Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

The U.N. Human Rights Council on Thursday narrowly passed a resolution condemning Islamaphobic behavior, including Switzerland's minaret building ban, despite some states' major reservations.

The resolution, which was criticized by the United States as "an instrument of division," "strongly condemns... the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures."

In a November referendum Swiss citizens voted to ban the construction of new minarets, a move that drew criticisms worldwide.

These measures "are manifestations of Islamophobia that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations concerning freedoms of religions," said the resolution.

Such acts would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences," it charged.

Some 20 countries voted in favor of the resolution entitled "combating defamation of religions," 17 voted against and eight abstained.

The resolution also "expresses deep concern ... that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

It "regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience."

Putting forward the resolution on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said that the specific references to Islam, the only religion mentioned in the text, "reflect the existing regrettable situation in some parts of the world where Muslims are being targeted."

Babacar Ba, who represents the Organization of the Islamic Conference, also told reporters that the resolution was a "way to reaffirm once again our condemnation of the decision to ban construction of minarets in Switzerland."

"This initiative that breaches religious freedom and rights of Muslims to build their places of worship as they wish to," he added.

However, the European Union pointed out that the concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression, while the United States said free speech could be hindered by the resolution.

"The European Union believes that reconciling the notion of defamation with discrimination is a problematic endeavor," French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said on behalf of the bloc.

Eileen Donahoe, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. also slammed the resolution as an "ineffective way to address" concerns about discrimination.

"We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, and because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalization, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world," she said.

"Contrary to the intentions of most member states, governments are likely to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of this resolution, and in the name of the Human Rights Council," added the U.S. envoy.

Such acts would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences," it charged.

You can try to degrade EH by showing a funny Tali Tubbi, but whats your argument against those real life protestors?

UNDERSTANDING THE BATTLE FOR HEARTS AND MINDS


The battle for hearts and minds is primarily being developed and fought in the West; this is because the
authoritarian atmosphere in the Muslim world has ensured such discussions generally cannot occur.
Also such a discussion is needed in the West to create a particular trend between Muslims and non-
Muslims. The money and resources needed for potential conflicts in the Muslim world require
justification to the people of the West. Hence disdain is being created for Islam; lies are being peddled
against Islam that justify prolonged military presence in the Muslim world. Such propaganda will then
be exported to the Muslim world. A number of events have been used to justify to Western audiences
that Islam is the new Communism that needs to be fought and destroyed. This propaganda is aimed at
radicalising Western audiences against Islam as well as developing the type of resilience required for a
‘long war’.

In December 2003 the Stasi commission proposed the banning of religious symbols in schools
including the Hijab for the protection of secularism in France. The Stasi commission was set up by the
French president to research into the strength of secularism in France and propose policies to protect
it. The proposal to ban religious symbols in schools was primarily aimed at Muslims, as the Muslims
represented the largest minority in public schools. Such a proposal shocked all Muslims in Europe and
caused much controversy and debate. The attacks on Islam, women and the woman’s dress received
ferocious vilification by the media and MP’s across Europe. The image was portrayed that Muslims are
separatist in Europe who do not integrate and adherence to the Hijab stands in the way if Muslims
want to be considered part of Europe. The failure of France to convince Muslims of secularism and
stamp out blatant racism and discrimination was blamed upon the existence of Islam.

In May 2004 Shabina Begum a student from Luton, UK, appealed in court when she was not allowed
to wear the jilbaab in school. The claim was made on the grounds that the school had interfered with
her right to manifest her religion and her right to education (both rights enshrined in the European
Convention on Human Rights). Shabina Begum lost the case in the High Court, but later won on
appeal to the Court of Appeal. The school appealed against this decision, and the case was heard by the
Judicial Committee of the House of Lords who eventually ruled in favour of the school. The whole
case caused much controversy and discussion in the UK due to the fact that the jilbaab manifestly
represented Islam. Whilst child obesity, teenage pregnancies and knife crime occupied most news
reporting in the UK many Muslims felt pressured to criticize Shabina Begum for taking her case to
court as many non-Muslims felt this was an abuse of the freedoms afforded to citizens. Many Muslims 15
in the UK argued modesty was the Islamic dress rather then the jilbaab. This event illustrated for many
non-Muslims that the needs of Muslims cannot co-exist with liberal Britain thus Islam needs to be
changed.

In 2005 Amina Wadud professor of Islamic studies at Virginia Commonwealth University lead the
controversial Jummah prayer in New York which consisted of both men and women in the jamaat
(congregation). Amina Wadud published a book in 1999 the “Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text
from a Woman's Perspective,” which was the first feminist translation of the Qur’an. This incident led to
much discussion on how Islam does not cater for women and projected the image that Islam oppresses
women.

In September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published pictures of the Prophet
Muhammad (SAW) which led to demonstrations across the world, some protests turning violent. Many
thinkers in the West argued that Capitalism allows the freedom to insult and Muslims should accept
this as this is a Western tradition. Liberals argued Muslims demand a special position, insisting on
special consideration for Islam. Flemming Rose Jyllands-Posten Culture editor was very open with his
agenda he said “his paper was not singling out Islam for attack, but was drawing Muslims into a secular fold.”12
This controversy resulted in world-wide protests where some became violent, however the issue was
successfully blamed on Muslims for feeling insulted and Muslims were criticized for violent
demonstrations. Many Muslims feeling the pressure, responded by condemning the actions of those
demonstrating and condemning the imams who lead them and ostracizing them from being their
representatives. This issue was successfully used to prove to Europe that Muslims wanted special status
for Islam in secular societies.

In October 2006 Jack Straw, the UK’s former foreign secretary, in an interview sparked controversy by
commenting that he felt uneasy speaking to women who wear the Niqab (face veil). This incident was
quickly used by the government and changed from a debate where an MP made offensive remarks
about Islamic dress to ‘women who wear veils over their face make community relations harder.’13

The then Prime Minister Tony Blair described the niqab as a ‘mark of separation’14
and thus debate began in the UK on why Muslims insist on wearing Islamic dress and the reasons for not integrating. One leading organisation commented that it understood Mr Straw’s discomfort, and once again Islam was labelled as the problem causing further tensions between the Muslim community and the host country.

In February 2008 Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury in the UK gave a speech in which he
mentioned that the adoption of Shari’ah law ‘seems unavoidable.’ Williams was later forced to comment
further to defend himself as the media frenzy grew and the open questioning of Muslim loyalty was 16
brought into question. Many argued that the Shari’ah is barbaric and made very clear there is only one
law for every citizen in Britain hence Muslims must show where their loyalty stands. The fact that a
Christian bishop raised the discussion mattered little to Britain and the hatred for an essential element
of Islam was paraded openly. This attack on Islam led to some Muslims condemning the Bishop as the
UK supposedly has only one law, however many Muslims argued Shari’ah was only for the Muslim
world and that there are many interpretations of Shari’ah.

The West has managed to draw upon many resources to attack Islam and facilitate the call for it to be
reformed. Cherie Blair made her views very clear in a press conference in 2001:

“We all know that the Taliban is a regime that denies all its citizens even the most basic
of human rights and for women that has been particularly acute. Things that women in
our country take for granted, just to be able to enjoy life publicly with our families, to
dress as we please. All of these things are forbidden. In Afghanistan if you wear nail
polish, you could have your nails torn out. Well, that may seem a trivial example, but it
is an example, nonetheless, of the oppression of women, and nothing more I think
symbolises the oppression of women than the burkha which is a very visible sign of the
role of women in Afghanistan and we had some interesting discussions about what it is
like to wear a burkha and how difficult it makes just ordinary, everyday living…”15


Melanie Phillips has long called for the reformation of Islam. In 2002 she said:

“But the problem is that it (Islam) does not just oppose libertinism. Having never had a
‘reformation’ which would have forced it to make an accommodation with modernity, it
is fundamentally intolerant and illiberal. As a result, it directly conflicts with western
values in areas such as the treatment of women, freedom of speech, the separation of
private and public values, and tolerance of homosexuality. These are all liberal
fundamentals and are not negotiable.”16


And Salman Rushdie has long called for a reformation:

“What is needed is a move beyond tradition, nothing less than a reform movement to
bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim [Islamic] Reformation
to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the
traditionalists, throwing open the windows to let in much-needed fresh air. It is high 17
time; for starters, that Muslims were able to study the revelation of their religion as an
event inside history, not supernaturally above it.”17


Academics, journalists and politicians have on every opportunity called for Islam’s reformation. This
atmosphere has led many opportunists to take advantage of this climate for their own short term gains.
All of this collectively has led to a climate of fear pushing Muslims in Europe into a defensive posture
and feeling uncomfortable in explaining Islam’s stance on the various incidents. Some Muslims have
unfortunately twisted Islam to make it more palatable to the West which has aided the call for a
reformation.

Many Muslims who have been smitten by the West have for many years been calling for the
abandonment of some aspects of Islam thus fulfilling the West’s agenda. With minority relations
drastically deteriorating since the bombings of Madrid and London, Europe abandoned policies which
recognised Islam such as multiculturalism and began advocating the adoption of secular liberal values
for minorities to co-exist in Europe. Coupled with anti-Hijab legislation across Europe, Muslims in
Europe are being forced to change Islam as Islam is seen as backward and not compatible with
secularism.

Tariq Ramadhan, regarded as a leading Islamic academic in the West, has long advocated reform and
has been on the boards of many government programmes looking at the presentation of Islam in the
West. The problem, according to Ramadhan, is with theologians who make rulings on certain subjects
without having the worldly experience to do and, in the process mix traditional values with religion.
Although his statements are usually unclear and ambiguous, there is no doubt that his views have been
regarded by Westerners as a call for internal reform. In his 1999 publication he advocated that the
geopolitical concepts of dar ul-Islam and dar ul-kufr were outdated and that “Muslims are obliged to be loyal
citizens and to influence the polity in constructive ways. Their goal should be to be in Europe but at home. To be a Muslim in Europe ideally means to interact with the whole of society. Ultimately, a European Islam should emerge, much as there already exists an African or Asian Islam.”18

Ramadan in 2005 even called for a re-evaluation of Islam’s punishment system.19

The intensity of the attacks on Islam led to some developing the fiqh of Minorities, which is a particular
methodology where the Islamic rule can be changed due to the mere reason of residing in the West.
Much study and money by think tanks went into this project as this approach makes the particular
reality faced, or the environment, the source of legislation. As a consequence certain rules will be
neglected and this approach has led to the contradiction of established rules from the Qur’an and
Sunnah. This fiqh has spawned a European Islam. 18

Under the guise of intellectualism and re-opening the doors of Ijtihad many Muslim thinkers have
justified many acts considered conclusively haraam in Islam. Such thinkers have completely misused
terminology in order to justify the unjustifiable. For example, Irshad Manji openly supports
homosexuality a well known prohibited act according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. She even proudly
posted a photo of herself with gay and lesbian Palestinians in Jerusalem on her website.

Hence under the onslaught from the West and under pressure to make Islam palatable many Muslims
and those who claimed to be Muslims, have changed Islam, aiding the West’s call for reform. Scholars
in the Muslim world have also not been spared in this effort. Such individuals are regularly invited to
represent Muslims on government projects, conferences and even develop policies and legislation.
Cambridge University organised one such event on 4th June 2007 on ‘Islam and Muslims in the world
today.’ The grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa, alongside many ‘moderate’ Muslims were invited to
discuss how Islam can be changed to meet the needs of the West. Ali Gomaa responded by outlining
how Islam had no political system:

“Many assume that an Islamic government must be a caliphate, and that the caliph must
rule in a set and specific way. There is no basis for this vision within the Islamic
tradition. The caliphate is one political solution that Muslims adopted during a certain
historical period, but this does not mean that it is the only possible choice for Muslims
when it comes to deciding how they should be governed. The experience that Egypt
went through can be taken as an example of this. The period of development begun by
Muhammad Ali Pasha and continued by the Khedive Ismail was an attempt to build a
modern state. This meant a reformulation of Islamic law. This process led Egypt to
become a liberal state run by a system of democracy without any objections from
Muslim scholars. Muslims are free to choose whichever system of government they
deem most appropriate for them.”20


The Grand Mufti went even further when he mentioned one could apostatise from Islam:

“The essential question before us is can a person who is Muslim choose a religion other
than Islam? The answer is yes, they can, because the Qur’an says, “Unto you your
religion, and unto me my religion,” (TMQ 109:6).21


When he was pressed on reversing such a stance his spokesman, Sheikh Ibrahim Negm, affirmed: 19
“The mufti wrote this in a Western context,” “Religion is a personal matter. People
everywhere, including Egypt, are converting from one religion to another all the time
and that is their business.” “If a westerner, who has converted to Islam, for example,
does not find satisfaction in Islam, then he is legally permitted to convert back. He is
committing a major religious sin, however.”22


Hence under certain circumstances, such as living in the West, it is permitted to abandon Islam
according to Ali Gomaa.

Some have even gone as far as to change the core tenets of Islam. Muhammad Nour Dughan a
member of the scientific council of Istanbul University issued a fatwa in October 2007 reducing the
five daily prayers to three. His justification was that Islamic law allows for the possibility of praying
three times a day in cases of sickness or travel. He extended this option allowing Muslims to pray three
times a day, especially when they are heavily committed with work or personal issues. The Turkish
debate echoes a similar one that took place in Egypt where the fatwa also drew some support.

Essentially the call for an Islamic reformation is saying to Muslims all over the world that the Qur’an is a
product of its time and place which reflects Muhammad’s (SAW) own experiences. The Qur’an is a
historical document, which is now outdated and needs to be re-interpreted to suit the new conditions
of successive new ages. Thus Islam is outdated and in its current form has no place in the world, thus it
needs to be reformed, re-interpreted and changed to fulfil the conditions of the 21st century. Such an
interpretation requires the Qur’an to be more in line with Western liberal standards. Only then will it be
termed modern. Hence the call for Islamic reformation is a call for the re-interpretation of the Islamic
texts to accord with the West.

A host of arguments have been presented justifying the re-interpretation of Islam. These can be
summarised as:

- Islam can change from time and place, primarily because Imam Shafi did so with his fiqh
- The claim that the shari’ah has remained silent on new issues, and that the existing
methodology of Islam is incapable of dealing with these issues.
- The claim that the Muqasid – aims of the shari’ah is to bring benefit to the people, so the
shari’ah is where the benefit is.
- The Islamic world view of Dar ul-Islam and Dar ul-kufr needs changing as they are products
of jurists, and not from the Islamic sources and are geopolitical terms only relevant to the
time in which they were formulated. 20
- Using the ahadith as a source needs to be re-evaluated as they cannot be authentically
proven.
- Ijtihad is Islam’s tool of critical evaluation which allows varying opinion within Islam and
this is the way forward to make Islam relevant.
- Difference of opinion (uloom al Ikhtilaaf) allows for liberal interpretations

This debate and the subsequent response from Muslim scholars has left Muslims in a state of
confusion. Does Islam need updating? Is it natural that Islam modernises in order to survive? The
subsequent chapters will focus and review some of these arguments outlining their details and refuting
their intellectual foundations.

THE BATTLE FOR HEARTS AND MINDS


It was after the events of 9/11 that the hatred for Islam by many in the West was paraded openly. The
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved for many thinkers that Capitalism gained no currency in the
Muslim world. In fact stories of Iraqi’s welcoming US troops were found to be lies concocted by the
US spin machine. Clearly it is no coincidence that the areas that are ultimately targets of the so-called
‘war on terror’ are Islamic countries with Muslim majority populations that could provide a base for
future Islamic governance. These are the same countries where strategic resources - most notably oil
and natural gas are concentrated. It is also no coincidence that both the 2002 and 2006 versions of the
Pentagon's Quadrennial Review demonized Muslims, Islamic countries and Islam, in various guises, as
grave threats to US security. The highest US officials were convinced that America’s greatest ideological
challenge is what they call ‘a highly politicized form of Islam’ and that Washington and its allies cannot
afford to stand by and watch Muslims realise their political destiny, the Khilafah.

Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Minister at the time of the Khilafah’s demise in 1924 announced to
the House of Commons:

“We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the
sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Caliphate, so we
must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be
intellectual or cultural unity.”

This encapsulated how the superpower of the day viewed Islam as a threat to its very existence.

The fall of Communism in 1990 brought Islam into a direct clash with Capitalism. The former secretary
general of NATO Willie Claes stated:

“The Alliance has placed Islam as a target for its hostility in place of the Soviet Union.”

This led to a new onslaught against Islam. America has realised that cultural colonialism has not worked
against the Muslims and now what is required is direct military colonisation. Paul Wolfowitz said at a
press conference in Singapore:

“It’s true that our war against terrorism is a war against evil people, but it is also
ultimately a battle for ideals as well as a battle of minds.”5

The US national intelligence council published its report following its ‘global 2020’ project, entitled
‘mapping the global future.’ The National Intelligence Council (NIC) is the American intelligence
community’s centre for mid-term and long-term strategic thinking. The report set out the likely
scenario the world will face in 2020. It concluded that the appeal of Islam today is a call to return to the
earlier roots of Islam where the Islamic civilisation was at the forefront of global change under the
Khilafah. Portraying a fictional scenario ‘of how a global movement fuelled by radical religious identity could
emerge,’6 the report revealed unequivocally that at the highest levels of US policy planning, preparation is
being made for the emergence of the Khilafah. Other reports from US policy makers and think tanks
across the world acknowledged there is a broad based ideological movement seeking the return of the
Khilafah.

As a result senior policy makers including George W. Bush have ‘warned’ of the consequences of the
Khilafah’s re-establishment. Bush, in a speech to the American nation in October 2005 stated:

“The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses,
enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a
radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.”

On December 5th 2005, the then US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld in remarks pertaining to
the future of Iraq at John Hopkins University said:

“Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic Caliphate to extend throughout the
Middle East and which would threaten the legitimate governments in Europe, Africa,
and Asia. This is their plan. They have said so. We make a terrible mistake if we fail to
listen and learn.”

Tony Blair after 7/7 also referred to the need to confront an “an evil ideology” that included “the
establishment of effectively Taliban States and Shari’ah law in the Arab world en route to one Caliphate of all Muslim nations.” General David Petraeus, when asked about his priorities in the ‘surge’ operations in Iraq, in an interview with the Times published on June 20th 2007, said:

“It is to disrupt al-Qaeda and its ability to conduct sensational attacks and to try to
continue the cycle of violence, which they have been trying to do all along. In addition,
they are attempting try establish a real al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq, a caliphate.”

These statements amongst numerous other arguments are being forwarded in an attempt to discredit
and divert efforts towards the re-establishment of the Khilafah, particularly through seeking to associate
it exclusively with terrorism. The effort has also been extended to malign the goals of Islamic politics
more generally.

Thus alongside physical occupation, placing troops at strategic locations around the world and creating
revolutions which are western friendly, a battle to win the hearts and minds of Muslims across the
world is being fought. A suite of McCarthyite labels such as ‘extremist’, ‘radical’, ‘fanatic’ and ‘militant’
have become common currency in order to bring Muslims on side under the banner of a cultural war.
Their definitions are dangerously loose and ever-broadening and manipulate the fact that there is no
consensus on the definition of terrorism to brand Muslims as more prone to violence.

A consensus now exists across the Western world that a battle for hearts and minds needs to be fought
and won otherwise more and more Muslims will turn to radicalism (Islam). In January 2007, Tony
Blair’s successor Prime Minister Gordon Brown, mentioned in regards to the Iraq war and ‘terrorism’:


“But you will not win against extreme terrorist activities and particularly the propaganda
activities, unless you have this battle of hearts and minds that is won. And that makes
me think of the same cultural war that had to be fought against communism from the
1940s and 50s onwards, is in a sense the model for what we've got to do here.”7


The RAND institute published a report, ‘Building Moderate Muslim Networks,’ making a similar
argument that the experience gained from supporting movements against the Soviet Union should be
used as a template for the West to support networks of ‘moderate’ Muslims in order to counter, what
they argue are, the radical and dogmatic interpretations of Islam that are gaining ground in the Muslim
world.

The result of this led the US to develop a new plan in the battle for hearts and minds.

In July 2003, the government’s leading players in winning the ‘war of ideas’ against terrorism gathered
at the National Defence University in Washington DC. There were crisis managers from the White
House, diplomats from the State Department, and Pentagon specialists in psychological operations.

Washington’s quick victory over Saddam Hussein’s army that spring had done little to quell surging
anti-Americanism overseas. Polls showed Osama bin Laden a more trusted figure than George W.
Bush across the Muslim world including within US allies like Indonesia and Jordan.

After repeated missteps since the 9/11 attacks, the US government embarked on a campaign of
political warfare unmatched since the height of the Cold War. From military psychological-operations
teams and CIA covert operatives to openly funded media and think tanks, Washington was prepared to
plough tens of millions of dollars into a campaign to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam
itself. America realised it can no longer sit on the sidelines as radicals and moderates fight over the
future of the Muslim world. The result has been a growing effort to influence what officials describe as
an Islamic reformation.

The previously undisclosed effort was identified in the course of a four-month US News investigation,
based on more than 100 interviews and a review of a dozen internal reports and memorandums. The
investigation disclosed the various battles that were being fought or going to be initiated.

The CIA was revitalizing programs of covert action that once helped win the Cold War, targeting
Islamic media, religious leaders, and political parties. The agency is receiving ‘an exponential increase in
money, people, and assets’ to help it influence Muslim societies. Among the tactics are, working with
militants at odds with al Qaeda and waging secret campaigns to discredit the worst anti-American
zealots. The tools with which to fight back are varied. To the CIA, they are covert operations involving
political influence and propaganda. At the Pentagon, they are called ‘psyops’ or strategic-influence
efforts. At the State Department, they are called public diplomacy. All seek to use information to
influence, inform, and motivate America’s friends and enemies abroad. Many are controversial,
particularly in light of recent revelations that administration officials have peddled fake video news
reports and paid columnists to boost public perceptions of policies in the US. But to those toiling on
the front lines against terrorism, the war of ideas and the tools to fight it are essential. How those tools
have come back into use, and what Washington is doing with them, is a story that begins half a century
ago, in the heyday of Soviet communism.

The White House has approved a classified new strategy, titled “Muslim World Outreach,” which is a
national security interest in influencing what happens within Islam. Because America is so hated across
the Muslim world, the plan calls for working through third parties, moderate Muslim nations,
foundations, and reform groups to promote shared values of democracy, women’s rights and tolerance.
The US has already quietly funded Islamic radio and TV shows, coursework in Muslim schools, Muslim
think-tanks, political workshops and other programs that promote moderate Islam. Radio Sawa, a pop 11
music-news station and Alhurra a satellite-TV news network have both been exposed as part of the US
plan. Zeyno Baran, a terrorism analyst at the Nixon Centre said:

“You provide money and help create the political space for moderate Muslims to
organize, publish, broadcast, and translate their work.” She also says “the dilemma for
Americans is that the ideological challenge of our day comes in the form of a religion—
militant Islam, replete with its political manifestos, edicts, and armies.”
“We need an Islamic reformation, and I think there is real hope for one.”

Daniel Pipes of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF), recently declared that the “ultimate
goal” of the war on terrorism had to be Islam’s modernisation, or, as he put it, “religion-building.”

US aid is also finding its way to ensure US foreign policy aims are met. Working behind the scenes,
State Department USAID now helps fund over 30 Muslim organizations across the Muslim world.
Among the programmes are media productions, workshops for Islamic preachers, and curriculum
reform for schools from rural academies to Islamic universities. One talk show on Islam and tolerance
is relayed to radio stations in 40 cities and sends a weekly column to over a hundred newspapers. The
grant list includes Islamic think-tanks that are fostering a body of scholarly research showing ‘liberal’
Islam’s compatibility with democracy and human rights.

Another aspect of the strategy being pursued is to make peace with radical Muslim figures who eschew
violence. At the top of the list is the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928. Many brotherhood
members, particularly in Egypt and Jordan, are at serious odds with al Qaeda. “I can guarantee that if you go
to some of the unlikely points of contact in the Islamic world, you will find greater reception than you thought,” said Milt Bearden, whose 30-year CIA career included long service in the Muslim world. “The Muslim Brotherhood is probably more a part of the solution than it is a part of the problem.” He confirmed that US intelligence officers have been meeting not only with sections of the Muslim Brotherhood but also with members of traditional Muslim movements in Pakistan; Cooperative clerics have helped dampen down fatwa’s calling for anti-American jihad and persuaded jailed militants to renounce violence.

A Key aspect of the struggle is to reform Islam itself. However reform is unlikely to come from the
Muslim world but rather from outside the Arab world. One solution being pushed is offering backdoor
US support to reformers tied to Sufism, considered a tolerant branch of Islam. 12

The US is already funding Sufi Turkish religious leaders, leaders that oppose the State enforcement of
Islamic law, believing that most Islamic regulations concern people’s private lives and only a few on
matters of governance. The State, they believe, should not enforce Islamic law, because religion is a
private matter, and the requirements of any particular faith should not be imposed on an entire
population. Fethullah Gülen asserts the compatibility of Islam and democracy and accepts the
argument that the idea of republicanism is very much in accord with early Islamic concepts of shura. He
holds that the Turkish interpretation and experience of Islam are different from those of others,
especially the Arabs. He writes of an “Anatolian Islam” that is based on tolerance and that excludes
harsh restrictions or fanaticism.
8


Another aspect of the battle is the drive to develop a wedge between Muslims by dividing Muslims
along lines of moderate and extremist. The RAND report ‘civil democratic Islam’ divided the Ummah
into four camps; fundamentalists, traditionalists, modernists and secularists. The aim here is to work
with the various moderate groups whilst isolating those that believe Islam is the solution. This includes
the likes of the Nahdlatul Ulama an Institute for Islamic and Social Studies (LKiS) who hold that instead
of creating specifically Islamic schools, Muslims should ensure that all institutions are infused with
values of social justice and tolerance. The “i” in LKiS (which stands for Islam) is deliberately written in
lower case to underscore that LKiS is against the type of Islamism that emphasizes Islam’s superiority
over other religions. LKiS is currently involved in human-rights training in pesantren,9 the Indonesian
Islamic boarding schools.

The US has also sponsored Euro Islam Projects including a student initiative sponsored by the pro–
European Union Students’ Forum AEGEE. The group sponsors workshops, student exchanges,
lecture events, and publications aimed at defining and promoting a specifically European, modern
Islam that retains an Islamic character yet is open to the surrounding society

Help has also been extended to modernists and secularists such as Bassam Tibi, who has a frequent
presence on the European lecture circuit. As the founder of the Arab Organization for Human Rights
and a member of several organizations that promote Muslim-Jewish and Muslim-Christian-Jewish
dialogue. He is strongly supportive of the integration of Muslim minorities into mainstream European
society and opposed to parallel legal, cultural and social systems. His outspoken belief is that
immigrants should accept the values of the dominant Western culture (the Leitkultur) instead of
attempting to subvert or change it. He also opposes what is called Parallelgesellschaft (Parallel Security). In
this regard Tibi differs persistently and insistently with the Islamist premise that Islam is necessarily
entwined with the public space and with politics; he opposes any inroads of Islamic law in Europe,
arguing that “the relationship between shari’ah and human rights is like that between fire and water.”10


The US Defence Department recognized in its Quadrennial Defence Review Report, that the United
States is involved in a war that is “both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas,” in which ultimate victory can
only be won “when extremist ideologies are discredited in the eyes of their host populations and tacit supporters.”11


The National Security Strategy document of September 2002 elucidated a refined conception of
security that emphasizes the consequences of internal conditions of other States particularly the lack of
democracy. This theme was to be reinforced over the course of the next several years, from the 9/11
Commission Report to, perhaps most dramatically, President Bush’s second inaugural address. From its
prominence in a series of high-profile documents and speeches, the President’s “Freedom Agenda” can
be considered a US “grand strategy” in the Global War on Terrorism. The agenda identifies social
sectors that would constitute the building blocks of the proposed reformation of Islam giving priority
to liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals, young moderate religious scholars,
community activists, Women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns and moderate journalists
and writers.

THE FALLACY OF WESTERN UNIVERSALISM


The claim that Islam is backward and has no place in the world today is often built upon the premise
that none of the Muslim countries have produced anything in terms of scientific research or
technological development. It is often claimed that progress in science and technology occurred in the
West when it rid itself of the authority of the Church and separated religion from life. Today this claim
has become the criterion to study any alternative thought. Thus when Muslims are questioned about
their views on homosexuality or apostasy the question essentially being asked is: do you believe in the
universal views on such issues delineated by secularism? Many Muslims have fallen into the trap. Often
through sincerely trying to defend Islam, of presenting Islam as agreeing with secular liberalism, this
being the default standard by which all thoughts are measured.

An example of this was when a leading Muslim leader in the UK was asked, should Muslim women have to
wear the veil, niqab or burqa? He answered “No one should be compelled to wear either the hijab (headscarf), the niqab (face-veil) or the burqa (full body covering). [But] Islam calls upon both men and women to dress modestly.”23

The question essentially being asked is: do Muslim women have the freedom NOT to cover? Here the
Islamic rule was presented in order to agree with freedom of expression, a Western ideal. This is one of
the founding arguments of Islamic reformation that Islam is at odds with the universal values of
Liberalism which render it outdated and deserving of reform similar to what happened to the
reformation of the Christian church.

The historical process the West underwent is considered the history of the world and termed
modernity, whilst all alternative thoughts are primitive if they do not match Western Liberalism
(Capitalism). There are however some fundamental differences between the history of the West and the
struggle with the Church, relative to Islam and its history that clouds the judgment when ascertaining
the validity of Islam. In order to understand this we need to understand the history of the West.

The initial adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire was not based on the legitimacy of
Christianity or on its ability to deal holistically with humanity’s affairs. Rather, Christianity was adopted
by Constantine in 325 CE simply to preserve the Empire by building a common mentality and loyalty
among citizens. Christianity offered blind loyalty to the secular emperors based on the understanding
that society could have two separate authorities; one temporal, the other spiritual, and that both
authorities could coexist harmoniously. This understanding came from the saying attributed to Jesus
(AS):

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.”
The Bible - NKJ Version (Luke 20:25)

Despite this, Christianity could not sustain or preserve the Empire and the demise of the Romans as a
force meant the Church was able to dominate much of Europe. The domination of the Church meant
that all affairs of life had to conform to the dogma of the Church. This caused countless problems
given that the Bible, which the Church used as its authoritative text, dealt with only very limited
matters. The scope of the Bible, as the Church would be the first to admit, does not and cannot stretch
to being used wholly and exclusively to govern a nation or civilisation. Even determined advocates of
the Bible fully accept it cannot be the primary source for the derivation of detailed rules, prescripts and
guidance on every issue humanity faces till the Last Day. It did give some specific rules related to the
Jews in their worships and their foodstuffs. It gave general moral principles for Christians and set
norms for their prayers and communal worship. It did not give detailed regulation and direction on
economy, accession to ruling, foreign policy, transactions, leasing of land, contracts, representation,
judiciary, criminal punishments, the structure, accountability and functioning of government etc.

This meant there was a huge gap in the political landscape and this was an area of constant conflict of
interests between kings, feudal barons and priests. During Europe’s dark ages it was the priests who
dominated life and when they passed judgement all had to submit, even Kings. Yet the judgements of
priests were an arbitrary and inconsistent exercise of their authority owing to the lack of comprehensive
legislative texts to base their rules upon. It was this essentially random practice that laid the seeds of
direct confrontation between the Church and society. With the passage of time scientific discoveries
were made that were at odds with the teachings of the Church. To preserve its authority, the Church
took harsh steps against the emergence of such new ideas. Scientists were branded as heretics, infidels
and Satan’s. In 1633 CE, Galileo was forced to renounce his belief and writings that supported the
Copernican theory of heliocentrism that claimed the Earth circumvented the Sun. Instead, the Church
adamantly maintained the flawed theory of geocentricism, which stated that the Sun circumvented the
Earth. Other thinkers, such as Bruno, suffered even worse treatment at the hands of the Church. Bruno
was imprisoned for 8 years while questioning proceeded on charges of blasphemy, immoral conduct,
and heresy. Bruno was eventually burned at the stake.

Also, plenty of evidence exists indicating that hundreds of thousands of women, alleged to be witches
were brutally tortured, burnt and drowned. The response to this oppression from the people, especially
the scientists, thinkers and philosophers was equally strong. Many began to highlight the contradictions
of the Church and reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin called for nothing less than the 23
complete separation of the Church from the State. Desperate measures were taken by the Church to
deflect the people’s criticism, frustration and anger but these measures failed to halt the flames of
change that had galvanised the masses. The Church realised that it could no longer remain dominant
without reform. The eventual outcome of the struggle for power between the Church, on the one hand,
and the scientists, thinkers and philosophers, on the other, was the complete separation of the Church
from State. This compromise solution limited the authority of the Church to preserving morals in
society and conducting rituals. It left the administration of worldly affairs to the State itself. The
Reformation led to the Enlightenment period that bred secularism as a worldview and finally removed
the arbitrary authority of the Christian Church. This formed the basis of the Capitalist ideology and
sparked the industrial revolution in Europe.

This state of affairs led to an intense intellectual revolution in Europe. European philosophers, writers
and intellectuals made considerable efforts for comprehensive change in European ideas with the aim
of uniting Europeans under secular liberal democratic thought i.e. Capitalism. Many movements were
established and played a great part in the emergence of new opinions about life. One of the most
significant events that occurred was the change of the political and legislative systems to the nation
state. The spectre of a despotic monarchy gradually disappeared to be replaced by republican systems
based on representative rule and national sovereignty. This had the effect of triggering the awakening of
Europe from its slumber. The industrial revolution was the centre of the European scene. There were
numerous scientific discoveries and inventions springing from Europe. These factors all boosted
Europe’s intellectual and material progress. This material and scientific progress resulted in Europe
finally riding itself of its medieval culture.

When Europe rid itself of the Christian Church, science and technology came to flourish. Today,
advocates of secularism claim Islam needs to go through a reformation process similar to the West
whereby Muslims redefine and confine Islam to individual worship rather then a political creed i.e. do
away with Shari’ah, Khilafah, jihad, hudood (punishments) and adopt allegedly universal values of
secularism, freedom, democracy, Human Rights, pluralism and the rule of law. The unfounded claim is
that only with such reform can Muslims progress and make a transformation just as the West has done.
This understanding is flawed due to two reasons:

- Liberal thinkers saw Christianity as folklore as well as being part of their cultural heritage.
This led them to deny miracles, revelation, prophets and other religious beliefs. This was
because for them the Christian creed, which all these ideas and beliefs were based upon,
was diametrically opposed to rationality.

- For Western thinkers the Church and enlightened thought cannot meet. Martin Luther the
famous Christian reformer said, “Among Christians the rule is not to argue or investigate, not to be a
smart aleck or a rationalistic know-it-all; but to hear, believe, and persevere in the Word of God, through
which alone we obtain whatever knowledge we have of God and divine things. We are not to determine out of ourselves what we must believe about him, but to hear and learn it from him.” (LW. 13.237; Q. in
Wood, 120). This means Christianity is not based on intellectual thought, rather even if the
scripture contradicts the clear mind, the scripture must always take precedence.

Defining all religions like Christianity and Islam as in the dark ages is a disservice to critical debate. It
deflects any potential debate on secular liberal values and demonstrates clear insincerity in discussing
which way humanity should move forward.

The history and struggle of the West was an event that occurred in Europe and was not the only event
taking place in the world. When secularists study Islam, they view it through the lens of their history,
which was their struggle to remove the authority of the church. For them Islam is no different to the
church - irrational, medieval etc, and therefore it needs a reformation, just as the Christian Church went
through. Only then can Islam be considered to have met the criteria for modernity.

Thus for the West ‘modernity’ carries specific connotations of the Enlightenment mission, defined as
emancipation from self-imposed infancy i.e. from religion. This mission resulted in the development of
secularism and the banishing of the Church, its teachings and its dogma to the private sphere. This was
in addition to human rights, equality and freedom. Soon this historical process was termed
‘modernism’. For secularists, the adoption of secular liberal values is termed modern and anything not
compatible with such values is backward and no different to the medieval Church.

What is being discussed here is an alternative ideology and an alternative way of organising life’s affairs
to the current secular model. There exists some fundamental differences between the two models - the
secular and Islamic models are not the same. They do not overlap as they do not stem from the same
fundamental ideas. They will therefore have entirely different impressions on how society should look.
These differences lead to each viewing the other as a potential challenger to its superiority. Since
secularism and Islam do not agree at the basis it is wholly inappropriate to judge this alternative using
the secular model as a benchmark. Doing so would inevitably lead to the elimination of any
methodology not in agreement with secularism before the discourse even commenced. No debate on
secularism would ever take place! 25
If Islam is an alternative way to organise life it will inevitably have solutions which are the complete
opposite to the secular model. However a non-agreement with the secular basis is not proof in itself to
render a thought invalid. Consider the following:

- Would we consider the development of China wrong because it was not entirely built upon
the free market model, even though it’s on course to become the largest economy on the
planet within 30 years?
- Would it be wrong for Indian companies to offer free medical alternatives to its poor
because Capitalism abhors state intervention in the economy?
- Would it be correct for one to say the UK’s fiscal policy is wrong because it does not have
Islamic taxation incorporated into them?
- Would we consider state handouts to the poor wrong because Capitalism advocates leaving
the wellbeing of citizens to the market?

What must also be agreed is that time alone is not enough to render a thought invalid; this is because
ideas are never time specific. The revival of ancient Greek philosophy, art and culture was termed a
renaissance in 16th Century Europe. Most of the legislation we find today across Western Europe has
their traditions in writings three millennia old, which are still considered valid today. For example:

- The US Bill of Rights, passed in 1791, reflects the guarantee of due process which was
taken from the Magna Carta in 1215.
- Western scholars and jurists study the thoughts of Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, Locke and
Nietzsche with no qualms that these people lived a long time ago.
- Modern civil law was developed upon the theory of liability which has its origins in Roman
law
- Common law, which is the principle of deciding cases by reference to previous judicial
decisions has its origins in the Middle Ages in Roman law and influenced by Norman Saxon
custom. Today it remains a source of legislation for the UK, US and Canada.

From this perspective democracy would definitely be backward and primitive due to its ancient origins.
So the fact Islam emerged in seventh century Arabia is not an argument to suggest modern inapplicability.

Capitalism’s universality in reality is a Western specific ideology, an event which cannot be used to
measure alternative thoughts as it is not a neutral measure. So it would be incorrect to place Islam on
the West’s political spectrum as this is a Western construct which follows their historical process.

The terms ‘left’ or ‘right’ derive from the seating positions in the National Assembly arising out of the
1789 French Revolution. The revolutionary groups sat on the Left and the conservative groups sat on
the Right. These terms have come to be used relatively to compare between different factions and
attitudes to state intervention. However wherever one sits on the political spectrum secularism forms
their basis. So although there may have been numerous groups or sects in the history of Islam such as
the mu’tazilah, jabriyah, khawarij, qa’dariyah, itnah ashari, the ashari, and ahul Sunnah, Islam formed their basis and it would be incorrect to speak about a Muslim left or term certain radicals as the Muslim
right. This would only aid the integration of Islam with Capitalism thus aiding the reformation of Islam.
The RAND report ‘civil democratic Islam’ proposed this method of reforming Islam by segmenting the
Muslim into moderates, fundamentalists and liberals. Thus interpreting Islam from a Western
perspective is in reality aiding the call for an Islamic reformation.

Conclusion, do you want to join modernity in your 'enlightenment' or will you become further divided from the 21st Century developments?

Or you the Nazi's and the KKK of the muslim world as the true expression of Islam as they were of chirstianity ?

Islamophobia is indeed partly succumbing to TaliItubby views of Islam which are rooted in Orientalist misrepresentations. The Al Qaeda etc are to Islam what the KKK are to Christianity.

Eh's quotes above do make the point that Islam is wrongly linked to terrorism etc - so why would anyone object to a resolution condemning misinformation?

But just as Anti-semitism goes beyond this - so does Islamophobia.

Eh evidently hates Islam and has extreme views - but normal people don't like injustice, and Islamophobia is something to be denounced.

Berrin wrote:

Conclusion, do you want to join modernity in your 'enlightenment' or will you become further divided from the 21st Century developments?

Muslims don't need a 21st century extravaganza in which the actors are greed, arrogance, selfishness, individualism and consumption beyond one's control, morals and modesty.
I am more than happy to welcome islam and condemn all the crap comes over from West's worldy hollow ideology and politics..

desertdudeshj wrote:And yet your NATO is bombing the crap out of civilians. And lusting after the oil in Iraq like a dog in heat. You need to get a need point to argue. Your problem is you become too repetative too fast. And regurgitate the same thing over and over that it becomes annoying like the dubai is broke etc etc and now your pedelling the religon is backward card.

Your every post is basicaly ending on the same vein.We all know you got issues with dubai as well as your issue with religon specially Islam. If you have some new point of view, that would be intrested to hear. We are all ears. You might nor realise it but your becoming like the spammers we have here who post the same stuff in every section. You just words your diffrently

As shafquie said just replace the word Islam and Islamophobia with Judaism and Anti semetic and you'll be the first one suppourting it. You done so in the past, so why not now. Or you the Nazi's and the KKK of the muslim world as the true expression of Islam as they were of chirstianity ?

How come you ( man of science and technology ! ) never have anything to say for Judaism, Chirstinaity or anyother religon for that matter ? Why does Islam bother a anti organised religon man of science and tech athiest so much ?

Like it or not your free mind isn't so free afterall you have fallen for the media propoganda machine. You claim be well informed but its surprising how little you know about Islam. Just today you called the UAE an Islamic country ?

desertdudeshj wrote:And yet your NATO is bombing the crap out of civilians. And lusting after the oil in Iraq like a dog in heat. You need to get a need point to argue. Your problem is you become too repetative too fast. And regurgitate the same thing over and over that it becomes annoying like the dubai is broke etc etc and now your pedelling the religon is backward card.

Your every post is basicaly ending on the same vein.We all know you got issues with dubai as well as your issue with religon specially Islam. If you have some new point of view, that would be intrested to hear. We are all ears. You might nor realise it but your becoming like the spammers we have here who post the same stuff in every section. You just words your diffrently.

As shafquie said just replace the word Islam and Islamophobia with Judaism and Anti semetic and you'll be the first one suppourting it. You done so in the past, so why not now. Or you the Nazi's and the KKK of the muslim world as the true expression of Islam as they were of chirstianity ?

How come you ( man of science and technology ! ) never have anything to say for Judaism, Chirstinaity or anyother religon for that matter ? Why does Islam bother a anti organised religon man of science and tech athiest so much ?

Like it or not your free mind isn't so free afterall you have fallen for the media propoganda machine. You claim be well informed but its surprising how little you know about Islam. Just today you called the UAE an Islamic country ?

desertdudeshj wrote:This last post of yours is the most revealing of all about your true colours than any. Your no diffrent than your average run of the mill xenophobe and specially Islamophobe on;y diffrence is you pretend to be inteligent.

You say religous nutters come to OUR shores and do blah. The london bombings were carried out by british citizens. So no religous nutters are comming to your shores And then you say thats makes you Snap ! OH MY !

You the west ( specially the Europeans ) have been a PITA for the rest of the world for atleast the last 500 years be it in the N and S America. Africa, middleast, Asia, the Pacific rim and the Australian continent. I dont think there is a place in the world that you people haven't meddled in, stolen from, raped and murdered in the thousands, tp the extent of wiping out enire people. Although no matter what it is, its wrong and condemable but don't be too surprised if one of them also looses it and snaps and tries to level things out with you people. Although no one has actually done anything to you.

Thankfully there are not many xenophobes like you and the dutch out there.

You act as your sheets are as white as an angle a$$. Look in the mirror and your blood stained past before you start making such self righteous.

The world is getting smaller, cultures wil mix and new ones be formed, but you trying to impose more like shove down people thoarts your perspective, point of view and your culture is wrong.

Although this place migth be far from perfect but its a very good example of the west and the east exsiting side by side. The west isn't forced into becoming like the east or vice versa. You see Night clubs, free flowing booze, malls towers, mini skirts and thongs along with Mosques, Hijabi women traditional arabic architecture.

And very soon Europe might become like that, some places already are and there is nothing wrong with that or to be afraid of. Instead of tryng to resist change, welcome it and be a true citizen of this world instead of a frog in a dutch well.

As far as all the evidence I've seen, their motivation was actually Britain's foreign policy which was resulting in the deaths of people overseas.

A British man has been named by an Islamic newspaper as the suicide bomber responsible for killing nine other people in a bomb attack in Kashmir on Christmas Day.

Zarb-i-Momin, the weekly mouthpiece for the militant Islamic group Jaish Mohammed, claimed in a special edition that Birmingham-born Mohammed Bilal, 24, achieved "martyrdom" this week by loading a stolen car with explosives and detonating himself outside an Indian army barracks in Srinagar.

The blast killed six Indian soldiers and three Kashmiris, in Pakistan's struggle to free Kashmir from Indian rule.

Mohammed Bilal, a former student from the West Midlands, is thought to have left Britain to join the separatist movement in Pakistan six years ago, where he received military training from the militant faction, Harkat-ul Ansar.

While the Foreign Office said it was investigating the claims alongside the Indian authorities, Islamic leaders in Britain were swift to reject them.

Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, leader of the radical al-Muhajiroun group based in north London, said last night: "It is quite possible that a British Muslim was involved in the car bomb, but Mohammed Bilal is not the correct name."

He added: "Bilal refers to whole divisions of fighters, it is a name dating back to ancient times. It does not refer to one man."

Omar Mohammed confirmed that his organisation sends out "freedom fighters" from Britain to Kashmir on a regular basis, and that the last batch, a group of 23- and 24-year-olds, left some two weeks before Christmas.

It was "quite possible", he said, that one among their number had been involved in the attack.

He said that 2,000 British Muslims go abroad each year to join armed Islamic organisations and that 20% of them head for Kashmir to engage in the war against Indian rule.

Sure. That's why all four just happened to be Muslims who were religious extremists who were candid enough to admit that they were carrying out a 'martyrdom' operation because of the texts and teachings of Islam (at least one traveled to Pakistan and appeared on an al-Qaeda martyrdom video).

But of course, that has nothing to do with Islam. People of all religions travel to militant camps in Pakistan all the time.

What are you, some Islamophobe for suggesting otherwise?

RobbyG wrote:

desertdudeshj wrote:This last post of yours is the most revealing of all about your true colours than any. Your no diffrent than your average run of the mill xenophobe and specially Islamophobe on;y diffrence is you pretend to be inteligent.

Nothing xenophobe about that. Whats wrong with honesty? Its a virtue.

You say religous nutters come to OUR shores and do blah. The london bombings were carried out by british citizens. So no religous nutters are comming to your shores And then you say thats makes you Snap ! OH MY !

What does nationality have to do with it? The point is that those terrorists are influenced by Islamic ideology. The trigger is snapped in our cities! Tell me, is nationality at fault or ideology?

You the west ( specially the Europeans ) have been a PITA for the rest of the world for atleast the last 500 years be it in the N and S America. Africa, middleast, Asia, the Pacific rim and the Australian continent. I dont think there is a place in the world that you people haven't meddled in, stolen from, raped and murdered in the thousands, tp the extent of wiping out enire people. Although no matter what it is, its wrong and condemable but don't be too surprised if one of them also looses it and snaps and tries to level things out with you people. Although no one has actually done anything to you.

History is history. I'm a child of the future and we (the young minds) have to come together on this one.
I'm not going to feel guilty for what my forefathers did. You generalize alot mate.

But to resort to bombing people for 70 virgins is just pathetic. That is like asking for neo-conservative pre-emptive retaliation. Sick.

Thankfully there are not many xenophobes like you and the dutch out there.

Xenophobe? Take a look at last week events. Moscow and Dagestan bombings. Is that religious ideology or nationalism at fault? There you go.

You act as your sheets are as white as an angle a$$. Look in the mirror and your blood stained past before you start making such self righteous.

I'm not violent. I use freedom of speech to send my message. I don't have a stain of blood on my hands.

The world is getting smaller, cultures wil mix and new ones be formed, but you trying to impose more like shove down people thoarts your perspective, point of view and your culture is wrong.

Although this place migth be far from perfect but its a very good example of the west and the east exsiting side by side. The west isn't forced into becoming like the east or vice versa. You see Night clubs, free flowing booze, malls towers, mini skirts and thongs along with Mosques, Hijabi women traditional arabic architecture.

Dubai is more like a Las Vegas on steroids. The West and the East together, as a romantic example, is more like Cordoba in Andalusia, Spain during 10th Century

And very soon Europe might become like that, some places already are and there is nothing wrong with that or to be afraid of. Instead of tryng to resist change, welcome it and be a true citizen of this world instead of a frog in a dutch well.

I'm not affraid for change, as long as the women can walk the streets freely in beautiful clothing, unafraid for a hypocrit husband, when she talks to her neighbour or distant friend. You can keep your black zombie burka look.

I do have reservations about the ideology. There's a big difference in that. You don't seem to get that specific point. Thats your ignorance.

shafique wrote:
As far as all the evidence I've seen, their motivation was actually Britain's foreign policy which was resulting in the deaths of people overseas.

The IRA bombed London and were all Christian (prob all Catholic at that) - and their motivation was again polotical.

event horizon wrote:

As far as all the evidence I've seen, their motivation was actually Britain's foreign policy which was resulting in the deaths of people overseas.

Sure. That's why all four just happened to be Muslims who were religious extremists who were candid enough to admit that they were carrying out a 'martyrdom' operation because of the texts and teachings of Islam (at least one traveled to Pakistan and appeared on an al-Qaeda martyrdom video).

But of course, that has nothing to do with Islam. People of all religions travel to militant camps in Pakistan all the time.

What are you, some Islamophobe for suggesting otherwise?