NationStates Jolt Archive

Lynne Stewart got twenty years today. For those of you who don't know her, she is a leftist pimple that should have been disbarred in the seventies.

At any rate, her constant lawbreaking has finally caught up with her.

Cliky thingy (http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/national/11stewartcnd.html&OQ=pagewantedQ3D2&OP=46936be4/y4ScyIbQ26Q3EvbbZQ27yQ2799Wy9Q27y}9yE0Z3bE0ky}}Q3EZS40vZQ26EIDXZdk)

I do admit that Ward Churchill has broken no laws -yet - I just put his name in because I don't like him. (Although the cherokee group he claims to be related to
deny any knowledge of him, and apparently he has been falisifying data in his papers so it does look like he'll be fired).

Well, he does seem to provide "aid and comfort to the enemy." Several people were executed in WW2 for helping Nazi propaganda...

Lynne Stewart got twenty years today. For those of you who don't know her, she is a leftist pimple that should have been disbarred in the seventies.


Get ready for a slew of new ones. The courts have already said that the Guantanimo Prisoners must be tried in open court and have access to lawyers, etc.

I guess that whole right to representation in court shouldn't apply to anyone labelled "terrorist" and anyone who would take up the mantle to defend such a person must be a traitor, eh?

You'll find that Stewart's conviction will be overturned on appeal to a higher court. Just wait. She was doing her job.

Get ready for a slew of new ones. The courts have already said that the Guantanimo Prisoners must be tried in open court and have access to lawyers, etc.

I guess that whole right to representation in court shouldn't apply to anyone labelled "terrorist" and anyone who would take up the mantle to defend such a person must be a traitor, eh?

You'll find that Stewart's conviction will be overturned on appeal to a higher court. Just wait. She was doing her job.

No, I have no trouble with the vast majority of civil rights attorneys. My problem with this stewart woman is not her choice of client - because that is irrelevant - but her history of misconduct. It's finally caught up with her, and I am happy about it. I cannot abide attorney's who break the law and rules of professional conduct because they think the ends justify the means.

And this is not going to be overturned. Not by the second circuit.

I would also add, attorneys who have defended gangs and drug syndicates have wound up in exactly the same trouble, for exactly the same reason. (Although they did throw the book at her sentence wise, I guess she pissed the judge off too.)

Get ready for a slew of new ones. The courts have already said that the Guantanimo Prisoners must be tried in open court and have access to lawyers, etc.

I guess that whole right to representation in court shouldn't apply to anyone labelled "terrorist" and anyone who would take up the mantle to defend such a person must be a traitor, eh?

You'll find that Stewart's conviction will be overturned on appeal to a higher court. Just wait. She was doing her job.
Nice try, but this will not be overturned. She used her status as the lawyer to pass information between her client and his terrorist group. She also allowed her client to communicate with his lieutenants by lying and saying they were translators, then making up stories to cover up her lies.


"Stewart was convicted on two counts of conspiring to provide material aid to terrorists, by making the views and instructions of Mr. Abdel Rahman available to his followers in the Islamic Group, a militant organization in Egypt with a history of terrorist violence. She was also convicted on three counts of perjury and defrauding the government for knowingly flouting federal prison rules that barred Mr. Abdel Rahman, a blind Islamic cleric from Egypt, from communicating with anyone outside his federal prison except for his lawyers and a wife."

Read the article before posting your lunacy, Keruvalia (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/national/11stewartcnd.html?position=&ei=5065&en=bde41f3c116191db&ex=1108702800&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1108098725-TPGWd9dELCdCMTZK818GZQ)

I would add, Keruvalia, that if you want to preserve respect for those who follow your religion, you ought not leap to the defense of every terrorist who happens to greet others with "asalaam walaikum." Most terrorists do these days, unfortunately, but the world is going to be a lot less hasty to judge Muslims if they actually see a few denounce jihad in more unequivocal terms. As for Lynne Stewart, I hope she rots in whatever hole they throw her into.

I would add, Keruvalia, that if you want to preserve respect for those who follow your religion, you ought not leap to the defense of every terrorist who happens to greet others with "asalaam walaikum." Most terrorists do these days, unfortunately, but the world is going to be a lot less hasty to judge Muslims if they actually see a few denounce jihad in more unequivocal terms. As for Lynne Stewart, I hope she rots in whatever hole they throw her into.


One of my favorite things about the federal penal system for women is it is much more "democratic" than then men's. If stewart was a man, she'd be looking at federal minimum security, which as we all know is "easy" time. (Private rooms, winter in FLA, summer in PA, nice grounds, fellow inmates all white collar).

Lacking the numbers, the woman's system is not so segregated by classification (and for that matter has no private rooms) so some of her new collegues may be a little "rough" around the edges. Good stuff.

Well she did once say she trusted criminals more than she did most people in the suburbs. She should be happy she's safely with her people now.

but the world is going to be a lot less hasty to judge Muslims if they actually see a few denounce jihad in more unequivocal terms.

I think I would be much more quick on your part not to automatically assume these people to be Muslims. Why is it that Christians can say, "Oh he's not a true Christian" when it comes to someone like, say, Saddam Hussein's second in command, but it is unequivocably accepted that if someone blows up something in the name of Allah, they are Muslim.

If you are Muslim and reject Allah's law, then you become apostate and are no longer Muslim. These men, such as Osama bin Laden, reject Allah's law. These acts of violence against the innocent are condemned in Qur'an. Every Muslim knows this and we have said it time and time and time again.

We have denounced terrorism at every turn of the hat. We have stepped up and said we will not tolerate it and that it must end. We do not support nor do we condone the actions of these men, but our words fall on deaf ears.

Perhaps it is because we do not apologize for their actions? Unfortunately, you'll never get an apology out of me for something I had nothing to do with.

I would add, Keruvalia, that if you want to preserve respect for those who follow your religion

I'd also like to point out that we seek not the comfort of men, but only the protection and comfort of Allah. Muslims are not interested in PR. 99% of us are honest, hard working, industrious, gentle, kind, and charitable people.

Stop dwelling on the 1% who are not.

Nice try, but this will not be overturned.

Give it time ... wait and see. Convictions for much worse crimes have been overturned on appeal.

Give it time ... wait and see. Convictions for much worse crimes have been overturned on appeal.

any conviction can be overturned, if there is an error at the lower court level. It's not going to happen in this case.

I am not looking at it from a muslim/christian perspective. But rather, as is the habit of this moldy old douchebag, that she completely ignored ethics and the law.

The attorney client relationship is not to be used in the furtherence of a crime. It would be the same if she had taken information from a mob-boss to his "family" on the outside. (And I dareday you wouldn't complain in that instance).

Also, don't say she was just taking innocent messages to his freinds and family. That's not her job as counsel. If they are not material to his case, she probably shouldn't be speaking to them. (for tactical reasons if nothing else, like you should never ask your client if he "did" it.)

I am not looking at it from a muslim/christian perspective. But rather, as is the habit of this moldy old douchebag, that she completely ignored ethics and the law.


It's possible, I don't know. I have not read the court transcripts and I am not a student of law, are you? This sort of thing, however, is exactly why we have an appeals process.

Just because we don't like somebody does not give us the right to dismiss them out of hand and lock them up and throw away the key. She may be innocent, but was faced with a harsh judge and biased jury.

Smarter men and women than you and I will examine this and we shall see what happens.

It's possible, I don't know. I have not read the court transcripts and I am not a student of law, are you? This sort of thing, however, is exactly why we have an appeals process.

Just because we don't like somebody does not give us the right to dismiss them out of hand and lock them up and throw away the key. She may be innocent, but was faced with a harsh judge and biased jury.

Smarter men and women than you and I will examine this and we shall see what happens.

I'm from the area, the woman is somewhat notorious in local circles for her "antics." Like I said, there are many extremely left wing lawyers I respect, even though I don't agree with them, because they adhere to the ethical standards of the practice of law.

Take Kunsler & Kuby, about as left wing as you can get. This would never have happened to them, because they are consumate professionals.

This individual was an accident waiting to happen, I didn't think her downfall would be quite as spectacular, but hey, sometimes bad things happen to bad people.

Thie other aspect of this is that a great deal of these ethics rules are in place for the client. What kind of defense do you think she was giving her client. This is especially bad, because courts almost never overturn a verdict owing to sloppy lawyering - which is what this woman was all about.

The bottom line is they way she behaved hurt the image of justice system (and it really can't afford that) and her clients. It's realloy a good result.

The bottom line is they way she behaved hurt the image of justice system (and it really can't afford that) and her clients. It's realloy a good result.

Aye ... that may be. However, if a staunchly Republican/Conservative justice system such as Texas will overturn Andrea Yates's murder convictions (she drowned her five children), it is conceivable that Stewart's could be overturned as well.

We live in a society where judges tend to do things just to get attention.

Aye ... that may be. However, if a staunchly Republican/Conservative justice system such as Texas will overturn Andrea Yates's murder convictions (she drowned her five children), it is conceivable that Stewart's could be overturned as well.

We live in a society where judges tend to do things just to get attention.

Well, that's true. It is *possible* she is innocent on this one, though given her past I highly doubt it.

The other thing is that she was convicted in the southern district of new york: First, the quality of judges there is pretty damn high and they have much better support in terms of clerks for bench memos and the rest. Second, the jury in this instance was almost certainly not right-wing (7 to 1 democrats/republicans in the pool I would imagine based on local registration). Third, the US attorney is a Kelly is not a bush appointee.

I didn't follow the Yates case, but wasn't their some prosecutorial shenanigans with expert witnesses? I don't think there will be that kind of screw up here.

As to judges getting attention; that's normally not a problem in SDNY. They usually have aspirations of getting moved up the bench, and a screw up on a hot potato like this would really hurt their chances. It's really more of a problem, I think, with state judges where people go on to run for office.

If you are Muslim and reject Allah's law, then you become apostate and are no longer Muslim. These men, such as Osama bin Laden, reject Allah's law.

In that case it should be easy to find a fatwah declaring Osama to be an apostate? Just one, that's all I'm asking.

99% of us are honest, hard working, industrious, gentle, kind, and charitable people.

Undoubtedly true, BUT you're not good at dealing with the few bastards in your midst (both in the Middle East and in immigrant communities). Whether that is because you are thoroughly intimidated by them or because you secretly agree, I do not know.

These acts of violence against the innocent are condemned in Qur'an. Every Muslim knows this and we have said it time and time and time again.

Sorry to cross post from another thread, but...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8133351#post8133351

(Sura 47 - Mohammed, verse 4)
When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a
great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters.

(Sura 76 - Man, verse 5)
For the Infidels we have got ready chains and collars and flaming fire.

(Sura 8 - Spoils, verse 12)
When thy Lord spake unto the angels, "I will be with you: therefore stablish
ye the faithful. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels." Strike
off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger-tip.

and lots more in the same vein. And the peaceful verses are...?

We have denounced terrorism at every turn of the hat. We have stepped up and said we will not tolerate it and that it must end. We do not support nor do we condone the actions of these men, but our words fall on deaf ears.

Sorry K, that is not what I'm seeing. The MSA is out in force on campus calling the Israelis terrorists and defending Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Aqsa.

Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza preach hatred in their mosques in Britain, and similar (although to a lesser degree) in the USA. Does any Muslim stand up and denounce them?

What I am most certainly not seeing an all-Muslim-American regiment fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan, just like there was an all-Japanese American regiment in WW2. Yes, there are a few, but...

Well, he does seem to provide "aid and comfort to the enemy." Several people were executed in WW2 for helping Nazi propaganda...

certainly not to the extent of pat robertson and jerry falwell, though.

In that case it should be easy to find a fatwah declaring Osama to be an apostate? Just one, that's all I'm asking.

Only the Caliph can make a fatwah. The Caliphate has been abolished for nearly 100 years now. Imams can make local fatwahs for their communities, but not for all Muslims.

Undoubtedly true, BUT you're not good at dealing with the few bastards in your midst (both in the Middle East and in immigrant communities). Whether that is because you are thoroughly intimidated by them or because you secretly agree, I do not know.

They're pretty hard to recognize. If the US Army - arguably the greatest fighting force in the history of mankind - cannot find Osama bin Laden, how do you expect me to?



(Sura 47 - Mohammed, verse 4)
When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a
great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters.

Surah Muhammed 4: "Therefore, when ye meet* the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

If you look back to 1-3, you'll find that this is talking about those who hinder men from the path of Allah. This is how we are to treat those who would try to stop us from our very religion or our very existence. I see nothing wrong with it. Also, when quoting Qur'an, it's nice to quote the whole verse and not skip bits.

(Sura 76 - Man, verse 5)
For the Infidels we have got ready chains and collars and flaming fire.

I think you mean verse 4 here, not 5.
Surah al Insan 4: "For the Rejecters we have prepared chains, yokes, and a blazing Fire."

Rejecters, not Infidels. The word Infidel is not used in Qur'an. Not once. There is a difference. This case is referring to a Muslim who rejects Allah. This is also in reference to the afterlife, to Hell, not to a worldly punishment.

(Sura 8 - Spoils, verse 12)
When thy Lord spake unto the angels, "I will be with you: therefore stablish
ye the faithful. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels." Strike
off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger-tip.

Surah al Anfal 12: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.""

This is an instructional. It's telling warriors to be brave (something we do all the time) and instructs them on ways of tending to the enemy. If a man is coming at you with a sword and armor, hit the neck (it's generally not as well protected) or chop off the fingers (a man with no fingers cannot swing a sword).

It's really just common sense.

Islam is a peaceful religion and we are a peaceful people. However, being peaceful does not mean cow and accept everyone who wants to walk all over you. Being peaceful does not mean being slaves.


Sorry K, that is not what I'm seeing. The MSA is out in force on campus calling the Israelis terrorists and defending Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Aqsa.

College kids are notorious for being rabble rousers. The people in the MSA at your school need to be reminded of a few things.

Surah al Ma'idah 8: "O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do."

Surah al Hujurat 13: "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other not that ye may despise each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)."

Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza preach hatred in their mosques in Britain, and similar (although to a lesser degree) in the USA. Does any Muslim stand up and denounce them?

Yes ... but usually internally. We don't feel the need to have a press conference every time we disagree with someone. After all, many of these people have not been put into a fair trial, by a jury of their peers, nor found guilty by the same; hence, to call them a "terrorist" would be unjustly labelling them and, hence, the sin of bearing false witness.

What I am most certainly not seeing an all-Muslim-American regiment fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan, just like there was an all-Japanese American regiment in WW2. Yes, there are a few, but...

Shrug ... so what? We don't like to go to war. We will only do it in self-defense and only then if it is necessary. There are plenty of Muslims in the US Armed Forces fighting overseas right now. However, the war in Iraq is not self-defense. Iraq did not attack us and, thus, according to Islam, it is an unjust war.

In that case it should be easy to find a fatwah declaring Osama to be an apostate? Just one, that's all I'm asking.



Undoubtedly true, BUT you're not good at dealing with the few bastards in your midst (both in the Middle East and in immigrant communities). Whether that is because you are thoroughly intimidated by them or because you secretly agree, I do not know.



Sorry to cross post from another thread, but...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8133351#post8133351

(Sura 47 - Mohammed, verse 4)
When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a
great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters.

(Sura 76 - Man, verse 5)
For the Infidels we have got ready chains and collars and flaming fire.

(Sura 8 - Spoils, verse 12)
When thy Lord spake unto the angels, "I will be with you: therefore stablish
ye the faithful. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels." Strike
off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger-tip.

and lots more in the same vein. And the peaceful verses are...?



Sorry K, that is not what I'm seeing. The MSA is out in force on campus calling the Israelis terrorists and defending Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Aqsa.

Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza preach hatred in their mosques in Britain, and similar (although to a lesser degree) in the USA. Does any Muslim stand up and denounce them?

What I am most certainly not seeing an all-Muslim-American regiment fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan, just like there was an all-Japanese American regiment in WW2. Yes, there are a few, but...

[Reasonable hat on] Though I can't really speak for K, not really knowing him and all, I don't think this type of thing helps either side. From what I have read of K's posts, it seems like he is genuinely tolerant, peace loving and open minded, and has chosen Islam because it reflects those values. (Though he may say Islam chose him I don't really know how it works).

At any rate, it seems he finds islam to be a religion of peace, modesty and acceptance of others. He also says that all true muslims abhor the actions of terrorists, and those that support them. Now clearly, since he is a convert, he must have learned that from someone else I can only presume that (s)he was also a muslim. (I doubt he converted before going to a mosque and meeting a few muslims first). Therefore, I think it is safe to say that there must be more than one peace loving muslim out there. In fact, given that there are a billion muslims out there, I am sure that this is sort of the rule.

Now I have to ask you, what benefit do you get by attacking their faith? It's obvious that these people are sincere in their belief that Islam is essentially how K describes it, so what do you hope to accomplish? Do you want them to go: "OMFG, you are right, the koran *does* say I should kill infidels, I better start now." I can't believe that is your aim, but basically you are telling people who have chosen to interpret their faith as peaceful that, they are wrong and should be more violent. It's silly.

Basically, there is no difference between you and the people who attack sincere christians because there are violent sections in the old testament. (And I have to ask, is their goal to make the peaceful, respectful christians violent?).

In the final analysis, you are not going to get people to renounce their faith, so at best, this kind of thing is only going to piss them off;( at worst, maybe you will convince them ;) . )

At the end of the day, muslims are like everyone else. Most of them are good people, and there is a small minority of very bad ones. The bad ones are what always get the attention - or at least are the ones you remember.

I think the most productive thing to do is to respect the beliefs of the good muslims (i.e. most of them) and not to try and tell them how their faith *is*, and just ignore the bad ones. And if the bad ones are actually trying to kill you, pop a cap in their ass.

Oh, and as to that condemning part. There are just as many crazy white non muslims, like Ward Churchill that support terrorism against the US.

[/Reasonable hat]

(Though he may say Islam chose him I don't really know how it works).

No, I chose Islam. Technically, all Muslims are converts. You have to choose Allah and come of your own free will into Islam.

You're right on another count, too. I read Qur'an (in English ... I'm still working on learning Arabic) and studied Islam as a point of interest for nearly 2 years before declaring shahadah. I like to think I am a person of moderate intelligence with a decent reasoning ability in ther somewhere.

I also have a wife, two daughters, and a son who would be affected by any major shift in lifestyle.

So I had to ask some serious questions:

1] If I become Muslim and my wife does not, how does that work? What's all this business about covering up women and the rumors I've heard that women are lesser than men?

It was simple. My wife must choose of her own free will. There is to be no compulsion in religion and I am not permitted to force her to do anything. Even when it comes to the children. I am obligated to set a good example and be a good Muslim that they may come into Islam through my example and I would be remiss in my duties if I did not offer them Qur'an to read, but I cannot force my children to be Muslim either. As for women's equality, Muhammed(pbuh) said that the most blessed among men are the ones who treat their wives and daughters best.

2] In my Native American family, Deer is considered a brother. We do not hunt it and we do not eat it and we allow it free reign of our family lands to roam and eat and play. Even though we do not worship Deer, would that sort of paganesque belief be blasphemy in Islam?

The answer: Deer, like all animals, bend themselves completely to the will of Allah and, thus, can be considered Muslim. Deer would still be your brother in Islam.

3] If I became Muslim, would I be Sunni or Shi'ite or Sufi or what?

Answer: There is only one way to be Muslim. The "branches" of Islam are political divisions, not religious ones.

Then, of course, after careful study concerning peace with security, I made up my mind. It's not a decision I made lightly. After all, since 9/11 Muslims have been kind of the media's whipping boy as well as all of the internet misinformation, and with that in mind, why would anyone of reasonable intelligence choose such a thing? It would be like painting a big target on my chest and saying, "Come on and git 'er done, boys!" I weighed the consequences versus the benefit and chose. I have no regrets. Not even that I must now spend a good hour of my day to defending my beliefs when someone posts 1/3rd of a mistranslated ayyat (verse) out of Qur'an and places a comma in the wrong place.

and lots more in the same vein. And the peaceful verses are...?


Oh ... and here ... read this:

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/againstterror.htm

Well, he does seem to provide "aid and comfort to the enemy." Several people were executed in WW2 for helping Nazi propaganda...

He wrote that America elicits resentment for it's actions, it's support and it's funding of killings in the third world. He then made the jump that this resentment leads to retaliation. He suggests that attacks on America will continue.

He suggests that America should be prepared for more attacks, how is this giving confort to the enemy?


He then goes and calls everyone that died in the WTC a "little Eichmann" in truly moronic fashion.

Yes ... but usually internally. We don't feel the need to have a press conference every time we disagree with someone. After all, many of these people have not been put into a fair trial, by a jury of their peers, nor found guilty by the same; hence, to call them a "terrorist" would be unjustly labelling them and, hence, the sin of bearing false witness.

I am by no means suggesting that you should call them terrorists or that they should be jailed. I can tell you though that if I was in the middle of a sermon (not that I go to church, but suppose) or lecture which said some of the things you can hear in mosques, I would stand up and tell they guy to shut the hell up, and I will not stop interrupting until they carried me out. I would *hope* that other people would back me. I think it is fair to expect that outright incitement of terrorist behaviour or attacks on "infidels" should be subject to some level of social censure?

Read this...

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2004-05-19/feature.html/4/index.html
Later that morning, Abdel Malik Ali returned to the stage. Jewelry flashed on his long delicate fingers as he outlined "the recipe for how we come to power: From an Islamic movement we graduate to an Islamic revolution, then to an Islamic state."

"Allahu akbar," came a chorus.

"We must be in power," Ali continued coolly. He rounded up his lecture by promising that "when it's all over, the only one standing is gonna be us."

"Allahu akbar."

"We ain't gonna lose. We must implement Islam as a totality," in which "Allah controls every place -- the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress."
...
Abdel Malik Ali also returned one final time, prodding the young crowd to "work on building Islamic infrastructures in the USA now." He allowed: "There will be some poop-butts who will not want to live under sharia law and will leave.
...
But despite all the enthusiastic cries of "Allahu akbar," not all the attendees enjoyed Abdel Malik Ali's speeches. In the aftermath, one member of the student group confessed to a non-Muslim attendee that it left him feeling shocked.

"As a Muslim," he said, and his heart was in his voice, "I just want to apologize."


... and then tell me why nobody stood up and called him a stupid hate-mongering bastard right then and there? Okay, maybe not many agree, but they're keeping quiet. I think you get my point.

If you are Muslim and reject Allah's law, then you become apostate and are no longer Muslim. These men, such as Osama bin Laden, reject Allah's law. These acts of violence against the innocent are condemned in Qur'an. Every Muslim knows this and we have said it time and time and time again.

I agree that OBL is probably an apostate, but I don't think I've heard Muslims say that. Certainly not well known Muslim scholars. Sources?

Only the Caliph can make a fatwah. The Caliphate has been abolished for nearly 100 years now. Imams can make local fatwahs for their communities, but not for all Muslims.

And the fatwah against Salman Rushdie?

Any sayyed can make a fatwah, as far as I know. Of course it is not binding on everyone, but there are certainly lots of fatwahs flying around. Find me *one* that calls Bin Laden an apostate.

They're pretty hard to recognize. If the US Army - arguably the greatest fighting force in the history of mankind - cannot find Osama bin Laden, how do you expect me to?

I will say this, I remember some notable occasions of muslims dealing with terrorists. In once case a guy was helping Al-Qaeda (in the US) and his brother turned him in. I respect that. Would you do the same?

The Iraqis in the army and police have fought very bravely as well, and I salute them.

Surah Muhammed 4: "Therefore, when ye meet* the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

You quote from the Yusuf Ali translation, I think?

As I said in the other thread about translations...

I am not so sure that the muslim translations are the best, partly because of their inclination to portray things in a better light than they really are. Conversely, the western translations have a tendency to portray things as worse than they really are. I think what the text *literally says* is closer to the typical western translation, but the way it is *commonly understood by muslims* is closer to the typical muslim translation.

I will have to compare a few translations side by side to get a sense of how badly off they are. My Arabic is not quite up to reading the original but I can pick apart a sura or two if I work on it. Until then, I withhold judgement.

Islam is a peaceful religion and we are a peaceful people. However, being peaceful does not mean cow and accept everyone who wants to walk all over you. Being peaceful does not mean being slaves.

K, I don't think anyone wants to enslave you. How many attacks against Muslims have there been in the US, even after 9/11? None (well, maybe one or two, but a lot less than I feared). Have any laws been passed prohibiting you from practicing your religion? I don't think so. You are *freer* to do so here than in almost any Muslim country.

About Islam being a peaceful religion... I think I have a thing or two to say about this, seeing how my former home was a conquered portion of the Ottoman empire for five centuries. They were peaceful and almost reasonable... as long as you accepted them as rulers. If you did not, they were the most evil, most brutal bastards you have ever had the fortune not to meet. Did I mention the forced conversions at swordpoint? And this was the *nice* version of Islamic rule. The black people in Sudan for example had it much, much worse.

Christianity has just as much of that in their past, but Christianity also has the opposite... in the end it *dealt* with its extremists, and what was the commonly held and socially acceptable set of beliefs changed. Parts of the Bible that say the wrong things were discarded from the canon, but most importantly the interpretation of religion became something each individual could decide for themselves, based on their own conscience. Islam has not yet done that, although I would very much applaud your efforts to move it in that direction. You first have to recognize you have a problem, though. Worse, you have a situation where working towards more moderate views is very hard, while working towards more radical views is easy. Nobody is ever accused of apostasy for being too militant... but you can be if you are too moderate, and then (in certain countries) your life is immediately in great danger. Tell me that's not true.

The problem is that as I understand it (and feel free to correct me on this) that Islam commands that any society in which Muslims live should be ruled by Shari'a. Other religions can be tolerated, but only if Islam is predominant over all of society. Many Muslims accept that interpretation (see the speech at Berkeley I quoted earlier, and there are tons of other examples). That is intolerable. Maybe the majority of moderate Muslims don't believe this, but again they're keeping very quiet. I certainly haven't heard any headlines along the lines of "Muslims gather to protest Imam who preaches extremism".

College kids are notorious for being rabble rousers. The people in the MSA at your school need to be reminded of a few things.

Yep. Read the rest of the article I quoted earlier...
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2004-05-19/feature.html/1/index.html
Scary shit.

Iraq did not attack us and, thus, according to Islam, it is an unjust war.

We did not attack Iraq either... we attacked Saddam and the elements of his state. Many American lives have been lost because we did often did not bomb when it would have caused civilian deaths. Consider that usually the military to civilian casualty ratio in war is 1:5, but in this war it was 3:1 the other way. Moreover we attacked the leadership directly as often as possible, defeating an army of ~300,000 by killing only ~9,000. War is not ever pretty, but this was one of the most humane wars ever. A reasonable price to get rid of a brutal murderous dictator? Only history will tell. However, I don't understand how you can call it unjust, considering Saddam was essentially already at war with the Iraqi people. We simply took sides in that.

... and then tell me why nobody stood up and called him a stupid hate-mongering bastard right then and there?

Honestly? Because it would be rude. Freedom of speech exists in the Mosque, but it is a place of worship and prayer. To stand up in the middle of someone's speech to call them names would be a violation of the sanctity. Muslims do not lead by their words, they lead by their actions.

I have not been to a Mosque where anyone has preached a message of hate towards anybody, but I can assure you that if I had, I would not return to that Mosque. By my action, I would lead an example.


I agree that OBL is probably an apostate, but I don't think I've heard Muslims say that. Certainly not well known Muslim scholars. Sources?

I don't think anything's been published on the internet about it, but I've yet to meet a Muslim who acknowledges OBL as Muslim.

And the fatwah against Salman Rushdie?

What about it? 99% of Muslims ignored it for the drivel that it was.

Find me *one* that calls Bin Laden an apostate.

Would you like me to write one up for you?

I will say this, I remember some notable occasions of muslims dealing with terrorists. In once case a guy was helping Al-Qaeda (in the US) and his brother turned him in. I respect that. Would you do the same?

Probably not. I would see it as an action no different than Cain raising his hand to Abel. I would not offer him refuge and would encourage him to turn himself in, but I would not do it myself. If that causes me consequence such as being jailed, then I shall accept that consequence.

As I said in the other thread about translations...

Yusuf Ali's translation is, by nearly unanimous decree of both secular and Muslim scholars, to be as near to perfect of a translation into English that anyone can get. There is a great danger to translation of Qur'an because it is warned throughout the text that men will pervert the word for his own design and if even one tiny part is out of place, then the whole document loses validity. Yusuf Ali was extremely careful and was surrounded by some of the most learned men as advisors.

Keeping that in mind and bearing in mind that all Muslims strive to learn Arabic and read Qur'an in its original form as it has remained unchanged since it was originally written, it would make no sense for the recognized English translation to deviate from the Arabic. After all, what purpose would it serve? Studying a religion for years only to get some special secret surprise later? I think not.

I will have to compare a few translations side by side to get a sense of how badly off they are. My Arabic is not quite up to reading the original but I can pick apart a sura or two if I work on it. Until then, I withhold judgement.

But you have clearly already judged.


The problem is that as I understand it (and feel free to correct me on this) that Islam commands that any society in which Muslims live should be ruled by Shari'a.

Well, yes, of course. Just as the Christians want to make the US a Christian nation. A society under Allah, as laid out in Qur'an, and unperverted by the whims of man, would be refreshingly ideal. Qur'an lays out democracy - even upon the moment of Muhammed's death, the Caliph became an elected official - and strives for peace with all nations. Is there something wrong with a peaceful Democracy?

Other religions can be tolerated, but only if Islam is predominant over all of society.

That's a step up from the Christian view of "our way is the only way and all others are godless heathens" so predominant in the US these days.

Maybe the majority of moderate Muslims don't believe this, but again they're keeping very quiet. I certainly haven't heard any headlines along the lines of "Muslims gather to protest Imam who preaches extremism".

No, we're not really very quiet about it, but like I said ... we don't feel the need to have a press conference every time we disagree with someone. We don't really seek out the opinions of men, but only the comfort of Allah.

It's also important to remember that if 1 billion Muslims did some act of great good and only 1 blew up a school bus in the name of Allah, that 1 will get the news. Nobody will hear about the 1 billion. Why? Because we like it that way. Allah commands us to be generous and charitable and ask for no reward or thanks.

Anyway, you asked for a Muslim source denouncing terrorism and I gave you one. Now ... will you accept it, or will you ask for more?

Not even that I must now spend a good hour of my day to defending my beliefs when someone posts 1/3rd of a mistranslated ayyat (verse) out of Qur'an and places a comma in the wrong place.

Heh. Guilty as charged. I will post full verses in the future. However, having looked into it, I believe the situation with English translations of the Koran is pretty abysmal. I want a litteral translation, dammit, and one without an axe to grind either way. Such a translation quite simply does not exist, although Arberry and Ahmed Ali are candidates, more or less. I *will* try to translate some of the controversial verses myself, however I also *will* take them at their exact literal meaning and not as "you're supposed to understand that to mean ...".

It was simple. My wife must choose of her own free will. There is to be no compulsion in religion and I am not permitted to force her to do anything.

Sura 2:256, I assume? Isn't that abrogated though?

As for women's equality, Muhammed(pbuh) said that the most blessed among men are the ones who treat their wives and daughters best.

(Sura 4 - Women, verse 34)
Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God hath
gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from
their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the
husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful.9 But chide those
for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart,
and scourage them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion
against them: verily, God is High, Great!

If I became Muslim, would I be Sunni or Shi'ite or Sufi or what? Answer: There is only one way to be Muslim. The "branches" of Islam are political divisions, not religious ones.

If you believe that, you are Sunni, basically. Branches at a minimum disagree about which hadith to accept (if any). Many branches consider other branches heretics (eg: what do you think of Qadiyanis? Druze? Bahai?)

I don't think Sufis have very much in common with the rest... much less than Protestants have with Catholics, certainly.

A good analogy might be to say that Sunni=Catholic, Shia=Eastern Orthodox, and Sufi=Quakers or similar. Obviously they are "all Christisans" but just as obviously they are *completely different* ;) Of course a born-again Christian would say there is no difference, all you need to do is accept Jesus Christ, but most others would disagree.

It would be like painting a big target on my chest and saying, "Come on and git 'er done, boys!"

That is true, although I believe most Americans are sufficiently open-minded not to lash out against all Muslims. I salute your bravery, even though I completely disagree with your choices.

Honestly? Because it would be rude. Freedom of speech exists in the Mosque, but it is a place of worship and prayer. To stand up in the middle of someone's speech to call them names would be a violation of the sanctity. Muslims do not lead by their words, they lead by their actions.

I have not been to a Mosque where anyone has preached a message of hate towards anybody, but I can assure you that if I had, I would not return to that Mosque. By my action, I would lead an example.

Have a read of Abu Hamza's sermons:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12146169&method=full&siteid=50143

I don't know about you, but I would have a strong urge to be very "rude" in response to this if I heard it in person, regardless of where I heard it. I would figure sitting quietly and saying nothing would be a much worse violation of the sanctity. If you simply don't come back, how would anyone else know this is wrong? Stand up and be heard.

Would you like me to write one up for you?

I would, seriously. You can use one of his own for a model.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

I would be even happier if there was one from a respected Muslim scholar already.

What about it? 99% of Muslims ignored it for the drivel that it was.

Undoubtedly (actually I would hope for 99.99%). Even so it was issued by the top cleric of a country with an Islamic government. Is Khomeini himself an apostate then?

Probably not. I would see it as an action no different than Cain raising his hand to Abel. I would not offer him refuge and would encourage him to turn himself in, but I would not do it myself. If that causes me consequence such as being jailed, then I shall accept that consequence.

Fair enough. What if it was merely a friend, not your brother?

Yusuf Ali's translation is, by nearly unanimous decree of both secular and Muslim scholars, to be as near to perfect of a translation into English that anyone can get. There is a great danger to translation of Qur'an because it is warned throughout the text that men will pervert the word for his own design and if even one tiny part is out of place, then the whole document loses validity. Yusuf Ali was extremely careful and was surrounded by some of the most learned men as advisors.

Eh, it's not that great. He's clearly interpretive, not literal, hence the many additions in parentheses.

But you have clearly already judged.

No, I have not, otherwise I wouldn't be going to quite as much trouble.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm


I thought I'd go ahead and show this:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=214

That'd be The Saudi Fatwah against Suicide Terrorism.

Also this: http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1007

Which is a scholarly site that questions the validity of Osama's fatwah.

Also this: http://www.muslimuzbekistan.com/eng/ennews/2001/09/ennews18092001_1.html

Which is a fatwah by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi denouncing the 9/11 attacks and stating that "A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't kill another person illegally" - in essence calling Bin Laden apostate.

For now, though, I need some sleep and will adress the rest of your post afterwards - when I can give it due attention as I feel this conversation requires me at a more refreshed state ... you deserve no less.

Well, yes, of course. Just as the Christians want to make the US a Christian nation.

I honestly don't think most Christians want that (maybe Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, but everybody knows they're nuts). If they really wanted it they could probably just vote for it and get it, although they'd have to figure out which denomination? (an impossible question)

If they did I would surely resist them at every turn.

Qur'an lays out democracy - even upon the moment of Muhammed's death, the Caliph became an elected official - and strives for peace with all nations. Is there something wrong with a peaceful Democracy?

Nothing wrong with that, of course, it's great. How many Islamic countries are democracies now, or have been for any length of time in history? How many of them have separation of church and state? How many of them were created without major western help?

That's a step up from the Christian view of "our way is the only way and all others are godless heathens" so predominant in the US these days.

No, there is a certain uncompromising view but I would describe it more as "Our way is the only way and all others are terrorists or tyrants or helping terrorists and tyrants". Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that our way is when everybody chooses their own way, and nobody imposes their way by force. Religion does not really come into it.

Anyway, you asked for a Muslim source denouncing terrorism and I gave you one. Now ... will you accept it, or will you ask for more?

I accept it, and I applaud it, but I do not see it as being widespread.

I would love dearly to see something like the Lutheran Reformation happen in Islam, and I have some hope that Sistani might lead that. He does *not* accept rule-by-clerics (wilayat-al-fiqh), and while I am not sure what he thinks about following your own conscience in religious matters, he will probably counter the Iranian clerics to no small extent.

Meanwhile, it is up to guys like you to reconcile Islam with modernity... a good start might be the following doctrine:

* freedom-of-conscience, everyone is the ultimate authority for themselves on religious matters (religion is a matter between each person and god)
* separation of church and state (practice of religion is a private matter, religious leaders should not be involved in secular government)
* equality of men and women (men and women should be considered exactly the same in religious matters)
* the koran should be interpreted in ways consistent with common sense and modern social norms (many verses would be interpreted as purely symbolic, or else abrogated)
* the hadiths are interesting, but not definitive
* jihad is a struggle for self-improvement, not a war against external enemies

I thought I'd go ahead and show this:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=214

That'd be The Saudi Fatwah against Suicide Terrorism.

Also this: http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1007

Which is a scholarly site that questions the validity of Osama's fatwah.

Also this: http://www.muslimuzbekistan.com/eng/ennews/2001/09/ennews18092001_1.html

Which is a fatwah by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi denouncing the 9/11 attacks and stating that "A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't kill another person illegally" - in essence calling Bin Laden apostate.

For now, though, I need some sleep and will adress the rest of your post afterwards - when I can give it due attention as I feel this conversation requires me at a more refreshed state ... you deserve no less.

This is great stuff... it gives me hope. Thank you.

I will take a break now as well and continue tomorrow.