In short if the U.S pulled out there are 3 things that would happen:

1. Civil War (Shi'tte and Sunni)

2. Power vaccum

3. No unified Law

This belief comes understand the assertion that such a religious society as Iraq is incapable of sustaining itself unless it has an outside power to help restructure the society even if the society does not agree with the principle object. If any of you can challenge the three you are welcomed to do so, but brother we must examine each case by themselves and we shall see.

1. Civil War -
      This is inevitable.  My country has spewed so much hate between the Sunni and Shiite factions that civil war is unavoidable.

2. Power Vacuum -
     No doubt.  Once the US withdraws who will take over?  Iraq�s weak governmental system?  The only result would be nation wide devastation.

3. No unified Law -
     Since when did the Shiite and Sunni sects ever agree on anything?  Let�s face it, Iraq�s society is one based on religion.  With Islam split along the lines of Sunni and Shiite then so will Iraq be split into two social structures.  Many can argue that Sunni and Shiite Islam are not very far apart and on this note I will agree, but on the other note, despite the minor differences, these two sects can not settle their differences and agree on simple matters let alone matters of national interest.  Just look at "the differences between Sunni and Shia" in the Intrafaith forum.

Peace,
Arabian

If that's the only "con sideration" then why are the Hang Low Sexnons so reluctant to hand over to a genuine International Force?

Promise, we won't even ask them for the missing Iraqi Billions.

Whisper wrote: If that's the only "con sideration" then why are the Hang Low Sexnons so reluctant to hand over to a genuine International Force? Promise, we won't even ask them for the missing Iraqi Billions.

Whisper, who are the "Hang Low Sexnons" you are always making reference to? Do you mean Anglo Saxons by any chance? If so, why not use the correct term. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I referred to Afghanistanis as "Half Goony Stanis" or some such. If I were to use disparaging termonology to describe people's ethinic roots the way you constantly do, I would expect the moderators to sanction me. It's peculiar how you seem to be able to get away with your thinly veiled insults.

Whisper wrote: It just defines the state of mind

No no, Mr Whisper sir, I think it has more to do with your state of mind...... :)

My dear Flemming Burrel, how do you arrive at the point that a "religious" society (or, any society for that matter) needs an outside power to restructure it? I wonder if you could explain restructured for what purpose or desin?

Have you ever been to Iraq or anywhere else outside of the USA?

Or, is it just that your name grants you the right to restructure any society that suits you?

Did your country have all these three things when you started in 1776?

Which outside power restructured your (at that time quite religious) society?

Salam,

How about going back to the question at hand. First off Arabian has a point simple as that. Personally, its quite easy to feel the frsutration and blame American troops but how about the "theory of U.S pullout?" We assume that because of the stigma labeled to American government as such a "money hungry" society, what about the neighboring Arab countries whose dignitaries live better than even the most prominetn Americans? Where are their interest?

My most loveable Flemming, my question was not really that difficult. Plus, it was linked with your most scholarly claim about societies. I fail to understand why you have run away from the question and hidden behind those US puppet dignitaries?

Sir, we will deal with them and their interests in time. Right now your troops on our lands is just the problem.

Is it really that hard for you to understand and specially when even your very own divinely dumb president seems to have realised that; People simply don't like to be occupied.

In fact, this string should be titled; The Theory Against US Pull out?

"We assume that because of the stigma labeled to American government as such a "money hungry" society, what about the neighboring Arab countries whose dignitaries live better than even the most prominetn Americans? Where are their interest?"

Oh, so you mean this is the justification for war and occupation in Iraq. Unbelievable. Bro Israfil, I never thought it would come from you, at least.

Shall we examine a wee more honest and honourable scenario?

Our troops are part of the problem
Heavy-handed occupation is not a solution to the Iraqi insurgency

Robin Cook
Friday July 15, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ - The Guardian

In the single week since the London bombings there have been 11 suicide attacks in Iraq. One car bomb this week wiped out 30 children, one as young as six, who had gathered to plead for western chocolates from American soldiers.

I do not draw a parallel between London and Baghdad to diminish the pain and horror caused by the crime on our own shores, but because that appalling experience should give us some insight into the violence that is now a daily occurrence in Iraq. And as the occupying force we bear responsibility for its security. There may be room for debate over whether there is a connection between the war in Iraq and the London bombings, but there is no escaping the hard truth that the chaos in that country is a direct result of the decision to invade it, taken in defiance of the intelligence warning that it would heighten the terrorist threat.

And still those who took us into the war are not frank with us. For months those of us who have asked for a timetable for withdrawal from the occupation of Iraq have been told that it would encourage the insurgents to circle that date in the calendar. Yet at the weekend we learned from another leaked minute that the Ministry of Defence has ticked the middle of next year as the target by when it will have reduced the British presence to about a third of its present level.

This has nothing to do with progress against the insurgents, who are growing bolder rather than weaker. It is entirely to do with American domestic politics. As George Bush sinks in popularity back home, his desperation rises to cut his losses in Iraq. The leaked memo confirms that the Bush administration is planning to cut its occupying forces to a third by the first half of 2006, which would make it politically impossible at home for Britain not to do the same.

Apparently there is a row going on between the Pentagon, which wants "a bold reduction", and the US commanders on the ground, who know that they cannot contain the insurgency with their present numbers and do not see how they will be able to do better with fewer. For once I find myself on the side of the Pentagon.

Heavy-handed US occupation is not the solution to the insurgency but a large part of the problem. US army rules of engagement appear to give much greater weight to killing insurgents than to protecting civilian lives. It is alarming testimony to its trigger-happy approach that statistics compiled by the Iraqi health ministry confirm that twice as many civilians have been killed by US military action as by terrorist bombs. The predictable result is that the US occupation breeds new recruits for the insurgency at a faster rate than it kills existing members of it.

Nor is it only the fatalities of US forces that foster resentment. Homes in every neighbourhood have been trashed by US forces in futile searches for insurgents. Every extended family knows of at least one person who has disappeared into the new gulag of detainees. A year after President Bush promised to demolish Abu Ghraib it is being expanded, rather than closed, to accommodate an even larger number than were held there by Saddam.

It is an inexorable law of foreign occupations that the greater the repression, the stronger the resistance. The reduction in US forces may be planned for the wrong reason, but should be welcomed as a step in the right direction. It does though present the coalition governments with a rhetorical problem.

They have repeatedly told us that they would stay in Iraq until the job was done. Patently the job is not done if it is measured by success in getting on top of the insurgency. It has therefore been necessary to redefine what was meant by the job they promised to complete. Last week an imaginative new interpretation surfaced.

Apparently, when Donald Rumsfeld warned that the insurgency could take a decade to contain he did not mean the US troops would stay that long to defeat it but that they would expect the Iraqi forces to do the job for them. In short, completing the job now is not bringing peace to Iraq but equipping the Iraqis to fight their own civil war, possibly for another 10 years. The Iraqi government itself appears to have a shrewd grasp of its need to find other allies, hence its surprising agreement last week to a mutual defence pact with Iran.

It is striking how little events on the ground in Iraq have figured in the key decisions of this sorry episode. The timing of the original invasion was dictated not by the reports on the UN weapons inspections but by the momentum of the US military build-up. Now the timing of the exit from occupation is going to be determined not by progress in restoring security in Iraq but by the date of next year's mid-term congressional elections in the US.

First off let's get something straight here, I never ever once said that I advocated the occupation of Iraq I never said that the war is justified by America and I never said that it was legitimate. You are taking words out of what I say perhaps because I'm not being thorough.

What I'm saying here is that the criticism of U.S occupation is justified under the guise of WMD claimed by Bush. That I agree wholy. But the problem here is that while we are critiquing the war let us critique the people who are critiquing the occupation force: U.S military. As I have said before Al-Jazeera and any other news grouyp always report in relation to their respective viewers. Most media outlets are biased because people want to know (be it local or international) what their country (or people) are doing.

Yes I agree that no people would like to be occupied against their will and no people would like restrictions. But let us look at the facts. No country even under the rule of Islam had adherents who were not "power hungry" even after the death of the beloved prophet there were even "imposter prophets" who came to have succeeded Muhammad and wanted to lead the vast Islamic dynasty already existing. Now as we shift to modern times now that the U.S is there I believe in the notion "finish what you start." I believe that the U.S now that the war has been brought to Iraq should stay there and stabilize the situation.

I believe that in this time it is good Saddam is out. I believe it is good that the "Arabization" of a city is over. I believe its good that "free elections" will not come into existence (If you criticize this look at the other evil where Saddam got 99% of the votes out of all Iraq considering his history profile; versus the elections now which the Iraqis as a country participate).

However let not what I say justify the war because what I say doesn't. It doesn't justify the countless mistakes nor does it justify the countless errors made by Bush on the premis of WMD's. What I am saying here is besides noting the pros and cons of American occupation note the consequences of the American forces unoccupying Iraq. What I'm here to say is I challenge those of you who say "America should leave" and note how Iraq with all its warring factions can all of a sudden unify themselves now. LOL, I highly doubt you couldn't so there is my challenge. BTW if you are concerned about my Muslimhood please leave this out because this forum is about politics not religion I seriously hate when brothers and sisters use derogatory terms to get their point across.

Since you all claim to be surprised at me I'm surprised that you claim to "know me" through my words yet you missed the point I'm making here when I've condemned the U.S occupation, yes I am surprised.

Israfil,

I respect your views, you do inspire me at times and I learn from you. The power hungry caused the Muslim downfall. And, today, the power hungry are destroying the US. But, here, we aren�t talking about who holds a bigger stock of the power hungry.

We see the brutality of occupation. We smell nothing but the devastations of a criminal war. Brother, you want us to critique all of this as if it were some Broadway play? Or an Almodovar film?

Yaar, be a little humane. Is it really ever possible to be against occupation but sing songs of praise for the occupying force?

Why are the Americans always comparing their deeds just against what Saddam has been doing? Couldn�t they pick some better role models from somewhere? Is it only because this election under occupation was just as good a scam as Saddam has ever had? The Iraqis participated just because they were promised that the election would end the occupation.

Hard boiled fact.

The election has not brought any hope of freedom from occupation. The thing (you may call it insurgency, I say, the Freedom Fight) is now gaining fresh momentum. I feel sad. It seems America�s best Allies didn�t pass any notes from their history of Iraq occupation � just less than 80 or so years ago.

"finish what we start" is bigger than even the WMDs scam.

My friend, if you just study just the Mid East US kartoots; misdeeds, it will not be difficult for you to see how the US has shot dead her credibility, image and even the myth of Military might in that area � if not almost across the globe.

It will be extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, for the US to find any suitable partners for stability, both, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We live in a world of �Fear Polutics�. The occupying forces have to feed us this sort of a scenario to justify their occupations. Well, this is nothing new. The occupiers have always coined such excuses.

Would you like to be ruled by, say, an ISI, RAW or for that matter even some Mossad operative in your hometown? Have we ever been offered anything other than the CIA collection?

You call them freedom fighters I call them killers. Obviously if they can fight why do they not only kill some U.S military soldiers long with innocent women and children and men yes they are freedom fighters. Too bad the freedom of the people whom they claim to be fighting for are snuffed out due to the freedom fighters blast radius.

It does not make sense to assume that U.S occupation is the only option to establish law and order in Iraq. UN peace keeping force can do that better (its their job atually, I think). My point was that insurgents oppose American occupation because they see it as a pretext to further imperialistic goals of the U.S (and not just because they are kuffar). However, for UN peace keeping force to come in, U.S must withdraw its forces, as U.N considers U.S occupation illegal, and which Americans are not prepared to do at the moment.

U.N peace keeping force won't arouse suspicion or hatred (at least not as much as U.S occupation army).

My friend, at least, the Indians are not known as the Big Shaitan in that area. Yes, "with American personnel" anyone will be seen in a different light. We see it everyday how even the Iraqis with American personnel are seen.

I didn't expect you to be so scared of the natural local leaders. But perhaps this phobia is quite an American epidemic. But for Ali Sistani you would have had 30 times body bags flying home.

Is he is a bad guy only because he forced the Americans to hold elections - something they were dodging from the day one?

I didn't know it was so hard for someone of your intelligence to realise that most parts of the world does not want (specially) American boots on their soil. Any news of South Korea??

Zaman you are wrong. Don't you see how much peace we have got in our world since we have been under the sole American charge?

And, go back to sleep. It must be nearing 11 in India by now and don't interfere with the Imperial American progress sold to their own people in bigger lies than the WMD ones.

Go back to sleep my friend. Only Americans know how the rest of the world must be run. It's just another matter that most of them can not find where a damn country is on the world atlas!!

Israfil wrote: But seeing how the Indians are considered "Kufr" I doubt the religious zealots of Iraq would allow such a move because they themselves would be considered "occupiers" along with American personnel.

American personnels need to be kicked out first.

Its 10 yaar, now. I don't go to sleep till 1:00.

Thank goodness Indians may just be considered kafirs. The worst these days is to be called or to be considered an American.

Well the two have lived together for just over four and half times the age of the USA. Plus they have not been pying Israel $3 billion a year just to finish off Mozlems in this area!

Assalam alaikum

Whisper, although I detest the Bush administration, I have no shame in calling myself an American.  I am an American Muslim; does that make you want to kill me too?  I could not imagine living day in and day out with the kind of hatred you must carry around in your heart.  Are you sure there is room for Allah in there?  I pray to Almighty Allah that no matter what happens in this world, Islam will not find itself being ruled by someone who has a mindset like yours. 

I personally think Americans are in a really tough spot.  I�m not talking about Bush.  If it had been up to me, Bush never would have been elected much less have gone to war in the Middle East.  However, the American population is caught in a political �catch 22.�  If we say that Bush stay and clean up the mess he made, we are looked upon as blood thirsty Bush supporters, and if we say he should pull out, we are looked upon as coldhearted and uncaring of how those in Iraqi will deal with the chaos.  One thing I know for sure is that one way or the other, there will be more killings in Iraqi and this saddens my heart more than I can bear.  What makes me even sadder is that people like you have robbed me and others who truly care about what happens in this world of our right to have an opinion, a voice.  Just because we are Americans doesn�t mean we are what you accuse us of being.  So, tell me Whisper, given your beliefs about the world and the US in particular, what makes you any less oppressive than Bush, Blair, Ben Laden or Hitler???

PAZ, Khadija

I wouldnt say to be called American is nearly as bad as being called an Islamic Extremest.

Terrorist Barbarians are not going to take over Iraq like the Taliban took over Afganistan.  Afgans would much rather have the government they have now than the Terrorists they had running the country before.  Not all Afgans are muslims, yet the Taliban enforced religious laws inturprited by Extremist views of terror.

Like it or not, its currently the insergents and former Sadaam Loyalists who are killing the innocent people in Iraq, not the US or UK.

Freedom Fighters fight for freedom not to kill children and civilans purposely time and time and time again.

It would take an idiot to think by killing themselves and killing a bunch of kids there going to heaven. 

I could see if they were killing only what they call Infedels because that is writen in the evil books you read but to kill the innocent people from within your own religion is barbericly evil by any religion to say the least.

Its not all that supprising when lookin at Islamic History to see killing of your own kind for power is a center piece to the religion.

Take for instance Ali, forced to become a Caliph under threat of loosing his life if he didnt accept.

Take for instance Aisha, probably around 9 years old when Muhammad took her as another of his his wives.  Your was prophet a child malester many could say, must like Michael Jackson.

Why would 1 man need 11 wives ??? do you really need that many blowjobs a day ?  the 1st died, ok why not be happy with the 9 year old virgin, why would someone need 9 more ???

If this was a religious war, or Jihad as many muslims would like to call it the Americans would simply blow up all the Mosques they could find.  Jihad is not the case, religion has little to do with this war. 

I will say at the time of Islam's beginnings the rest of the world was quite un civilized yet most advanced.  Many muslim extremests insist that life should be lived as they lived back in the beginnings.  People have progressed why hold back from the civilization technology except to use for suicide bombs and cars to blow up Arab children and civilans from around the world ? its a barbaric lifestyle.

What would you call the Muslim's who occupied Spain causing the 1st Crusaide ?  were they not occupiers ? 

What about the Muslims who forced there religion on millions of people by threat of death yet maintaining it to be well within there Islamic Laws. 

What would you call the Taliban, most of which were not Afgans occupying Afganistan and destroying much of its rich cultural heritage in the name of Islamic Law.  Guess what, not all Afgans were Muslims yet they were being forced to submit to the hands of the occupiers,  in my eyes the Allies giving the country back to an Afgan government was liberating toe country.  We are only in Afganistan to stablize the country if insergents would submit to the Afgan and Iraqi governments which were ELECTED the allies would not have nearly such a presence to be termed occupation.

Please do not take this post as saying all Muslims are extreme or evil, although i do feel the religion itself is not of good.  

There are many people from verious religions who are very good people at heart because we are all created equal.  There are good and bad people in every religion.

The extremists would have the muslims believe that the Infadels are all evil and its good to kill as many as you can in the name of Allah.

hogwash in line with Nazi thinking.

Alaikum es Salaam Khadija,

When did I say that anyone should be killed?  I have just quoted what most people think in the Mid East and beyond about the American occupation of Iraq and since this invasion about the Americans.

I hold no hatred for anyone at all. I find it a huge task to hate anyone, ever.

We were just discussing that if the US is so concerned about the law and order in Iraq they should hand over to the Indian forces, under the Un, as suggested by Zaman above.

It's not my fault. It's just unfortunate how the Americans are viewed today.

rocitreal wrote: I wouldnt say to be called American is nearly as bad as being called an Islamic Extremest.

You are all goddamned shameless scoundrels. You live on land which you stole from others. Muslims are not perfect but you are all supreme hypocrites. In the last 100 years, you have killed more people than all the people from the rest of the world combined have killed. Muslims alone don't hate you.

ZamanH wrote: rocitreal wrote: I wouldnt say to be called American is nearly as bad as being called an Islamic Extremest. You are all goddamned shameless scoundrels. You live on land which you stole from others. Muslims are not perfect but you are all supreme hypocrites. In the last 100 years, you have killed more people than all the people from the rest of the world combined have killed. Muslims alone don't hate you.

America was taken by conquest that a fact and the native population often took land from each other by conquest.The Crow and Blackfeet Nation were mortal enemy's of the Lakota and Cheyenne. The Apache stole the land of the Hopi and Zuni. The Aztecs killed tens of thousand of their neighbors. As for killing, well Chairman Mao killed approximately 50 to 1oo million people and Stalin came close. So as bad as America may be in some respects as killers go they are not in the top  ten, or so.Even Muslims once destroyed the great Buddhist Kingdoms of Northern India and Afghanistan,long ago..At times power corrupts or as Lord Acton said Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any extremist is bad no matter where he comes from.If you grew up in Ulster you would have met some mighty nasty Christians blowing up pubs, killing children throwing hand grenades at funerals none of these guys were Muslim. Remember Oklahoma city bombing,no Muslim involved.Then there was Jonestown not a Muslim operation as I recall.

What i find strange, and i do not really wish to get too involved in pointing the finger at who is to blame, is the first terrorist attack involving explosives done by israeli terrorists in 1948, this is before Arafat and types like him, they set of a bomb in a hotel in, i think Tel Aviv, killing alot of British people. Ironic maybe, but it seems Arafat followed their example in reaching for political goals....

Community, I am delighted, at least you have started to speak with me! Brother, let me assure you that the Americans are today seen as scoundrels in most parts of the world is not a situation of my making.

Their global carnage is the sole architect of their image. Yaar, give me just one good reason at least why I should such effort to avoid seeing the reality of their occupations?

Brother, you are right about the David Hotel bombing.

We should post a fresh string for people blowing people away - but won�t you agree that should also include troops blowing people off the surface of this earth of the 52,000 feet in the air fame? This is the "Theory of US Not Pulling Out" string.

Community, I agree with you 132%. Blowing people up is the most disgusting way of achieving goals AND indicates the flawdness of the goal itself....

But isn�t blowing people up from 52,000 feet also disgusting? Does it not  indicate some super flawed goals?

Yaar Zaman bhai, I had asked you to go to sleep. Why waste breath on such an innocent soul. Read his posts and you will find that most Americans are just a wee lost in the most trying times for their nationhood.

Let�s be kind to them in the hour of their darkness.

Whisper wrote: We were just discussing that if the US is so concerned about the law and order in Iraq they should hand over to the Indian forces, under the Un, as suggested by Zaman above.   It's not my fault. It's just unfortunate how the Americans are viewed today.

Its also unfortunate how Islam and most Arabs are viewed in the west.  People are going to have there views, there is not way to stop the slant people tend to have by nature for the side, religion, race etc... that they see as being correct.

As far as handing over Iraq to India, who said that would change anything at all ??? why do you propose this as the solution ?

The UN doesnt want the US and UK out of Iraq.  They have never seeded a resolution demanding anything of the likes.  The fact is that the US and the UK are at the center of the United Nations, they were the 2 countries who helped the most in getting the organization founded.

ZamanH wrote: rocitreal wrote: I wouldnt say to be called American is nearly as bad as being called an Islamic Extremest. You are all goddamned shameless scoundrels. You live on land which you stole from others. Muslims are not perfect but you are all supreme hypocrites. In the last 100 years, you have killed more people than all the people from the rest of the world combined have killed. Muslims alone don't hate you.

Is that right ??? americans have somehow killed more people than the rest of the world combine huh ???? where did you read that nonsence ? your state run newspaper ?  the USSR and the Germans combined killed millions more than the US has in its entire existance.

Whisper wrote: Community, I am delighted, at least you have started to speak with me! Brother, let me assure you that the Americans are today seen as scoundrels in most parts of the world is not a situation of my making. Their global carnage is the sole architect of their image. Yaar, give me just one good reason at least why I should such effort to avoid seeing the reality of their occupations?

occupation and imperialism are not terms to be applied to a country that lets the countries populous determine by voting in there governmental officials or helping them write there own constitution.  Imperialism would be the US taking the country and then claiming it as there own.

at a time when america was not outside its borders involved in any wars you would think attacking them on there own soil and publicly supporting the attacks would be something the Taliban brought on themselves.  We didnt go to Afganistan because we wanted there heroin export or there land but to ouist out the Taliban which without question was responsible for bloody carnage. 

I really like that! So because they founded the UN now they can use it as a personal asset?

What a comparison amongst the Great Global Killers' league! By the way, you are addressing Zaman, a man from India, the world's largest democracy. They have no state run papers or some one sided Fox News.

My friend, it's a sad fact: any elections held under any army occupation are simply not kosher.

By the way, does it matter how your country views Arabs and the Muslims as long as it's you who dependent on their oil?

The UN a great thing, im glad that the US and UK pushed for such a world body to be established.  Its not entirely US funded, only around 50% yet we give many other countries just as much power as we have.  Poor investment being the worlds only superpower yet I am very glad we have put forward the organization.

an election where the vast majority come and cast there votes is as authentic as they can get.  Most election in other countries have much lower turnout when there not under "occupation" as you would call it.  Ive never heard of an occupying force giving the country back to the people who live there before, can you show a

time in history an Imperial power simply gave the power to the people of the country thru elections found to carryed out without rigging of ballets ?? maybe you would say the US rigged the votes, is that your belief ?

We may be dependent on the oil as much of the rest of the world yet i doubt that the Arab nations are complaining about getting $60 a barrel when they can pump out over millions uppon millions of barrels a day.

Sadaam sure loved stealing food money for his personal en-richment.

My friend, I promise, I will toast a glass of Rioja with you the day the US give Iraq back to the Iraqis and their troops go home.

Elections give no power to anyone when we have our troops on their soil. It's a simple fact of life and a bigger fiction that the WMDs.

Tardo maybe it's italian for what the french call "tarde" which means "late", you know what they say better late then never.

As for your comment Rocitreal about the prophet having 9 wives, it is a good question but you could have left out the insults. Because they might insult those who you might wish to lash out at, but truely the prophet does not deserve your insult.

 as for your question why our prophet had 9 wives the answer is simple, Aisha who people claim was 9 when he married her and the claim is that he consumed the marriage when she was 12, was the daughter of his closest companion, Abu Bakr, marriages make the bond between families stronger and ofcourse this was agreed to by Aisha, it was not like she was married off without her consent, and believe me when i say, our prophet was a kind and just man, he after all came with the book which i read every day and which shapes me more and more, and let me tell you, i am not becomming a tyrant or an evil doer because of it, rather it is a mercy from Allah and healing for what is in my heart.

As for the other wives he had, he was a leader and those women were either daughters of leaders of other tribes, and this made the connection between him and those tribes stronger, or he saw good in them and married them.

He married them. Marriage strengthens the bond between families and people. As for sleeping around, it ruins families and cause kids to come into the world without them even knowing who their real dad is. Everyone has the right to have a dad, or atleast know who their real dad is and have some kind of contact with him.

If you will i would suggest to you to look at the behavior of some world "leaders" of recent times when it comes to women.

Also, not too long ago here in the US women got married at the ages of 13, 14. And in Europe about 200 years ago or so this was normal also, even with royal families this was no issue.

So can i ask you to delete just that one rude comment you made about the prophet who lived more then 1400 years ago and was the one who came with the book which reminds me of The One and Only god and in which there is light, mercy and healing for the hearts of damaged souls like me? i would appreciate it if you did, if you do not, then i urge you to look at anger and what it does to people, anger clouds ones judgement and makes one act unjustly as you can clearly see in those you are trying to get to with your comments, so it is better to figure out a way to lose that anger if justice is your goal. The best way is to ask yourself, "do i have the right to be angry taking all i know in consideration?", and for an honest and just judgement anger should be left out of judgement making.

Would you want to stand infront of someone who is so angry that he would just do something to you while you clearly know that what he does is unjust? anger made him unjust did it not? so all of us need to lose the anger if we do not wish to be judged with anger.

I admire your generous spirit, Comm, in responding to such a retarded post. I admire you even otherwise when you are not showing us just one side of oppression and ignoring the institutionalised U S oppression through things like IMF and our sultans of their promotion.

Best regards

Community wrote: As for your comment Rocitreal about the prophet having 9 wives, it is a good question but you could have left out the insults. Because they might insult those who you might wish to lash out at, but truely the prophet does not deserve your insult.

It may appear to be an insult however it was accually just honest question I have. 

Community wrote:  as for your question why our prophet had 9 wives the answer is simple, Aisha who people claim was 9 when he married her and the claim is that he consumed the marriage when she was 12... Also, not too long ago here in the US women got married at the ages of 13, 14. And in Europe about 200 years ago or so this was normal also, even with royal families this was no issue.

Were not talking about royal families or average people here, were talking about a supposed prophet of God not to mention there is a big differance between 9 which is just a child and 13 which is past puberty.   Sure there are freaks out there, just look at Micheal Jackson, but he never claimed to be a prophet from God. 

Community wrote: So can i ask you to delete just that one rude comment you made about the prophet who lived more then 1400 years ago and was the one who came with the book which reminds me of The One and Only god and in which there is light, mercy and healing for the hearts of damaged souls like me?

I wasnt passing judgement, i was asking questions.  It is somewhat hypocritical the Muslim stance on the Book they believe to be from a Prophet.  The Prophet didnt write the book no more than Jesus wrote the bible yet Muslims are quick to point to the bible as a tainted book filled with lies.  Is it possible that your book to is tainted for many of the same reasons ?

Im glad that you feel connected to God.  I think religion is very helpful for many people, faith is something humans have looked for scence the beginnings.  Many Christians would say there Book and religious teachings makes them happier and im all for that it just doesnt make much sence how Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe the other 2 are wrong for numerous reasons just as the Sunni's and Shia's think each other are correct, just as the Catholic's and the Prodestiants think each other are correct.  What makes little sence to me is that all 3 of these religions speak of a "guilding to truth" by a holy spirit or a guilding by Allah and whatnot yet this "guilding" leads them to seperations and differances in belief, not a unity.

please dont take me as an angry man, im very peaceful.  I just have many questions about things where most people just accept them.  I studied man made religions for 5 years and what i found is they all have 1 centerpoint, 1 constant.  That constant is not to question only accept, this is what leads to all the divisions and differances because no on stops to accually question important issues, they just follow and accept.

rocitreal wrote: Its not all that supprising when lookin at Islamic History to see killing of your own kind for power is a center piece to the religion.

�killing your own kind for power is a center piece of the religion��you obviously do not know what you are talking about.  If anything, it�s a center piece of MAN which is the result of FREEWILL combined with IGNORANCE.  Since the days of Cain and Able, some men have held the false belief that �might makes right.�  Don�t go blaming that one religion.  Besides, if you keep it up, I might have to say something about GWB and what he is currently doing to his �own kind� by sending them to Iraq and what he is doing to the character and reputation of AMERICA, and I would truly prefer not to go there.

rocitreal wrote: Take for instance Ali, forced to become a Caliph under threat of loosing his life if he didnt accept.

And where did you get this information from?

rocitreal wrote: Take for instance Aisha, probably around 9 years old when Muhammad took her as another of his his wives.  Your was prophet a child malester many could say, must like Michael Jackson.

Some people really show their ignorance by speaking on things they know nothing about.  This information would be truly a surprise if he were the only man in history to take a wife of such a young age.  However, WORLD history is full with such cases.  It was not until the 20^th century that societies began to delay the age at which time females married due to advances in technology and education.  You can turn just a couple of pages back in US history to find women who were married at the age of 12 or 13.  I will simply overlook your comparison between our beloved prophet (pbuh) with the likes of Michael Jackson as a sign of your inability to have an intelligent conversation regarding this issue. 

rocitreal wrote: Why would 1 man need 11 wives ??? do you really need that many ***** a day ?  the 1st died, ok why not be happy with the 9 year old virgin, why would someone need 9 more ???

Rocitreal, once again, you show your ignorance regarding the subject of which you speak�a sign that you are not here to discuss the issues but rather to belittle with the explicit intent to offend and incite others.  And in doing so, you did not even bother to get the basic facts straight�such as the number of wives the prophet (pbuh) had.  With respect to your perverse accusations (btw, I took the liberty of removing your offensive language...you should be ashamed of yourself for using such language on a public forum), they speak volumes for your moral character.  No wonder so many others find Americans to be vulgar and callous.  I can only pray to Allah that those reading your remarks will not use you as an example for judging all Americans.  Ameen!

rocitreal wrote: If this was a religious war, or Jihad as many muslims would like to call it the Americans would simply blow up all the Mosques they could find.  Jihad is not the case, religion has little to do with this war.

Muslims would like to call it?  �the Americans�?  Please do not make statements for me or the many other Americans who are not in agreement with your mentality.  GWB and the American media have done their part in trying to make this a �holy war.�  Who do you think coined the phrase �Islamic terrorism�?  Who do you think convinced the world that that terrorism is the sole product of Islam?  GWB tried every way possible to make this a holy war; however, his aides had to keep reminding him of the separation between church and state� don�t you even read American news articles?  And believe me, even GWB with his infinite lack of wisdom is smart enough not to blow up any Mosques. 

rocitreal wrote: I will say at the time of Islam's beginnings the rest of the world was quite un civilized yet most advanced.

Rocitreal, since you are such a grand historian, would you please post some of these �most advanced� aspects of the �rest of the world� during the 5^th century?  You are referring to �the time of Islam�s beginnings� aren't you?

rocitreal wrote: Many muslim extremests insist that life should be lived as they lived back in the beginnings.  People have progressed why hold back from the civilization technology except to use for suicide bombs and cars to blow up Arab children and civilans from around the world ? its a barbaric lifestyle.

Rocitreal, do you have the right to live the kind of life you desire to live?  I�m assuming since you are an American, you would answer that question with a boastful �YES.�  Then why is it not okay for the rest of the world to live as they wish to live?  What are you so afraid of?  Your choice of words astound me��civilization technology�?  Did you know if it had not been for some of the intellectual discoveries of those you refer to as living a �barbaric lifestyle� you more than likely would not be sitting in front of your precious little computer there insulting the rest of the world.  Once again, your lack of knowledge regarding the subject you are trying to discuss speaks volumes about your character.  Hasn�t anyone ever informed you that when you don�t know what you are talking about, it is best not to say anything at all?  If you want to talk about the �barbaric� use of modern technology and �barbaric� lifestyles, we can simply speak of the lifestyles of those who live in the �gang-zones� of most of the larger cities in the US.  I�m sure you have better knowledge of that subject or are you simply blind to anything that does not fit into your perception of American glory?  By the way, do you speak out for those who are dying in the gang-zones of the US? 

rocitreal wrote: What about the Muslims who forced there religion on millions of people by threat of death yet maintaining it to be well within there Islamic Laws.

Would you please site your source of reference for this statement or are you simply speaking off the top of your head here?  Let me teach you one simply Islamic lesson�THERE IS NO COMPLUSION OF FAITH IN ISLAM!  The Qur�an makes that lesson clear, as can be seen in the following ayats (verses).

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks.  And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur�an 2:256)

If it had been thy Lord�s Will, they would all have believed, - all who are on earth! � Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! (Qur�an 10:99)

Say, �The Truth is from your Lord�: let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it)� (Qur�an 8:29)       

rocitreal wrote: What would you call the Taliban, most of which were not Afgans occupying Afganistan and destroying much of its rich cultural heritage in the name of Islamic Law.  Guess what, not all Afgans were Muslims yet they were being forced to submit to the hands of the occupiers,  in my eyes the Allies giving the country back to an Afgan government was liberating toe country.  We are only in Afganistan to stablize the country if insergents would submit to the Afgan and Iraqi governments which were ELECTED the allies would not have nearly such a presence to be termed occupation.

Rocitreal, if you want to come and speak here, PLEASE, I beg of you, at least come with arguments that make sense and are not full of words that are meant to insult and incite anger in the hearts of others.  At least be realistic, all countries demand that those who live in them to submit to the laws of the governments that run them�even in the USA.  I personally know that even Muslims who violate the laws in the USA are punished by the courts.  You know, if you and GWB are so worried about stabilization, I have a great project for you guys right here in the USA.  I would even be more than glad to help.  I could point out to you guys all of the inner city �gang-zones� and you can go clean up and stabilize those neighborhoods.

I don�t want to see innocent people harmed anywhere in this world; however, sometimes, you have to let people take care of their own problems�especially when they are telling you that is what they want to do.  I truly believe that at the present time, the US�s occupation of in the Middle East is causing more harm than good.  Not only are those who would not be targeted otherwise are being targeted; thousands upon thousands of American families are being unjustly affected as well, not to mention that the credibility of the US has been all but obliterated.  It is not as if there are no other options with respect to helping Iraq (or other parts of the Middle East) reach some leave of stabilization�that is what the UN is for.  And just because we helped found the UN and we give more funds to help run it doesn�t mean we own it or should be allowed to control it.  What good it an organization such as the UN if one country monopolizes the power of authority within it?

Oh, one last thing, since you love modern technology so much, would you mind using the spell check on your posts so that others can read them without having to decipher what you are trying to say.  Thank You!

PAZ, Khadija

Asslamualaikum

JAzak Allahu khair

Sister Khadija very well said. Mashallah

MAy we all muslims be able to show the world the true worth of Islam(ameen).

Ma salaam

Ashukru-lillahi Rabbil-Alameen

Subhan Allah

Alhamdulillah

Allahu Akbar

La ilaha illa allah

Ashukru-lillahi Rabbil-Alameen

Masha Allah Khadija, you have saved me a post in this string. It would not have been as good as yours, at all. Subhan Allah.

I feel, Rocitreal doesn't do it to provoke like some other posters. He is genuine, just that he is not well informed about history or about the reality of this occupation. It's not his fault. Mostly, American media is a disninformation machine.

Whisper wrote: Okay, Talibaan were not elected. But is it okay if an elected government misbehaves? Or, fabricates lies to create wars? Or, keep it's occupations?

The US government didnt "fabricate" any lies.  Some of the intellegence it used may have been incorrect but they did not create it out of the air.

What lies has the US government been "fabricated" to keep its "occupation" ?  The fact that the country is not stable due to evil doers of the newly elected Iraqi democracy ?  in your eyes Iraq would majically become stable and there democracy would prosper if the US and UK simply left ?

Whisper, do you know that South Korea currently has US troops stationed there ?  do you know how well South Korea's economy has flourished ?  would you say we are occupying the country ?

i guess reason did not work, so i will try it this way...

Rocitreal, since this thread is about The Theory of US pullout, your insulting comments about the prophet and his wives do not belong in this thread what so ever, This thread is not about the validity of my faith in your eyes or not, but it is about the US presence in the middle east, so be so kind to remove it from this thread, you have the delete option for this.

If i had 9 wives and a 9 year old wife amongst them, and you would ask me the question about why i had 9 wives and then making a disgusting comment implying my sexual life i would have answered something like this, and i am sure the prophet would have given you a better reply had you lived in his time.

"yes i do have 9 wives and one of them is now 18 years old now, and she is my first wife after my wife died, she was 9 when i married her and you think the age of 9 is too young to get married, but i do like my companion and i noticed alot of good in him so i decided to marry that which came from him, his daughter with her consent, we both have no problem with it and his daughter is happy with me. As to my sexual relationship with her and my wives it clearly indicates your perverted views on marriage and sexual relations, not that it is really any of your business but i consumed the marriage when she was 12, i never hit my wives if what you think is that i am some opressive violent man, so i guess that makes you fortunate.

As to my other wives i married them because it is lawful for me to marry them, some of them offered themselves to me because they wished to be my wife, and others were daughters of leaders who wished a better bond between my tribe and theirs, and their daughters did not have a problem with marrying me."

Women were sold and were property before the prophet came, they were inherited when their husbands died, this changed with the coming of the prophet with the message, through the koran women were given the right to inheritance, and were not sold anymore or married of without their consent like the tradition was.

The Prophet said:"the best amongst you is he who is the best towards his wives."

Your insult is what it is, an insult.

well community, my origional post was connected to the pullout.  I went into some depths in this general discussion portion of the forum.  If you would like to take part in the general discussion please take your issues to the text of my post.

You responded to my post in detail, i replied in detail, now you simply dont feel the need to reply to my direct response.  Instead dont want my questions in a public general discussion forum. 

I decline to delete.

thanks for your response.

Community wrote: If i had 9 wives and a 9 year old wife amongst them, and you would ask me the question about why i had 9 wives and then making a disgusting comment implying my sexual life i would have answered something like this, and i am sure the prophet would have given you a better reply had you lived in his time. "yes i do have 9 wives and one of them is now 18 years old now, and she is my first wife after my wife died, she was 9 when i married her and you think the age of 9 is too young to get married, but i do like my companion and i noticed alot of good in him so i decided to marry that which came from him, his daughter with her consent, we both have no problem with it and his daughter is happy with me. OK, this is steping out a bit.  Are you speaking for Mohammed here ? Is that why you have quotes around your text ?  I like the beginning part alot it explains much to me.  I wonder if Jesus would have concidered a 9 year old jewish girl for his wife to help him with the local tribesmen.  The imediate question i have is can a child truely give you "consent".  Not to be insulting, simply stating a parrellel I can see personally which may be steping out a bit here but i think Michael Jackson had "consent" by the little boys around 8 or 9 to sleep in his bed.   I wonder which wife Mohammed slept with daily, thats what is so confusing.  Did all 9 of them sleep together, or did he switch out every evening.  This is an accual question not an insult. As to my sexual relationship with her and my wives it clearly indicates your perverted views on marriage and sexual relations, not that it is really any of your business but i consumed the marriage when she was 12, i never hit my wives if what you think is that i am some opressive violent man, so i guess that makes you fortunate. Well, I would say to the respected Mr Mohammed: what do you think of the Torah in its referances to a single wife ?  did you not like this part of the writings your religion is based on, or do you feel this text was inserted into the holy book ? As to my other wives i married them because it is lawful for me to marry them, some of them offered themselves to me because they wished to be my wife, and others were daughters of leaders who wished a better bond between my tribe and theirs, and their daughters did not have a problem with marrying me." Women were sold and were property before the prophet came, they were inherited when their husbands died, this changed with the coming of the prophet with the message, through the koran women were given the right to inheritance, and were not sold anymore or married of without their consent like the tradition was. Correct me if im wrong, but i thought slaves (which included women) were supposed to be set free if a muslim accidently killed another muslim.  If the person who was killed was not hostile money was supposed to be given to his family as well as a slave set free.  The way the passage reads, this only applies if the person the Muslim killed was a "believer".  Slaves (including women) are not "outlawed" in the Quran. The Prophet said:"the best amongst you is he who is the best towards his wives." I suppose this passage doesnt apply to a man who only has a single wife. Your insult is what it is, an insult. If you feel the tough questions are insulting maybe you should study your own faith further.  You should feel comfortable with my questions as one should have already ask the important questions to oneself prior to belief.  Why it is that so many people blindly believe is something i will never understand. Many Christians thought i was insulting when i ask the hard to answer questions to them as well.  To me the hard questions must be ask to fully accept a faith, blind faith leads people into all sorts of strange beliefs, just look at these extremists out there blowing themselves up.  They have blind faith in there Clerics telling them that to blow yourself up is to go to the next life ahead of the person who dies of natural death. I truely dont mean to be insulting, i just mean to question the very foundations of a belief when researching its meanings.  Im sorry if you find my search so deeply insulting, but that leads me to feel you must not be completely confortable with the answer you tell yourself.

Due to the length of this post, I only included the most recent comments from the previous one.  Anyone who would like more information can find my original post on page 6 of this thread.

rocitreal wrote: I read that in the encyclopedia, although encyclopedia's are not always correct which i admit.

Would you please tell me which encyclopedia you read that in, I would really like to see it.  Although there are some issues surrounding Ali time as Caliph, his �being forced� into the position is not one of them.    

rocitreal wrote: so it makes you feel better knowing that other people have married children.  Does that mean you could follow the religion of a murderer knowing others through out history have murdered ?  Does that make murder somehow more "ok" to you.

Rocitreal, just because you have no real argument to fall back on regarding the Prophet�s (pbuh) marriage to Aisha, does not mean you can switch the subject like that.  We are not talking about murder here.  Or are you accusing the Prophet (pbuh) of murder too?  In your original post, you said he was a child molester and that cases of marriage in the US in the recent past were not the same because these girls were 13 or 14 and had already started their menstrual cycle.  Many hadiths point out that Aisha had started her menstrual cycle and that is why the Prophet (pbuh) consummated their marriage at that time and not before then.  

If you think it is impossible for a woman to have a menstrual cycle that young, you are sadly mistaken.  The youngest mother in recorded world history was not even 6 years old (5 years 8 months to be exact) when she gave birth to her son.  Her name was Lina Medina and she gave birth in 1939.  She was from Peru.  It is normal for girls who grow up in hot climates to begin their menstrual younger with many of them starting at age 9 or younger.  It is still not unheard of for very young girls in some African tribes to be married and/or having babies at an extremely early age.  

Just because you view anyone under that age of 18 as a minor does not make that so in the rest of the world or throughout history.  The Prophet (pbuh) was not a child molester by any definition even those found in today�s encyclopedias.  Here is the most common definition of child molestation:

Child molestation involves sexual abuse that is physically or psychologically abusive.  Most forms of sexual abuse are crimes in most countries. Forms of sexual abuse include rape, indecent assault, and indecent exposure.

First of all, it was not unlawful for the Prophet (pbuh) to marry Aisha in their country.  He was legally married to her with both her father�s consent and Aisha�s.  Second, there is no indication in any hadiths or other historical documents that Aisha was either physically of psychologically abused due to her marriage to the Prophet (pbuh).  In fact, she loved him dearly and she continued in his cause even after he died.  Through their years together, she became more than a wife, she became a central figure in Islam.  She is referred to as the Mother of Islam.  Furthermore, he did not rape her, nor did he indecently expose himself or indecently assault her.  How can that be possible when he legally took her as his wife?  Also, the Prophet (pbuh) was known to all as �the best husband.�  

So, Rocitreal, if what makes the difference for you is that a girl must start her menstrual cycle, then there is no different between those young girls marrying in recent past history in the US and the Prophet (pbuh) marrying Aisha.  Just because something seems wrong or not quite right to us when we compare it to today�s standards does not mean we are justified in our statement that it was wrong.

rocitreal wrote: Im in no way trying to belittle your highly regarded "prophet" i respect other peoples beliefs.  I was more pondering why a single man would need so many wives ?  expecially a very religious man.  It was explained to me this was done for diplomatic purposes to join tribes together by another Muslim.  Is this your belief as well ?  I've never heard of a diplomate marrying many wives to get in good with the tribe's leaders.  Some marry for riches, some to fall into the liking of there fathers, and some for love i suppose.

Rocitreal, how can you honestly sit there and say that you were not trying to belittle the Prophet (pbuh) and that you only wanted to know why a single man needs so many wives?  If I wanted to know why someone needed so many wives, this is what I would ask.  �Could someone please explain to me why so and so needed so many wives?�  Now, is that so hard?   I see that you are trying to crawl out of this backwards instead of merely saying, �I apology to everyone on this board for my offensive words.�  You know, it is quite easy and actually invigorating to apology when you have wronged another.  

All one has to do is read the bible and they can see that polygamy has been a custom for many, many, many centuries.  And guess what?  Even amongst religious men including past prophets (pbut).  There were many reasons why the Prophet (pbuh) married his last eight wives.  Yes, he married some of his wives as a means to strengthen relationship between tribes.  I�m sorry if you have never heard of this before but it is a well know fact that such behaviors have been a widely practiced custom through history.  Pick up a book on European history and you will see plenty of examples.  Another example of why the Prophet (pbuh) married was his marrying the widow of a solider who fought with him in battle.  She actually asked the Prophet (pbuh) if he would marry her and he did so to show other men that they should marry widows so that they and their children were properly cared for.  If you would like further details regarding the marriages of the Prophet (pbuh), I would be more than glad to point you to a web site that has details on each of them.  One last thing I will point out is that the Prophet (pbuh) did not seek any of his last eight marriages.  Either the women or their fathers approached him.  And in all cases, the women consented to the marriage.    

rocitreal wrote: You mis-read my statement entirely.  I was stating MANY Muslims, mainly the extremists, I never stated ALL Muslims.  Furthermore i was not making a statement for all Americans.  I was stating that IF THIS WAS JIHAD (not that it is), that the extremists call it, is real America would simply blow up the Mosques and much of the Muslim world.

If you are going to make such statements, you need to be very careful with the words you choose.  And I will repeat myself; it is not only the �terrorists� who are trying to make this seem like a holy war.  Until very recently GWB tried his best to make this into a holy war.  He did so for many reasons which I will not go into here. That would be enough for an entirely new thread. However, I can point you to a US news report that will outline the history of this war and Bush�s approach every step of the way.  Just ask if you want that information.  And once again, you are so wrong in thinking that even if this were a �Holy War� that GWB would be blowing up mosques.  Like I said before, he is not stupid enough to do that.  On the other hand, as is evident, it doesn�t take a �Holy War� for GWB to �simply blow up�much of the Muslim world.�  All he needs is a bit of misguided intelligence information.

rocitreal wrote: I would disagree 100% Bush may be a little aggressive but he is not trying to start a holy war to eraticate the Muslim populous of the world, being an American surely that is not your true belief ?  There are many members of the "American media" who would not like you to steriotypically throw them into a group who are "trying to make this a "holy war"".  I've yet to see a single media outlet call for a holy war, thats obserd.  Islamic Terrorism goes back much farther than 12 years.  It started with  Uthman's assasination and erupted into the slaughter of hundreds of thousands.  The fact is that they are not only terrorists because Islam is CENTRAL to there belief structure.  I understand you and many if not most muslims dont feel they are Islamic, yet these people read from the same book and go to the same Mosques.  The reason Islamic is used is because they kill themselves in the name of Islam truely believing thru reading of the Quran that they are going to be rewarded in heaven.  This is not a point that does not require attention.

A little aggressive?  If that is a little aggressive, I would like to see what �regular� aggression from GWB would look like.  I never said that his intent was to eradicate the world of all Muslims.  Actually, in his new approach, he is trying to recruit �moderate� Muslim to counter-balance the damage he has caused thus far in his �war on terrorism.�  But this is mainly because his actions in the Middle East backfired in his face.  Not only do people want him out of there, when polled, they actually said life under the Taliban was better and so the support for Ben Laden increased.  Just think of that for a minute if you would.  Yes, linger a bit longer on that thought.  How bad can it be if people are wanting the Taliban back?  Like I said, I�ll show you the American New Report on this if you want to read it�it�s a 10 page report.

I pray to Allah that some day I will never have to say this again.  (And yes, I think GWB and the American news media created this problem.  And no, I don�t mean every single news person or station in American�just the majority of them.)  There is no such thing as �Islamic Terrorism.�  That is a phrase that was coined by GWB and his lackeys as a means to incite anger and hate in the hearts of Americans and any others they could convince.  If you can�t understand this, I strongly suggest that you take a class on the art of war.  It is a tactic that is commonly used in order to build up support�it is also called war propaganda �have you heard of it?  This is also discussed in the article I have mentioned before.  At the present time, GWB and his lackeys are using �Cold War� tactic in their propaganda efforts.  And regardless of what you think, accusing an entire religious group of terrorists acts (which is what using the phrase �Islamic Terrorism� does), is nothing short of claiming they are inflicting a holy war on the world.  How many times has the US news media use the term �Islamic Terrorism�, �Islamic Terrorists�, �Islamic Extremists� or �Extremist Muslims�?  There are many �young bucks� in the media world that love to use catch phrases like that in hopes to be the next �Wolff Blitzer.�  Yes, some news reporters have a conscious, but not many.  More often than not, they are after more than the allotted 15 minutes of fame that most news reports get in a life time.  If you don�t believe me, go ask �Wolff Blitzer� how he got his fame.  War is the fastest way for a news reporter to gain national recognition.  Second to that is reporting on natural disasters.

Rocitreal, it doesn�t matter if terrorists read the same book as other Muslims do or if they pray in the same mosques.  That doesn�t make their terrorist actions �Islamic� in any way shape or form.  The KKK in the US (to this very day mind you) use biblical text to support their illogical reasoning.  They read the same bible as Christians and they pray in the same churches.  Some have even been ministers.  In all aspects, these men are terrorists.  However, I have never once heard anyone call them �Christian Terrorists� nor have I heard anyone use the phrase �Christian Terrorism.�  Oh, and there are other examples of such cases in world history with respect to �Christian� behaviors.

rocitreal wrote: Dear, you are mis-reading again.  Im sorry maybe i was not very clear.  I was saying most civilizations advanced past the 5th century yet Islamic Law wants everyone to live as Mohammed did. Some advancements worth noting that are useful to not only the Muslims of the world but the rest of us are electricity, flight, the engine, steal, Air conditioning, etc...

No, Rocitreal, I didn�t misread you.  What you have stated here is simply much different than what you said the first time.  What you and so many others mistakenly do is to confuse adherence to Islamic Law with a lack of civilized advancement.  Just because Muslims are required to submit to the laws that Allah set forth in the Qur�an and to use the Prophet (pbuh) as a role model does not make us less advanced than others.  I�m sure one of the issues you are thinking of is the way Muslim women dress (wearing hijabb) and somehow to so many people that represents a lack of the desire or ability for Muslims to �advance� instead of what it means �piety toward Allah.�  Do you think the way a person dresses or the style of home they reside is a direct indication of whether they are �advanced� or not?  

Given that there are close to 2,000,000,000 Muslims living in virtually every part of the world, I doubt very seriously that your statement could hold water even in a glass container.  Which by the way, you would not have the pleasure of using if it had not been for a Muslim.  Yes, it was a Muslim that invented glass.  It was also Muslims who invented the telescope, the pendulum, the watch, the marine compass, the windmill, the astrolabe, gunpowder, soap, paper and certain types of cloth.  They also pioneered in both the fields of mathematics and medical sciences.  Algebra, spherical trigonometry, the concept of zero, the decimal system (base 10) and the use of the symbol to express an unknown quantity (better known in the field of mathematics as a variable) were all invented by Muslims.  With respect to more modern day inventions, it is difficult to say because inventors are not known by their �religion� but rather by the country in which they reside or were born.  Islam is not a country, race, or ethnic group.  It is a religion.  Are American inventers known by their religion?  I didn�t think so.

rocitreal wrote: Its cool, people can live in the woods or in a cave if they would like.  I like the technology america in particular has advanced.

And I see you like the technology that the Japanese and the Germans and the Chinese and the Muslims and who ever else invented things you use in your day to day life.  So what�what is your point?  That you prefer to be an American and live in America?  No one is telling you that you can�t do that.    But please don�t assume that because some people don�t live in America that they are left to live in �the woods� or �in a cave.�   Just because there are some in the world who are not infatuated by �materialism� doesn�t mean they are living in the dark ages.  Despite what �capitalists� preach, not all things material are conducive to the advancement of humankind.  Furthermore, the most precious things in life are by far those things which are not material in nature.

rocitreal wrote: Really, im sure that Microsoft and IBM would would love to know where this Islamic Extremist is who created the computer.  Once again, you are taking my wording out of context, i was refering to the Islamic Terrorists who are blowing up Iraqi's and civilian children if you read the entire remark.  The taliban and Al Queda are living barbaric lifestyles, there is an example if you would like to disagree you are free to.  Living in caves, killing like savages with no respect for the life of innocent people, pretty barbaric to me.

Rocitreal, you say you are not here to incite us but look, here you are using the term �Ismalmic Extremist� yet again and we were not even speaking of war.  We were merely speaking of modern day technology and you had asked me what advances in technology have Muslims contributed to the modern era.  But then you immediately switched from what advances Muslims have made since the time of the Prophet (pbuh) in order to show you that Muslims are not living in the �stone age� to the acts of terrorists.  Then you hastily concluded that all they do is use other�s technology to blow others up.  Who do you want to know about here?  Muslims or terrorist?  If you want to know about Muslims, I might be about to help but if you are asking about terrorist, you will have to go ask a terrorist.  When I said that the computer world owes part of its existence to Muslims, I was referring to the fact that Muslims invented glass and algebra�two things that are need in making computers run.  Or does that not count since no one has to pay a Muslim for the use of such things today?  

As I said before, I am unable to answer questions for terrorists because I�m not a terrorist nor do I condone terrorism of any kind regardless of who is behind it.  The killing of innocent people is never okay�PERIOD!!! 

As a little side note Rocitreal, I would be very careful in throwing around the phrase �barbaric lifestyle,� that is exactly the same catch phrase that the Europeans used to justify their massacre of my beloved Native American forefathers.   I am in no way standing up for any terrorist group here in saying this.  However, you need to know that such mindsets allow people to labels others in ways that leads to genocide and other acts against humanity.  Yes, I would agree that killing innocent people is absolutely horrible and never acceptable; however, we must separate such acts from other customs such as where and how people live.  If we do not, then it is one easy step from �some terrorist wear turbans� to �all turban wears are terrorists.�  We are already feeling the ramification of such fallacious statements.  I pray to Allah that this does not continue.  Ameen!

rocitreal wrote: 009.023 O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.   005.051 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.   Dont want to be friends with Christains or Jews, even if there your parents, wouldnt want to be with the unjust people thus not be guided by Allah thus not be Muslim as i read it.

For someone who accuses others of taking things out of context, boy did you do so.  If you were to read all of the ayats (verses) regarding Muslims and their relationships with other people of the book, you would see that the only times Muslims are told not to �befriend� them is when they are at war or in a position not to be trusted.  It doesn�t mean all Christians or Jews in all situations.  Islam holds parents in high regard even if they are not Muslim.  It is a grave sin not to show respect to one�s parents.  However, showing them respect is not the same as embracing them if their lifestyle is harmful to one�s deen (religious path).  I love and respect my mother even thought she will never accept my choice to revert to Islam.  If she demands that I give up my faith or to disobey Allah, then I must take the delicate position of respecting her without letting her bring harm to my spiritual life.

rocitreal wrote: 004.092 It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise.   ok, so if a muslim kills another person on "accident" not sure how thats done, but if so... and the person killed was "hostile" you dont have to pay any money, just set free one of your slaves.  How many slaves do you own to set free by the way ??  wonder what you would do if need i say, you dont own a slave ? guess you'dd be up a creek without a paddle huh.

I don�t see why it is so difficult to image that some people get killed by accident.  I will give you a simple example.  You are driving down the road in you latest version of American luxury vehicle and suddenly you get a call on your cellular phone.  You answer it but in doing so, you don�t see that the light has turned red.  Before you know it, you are trying to slam on your brakes but it�s too late and you crash into the vehicle which is trying to go through the green light from your left.  Due to the nature of the wreck, the passenger in the other vehicle dies.  Now is that an accidental death or should you be charge with murder?  In the US such a death is usually called accidental motor vehicle homicide and the person is made to pay restitution (blood money) to the family of the person who died and possible service a period of probation (this part depends on the state).   Of course, this is if there is no alcohol or other illegal substances found in the person�s body.  If so, it�s a whole new ball game.  Accidental death happens every day in every part of the world.

With respect to the believer being �hostile,� that refers to instances of war.  Yes, since Islam is not a country but rather a religion, Muslims do fight against each other at times, as is the case with American Muslims who are being sent to Iraq to fight.  In such instances, the Muslim who kills another Muslim must abide by the law of Islam.  With respect to slaves, one of the greatest accomplishments that came about through the Qur�an was an end to slavery by Muslims long before others even began to ponder such possibilities.  If you read the Qur�an, setting slaves free it spoken of throughout.  The purpose was to at some point eradicate the practice of slavery all together.  The answer to your question was right in front of your eyes.  �And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months.�  If a person did not have a slave(s) to release, he/she was to fast.  And since no one has slaves anymore, they no longer have the �wherewithal� to free a slave(s), so they fast too.

rocitreal wrote: So your justifying the Taliban's "governmental" practices ???   They were not even recognized as the governing body, only had control of the country so your argument is not valid.   But if it were your saying if the Nazi's killing Jews in ovens was a just cause because the government said so ???  They commited a crime in the Nazi's eyes, being born.

I was not saying that I approve of anything.  If I had my way, the world would live in peace and harmony.  But the truth is the world is far from that.  I didn�t say anything was okay because a government body said so, I simply stated a well know fact that all government (ruling) bodies demand that those who reside within their boundaries abide by the rules they set forth.  The Taliban may not have been a �legitimate� legal body but they still ruled, and as such, they set the laws by which others were expected to abide.  If you want to talk about right and wrong that is another topic indeed.  As I mentioned earlier, recent polls of Afghanistan citizens have shown that the majority of those who live there would prefer the Taliban�s rule over GWB�s US presence.  I�m not making a judgment; I�m simply stating a well documented fact.  It is, also, why GWB is desperately trying to change his war tactics.

rocitreal wrote: And when did the Taliban take ballet votes from the Afgan people ?  Nazi Germany wanted Hitler in power, I guess by your logic we should have left him in power because thats what German people wanted.  (though not nearly all did want that)

Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and concepts in my brain that are not mine.  It is one thing to help those that want help and quite a different thing to force your help on people that don�t want it, and even another to continue to stay were you are no longer wanted when it is not your country.  Doesn�t a country have the right to say, �Go home!�  How would you like it if you called someone to help rid your home of a problem and they came to help but made a giant mess and they decided to stay to �help clean up the mess� when all that you got was simply more mess?  Wouldn�t you want them to go home?  And if you could not clean up the mess alone, wouldn�t you want to have the right to call someone else to come help you?  Or would you want the person that made the mess in the first place to stay or come back and help you clean up?  Like I said before, if Iraq needs stabilization, THAT IS WHAT THE UN IS FOR!!!!!  And please don�t get me started on WWII and the Germans�I promise what I have to say about the US and Britian in that great atrocity will not be something you will enjoy reading.  Try reading history from some other source than a high school textbook, you might be a little more than shocked.

rocitreal wrote: spell check isnt working but I am sorry for my poor spelling.  Im not a very good speller due to difficulties for most of my childhood, please forgive me.

Rocitreal, I truly understand that dilemma, I, myself, am dyslexic.

 PAZ, Khadija

By tardo, I meant retarded.

First, I would like to say i enjoy your discussion and respect your opinions, Both Community and Khadija.  I have addressed the wives thing in this post which is what the posts with Community were tied to.  If you have further response Community please feel free to direct it to me.  Thanks again for both of your communications.

rocitreal wrote: I read that in the encyclopedia, although encyclopedia's are not always correct which i admit.

Khadija1021 wrote: Would you please tell me which encyclopedia you read that in, I would really like to see it.  Although there are some issues surrounding Ali time as Caliph, his �being forced� into the position is not one of them.

I was looking but am having problem locating the place i read that, i was reading from many online encyclopedia's about Islam.  What they all say is that Ali did not want to become Caliph at first, then others convenced him to take over, they differ as to how he was convenced.  I will keep looking for this source as I am certain i read it in my research but do not claim all information iread to be the truth.

rocitreal wrote: so it makes you feel better knowing that other people have married children.  Does that mean you could follow the religion of a murderer knowing others through out history have murdered ?  Does that make murder somehow more "ok" to you.

Khadija1021 wrote: Rocitreal, just because you have no real argument to fall back on regarding the Prophet�s (pbuh) marriage to Aisha, does not mean you can switch the subject like that.

I wasnt trying to switch the subject just trying to make a parrelled remark.  You said this would be truely a suprise if others were not marrying 9 year olds.  To me, just because someone else is doing something wrong doesnt make it any more right, that was my point.  To me, a 9 year old is a child even if they somehow hit puberty early.

Khadija1021 wrote: Just because you view anyone under that age of 18 as a minor does not make that so in the rest of the world or throughout history.  The Prophet (pbuh) was not a child molester by any definition even those found in today�s encyclopedias.

Where exactly did i call Mohammed a "child molester" ? 

Khadija1021 wrote: First of all, it was not unlawful for the Prophet (pbuh) to marry Aisha in their country.  He was legally married to her with both her father�s consent and Aisha�s.

I personally dont feel the age of 9 is old enough to give "consent".  What is your take on Mohammed's interpretation of the Torah's very clear passages about Monogamy ?  Were these passages "inserted" as lies, or did he just give them a differant "interpritation" ?  Lots of things are legal that go against religious beliefs.  It was legal to eat bacon wasnt it ?  The Torah clearly sais that is bad, i guess that was not an "inserted" text in Mohammed's eyes, i wonder about monogamy.

Second, there is no indication in any hadiths or other historical documents that Aisha was either physically of psychologically abused due to her marriage to the Prophet (pbuh).  In fact, she loved him dearly and she continued in his cause even after he died. 

I can respect that she loved him and didnt feel abused but this makes me think of children who love people who have sex with them at early ages, yet they are correctly thrown in jail for years on a daily basis.

Khadija1021 wrote: Rocitreal, how can you honestly sit there and say that you were not trying to belittle the Prophet ... You know, it is quite easy and actually invigorating to apology when you have wronged another.

I will say im sorry if you were insulted by my comments, that was not intended.

Khadija1021 wrote: Until very recently GWB tried his best to make this into a holy war.  He did so for many reasons which I will not go into here. That would be enough for an entirely new thread. However, I can point you to a US news report that will outline the history of this war and Bush�s approach every step of the way.  Just ask if you want that information.

I would like to see that information very much so.  It is accually calling for a holy war ?  which major news broadcasting organization published it ?

Khadija1021 wrote: I never said that his intent was to eradicate the world of all Muslims.

Isnt that what a holy war would be all about, eradicating Muslims ? I would love to hear the quotes from Bush when he was trying "his hardest" to start a holy war, do you know of any ?

Khadija1021 wrote: Not only do people want him out of there, when polled, they actually said life under the Taliban was better and so the support for Ben Laden increased.  Just think of that for a minute if you would.  Yes, linger a bit longer on that thought.  How bad can it be if people are wanting the Taliban back?  Like I said, I�ll show you the American New Report on this if you want to read it�it�s a 10 page report.

Ok, so this american news agency that conducted the polling are the same ones who said Bush was on a Crusade against Islam, a holy war per say ?  Id love to see it but i'd be willing to be its not from a reputable news agency.

Khadija1021 wrote: I pray to Allah that some day I will never have to say this again.  (And yes, I think GWB and the American news media created this problem.  And no, I don�t mean every single news person or station in American�just the majority of them.)

Do you have any further sources to say the "majority" ?

Khadija1021 wrote: This is also discussed in the article I have mentioned before.

So your using this same "report" for 3 sources for the majority of american news agencies ?

.

Khadija1021 wrote: ..accusing an entire religious group of terrorists acts (which is what using the phrase �Islamic Terrorism� does),

I dont feel it does, nor to most people i know and speak with.  Is this where you are reading into your holy war conspiracy ?  Islam has much with these terrorists if you see it or not.  The fact is, with Islam these people would not be comitting suicide to enter Martyrdom.  Extremists are just that, extremists... there are extremist christians all over this country, all though they do not kill people there are extremists.   Just because they are christian in there own mind does not mean they represent the whole of christianity any more than Islamic Extremists do for Islam.  I disagree that the term Islamic Terrorist applies to all Muslims and have yet to hear any reputable american news agency say it does.

Khadija1021 wrote: Rocitreal, it doesn�t matter if terrorists read the same book as other Muslims do or if they pray in the same mosques.

I disagree, i think that makes them part of the Islamic community.

Khadija1021 wrote: That doesn�t make their terrorist actions �Islamic� in any way shape or form.  The KKK in the US (to this very day mind you) use biblical text to support their illogical reasoning.  They read the same bible as Christians and they pray in the same churches.  Some have even been ministers.  In all aspects, these men are terrorists.

They are terrorists your right, there very distorted in there views of there religion.  There religion is a major part of there belief structure as americans do understand and recognize.  I can see them being called christian terrorists, i do not diagree with that label nor do i feel that it would apply to all christains.

Have you done research on the acts conducted by the Taliban when they were in control of Afganistan ?  I think Barbaric is very suitable.

Barbaric - possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization
2 a : marked by a lack of restraint : http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=wild - WILD b : having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality

rocitreal wrote: 009.023 O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers. 005.051 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. Dont want to be friends with Christains or Jews, even if there your parents, wouldnt want to be with the unjust people thus not be guided by Allah thus not be Muslim as i read it.

Khadija1021 wrote: For someone who accuses others of taking things out of context, boy did you do so.  If you were to read all of the ayats (verses) regarding Muslims and their relationships with other people of the book, you would see that the only times Muslims are told not to �befriend� them is when they are at war or in a position not to be trusted.  It doesn�t mean all Christians or Jews in all situations.  Islam holds parents in high regard even if they are not Muslim.  It is a grave sin not to show respect to one�s parents.  However, showing them respect is not the same as embracing them if their lifestyle is harmful to one�s deen (religious path).  I love and respect my mother even thought she will never accept my choice to revert to Islam.  If she demands that I give up my faith or to disobey Allah, then I must take the delicate position of respecting her without letting her bring harm to my spiritual life.

Please take these verses, 5:51 and 9:23, and break them down for me word by word.  These are some verses i have had issue with for many years and have yet to hear an explaination that is suitable.

rocitreal wrote: 004.092 It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise. ok, so if a muslim kills another person on "accident" not sure how thats done, but if so... and the person killed was "hostile" you dont have to pay any money, just set free one of your slaves.  How many slaves do you own to set free by the way ??  wonder what you would do if need i say, you dont own a slave ? guess you'dd be up a creek without a paddle huh.

Khadija1021 wrote: I don�t see why it is so difficult to image that some people get killed by accident.

The accident part i understand.  The bigger question is why is this verse ONLY applied to a muslim killing a BELIEVER ? thats the question, why does it say that most important word ?

rocitreal wrote: And when did the Taliban take ballet votes from the Afgan people ?  Nazi Germany wanted Hitler in power, I guess by your logic we should have left him in power because thats what German people wanted.  (though not nearly all did want that)

Khadija1021 wrote: Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and concepts in my brain that are not mine.

To me, your following statement you made reflected that the people of Afganistan were as a majority wanting the Taliban in power.

Khadija1021 wrote: you have to let people take care of their own problems�especially when they are telling you that is what they want to do.

Is this not what you mean when you say "they are telling you that is what they want to do" (have the Taliban in power) ?

Khadija1021 wrote: Doesn�t a country have the right to say, �Go home!�

Yes they do, in fact most from my understanding wanted the Taliban to go home back to Pakistan.  They sure wernt listening were they.

Khadija1021 wrote: How would you like it if you called someone to help rid your home of a problem and they came to help but made a giant mess and they decided to stay to �help clean up the mess� when all that you got was simply more mess?  Wouldn�t you want them to go home?  And if you could not clean up the mess alone, wouldn�t you want to have the right to call someone else to come help you?

When has the elected Afgan government said "go home" and ask for others to come and help only to have the US say no ? i never heard about that, is this in your report as well ?  Also, scense 911 there have always been many many countries involved in Afganistan besides america.

Khadija1021 wrote: if Iraq needs stabilization, THAT IS WHAT THE UN IS FOR!!!!!

Most UN military countries are involved in Afganistan currently, the UN doesnt want the Iraq problem nor do they have hundreds of thousands of peace keepers to send in.  Many of the peace keepers they do have are american.  Furthermore, peace keepers dont have guns to shoot the suicide bombers with nor do they have armered vehicles.  They would be killed very quickly by the extremist nuts (is that a label you will agree with).

Khadija1021 wrote: And please don�t get me started on WWII and the Germans�I promise what I have to say about the US and Britian in that great atrocity will not be something you will enjoy reading.

Please dont tell me your one of these people that think the Americans conspired with the Nazi's or are there equals.  You seem very sensable.  Id love to hear your arguments against America and the UK in ww2 who were defending and clearly under major attack first by the enemy.

nice communicating with you, have a very lovely day.

-Gary

people do not feel safe in the world, most of them.. think that strong militaries and other expensive tactics will keep them safe, so what we all should try to do, is ask ourselves why do people feel unsafe? and what can we do to take away this feeling of being unsafe, if we can remove a great deal of the unsafety i hope the world will look at poor nations and Africa and direct money towards feeding the poor and helping them, instead of throwing money at ways of securing themselves.

Because it might happen that one day those who saw those starving in Africa because of hunger, will themselves face some unfortunate climate change in which they become the unfortunate and beg for help, but would not be answered because they did not helped those who were before them in a similar situation.

Do'nt you see? there are people starving and in need of help, so that we may help them with what He blessed us with, He gave us and from that which He gives us we can spend on those who do not have it, all of this is done in wisdom. So let us all try to take away the unsafety alot of people feel. Truely His Mercy is The Mercy, and He writes it down for those who fear Him, those who are cautious of Him, those who give the commanded charity and those who have certainty in His signs. [refference koran chapter 7:156, The high situated places]

Community wrote: people do not feel safe in the world, most of them.. think that strong militaries and other expensive tactics will keep them safe, so what we all should try to do, is ask ourselves why do people feel unsafe? and what can we do to take away this feeling of being unsafe, if we can remove a great deal of the unsafety i hope the world will look at poor nations and Africa and direct money towards feeding the poor and helping them, instead of throwing money at ways of securing themselves. Because it might happen that one day those who saw those starving in Africa because of hunger, will themselves face some unfortunate climate change in which they become the unfortunate and beg for help, but would not be answered because they did not helped those who were before them in a similar situation. Do'nt you see? there are people starving and in need of help, so that we may help them with what He blessed us with, He gave us and from that which He gives us we can spend on those who do not have it, all of this is done in wisdom. So let us all try to take away the unsafety alot of people feel. Truely His Mercy is The Mercy, and He writes it down for those who fear Him, those who are cautious of Him, those who give the commanded charity and those who have certainty in His signs. [refference koran chapter 7:156, The high situated places]

That would be great !  only thing is community there are many crazy extreme people out there that dont want us to be safe. 

Just simply great post! My friend, Community, you could be forgiven seven murders just for your noble thoughts.

Rocitreal, those crazy people anywhere in the world are no greater in percentage than say in New York or in any place else. Sleep at ease and just pray that the policy of the US becomes a wee bit humane. 

Whisper wrote: Rocitreal, those crazy people anywhere in the world are no greater in percentage than say in New York or in any place else. Sleep at ease and just pray that the policy of the US becomes a wee bit humane.

Id say that the amount of crazy people does vary from place to place.  They do seem to concentrate in areas where alot of extremists gather.   Im not worried about the US not being humane, Id say the nuts are the terrorists and "wanta be's" like these guys in this thread http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1195&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1195& ;PN=1&TPN=1  , not the politicians in america.

The cause of this is methodologies, the set ways of interpretation of the holy book, in this case the koran, together with secondary sources like narrations of the prophet(what the prophet supposedly said) and "the scholars".

Methodologies are man made, they exist for one reason, to have power(be in control), because it is not possible to control believers unless you impose on them certain beliefs and rules outside of the holy books. To have control over people, you need them to obey you, the people need to feel like they have an advantage if they listen to you and implement that which you tell them. And this happens because people turn to other people for guidance instead of Allah and His books(His guidance is the true guidance), Those who wish power can not have power through you following the books only, so they invent these methodologies and make it seem like it is neccisary for your salvation. And for this they use so called narrations of the prophet to validate and justify their existance, they have made volumes of books through which they manipulate the readers into accepting their views and becoming one of their group, there are many groups, and each have their own views and their own methodologies, and religious leaders wish to gain more and more power through their methodologies, they will exploit everything in their means to gain more power...especially if the holy book contains verses about war and killing, these verses together with secondary sources are used to justify their views although their views contradict other verses from the koran. In some cases they even made it part of their religion that some verses from the koran are abrogated, this means they claim some verses although still existing in the koran do not count anymore. Those followers choose the words of their leader and his views over the words of Allah. And because they are wrong they do wrong.

An example of such a group are the salafi or wahabi group of Saudi Arabia, they had centuries to prepare and scheme and gain momentum, they killed many who did not agree with them and opposed them through their use of methodology. And with the oil money flowing in the problem became bigger. more apperent which is good for people who wish to see the example of why methodolgies are not good and not of islam. Basically all methodologies were dangerous, are dangerous or will become dangerous, or become AGAIN dangerous. Because they all exist for the reason of gaining power over people who incline towards faiths. The bible does not preach what the church did in the middle ages or after, i agree alot changed since then and the church does not need to resort to violence anymore, or atleast not right now with all the gold and silver that they horded up for themselves. So they can point the finger at others who try to go for more power, and also amongst the childeren of israel there are groups with methodologies, but they are more quiet, not so violent because they are a smaller group, so they have other ways to go for power.

009.023
O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.

005.051
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

rocitreal wrote: 009.023 O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers. the word is translated wrong, because the arabic word is awliyaa, it means those who you depend on as advisors and authorities in your affairs. If someone of faith takes one who is not(i will explain this further) as an advisor and authority in his affairs they will cause the faithful to get into problems, because people without faith do not fear Allah so they have other motives from which they act, they do not act upon faith but some other motivation, and this causes someone with faith to get into problems if he takes them as "awliyaa" i do not know if it is a true connection, but the word "awwal" in arabic means "the first" to me it kind of does have to do with the word "awlliyaa" which is translated wrongly as friends. Why were these jews and christians considered hostile? because they sided with the polytheists in alliances against the faithful to kill and persecute them for their faith, so obviously they did not recognize the truth of the faith Muhammed (the peace is upon him) came with, and chose to oppose him instead of helping him, just like the jews did with Jesus who came with the truth, they denied him, thus the truth he came with and christians who side with the jews even though they denied the truth when it came to them indicates them being untruthful also, you can not side with those who oppose the truth.  Unless you are unjust, a wrong doer. 005.051 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. as it reads to me : Dont be friends with Christains or Jews, even if there your parents, wouldnt want to be with the unjust people thus not be guided by Allah thus not be Muslim as i read it. Again the word friends is in arabic "awwliyaa" (read above explanation)

This is a major question i have which i would like to be answered by the most knowledgable religious individual reading.  I truely ask this, i beg of true interpritation.  I truely wish i could understand these verses.

004.092

It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise.

Please take these verses,

4:92, 5:51 and 9:23,

and explain to me word by word

what there meaning is please

These are critically important verses i have had a hard time with for many years and have yet to hear an explaination that suitably explains these Qur'an verses. chapter 4 annisaa(the women) verse 92: Wama kana (and it did not exist)limuminin(for one who has found safety and security"in faith") an yaqtula (that he kills)muminan(one who has found safety and security"in faith") illa khataan(except as a mistake) waman qatala muminan khataan(and whoever killed one who has found safety and security "in faith" as a mistake) fatahreeru raqabatin muminatin(then the freeing of a woman captive who has found safety and security "in faith") wadiyatun(translated as compensation) musallamatun(given over freely) ila ahlihi(to his family) illa an yassaddaqoo (except if they affirm, translated as remit it freely)" fain kana min qawmin( and if he was from a people) AAaduwwin lakum(hostile to you) wahuwa muminun(and he is one who found safety and security "in faith") fatahreeru raqabatin muminatin(the the freeing of a women captive who found safety and security"in faith) wain kana min qawmin(and if he was from a people) baynakum wabaynahum meethaqun(between you and between them is a treaty) fadiyatun musallamatun ila ahlihi (then comensation given freely to his family) watahreeru raqabatin muminatin(and the freeing of a woman captive who has found safety and security in faith)faman lam yajid(and whoever did not find) fasiyamu shahrayni (then fasting of two months)mutatabiAAayni(following eachother)tawbatan(repentance) mina Allahi(from Allah) wakana(and was) Allahu AAaleeman hakeema(Allah knowing, wise)

Chapter 5 al maa'ida(The Table) verse 51: Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo(yaa"directed speech translated as "O" you who found safety and security "in faith") la tattakhithoo (do not take) alyahooda (the jews "yahood has a connection to the arabic word "hodaa" which means guidance and it indicates their state and responsibility as the chosen people")wa(and) annasara(and the christians "annasaara" has a connection to the word nasara which means to save or to help, which indicates their state and the responsibilty of the christians) awliyaa(read above) baAAduhum(some of them) awliyao(see above explanation) baAAdin(some) waman(and whoever) yatawallahum(see above explanation) minkum(from amongst you) fainnahu(then he is) minhum(from them) inna Allaha(verily Allaha) la yahdee(does not guide) alqawma aththalimeen (the people that darken"are unjust)

chapter 9 attawba (The repentance) verse 23 Ya ayyuha("O" you)allatheena(who amanoo(have certainty safety and security"in faith") la tattakhithoo(do not take) abaakum(your fathers) waikhwanakum(and your brothers) awliyaa (see above explenation) ini(if) istahabboo(they loved) alkufra(covering up, ungratefulness, no faith) AAala(over) aleemani(safety and security " in faith") waman(and whoever) yatawallahum(as see above) minkum(from you) faolaika(then those) humu(are they) aththalimoon (who darken "do injustice")

i call out for suitable interpritation.  Please answer directly to help me understand.

thank you,

Jinxx

60:8 Allah forbids you not , with regard to those who fight you not because of the Faith nor drive you out of your homes  from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. [Yusuf Ali interpretation]

[Translation from arabic by me]La yanhakumu Allahu(not ends you Allaho) AAani(from) allatheena lam(those who did not) yuqatilookum(fighting involving killing) fee addeeni (in the faith) walam yukhrijookum(and did not drive you out) min(from) diyarikum(your homes) an(that) tabarroohum("be kind to them") watuqsitoo(to do good, i do not know how to exactly translate it) ilayhim(towards them) inna Allaha yuhibbu almuqsiteen (verily Allah loves the doers of good).

So if you do not fight us in our faith nor drive us out of our homes you are safe from us, and can expect kindness and good from us.

The only hostility is towards those who fight the faithful in their faith and drive them out of their homes. Because these kind of people hate us and wish to destroy us because of our faith in The Only god, the god of Abraham Moses, Jesus and Muhammed the peace is upon them all. 

ok, thanks alot Community.  Im going to try and come up with there meanings now thru the translations.

60:8 Allah does not forbid Muslims being kind to non-muslims that dont want to fight them or take there homes. 

This doesnt say its ok to be friends with non-muslims though does it ?  isnt this just saying Allah does not forbid being kind to them.

5:51 seems to read do not be friends with Jews or Christians because the are UNJUST people (all of them), and if you do become friends with them you are unjust as well. 

9:23 seems to read not to be friends with even you family if they are not Muslim.

Please break this down if i am interpreting it incorrectly as i do not speak or read arabic and have to use translations for meaning.  Thanks again for your help in translation.

Did you read the answers i gave you in the post before the post you refer to?

true friendship can only be based on truth, and if a jew or christian denies the prophet muhammed then there can be no true friendship.

But there can be kindness and justice aslong as they do not fight the faithful because of their faith or drive them out of their homes,

as for taking them as awliyaa(those you take as authorities and guardian protectors) then this is not possible, because they deny the truth, and if one takes them as guardians, protectors or as advisors in important affairs then this can be harmful for the faithful. The Waliy of the faithful is Allah, the messenger and the faithful(wether jew christian or muslim if they all accept that muhammed was indeed the messenger of Allah who came with the truth.) But first and foremost, the only waliy the faithful have is Allah.

Community wrote: Did you read the answers i gave you in the post before the post you refer to?

yes i did and i thank you for the translations.

It appears that my interpretations of these verses is not off base then.

Rocitreal i also explained the word awliyya in that post as well as translated the verses you asked for.

"What a balanced post! Just one small and perhaps unrelated question; is it true that the Prophet had a very close relationship with the Jews in Makkah with the exception of perhaps just two troublesome tribes" [Quote Whisper]

I am not familiar with this but i do not see why it would not be possible. I even heard that the Prophet and the faithful fought in deffence of jewish and christian tribes who did not side with the polytheists in fighting the faithful.

We can not ask the jews and christians to defend us, but they can ask for us to defend them.

Brother, thanks. I have heard and hold reasons to believe that the Prophet had ever denounced only two particular mischievious tribes in Hejaz (as Saudi Arabia was then known). Other than that the Muslims enjoyed a very close relationship with these "People of the Book".

I believe that his first wife was from an influential Jewish family. Her uncle was a Jewish scholar / Rabi of considerable standing, based somewhere on the Syrian border and, he wsa quite active in arranging their marriage.

Besides, I have seen far more examples of these grandsons of Ibraheem making "V" signs together in history before our Brit Special services started to spin all these "ancient hatreds" - as their most usual "Divide and RULE" policy to gain a footprint in the Ottoman lands - just after the Greek wars.

El Andalus and Ottoman Turkey are two of the most brilliant examples of such Mulims, Jewish and Christian Joint Ventures.

Do these dollar worshipper keep throwing bones of contentions between these people just for the fear of losing their global financial hold in case these begin to hug each other, just once again?

Has anyone seen "AMERICATHONS"? Great movie. It's on this subject!!

now that we have established that only kind relations are allowed under the Qu'ran, and no Believer should take unbeliever as a friend i was wondering about this verse.

Sura 4:89 says "They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

what about this verse, isnt this advocating violence prior to any altercation ?

Ro, before you go quoting versus  from the Qur'an mak sure you understand the relevance and their history before you say that thes eversus advocate violence.

History does tell much, but are not the Qu'ran's verses just as relevent today as ever ?  I can listen & truely search for rational explainations of these type of verses which paint a differant picture of Islam that many of you very nice people have to paint.  I just search for understanding, I hope you see this.

thanks, Rocitreal

Rocitreal, I apologize for not responding sooner. I hope you are still interested in my response.

rocitreal wrote: I was looking but am having problem locating the place i read that, i was reading from many online encyclopedia's about Islam.  What they all say is that Ali did not want to become Caliph at first, then others convenced him to take over, they differ as to how he was convenced.  I will keep looking for this source as I am certain i read it in my research but do not claim all information iread to be the truth.

I would strongly suggest that you use the Encyclopedia of the Orient in looking up information regarding such issues.  There web address is:

http://lexicorient.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct-frame.pl?http://i-c ias.com/e.o/khomeini.htm - http://lexicorient.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct-frame.pl?http://i-c ias.com/e.o/khomeini.htm

rocitreal wrote: I wasnt trying to switch the subject just trying to make a parrelled remark.  You said this would be truely a suprise if others were not marrying 9 year olds.  To me, just because someone else is doing something wrong doesnt make it any more right, that was my point.  To me, a 9 year old is a child even if they somehow hit puberty early.

I never said two wrongs make a right.  I merely said that simply because you don�t understand a culture (especially one that existed 1400 years ago), doesn�t make how they lived and did things wrong.  It only appears wrong when you compare it to today�s standards.  There is a difference between understanding how someone in the past lived, and believing it would be appropriate for today�s standards.  And it is not a matter of Aisha starting puberty early.  You act as if Aisha were an exception to the rule when, in fact, in some parts of the world that is rather normal, especially in hot climates.  You, also, seem to think that because I�m not willing to condemn the Prophet (pbuh) for this that I somehow approve of this practice regardless of time or place.  I do not think a 9 year old girl of today�s society would be prepared for such a life; however, just because this is true does not mean that 1400 years ago the same is true.  Not too long ago children were considered adults as soon as they reached puberty and were expected to take on adult roles.  The modern world has given rise to many new things and one of them is prolonged childhood.  Just because the youth of today are given this privilege doesn�t mean it condemns the lives of those that lived before them just because they too were not afforded this same privilege. 

Khadija1021 wrote: Just because you view anyone under that age of 18 as a minor does not make that so in the rest of the world or throughout history.  The Prophet (pbuh) was not a child molester by any definition even those found in today�s encyclopedias.

rocitreal wrote: Where exactly did i call Mohammed a "child molester" ?

In one post you said, �Take for instance Aisha, probably around 9 years old when Muhammad took her as another of his his wives.  Your was prophet a child malester many could say, must like Michael Jackson.�  And in another you said, �Were not talking about royal families or average people here, were talking about a supposed prophet of God not to mention there is a big differance between 9 which is just a child and 13 which is past puberty.   Sure there are freaks out there, just look at Micheal Jackson, but he never claimed to be a prophet from God.� 

I would take that pretty much to mean you hold that view yourself.  And I have already pointed out that if all you were referring to is the onset of menstruation as the difference between those young marriages in the US and the Prophet�s marriage to Aisha, then there is no difference.  I think I have made my position on this clear and so if you desire to continue to hold the view that we must judge the past by today�s standards, feel free to do so; however, I will not argue this point with you in the future. 

rocitreal wrote: I personally dont feel the age of 9 is old enough to give "consent".  What is your take on Mohammed's interpretation of the Torah's very clear passages about Monogamy ?  Were these passages "inserted" as lies, or did he just give them a differant "interpritation" ?  Lots of things are legal that go against religious beliefs.  It was legal to eat bacon wasnt it ?  The Torah clearly sais that is bad, i guess that was not an "inserted" text in Mohammed's eyes, i wonder about monogamy.

Once again, you simply compare today�s culture with that of the 5^th century.  However, I have no doubt that Aisha not only knew about marriage at that age, and since Muhammad was related to her father and they were close companions, she was very much aware of who the Prophet was.  She could have said no if nothing else; however, she did not.

If the Torah so clearly speaks of monogamy, why did so many throughout its pages have polygamous marriages?  Some of them had hundreds of wives like Solomon for instance.  The Qur�an changed the face of polygamy by 1.) Kept polygamy legal as a means to protect women and children in situations where they would be left without protection otherwise, 2.) Restricting the number of wives permitted to only four, and 3.) By restricting the number of marriages to only one if the man is unable to treat each of his wives with equal kindness and fairness.

Khadija1021 wrote: Second, there is no indication in any hadiths or other historical documents that Aisha was either physically of psychologically abused due to her marriage to the Prophet (pbuh).  In fact, she loved him dearly and she continued in his cause even after he died.

rocitreal wrote: I can respect that she loved him and didnt feel abused but this makes me think of children who love people who have sex with them at early ages, yet they are correctly thrown in jail for years on a daily basis.

You are judging the past by using the perverted behaviors of the present.  You are not speaking of those who are trying to abide by the laws of the land or of Allah.  How fair is that? 

Khadija1021 wrote: Until very recently GWB tried his best to make this into a holy war.  He did so for many reasons which I will not go into here. That would be enough for an entirely new thread. However, I can point you to a US news report that will outline the history of this war and Bush�s approach every step of the way.  Just ask if you want that information.

rocitreal wrote: Iwould like to see that information very much so.  It is accually calling for a holy war ?  which major news broadcasting organization published it ?

Don�t misunderstand what I said.  GWB may not be the smartest pup in the litter; however, that doesn�t mean he has not learned the subtle art of propaganda from his forefathers.  Here is the web site for that new report:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050425/25roots.ht m - http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050425/25roots.ht m

Khadija1021 wrote: I never said that his intent was to eradicate the world of all Muslims.

rocitreal wrote: Isnt that what a holy war would be all about, eradicating Muslims ? I would love to hear the quotes from Bush when he was trying "his hardest" to start a holy war, do you know of any ?

Like I said, read the report and then come tell me what you think.  We can talk about his propaganda strategies.

Khadija1021 wrote: Not only do people want him out of there, when polled, they actually said life under the Taliban was better and so the support for Ben Laden increased.  Just think of that for a minute if you would.  Yes, linger a bit longer on that thought.  How bad can it be if people are wanting the Taliban back?  Like I said, I�ll show you the American New Report on this if you want to read it�it�s a 10 page report.

rocitreal wrote: Ok, so this american news agency that conducted the polling are the same ones who said Bush was on a Crusade against Islam, a holy war per say ?  Id love to see it but i'd be willing to be its not from a reputable news agency.

No, the polls were not conducted by the same reporter who made the article.  The article is from the US News & World Report. Is that reputable enough for you? 

Khadija1021 wrote: I pray to Allah that some day I will never have to say this again.  (And yes, I think GWB and the American news media created this problem.  And no, I don�t mean every single news person or station in American�just the majority of them.)

rocitreal wrote: Do you have any further sources to say the "majority" ?

What part of �I think� don�t you understand?  I am an educated professional (philosopher) who is able to deduce this from the plethora of news broadcasts that use terms like �Islamic terrorism,� and �Muslim extremists.�  Up until just recently one rarely saw a news broadcast that referred to what is happening in the Middle East as simply �terrorism.�  This is a fact of US news media coverage.  If you don�t believe me, simply do a bit of research on your own, but be sure to go back and start your search from 9/11/01 and not just the past few months.  It is clear that recently GBW has changed his propaganda tactics.  So we now see a �softer� view of world events.   GWB knows now he can�t simply bully the terrorists into submission, so now he is going to try to persuade �moderate� Muslims to help him out.

Khadija1021 wrote: ..accusing an entire religious group of terrorists acts (which is what using the phrase �Islamic Terrorism� does),

rocitreal wrote: I dont feel it does, nor to most people i know and speak with.  Is this where you are reading into your holy war conspiracy ?  Islam has much with these terrorists if you see it or not.  The fact is, with Islam these people would not be comitting suicide to enter Martyrdom.  Extremists are just that, extremists... there are extremist christians all over this country, all though they do not kill people there are extremists.   Just because they are christian in there own mind does not mean they represent the whole of christianity any more than Islamic Extremists do for Islam.  I disagree that the term Islamic Terrorist applies to all Muslims and have yet to hear any reputable american news agency say it does.

I don�t think you would say that if you were a Muslim, especially one of the ones who was unjustly arrested after the 9/11 incident, or those living in London since the train bombings.  You may realize that the term �Islamic Terrorism� does not refer to all Muslims; however, it is a term that incites hate and violence against many innocent people.  It plants seeds of distain and distrust.  Furthermore, it is simply wrong.  Regardless of what you think, there is no such thing as �Islamic Terrorism�; it is a meaningless phrase, nothing more than an oxymoron with no real purpose other than to incite anger and violence. 

In Islam, there are only three situations in which killing is lawful:  1.) a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, 2.) Harj (one who has murdered someone unlawfully), and 3.) Jihad (one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle).  (Vol 6, Book 60, Hadith 134, Bukhari) (Qur�an 25:68-70)

There is a big different between Harj and Jihad.  Harj is illegal killing (murdering that is forbidden by Islam) and Jihad which can entail killing bases on self defense as a means to protect oneself from religious oppression.  What is going on with terrorist is clearly Harja and not Jihad. 

In Vol 8, Book 82 of Bukhari�s Hadiths, Hadith 800B, speaks of what happens to a believer when he/she commits a major sin such as adultery, consuming alcohol, theft and murder. It states that when a believer commits a major sin, he/she at that moment is not a believer.  So, when a person commits murder (Harj), at the time he/she does so, he/she is not a believer.

Khadija1021 wrote: Rocitreal, it doesn�t matter if terrorists read the same book as other Muslims do or if they pray in the same mosques.

rocitreal wrote: I disagree, i think that makes them part of the Islamic community.

The issue here is whether what they do when they commit terrorist acts is ordained by Allah and Islam, thus making their acts a true part of Islam.  I know you want to make that connection; however, even if they say and believe they are doing it in the name of Allah doesn�t make it so.  I think part of the problem here is that you are anti-religion and thus you think religion is responsible for all of the world�s atrocities.  But, it is not religion that causes such, but rather man.  Only Allah knows what is in a person�s heart. 

Khadija1021 wrote: That doesn�t make their terrorist actions �Islamic� in any way shape or form.  The KKK in the US (to this very day mind you) use biblical text to support their illogical reasoning.  They read the same bible as Christians and they pray in the same churches.  Some have even been ministers.  In all aspects, these men are terrorists.

rocitreal wrote: They are terrorists your right, there very distorted in there views of there religion.  There religion is a major part of there belief structure as americans do understand and recognize.  I can see them being called christian terrorists, i do not diagree with that label nor do i feel that it would apply to all christains.

How can one justly apply such a negative �phrase� to a religion for the behaviors of someone whose actions are based upon what you call their distorted religion views?  Is it the fault of the religion that some people do this?...Or merely the distorted views of those who have their own personal agendas?

rocitreal wrote: Have you done research on the acts conducted by the Taliban when they were in control of Afganistan ?  I think Barbaric is very suitable.

Rocitreal, I am not trying to defend the acts of the Taliban.  I�m not saying that their acts were not horrendous.  I am only stating that you cannot blame their deeds on Islam.  Or call those acts Islamic in any way, shape or form.

rocitreal wrote: To me, your following statement you made reflected that the people of Afganistan were as a majority wanting the Taliban in power.

I said no such thing.  I only said that recent polls indicate that the majority of Afghanistans would prefer to have the Taliban back over having the Americans there now.   

Khadija1021 wrote: you have to let people take care of their own problems�especially when they are telling you that is what they want to do.

rocitreal wrote: Is this not what you mean when you say "they are telling you that is what they want to do" (have the Taliban in power) ?

Actually, I was referring to Iraq.

Khadija1021 wrote: Doesn�t a country have the right to say, �Go home!�

rocitreal wrote: Yes they do, in fact most from my understanding wanted the Taliban to go home back to Pakistan.  They sure wernt listening were they.

I will not argue with you if you are speaking of a time before the US invaded Iraq.  However, it appears that if Afghanistans have to choose between two evils (i.e., the US and the Taliban), at this time, they would pick the Taliban.  I�m sure they would rather have other options; however, sadly, that is not life in the Middle-East right now.

Khadija1021 wrote: How would you like it if you called someone to help rid your home of a problem and they came to help but made a giant mess and they decided to stay to �help clean up the mess� when all that you got was simply more mess?  Wouldn�t you want them to go home?  And if you could not clean up the mess alone, wouldn�t you want to have the right to call someone else to come help you?

rocitreal wrote: When has the elected Afgan government said "go home" and ask for others to come and help only to have the US say no ? i never heard about that, is this in your report as well ?  Also, scense 911 there have always been many many countries involved in Afganistan besides america.

Once again, when I made the statement about �Go Home�, it was regarding the situation in Iraq.  My statement about Afghanistan was merely about the poll which showed that the majority of them are now more in support of the Taliban than the US.  I never said their government officials ask the US to leave. 

Khadija1021 wrote: if Iraq needs stabilization, THAT IS WHAT THE UN IS FOR!!!!!

rocitreal wrote: Most UN military countries are involved in Afganistan currently, the UN doesnt want the Iraq problem nor do they have hundreds of thousands of peace keepers to send in.  Many of the peace keepers they do have are american.  Furthermore, peace keepers dont have guns to shoot the suicide bombers with nor do they have armered vehicles.  They would be killed very quickly by the extremist nuts (is that a label you will agree with).

If I�m not mistaken, India has offered to help Iraq with stabilization but only if the US pulls out.  Are you going to sit there and tell me that there have not been more incidents of car bombing and such acts because of the US�s presence in Iraq?  War is never pretty especially when someone is up against the US and especially when so many others are opposed to the occupation.  I am not going to sit here and justify extremist behaviors regardless of who�s behind them. 

Khadija1021 wrote: And please don�t get me started on WWII and the Germans�I promise what I have to say about the US and Britian in that great atrocity will not be something you will enjoy reading.

rocitreal wrote: Please dont tell me your one of these people that think the Americans conspired with the Nazi's or are there equals.  You seem very sensable.  Id love to hear your arguments against America and the UK in ww2 who were defending and clearly under major attack first by the enemy.

No, I was referring to the fact that Britain (Churchill) knew that Hitler was killing massive numbers of people long before they let on they knew; however, Churchill kept Britain and the US busy with other things (�the soft underbelly� I think it was referred to at the time) instead of going in to stop the killings.  And no, despite what many believe, I do not believe that Americans want to destroy the rest of the world.  However, I do believe that GWB gives others that impression with his war tactics.  He needs a �big bad wolf� so that he can justify his actions.  I�m simply tired of Americans having to suffer the consequence of his actions.  The invasion of Iraq was not legal, I think that is exactly why he doesn�t want to pull out if Iraq.  He doesn�t want to admit he was wrong or appear to be either.  At this point it�s a pride thing.  He�s still trying to prove to his father that he can finish what he thought his dad should have finished long ago.  Well, truth of the matter is that no Bush is going to do a good job in the Presidential seat.  They are all too egotistical and power hungry and they do not have the people�s best interest at heart.  Their sense of humanitarianism is to give another tax break to the rich.

PAZ, Khadija

Khadija1021 wrote: I never said two wrongs make a right.  I merely said that simply because you don�t understand a culture (especially one that existed 1400 years ago), doesn�t make how they lived and did things wrong.  It only appears wrong when you compare it to today�s standards.  There is a difference between understanding how someone in the past lived, and believing it would be appropriate for today�s standards.  And it is not a matter of Aisha starting puberty early.  You act as if Aisha were an exception to the rule when, in fact, in some parts of the world that is rather normal, especially in hot climates.  You, also, seem to think that because I�m not willing to condemn the Prophet (pbuh) for this that I somehow approve of this practice regardless of time or place.  I do not think a 9 year old girl of today�s society would be prepared for such a life; however, just because this is true does not mean that 1400 years ago the same is true.  Not too long ago children were considered adults as soon as they reached puberty and were expected to take on adult roles.  The modern world has given rise to many new things and one of them is prolonged childhood.  Just because the youth of today are given this privilege doesn�t mean it condemns the lives of those that lived before them just because they too were not afforded this same privilege.

Thank you for saying that Khadija. You have just proved my point. None of the holy books, Koran, Bible, Gita, have complete wisdom that is true for all the people, all the time. That's why we need to evolve and adjust according to the times.

Human 

Sire, this evolution thing is a fallacy and no more than a self congratulatory mask for us.

If man had evolved would we have anything like rape in our world. Or, war for that matter.

It will be good and interesting exercise to find out why Charles Darwin, an entirely unknown quantity, was selected and backed by slave traders to go round the world. And, then hyped.

Please do count and let us know how many evolved people do you find around in your county? who would behave without the fear of their laws.

human wrote: Khadija1021 wrote: I never said two wrongs make a right.  I merely said that simply because you don�t understand a culture (especially one that existed 1400 years ago), doesn�t make how they lived and did things wrong.  It only appears wrong when you compare it to today�s standards.  There is a difference between understanding how someone in the past lived, and believing it would be appropriate for today�s standards.  And it is not a matter of Aisha starting puberty early.  You act as if Aisha were an exception to the rule when, in fact, in some parts of the world that is rather normal, especially in hot climates.  You, also, seem to think that because I�m not willing to condemn the Prophet (pbuh) for this that I somehow approve of this practice regardless of time or place.  I do not think a 9 year old girl of today�s society would be prepared for such a life; however, just because this is true does not mean that 1400 years ago the same is true.  Not too long ago children were considered adults as soon as they reached puberty and were expected to take on adult roles.  The modern world has given rise to many new things and one of them is prolonged childhood.  Just because the youth of today are given this privilege doesn�t mean it condemns the lives of those that lived before them just because they too were not afforded this same privilege.  Thank you for saying that Khadija. You have just proved my point. None of the holy books, Koran, Bible, Gita, have complete wisdom that is true for all the people, all the time. That's why we need to evolve and adjust according to the times. Human

Human,

I don't know how you came to that conclusion by what I said.  My claim is not that the Qur'an does not offer complete wisdom for all people, all the time.  In fact, it does what no other holy book it its currently state of existence does; this is, the Qur�an does offer complete wisdom.  One can apply the Qur'an to all situations throughout history.  It is not stagnant.  The issue being discussed is marriage.  Allah commands through the Qur�an for men and women to be lawfully married and He forbids them to participate in sexual intercourse outside of marriage.  Regardless of how societies have evolved regarding human behavior (such as the delaying of the onset of adulthood), human nature itself has not changed�puberty still comes when nature (Allah) commands it too.  That is the difference, and that difference has nothing to do with the Qur�an and everything to do with human actions.  Muslims are told to obey the laws of society as long as they do not cause one to be oppressed in their faith.  If a society were to deny the right of its citizens to marry, it would constitute a major problem for Muslims because Allah commands for those who are able to marry to do so and not to engage in sexual intercourse outside of marriage; however, delaying the age at which one can become married, although it might make if more difficult for some to guard their chastity prior to marriage, it does not violate the command to marry.  Personally, I feel that modern society makes it extremely difficult for its citizens to not fall into a life of sin by participating in ZINA (unlawful sexual intercourse).  As modern society continues to create larger and larger gaps between the age of natural maturity (onset of puberty) and socially acceptable age of maturity (now after college�roughly mid 20�s) as well as to promote lewd sexual behavior as a way of life, it puts citizens at a far greater risk of participating in sexual intercourse before marriage. 

Although modern society and those who have embraced it as their �GOD� may not perceive this to be a problem, it is for all those who desire to worship and follow Allah.  Adolescence is a modern day phenomenon.  The gap between onset of puberty and the time at which one is considered appropriate for marriage continues to grow.  At one time there was no difference between the two.  As recently as the 1960�s, it was considered appropriate for one to marry right after high school.  Now even that is considered too soon.  Why is that?  Is it because humans are not ready for marriage by nature (biologically that is)?  No, it is because society creates such human behavior to come into existence.  The modern world stresses success in education and career over partnership in marriage.  We are told that �Sex in the City� is far more desirable than being committed to family life.  So, we are trained in all manners of modern behavior that takes us further and further away from family life.  The family is no longer the nucleus of human society�material possession is and sex is the means by which people are lured to it.  Education is not longer a means to help individuals be wiser and more knowledgeable, but rather, to assist them in maximizing their income as a means to perpetuate the modern phenomenon we refer to as consumerism.  You can believe in modern evolution all you want�that is your choice.  However, I believe that life in this world without faith in Allah is pathetic at best.  What you call modern progress �evolution�, I consider mere human degradation. 

PAZ, Khadija