SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Investor Clouseau who wrote (24852)7/10/2004 9:52:51 PM
From: Richnorth  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27666
 
In the past some folks here indulged in bashing Moslems each time that trashy Jewish rag, Worldnetdaily, printed some article that depicted Moslems to be primitive, weird, cruel and in general out of sync with the times and hopelessly lacking any capacity for evolution. They naively succumbed to Jewish anti-Moslem propaganda, unawares that there are progressive Moslems.............

Read on ......................

-----------------------------------------

An open letter
from Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam

The Trouble with Islam is an open letter from me, a Muslim voice of reform, to concerned citizens worldwide -- Muslim and not. It's about why my faith community needs to come to terms with the diversity of ideas, beliefs and people in our universe, and why non-Muslims have a pivotal role in helping us get there.

The themes I'm exploring with the utmost honesty include:
the inferior treatment of women in Islam;
the Jew-bashing that so many Muslims persistently engage in; and
the continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamic regimes.

I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists.

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream.Which means that when abuse happens under the banner of Islam, most Muslims have no clue how to dissent, debate, revise or reform.

The Trouble with Islam shatters our silence. It shows Muslims how we can re-discover Islam's lost tradition of independent thinking -- a tradition known as "ijtihad" -- and re-discover it precisely to update Islam for the 21st century. The opportunity to update is especially available to Muslims in the West, because it's here that we enjoy precious freedoms to think, express, challenge and be challenged without fear of state reprisal. In that sense, the Islamic reformation begins in the West.

It doesn't, however, end here. Not by a long shot. People throughout the Islamic world need to know of their God-given right to think for themselves. So The Trouble with Islam outlines a global campaign to promote innovative approaches to Islam. I call this non-military campaign "Operation Ijtihad." In turn, the West's support of this campaign will fortify national security, making Operation Ijtihad a priority for all of us who wish to live fatwa-free lives.

That's the book. The question now becomes: What possessed me to write it? Once I tell you a little about me, I think you'll see where my own passion comes from.

Why I'm struggling with Islam

As refugees from Idi Amin's Uganda, my family and I settled just outside of Vancouver in 1972. I grew up attending two types of schools: the secular public school of most North American kids and then, for several hours at a stretch every Saturday, the Islamic religious school (madressa).

I couldn't quite reconcile the open and tolerant world of my public school with the rigid and bigoted world inside my madressa. But I had enough faith to ask questions -- plenty of them.

My first question for my madressa teacher was, "Why can't girls lead prayer?" I graduated to asking more nuanced questions, such as, "If the Koran came to Prophet Muhammad as a message of peace, why did he command his army to kill an entire Jewish tribe?"

You can imagine that such questions irritated the hell out of my madressa teacher, who routinely put down women and trashed the Jews. He and I reached the ultimate impasse over yet another question: "Where," I asked, "is the evidence of the 'Jewish conspiracy' against Islam? You love to talk about it, but what's the proof?" That question, posed at the age of 14, got me booted out of the madressa. Permanently.

At this point, I had a choice to make: I could walk away from my Muslim faith and get on with being my "emancipated" North American self, or I could give Islam another chance. Out of fairness to the faith, I gave Islam another chance. And another. And another. For the past 20 years, I've been educating myself about Islam. As a result, I've discovered a progressive side of my religion -- in theory.

But I remain a hugely ambivalent Muslim because of what's happening "on the ground" -- massive human rights violations, particularly against women and religious minorities -- in the name of Allah.

Liberal Muslims say that what I'm describing isn't "true" Islam. But these Muslims should own up to something: Prophet Muhammad himself said that religion is the way we conduct ourselves toward others. By that standard, how Muslims actually behave is Islam, and to sweep that reality under the rug of theory is to absolve ourselves of any responsibility for our fellow human beings.

That's why I'm struggling. That's why I'm passionate. And that leads me to what I consider to be the trouble with Islam.

The trouble with Islam is...

As I see it, the trouble with Islam is that individual lives are too small and the lies we tell to excuse that fact are too big. Neither has to be the case under a compassionate and merciful God, as Muslims like to describe Allah. The Trouble with Islam, then, is a plea for all of us, as citizens of the world, to help Islam fulfill its glorious humanitarian potential, so that we all gain in diversity, dignity and security.

At the beginning of my book, I call myself a "Muslim Refusenik". That doesn't mean I refuse to be a Muslim; it means that I refuse to join an army of automatons in the name of God.

In that spirit, I'm asking Muslims in the West a very basic question: Will we remain spiritually infantile, caving to cultural pressures to clam up and conform, or will we mature into full-fledged citizens, defending the very pluralism that allows us to be in this part of the world in the first place?

My question for non-Muslims is equally basic: Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam?

The Trouble with Islam is a wake-up call for honesty and change on everybody's part. Through the book and this website, let's create conversations where none existed before.

muslim-refusenik.com



To: Investor Clouseau who wrote (24852)7/10/2004 10:56:25 PM
From: Richnorth  Respond to of 27666
 
There's a new thread, "Trial of Saddam Hussein", where you may post your thoughts on Saddam.

For example, see

Message 20296911



To: Investor Clouseau who wrote (24852)7/12/2004 9:46:07 AM
From: Richnorth  Respond to of 27666
 
IC, maybe the following article will add to your insights regarding Saddam. Enjoy!

------------------------------------------------------

18 December 2003

The Trials of Saddam Hussein

By Gwynne Dyer

"(Saddam Hussein) was wise not to wait too long," said Colonel
James Hickey, commander of the American forces that took the former Iraqi
leader prisoner on 14 December. "We were about to clear that (underground
facility) in a military sort of way," he added, explaining that "things
like that are cleared with hand grenades, small arms, things like that."
But Hickey's instructions were to capture or kill' Saddam, and the latter
managed to get his hands up in time.

The Bush administration is probably wishing quite hard by now that
Saddam had waited a little longer and been killed in his hole. While
others debate where he should be tried and by whom, and whether he should
face the death penalty or not, President Bush's people will be realising
just about now that they can't afford to give him a fair trial at all.

He would certainly be convicted in the end: the evidence of
Saddam's crimes over the years is overwhelming. But in a fair trial, with
normal rules of evidence and reasonably competent defence lawyers, it would
be impossible to stop the defence from pointing out that every US
administration from 1980 to 1992 (all Republican administrations, as it
happens) was directly or indirectly complicit in his crimes.

During Saddam's quarter-century of power in Iraq, every year saw
tens of thousands of people tortured and killed, for that is the nature of
absolute dictatorships of any political ideology. Mao Tse-tung, the
Argentine generals and Idi Amin all did it, the Algerian regime, the
Burmese generals, and Kim Jong-Il are all doing it today. But nobody would
have tried Mao for the routine fifty or hundred thousand people killed by
his regime in an average year like 1962; they would have focused on the
millions who were exiled, tortured, and/or murdered during the Cultural
Revolution.

Saddam's career includes three great crimes: the use of poison gas
against Iranian troops during the 1980-88 war; the slaughter of rebellious
Iraqi Kurds towards the end of that war and just afterwards (again
involving the use of poison gas); and the massacres of Kurds and Shia Arabs
who rebelled against his rule after the Gulf War of 1991. After that, his
misdeeds fall back to a more mundane level.

These three great crimes, committed between 1983 and 1991, would be
the primary focus of any trial. The problem for the US government is that
it was directly implicated in the first two, and largely though indirectly
responsible for the third as well. A truly impartial court might even lay
charges against senior American political and military figures (including
some in the present administration) who assisted Saddam in his war crimes.
At the least, the whole process would be acutely embarrassing for the
United States.

US involvement with Saddam's regime began in 1983, when his
ill-advised invasion of Iran had backfired spectacularly and Iraq was
facing defeat at the hands of Ayatollah Khomeini's radically anti-American
regime in Iran. The US knew that Saddam was already illegally using
chemical weapons against Iranian troops on an almost daily basis, but in
December, 1983 the Reagan administration sent Donald Rumsfeld (now US
Defence Secretary) to Baghdad to tell Saddam that it was willing to help
and wanted to restore full diplomatic relations.

In the following years, the US government allowed vital ingredients
for chemical weapons to be exported to Iraq, together with dozens of
biological agents, including anthrax. It also supplied Iraq with
intelligence information on Iranian troop movements and positions, and from
1986 even sent US Air Force officers to Iraq to help interpret US-supplied
satellite and aerial photos to plan attacks against Iran -- in which it was
clearly understood by Washington that huge quantities of poison gas would
be used.

The Reagan administration used its influence to kill a Senate bill
banning the export of US military technology to Iraq to punish Saddam for
using chemical weapons against Iran. When Saddam used poison gas against
his own Kurdish population at Halabja in 1988, killing 6,800 innocent
people, US diplomats were instructed to blame the incident on Iran. All
this would come out in gory detail (and perhaps much more besides) if
Saddam ever got a fair and public trial.

The third great crime of the Saddam years was the massacre of
rebellious Shia Arabs and, to a lesser extent, of Kurds, after Saddam's
defeat in the 1991 war. These occurred because President George H.W. Bush
urged the Iraqi population to revolt against Saddam -- but when they did,
he withheld US military support, even allowing Saddam's helicopter gunships
to range freely over the rebellious areas. It was not complicity, but it
was at least great carelessness.

This is why there will probably be no public trial at all. It has
already become clear that the ousted Iraqi leader, contrary to Washington's
first statements, will not be treated as a prisoner of war although he is
technically the captured commander-in-chief of a defeated national army.
Instead, he will be assigned to the same legal limbo shared by the hundreds
who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo for the past two years, suffering
perpetual interrogation without the protection of the Geneva Conventions
and beyond the reach of any national law including that of the United
States.

Nobody at Guantanamo has yet been brought to trial. Saddam will be
the same.