The girl who was stoned to death for falling in love

[Huckleberry]

Ok, a young woman was stoned to death on a street corner. Apparently it happens all the time, it just so happened to be videod this time. Now, we in the West are riding our high horses and denouncing it. How dare us. Who do we think we are?

Give it up people. Wrong is wrong is wrong. I don't care what religion you are. I agree with Art that scoundrels often hide behind religion to justify hideous acts.

Here is a fact: there is only one other religion that could justify this kind of act and that is Judaism. It's probably been 100 if not a 1000+yrs since that community has openly stoned a woman in the streets.

Muslims need to denounce this kind of crap if they want their religion to be seriously accepted by the rest of civilization. Because what I saw on that video was not civilized and I am confident that the majority of humanity sees it the same way.

Nobody has condoned the stoning of this woman. So far we all agree that it was wrong. What puts us on the high-horse is that we are condemning a religion for the actions of a small percentage of people who commit these acts. What makes us civilized is that we have a government that punishes people for acting this way. People in Iraq are familiar with a different type of government, and at the moment, don't have much of a government at all. How do you think this country would behave without a government? How would we feel about foreign soldiers in our streets enforcing the peace.

When the United States had a less powerful government we also had public killings, but instead of stoning people, we hung them or burned them. The last public execution was in 1936 and over 20'000 spectators showed up to watch the killing. The United States is known for its violence and we have a very high crime rate, yet we still consider ourselves more civilized. Iraqis don't live like we do. Why should we judge them as if they do?

The people who stoned this woman are just cruel people, regardless of what religion they are from. There are cruel people in every religion. A religion should be judged based on its doctrine and not on the actions of cruel people who claim to act on it's behalf. A person should be judged for their actions and not their religion.

 

[Kurdt]

I think that one must realize that morality is a changeable certainly between different cultures and throughout time. Of course we can be outraged at something we perceive as cruel but one must realize that to these people brought up where they were their actions are perfectly justified. We must also realize that because morals change throughout time that hopefully attitudes in this region will change because the rest of the world condems it.

On the religion front, people have used it to justify some absolutely hideous acts throughout history. But beyond a certain point in societies religion stops dictating moral standards and they seem to progress independently. This comes as people realize they can't rely on something that can be interpreted many different ways and they must take responsibility for themselves by crystalising rules.

 

[Astronuc]

The last public execution was in 1936 and over 20'000 spectators showed up to watch the killing.

That would be the last government sanctioned execution I believe.

One key point in the article - this atrocity occurred "at the hands of a lynch mob", although police apparently stood by and did nothing to intervene. I believe lynchings in the US occurred into the 1960's, especially in the south, where local governments (all white) were hostile to African Americans who sought equal rights and participation in the political system.

Consider - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1896-1954)#Disfranchisement

June 21, 1964
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Civil_Rights_Workers_Murders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_American_Civil_Rights_Movement#1960_-_1969

So one could argue, if the US moved away from those problems, why not Iraq, with a little help from Bush?

The Sunnis and Yezidis hate each other. When Du'a ran away with her Sunni boyfriend, a sentence of death was passed on her.
. . . .

The Yezidis (a Gnostic sect) despise the Sunnis; the Sunnis loathe the Yezidis.
. . . .

Police officers stand idly by, some of them apparently enjoying the spectacle as much as anyone else.

Meanwhile, some observers film the execution on their mobile phones -
. . . .

Meanwhile, the cycle of tit-for-tat murders continues in Iraq. In this instance, in an apparent act of retaliation for Du'a's murder, 23 Yezidi workers were attacked and killed two weeks later, apparently by members of an armed Sunni group.

The men were traveling on a bus between Mosul and Bashika when their vehicle was halted by the gunmen, who made them disembark before killing them.
. . . .

Under Iraqi law, the punishment for anyone found guilty of an honour killing is just six months in prison.

Well, then there are the hostilities between Sunni and Shii.

While there are many Iraqis who wish for a more peaceful and democractic society (with liberty, fairness and justice implicit), there are many others tied to the old tribal ways, which go contrary to democratic principles.

How will the Sunni, Shii, Yezidi, Kurds, . . . . overcome the old cultural ways which allow for such acts as 'honor killing'? Will they ever?

How will the world deal with such cultural contradictions?

 

[Gokul43201]

A related news story from Iran:

Group cleared over Iran murders

The accused men believed they were allowed to kill immoral people

By Frances Harrison
April 16, 2007

TEHRAN (BBC NEWS) — Iran’s Supreme Court has acquitted a group of men charged over a series of gruesome killings in 2002, according to lawyers for the victims’ families.

The vigilantes were not guilty because their victims were involved in un-Islamic activities, the court found.

The killers said they believed Islam let them spill the blood of anyone engaged in illicit activities if they issued two warnings to the victims.

The serial killings took place in 2002 in the south-eastern city of Kerman.

‘Morally corrupt’

...

According to their confessions, the killers put some of their victims in pits and stoned them to death. Others were suffocated. One man was even buried alive while others had their bodies dumped in the desert to be eaten by wild animals.

The accused, who were all members of an Islamic paramilitary force, told the court their understanding of the teachings of one Islamic cleric allowed them to kill immoral people if they had ignored two warnings to stop their bad behaviour.

But there was no judicial process to determine the guilt of the victims in these cases.
...

Now the Supreme Court is reported to have acquitted all the killers of the charge of murder on the grounds that their victims were all morally corrupt.

Some of the group may, however, face prison sentences or have to pay financial compensation to their victims’ families.

http://peeringintodarkness.com/ctd/?cat=53

In Iran, if you kill someone for un-Islamic behavior, you will not be punished by the law, unless the victim is proven to have not engaged in said behavior. In the latter case, with a successful defense of mistaken identity, the perpetrator is required to pay a sum of money to the family of the victim as punishment/compensation.

It's a system where, among other things, murder can be legally bought for a sum of money.

 

[Astronuc]

In Iran, if you kill someone for un-Islamic behavior, you will not be punished by the law, unless the victim is proven to have not engaged in said behavior. In the latter case, with a successful defense of mistaken identity, the perpetrator is required to pay a sum of money to the family of the victim as punishment/compensation.

It's a system where, among other things, murder can be legally bought for a sum of money.

And Bush and others expect to change Iraq just like that?? And Iraq is supposed to just transform into a Western style society with a democratic government and friendly ties to US and the West? And success is just around the next bend?

Bush failed back in March 2003.

 

[mathwonk]

If you read your bible you will find that the marriage bed is supposed to be examined for evidence of prior virginity, and if absent, the bride is to be stoned. however this practice, although sanctioned and even required, by "god's" word, is not practiced to my knowledge in most christian countries.

according to a woman who heads an organization for womens rights in iraq, interviewed on pbs last week, the recent extreme subjugation of women in iraq nbhds is indeed a political expression. namely the radical group controlling a specific area demonstrate this by forcing the women in that area not only to wear burkhas, but to wear ones which reveal allegiance to a particular sect. this is shown by the style of the veil. as she put it, they have no concern whatsoever for the woman under that veil.

there are indeed serious crimes against humanity going on, and all of us who do not speak out against them are guilty in the eyes of god and man. to defend islam for not having invented suppression of women and yet practicing it is missing the point, just as those of us who fail to condemn the US for killing innocent people miss the point.

the idea is to stop it, not to place or reject blame for it. I also fail to hear virtually any outcry from the muslim community against terro, but ia lso fail to see much real outcry against this unholy war, almost the first in history by the US without provocation or real reason of any kind except egotism of the president.

i for one have not seen too many big marches for peace here in the US, although a few demonstrations have occurred. I also think when they do occur they are minimized by the media, or i would have noticed them more. this also occurred in the vietnam era, but the message eventuallty got out to most citizens.

i recall being at a vast march on washington in the 60's where the official count was far below the actual number, and the news media ignored tens and even hundreds of thousands of middle class parents and soccer moms to film a few radical nutcases in black pajamas with vietcong flags.

 

[mathwonk]

what do you make of the recent political swap wherein bush treatened to veto healthcare for poor american children unless his war continued to be funded without deadlines, and the democrats accepted it?

the current debate over the war, although it includes voices against, seems to me not as much about saving lives, but about winning votes and political power. any ideas on how to proceed more effectively?recent news that those setting roadside bombs and carrying out kidnappings in iraq are often actually iraqi policemen, not militia, is troubling too.

 

[drankin]

If you read your bible you will find that the marriage bed is supposed to be examined for evidence of prior virginity, and if absent, the bride is to be stoned. however this practice, although sanctioned and even required, by "god's" word, is not practiced to my knowledge in most christian countries.

mathwonk, this statement false and misleading. You obviously know little about these religions. You are talking about Judaism, not Christianity. It is not the doctrine of Christianity to follow the Old Testament "laws" of Judaism. If you are actually interested in what the differences are and why, PM me.

Though I don't agree much with the rest of your post, I see your point.

 

[oroboro]

And scholars represent the entirety of Muslim followers? You could look at the select few of the most educated in any society, and get the impression that that society is intelligent and thoughtful.

Fortunately, the rest of us know better and realize that a society, or in this case, followers of a religion are made of more than just scholars.

In the Islamic community, Scholars are leaders and are those who have studied Islam thoroughly. Out of uneducated (in Islam) non-practicing Muslims and well educated scholars, the scholars are obviously the most representative of Islam. Though yes, the Muslim world is doing a bad job representing Islam.

And you've got to understand what is actually going on in the Islamic world before you start jumping to conclusions. Those of you who say that the Muslims of the world need to stand up and stop such actions simply do not understand what is actually going on.

The Muslim world is in a very weak state, in terms of religion. What most of you don't get it seems, is that many Muslims are only Muslim by name, that is, they do not practice Islam at all or very little. It is not Islam that causes honour killings, it is the absence of Islam; without Islam, these people revert to culture and old traditions. These honour killings are exactly what they are, murders done because the victim dishonoured the family. Where people got the idea that these somehow come from religion I do not know.

Yes, most Muslims would condemn such an act, and no, you're not going to get huge demonstrations against such wrong doings because the entire Muslim world is in disarray. Most of them don't even practice Islam at all.

Hopefully this is the last time I state this:
Islam has nothing to do with honour killings

As for the "violence", I'm not even going to bother. All that I say is please study Islam and hadith before you jump to conclusions based on the actions of a few lunatics and information from propaganda sources. If you truly wish to understand something, you'd look at it from all possible sides.

 

[arildno]

Ah yes, let us agree that belief in complete and utter nonsense is a fundamentally virtuous and uplifting thing, shall we?

 

[drankin]

In the Islamic community, Scholars are leaders and are those who have studied Islam thoroughly. Out of uneducated (in Islam) non-practicing Muslims and well educated scholars, the scholars are obviously the most representative of Islam. Though yes, the Muslim world is doing a bad job representing Islam.

And you've got to understand what is actually going on in the Islamic world before you start jumping to conclusions. Those of you who say that the Muslims of the world need to stand up and stop such actions simply do not understand what is actually going on.

The Muslim world is in a very weak state, in terms of religion. What most of you don't get it seems, is that many Muslims are only Muslim by name, that is, they do not practice Islam at all or very little. It is not Islam that causes honour killings, it is the absence of Islam; without Islam, these people revert to culture and old traditions. These honour killings are exactly what they are, murders done because the victim dishonoured the family. Where people got the idea that these somehow come from religion I do not know.

Yes, most Muslims would condemn such an act, and no, you're not going to get huge demonstrations against such wrong doings because the entire Muslim world is in disarray. Most of them don't even practice Islam at all.

Hopefully this is the last time I state this:
Islam has nothing to do with honour killings

As for the "violence", I'm not even going to bother. All that I say is please study Islam and hadith before you jump to conclusions based on the actions of a few lunatics and information from propaganda sources. If you truly wish to understand something, you'd look at it from all possible sides.

Ah, thank you for the insight. Like I said, I don't want to believe that Islam condones this kind of thing. Most people who claim to be Christian do not actually practice Christianity, so I see the paralell. It must simply be human nature to claim a faith but not actually practice it and even be ignorant of its doctrine. Your post makes complete sense to me.

 

[Dagenais]

In the Islamic community, Scholars are leaders and are those who have studied Islam thoroughly. Out of uneducated (in Islam) non-practicing Muslims and well educated scholars, the scholars are obviously the most representative of Islam.

Sorry, I judge a race, religion, culture, or country by looking at the entire sum of its parts. See, unlike you, I don't look at the houses in Beverly Hills and assume that "Everyone in the US is doing great." I don't take the best, and assume that that's it, that that's all there is to that culture.

I don't assume that just because a religion condemns violence by written doctrine (and which widespread legal religion doesn't?) means that all their followers do to.

Maybe if you judged a culture holistically, you would be less ignorant of the problems.

What most of you don't get it seems, is that many Muslims are only Muslim by name, that is, they do not practice Islam at all or very little

Nobody can live a life and follow a religion perfectly right down to the holy doctrines. The fact is that there are more violent Muslim radicals than there are radicals of other widespread religions.

You notice how Buddhists don't have to defend their beliefs because their followers and organizations don't wreck international havoc? This has never occurred to you? Why there happens to be slightly more negative connotations to the world "Muslim" than "Buddhist"?

It has a lot more to do than a couple bad seeds during the decade.

And we already went through the fact that the majority of Muslims are peaceful people. Enough with that, this point was brought up and accepted at the beginning of the conversation. It doesn't have to be said in every single post, when frankly, nobody disagrees with it.

The fact remains that an alarming rate of people from your culture have caused a great deal of violence - more than Buddhists, more than Taoists (the list could go on). And you think countries like China has never been "in disarray"? The big problem here is that you think Muslim culture should not take any responsibility, when the people that commit these acts come from Muslim nations. Luckily, not everyone is in the same state of blind denial: http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=148

See, maybe if more Muslims, such as yourself, took the example above, started taking responsibility, and said, "Yes, we do have a tragic history of violence. More so than a lot of other religions, we many violent radicals. We need to stop these people, we need to make some changes", something positive might happen.

Instead, people like you go, "No, they're not Muslim. Not our problem. They don't represent us." While you completely ignore that it's natural to judge a religious culture with its believers. And they, if asked, would say they are Muslim. And religions are judged by all their people, not just the scholars, but the sum of their parts.

Yes, most Muslims would condemn such an act, and no, you're not going to get huge demonstrations against such wrong doings because the entire Muslim world is in disarray.

Whose fault is that? Let me guess - not Islam, not its believers, not the state - it's someone else's fault.

All that I say is please study Islam and hadith before you jump to conclusions based on the actions of a few lunatics and information from propaganda sources. If you truly wish to understand something, you'd look at it from all possible sides.

The problem here is that I do see it from all sides. And I already said that the majority of Muslims aren't violent, but the fact is that there are enough of them to cause international panic. The fact that you can't admit this shows you're the one with the problems seeing the brutal truth.Fortunately for society, there are Muslims out there who do accept responsibility. Even if denying it would be so much easier, and taking responsibility so much tougher.
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=148

 

[Art]

Sorry, I judge a race, religion, culture, or country by looking at the entire sum of its parts. See, unlike you, I don't look at the houses in Beverly Hills and assume that "Everyone in the US is doing great." I don't take the best, and assume that that's it, that that's all there is to that culture.

I don't assume that just because a religion condemns violence by written doctrine (and which widespread legal religion doesn't?) means that all their followers do to.

Maybe if you judged a culture holistically, you would be less ignorant of the problems.



Nobody can live a life and follow a religion perfectly right down to the holy doctrines. The fact is that there are more violent Muslim radicals than there are radicals of other widespread religions.

You notice how Buddhists don't have to defend their beliefs because their followers and organizations don't wreck international havoc? This has never occurred to you? Why there happens to be slightly more negative connotations to the world "Muslim" than "Buddhist"?

It has a lot more to do than a couple bad seeds during the decade.

And we already went through the fact that the majority of Muslims are peaceful people. Enough with that, this point was brought up and accepted at the beginning of the conversation. It doesn't have to be said in every single post, when frankly, nobody disagrees with it.

The fact remains that an alarming rate of people from your culture have caused a great deal of violence - more than Buddhists, more than Taoists (the list could go on). And you think countries like China has never been "in disarray"?


The big problem here is that you think Muslim culture should not take any responsibility, when the people that commit these acts come from Muslim nations. Luckily, not everyone is in the same state of blind denial: http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=148

See, maybe if more Muslims, such as yourself, took the example above, started taking responsibility, and said, "Yes, we do have a tragic history of violence. More so than a lot of other religions, we many violent radicals. We need to stop these people, we need to make some changes", something positive might happen.

Instead, people like you go, "No, they're not Muslim. Not our problem. They don't represent us." While you completely ignore that it's natural to judge a religious culture with its believers. And they, if asked, would say they are Muslim. And religions are judged by all their people, not just the scholars, but the sum of their parts.



Whose fault is that? Let me guess - not Islam, not its believers, not the state - it's someone else's fault.



The problem here is that I do see it from all sides. And I already said that the majority of Muslims aren't violent, but the fact is that there are enough of them to cause international panic. The fact that you can't admit this shows you're the one with the problems seeing the brutal truth.


Fortunately for society, there are Muslims out there who do accept responsibility. Even if denying it would be so much easier, and taking responsibility so much tougher.
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=148

96% of Japanese are buddhist. One could write volumes about the aggressions and attrocities committed by the Japanese over the centuries up to and including WW2 so I think you have chosen a very poor example to bolster your argument re peace loving religions

Another country with a very high percentage of buddhists is Myanmar. I suggest you check out their history right up to the current day to see what these peace loving buddhists do.

In fact by your logic it seems buddhists are all violent, evil people. Afterall when have buddhists publically apologised or demonstated against the excesses of their fellow buddhists? The absense of such protest must mean they condone these actions

In terms of pure modern day terrorism I suggest you check out buddhist terrorism in Sri Lanka and southern Thailand.

The difference is of course when buddhists or any other religious grouping commits acts of terrorism they are given non-religious names such as for example the IRA who in their most recent 25 year campaign against Britain were never once referred to as catholic terrorists or christian terrorists. Nope it was always republican terrorists or just the IRA. Or the buddhist group 'Absolute Truth' who released sarin gas in the Tokyo underground; they were never once referred to in the media as buddhist terrorists.

It seems the religious identifying label is reserved strictly for terrorists who happen to be muslim which is why many muslims perceive the war on terror as being a pseudonym for a war on Islam.

 

[drankin]

Japanese Imperialism had nothing to do with Buddhism.

 

[Art]

Japanese Imperialism had nothing to do with Buddhism.

My point exactly

 

[oroboro]

Sorry, I judge a race, religion, culture, or country by looking at the entire sum of its parts. See, unlike you, I don't look at the houses in Beverly Hills and assume that "Everyone in the US is doing great." I don't take the best, and assume that that's it, that that's all there is to that culture.

I mentioned scholars simply because they are the most educated in terms of religion. If you wanted to know something about a certain subject, would you ask an expert on the subject or someone who barely understands it? The difference is the same between a practicing Islamic scholar and a non-practicing Muslim. Do leaders not represent their people?

Nobody can live a life and follow a religion perfectly right down to the holy doctrines.

Do you even know what "practicing" a religion means? Obviously, it does not mean following everything perfectly. At the very least practicing means knowing what you must and must not do and following it as best as possible. These honour killings only occur because so many Muslims put their culture before their own religion. They hardly even know what Islam teaches and thus they go their culture when a crisis occurs happens.

The fact is that there are more violent Muslim radicals than there are radicals of other widespread religions.

Your point is? With what the West is doing to Muslims all over the world, you will get some lunatics who believe killing innocents is alright. Islam does not teach Muslims to use violence against those who do nothing to them. It does however, teach that violence must be used when Muslims are being oppressed and driven out of their lands.

You notice how Buddhists don't have to defend their beliefs because their followers and organizations don't wreck international havoc? This has never occurred to you? Why there happens to be slightly more negative connotations to the world "Muslim" than "Buddhist"?

Have you ever wondered why so many Muslims hate the West? Do you not know that Muslims all over the world are being oppressed and killed? If this was happening to your people, would you not be angry? Of course you're going to get people who will go lunatic and attack innocent civilians on the other side when some of their people are killed. If Islam actually taught people to go and kill innocent people, it would've died out long ago. Think logically and stop being so ignorant.

The fact remains that an alarming rate of people from your culture have caused a great deal of violence - more than Buddhists, more than Taoists (the list could go on). And you think countries like China has never been "in disarray"?

Proof please. I want facts. If you're trying to refer to the early Islamic conquests, research some actual history and stop reading lies off the Internet. And Buddhists have massacred millions of people because they were Muslim or Christian and continue to do so today. That does not necessarily mean, however, that Buddhism teaches its followers to kill those of other beliefs.

The big problem here is that you think Muslim culture should not take any responsibility, when the people that commit these acts come from Muslim nations. Luckily, not everyone is in the same state of blind denial: http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=148

Of course I don't think that Muslims should take responsibility and that no blame should be placed on Islam. If one Christian goes and blows up an abortion clinic do all Christians have to take blame? Because a Christian did it, does that mean Christianity commands its followers to blow up abortion clinics?

See, maybe if more Muslims, such as yourself, took the example above, started taking responsibility, and said, "Yes, we do have a tragic history of violence. More so than a lot of other religions, we many violent radicals. We need to stop these people, we need to make some changes", something positive might happen.

Like I said, the Muslim world is in no condition to collectively take action against such acts. And please get your facts straight. Islam does not have a "tragic history of violence". Again, if you're trying to talk about the Islamic conquests, research them properly. When Muslims conquered other nations, they did not go about killing all the people and forcing them to convert to Islam. The maximum that was done to a conquered peoples was a special tax. More proof please, and from valid sources.

If you actually wanted to understand the problem, you'd actually study the Quran and read some books on Islam. Just because some people who are in Muslim areas commit an honour killing, it does not have to mean that their religion has anything to do with it.

For some reason, you also seem to be ignoring the fact that these killings also occur with Hindus and Sikhs. Does that mean that Hinduism and Sikhism teach their followers to kill their own children? Because some Buddhist monks massacre thousands of people does that mean that Buddhism teaches its people to murder anyone who isn't Buddhist? That's the kind of logic you are using.

The next time you try to state that Islam has something to do with honour killings bring some proof, i.e., some verses from the Quran. I seriously do not get why so many people cannot do such a simple task. Maybe you only believe what you want to believe. Perhaps it is you who is in the state of denial.

The fact is that atrocities such as honour killings and attacks on civilians happen everywhere and are done by all sorts of people of all sorts of religions. You can't just say that because some people commit crimes in the name of their religion, their religion somehow has something to do with it. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists all have people who kill innocents in the name of their religion. However, that does not mean that you can blame their religion for such actions.

Ah, thank you for the insight. Like I said, I don't want to believe that Islam condones this kind of thing. Most people who claim to be Christian do not actually practice Christianity, so I see the paralell. It must simply be human nature to claim a faith but not actually practice it and even be ignorant of its doctrine. Your post makes complete sense to me.

I'm glad that you understand

 

[Garth]

The difference is of course when buddhists or any other religious grouping commits acts of terrorism they are given non-religious names such as for example the IRA who in their most recent 25 year campaign against Britain were never once referred to as catholic terrorists or christian terrorists. Nope it was always republican terrorists or just the IRA. Or the buddhist group 'Absolute Truth' who released sarin gas in the Tokyo underground; they were never once referred to in the media as buddhist terrorists.

It seems the religious identifying label is reserved strictly for terrorists who happen to be muslim which is why many muslims perceive the war on terror as being a pseudonym for a war on Islam.

Thank you for your post Art, indeed we have to be careful how we address and in particular criticize and 'condemn' each other.

However, despite the Media hype the problem Muslims have at the moment is that the present wave of terrorism is mistakenly carried out in the name of Islam.

Although after the Bush/Blair reaction to 9/11 & 7/7, there is the case that some Muslims are just fighting back, even though most deaths in Iraq are Muslim-on-Muslim, nevertheless underneath, and pre-dating that Bush/Blair reaction, is a belief amongst Islamic extremists that the non-Islamic world is evil and either has to be converted to their version of Islam or destroyed.

The IRA were known as Republican 'terrorists'/'freedom fighters' because the were working towards their belief of a united, republican Ireland, not the conversion of the world to Roman Catholicism. The Buddhist extreme sect "Absolute Truth" gassing was seen as an example of religious cult terrorism, however it was not attributed to Buddhism in general because it was a single case, carried out in the name of the cult and its leader and not in the name of the Buddhist faith. If there had been many cases of such cults, claiming to be Buddhist, around the world then the public understanding of the nature of Buddhism might well have changed.

Peace,
Garth

 

[Art]

The idea that terrorism by muslims is motivated by a desire to convert the west to Islam is simply wrong. 9/11 and 7/7 were in protest at US and UK foreign policy and had absolutely nothing to do with religion.

There are many groups of terrorists all with their own agenda whether it be the nationalist struggle of the Palestinians or the fight against occupation in Iraq to the fight against dictatorships in the like of Algeria. The press dumbs all this down by painting them all with the same brush - Islamic terrorism. You mentioned yourself that the vast majority of deaths resulting from muslim terrorism are suffered by fellow muslims and so conversion to Islam can hardly be the aim.

Western politicians probably takes the approach they do, i.e. 'they hate us for our freedoms' etc. because if like the IRA these disparate groups were given titles that describes their aspirations people might look a little deeper and perhaps in some cases even sympathise with them and unfortunately most of the media are either too lazy or too keen to curry political favour to present the issues properly which lie at the heart of terrorism by muslims.

 

[drankin]

It seems the religious identifying label is reserved strictly for terrorists who happen to be muslim which is why many muslims perceive the war on terror as being a pseudonym for a war on Islam.

It was Bin Laden who publically made the current war an Islam vs West crusade.

 

[Art]

It was Bin Laden who publically made the current war an Islam vs West crusade.

When did he say that??

Here's the text of a statement he made in 2002. At no time does he mention converting anyone to Islam or a crusade against the west. In fact his statement can be simply summed up as 'you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.

What [US President George] Bush, the pharaoh of this age, was doing in terms of killing our sons in Iraq, and what Israel, the United States' ally, was doing in terms of bombing houses that shelter old people, women and children with US-made aircraft in Palestine were sufficient to prompt the sane among your rulers to distance themselves from this criminal gang.


Do your governments not know that the White House gangsters are the biggest butchers of this age?

Our kinfolk in Palestine have been slain and severely tortured for nearly a century.

If we defend our people in Palestine, the world becomes agitated and allies itself against Muslims, unjustly and falsely, under the pretence of fighting terrorism.

What do your governments want by allying themselves with the criminal gang in the White House against Muslims?

Do your governments not know that the White House gangsters are the biggest butchers of this age?

[US Defence Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, the butcher of Vietnam, killed more than two million people, not to mention those he wounded.

"If you were distressed by the killing of your nationals in Moscow, remember ours in Chechnya"

[US Vice-President Dick] Cheney and [US Secretary of State Colin] Powell killed and destroyed in Baghdad more than Hulegu of the Mongols.

What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking us in Afghanistan?

I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia.

We warned Australia before not to join in [the war] in Afghanistan, and [against] its despicable effort to separate East Timor.

It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali.

Its government falsely claimed that they [the Australians] were not targeted.


Why should fear, killing, destruction, displacement, orphaning and widowing continue to be our lot, while security, stability and happiness be your lot?


If you were distressed by the deaths of your men and the men of your allies in Tunisia, Karachi, Failaka, Bali and Amman, remember our children who are killed in Palestine and Iraq everyday, remember our deaths in Khowst mosques and remember the premeditated killing of our people in weddings in Afghanistan.

If you were distressed by the killing of your nationals in Moscow, remember ours in Chechnya.

Why should fear, killing, destruction, displacement, orphaning and widowing continue to be our lot, while security, stability and happiness be your lot?

This is unfair. It is time that we get even.

You will be killed just as you kill, and will be bombed just as you bomb.

 

[Gokul43201]

When did he say that??

Here's the text of a statement he made in 2002. At no time does he mention converting anyone to Islam or a crusade against the west. In fact his statement can be simply summed up as 'you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.

Would help if you posted a link to the text.

[EDIT]

Okay, I found it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2455845.stm

There's more than the part you quoted. The following appears just before the part you quoted above:

These actions were carried out by the zealous sons of Islam in defence of their religion and in response to the order of their God and prophet, may God's peace and blessings be upon him.

And the next bit appears just after it:

And expect more that will further distress you. The Islamic nation, thanks to God, has started to attack you at the hands of its beloved sons, who pledged to God to continue jihad, as long as they are alive, through words and weapons to establish right and expose falsehood.

In conclusion, I ask God to help us champion His religion and continue jihad for His sake until we meet Him while He is satisfied with us. And He can do so. Praise be to Almighty God.

 

[drankin]

When did he say that??

Interesting that Art replies to my post is with an conveniently edited speech. LOL.

 

[Archon]

Interesting that Art replies to my post is with an conveniently edited speech. LOL.

Yeah. I see the part where he's talking about religion, but I have to admit, I'm not noticing the part where he's saying he hates our freedom. He doesn't mention converting anyone to Islam. And "These actions were carried out by the zealous sons of Islam in defence of their religion" certainly seems to indicate a defensive rather than aggressive motivation for Bin Ladin's "war." Could you maybe point out the relevant sections out for me?

Anyway, I think it's important to realize that there's really no evidence for a causal relationship between Islam and terrorism. (In fact, the evidence is mostly to the contrary) All we have is the fact that there are a lot of terrorists in the Middle East, and many of them use (ostensibly) Islamic ideas to justify their campaigns of violence. Nothing in all of this indicates that there are lots of terrorists in the Middle East because there are lots of Muslims in the Middle East. Indeed, it seems far more likely that there happen to be lots of Muslims in the Middle East, and (unrelatedly) the terrorists are there because of the invasion of Iraq, social and cultural problems, etc.

 

[russ_watters]

We've discussed Bin Laden's open letter to the US (Nov 24, 2002) many times in the past. He is quite specific in his demand that we convert to Islam:

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

http://islamcommentaries.com/binladen_letter.htm#25

 

[sneez]

demand that we convert to Islam:

Nope, He is calling you (us) to islam. note demanding. He is not even fighting us that we convert to islam. He is pretty clear why he is fighting.

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

#

As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
#

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
#

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.
#

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.
#

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Qu'ran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Qu'ran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Qu'ran or even ten verses like it.
#

 

[russ_watters]

It should be clear that those are conditions for ending the fighting, but just in case there could be some misunderstanding, he says it explicitly:

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation.

 

[Art]

Interesting that Art replies to my post is with an conveniently edited speech. LOL.

Copyright prevents us from quoting texts in full so I posted the pertinant pieces ignoring the usual religious preamble.

Nowhere in the pieces omitted does Bin Laden mention fighting to convert the west to Islam which is the statement I was rebutting.

 

[russ_watters]

Nowhere in the pieces omitted does Bin Laden mention fighting to convert the west to Islam which is the statement I was rebutting.

9/11 conspiracy theorists show pictures of the Pentagon with no plane parts in them and use them as evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon, neglecting to acknowledge that there are plenty of pictures that do show plane parts strewn-about the lawn and inside the Pentagon.

Posting quotes that don't contain statements pertinent to the argument does not mean that such statements don't exist and it is dishonest to imply that it does. You must have seen the quotes where Bin Laden states explicitly that the west must convert to Islam or die. We've discussed it many times here.

Bin Laden also wants us out of the Middle East, but that isn't the only reason why he kills Americans.

Also, regarding the usage of the word "crusade" - it has many meanings that can be very general, but the applicable one here is the concept of the "holy war", a term Bin Laden often uses. This is, for Bin Laden, a global Islamic crusade.

Here are links to a number of Bin Laden speeches: http://iraqwar.org/binladenquotes.htm

In any case, we're getting waaaaay off topic...

[edit] - Here is an article discussing some of the history and evolution of Bin Laden's purported motivations. It discusses, for example, the fact that his first primary motive was the presence of American troops in Saudia Arabia. After we left, his motives changed. This implies to me that he's just looking for excuses to justify mindless hate.

In 1996, when he issued his declaration of war against American interests, the primary offense he mentioned was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. They had used military bases in the kingdom during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and remained there afterward at the request of the Saudi royal family. Having "Crusader warriors" near the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina was a grave insult to all Muslims, bin Laden and other conservative members of the faith complained.

U.S. troops largely withdrew from the kingdom by September 2003, but their departure did not end al Qaeda operations in the region. Instead, sympathizers of the group have since increased their attacks on interests of the United States and others they consider to be enemies in the kingdom.

Bin Laden has continued to list U.S. support of the Saudi royal family -- which he regards as corrupt and beholden to outside interests -- as one of his biggest grievances. But he has also displayed a politician's instinct by tapping into two other issues that have inflamed public opinion in the Middle East more recently: the war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11090-2004Nov24_2.html

 

[Art]

9/11 conspiracy theorists show pictures of the Pentagon with no plane parts in them and use them as evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon, neglecting to acknowledge that there are plenty of pictures that do show plane parts strewn-about the lawn and inside the Pentagon.

Posting quotes that don't contain statements pertinent to the argument does not mean that such statements don't exist and it is dishonest to imply that it does. You must have seen the quotes where Bin Laden states explicitly that the west must convert to Islam or die. We've discussed it many times here.
etc...

This is from one of the sources you quoted (btw most have broken links)

The imagery and style were different, but bin Laden's message to "the people of America" was the same: You still don't understand why we are at war with each other.

obviously he is right about that
The article continues

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th," the fugitive al Qaeda leader said in a videotape aired around the world on Oct. 29. "But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th . . . the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred."

Eight years after he issued a written declaration of war against the United States, the theme of bin Laden's speech was disbelief that he had failed to make his point with the American people, even after the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on U.S. soil and a succession of bombings, beheadings and other forms of bloodshed around the world.

"This talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results," he said, in what are believed to be his first videotaped comments in three years.

An examination of bin Laden's speeches over the years shows that the underlying message has remained consistent: Americans have repeatedly humiliated Muslims with a foreign policy that has propped up corrupt governments in the Middle East and perpetuated conflict in the region. Until you prevail on your government to stop, we will strike back.

He did not quote the Koran during his latest, 13-minute speech, and he also avoided the obscure historical references that peppered his previous statements. Instead, he justified his embrace of terrorism in layman's language, explaining his tactics as a logical response to what he depicted as U.S. aggression.

"Should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?" he said, speaking in a composed manner and using formal Arabic. "Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us."

and, again from your source, this from Ayman al-Zawahiri following 7/7

Rather than casting his jihad as an inevitable clash of civilizations, he frames acts of terrorism as justified by the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and offers to end attacks on the West if a full withdrawal is made from "Muslim lands."

"Blair has brought to you destruction in central London, and he will bring you more destruction, God willing,'' Zawahiri said, addressing the British people.

"As for you Americans, what you have seen in New York and Washington, what losses you see in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the media blackout, are merely the losses of the initial clashes," he said. "If you go on with the same policy of aggression against Muslims, you will see, God willing, things that will make you forget the horrors of Vietnam and Afghanistan."

"To the people of the crusader coalition ... our blessed Sheikh Osama has offered you a truce so that you leave Muslim land. As he said you will not dream of security until we live it as a reality in Palestine,'' he said. "Our message to you is clear, strong and final: There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources and end support for infidel [Arab] rulers."

Again no reference at all to converting the west to Islam by force. Now instead of making blanket references to 'quotes I must have seen' which I patently have not please provide actual quotes and references.

In fact the only ones I have seen making reference to using force to impose their 'belief' system on others is the west with it's 'western values system' and 'democratisation' down the barrel of a gun policies.

The part bolded in the text above (from your source I remind you) agrees totally with what I have been saying and has been reaffirmed many times by Robert Fisk who remains the only western journalist to have interviewed Bin Laden - in fact three times.

All conflicts have a definable cause which one may or may not agree with and even if one chooses to 'stay the course' regardless, it still makes sense to at least understand what lies behind the conflict. To dismiss one's opponents as mindless is in itself mindless.

I am interested in your explaining why you believe this conspiracy theory that Bin Laden and his cohorts lie to us about why he is waging war on the west and lie to us about his conditions for ending it.

 

[Art]

Here's an article citing a report published today fully supporting my contentions;

Religious extremists in 3 faiths share views: report

By Claudia Parsons

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Violent Muslim, Christian and Jewish extremists invoke the same rhetoric of "good" and "evil" and the best way to fight them is to tackle the problems that drive people to extremism, according to a report obtained by Reuters.

It said extremists from each of the three faiths often have tangible grievances -- social, economic or political -- but they invoke religion to recruit followers and to justify breaking the law, including killing civilians and members of their own faith.

The report was commissioned by security think tank EastWest Institute ahead of a conference on Thursday in New York titled "Towards a Common New Thinking Against Violent Extremism and Radicalization." The report will be updated and published after the conference.

The authors compared ideologies, recruitment tactics and responses to violent religious extremists in three places -- Muslims in Britain, Jews in Israel and Christians in the United States.

"What is striking ... is the similarity of the worldview and the rationale for violence," the report said.

It said that while Muslims were often perceived by the West as "the principal perpetrators of terrorist activity," there are violent extremists of other faiths. Always focusing on Muslim extremists alienates mainstream Muslims, it said.

The report said it was important to examine the root causes of violence by those of different faiths, without prejudice.

"It is, in each situation, a case of 'us' versus 'them,'" it said. "That God did not intend for civilization to take its current shape; and that the state had failed the righteous and genuine members of that nation, and therefore God's law supersedes man's law."

This worldview was common to ultranationalist Jews, like Yigal Amir, who killed Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, to U.S. groups like Christian Identity, which is linked to white supremacist groups, and to other Christian groups that attacked abortion providers, it said.

"Extremists should never be dismissed simply as evil," said the report. "Trying to engage in a competition with religious extremists over who can offer a simpler answer to complex problems will be a losing proposition every time."

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1336685920070613

 

[Astronuc]

Here's an article citing a report published today fully supporting my contentions;

Very appropriate and very timely.

When things are bad people often turn to religion with the expectation that 'believing' hard enough will make things better. An extention to that would be, if things are bad in one's community (tribe, clan, . . .), then it's the fault of those outside the group, and it becomes permissible to do violence to those outsiders. It has nothing to do with 'religion' - it has to do with individual psychology and the ability of the mind to rationalize the irrational.

 

[Bila Nabil]

It is even not Muslims area!

The town – the region in general- is divided between Christian and Yazidi religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yezidi). The tribe if the girl stoned her because she married a Muslim man from another city. Actually Arabs tribes who tried to protect her, but they failed because of their limited power after the American inavsion.

This is a very common occurrence in fundamentalist Muslim areas. What probably separates this from the thousands that happen a year in other muslim countries is the fact that with new-found freedom, it should happen less than it used to. But until the country becomes stable, the pockets of hardcore fundamentalism will have more ability to harm those who dare exercise their new-found freedom.


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

 

[Bila Nabil]

How will the Sunni, Shii, Yezidi, Kurds, . . . . overcome the old cultural ways which allow for such acts as 'honor killing'? Will they ever?

How will the world deal with such cultural contradictions?

The Yazidi are adherents of a pre-Islamic Middle Eastern religion with ancient origins.

 

[Astronuc]

The Yazidi are adherents of a pre-Islamic Middle Eastern religion with ancient origins.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Yes, they are not arab necessarily, but primarily of Kurdish origin.

Such distinctions are often overlooked or ignored by those in the west.

The Yazidis' concern with religious purity, and their reluctance to mix elements perceived to be incompatible, is shown not only in their caste system, but also in various taboos affecting everyday life. Some of these, such as those on exogamy or on insulting or offending men of religion, are widely respected.

Which would explain the punishment inflicted upon this woman. If she attempted to marry outside her group, then this was perceived as a great violation of her culture.

After reading more, there is comment about banishment or expulsion. They simply could have expelled her - but it appears that some wished to make an example. Seems terribly harsh.

 

[Ratzinger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/world/middleeast/15iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin