Saddam to sue over prison photos

[az]

It's a simple matter, really. There are laws. They must be applied to anyone and everyone, from the most shining example of humanity to the most despicable villain. If you start to apply different laws to different people, you leave the door wide open to abuse. If you start convicting someone or ingoring their rights without or before due process of law, even if it is crystal clear someone did something bad, you are throwing away the foundation for a constitutional state. Do never apply double standards, it WILL backfire sometime - and how can you say you are any better than "them" when you start taking away rights from "infidels". Now it may be Saddam Hussein, tomorrow it may be any muslim, the jews, the disabled, etc. We had this once and it wa NOT good.

AZ

[Dr Mordrid]

Speaking of MEMRI, these bits of Arab introspection were very suprising in their candor;

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=641

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=645

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=638

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=623

Dr. Mordrid

[Adis]

it is stupid to label people because of their ethnic origin, the colour of their skin, their religion

I fully agree with you, especially with this.


Never globalize anything and your life will be much easier and nicer.

[Brian Ellis]

Speaking of MEMRI, these bits of Arab introspection were very suprising in their candor;

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=641

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=645

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=638

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=623

Dr. Mordrid

Very interesting. Note that these 4 articles put much more of the accent on Arabism than Islam as being the weakness in the ME. I think there may be a good deal of truth in this. Whether with a Sunni or Shiite majority, the non-Arab Muslim countries are much more progressive and the people hard-working than the Arab ones (the -stans possibly excepted for political reasons). Of course, this does not rule out a minority of religious extremists in all of them, but what culture, anywhere in the world, does not have their share of extremism? How many times have I heard in Arab countries "Maalish, Allah keefik" but never once in non-Arab countries, even amongst people whose mother-tongue was Arabic? (My transliteration, meaning roughly "Never mind, it doesn't matter, God will look after me") In fact, I suggest that we Westerners often make a mistake of thinking that all Muslims are the same with the same culture, just as many Muslims think that an Irish Catholic (for example) is the same as an Amish farmer.

[schmosef]

Interesting...

So are you saying that I'm not entirely wrong about Arabic Islam?... I doubt it, you never agree with me on such things.

I agree with you that dialog is always preferable to violence, but do you not agree that dialog is not always an option? Even if it can be successfully argued that it is indeed your own fault that dialog is off the table, don't you have to deal with the situation as it is? At some point, don't you have to "draw a line in the sand", as it were?

[schmosef]

read this: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=671

it's off topic, but it's worth it.

[Brian Ellis]

Interesting...

So are you saying that I'm not entirely wrong about Arabic Islam?... I doubt it, you never agree with me on such things.

I agree with you that dialog is always preferable to violence, but do you not agree that dialog is not always an option? Even if it can be successfully argued that it is indeed your own fault that dialog is off the table, don't you have to deal with the situation as it is? At some point, don't you have to "draw a line in the sand", as it were?

You're right, I don't agree that it it is Arabic Islam that is at fault. Islam has little to do with it. It is the Arabic culture. The Muslim side of it is purely pretextual.

Take a parallel with N. Ireland. The most hard line Unionist leader is the Rev. Ian Paisley. A supposed man of God, ordained into the Presbyterian church as a minister. Does he really follow the teachings of Jesus Christ when he hurls invective at the Catholics, who supposedly follow the same teachings? Jesus said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." and is also quoted, "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Jesus saith unto him I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but Until seventy times seven." Did Paisley, whom I consider one of the most evil men on this earth, follow these precepts? No, he is a violent man and violence just breeds more violence. Jesus also preached that the retaliatory precept of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth was wrong, but that did not stop the Ulster Unionists, led by Paisley, from practising retaliation, the lex talionis. I know you are not Christian (neither am I, really, as I doubt the divinity of Jesus, who was certainly a good and influential man and an excellent teacher).

Now, Muhamed (choose your preferred spelling), like Jesus, was a man of peace. Islam considers them both as Prophets, along with Isaiah and the other Hebrew prophets. What troubled him was not the teachings of Jesus but the way the Christian Church had evolved, distorting the very teachings of Christ, and its schisms. In particular, the dogma of the Western church, after the Council of Nicea, became, in his (and my) eyes, totally aberrant. In just the same way as the Ulster Unionists have distorted the teachings of Jesus, so factions in the schismatic modern Islam have distorted the teachings of Muhamed. This is certainly a legacy of the way the so-called Christians attacked Islam during the Crusades, which had little Christianity behind them. Salah Ad-din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub (usually referred to as Saladin) was a Sunni Kurd who actually was not the ferocious warrior that western history books made him out to be. He peacefully converted the Sultanate of Egypt from aggressive Shiite practices to Sunniism, by pointing out that the Sunni faith was closer to the original teachings of the Prophet. It was later that he reacted to the "ultimate insult", the sacking of Jerusalem by the crusaders, but he tried to reason with them before allowing the army to do what it wanted to do in the first place. He was not the army's general but constantly tried to sue for peace, which the crusaders refused. This is the origin of the legend that Islam is aggressive, aided and abetted by post-Muhamed writers.

What I'm really trying to say is that Islam, today, is no longer the faith that Muhamed intended, any more than what has happened in N. Ireland, equally in the name of God, is what Jesus taught. Osama bin Laden and Ian Paisley have both been tarred with the same brush of violence because of historical distortions of their respective faiths and both act contrary to the teachings of their faiths' founders. This is why I think that the term 'Arabic Islam' is an oxymoron because the hotheads amongst the Arabs, be they Saudi, Iraqi, Algerian or whatever, are no more practising Islam, any more than Ulster Unionist hotheads are practising Christianity. They have put their faith behind them for purely political gain, while using it pretextually.

I'm sure that Jesus, with his exhortation of 7 x 70 times forgiveness, and Muhamed with his acceptance of Jesus' teachings, would never have "drawn a line in the sand" and they both would have preferred negotiation to violence.

[schmosef]

What's the difference? You're getting bogged down in semantics. Ok, let's not call it Islam, let's call it IsBeef! I'm not trying to debate whether the modern practices of IsBeef have anything to do with the form of Islam that Muhamed may or may not have tried to teach. I'm saying that today, the proponents of radical IsBeef are not very reasonable. We cannot call them over to tea and ask that they please address their issues in a polite and productive way that they might be resolved because, as you said, "they have put their faith behind them for purely political gain, while using it pretextually."

So you agree with me on that then?

It is these IsBeef brethren to whom I was referring when I asked why they do not take our feelings into account. I wasn't asking why Muhamed might not have taken my feelings into account. I wasn't asking why someone who practises this "pure" form of Islam that you describe might not take my feelings into account. It is these biased, corrupt, practitioners of IsBeef that I was inquireing of.

And you've given me my answer. It is because "they have put their faith behind them for purely political gain, while using it pretextually" that they cannot deal honestly with others.

Thank you Brian... I'm glad that we're in agreement.

[schmosef]

500+ million arabs can't be wrong

let me ask you one more question?

if you were to ask these practicers of IsBeef whether they were following true Islam or the pathetic aberation known as IsBeef, what do you supposed they'd say?

don't you think that they'd be quoting history and the koran (and other books) up and down, left and right as a means to prove that they are indeed correct?

what makes you so sure that they are not in keeping with Muhamed's true calling and it is not indeed you who are describing an impure form of Islam?

[schmosef]

I'm sure that Jesus, with his exhortation of 7 x 70 times forgiveness, and Muhamed with his acceptance of Jesus' teachings, would never have "drawn a line in the sand" and they both would have preferred negotiation to violence.

I can't speak for Jesus, or Mohamed for that matter...

I'll let google do the talking: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar1.html

Are these not quotes from the Koran? So you tell me... Islam or IsBeef? Or is BS?

[schmosef]

Google just wont shut up: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005083.php

[Brian Ellis]

OK, now read these texts again (hoping that the translations are accurate and not distorted) bearing in mind that Allah is one and the same as JHWH and what the Christians call God. Never once did Muhamed exhort war against other believers, such as the Christians and Jews. In fact, I believe he specifically exhorted his followers not to persecute these other faiths, although I haven't got time to scan every suran to find the reference.

The point I'm making is that Muhamed never created a new God, which he called Allah; he used the name al-Ilah, meaning THE God, the same God, the eternal God, the Tetragrammaton, Yahweh. IOW, his "infidels" were not the Jews or Christians, but the animists who lived in what is now Saudi Arabia. As I understand it, these guys had funny beliefs that every grain of sand and every date or blade of grass that their camels ate had a soul, but they did not have a God, as such, or a belief in heaven/hell. Even so, he also exhorted them to avoid aggression.

Anyone can quote scriptures to further his ends, whether they be the Torah, the NT or the Qu'ran, as a diligent search will find anything when taken out of context. For example, my favourite Biblical quotation was when St Paul wrote to (I think) Timothy, "Take a little wine for thy stomach's sake" (Note that he also said that a "bishop" must not be given to wine, just to prove the contradiction).

[schmosef]

What's up Brian?

Seems like you've completely avoided talking about everything I've written about.

Where did I write about Allah and whether he's to represent the same God that the Jews and Christians believe in? What does it even matter to our discussion? It doesn't. Furthermore, is violence against not believers acceptable? By only mentioning your belief in Islam's directives towards Jews and Christians you tactically seem to imply that it is. I would disagree as to acceptability.

Please answer to the original poinst of this thread before you try to take it on a tanget.

As for your statement about context. First of all, that first link I provided went to great pains to explain the context. Funny that you'd choose to ignore it.

Here's more:

-Robert Spencer's summary of his dealings with those IsBeef apologists who would deny the violent tones of their religious manifesto:

Me: The Qur’an teaches violence against unbelievers (with citations).

Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. It doesn’t mean that. You have to know hadith.

Me: The Hadith teaches violence against unbelievers (with citations).

Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. It doesn’t mean that. You have to know Islamic law.

Me: Islamic law teaches violence against unbelievers (with citations).

Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. It doesn’t mean that. And Muslims today don’t pay attention to these ancient laws.

Me: Modern-day jihad terrorists cite Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic law to justify violence against unbelievers (with citations).

Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. Most Muslims see these things differently.

Me: Great. How will they refute the jihadist exegesis and so end jihadist recruitment among Muslims?

Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. I am not going to speak with you about this any more.

- On Islam inciting violence against non-believers... The Million-Dollar Qur’an Challenge (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005083.php)

If you really believe that the Koran says nothing hostile toward non believers then I would invite you to do a google search and find out the truth for yourself.

[KvHagedorn]

Never once did Muhamed exhort war against other believers, such as the Christians and Jews.

So, you compare one prophet to the WHOLE POPULATION of Christians and Jews that EVER EXISTED? It never ceases to amaze me how a western liberal can completely screw things around in the course of becoming a defacto traitor. That's probably the thing that grates on me most about social liberals..

Why aren't you comparing Christ Himself with ALL of Islam?

[schmosef]

Ok KvH,

Did I miss something? I don't think that Brian was comparing and contrasting, just denying. There's a difference.

He's not saying "such as the Christians and Jews" as examples of those who "exhort war against other believers", he's elaborating on his definition of "other believers".

Maybe you should count to 10 and re-read what Brian wrote, there's lots of good things to get angry about, I don't think that the point you chose is one of them.