollah ) and I think Israel didnt expect this kind of resistance and even your agent in lebanon changed a lot from their agenda when Israeli couldnt wipe hezbollah from the map

and no matter how much destruction you have done to the middle east , the matter is the more you will plot against us , the more resistance will resist you and victory will not be for who do transgression on innocent people and destroy their homes and infrastructures in the name of democracy

and very obvious that USA and israel agree to cease fire cuz they knew that their traitors inside lebanon as (sg ) and many more would fight hizbullah and put pressure on them

and they got many promises from england and USA if they successed to put pressure on hezbollah to disarms them .

As for the guy in the bad liesure suit? He predicts the cost of eliminating Israel would be destruction of half Iran. My point is, what if he is wrong as well? How much MORE then half of Iran might be lost to the Muslim world?

I think that the wrong one who is always interfer in other countries internal affairs , USA should mind their business instead of keep plotting to kill more muslims and to make the new middle east as Candeleeze rice claimed

I think That I like Ahmed nijad very much and I would pray for them to win over USA and inshallah thevictory will be for the one who deserve it

and I dont think even if you were on the right track that god would bless your bloody war against muslims

although you are not on the right track.

7) Your final comment "If your contributions continue to be incoherent rants without any real point, the thread will be considered for closure."

My rebutal: I will leave the gentle reader to judge who is more coherent in this small debate. However, this is Andalus's forum, and I consider his judgement of its worth as final.

 Because I lack information about andalus I wuldnt make any comments but the sedition and the greed of the muslims leaders at this time did lead us for failure

and I think what happened in Andalus is happening now between arab countries and muslims with eachother

[/QUOTE]

ejdavid wrote: Andalus Just a couple of freiendly (really) observations. First regarding 9/11 revisionism. You marginalize yourself; think of those who harp on who shot JFK. The world has moved on. Like people who came out of the Oliver Stone movie JFK who said to one another. "I didn't know the CIA killed Kennedy? Who's ready for pizza?"

A historical revision would be one that has come about after some time has passed. This would imply a re-examining of historical facts.

Since my view is one that originated at the time of the event, at the same time as the government's own "conspiracy theory", one could hardly call my argument a "revision".

Being marginalized (for the sake of argument, accepting your claim)does not mean I am wrong. If my view is wrong, then show it. Do not try and label me, or brand me with something derogatory as a way to try and discredit my view. Very intellectually dishonest.

Secondly, my discussion about the value and dangers of reconquista is entirely coherent. I will do you the service of answering your points. I don't much do this with Hanan, for reasons that should be apparent to anyone who reads his (her posts). See my next post...

ok

ejdavid wrote: Dear Andalus - ITEM BY ITEM REMARKS Format: Most quotes are statements made by Andalus. The others are mine. Some of mine were provided to Andalus earlier, and some of them are new, as indicated. 1) "Spain was Muslim for 700 years. Islam has as much a claim as Catholicism." A poor product of an antique imagination. Spain belongs to the people who live there. Your comment: "Who were Christian heretics ruled by despotic foriegners under CHurch pressure to conform." My rebutal: You mistake history for current events. Spain, like all states, go through many stages. You are not talking about the same subject, which is Spain today. Your original post as much as shouts, that a powerful enough Islamic State is entitled to conquer and rule modern Spain. I simply take issue with that. Further, in my next statement I offer peacefull ways to achieve the same result. 2)You may attempt conversion. You can try to get their votes for Sharia. It is even legal to outbreed them. But "ISLAM" has no more claim to rule the people then does the Vatican." Your comment: "incoherent diatribe". My rebutal: This is neither incoherent nor a diatribe. It is simply providing a peaceful method to achieve Sharia Law in Spain without reconquista. After all, you are the one telling us "Islam" has as much a right to rule Spain as does Catholicism. I simply agree, but point out IMHO that neither one has any right to rule that does not include the options I listed. 3)Reconquista? I think the ashes and mass relocations of post WWII Europe cured Europe. Iran next? The results won't add up to Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Stalingrad etc etc etc or the ossuaries of WWI. But think Southern Lebanon times, well one or two hundred? Pick a number. Mass relocations? Jihaddists believe those will all be Jews...." Your comment: "More incoherent diatribe. Please make a direct point." My rebutal: Europe has been traumatized by colonizations, recolonizations, and reconquista upon reconquista for millenia. The last one was so severe the people finally gave up on the idea, and accepted the borders they now have. Europe has had peace and prosperity for continuing generations as a result. My direct point is the Middle East may be heading for exactly the same sort of experience. Carnage and destruction so entirely severe the people will finally give up trying to remove Israel. 4)However, Laden was wrong about the Taliban, and his camps are gone. Your comment: "OBL was trained by the CIA. That is a fact. Those camps are from an era that the CIA set up to fight the soviets." My rebutal: You did not comment on my statement at all. My comments were A) jihaddists believe they can drive Israel in the sea during a comming war, and B)Jihadists do not have a good history at calculating such things. Specifically, Laden believe his jihaddists could defeat invading American forces as had been done with the Soviets. He was wrong. 5)That Quida guy in Iraq was wrong about the Suni diaspora arriving to overwhelm the Shia. The Sunni humpty dumpty is gone for good. You comment: "You are now babbling. I beg you to take hold of yourself and make a coherent point." My rebutal: I refer you to the September 11, 2006, issue of The New Yorker, page 52, column three first full paragraph. It is an excerpt from "The Master Plan", and details various Islamic approaches to the jihad. In this section I quote ".....Zarqawi explained that "if we succeed in dragging [the Shia] into the arena of sectarian war it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger." A few paragraphs later "Zarqawi did not heed Al Qaeda's requests [stop beheadings etc as bad PR]. As the Iraqi jihad fell into barbarism, Al Quaeda's leaders began advising their followers to go to Sudan or Kashmir, where the chances of victory seemed more promising." In summary, Zarqawi's predicion for a Sunni victory in Iraq is wrong. 6)That Hezzi guy in Lebanon did not expect the Israeli "overreaction". And that Iranian guy in the bad liesure suit claims he will only lose half Iran to eliminate Israel. Your comment: And the neocon dribble trickles.....and trickles......and trickles... My rebutal: Apparently, no one on the Hezbollah side expected Israel to do as much damage as it did. Otherwise why would they all call it a "massive overreaction". I have read reports that the Hezzi guy his very own self has said as much openly. Accordingly, the Hezbollah puppet/Iranian predictions were wrong. As for the guy in the bad liesure suit? He predicts the cost of eliminating Israel would be destruction of half Iran. My point is, what if he is wrong as well? How much MORE then half of Iran might be lost to the Muslim world? 7) Your final comment "If your contributions continue to be incoherent rants without any real point, the thread will be considered for closure." My rebutal: I will leave the gentle reader to judge who is more coherent in this small debate. However, this is Andalus's forum, and I consider his judgement of its worth as final.

Thank you for your notes

and I do appreciate your answers

Yes I M muslims who do not believe in Zionist conspiracy

but I do in other conspiracy which is ( Crusades )

and YEs I do sometimes mistakes by generalizing

But I meant by christianity rules the world

That you dont have to occupied every country to rule them

but the most largest religion worldwide is chistianity

you may find Copts egypt are the minority in egypt about 10% of the population

But they are almost controlling the egyptian economics and have more rights than I do in egypt !

While they are still ywaning and complaning about transgression against them !

I Think you dont have to worry about muslims to be wiped by Israeli or americans , muslims inshallah will survive

I do believe so much that jewish could live with muslims peacefully if USA stop put their nose in middle east

and ABout crusades ( Bush did claim crusades against muslims )

and when the president of USA do not mean what he says ( that means he is not qualified to be president 2 times IN usa ) !

So he meant what he said

I always believe that Jewish been used as puppet

as some muslims who has amibitious used also , and at the end the one who been used always face failure as ( bin laden , saddam , jewish sometimes too )

they dont get all what they dream of , because their power is limited

Only when christians allow them to do that and this they would do it

PM sharon .. can you believe that a prime minister who has a long history in israel , israel do not mention nothing about him ?

can you believe that ? that indicate one thing

that he been killed and also , Israel do not want to discuss this matter

So they always try to come up with new events so they would makes you forget the old ones

like thrown a ( bone to a dog ) and run at the other side , while the dog is running after the dog

This is exaclty what they are doing to us ,, they always thrown the bone to let us run after it while in their agenda they run in the different way ....

anyhow deep inside I know that jewish are ambitious and when you find some1 amibitious you can always use his ambitious for your own interest

but the real enemy isnt jewish ( they defenitely hates muslims )

But many jewish dont mind to live with muslims ... and many jewish are so fine

as many christians are so fine as well

About china , malysia ect,,, that they are not controlled by christians

I do agree

But let me provide you with some facts

there s 2 area that CIA focus on them right now

Middle east and china

and lately from 3 years ago the numbers of the CIA agents did increased in china for some porpuse which I dont know what is it exaclty

You defenitely know that Cia are located in all their americans embassies world wide

this is the known CIA agents and defenitely theres unknown agents that you may deal with them and you dont know that they are agents and it may be from your own country and speak your own language

China from several years ago start to overwhlemed the market with their products which annoyed the 3 scorpions

I recommand you to read the new world order

and the 3scorpions and why they turn against china

and who is the 3 scorpions ( include the world bank) or something like that I dont recall the article but I will search for it and i will publish it here

So in this article you can read alot of how they tried to make a economic siege on europe and overwhelmed the market with chinese product which annoyed many countries which also begins a cold war against china

And you may find china now try to make allies with the countries that is against USA and europe

Also you would notice that Israel ( the one that everyone claims that control USA  which is not true )

also try to be allies with chinese and of course with russia cuz most of the israeli are russian !

Israel always try to collect the most information they can about USA and you defenitely heard about the Israeli spy who provided russia with a very sensitive information I dont recall his name maybe was ( pillard ) I dont remember let me also google on this story

My point is that jewish knows very well that if muslims are gone

again they will be the target , the target to be genocide from the map for real this time

According to what Ahmed Nijad said and about Bashar al asad speech

I believe it was a mistake

and those mistakes could be always in their history records

But let me guess what they have said those speechs

I think for syria , syrian been accused by lebanse for a long time that they are traitors and killers and syrian was very patient

and then I think that Bashar has the right thing in his opinion

He fed up from what lebanse saying about syrian so he simply replied back

maybe it was the right time and I agree with most what he said in his speech

But it was the right time or the right words for our arab leaders ( though he has said nothing but the truth )

But as a diplomatic person ( he should lie as all the diplomatics liars all over the world :)

About Ahmed Nijad

I think also it was a mistake to say those raugh words about wiping israel

If i were him I would threaten that  the consquence of the israeli policies with arab could lead to a bloody war that end up by loss for everyone

If israel wants to live in peace they shall not follow USA orders

and He did nt sound very diplomatic guy as well

AS bush and As those who are arrogant ...

But I give iran many excused too

They are under pressure from a long time ago been accused for being terrorist and bla bla

And also its not acceptable that the western countries and USA always trying to apply their views and their culture on us

So you get fed up and you may say anything that could be not in your side

But mistakes could happen .. I think NIjad recently become more wiser in his speeches than from 6 months ago ...

I hope I didnt confuse you with 1000 different issue in one post

if you have any questions or comments

please do not hesitate to ask me :)

Best regards we salam alikom

ejdavid wrote: Shery - I just thought of something to illustrate my point about many power centers in the US. In another post I told you about the study I worked on concerning conversion to the metric system. As I pointed out, most of us believed our boss, the Comptroler General, was in favor of conversion, and that is why he ordered the study. In an authoritarian country, he would not have ordered just the study, he would have ordered it should support conversion. Our study did not support conversion, and none of us even worried we would suffer any consequences. Now. If we had prepared a false report, the consequences would not have been dire. However, it would have been costly and disruptive to the economy. Our freedom to report the actual trueth simply increased our national wealth by helping to avoid those things.

Well if you did prepare a report that would be much more conveincable to people

But all evidence you have some video tapes

and not even you that you have it

You based on that bin laden is the one who is the one who gives you evidence on himself !

If bin laden that smart to destroy the 2 twins and break the american security

why would he appear in a video to admit that he is the one who did it

????

To tell the world yes yes USA is totaly right about what they have done in afghnistan and middle east ( and we are bloody sh*t terrorist )

Bin laden if he is really the one who did it he wouldnt confess that he did it ... beside that ( BIN LADEN IS DEAD DEAD DEAD )

though when a criminal do some politics assassination they never confess

And this is the politics game when you assassinate or bomb a place you never try to leave a evidence or even confess to do the bomb !

But obviously the more that people ask from USA to give them a real evidence that bin laden is the one who did

the more we see VIDEOS sent by BIN LADEN HIMSELF ( WOW )

at the 11/9 Anniversary

What kind of idiots you think you are dealing with ?

We might have a lots of idiots in middle east

but we are not that idiot still !

ejdavid wrote: Dear Andalus - ITEM BY ITEM REMARKS Format: Most quotes are statements made by Andalus. The others are mine. Some of mine were provided to Andalus earlier, and some of them are new, as indicated. 1) "Spain was Muslim for 700 years. Islam has as much a claim as Catholicism." A poor product of an antique imagination. Spain belongs to the people who live there. Your comment: "Who were Christian heretics ruled by despotic foriegners under CHurch pressure to conform." My rebutal: You mistake history for current events. Spain, like all states, go through many stages. You are not talking about the same subject, which is Spain today. Your original post as much as shouts, that a powerful enough Islamic State is entitled to conquer and rule modern Spain. I simply take issue with that. Further, in my next statement I offer peacefull ways to achieve the same result.

I see a strawman. 

You discussed people. I gave you a response about people. You are trying to quibble over people vs events. 

2)You may attempt conversion. You can try to get their votes for Sharia. It is even legal to outbreed them. But "ISLAM" has no more claim to rule the people then does the Vatican." Your comment: "incoherent diatribe". My rebutal: This is neither incoherent nor a diatribe. It is simply providing a peaceful method to achieve Sharia Law in Spain without reconquista. After all, you are the one telling us "Islam" has as much a right to rule Spain as does Catholicism. I simply agree, but point out IMHO that neither one has any right to rule that does not include the options I listed.

The Shariah that once did exist in Spain allowed both Christian and and Jews to thrive. You are trying to presuppose the idea of "shariah", and equivicate it as it pleases you.

I would rather have the shariah than the secular mess that your neocons are now trying to superimpose on the rest of the world.

3)Reconquista? I think the ashes and mass relocations of post WWII Europe cured Europe. Iran next? The results won't add up to Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Stalingrad etc etc etc or the ossuaries of WWI. But think Southern Lebanon times, well one or two hundred? Pick a number. Mass relocations? Jihaddists believe those will all be Jews...." Your comment: "More incoherent diatribe. Please make a direct point." My rebutal: Europe has been traumatized by colonizations, recolonizations, and reconquista upon reconquista for millenia. The last one was so severe the people finally gave up on the idea, and accepted the borders they now have. Europe has had peace and prosperity for continuing generations as a result.

Europe did the traumatizing and the colonizing. The last I read, Europe has never been a victim.

My direct point is the Middle East may be heading for exactly the same sort of experience. Carnage and destruction so entirely severe the people will finally give up trying to remove Israel.

Or else people will get sick of paying billions of dollars to Israel as tax payers and let Israel stand on its own.

4)However, Laden was wrong about the Taliban, and his camps are gone. Your comment: "OBL was trained by the CIA. That is a fact. Those camps are from an era that the CIA set up to fight the soviets." My rebutal: You did not comment on my statement at all. My comments were A) jihaddists believe they can drive Israel in the sea during a comming war, and B)Jihadists do not have a good history at calculating such things.

Which Jihadists do you speak of?

Israel wants to drive non-Jews off the land and out of sight. European Jews have set up a colony, and called it Israel. Those Jihadists have destroyed and wiped out entire villages and commited genocide. One day the necons in the US will not be able to protect them.

Specifically, Laden believe his jihaddists could defeat invading American forces as had been done with the Soviets. He was wrong.

I do not know OBL personally. I am not privy to his personal insights and views. I do know that the US government was implicit in the training of his "jihadists". SO perhaps the CIA put these views you speak of in their heads?

5)That Quida guy in Iraq was wrong about the Suni diaspora arriving to overwhelm the Shia. The Sunni humpty dumpty is gone for good. You comment: "You are now babbling. I beg you to take hold of yourself and make a coherent point." My rebutal: I refer you to the September 11, 2006, issue of The New Yorker, page 52, column three first full paragraph. It is an excerpt from "The Master Plan", and details various Islamic approaches to the jihad. In this section I quote ".....Zarqawi explained that "if we succeed in dragging [the Shia] into the arena of sectarian war it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger." A few paragraphs later "Zarqawi did not heed Al Qaeda's requests [stop beheadings etc as bad PR]. As the Iraqi jihad fell into barbarism, Al Quaeda's leaders began advising their followers to go to Sudan or Kashmir, where the chances of victory seemed more promising." In summary, Zarqawi's predicion for a Sunni victory in Iraq is wrong.

Your quotes do not conclude he was wrong, it concludes that his tactics turned people off.

6)That Hezzi guy in Lebanon did not expect the Israeli "overreaction". And that Iranian guy in the bad liesure suit claims he will only lose half Iran to eliminate Israel. Your comment: And the neocon dribble trickles.....and trickles......and trickles... My rebutal: Apparently, no one on the Hezbollah side expected Israel to do as much damage as it did. Otherwise why would they all call it a "massive overreaction". I have read reports that the Hezzi guy his very own self has said as much openly. Accordingly, the Hezbollah puppet/Iranian predictions were wrong.

No, but Bush knew as did the Israeli DF who had planned this very event months earlier. Hezbollah did not think Israel would wipe out the entire economy of a nation for two soldiers who were placed in a precarious situation for the ease of Hezbollah to grab. They thought Israel would give two of 9000 prisoners that have been left to rott in Israeli prisons without any charges, as Israel had done in the past.

The mass murder committed by Israel was a planned event and the two soldiers were nothing but a pretext for an assault. It had nothing to do with the two soldiers.

Israel did not forsee the many casualties it would have inflicted on them.

So what? What is your point?

As for the guy in the bad liesure suit? He predicts the cost of eliminating Israel would be destruction of half Iran. My point is, what if he is wrong as well? How much MORE then half of Iran might be lost to the Muslim world?

Iran has not attacked another nation. Israel has. Iran does not have a major army worth mentioning. Israel does. Iran does not have a single nuclear weapon. Israel has hundreds. Iran was threatened by the west to be bombed and then divided up amongst western backed leaders. Now that Iran has made rhetorical statements in return, the neocons have mistranslated the rhetoric and created a new boogyman for the mislead western masses.

Your point makes many assumptions. Bad form.

7) Your final comment "If your contributions continue to be incoherent rants without any real point, the thread will be considered for closure." My rebutal: I will leave the gentle reader to judge who is more coherent in this small debate. However, this is Andalus's forum, and I consider his judgement of its worth as final.

A debate has a topic, which may consists of several key points, that define and support a conclusion. This threas does not have this structure.

Furthermore, I have already had a reader complain about the thread. If the thread simply rehashes minor points that never end and never conclude a larger point, then the thread has lost its coherence.

ejdavid wrote: Andalus Whether your 9/11 idea is a revision or not, or if it is wrong or not, just does not matter. What matters is almost everyone in the US still believe, as do I: pious Muslims did 9/11. But that doesn't matter either. Why? Because things now going on are long gone consequences of long gone 9/11 and that is that. In addition, IMHO, these things are very much to the disadvantage of our sworn enemies. These alternate 9/11 ideas don't count for much more then a JFK or Star Trek convention. In fact, I don't know if they HAVE a convention yet?

Once more you are trying to use lables of stereo types as a way to discredit the view.

1) Some in the US used 9/11 as a pretext to take away rights, to redefine how it can engage th erest of the world, and to get a foot hold in the Middle East and Central Asia.

2) The government's position is flawed.

3) there are too many events prior to 9/11 that cannot be a mere coincidence, and the US official position just explains how stupid they were for making such obvious mistakes.

To try and smere the self evident facts that tarnish the offical government's thoery as star treky or sci fi is intellectually dishonest.

It is easier for you to live in a nice, neat world designed by the elite and corporate globalists. You can consume products, pull your lever and push your buttons like a good worker ant, and thank Gd for your government being there to watch over you and protect you.

Take away freedom to protect   freedom is double speak, and it is exactly what home land security pushes as a philosophy.

wake up.