Arab World vs Western World from their POV

[MKSheppard]

I knew the cheering mobs on 9-11 would get their sacred cow gored but good, when the fire of anger washed through my soul, and cleared away liberal weeds in my mind, leaving room to grow new ideas, and reexamine the unburned ones. I was not alone.

Indeed. I was a strong palestinian supporter and was overly critical of
Israel until that moment. They really shot themselves in the foot with their
subhuman cheering over 3,000 American deaths.

[Bob McDob]

Bob macDob, 1967 is important because it is a turning point in history which continues to affect Arab and Israeli attitudes and motivation to this day. It is still being discussed in high up circles over there as a point to return borders to in the event of a peace settlement.

I realize that. I was simply pointing out that times change, and propaganda from 1967 isn't the same propaganda from today. Remember 1941, let's kill all the Japs!

With that in mind, let's take the Way-Back machine to a few hours earlier in this thread.

Maybe you're being intentionally dense, but they're still doing the same
goddamned shit. Anyone remember that fat cow going lalalalalala
as the WTC collapsed?

I take it you mean the idiots dancing in the streets burning the stars and stripes? The very moment I saw this I had to grin evily, thinking 'they're gonna get ya, too, idiots'.

I'm sure this will get me labeled as a "namby-pamby traitorous America-hating liberal nigger-baby eating Marxist ass-clown", whatever that means ... but I was under the impression that the Palestinians were cheering something else and that CNN showed that right after Sept. 11 for some reason. I would like to stress that I might be wrong, and that if I am, please prove that I am, because that's what I've been told and I'll be spreading my ignorance until someone contradicts it.

I knew the cheering mobs on 9-11 would get their sacred cow gored but good, when the fire of anger washed through my soul, and cleared away liberal weeds in my mind, leaving room to grow new ideas, and reexamine the unburned ones. I was not alone.

I must point out that there are many people in the world who hate and despise America, not just in the Middle East. Lots of Europeans hate America, let's bomb them too!

(Note how I said America the government, not Americans the people. The majority of people around the world, even on "Arab Street", have a generally favorable impression of Americans in general - except, oddly enough, in purported allies like Jordan).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Which really gets me thinking if we (speaking for the West) aren't getting to the problem from the wrong side. All so far it seems to me that the western military apparatus has shown unbelievable restraint in all engagements post 1960 between the "Arab" nations and such of undoubtly western origin.
Israel (which I see as a western nation) was attacked from all fronts, every time, and despite having the measures to do so never did much more than holdings its ground. When they annexed the Sinai and the Golan Heights in 1967, Zahal could also as easily have marched right into Kairo and Damaskus, ethnically cleasing the region of Palestinians, driving them past the "new borders". But they held back. They even kept the Palestinians inside their occupation zones, making them de facto members of their state.
Even after Yom Khippur ('73), which was again a victory, albeit a close one, Israel never became overly territorially ambitious despite the fact that they easily could have pushed something like that through without having to fear major resistance!

The very same could be said for Gulf War II! A military victory like none a long time before - really? Slaughtering conscript divisions without any real battlefield coordination in the open desserts of the Two-Rivers' land, was that really a victory when the whole Arab world knew that Saddam had his creme de la creme divisions and all WMD back surrounding Baghdad - formations the coalition didn't harm back then?
Is it possibly this stance of just doing the miniscule necessary instead of the probably achievable that makes us look weak? We have stopped doing what we can do and instead rely on what we think is necessary - which oftenly turns out to be a misconception.
To draw an analogy, with the stance and attitude towards things the West seems to have developed over the past decades, something like the Requonquista would have been impossible. Back then it was the strong will, the persistence with which we tracked and fought such issues that ensured us the respect (and hate) of the Arab world, the will to get a thing done no matter the costs of money and life. This attitude made the European nations and the USA the dominant powers on this globe.

As long as we still keep to employ Sgt. Rummy's attitude of half-assedness and don't do the things the proper and hard way, so long the Arab world will continue to percieve us a weak.

Just a little rant...

Thank you, Posbi. Well, in one sense, I would add that Rumfeldt's proposals are not bad--the victory would have been all the more stunning if we could have done it with half the troops (Twice the glory! and all that...), but I do think that certainly the invasion of Iraq has helped in this at least. Assuming that it was launched for a strictly rational aim, it is going to have a vast effect on the populace of the region, and one that could indeed legitimize democracy for the average person, if we can get such a system working before we withdraw.

...The problem is that it discredited, if you will, only the "fascism" in "Islamofascism". The Islamists are very alive and well and indeed could point to the secularism of the Ba'athist regime as the reason for its defeat. That means that we have to similiarly demonstrate their impotence dramatically and directly to completely discredit the idea of Islamic government as well. Then perhaps we can start speaking with Israel.

I think of two ways to do this. One might be done internally in Iran, by the collapse of that regime through the inside. The problem, of course, is that regionally we again have the Shia/Sunni split--and so is the collapse of Iran's regime, a Persian regime, at that, going to halt Sunni Arab fanaticism? The alternative is to go after the most religious and most fanatical regime in the region, and that, of course, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

We have to show them that what they're doing now doesn't work. And I suspect that will be the only way to do it.

[Bob McDob]

We have to show them that what they're doing now doesn't work. And I suspect that will be the only way to do it.

I agree that the US and other nations need to do more to promote democracy in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, but military force is not the way to do it. I'm sure the Saudis will be thanking and loving us for killing their families and children.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

but military force is not the way to do it. I'm sure the Saudis will be thanking and loving us for killing their families and children.

That's the only way you can do it. That's the only way it has ever been done, ever since people swore to go out and kill for the local god and bring him sacrifices if victorious, or throw over his statue if they were defeated. They have a particular belief which leaves to conflict--and so you must demonstrate to them that it is worthless, and they should abandon it. You do that by defeating them in battle and showing them that their motivation is ineffectual against their enemy. Over and over and over again, if necessary.

[Bob McDob]

but military force is not the way to do it. I'm sure the Saudis will be thanking and loving us for killing their families and children.

That's the only way you can do it. That's the only way it has ever been done, ever since people swore to go out and kill for the local god and bring him sacrifices if victorious, or throw over his statue if they were defeated. They have a particular belief which leaves to conflict--and so you must demonstrate to them that it is worthless, and they should abandon it. You do that by defeating them in battle and showing them that their motivation is ineffectual against their enemy. Over and over and over again, if necessary.

That's different, though - the point would be valid if we were referring to al-Quada or some fanatical religious terrorist group, but I am under the understanding that while there are many Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, many other Saudis, far from loving their government, despise it and see it as totally corrupt. I'm probably wrong, I admit I am fairly ignorant on this point, and I promise to do more research into the issue in the meantime - but the fact is (and I quote from Salam Pax's blog, thanks for showing the link): "shoot indiscriminately at houses and shops make them go on house to house searches, tie up the men and put sacks on their heads and scare all the children - this would tilt your American-o-meter from the “I-don’t-really-care” position to the “what-the-fuck-do-they-think-they-are-doing?” position ... This sort of thing repeats itself and kind of snowballs from grumbles to calls for Jihad".

[Bob McDob]

One more thing: Yes, I am fairly ignorant on these matters - I never claimed I was a genius on this sort of thing. Why do you think I'm in this thread? It's not because I enjoy flaming, and it's not because I'm harboring some sort of agenda (although like anyone I have formed opinions, regardless of how woefully uninformed they may or may not be). I'm here because I recognize my ignorance on these matters, and I want to learn as much as possible. And, because of my general suspicion of books and media (and my inherent suspiscion of anyone who believes they know what's righh), I see this sort of debate as my only option, not necessary to know but to know what I don't know.

That's not to say I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist who believes everything ever written is some sort of horrible lie (although I admit I have leaned toward that in the past - my response following September 11, after the shock, was a textboot example of what you people would call "leftist blame america first conspiracy"). But I see debate like this as inherently superior to media because the opponents have an opportunity to face each other, ask questions and confront BS when it arises (and because of that reason I can say that, regardless of your political leanings, I probably have a higher opinion of you than most of the demagogue authors today).

I consider myself, I'm not sure what you say - intellectual? I'm a hot-tempered, angry person, who often says things in the heat of the moment - but I'm also someone who, when it cools off, feels bad about it and tends to apologize afterwards. (This seems like a good time to make a broad apology for any inappropriete remarks I may have made to anyone. I'm not exactly a social person). So, when I see something like Palestinians cheering as the World Trade Centers collapse and thousand sof Americans die - I don't remember my reaction at the moment, but I remember the one right after. Sadness. Infinite sadness. Why do they hate us? Let's confront the usual reasons:

They hate us because of our culture.
Why? What did our culture ever do to them? Nobody ever died by being attacked by a Coca-Cola bottle, right? It doesn't make sense, and I can't accept it.

They hate us because they are jealous of our wealth of power.
This makes more sense, but not much more. I'm jealous of Bill Gates's wealth and power, but I don't run around smashing airplanes into the Microsoft Building, do I? (Is there even a Microsoft Building?)

They hate us because they are mean, petty beings.
This one I cannon accept. I believe - perhaps naively, in spite of everything I've seen, in spite of the stupidity and pettiness I've seen all around me in humanity - that people are basically good and that they want to do the right thing. This is my most cherished belief, and it's one that I've clung to, even though people exhibit and perform horrible, unspeakable acts that anger, frustrate and baffle me every twelve seconds. Why? Why do they do it? Why?

I see a potential nobleness in the human spirit. I see heroes, even though I don't believe in heroes. And it just makes me sad, and depressed, when I see people who don't live up to the nobleness I believe is possible in them. Yes, I'm a sentimental bastard/

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's different, though - the point would be valid if we were referring to al-Quada or some fanatical religious terrorist group, but I am under the understanding that while there are many Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, many other Saudis, far from loving their government, despise it and see it as totally corrupt.

Exactly. The people of the KSA see their government as a totally corrupt agent of the Great Satan which does not follow Wahhabist Islam well enough.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

They hate us because of our culture.
Why? What did our culture ever do to them? Nobody ever died by being attacked by a Coca-Cola bottle, right? It doesn't make sense, and I can't accept it.

They do hate us because of our culture. They despise us because of our culture. And you know what? They're absolutely right to do so. That's the thing about it. The values of the Salafi groups (Wahhabism is a moderate form of Salafism) are anti-ethical to western civilization. The leaders of the Salafi groups perfectly understand this. They know that western democracy cannot live in the same world as feudal islamic theocracy. People will invariably choose to live in a western-style democracy over an islamic theocracy when presented with the choice.

So the solution is propaganda, to make democracy look bad, to make it look evil, to make it a place where culture would be wiped out, where Islam would be totally wiped out, instead of just their strict Sheria-loving version. And, as that fails, the solution is violence. Violence in the insane, to us, belief that they can destroy western democracy. This is insane to us but perfectly reasonably to Islam.

You see, to most western philosophies, there is an understanding that: Cause - Effect.

In Islam, however, a theory of "Occasionalism" rules, which postulates, when you see what appears to be Cause - Effect, you are actually seeing:

GOD
|
Causes Causes
| |
Cause Effect

With absolutely no relationship between the two except that they were both willed to occur by God. Therefore, statements like Osama's comment that the twin towers were destroyed by God are, to him, literally true, as in the Occasionalism of Islamic philosophy, God causes everything that happens in the world, with no interrelation between any events whatsoever.

What this leads to for the fundamentalist islamic warrior is a belief that, if his faith is pure enough, God can and will literally destroy the West. There is no need for Islam to have comparable arms to us. Spiritual faith will carry the day, as God causes everything that happens in the world and, if gratified by the sacrifices the jihadis make in the struggle, will simply wipe the West out of existence with a thought. Since the Islamic warrior is far more spiritually strong and purposeful to the weak and culturally impure westerner, victory is thus assured in their eyes.

They have, in this context, nothing to lose with the promise of heaven before them--and literally the whole world to gain from their continued fighting.

[Andrew J.]

Now I've gotten all depressed. It seems to me that the only way we could possibly get rid of the Islamofascist threat is genocide.

[MKSheppard]

I can't believe someone like you actually made it this far
without actually cracking a history book open.

They hate us because of our culture.
Why? What did our culture ever do to them? Nobody ever died by being attacked by a Coca-Cola bottle, right? It doesn't make sense, and I can't accept it.

They hate us precisely for that. Go read up on the propaganda that has
been spewing out of the Arab world for the last few decades.

"Great Satan" ring a fucking bell you dumbshit?

*runs over BobMcDob with his gore-encrusted '79 chevy*

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Now I've gotten all depressed. It seems to me that the only way we could possibly get rid of the Islamofascist threat is genocide.

I don't think it's that severe; there are other Islamic traditions, after all. But there is a certain segment of the population, obviously, which is beholden of these and will fight to the death; and this segment is of a decent size, and growing.

Observe:

Islamic Philosophy

Has a better diagram of Occasionalism; here's the good bit from it:

Although the Islamic philosophers in the Greek tradition did very substantial work, some of the more original ideas are found in Islamic theology, called Kalâm ("Talk"). The theologians (mutakallimûn) were not tied to Greek ideas and were concerned to achieve characteristically Islamic answers to traditional religious questions. Kalâm, to be sure, started with a Hellenizing and even Christianizing tendency in the form of the Mu'tazilite school, which defended human free will and regarded God in the Greek sense as reasonable, just, and good. Although this appealed even to the great Caliph al-Ma'mûn, it did not last long. The Caliph al-Mutawakkil (847-861) turned against such Christianizing doctrines. Islamic orthodoxy became the systematization of the omnipotence of God, which eliminated free will [11] and produced novel doctrines like what has been called Islamic "Occasionalism": the idea that every event in the world, including our own acts, and the world itself at every moment in time, is directly caused and created by the agency of God.

The definitive form of orthodoxy was established by al-'Ash'arî (873-935). In time this led, interestingly, to the greatest Islamic philosopher, al-Ghazâlî (or al-Ghazzâlî, 1059-1111). Al-Ghazâlî was not really a theologian, but he wasn't strictly a "philosopher" (faylasûf) either, since the word in Arabic implied adherence to the Greek tradition: In his famous Tahâfut al-Falâsifah (The Incoherence of the Philosophers) al-Ghazâlî denounced most of Neoplatonic Greek philosophy as incompatible with Islam, since philosophers had taught, among other things, that the world was eternal and not created in time by God and that God (like Aristotle's God) only knew universals, not individuals. Al-Ghazâlî considered much of this not just heresy but actual apostasy, which under Islamic law would have been punishable by death. Although in refuting the philosophers al-Ghazâlî produced some of the most original philosophy of the Middle Ages, including a critique of causality (supporting Occasionalism, as above) that would not be picked up again until David Hume (1711-1776), this denunciation effectively ended the growth of philosophy in the Greek tradition in the central Islamic lands.

Though the Neo-Platonic and Sufist traditions continued in Spain, and Sufism was promoted by the Ottoman Empire and became the modern equivlant of a "liberal" Islam that was nearly the state sanctioned version of Islam for the Ottomans, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire by Arab forces led to those Arabs adopting a more traditional, and Arab form of Islam in general--essentially that outlined above, which in its most extreme form, are the Salafi sects.

The word Salafi means, incidently, "early muslim" (roughly), and so the Salafi sects are essentially the various ones, including the Wahhabis, that try to emulate early their conception of what early Muslims were like--who are defined as people who lived in the first four hundred years after the Prophet, or else roughly in the 11th century or prior.

[Bob McDob]

I can't believe someone like you actually made it this far
without actually cracking a history book open.

I'm an amorphous goo-blob; I go with the flow.

"Someone like me" would consider it very helpful if you would recommend a history book.

Chevys suck.

That is all.

The leaders of the Salafi groups perfectly understand this. They know that western democracy cannot live in the same world as feudal islamic theocracy. People will invariably choose to live in a western-style democracy over an islamic theocracy when presented with the choice.

Except the Salafis!

Exactly. The people of the KSA see their government as a totally corrupt agent of the Great Satan which does not follow Wahhabist Islam well enough.

Hey, if you can arrange a duel on equal terms between them and us, I'd be all for it.

[MKSheppard]

"Someone like me" would consider it very helpful if you would recommend a history book.

Go to a fucking library and ask for the Middle East section, you drooling
nimrod. Fucking Christ, you're more dense and stupid than Dark Star and
RayCav put together.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except the Salafis!

Exactly. I mean, look at the U.S. -- There's about 3% of the population that consistantly votes for fringe parties. They're just lunatics, that's all, insensible lunatics--who happen, in a situation where democracy cannot turn them into fringe parties, to be able to exercise great influence via propaganda, and exploit the nastiness of the situation greated by the incompetence of the existing regimes. And if we don't eliminate those people and stop the spread of that propaganda, it will win through simple inaction, because they've managed to gain the influence and the control simply by talking louder and more convincingly than everyone else.

[Bob McDob]

Go to a fucking library and ask for the Middle East section, you drooling
nimrod. Fucking Christ, you're more dense and stupid than Dark Star and
RayCav put together.

I'll assume that's a compliment from you.

Except the Salafis!

Exactly. I mean, look at the U.S. -- There's about 3% of the population that consistantly votes for fringe parties. They're just lunatics, that's all, insensible lunatics--who happen, in a situation where democracy cannot turn them into fringe parties, to be able to exercise great influence via propaganda, and exploit the nastiness of the situation greated by the incompetence of the existing regimes. And if we don't eliminate those people and stop the spread of that propaganda, it will win through simple inaction, because they've managed to gain the influence and the control simply by talking louder and more convincingly than everyone else.

Surely there has to be a way to eliminate them without war, though? YYou admitted yourself that there was a fair portion of the population not yet converted, and the widespread destruction and chaos a war would bring would not exactly endear them to us. And endearing them to us is, I think, exactly what we need at the moment, one way or another.

BTW; thanks for the website. I haven't had a chance to look over it enough, but I'm doing it now.

[MKSheppard]

Dammit, I don't like it when you recommend books that are harder to read than "How to suck Horse Cock Safetly in 10 easy Steps complete with pictures!"

Typical. The nimrod is a SBer, and he has to have his hand held to guide
him through the simplest of research.

[Bob McDob]

Dammit, I don't like it when you recommend books that are harder to read than "How to suck Horse Cock Safetly in 10 easy Steps complete with pictures!"

Typical. The nimrod is a SBer, and he has to have his hand held to guide
him through the simplest of research.

I'm rather anti-SpaceBattles now, actually.

Don't even get me started on the Horse Cock

[Posbi]

Dammit, I don't like it when you recommend books that are harder to read than "How to suck Horse Cock Safetly in 10 easy Steps complete with pictures!"

Typical. The nimrod is a SBer, and he has to have his hand held to guide
him through the simplest of research.

Never heard of that guy.

[MKSheppard]

Don't even get me started on the Horse Cock

Well, that's what you get when you tell ME to recommend
something for you! I can only tolerate one "how do I do this?"
idiot at a time, and RayCav has that spot filled for the next
year or so.

[Bob McDob]

Don't even get me started on the Horse Cock

Well, that's what you get when you tell ME to recommend
something for you! I can only tolerate one "how do I do this?"
idiot at a time, and RayCav has that spot filled for the next
year or so.

Wow, RayCav's still alive?

[MKSheppard]

Wow, RayCav's still alive?

Yes, and I have to deal with him.

Christ, after you've dealt with him, you lose patience insanely fast.

"Just kill her"...

"How?"

"Do I have to draw you a fucking map? Just choke her!"

"How?"

and so on...

[Coyote]

Bob McDob, they do indeed hate us for our culture. You do not know how that is so, but it is indeed the truth. That we give women a voice in things; that we do not follow religious codes; we do not dress modestly; our culture promotes hedonism and alcohol and mixing of the sexes; and so on.

I mentioned in another thread the Egyptian Hasan al-Bana. He visited the US in the late 1940's and was horrified and disgusted at the "loose" behavior of Americans. To him and others like him he thought we were corrupt and sinful, and ignored God. It also rubbed him the wrong way that even though we were sinful we seemed to be blessed by God to be superior in wealth and influence.

He returned to Egypt and spread the word that the reasons Arabs were downtrodden by the West was because of a lack of proper moral (religious) guidance by Aran leaders. He started the "Muslim Brotherhood" social movement to bring about strict religious observance. He was killed by the Nasser government, who held him as a political prisoner, in the 1950's. His book, "Signposts", has become a sort of inspirational reader for his adherets, who have since branched out into terrorism. They killed Anwar Sadat because he signed a peace treaty with Israel.

To these people, our money and wealth comes from whoring and pimping, if not our bodies then our souls and ideals. Our "loose sexual immorality" is proof that we disdain God and embrace hedonistic wants. Our billboards and entertainment encourage our women to dress and act like sluts-- yet the West rules the world's markets and industry.

To these uber-activists, God will not smile on the Muslim world again until the "filth of the West" has been removed by good and true Believers.

[Bob McDob]

1st: A google search for "Hasan al-Bana" brings up nothing but a biography in Indian or something and a book called "Hasan al-Banna: Vision & Mission" which apparently describes Salafism as being roughly analogous to the Protestant Reformation reacting to Catholic corruption. Of course, the sample pages of the self-described "objective" source seem to act like Salafism is the greatest thing ever, but that's no reason to discount it.

2nd: Searching for "Hasan al-Banna" brings up another website, The Wahabbi Myth. I'll cut and paste the relevent parts here to be addressed.

Salafism/"Wahhabism" is continually portrayed in the media as being a foreign, unsound creed that is based upon irrational precepts which contradict common sense. We are led to believe that Salafism is an erroneous creed which leads to extremism and terrorism. We are told that Salafism is unsuitable for these times, and that it differs from "mainstream" Islam. As such, we are led to believe that it is not genuinely Islamic in its nature.

This situation is compounded by the fact that those journalists who had only heard about Islam prior to September 11 have now suddenly become experts in religion and are writing newspaper articles about Islam and Salafism. Their major claim which is repeatedly mentioned is that Osama Bin Laden is a "Wahhabi", only because he was born in Saudi Arabia. This one-dimensional viewpoint overlooks the fact that not everyone who lives in Saudi Arabia is Salafi ("Wahhabi") in belief and methodology, just as not everyone who lives in England is a member of the Anglican Church.

Shaykh Muhammad Bin Saalih al-'Uthaymeen was asked the following concerning attacking an enemy by blowing oneself up, "What is the ruling regarding acts of jihad by means of suicide, such as attaching explosives to a car and storming the enemy, whereby he knows without a doubt that he shall die as a result of this action?"

Shaykh al-'Uthaymeen responded by saying, "Indeed, my opinion is that he is regarded as one who has committed suicide, and as a result he shall be punished in Hell, for that which is authenticated on the authority of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), "Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever."

The late Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, the former Mufti (verdict giver) of Saudi Arabia, made the following comment about acts of terrorism: "From that which is known to anyone who has the slightest bit of common sense, is that hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent; the total effect of which none can comprehend except Allah.

In specific reference to the Egyptian Qutbist group which eventually saw some of its members become associated with al-Qaeda, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz was asked, "What is the verdict concerning Jamaa'atul-Jihaad (The Jihad Party of Egypt) and co-operation with them?"

He answered, "...They are not to be co-operated with, nor are they to be given salutations (salaam). Rather, they are to be cut off from, and the people are to be warned against their evil, since they are a tribulation and are harmful to the Muslims, and they are the brothers of the Devil."

In his book al-Irhaab (Terrorism), Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhali spoke about the iniquity of those who spread corruption in the earth: "And certainly, I say without doubt, that these kinds of people, May Allah guide them, divert people from the path of truth in the way they act towards people. And no one is safe from their evil in their lands, except those who are a part of their party of which destroys, and does not build, corrupts much, and does not rectify."

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen of Unaiza, Saudi Arabia, also affirms this orthodox belief. Prior to his passing away, he gave some advice to a Salafi community in the British city of Birmingham, via tele-link from Saudi Arabia. Speaking about several different topics, he had the following advice for the Salafi youth of Great Britain regarding interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims:

"...Likewise I invite you to have respect for those people who have the right that they should be respected, from those between you and whom there is an agreement. For the land in which you are living is such that there is an agreement between you and them. If this were not the case, they would have killed you or expelled you. So preserve this agreement, and do not prove treacherous to it, since treachery is a sign of the hypocrites, and it is not from the way of the Believers.

And know that it is authentically reported from the Prophet that he said, "Whoever kills one who is under an agreement of protection will not smell the fragrance of Paradise."

Do not be deceived by the sayings of the foolish people who say, 'Those people are not Muslims, so their wealth is lawful for us.' For I swear by Allah - this is a lie; a lie about Allah's Religion, and a lie that Islamic societies (hold this to be true).

So we may not say that it is lawful to be treacherous towards people whom we have an agreement with. O my brothers. O youth. O Muslims. Be truthful in your buying and selling, and renting, and leasing, and in all mutual transactions. Because truthfulness is from the characteristics of the Believers, and Allah - the Most High - has commanded truthfulness,

"O you who believe - keep your duty to Allah,
and be with the truthful."

And the Prophet encouraged truthfulness and said, "Adhere to truthfulness, because truthfulness leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise; and a person will continue to be truthful, and strive to be truthful, until he will be written down with Allah as a truthful person."

And he warned against falsehood, and said, "Beware of falsehood, because falsehood leads to wickedness, and wickedness leads to the Fire. And a person will continue lying and striving to lie until he is written down with Allah as a great liar."

On November 9, 2001, Hamid Mir of the Pakistani daily, The Dawn, interviewed Osama Bin Laden just prior to the fall of Kabul:

Hamid Mir: "After (the) American bombing on Afghanistan on Oct 7, you told Al-Jazeera TV that the September 11 attacks had been carried out by some Muslims. How did you know they were Muslims?"

Osama bin Laden: "The Americans themselves released a list of the suspects of the September 11 attacks, saying that the persons named were involved in the attacks. They were all Muslims, of whom 15 belonged to Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE and one from Egypt. According to the information I have, they were all passengers. Fateha was held for them in their homes. But America said they were hijackers."

Bin Laden's statement, "Fateha was held for them in their homes," is referring to the reading of the opening chapter of the Quran for the souls of the deceased, a common practice of the Sufis. This act of worship has no basis in Islam. More precisely, this is an innovated practice which later generations of Sufi Muslims invented. This statement indicates that Osama Bin Laden is neither knowlegeable about Islam, nor is he attached to the principles and practices of Salafism. A "Wahhabi" would never speak about reading al-Fatiha over the souls of the dead, whereas a Sufi would.

Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee is one of the more senior scholars of the city of Medina, Saudi Arabia. Shortly after the events of September 11, he was asked by a group of Salafi youth in Toronto, Canada, to advise the Muslims as to what their position should be regarding the terrorist attacks. After a short preliminary speech, the lecturer at the Islamic University of Medina recited the following verse from the Quran:

"Thus We have made you a just and most balanced nation, that you may be witnesses over mankind (on the Day of Judgement), and the Messenger be a witness over you."

"Hence, Islam is a balanced and moderate way, and it does not enter into negligence on the one hand, nor exaggeration or extremism on the other. It is balanced in between (these two extremes)… In addition, Islam encourages equity and justice amidst both Muslims and non-Muslims.

"Verily, Allah enjoins justice, the doing of good, and giving to kith and kin; He forbids all shameful and prohibited deeds, and oppression. He admonishes you, that you may take heed."

Continuing in his address, Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee spoke about the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), saying: "And he also forbade those fighting in jihad from killing women, children, the elderly and the ascetics who are devoted to worship, as well as forbidding the cutting down of trees and so on - despite the fact that the associates of these categories of people may be involved in fighting with the Muslims.

Based upon what has preceded, then we say; that which we believe and hold as our religion concerning what happened to the World Trade Centre in America - and in Allah lies success - is that the terrorist attacks that took place and what occurred of general (mass) killing; this is not permissible and Islam does not allow it in any form whatsoever. Islam frees itself from this action…

So Islam does not allow them (these deeds), nor do Muslims perform them, and the true followers of Islam - which is balanced and moderate - they free themselves from these actions and from those who performed them…

In this centre, there were nothing but innocent non-Muslims and Muslims from all the various parts of the world, of different races. They had material possessions and assets in these buildings, and so all of this is impermissible; this is oppression upon both Muslims and non-Muslims. Even if people (who were responsible) claim that they had valid reasons for perpetrating this; this is not the correct way.

It is obligatory upon the Muslims in this country and elsewhere, and upon the students of knowledge, to explain that this action is free from Islam, and that Islam is free from these actions. I request them to make clear this issue, with certainty - and to be truthful when they explain this issue - without compromising the religion of Islam, and without giving a bad impression of Islam.

And we say, to whomever has justice and fairness amongst the non-Muslims, that they should reflect upon this matter, and not take it out on innocent Muslims and Arabs, for there are millions of them in the United States. They should also not accept everything from the media without question. It is desirable for the American people to understand that Islam does not support these affairs, and that they should not use the media in order to ascribe these actions to Islam. And the Muslims in those areas should participate in explaining that these affairs are not from Islam…

May Allah guide us to what He is loved and pleased with, and may He raise the rank of the Prophet, and that of his family and companions, and grant them peace."

Mr. Bin Laden does seem to have deviated from the radical tradition in one sense, by focusing his attacks on the United States rather than Arab regimes. In his 1996 declaration, he went so far as to say that Muslims should put aside their own differences so as to focus on the struggle against the Western enemy - a serious departure from the doctrine of Qutb and even Sadat's killers, who argued that the internal struggle was the one that mattered."

"But that may be merely a shift in tactics not in overall strategy," says Worth. Regarding this change in tactics, Worth quotes Michael Doran, a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University: "Bin Laden is using the U.S. as an instrument in his struggle with other Muslims," Mr. Doran said. "He wants the U.S. to strike back disproportionately, because he believes that will outrage Muslims and inspire them to overthrow their governments and build an Islamic state..."

[Bob McDob]

So the solution is propaganda, to make democracy look bad, to make it look evil, to make it a place where culture would be wiped out, where Islam would be totally wiped out, instead of just their strict Sheria-loving version.

If even that. I mean, we tolerate our fundies, right? And there's no doubt that these people are fundies (particularly the ones I've posted above), but that doesn't mean they're irrelevent.