Sad Warning

You should not have posted here ( Current Events ). It should be in the Comment Section.

You see, you are discussing and debating, which is good.

Actually, much as I deplore the US attack on Iraq and the disgusting behaviour of many US soldiers, to treat it as an attack on Islam and any defence of the attack as anti-Islamic, is not reasonable or logical.

The war was launched for a number of reasons. An attempt to control the supply and price of oil was obviously a main one, but another was the desire to have major military bases there from which to control the Middle East. Soon after the apparent success in Iraq, the US announced that it would be leaving some of its Saudi bases - thinking it would be safer to move them to Iraq (fools!)

Another reason was the enormous business that could be given to US companies like Haliburton for "rebuilding" Iraq - we'll smash your country to bits and then you and the US taxpayer can hand us a fortune to rebuild it.

But the war was not intended as an attack on Islam, I know that Bush mentioned a Crusade, but he's too dim to realise the implications of that. Yes, Bush and especially Bliar have whipped up anti-Islamic feeling, at the same time as denying it, but that is to create fear among their own electorates because fearful people are easier to manipulate and control.

And now in Iraq most of the deaths of Moslems are caused by other Moslems. How can you say that when an American soldier kills a Moslem that is an attack on Islam in general but when a Moslem kills another Moslem, that is something different? That doesn't make sense.

When you say, "Free speech doesn�t mean that you can speak your mind as you like here without any respect to Islamic faith or any other faith for that matter and their followers," I would agree with you in general, but if someone were daft enough to say here that the US in Iraq were doing a good job, then that is showing disrespect to the Islamic faith, I would disagree with you. It would have nothing to do with the Islamic faith.

My real point is that this sort of thinking actually damages your cause with non-Moslems, many of whom are appalled at the hostility which has grown up on both sides in the West. It encourages the view that Moslems cannot separate their political opinions from their religious beliefs and they are not prepared to discuss but only want to suppress opposing opinions. Perhaps that is why Shias and Sunnis are murdering each other in Iraq? (Just like Orthodox and Roman Catholics murdered each other in the Balkans, I know).

i think webranger is on the right track here the original post. everyone should show respect and courtesy. not to be inflamatory is a reasonable request. but he is right. something said with respect cannot really be inflamatory. I might disagree very strongly but I cannot reasonably be inflamed where there is no disrespect. but "To say that the US forces in Iraq are doing a great job is inflamatory!", that it a very questionable example on what is inflamatory. i do not think he's arguing that inflamatory posts shouldn't be banned. i think what he's getting at is what should be considered inflamatory in the context of the message being made. the example given on the warning is a bad one.

if i said, "the U.S. forces in Iraq are doing a great job. nobody understands Muslims anyway. they are all terrorists and i'm glad U.S. forces are destroying Islam and the people the practice it." - that is an inflamatory statement. it is obviously disrespectful and made to goad you into a reaction. I should be banned.

but if i said, "the U.S. forces in Iraq are doing a great job. the Iraqi people now have refurbished schools and medical centers. the roads have been repaved. neighborhoods are being rebuilt. families are being reunited. they now have more constitutionally protected freedoms. none of this would've been possible without the U.S." - that is not inflamatory. you do not have to agree with it, but i have in no way been disrepectful of you or Islam in making it.

yet according to this warning, just because i said the U.S. is doing a great job, i made an inflamatory statement. argue with me, debate me, show me why my statement is wrong. but to delete it and ban me only makes Islam look bad. it could be construed that Muslims are offended by anything they do not agree with, even if that anything isn't intentionally disrepectful. i think you should take the context of the remark, the topic it is on, and the reputation of the poster into account in these situations. i think you should also give a better example of what could be inflamatory.

some of this is part of the problem in the first place. how can Islam be taught and understood and not feared by non-Muslims if all they see is Muslims reacting in violent ways to cartoons or statements? i have yet to see this cartoon, but i understand it was political satire. the Popes statement was taken out of context. yet some Islamic leaders instead took this statement and whipped the Muslims world into a frenzy. the aftermath is that, more than ever Islam was seen as a violent religion and Muslims are not to be trusted. i know this is not the case, but many people don't. if you say that "the U.S. forces in Iraq are doing a great job." is an offensive statement, you will turn people away from because no one will want to learn from anyone that will somehow get offended by a clearly unoffensive remark.

There obviously is a need for more discussion because the attitude you are displaying is the antidose to discussion, and what is the point of a forum if discussion is forbidden or curtailed?

I set up the Independent BBC Today Forum (http://bbctodayforum.co.uk) precisely because the BBC chose to change the format of their Message Boards so that members could no longer initiate Topics, they can only discuss the two or three Topics a day the Moderators initiate. That plus the excessive enthusiasm of the mods in deleting messages for inane reasons has driven away most of its members.

By contrast the Independent Today Forum has no ongoing moderation (although profanity is automatically changed to [expletive deleted])and although a message could be removed in extremis, the necessity is unlikely.

To return to the original subject, you have so many different threads muddled up that it is difficult to untangle them., but I will try.

I abhor the invasion and destruction of Iraq as much as anyone. I said before the invasion that no WMD would be found and that the result would be that Iraq would descend into chaos. I have been proved right, and I am equally right in saying that this was not an attack on Islam.

Iraq was, and is, a secular state, not an Islamic state. Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of thousands - thousands of Muslims. Although the welcome to US and British troops was vastly exaggerated, nevertheless there were some Iraqi Muslims who did welcome them; indeed those who told lies to western intelligence in order to encourage the invasion were also Muslims.

That's why the example you give is so inappropriate, and your failure to see that so worrying. The invasion and occupation is simply not an Islamic issue, any more that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was an Islamic issue, or his earlier invasion of Iran.

"Attack on Islam or not, the point is that such mass scale killings of Shias and Sunnis didn�t exist prior to invasion and occupation of Iraq. Therefore, you have to look what is the cause behind what is happening there."

You are avoiding the issue. Yes, the chaos has come about as a result of the invasion, but the main feature of that chaos now is Muslims killing Muslims, and that makes treating the occupation as anti-Islamic rather ridiculous. I would have thought that as an Islamic Peacemaker you would be concerned that many Muslims in Iraq are showing the world such a ferocious side of Islam. You write of your brothers and sisters being slaughtered, but right now they are mainly being slaughtered by other brothers and sisters. (Well maybe not sisters).

"Let us proceed further. I ( and many others ) come here ( Islamic discussion board ) to learn and share, and do you mean that I ( and many others ) should still see here cartoons of Prophet ( SAW )? ( Shouldn�t we allow them here as many people don�t see that inflammatory? ). What about rights of people like me? "

Of course not, that is a far better example. To attempt to post such things here would be clearly intentioned to provoke.

"And placing blame on Imams? What about Danish Prime Minister who refused to listen to several requests made by Muslim leaders and Scholars in that nation well before the issue became internationalized."

Now this is just the sort of comment that makes others believe that Muslims have no real desire to discuss and find ways to live in peace with other faiths. You must know that the Danish Prime Minister has no legal or constitutional means of censoring or even influencing the newspapers. Nor should he have. In fact, by suggesting that he could you are suggesting the end of free speech in that country.

I wish that those cartoons had not been published, but far rather that than give politicians the power to censor the press.

The cartoons had already been published, what on earth were the imams asking the PM to do? Why did they provoke other European newspapers who did not even know about them in the first place, to republish them. Why did they take them all over the Muslim world and show them to people whom they knew would be offended? The issue did not "become internationalised" all by itself, the imams MADE it an international issue.

Many Danes were deeply offended, they felt that the Moslem immigrants who had been welcomed and treated as equal under the law and in all other respects, had betrayed hospitality with hostility. That isn't a Muslim virtue, is it?