Jihad Death Count

http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/041404bazian.html

Check this garbage out......they're defending Bazian and saying that he was only defending Palestine.....

Here's a piece of this trash article:

Dr. Bazian has been receiving livid hate mail; his work at the University is being challenged; and extremist elements are threatening his and his family's well-being. Like millions of Americans and people around the globe, Dr. Bazian has been an articulate and outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy - calling for a U.S. that is at peace with itself and with nations around the world on the basis of equality and liberty for all.

(Bullshit, he was calling for an uprising.)

Count me in on the Islamaphobe and hatemongergroup. I detest terrorist and if I ever get a hold of one Lord have Mercy on it.

I just sent the following e-mail to these people:

Subj: Bazian
Date: 4/18/04 10:30:27 PM Central Daylight Time
From: DCWatson37
To: answer-la@action-mail.org

I read your article. I'm wondering what part of Bazian's speech you forgot to read. Am I mistaken? Did he not call for "Intifada" here in the United States? Stating that we "haven't seen radicalism yet"? This is far more than simply criticizing US foreign policies.

"Just defense of Palestine"? So are you saying that he defends Palestine by calling for an uprising here in America? My response to you isn't of a racist nature, it's a defense against anti-American behavior by obnoxious immigrants that come to America thinking we owe them something. Free speech, like every other constitutional right, has its limitations, and this little ingrate stepped over those boundries.

If he, or anyone else doesn't like it here, they need not let the door of their transportation out of this country hit them in their sorry asses. Bazian needs to go. Fired and deported. Calling for an uprising against Americans is awfully stupid for someone who's intellect is allegedly so substantial.

Maybe it's time for people like him, and like the people that run this website to stop trying to manipulate the American Constitution to suit themselves. Stop treating this arrogant, angry little man like he's some sort of victim of racism. If anything, his words were discriminating against the citizens of the United States.

D.C. Watson

Ohio USA

Good letter DC but they refuse to understand freedom.
They want power and they don't care how many children they kill to get it.
They will destroy the USA if we don't destroy them first,they have allready declared war,we need to bring the fight to them...Your right though,that creep needs a swift kick and deportation.

To the islamaphobic Robert Spencer
Ive challenged you several times before, you never
gave me no reply, i take it you couldnot. But now i
challenge you to clear this up.
The number of innocents killed by the Christian
terrorist(if we have a few thousand, you have entire
armies of them), of american origin, amount to 10-14
million.
3-4 million innocents in vietnam
4 million innocents in korea
1.5 million in iraq(including 0.5 million children)
due to the sanctions pushed forward by madelin
albright.
And let us not forget the nuking of 2 entire CITIES
populated, not by "thugs" "terrorists" but by
civilians, women and children.
Why do we forget what the christian terrorist does,
then you talk about a pathetic 7000.
The people killed by the only ever used nukes were
150000 in number, by the christian terrorists.
Ill have more to say later, for now, id like to see
you come up with some sort of an explanation, as to
why America gassed millions of vitnamese, killed 20-50
thousand CIVILIANS in this iraq war alone.
You hypocrite, why the double standards. Why is it ok
when America invades, kills, uses WMD's and illegal
weapons (like cluster bombs in populated cities), why
do you defend this War, and sight disgust at defensive
wars against the American invaders.
You quoted the New york post,"the iran factor", which called the "al-mahdi army" radical. Why is resistance radical? It blames instability as a result of Moqtada al sadr, isnt the reality that there was, and is, a war against the Iraqi population, that resulted in the current chaos. Wasnt it the closing of the newspaper that resulted in the current chaos? It wasnt Moqtada Al Sadr's preaching, but the anger that resulted from closing there newspaper that made the shias rise up against the oppressive occupation by the Bush's crusade. Bush's use of the word Crusade to describe the war can only reassure the world what the war is all about. Im sure you neednt be reminded about one of the most disgusting bolts in history, comes next to Hitlers own little crusade. Hitler, a christian fundamentalist, wether anyone chooses to accept so or not, was inspired by the bible to kill and torture jews. Anyone able to get copies of the mein kamph will agree, I will provide a link just of Mr. Roberts satisfaction
http://jews-for-allah.org/messianic-jews/christianhistorywithjews/speeches.htm
http://jews-for-allah.org/messianic-jews/christianhistorywithjews/hitler.htm
Robertson, you to are an extremist. You do not need to support some desperate suicide bomber to recieve the title, but you support far worse. A war for commercial opportunities, and strategical Middle eastern bases. A war that left far more dead than Osama could ever hope for. A war that left as many people amputated as Saddam amputated in a decade.
Let us remind your fellow anti islamist WHO PUT SADDAM IN POWER. Yes dear peace loving, caring and civalised Americans. It was your CIA, which faked the evidense to go to war, that put this cruel, torture crazed man, as the leader of a muslim country. It was as a result of your forign policy that so many Iraqis suffered, and so many killed, and so many Iranians killed. Was America that desperate for revenge after the the holding hostage of American embassy workers after the fall of the Shah (another oppressive dictator put in power by America). Was it so unbearable to see that a country get loose from the grip of one of the most oppressive countries the world has known in the 20th century?
You once qouted a person on this site saying "uktool il yahood" you then said that look at what todays europe is like (in that meaning) But it never occured to you that you quote the other, far more harsh and hatefull quotes from your own side. Such as "Nuke makkh" which you did not condemn, but only cautioned that it would only strenghthin "the jihadists". You get multiple hatefull, violent posts every day, yet it only seems to bother you when it comes from the otherside, you hypocrite.
You once attempted to defend the treatment of the prisoners at guantanamo, by displaying the treatment of children as excellent. Also in responce to the statement of the groups holding the American terrorist, Maupin, about the treatment, you respond by giving people information about how they may deal with him, as opposed to treating him. Firstly i would like to share with every islamaphobic person on this site (same people since the first day i visited, it really gives you an idea about the percentage of people who think like you, happily, very few idiots!) the treatment of guantanamo prisoners according to the Radical christian principles bush adheres to.
>My Hell In Camp X-ray
>
>A BRITISH captive freed from Guantanamo Bay today tells the world of its
>full horror - and reveals how prostitutes were taken into the camp to
>degrade Muslim inmates.
>
>
>
>Jamal al-Harith, 37, who arrived home three days ago after two years of
>confinement, is the first detainee to lift the lid on the US regime in
>Cuba's Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta.
>
>
>
>The father-of-three, from Manchester, told how he was assaulted with fists,
>feet and batons after refusing a mystery injection.
>
>
>
>He said detainees were shackled for up to 15 hours at a time in hand and leg
>cuffs with metal links which cut into the skin.
>
>
>
>Their "cells" were wire cages with concrete floors and open to the elements
>- giving no privacy or protection from the rats, snakes and scorpions loose
>around the American base.
>
>
>
>He claims punishment beatings were handed out by guards known as the Extreme
>Reaction Force. They waded into inmates in full riot-gear, raining blows on
>them.
>
>
>
>Prisoners faced psychological torture and mind-games in attempts to make
>them confess to acts they had never committed. Even petty breaches of rules
>brought severe punishment.
>
>
>
>Medical treatment was sparse and brutal and amputations of limbs were more
>drastic than required, claimed Jamal.
>
>
>
>A diet of foul water and food up to 10 years out-of-date left inmates
>malnourished.
>
>
>
>But Jamal's most shocking disclosure centred on the use of vice girls to
>torment the most religiously devout detainees.
>
>
>
>Prisoners who had never seen an "unveiled" woman before would be forced to
>watch as the hookers touched their own naked bodies.
>
>
>
>The men would return distraught. One said an American girl had smeared
>menstrual blood across his face in an act of humiliation.
>
>
>
>Jamal said: "I knew of this happening about 10 times. It always seemed to be
>those who were very young or known to be particularly religious who would be
>taken away.
>
>
>
>"I would joke with the other British lads, 'Bring them to us - we'll have
>them'. It made us laugh. But the Americans obviously knew we wouldn't be
>shocked by seeing Western women, so they didn't bother.
>
>
>
>"It was a profoundly disturbing experience for these men. They would refuse
>to speak about what had happened. It would take perhaps four weeks for them
>to tell a friend - and we would shout it out around the whole block."
>
>
>
>Jamal added: "The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you
>psychologically. The beatings were not as nearly as bad as the psychological
>torture - bruises heal after a week - but the other stuff stays with you."
>
>
>
>HE was talking from a secret location after being reunited with his family.
>The website designer, a convert to Islam, had gone to Pakistan in October
>2001, a few weeks after September 11, to study Muslim culture.
>
>
>
>He accidentally strayed into Afghanistan - believing he was being driven to
>Turkey - and was arrested as a spy, perhaps because of his British passport.
>He was held in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and fell into US hands.
>
>
>
>Now Jamal bears the scars of Guantanamo. He stoops into a hunch as he walks
>because the shackles that bound him were too short.
>
>
>
>As a punishment, inmates would be confined so tightly they would be forced
>to lie in a ball for hours. During lengthy interrogation, they would be
>tethered to a metal ring on the floor.
>
>
>
>Jamal said: "Sometimes you would be chained up on the floor with your hands
>and feet actually bound together. One of my friends told me he was kept like
>that for 15 hours once.
>
>
>
>"Recreation meant your legs were untied and you walked up and down a strip
>of gravel. In Camp X-Ray you only got five minutes but in Delta you walked
>for around 15 minutes."
>
>
>
>Jamal said victims of the Extreme Reaction Force were paraded in front of
>cells. "It was a horrible sight and it was a frequent sight."
>
>
>
>He said one unit used force-feeding to end a hunger strike by 70 per cent of
>the 600 inmates. The strike started after a guard deliberately kicked a copy
>of the Koran.
>
>
>
>Rice and beans was the usual diet and the water was "filthy". Jamal added:
>"In Camp X-Ray it was yellow and in Delta it was black - the colour of
>Coca-Cola.
>
>
>
>"We had it piped through with a tap in each 'cage' but they would often turn
>the water off as punishment.
>
>
>
>"They would shut off the water before prayers so we couldn't wash ourselves
>according to our religion.
>
>
>
>"The food was terrible as well, up to 10 years out-of-date. They would open
>a hatch and shove it through a section at a time.
>
>
>
>"We had porridge and something they called 'like-milk', which was disgusting
>and 'like-tea' and a piece of fruit. The fruit had been frozen and pounded
>with chemicals. An apple might look red but there was waxy white stuff all
>over it and inside it would be black and brown.
>
>
>
>"They would play tricks on people by denying them things - you might be the
>only person on your block who didn't get any bread. I prided myself on never
>asking them for anything. I would not beg." Jamal said they were told they
>had no rights. "They actually said that - 'You have no rights here'. After a
>while, we stopped asking for human rights - we wanted animal rights. In Camp
>X-Ray my cage was right next to a kennel housing an Alsatian dog.
>
>
>
>"He had a wooden house with air conditioning and green grass to exercise on.
>I said to the guards, 'I want his rights' and they replied, 'That dog is
>member of the US army'.
>
>
>
>"You would be punished for anything - for having six packets of salt in your
>cell rather than five, for hanging your towel through the cage if it wasn't
>wet, even for having your spoon and things lined up in the wrong order."
>
>
>
>Being forced to use a bucket as a toilet in view of other inmates and guards
>was particularly embarrassing. Jamal said: "I never got used to it - we
>would all put our towels and clothes around us.
>
>
>
>"But the Military Police up in the tower would see us and would shout to
>each other.
>
>
>
>"We were only allowed a shower once a week at the beginning and none at all
>in solitary confinement.
>
>
>
>"This was very tough because you are supposed to be clean when you pray.
>
>
>
>"Gradually the number of showers rose to three a week. They were always
>cold.
>
>
>
>"You would be chained by two MPs while you were still in the cage before
>being taken off for what they called 'rec and shower'.
>
>
>
>"You could sometimes see the guards tampering with the shower heads to make
>water squirt all over the inmate's clothes if he had put them up to protect
>his privacy."
>
>
>
>Inmates were issued with "comfort items" - known as CIs - like shampoo,
>towels, a washcloth and boxer shorts. CIs would be removed as a punishment.
>
>
>
>Jamal defiantly refused "treats", such as watching a James Bond film in a
>room dubbed The Love Shack by inmates.
>
>
>
>He added: "Some people were given pizzas, ice-cream and McDonald's, but they
>didn't offer them to me. I guess they knew bribery would work with some and
>not with others."
>
>
>
>To pass the time, inmates would chat to each other, pray, read the Koran and
>sing Islamic songs. In Camp X-Ray, they were given Mills and Boon-style
>romance novels in Arabic, which they refused to read.
>
>
>
>Describing medical treatment, Jamal said he knew of 11 men who had legs
>amputated and two who lost toes and fingers. He was told that the Americans
>had removed far more tissue than was necessary.
>
>
>
>HE added: "The man in the cell next to me had frostbite in two fingers and
>two toes. He also had it in his big toe, but they didn't treat that for a
>year by which time they had to cut off much more than was needed.
>
>
>
>"All the men who had lost limbs complained they would chop them off high up
>and not bother to try to save as much as possible."
>
>
>
>Jamal added that he didn't have close friends in Guantanamo, saying: "When I
>did meet the other Brits, we would reminisce about home - particularly the
>food.
>
>
>
>"We were all obsessed with Scottish Highland Shortbread - we wanted some so
>much.
>
>
>
>"One of the Brits told me he was asked why he was a Muslim, because he ought
>to be praying to the Queen."
>
>
>
>Jamal, who is divorced with daughters aged three and eight and a son of
>five, is convinced his refusal to succumb to mind-games gave him the will to
>come through.
>
>
>
>He said: "It was very, very hard at times, but I tried to think about
>nothing but survival.
>
>
>
>"I kept my thoughts from home as much as possible because it would drive me
>crazy.
>
>
>
>"About a year into my time, I had a dream. A voice said, 'You will here for
>two years'.
>
>
>
>"In my dream I said, 'Two years! You're joking'. But when I woke up, I was
>calmer because at least that meant I would be getting out one day.
>
>
>
>"I was sent to Guantanamo on February 11, 2002 and left on March 9, 2004, so
>I was there for just over two years, just like the voice in the dream said."
>
>
>
>
>
>JAMAL al-Harith told last night how he suffered a brutal attack by US
>military police because he refused to have a mystery injection.
>
>
>
>A squad of five men used batons, fists, feet and knees in an assault that
>left him with severe bruising.
>
>
>
>During the beating the officers barked in automated unison: "Comply, comply,
>comply. Do not resist. Do not resist."
>
>
>
>Jamal told how the men swung into action after he politely refused a jab an
>orderly was trying to give him because he didn't know what it was and he was
>fit and healthy.
>
>
>
>The squad was from the US military's Extreme Reaction Force, a unit trained
>to hand out beatings and known to prisoners at Guantanamo as ERF.
>
>
>
>Jamal said: "I could hear their feet stomping on the ground as they got
>closer and closer to my cell. They were given a briefing about me refusing
>the injection, then I heard them readying themselves outside.
>
>
>
>"I was terrified of what they were going to do. I had seen victims of ERF
>being paraded in front of my cell.
>
>
>
>"They had been battered and bruised into submission. It was a horrible sight
>and a frequent sight."
>
>
>
>Jamal, who had been warned by interrogators they would inject him with drugs
>if he did not answer their questions, cowered in his cell awaiting the
>inevitable.
>
>
>
>When it came the full force of heavily protected men in riot gear, with
>batons and shields, was used against him.
>
>
>
>He said: "They were really gung-ho, hyped up and aggressive. One of them
>attacked me really hard and left me with a deep red mark from my backbone
>down to my knee. I thought I was bleeding, but it was just really bad
>bruising.
>
>
>
>"I said to myself, 'You shouldn't have put yourself through that', but said
>nothing to the ERFs. I didn't want to give them the satisfaction.
>
>
>
>"There is principle and I wasn't going to take the injection so if they
>wanted to beat me up that was down to them. This huge black bruise was there
>for days after that."
>
>
>
>But Jamal's ordeal didn't end there. Half an hour later as he was
>recovering, a second ERF squad arrived to dish out more punishment.
>
>
>
>HE SAID: "They accused me of biting a military policeman. I said nothing. I
>knew it wouldn't help whatever I said.
>
>
>
>"They laid into me again. When they were finished I sat down, picked up the
>Koran and started reading. Then two guards put me in more chains and said:
>'Will you comply?'"
>
>
>
>Jamal was taken to the feared isolation units, nicknamed ISOs, where those
>accused of misbehaving are kept in solitary confinement with just a mat and
>towel.
>
>
>
>A toothbrush, toothpaste and soap, considered "comfort items", were denied.
>Jamal admits this was the first time he cried, although he did not let the
>guards see he was upset.
>
>
>
>He added: "I sobbed a little, twice. Everything had been taken away from me.
>All I had was my dignity."
>
>
>
>Jamal told of the psychological torture used on those in the isolation unit
>by guards who were trying to break their resolve.
>
>
>
>Bright lights were left on in their cells overnight making it impossible to
>sleep properly. And the rooms were turned very hot in the day or freezing in
>the early morning by using fans in the ceiling.
>
>
>
>Jamal said: "I'd wake up at 3am shivering like crazy. Just to keep a little
>bit warm I'd try to sleep under a metal bed to protect me from the cold air
>that was blowing in.
>
>
>
>"I'd kept a towel which I hid from a guard to lie on. It wasn't much, but it
>made things a bit better."
>
>
>
>He was put in the isolation unit twice more. Once when he kept ripping off
>wrist bands with his name and the number 490 written on and another time
>after guards set up a group of detainees by pretending some spoons had gone
>missing. Jamal said: "Non-compliance were the favourite words thrown at us."
>
>
>
>Jamal told how he was interrogated on a regular basis by FBI and CIA agents
>and later MI5.
>
>
>
>On 40 occasions he was quizzed in chains, which were bolted to the floor,
>for up to 12 hours at a time.
>
>
>
>Jamal quickly became an expert in their interrogation techniques, often
>turning questions on his tormentors.
>
>
>
>He said: "They'd ask me the same thing over and over again. Sometimes I'd
>say nothing and they asked me why I wasn't responding.
>
>
>
>"I'd say: 'You're boring me, ask me something new and I will reply'." After
>the Americans failed to glean any information, MI5 officers and British
>consular officials interviewed him. On eight or nine occasions they tried to
>make him admit he was involved in terrorism.
>
>
>
>Jamal said: "They would say: 'Are you a terrorist?' I'd say 'no, get me out
>of here'."
>
>
>
>Speaking about his British interrogators, Jamal added: "They were a mixed
>bunch. There was one young nervous guy who looked about 21. I called him
>Youth Training Scheme MI5.
>
>
>
>"He wasn't very professional and hadn't even checked out my background. One
>of them did say they had run my name and details through every Interpol
>check, but could find nothing. I told them that's because I'm innocent.
>There's nothing on me. I haven't even got a parking ticket.
>
>
>
>"The young guy got a bit frustrated with me and said: 'Are you trying to
>tell me how to do my job?'
>
>
>
>"One MI5 guy I just didn't want to talk to. He kept asking me questions and
>I'd say 'it's in my file'.
>
>
>
>"In the end I said: 'I'm not talking any more.' He replied: 'I've come all
>this way from England to see you.' I only saw him for 10 minutes. He was
>very red faced and angry."
>
>
>
>Jamal said his US interrogators were much meaner in their approach to
>questioning.
>
>
>
>One told him after not getting the answers he wanted: "We are going to
>inject you with drugs."
>
>
>
>Jamal said: "They were trying everything they could to frighten me. They
>even staged a mock beating up in the next room to me. They started shouting
>and pulling a chair around, but I knew there wasn't anyone there because I
>couldn't hear any chains clanking on the floor."
>
>
>
>Another officer threatened Jamal with torture to get a confession. He told
>him: "Then we will kill your family and you."
>
>
>
>Jamal said: "Sometimes they'd joke about what they were going to do to me.
>But I was determined to show no weakness. I didn't want to let them think
>they were getting to me.
>
>
>
>"Other times they'd play a good cop, bad cop routine. I tried to remain
>calm, although I was fuming inside. It would been giving in to have lost my
>temper and I never did, not once.
>
>
>
>"I don't swear and I didn't fight back. It was only on principles that I
>stood my ground.
>
>
>
>"The mental torture was far tougher than any of the physical punishments. I
>knew I was being treated a lot worse than any of the other detainees. They
>tried everything to break me.
>
>
>
>"Ridiculously, they even accused me of being an MI5 spy.
>
>
>
>"I began to tease them a little because it was my way of coping. They could
>never work out when I was serious or not.
>
>
>
>I HAD three plaits in my beard. I suggested, although I didn't say it, that
>it was for three people I had killed during drug deals in Moss Side,
>Manchester.
>
>
>
>"I was making the whole thing up but they believed me. Next time I saw an
>officer he said MI5 had confirmed the story.
>
>
>
>"They couldn't get a handle on me and that frustrated them. In the end one
>said: 'Who are you?' And I said: 'I've been here for over one a half years
>and you're asking who I am?'
>
>
>
>"I took a stand against them because what they were doing to me was
>barbaric. I wouldn't get down on my knees for the chains to be pulled around
>my body because it was demeaning.
>
>
>
>"About 20 per cent of us wouldn't co-operate. Eventually they backed down
>and we would stand while the guards went on their knees to chain us up.
>
>
>
>"That was a small victory. There weren't many, but they were memorable. I
>will cherish them."
>
>
>
>Despite the horror, Jamal said there were lighter moments.
>
>
>
>One particular interrogation technique amused him. He said: "They started
>playing different music to see how I would react.
>
>
>
>"They started with country singer Kris Kristofferson which I said I quite
>liked. Then some Fleetwood Mac songs.
>
>
>
>"They watched my reactions on camera. I just said the music's great and even
>started singing along. They didn't play it again."
>
>
>
>In the isolation unit, Jamal met for the first time fellow British detainee
>Tarek Dergoul.
>
>
>
>He said: "He was suave and had a pencil moustache. We had a good chat about
>life back in Britain."
>
>
>
>Jamal was released on Tuesday after being flown from Cuba to RAF Northolt,
>West London.
>
>
>
>He arrived back with four other former Guantanamo Bay Britons - Asif Iqbal
>and Ruhal Ahmed, both 22, and 26-year-olds Shafiq Rasul and Tarek.
>
>
>
>They were freed on Wednesday night after being quizzed by anti-terrorist
>police in London.
>
>
>
>Four other British suspects are still being held in Cuba.
>
>
>
>Foreign Secretary Jack Straw last night said the US was right to keep the
>men locked up and the release of the five did not necessarily prove their
>innocence.
>
>
>
>He added: "The Americans as far as they were concerned had good reason for
>detaining them."
>
>
>
>Asked whether they were innocent, he replied: "I can't answer that question,
>nobody can."
>
>
>
>JAMAL al-Harith's incredible journey to Guantanamo Bay began in the tough
>streets of Manchester's Moss Side.
>
>
>
>He was born Ronald Fiddler in a family of Jamaican origin and grew up with
>his father and two sisters after their mother walked out.
>
>
>
>At 23, Ronnie began learning about Islam and converted soon afterwards,
>taking the name Jamal al-Harith "just because I liked it".
>
>
>
>He took a computer course alongside his religious studies and became a web
>designer.
>
>
>
>He visited several European countries before deciding to go further afield
>to learn more about Muslims and how they lived.
>
>
>
>He began studying the Koran and learned Arabic on a trip to Sudan.
>
>
>
>The ill-fated trip to Pakistan in October 2001, just a few weeks after
>September 11, was his second and he planned to stay for three weeks,
>learning about Muslim culture and studying the holy book.
>
>
>
>Divorced Jamal, who has three children aged three, five and eight, said:
>"Yes, I travelled to Pakistan in October 2001 but if that's my crime then
>you would have to arrest whole planeloads of people.
>
>
>
>"When I was interrogated, the Americans used to say 'How come you're so
>clean? We've put your name and face through Interpol and we can't even find
>a speeding ticket'.
>
>
>
>"I told them: 'That's because I've never done anything wrong in my life. You
>don't have anything on me and you still won't have anything on me when I
>walk out of here' - and that's exactly what happened.
>
>
>
>"I think that's why they were so hard on me. They couldn't bear to admit
>they had made a mistake."
>
>
>
>Jamal was in Quetta, on the border with Afghanistan and just four days into
>his trip to Pakistan, when the Americans began bombing Taliban strongholds.
>
>
>
>He decided to leave for Turkey and paid a local truck driver 4,000 rupees -
>around £47 - to drive him.
>
>
>
>He was told their route would take them through Iran, but he had no idea he
>would be passing through Afghanistan.
>
>
>
>A few days into the trip, the truck was stopped by an armed gang.
>
>
>
>They grew excited when they saw Jamal's British passport and after looking
>at his other possessions, which included a clockwork radio, accused him of
>being a spy.
>
>
>
>He was taken to a filthy jail, held in solitary confinement then transferred
>to another prison.
>
>
>
>He was again held in isolation and was beaten and interrogated, during which
>he denied he had been spying against the Taliban for the British.
>
>
>
>Jamal later told the Americans how a man he presumed was a US agent had died
>after suffering a particularly brutal beating.
>
>
>
>He said: "They tried to say the man wasn't an American, but I know he was. I
>am sure I would have got the same treatment but I made sure that every time
>my guards saw me I was praying.
>
>
>
>"The Taliban liked me because I always had the Koran in my hands. I was
>beaten very badly, but not as badly as most of the other inmates.
>
>
>
>"Afghanistan finally fell and I was visited in jail by the Red Cross.
>
>
>
>"There were a couple of Pakistanis in the prison and they were allowed to go
>across the border.
>
>
>
>"The Red Cross asked me if I wanted to go with them, but I had no money and
>no way of getting back to Britain so I asked them to put me in contact with
>the British Embassy in Kabul.
>
>
>
>"That is incredible to me now - I could have gone home on my own."
>
>
>
>Jamal stayed with the Red Cross in Kandahar for a week and, in phone calls
>to the British Embassy was assured he would soon be put on a flight to Kabul
>and then back to Britain.
>
>
>
>But two days later, the Americans arrived. They drove him to a place
>described by Jamal as "a concentration camp", complete with watchtowers and
>barbed wire.
>
>
>
>He said: "I begged the Red Cross to get me out or at least contact the
>embassy for me. On January 24, I was taken to a US air base and held there
>for another three weeks.
>
>
>
>"Then my interrogator told me I was being sent to Cuba, but it was just
>standard procedure.
>
>
>
>"I was assured it would take about two months to process me and then I could
>go free. I believed him."
>
>
>
>For the next two years, Jamal continued to protest his innocence.
>
>
>
>He said his interrogators would often taunt him by promising he was about to
>go home, only to pretend they had never said it.
>
>
>
>But two weeks ago, Jamal and the four other Britons were met by the Red
>Cross and told they were finally to be freed.
>
>
>
>Before they were released, the Americans asked the five men to sign a piece
>of paper confessing to links with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
>
>
>
>Jamal said: "This was given to me first by the Americans and then by a
>British diplomat who asked if I agreed to sign it. I just said 'No'.
>
>
>
>"I would rather have stayed in Guantanamo than sign that paper.
>
>
>
>"That night, all the inmates sang Islamic songs for me, wishing me well.
>
>
>
>"The next morning, as I walked past them in chains for the last time, they
>shouted out: 'Don't forget us, Jamal. Tell the world, tell the Press, about
>what is happening here'."
>
>
>
>Jamal was the only one of the five men not to be arrested when they landed
>at RAF Northolt in West London.
>
>
>
>While Tarek Dergoul, 26, Ruhal Ahmed, 22, Asif Iqbal, 22, and Shafiq Rasul,
>26, were taken to Paddington Green police station, Jamal was questioned with
>his solicitor.
>
>
>
>"Then suddenly it was all over and they told me I could go," he said.
>
>
>
>Jamal has vowed to sue America for compensation for his two lost years.
>
>
>
>He said: "They deprived me of my liberty, interrogated and tortured me and
>let me go without even a word of apology."
>
>
>
>He also plans to campaign for other detainees to be freed and given human
>rights.
>
>
>
>He said: "I can speak freely at long last and let the world know what's
>happening there.
>
>
>
>TO be honest I'd rather go on a camping holiday with my family, but I know I
>have a grave responsibility to those still there.
>
>
>
>"That's why I want my story told in the Daily Mirror."
>
>
>
>Jamal, who has yet to be reunited with his two girls and a boy, said: "I
>want so much to hug my children and tell them I love them.
>
>
>
>"They think I have been on holiday. They don't know the truth.
>
>
>
>"I woke up last night when I heard the keys of someone returning to their
>hotel room. I woke up in a fright and thought one of the guards was coming
>to put on my chains.
>
>
>
>"I then realised that the light in the room was on. When locked up in our
>cages, the lights were on as well, and I thought to myself: 'You can sleep
>in the dark now' - and I switched it off."
>
>
>
>Jamal added: "One thing good about being in Guantanamo, was that it made you
>think. Time actually went very quickly.
>
>
>
>"There was always something or other on your mind. It didn't pay to dwell on
>things.
>
>
>
>"I tried not to think about my family for two years, because it hurt so
>much.
>
>
>
>"I tried to contain everything.
>
>
>
>"It was very difficult, but I survived - and I survived well."

Now that ive exposed your christian treatment of prisoners, id like you to respond to the following. You not only quoted islamic laws to suit your islamaphobic theme, but you responded with irrelevant information. They spoke of treatment, you spoke of not treatment, but what will be of him, disregarding all the assosiated laws and princaples. The following was quoted from www.islamonline.net
It reflects what muslims scholors believe, and what a billion or so muslims follow. It scholors are of hanafi and shafii origin, which encompases the largest group of sunni muslims (It includes Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Morroco, tunisia, syria, palestine, syria)

Title of Fatwa Islam’s Stance on Prisoners of War
Date of Fatwa 1/ June/ 2003
Date of Reply 1/ June/ 2003
Topic Of Fatwa Jihad
Question of Fatwa Dear scholars, As-Salaam `Alaykum. I have read the News story Snaps Developer Horrified By Iraqi PoWs Torture Pics revealing physical and sexual abuses committed by the British occupation forces in Iraq against the Iraqi POWs which represent obvious violations to the Geneva Convention. I would like to know what does Islam say about the treatment of POWs! Jazakum Allah khayran.
Name of Mufti Group of Muftis
Content of Reply Wa`alykum As-Salaamu Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, thank you very much for having confidence in us and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah’s Sake, meet your expectations.

As Islam stands against waging war, especially against the innocents, it never overlooks the possibility that mankind may resort to war against each other. That’s why it shows keenness on regulating warfare, between Muslims and non-Muslims; it enumerates those that should not be killed or even targeted during the battles. Not only that, but Islam also sets rules regarding those taken as prisoners of war; how they should be treated and dealt with.

Islam does not allow any form of abuse whether it is physical or sexual against the POWs. On the contrary, the Islamic texts have preceded the Geneva Convention in demanding clemency with captives and stressing that prisoners of war must be dealt with in an extremely merciful and kind manner.

This is what is clarified by the late Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah, in his book Concept of War in Islam; it reads:

"Islam advocates clemency with captives. History has never known warriors so merciful to their captives as the early Muslims who followed the teachings of their religion. Numerous religious texts demand clemency with captives.

Prisoners are usually taken when a battle is at its height and there is danger that rage may lead the victorious warriors to harm those who have been defeated in order to take revenge. The Prophet, however urged his followers to treat their captives with clemency. He said to them “You are recommended to treat your captives kindly.” He also urged his Companions on the day of Badr to be kind to their captives. Accordingly the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, gave their captive preference over themselves in matters of food. This is the tolerance of Islam and its respect for human dignity.

In this way Muslims learned two kinds of Jihad. The first is Jihad on the battlefield where people give themselves to the cause of Allah and the second one is Jihad against one’s desires that restrains man’s rage and allows him to fight his foes with clemency and not in the accordance with the laws of the jungle.

What are the teachings of Islam as regard the prisoners of war? Does Islam grant them freedom, ransom or enslave them to the Muslims? Here, we should again refer to the religious texts and the example given by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. The most direct of these texts is Allah’s saying: “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates." (Muhammad: 4)

The Qur’anic verse thus provides alternatives: either the Muslim commander should free those captives who can not offer ransom either in the form of money or an equivalent number of Muslim captives, or he should ransom his captives for money or for a similar number of Muslim captives. This is what is now known as an exchange of prisoners. That kind of ransoming should be adopted, as it leads to the release of two big groups of people – Muslims and non-Muslims.

The religion of freedom, therefore, esteems the freedom of those who do not follow it as much as it does that regarding its followers, for if the advocate of freedom is himself free, he will not make any discrimination on regional, racial or religious grounds, because freedom is a natural right to every human being.

The Qur’anic verse does not mention a third choice, namely the enslavement of captives; the Qur’anic text explicitly forbids it by limiting the choice to only two alternatives – free dismissal or ransoming – without referring to enslavement. Thus enslavement is not involved in the choice.

Moving to the Prophetic Tradition, we shall again find that the Prophet never enslaved a free man throughout his reign. His Companions did take some captives among the spoils in the conquest of “Bani al-Mustaliq” and turned them into salves. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not explicitly prohibit them from doing that, but his own action (of setting free a prisoner) prompted them to release their captives.

This implies prohibitions of enslavement although it is not explicit. The Prophet avoided the enslavement of any free man in his wars; his actions tended towards its denunciation. He urged the manumission of those who had been enslaved. The Qur’an refers to the permissibility of slavery only to urge the emancipation of the enslaved.

The time of the Companions was characterized by the intensification of clashes between the Muslims and the Byzantines in the West and between the Muslims and Persians in the East. The enslaving of captive was practiced in the wars of these nations. When they captured Muslims, they sold them as salves. Those early Muslims made their dealing with their enemies on a reciprocal basis. They therefore retaliated by enslaving their enemies, as it was not fair that the Muslim captives should be kept as slaves while enemy captives should enjoy their freedom.

The Arab commanders found neither Prophetic text nor Qur’anic verse prohibiting slavery explicitly. They only found that the law of dealing on a reciprocal basis necessitated retaliation. Thus if the enemy enslaved a free Muslim it was the duty of Muslims to enslave an enemy captive in compliance with the verse: “If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (Al-Baqarah: 194). The Muslims fighters had therefore to enslave their enemies just as the latter had enslaved them. The sin lies with him who initiates the bad policy.

The Muslims dealt justly with their enemies in compliance with the injunctions of their religion. Having been forced to allow themselves to enslave their enemies they also tolerated the same thing from their enemies when they captured Muslims.

We may compare this wise policy in the treatment of captives with the modern practice which though not allowing the actual buying and selling of captives (as the slave trade has been abolished) yet it allows worse treatment. Captives of the vanquished party may be retained by the victor to do really hard work, while captives of the victor are released immediately after the cessation of hostilities.”

Moreover, Sheikh `Atiya Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, adds:

"The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, urged Muslims to show good treatment to war captives; he said to his Companions: “Treat the prisoners of war kindly.” Relating how the Companions complied strictly with this order given by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, one of the prisoners of Badr, Huzayr ibn Humayr, states: “I was with one of Ansari families, after being taken as captive.

Whenever they had lunch or dinner, they used to give me preference by providing me with bread while they’d eat only dates, in showing compliance with the Prophet’s order of treating prisoners well."

In light of the above-mentioned facts, it is crystal clear that Islam requires that prisoners of war, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, should be accorded with good treatment.

Now on the topic of the Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL, later changed to OIF to avoid one of the obvious facts it was for self interest)
You boil down the whole issue of war being for oil, as incorrect because the price of oil has gone up. That is greatly simplifying the whole issue.
Theres is so much money to be made from iraq, firstly ill try to highlight the obvious Oil interests America is after
*. First of all, with the power of having a constitution dictated by americans, and control held by americans, the scenario of the 1970's can no longer threaten America, where saudi arabia cut off oil from America, and caused a huge economic crisis for the Americans (which later sent an agent to assasinate King Faisal, rahimahulah)
*. Secondly, military bases in strategic positions, a position from which America could attack, or threaten Iran and Syria, and in the case of a regional war with Israel, come to the aid quickly.
*. Thirdly, contracts awarded to american companies. For now the oil industry in Iraq is a wreck. When Amercan companies get contracts to rebuild the oil infrastructure, it will start recieving untold fortunes from investors and money made from the oil sold. The profit from the oil will now go into American hands as they will partially own the oil industry, and because as they will "rebuild" iraq, the iraqies will have to use the profit to pay off american companies who rebuild the infrastructure wich the american sanctions, and wars, and imposed dictator all distroyed in the first place. There is also oversee's jobs that would probably remove a headache of bush's head.
Also, theres the dream that sick people of your like hold. Kill people so that they may convert to our (non existant) moral values and ideals(based on centuries of wiping out native indians, and segrecating society according to color. Also wars that left millions dead, many many more millions oppressed)
I want to see a reply Robert, and a reply from all the "peace loving" "tolerent" "free" Americans.

Try again, Ahmad.

By the way: You are hereby invited to http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/

My dear Ahmad,

"To the islamaphobic Robert Spencer"

I reject the charge, which is just a dodge to divert attention from the realities of jihad violence. Any Muslim who is willing to renounce violent jihad is welcome to join us, as I say on my FAQ page.

"Ive challenged you several times before, you never gave me no reply, i take it you couldnot."

I don't recall any previous challenge. Are you a fellow who used to post abuse and slander under another name?

"The number of innocents killed by the Christian
terrorist(if we have a few thousand, you have entire armies of them), of american origin, amount to 10-14 million."

In the first place, the existence of an evil done by one person does not excuse the evil done by another. I am trying to raise awareness of jihad terrorism. I have never claimed and never will claim that it is the only source of evil in the world.

But more importantly, your charge about "Christian terrorism" is patently false, and I have answered it many times before. The incidents of "Christian terrorism" you list below, whether they are true, exaggerated, or false, are simply not what you wish to make of them.

Why? Because military actions in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. were never justified by Christian principles. No American president or anyone else in power ever quoted the Bible or said that it was a Christian's duty to make war in Vietnam, etc.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a global network of Christian terrorists waging a war that they believed Christ had commanded in the Scriptures. Not even the Crusades had justification in Scripture or Tradition.

These facts stand in sharp and enduring contrast to the behavior of people like Osama bin Laden and Omar Bakri, who explicitly, repeatedly, and in great detail justify acts of violence with references to the Qur'an and Sunna. If you ask them what they are doing, they will tell you they are fighting jihad fi sabil Allah.

I didn't tell them to say that, and I am not going to accept being called "Islamophobic" for reporting it. If you continue to spread slanders on the board, you will be banned.

"You once qouted a person on this site saying 'uktool il yahood'"

Glad to see you read regularly. That Arabic means "Death to the Jews," by the way, for anyone who may have missed it.

"But it never occured to you that you quote the other, far more harsh and hatefull quotes from your own side. Such as "Nuke makkh" which you did not condemn, but only cautioned that it would only strenghthin "the jihadists". You get multiple hatefull, violent posts every day, yet it only seems to bother you when it comes from the otherside, you hypocrite."

This is false as well. I delete every "nuke Mecca" post I see, but I simply don't have time to comb through all the posts. If you want to point out others to me, I will delete them.

I have made my opposition to this clear on many occasions. There is an explicit statement on my FAQ page saying that I do not support any action that involves killing innocents or contravening American civil liberties.

Also, I have left up the statements of numerous jihad sympathizers. (Cf. "Hood Jihadi," "Reza," etc.)

In short, in this charge you are simply fantasizing.

"(same people since the first day i visited, it really gives you an idea about the percentage of people who think like you, happily, very few idiots!)"

5 million hits this month!

"the treatment of guantanamo prisoners according to the Radical christian principles bush adheres to.>My Hell In Camp X-ray"

This article is patent fantasy, just like your charges.

Remember, sir: you are welcome to argue about anything you wish here, but if you continue to slander me, you will be barred. The charge of "Islamophobia" is a tool of the mujahedin, and I am not going to allow it to be used here.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Robert:

Just the sort of measured, tempered response I expected of you. Frankly, Ahmad's ramblings are only a waste of bandwidth.

I particularly liked "In short, in this charge you are simply fantasizing."

Add your name to David Pryce-Jones and Bernard Lewis, among others, who have identified this as a key characteristic of the Arab mindset. I am still not clear if this is a cultural atribute per se of the Arabs, or somehow finds its genesis in Islam- but my experience is, that it is certainly a fact.

And just to add: Why did mothers of Russian Moslems held in Gitmo beg that their sons not be moved back to a Russian prison? Because they knew that their sons' treatment was far better than what they would get back home. And the younger prisoners who were released talked about how well they were treated and how well they were fed and how they were encouraged to study. All those 'atrocity' stories are typical of the over-developed imagination of the Arab mind.

Here's a response Ahmad.......you talk/type too much.....You Ameriphobe....you Westiphobe........You rambling, bumbling fool of a Muslim apologist.

Not to mention that posting the entire text of that work of fiction is most likely a copyright violation.

To add to all of the above comments about Ahmed, your excessive verbiage is an attempt to wear us down as you have no legitimate nor authentic information to support your very weak arugment.

Ahmad:

People who go on and on with non-sensical diatribes like you did usually do so because they feel frustrated and powerless=impotent.

A "phobia" is an IRRATIONAL fear. I don't see suspicion of Islamists as being irrational. They are, after all, out to kill us.

ahmed:

since you called me out ("extremist" i believe was the word) i will respond this once. i would like to point your attention to the below quote taken from pages 55-57 of gerald posner's book "why america slept":

pp. 55-7: “On January 1, 1993, the CIA was focused, however, on a very different foreign policy threat than the three [i.e. Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia] that concerned the White House. A group of fundamentalist Islamic clerics from Egypt, Afghanistan, Algeria, Sudan, and Iran issued a communiqué that was joined by Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. It ominously announced a jihad against all Christian nations, urging devout Muslims worldwide to strike out against corrupting Western and Christian influence. During the next few weeks there was a dramatic upsurge in Islamic violence. Busloads of tourists were shot in Egypt and archaeological sites were bombed. In Latin America, Iranian-backed terrorists blew up dozens of American-owned oil pipelines. Moderate Muslim opponents to the surge in Islamic militancy were assassinated in Turkey and Italy. In Langley, two CIA employees were killed and another two wounded, and a contract worker to the Agency was also wounded. The gunman, who fled in the pandemonium after the attack, was identified as Mir Aimal Kansi, a twenty-eight-year-old Pakistani immigrant who was angry about the U.S. treatment of Muslims in Bosnia and U.S. policy in the Middle East. He had recently boasted to coworkers and acquaintances that he would ‘make a big statement’ by shooting up the White House, the Israeli embassy, or the CIA.
“And finally, on February 26, Islamic terrorists detonated a bomb at the World Trade Center in the hope of bringing it down.”

so far, only qaddafi has backed away from this fartwah.

i might also point out to you that i live in manhattan. i lost a buddy, half of my local fire department, and half a dozen people related to folks in my office perished also on 9/11. we did not ask for this war. but it came to us, and now we're going to mop the floor with you people until you stop. that's it! we are going to win, and you are going to lose. it's already in the cards.

as far as guantanamo -- my advice is don't get involved in terrorism and don't be on a battlefield with the american military and chances are you will avoid that place.

as far as hiroshima and nagasaki -- had we dropped those bombs earlier, we could have saved the 50,000 american lives lost at okinawa. those 2 atomic bombs probably saved 1 million american lives, 1-2 million russian lives, and 10 million japanese lives.

as far as sanctions -- advice should be taken by the sanctioned countries to not engage in the reprehensible behaviour that brings the sanctions about. saddam and the people involved in the corrupt oil-for-food program are to blame.

i'm running out of interest to address all of your points, but suffice it to say that you are whining which makes me think you're filling your head with left-wing propoganda. a real jihadist fills his head with pure hatred.

remember this: war is hell. you should always know which side you're on. war is about survival.

by the way, d.c., i got notification from "the federalist" newsletter (i believe they have the largest email distribution of any newsletter) that they are following the bazian story and will be publishing something on it shortly. you can find them at www.federalist.com

d.c.: you're efforts paid off. it's 8:00 and o'reilly has just announced that he is covering the u.c. berkeley anti-american guy tonight. hope you're watching.

My dear Mr. Robert,
Firstly, I must admit, your reply was a dissapointment as it only addressed the smallest factor points, and at other times merely refused what i had said without reffering to proof, and/or opposing arguments. Ill make my self clear.
"I reject the charge, which is just a dodge to divert attention from the realities of jihad violence. Any Muslim who is willing to renounce violent jihad is welcome to join us, as I say on my FAQ page."

It is less charge than it is belief. Why did i choose islamaphobic?
Becausse your extremely selective in what you choose to back up your arguments, and when reffering haddeths/quranic verses you ignore the principles and conditions assosiated. While verses (such as those reffering to the battle of badr) order it followers to kill the kuffaar till the end, it specifically reffers to the battle of badr, somthing i have seen you use quite incorrectly. You claim to have studied islam for 20 years, how so if you miss the most obvious of details?
You unjustly target all muslims, for example your article "Oh moderate muslim, where art thou?"
You make the point that because muslims do not condemn "violent jihad" they then fall into the same group as all radicals. That is, in my belief, offensive, and islamaphobic. Jihad is somthing we have a right to, be it by Allah or the Geneva convention. Killing women and children is not in our Quraan, or the authentic(i do not pay attention to the unauthentic hadeeths) hadeeths. It is not what the majority of muslims want, or agree with, or even believe in. You will not get a condemnation, because it is condeming our right to self defence. The name is of little importance, the practice assosiated is what should concern you, and concerns me. Wether it is "Jihad" or "Fitting for the holy land" "Finding the WMD'S" its all war. Difference is, there are aggressive, defensive premptive wars. And the groups that fight these wars fight it to their own ideals, and moral values. While I find disgust in the method adopted by Osama Bin Ladin, I find even greater disgust in that practiced the, shull we call it, christianist terrorist. Because on one hand, we find a man killing women and children in the name of defence, and admitting it, while on the other hand we find a man killing women and children in the name of premtivity, while being offensive, and denying it.
Ill come back to the "Christianist" point I made in a bit
"I don't recall any previous challenge. Are you a fellow who used to post abuse and slander under another name?"
Not at all. I have, and always will be under my name, Ahmad. I have posted quite lengthy posts before, and my questions usually appeared in the first post i made in that page.

"In the first place, the existence of an evil done by one person does not excuse the evil done by another. I am trying to raise awareness of jihad terrorism. I have never claimed and never will claim that it is the only source of evil in the world."
Yes, but you greatly margenalize one, as opposed to the other.
"But more importantly, your charge about "Christian terrorism" is patently false, and I have answered it many times before. The incidents of "Christian terrorism" you list below, whether they are true, exaggerated, or false, are simply not what you wish to make of them.

Why? Because military actions in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. were never justified by Christian principles. No American president or anyone else in power ever quoted the Bible or said that it was a Christian's duty to make war in Vietnam, etc. "

For as long as i have been visting this site, i do not recall, not once, you having to deal with someone use the word "christian terrorist" so ive never really seen you deal with it.
How ever going along with the logic that because in the Gospels it does not advocate war, that christians comiting these crimes become free of the name "christian terrorist" means that you may no longer refer to osama, or his likes, as muslim/islamist terrorists. Why? Because while the go on about jihad, they kill women and children. Quite clearly it is in neither the quraan and haddeth, however, just like bush finds a religious justification in his war, just like the crusaders found a justification in their blood lust wars, osama has found one in his. Furthermore, while the crusades recieved support from the popes of the time, and while this disgusting for for self interest recieves justification from right wing church leaders in the USA, the followers of Osama recieve justification from Osama, abu Hamza, who ever. Yes they are Christian terrorists, as the terrorise nations and belong to the christian faith, adhere to its laws and principales. However, my knowledge, and great respect for christianity, and a great deal of christians forces me to back down from the term "christian terrorist" to a more appropriate "Christianist". The word im using can be thought of as the term Islamist, and a find no offence in christian neighbors and friends chritising what they refer to as islamists, i do not excpect this term to offend the more moderate christians (certainly this is not the place to find them).
Id like to remind you that bush has called this war a crusade, and i have numerous quotes of christian leaders supporting wars fought by either USA or israel, one church leader going to the point of saying that if Bush withdrew his support from israel, America will start recieving punishments from god as a result. Another cautioning bush of backing of from his war stance, exclaiming that it was his duty as a born again christian. That is the point im making, i do not assosiate christianity with war, as my knowledge quite clearly tells me otherwise, i however do charde christian extremists with that. People of your like.

"This is false as well. I delete every "nuke Mecca" post I see, but I simply don't have time to comb through all the posts. If you want to point out others to me, I will delete them."
Unfortunatley you miss the point i make. I made it clear that while you targeted the person who made the "uktool il yahood" statement, you ignored the fact that your own hate spreading left people making statement such as "nuke mekka" I DID NOT ask you to delete them, just to quote them. Please read what i say a tiny bit more carefully/choose not to ignore the point i make.

"In short, in this charge you are simply fantasizing."
Say again ;)

"5 million hits this month!"

Yes, id care to invite you to a forum i partially run that passed the figure youve given, though i do not wish it to be flooded with hate mail.
Also, why pick on the silliest things. I made the point that there were very few people who share your views, if it is otherwise, then i will only raise the concern, and i swear it the anti americanism, and anti christian right, could only increase.

"This article is patent fantasy, just like your charges."
You may wish to tell that to the other 2 quantanamoes who endorsed it. This is what i greatly hate, the denial when your own side comits such acts, yet you jump to every opportunity that puts a muslim under the spot light. (The warhouse story?) Its called arrogance and ignorance.

I appreciate the reply however...

"Here's a response Ahmad.......you talk/type too much.....You Ameriphobe....you Westiphobe........You rambling, bumbling fool of a Muslim apologist."
I strongly refuse the charge of Ameriphobe. I neither hate America or its people, however its government, and corrupt leaders are my enemy. Its forign policy is too.
As for the Westiphobe, then your accusation is baseless, as numerous european writers share much of my views.
As for the bit about being a fool, go on and comment a bit on what i say if you are otherwise.

"Add your name to David Pryce-Jones and Bernard Lewis, among others, who have identified this as a key characteristic of the Arab mindset. I am still not clear if this is a cultural atribute per se of the Arabs, or somehow finds its genesis in Islam- but my experience is, that it is certainly a fact."
This comment is racist. No particular nation or people have one definative charechteristic.

"To add to all of the above comments about Ahmed, your excessive verbiage is an attempt to wear us down as you have no legitimate nor authentic information to support your very weak arugment."
Ill save my self the time, heres a responce. I challenge you to disproove what i said. Every argument i made i made a powerfull argument, if otherwise, proove it to me and the other members by disproving it, i hope it isnt too difficult.

"They are, after all, out to kill us."
Not really, there out there to stop you from killing us.

"People who go on and on with non-sensical diatribes like you did usually do so because they feel frustrated and powerless=impotent."
No, thats you trying to regain your pride after all the disturbing facts i displayed about you blood soaked history.

"That was Ahmed's typical copy and paste BS. If he took the time to honestly Annalise each of those claims, he would find them false. He won't because finding the truth will destroy his beliefs.
Just like reading all of the so called Islamic "scripture" with which the koran is composed from will also make him question his faith, so therefore he refuses to do it."
Well, please analyse my political arguments for us if you are so confident.
I do not know why you even write about me if we never entered a discussion. You wright so confidantly about me as though you know me, and you make the stupidest accusation.
Ill make some points clear, that you may know me better.
*We have never talked about hadeeths on a personal basis, so i do not believe i "came back with some stupid explanation, or ignored it" i do not ignore anything, ever. So i challenge you to proove it.
*.The whole modern day arabic language is based on the quraan. The is scientific proof that the 4 original copies of the quraan(written in one of the 7 forms of arabic the quraan was revealed in) were written during the prophets life time. And the fact that they were all identical prooves so. Also you will not find, not one letter or even "tashkillah" (little lines used for gramatical reasons) different in any quraan on earth. You argument is baseless, i believe Robert may even have the facts to disproove it
"Ahmed refuses to read the book linked to my nic, because he is afraid of the truth. He'll make up any reason to not read it, but the fact is Ahmed, that it only uses approved Islamic hadith, written by approved islamic scholars, and it is the only material that exists from which the koran is written from."
Im sorry, but when have i ever told you i refuse to read anything. I dont know wether your trying to make stuff up to fool others here, or give them an argument to make, or wether your confusing me with someone else.
I read the quraan on an almost daily basis, as well as being taught "tafseer" "tilawah" and a great deal of islamic literature. I have never saw anything fall out of the logic, on the other hand i have read a book by an author (a sweedish scientist) who prooved that islam fits perfectly with science. I will try to get a hold of the name and author when i can. It also compares it to that of other religous books.

"Read the path of Muhammad's life, read the hadith and when and why it was created, then you will know the truth of Islam.
You can test everything with any copies of Koran in existence, but you will always come to the same conclusion, regardless if you find the odd discrepancy."

Its ironic you speak aout hadeeth and quran using the same arguments muslims use to disproove the gospels. But there is a difference. Hadeeth was not written by anyone. Not by Bukhari or muslim, or abu dawood. It, howeever, was compiled during the ages. And the very fact that 8 different imams compiled 8 differnt books prooves that they were not written by anyof them. However, each collected the hadeeths he found to be accurate. They would do so by comparing a number of things. Such as the chain of authors, the number of people it was reported by, and who reported it. Bukhari is considered by far the most accurate, as he travelled the world twice to make sure he had the most accurate hadeeths.
However, the gospels authors are not know, and there is no chain of authors, and the people who reported it are not know, and the years of its compiling are not known (50-150 years after the assension of jesus to heaven) and the fact that there were literally thousands of version before a number of them were accepted. Also, they were never revised by jesus or his apostoles, nor written durng their life time. So how do you wish me to accept it? Worse yet, are the translations, and the versions in existance today. While translations differ, as does wording from one to another, entire meanings have been changed.
"Islam is a lie. It's authority's the Mullahs, sheiks, Imams, clerics, they all know it's a lie, but it is the source of their power and control over you, so they will never admit it's a lie. Instead, they tell more lies to try authenticate it.
They poison the minds of their subjects with lies, brutally enforce the masses with brainwashing and adherence to this lie.
It's followers know nothing else. They live a lie, and thats all they know how to do, is lie."

Your making our imams sound like the popes of the past. The fact is they controll nobody, people refer to them however to learn islam. They, unlike the church leaders, have not lead any authority over their people. They live simple lives (most of the time) and have no money goals. What you claim shows a very very poor understanding of muslims and islamic societies. I can say, from having lived in the most strict societies for a great deal of my life, your accusation is totally unfounded. Its the same rubbish youve said before (may i remind you, Allah meaning wood, go ask Robert, im sure he'll tell you otherwise, no matter how much he hates islam)

"I can only hope that you Ahmed, can wake up your mind, and find the truth.
God is truth, and truth will always prevail and form the strongest foundation.
Seek the truth Ahmed, save your soul"

You dont save your soul by belief, for satan too believes in god, you save your soul by purity of the mind, purity of soul, purity of the intentions. I have no other way of saving my self, and i do not plan on living a life of sexual frenzies, drinking till the night, murdering innocents, or simply harming others, then simply because i believe in someone as being my lord, i become saved. That is the logic i believe in. You should worry a bit about yourself.

"Further, I also recommend you contact Ali Sina's http//www.faithfreedom.org site. Ex muslims for helping muslims find the truth, and freeing themselves from the chains of Islam.

"But, as a warrior for my country, I do not act in the name of the lord, but in the name of my king, and I will bring you death, because you, acting in the name of your false god, Allah, or indeed, Satan himself, offer me only a lie, and death.
I will champion over you and your kind because I am not ignorant of my enemy, or the truth."
Just like the past 5 crusades ey?
Stop speaking violent rubbish from behind you pc, at home comfortable with your feet on a pillow. You wish for a fight, travel to iraq, burn in the scoching heat, and experience desert warfare, pain missery, suffering, lonliness.

As a Christian, I can only offer you the truth, the gospel of God, the path to his salvation,"
I have never, not once in my life, come across an "ex muslim". Not once. I have seen converts to islam. Last year alone, they topped 14000 white british people (the guradian). The path to salvation is in ones heart, not a religion or book. They only inspire one and motivate him to do that.
Also, be reminded that jesus said that what preaches good cannot be of satan, and no one has preached such high moral standards As Allah (SWT).

"ahmed:

since you called me out ("extremist" i believe was the word) i will respond this once. i would like to point your attention to the below quote taken from pages 55-57 of gerald posner's book "why america slept":

pp. 55-7: “On January 1, 1993, the CIA was focused, however, on a very different foreign policy threat than the three [i.e. Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia] that concerned the White House. A group of fundamentalist Islamic clerics from Egypt, Afghanistan, Algeria, Sudan, and Iran issued a communiqué that was joined by Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. It ominously announced a jihad against all Christian nations, urging devout Muslims worldwide to strike out against corrupting Western and Christian influence. During the next few weeks there was a dramatic upsurge in Islamic violence. Busloads of tourists were shot in Egypt and archaeological sites were bombed. In Latin America, Iranian-backed terrorists blew up dozens of American-owned oil pipelines. Moderate Muslim opponents to the surge in Islamic militancy were assassinated in Turkey and Italy. In Langley, two CIA employees were killed and another two wounded, and a contract worker to the Agency was also wounded. The gunman, who fled in the pandemonium after the attack, was identified as Mir Aimal Kansi, a twenty-eight-year-old Pakistani immigrant who was angry about the U.S. treatment of Muslims in Bosnia and U.S. policy in the Middle East. He had recently boasted to coworkers and acquaintances that he would ‘make a big statement’ by shooting up the White House, the Israeli embassy, or the CIA.
“And finally, on February 26, Islamic terrorists detonated a bomb at the World Trade Center in the hope of bringing it down.”

so far, only qaddafi has backed away from this fartwah."

2 points, i did not refer to you, i have never met you. I reffered to Robert, and people of the like.
Secondly all the information you posted, did not detail any form of proof. It sounds rediculous, care to point out the people it said were involved in the meeting. Qadafi is an atheast. Iran is an islamic state. There is more, unfortunatly i have run out of time.

"i might also point out to you that i live in manhattan. i lost a buddy, half of my local fire department, and half a dozen people related to folks in my office perished also on 9/11. we did not ask for this war. but it came to us, and now we're going to mop the floor with you people until you stop. that's it! we are going to win, and you are going to lose. it's already in the cards."
Firstly the war did not start on sept 11. Please reread my earlier post. There is far too much that i would like to point out. Let me summarise
*.The dictators put in power over the muslims by america (Shah, Saddam etc...)
*.Dictators supported by America (you name it)
*.Countries bombed by usa (Somalia, Afganistan, Iraq, sudan, lebanon etc...)
*.Countries bombed using american supplied weapons (Iran, Palestine)
*.The hole palestine issue
Etc... (running out of time)

"as far as guantanamo -- my advice is don't get involved in terrorism and don't be on a battlefield with the american military and chances are you will avoid that place."
Your reply is that id expect from a mentally ill, torture crazed person. Please rethink what you have said. I hope its just you have not read what i posted.

"as far as hiroshima and nagasaki -- had we dropped those bombs earlier, we could have saved the 50,000 american lives lost at okinawa. those 2 atomic bombs probably saved 1 million american lives, 1-2 million russian lives, and 10 million japanese lives."
Actually the japanese had already gone to switzerland requesting the terms for peace. Also pace of fighting was already hugly slowed down, japan was cornered, the island hoping was over, the war was going to end sooner or later. Your attempts to justify it by making a grossly exagerated figure of lives that may have been saved is rediculous. You also show poor understanding of its history.

"as far as sanctions -- advice should be taken by the sanctioned countries to not engage in the reprehensible behaviour that brings the sanctions about. saddam and the people involved in the corrupt oil-for-food program are to blame."
Yes, and let us be reminded who put saddam in power and gave him his weapons?
But no, the stubborn sanctions resulted from america wishing to keep saddam in power for stability reasons, while not arming him. The food for oil, even if 100% efficient, would not provide iraq with what it needed to survive.

"remember this: war is hell. you should always know which side you're on. war is about survival."
You may wish to tell the somalise, or vietnamese that ;)

Regards
Ahmad

My dear Ahmad,

"Becausse your extremely selective in what you choose to back up your arguments, and when reffering haddeths/quranic verses you ignore the principles and conditions assosiated. While verses (such as those reffering to the battle of badr) order it followers to kill the kuffaar till the end, it specifically reffers to the battle of badr, somthing i have seen you use quite incorrectly. You claim to have studied islam for 20 years, how so if you miss the most obvious of details?"

In my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers" I explain how Ibn Kathir and other authorities consider that the Verse of the Sword abrogates all peace treaties in the Qur'an. That makes war against unbelievers the Qur'an's last word on jihad. I am not saying this: many Salafi Muslim interpreters say the same. If you have an argument with this point, go argue with them.

"You unjustly target all muslims, for example your article 'Oh moderate muslim, where art thou?'"

False. I have never said, in that article or anywhere else, that all Muslims are terrorists, or evil, or any related term.

"You make the point that because muslims do not condemn 'violent jihad' they then fall into the same group as all radicals."

I have actually never made that point.

"That is, in my belief, offensive, and islamaphobic."

Sure: make things up and then blame me for saying them. A neat way to win an argument!

"'I don't recall any previous challenge. Are you a fellow who used to post abuse and slander under another name?' Not at all. I have, and always will be under my name, Ahmad. I have posted quite lengthy posts before, and my questions usually appeared in the first post i made in that page."

Well, sorry. I don't have time to read all the comments, and I never saw you ask me anything before.

"How ever going along with the logic that because in the Gospels it does not advocate war, that christians comiting these crimes become free of the name "christian terrorist" means that you may no longer refer to osama, or his likes, as muslim/islamist terrorists. Why? Because while the go on about jihad, they kill women and children. Quite clearly it is in neither the quraan and haddeth, however, just like bush finds a religious justification in his war, just like the crusaders found a justification in their blood lust wars, osama has found one in his."

Islamic law (cf. al-Mawardi and others) allows for the killing of women and children if they are aiding the combatants. This is the widespread justification among Muslims for suicide bombings of civilians in Israel, as I'm sure you know.

"i however do charde christian extremists with that. People of your like."

You can call me whatever you want, as silly as it is. The struggle against Osama etc. is a struggle for human rights for all, for they would subjugate the world to Sharia, which oppresses non-Muslims and women. That is the nature of the struggle here.

"I made the point that there were very few people who share your views, if it is otherwise, then i will only raise the concern, and i swear it the anti americanism, and anti christian right, could only increase."

This is not a Left struggle or a Right struggle. It is a human rights struggle. I'm not worried about numbers. I'm worried about justice.

This is the problem: there are many people in the world who believe what is below, and are acting upon it:

"The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax." ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.8). In the absence of a caliph, this responsibility remains. 'Umdat al-Salik was endorsed as a reliable manual of Sunni orthodoxy in 1994.

There is no such doctrine in Christian theology or law, by the way.

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations." Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah

You dare call me an "Islamophobe" because I quote what the Islamic books say?

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

"In my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers" I explain how Ibn Kathir and other authorities consider that the Verse of the Sword abrogates all peace treaties in the Qur'an. That makes war against unbelievers the Qur'an's last word on jihad. I am not saying this: many Salafi Muslim interpreters say the same. If you have an argument with this point, go argue with them."
Yes, you see, you quote them, however continue to ignore the vaster majority who interpret otherwise. While i have a problem with them, it is greater with you. As with them, they tend to educate muslims. And muslims have multiple sources to learn from, they may compare one imams ideology to the others, one friday khutbah to the others. When you present only their interpretations to your own people, it very much closes the door on all the others who interpret/believe otherwise.
"False. I have never said, in that article or anywhere else, that all Muslims are terrorists, or evil, or any related term."
If you look carefully, i did not acuse you of calling us all terroris,evil. Radial, related, yes, the same, no. However id like to highlight the news you posted on the day of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's death (rahimahullah), where you said, sarcasticly:-
"Tiny minority of extremists burns American and British flags at Cairo's Al-Azhar University "
As well as this
"Muslims from moderate, secular Turkey burn an American flag after Friday prayers today"
Both use sarcasm to emphasize that radicals are the majority. While you exmpasize what i accused you of in an indirect and subtle manner, it is strongly felt by any muslim who will visit this site. While anyone recognizes the right to self defence, he too becomes a radical. As i said before, its not the name, its the action that matters. Jihad/Crusade, i couldnt care less. Its all a matter of self interest, defence/offence regardless.
"Sure: make things up and then blame me for saying them. A neat way to win an argument!"
I make nothing up. Please point them out, and ill make my point. I do not in any way try to make up somthing to proove my point. It is either my feeling and analysing, or merely my knowledge from other primary sources. On the other hand, you usually hold back bits and pieces when reffering to either an islamic law, or a muslim you regard as an extremist.
"Islamic law (cf. al-Mawardi and others) allows for the killing of women and children if they are aiding the combatants. This is the widespread justification among Muslims for suicide bombings of civilians in Israel, as I'm sure you know."
First point. A muslims primary source for an islamic law is not by reffering to the law as interpretted by some other person, on the contrary, muslims are encouraged, be it by quraan or haddeeth, to refer to the quraan as the primary source for any law, and the hadeeth to help better interpret it. I have no other book that i adhere to, and im sure many muslims will agree on this one with me. I clearly stated previously that no where in the QURAAN or HADEETH does it specifically say one is allowed to kill women or children. If you, however, recall the narration about the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) where after a battle he witnessed a number of dead children, on which he became furious. Companions not understanding his anger, asked him why he was furious, as they were children of the enemies, and the prophet(PBUH) exclaimed that it mattered not wether they were children of our or there's, but the very fact they were children.
On another instant, after the battle of badr(or was it uhud, i must admit, i cannot remember) the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) say a group of his men around somthing. As he got closer he saw that they were surrounding a slain women. He then asked, has it not been told that it is forbidden to kill women and children, or cut down tree's in battle? He then spread the word through the ranks to make sure it was understood. So then, i challenge your interpretation that islam advocates the killing of men women in children. Also, i would like to ask you if you are interisted in a reply (a well prepared one) in the summer vacation, to the two questions in the article "oh moderate muslim, where art thou?"
Secondly, on the subject of whom to kill, and whom you may not. I believe what i understand on the justification of suicide bombings are that:-
In "Israel" every man/woman at the age of 18 must enter the military for 3 years, in which they are seen aiding the oppression, occupation and war. After the 3 year sentence, they have to return to the military for 2-4 weeks every year, again aiding the military effort. I agree that they become legitamite targets, as would anyone, should it be their own war. That is how they choose to justify it. I do not condone this thinking. Why?
Because the basic thinking among many people is, palestineans are fighting an enemy with mircavas/f16/apaches. This and the failure rate of any decent attack on a military outpost. And the occupation of 30-35 years without any signs of a real solution. When the damage resulting from suicide bombing is examined, we find that the Israeli economy is at the brink of destruction, a million jews fled from palestine (haretz), and somthing which truely pains Israel, in the same manner that Israel pains the palestineans. So why dont i condone it? Because it goes against the principales of Islam that i adhere to. If Allah (SWT) forbids it, then i believe strongly he knows what is best for us. Many think that palestineans will be destroyed if they do not do the suicide bombings, i think otherwise. Because from a puerly islamic prespective i do not believe Allah (SWT) appreciates the arrogant thinking of his subject, and how little faith they have in what he tells us in person. The point being, what he says is the best, and otherwise is a matter of self destruction, as he will not come to the aid of their suffering.
"You can call me whatever you want, as silly as it is. The struggle against Osama etc. is a struggle for human rights for all, for they would subjugate the world to Sharia, which oppresses non-Muslims and women. That is the nature of the struggle here."
I wish it was a struggle for human rights. But how so if you can only condemn the palestineans, when in reality the reason they fight is to regain their rights as human beings that no one would give them for 35 years. And how so if you support israel, which i promise you will find on the list of all your own human rights group marked in red as a violater of human rights. How so if, from what i read, you appear to be a supporter of the iraq war, and president bush. How so when Bush killed 90000 afganie civilians, 20-50 thousand more iraqies. How so, when you are silent on the blockades, curfews, mid night house searches conducted by your own troops. Yet you place moqtada under your list of radicals. Wheres all the human rights you speak about. Why dont you go after arab leaders put in power by your own christian government, who suppress our own human rights. You are right, what seems to concern you is the human rights of christians in the middle east/elses where. Go after Hussni,Fahad,Abdallah,assad,musharraf
They all kill/torture opponents. They all oppress their people, they all kneel not to their citizens demands, but to the demands of their own leaders, the US governments. It does not seem to concern you, but if so, let me know. Condemn Israel, condemn its human rights record. Condemn King Abdallah, condemn his cruel treatment of opponents. Condemn his trial, used as a ploy to please america, where 4 of the people sentenced to deaths have not been proven to be after the death of the American diplomat. Do you not recognize that the larger part of our struggle is to free ourselves from our dictators, and their human rights abusing principlas?
Also i very very strongly disagree with sharia being a women oppressing law.
It gave women rights before christians knew what woman rights meant. Also, reading Pauls's(founder of modern christianity) letters, you dont excpect me to believe christianity advocates women equality. On the contrary, while Muhammed (PBUH) describen men and women as cloaks for one another, and while he clearly said, that as husband has rights over his wife, the wife has rights over her husband. And gave women equivilent rights in everything from owning/buying property, and conducting business, to keeping her last name, christianity makes no mention of the sort. Paul (founder of modern christianity, claims to be the last apostole) writes the following:-
8] I desire therefore that the men in every place pray, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting. [9] In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing; [10] but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works. [11] Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. [12] But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; [15] but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.
Id like to hightlighte
*.With all subjection and quitness
*.Man superiority exmpasized because of the belief that first man was created, then woman.
*.The belief that women are less superiour because of the belief that it was first women who fell into disobediance.
*.That god punishes all women with birth for that.
While islam requires muslim women to obey their husbands, the motive is neither because of mans superiority(which islam does not recognise) or because of any other sexist reason, but because in Islam marriage is seen as a holy communion, which much be kept in the best possible harmony.
I would like to highlight another thing.
While islam requires muslim women to wear their hijab as a fard, it is, as the muslim women believes, Allah, her creator, ordering her. And while the community encourages her to wear it/disapproves of not wearing it, it in the end is her own choice. That is why Muhammed (PBUH) used to walk with his eyes on the floor, as it is not societies right to force it. However, i would agree with laws requiring decent dressing in public, be it man or woman. As i find disgust in the West's non existant moral standards, and am strongly against its importing. I believe christianity would agree with the practice.

"This is not a Left struggle or a Right struggle. It is a human rights struggle. I'm not worried about numbers. I'm worried about justice.

This is the problem: there are many people in the world who believe what is below, and are acting upon it:

"The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax." ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.8). In the absence of a caliph, this responsibility remains. 'Umdat al-Salik was endorsed as a reliable manual of Sunni orthodoxy in 1994."

I too am worried about justice, but what you fail to recognise is justice for all. Ill let you comment on what you view my context of justice as.

As i said before, there are 2 manuals. The quraan, and hadeeth. I believe its a misconception held by your part, that muslims wish to fight until you become muslim, or pay jizya. Osama makes it clear he fights to rid the Arabian peninsula from American forces, and because of American support for israel.
While hamas makes it clear they fight to return israelies from where they came, this is a right they hold, as israel left no hopes for the right of return issue, bush stupidly endorsed that. It was the only key to peace, now no one has an excuse.
But i think the idea of this being a war to the finnish, kill ever non muslim/force islam on them/force jizya is an idea shared by a minority so small, id care to count on my fingers. As for the establishment of the khilafah, then i quite strongly agree with that, while the non muslims pay jizya, the muslims pay zakat. Each is 2.5% of their annual savings, so i see little to complain of.

I do not share ibn khaldun. However, im sure youve come across the verse "Let there be no compulsion in faith" and if you read "Muhammed, a mercy to mankind" then im sure you see multiple cases in his life where such a situation may have arrised, but he choose no such rediculous meathod. The only thing he ever used to convert were he's high moral standards, genorosity, and kindness in dealing with people. He is the charechter i follow.
I dare call you islamaphobic, because once again, you have been very selective in your choices.

"Yes, you see, you quote them, however continue to ignore the vaster majority who interpret otherwise."

In fact that is not the case. I have never claimed that the radical interpretation was the only one in Islam, and if you read the book you would see that to be the case. However, I have found that most moderates today do not refute the radical interpretation, which must be done or it will continue to proliferate. Instead, they simply ignore it. Please specify which of the "vaster majority" you have in mind, and I will take it from there.

"While i have a problem with them, it is greater with you."

That is laughably silly, since it is they who have launched a global network of terrorists who operate in the name of Islam, leading millions of decent people to doubt your protestations that Islam is a religion of peace. I haven't done that myself. As Ibn Warraq says, "The theory and practice of jihad was not concocted in the Pentagon. ... It was taken from the Koran, the Hadith and Islamic tradition. ... We must take seriously what the Islamists say to understand their motivation, [that] it is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight — in the literal sense — until man-made law has been replaced by God’s law, the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world. For every text the liberal Muslims produce, the mullahs will use dozens of counter-examples [that are] exegetically, philosophically, historically far more legitimate."

You also say: "When you present only their interpretations to your own people, it very much closes the door on all the others who interpret/believe otherwise."

Again, that's just silly, and anyway I have always maintained that there are other schools in Islam. Name the interpreters you have in mind, please.

"Both use sarcasm to emphasize that radicals are the majority."

I am not sure radicals are the majority. I am sure they are not a tiny minority. I am also sure, as anyone who follows the news would be, that they are by far the most energized and influential group in Islam today. You should be fighting them, not me.

"On the other hand, you usually hold back bits and pieces when reffering to either an islamic law, or a muslim you regard as an extremist."

Please specify when and where I have ever done this.

"First point. A muslims primary source for an islamic law is not by reffering to the law as interpretted by some other person, on the contrary, muslims are encouraged, be it by quraan or haddeeth, to refer to the quraan as the primary source for any law, and the hadeeth to help better interpret it. I have no other book that i adhere to, and im sure many muslims will agree on this one with me. I clearly stated previously that no where in the QURAAN or HADEETH does it specifically say one is allowed to kill women or children."

So you are denying that most Sunnis follow the madhhabs? Anyway, if Qur'an or Hadith or the Prophet said that such killing of women and children is never allowed, where did the madhhabs get the idea that it was under certain circumstances? Why did the Prophet praise the murder of Asma bint Marwan and her unborn child, if he forbade such killings in all circumstances?

"So then, i challenge your interpretation that islam advocates the killing of men women in children."

I didn't say "advocates." I said "permits." And I gave you 2 citations from approved legal manuals. Are you going to tell me that those legal manuals don't exist, or aren't Muslim? Come on.

"Also, i would like to ask you if you are interisted in a reply (a well prepared one) in the summer vacation, to the two questions in the article 'oh moderate muslim, where art thou?'"

Certainly.

As for your explanation that some people justifying the killing of Israeli civilians because when they turn 18 they serve in the military, it doesn't do the job. Why then do they kill people younger than 18-- even babies?

"I do not condone this thinking."

I'm glad to hear that. Contrary to your claims, I have never said that Islam was a monolith.

"I wish it was a struggle for human rights. But how so if you can only condemn the palestineans,"

I don't condemn the Palestinians. My heart bleeds for Palestinians such as George Khoury. One of my dearest friends is a Palestinian Christian who wants to translate one of my books into Arabic. I favor a 2-state solution. I oppose the Palestinian leadership and the jihad ideology which I believe is the worst enemy of the Palestinians, and the reason why many decent people cannot support them.

"when in reality the reason they fight is to regain their rights as human beings that no one would give them for 35 years."

... including the neighboring Muslim states, which would not allow them to settle there.

"How so when Bush killed 90000 afganie civilians, 20-50 thousand more iraqies."

The US doesn't target civilians the way the suicide bombers do, although the Iraqis make this more difficult by hiding among the civilians -- cf. those who fired on troops from a mosque. When civilians are killed, the US holds inquiries and -punishes those responsible if the killings could have been avoided. In contrast, the Palestinians celebrate the suicide bombers as heroes.

"You are right, what seems to concern you is the human rights of christians in the middle east/elses where. Go after Hussni,Fahad,Abdallah,assad,musharraf"

I have no respect for these guys.

"It does not seem to concern you, but if so, let me know."

Yes, actually, it does. I have been very critical of Assad and Musharraf on Jihad Watch. The others too, although less so, because they have been less in the news.

"Condemn Israel, condemn its human rights record."

This is the product of so much tendentious fabrication that I will only proceed on the basis of established facts. The Palestinians complain about houses being destroyed when those houses were used to launch attacks against Israeli civilians. It seems to me that once they use those houses militarily, they become military targets.

"Condemn King Abdallah, condemn his cruel treatment of opponents. Condemn his trial, used as a ploy to please america, where 4 of the people sentenced to deaths have not been proven to be after the death of the American diplomat."

Please give more details re this story.

"Do you not recognize that the larger part of our struggle is to free ourselves from our dictators, and their human rights abusing principlas?"

Mm-hmm.

"Also i very very strongly disagree with sharia being a women oppressing law."

Yes, but your assertion founders on Sura 4:34:
"beat them."

"It gave women rights before christians knew what woman rights meant."

I respectfully invite you to read some genuine history.

"*.With all subjection and quitness ..."

Yes, but St. Paul never says "beat them."

"As i said before, there are 2 manuals. The quraan, and hadeeth. I believe its a misconception held by your part, that muslims wish to fight until you become muslim, or pay jizya. Osama makes it clear he fights to rid the Arabian peninsula from American forces, and because of American support for israel.
While hamas makes it clear they fight to return israelies from where they came, this is a right they hold, as israel left no hopes for the right of return issue, bush stupidly endorsed that. It was the only key to peace, now no one has an excuse."

This is hooey. The Hamas Charter itself says that the struggle is universal. Al-Muhajiroun is forthright about wanting to subjugate the whole world under Sharia.

"But i think the idea of this being a war to the finnish, kill ever non muslim/force islam on them/force jizya is an idea shared by a minority so small, id care to count on my fingers."

I hope you're right, but I see too much evidence to the contrary.

"As for the establishment of the khilafah, then i quite strongly agree with that, while the non muslims pay jizya, the muslims pay zakat. Each is 2.5% of their annual savings, so i see little to complain of."

This is a dodge. The kharaj for non-Muslims is double that for Muslims. Paying zakat brings a blessing, while paying jizya is a sign of humiliation. There are numerous other rules enforcing the humiliation of the Christians and other dhimmis. These hang over in Islamic society. I have a friend who left Syria because he couldn't get a good job: his name gave him away as a Christian, and no one would hire him to supervise Muslims.

"I do not share ibn khaldun. However, im sure youve come across the verse 'Let there be no compulsion in faith.'"

Yes. I've also read Sayyid Qutb, who insists that there is no compulsion in faith, but that Muslims must wage war to institute Sharia, including the dhimmi laws. I don't find that reassuring.

"I dare call you islamaphobic, because once again, you have been very selective in your choices."

As I say, you can call me anything you want, but the naming doesn't make it so. I have been very clear about what I am doing: I am resisting the jihad waged by Osama and people who think like him. Any Muslim willing to renounce violent jihad, khilafa, etc. is welcome to join us. If you want to call that Islamophobic, I say "shame on you."

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

My dearer Robert Sepencer,

"In fact that is not the case. I have never claimed that the radical interpretation was the only one in Islam, and if you read the book you would see that to be the case. However, I have found that most moderates today do not refute the radical interpretation, which must be done or it will continue to proliferate. Instead, they simply ignore it. Please specify which of the "vaster majority" you have in mind, and I will take it from there."
For one, you make an argument based on a book i have not(yet) read. I do not know what you concieve to be a moderate, little does it mean to me considering the requirments you hold for becoming a member of the radicals. The vaster majority i speek of are the people i talk and enteract with on a daily basis. While they all hold a mixture of values, i have found the more religious to disaproove of innocent targeting, and vice versa for the more nationalistic, rather islamicly inspireded members of the society i come from.
"That is laughably silly, since it is they who have launched a global network of terrorists who operate in the name of Islam, leading millions of decent people to doubt your protestations that Islam is a religion of peace. I haven't done that myself. As Ibn Warraq says, "The theory and practice of jihad was not concocted in the Pentagon. ... It was taken from the Koran, the Hadith and Islamic tradition. ... We must take seriously what the Islamists say to understand their motivation, [that] it is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight — in the literal sense — until man-made law has been replaced by God’s law, the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world. For every text the liberal Muslims produce, the mullahs will use dozens of counter-examples [that are] exegetically, philosophically, historically far more legitimate." "
They did not launch anything but in self defence. Osama never declared war untill the imperialistic american forces created bases in Saudi Arabia, and let me remind you of the Prophet Muhammeds (PHUH) last wish, that no kuffar (armies) be allowed into the Arabian Peninsula. I have not said Islam is a religion of peace, i do not believe the term suits any group, religion, people. I however have stated that
1. Islam does not support the killing of innocents (woman,children, elderly, or even cutting trees)
2. Islam does not wish of its people to conquer the world by means of the sword, but by means of ideology and belief. Islam does not ask of its followers to kill/enslave enemies till none exists. This was not the case, and will not be the case, except for a few. I challenge Ibn Warraq's rubbish, that the proof i bring can be countered by texts that are " exegetically, philosophically, historically far more legitimate." This is more a lie, than it is an exageration. And what to excpect of another islamaphoia.
"Again, that's just silly, and anyway I have always maintained that there are other schools in Islam. Name the interpreters you have in mind, please."
Try the former grand sheikh of saudi arabia, sheikh bin baz, or the current sheikh of al azhar university
"I am not sure radicals are the majority. I am sure they are not a tiny minority. I am also sure, as anyone who follows the news would be, that they are by far the most energized and influential group in Islam today. You should be fighting them, not me."
Look at it this way. If i took the american people to be the same people i see on FOX news, well then America is pritty much a world of rude, arrogant, lying and hypocritical people. You base your beliefs on news, i base mine on my experience.
Although i do not agree with their views, fighting them would be playing into the real enemies hands, America. For if they advocate violence, the one who seems to heed their calls is America. For at its hands, millions of our own have died, on its hands, millions of our own have been oppressed, on its hands, thousands of our rebelions have been suppressed. If i condemn them, it will be no more than words. They will have their time infront of Allah, and it is their choices to make untill then.
"Please specify when and where I have ever done this."
Hmm... the bit of news about the 16yr old suicide bomber. While you used it for your anti islamic rehtoric, that islam wants of him to blow him self up for 72 virgins, you ignored that Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (rahimahulah) gave a fatwa forbidding the use of children in suicide bombings
"So you are denying that most Sunnis follow the madhhabs? Anyway, if Qur'an or Hadith or the Prophet said that such killing of women and children is never allowed, where did the madhhabs get the idea that it was under certain circumstances? Why did the Prophet praise the murder of Asma bint Marwan and her unborn child, if he forbade such killings in all circumstances?"
Mathahib are references, but in beginning and end, its the quraan and hadeeth. Judgments are not based on mathahib. You will never find a sheikh basing his friday khutbahs on a mathhab, rather quraan and sunnah. You will very rarely hear anyone base thier actions on a mathhab.

How many times have i seen people use the tale about the prophet praising Asmas death.
There is more than enough evidence written on the internet, im sure you have come accross, know it is weak/forged, yet use it to proove your case. See why i used the word islamaphobic?
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Muhammad/afak-asma.htm
http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Muhammad/Book/Biography/Chapter_25.htm
He DID NOT praise her death, let alone take comfort in it. This is just another one of the tools to fool people into believing that Muhammed (PBUH) was a false prophet, of barbaric nature.
"I didn't say "advocates." I said "permits." And I gave you 2 citations from approved legal manuals. Are you going to tell me that those legal manuals don't exist, or aren't Muslim? Come on."
Im saying Islam, you side step my question and respond to me saying muslims permit it. ISLAM does NOT permit killing women and children, i couldnt care less what people say. Show me where the quraan/ authentic hadeeths permit the killing of women or children, NO WHERE. These mathahib/mannuals are not any muslims source for laws. And whenever you ask a muslim where he gets his laws from, he will tell you the qurran, hadeeth/sunnah, never a mathhab.
I did not say the manuals were not muslim, or did not exist.

"As for your explanation that some people justifying the killing of Israeli civilians because when they turn 18 they serve in the military, it doesn't do the job. Why then do they kill people younger than 18-- even babies?"
No one targets babies, thats rubbish. But i dont think the smart sort of thinking youd excpect a human on a suicide mission to terminate it and end up at the hands of shin bet (torturers) because theres a baby in the bus. Ill have a bit more on this in a sec.
You say
"I don't condemn the Palestinians. My heart bleeds for Palestinians such as George Khoury. One of my dearest friends is a Palestinian Christian who wants to translate one of my books into Arabic. I favor a 2-state solution. I oppose the Palestinian leadership and the jihad ideology which I believe is the worst enemy of the Palestinians, and the reason why many decent people cannot support them."
you then say
"This is the product of so much tendentious fabrication that I will only proceed on the basis of established facts. The Palestinians complain about houses being destroyed when those houses were used to launch attacks against Israeli civilians. It seems to me that once they use those houses militarily, they become military targets."
Why does your heart bleed for them if no ones taking away their human rights/harming them. How on earth can one bleed for a people he feels nothing is happening to by their enemies. This is sounding very hypocritical.
As for having a palestinean friend, i assure you, i have far far more. I have both muslim and christian one, i have, as a matter of fact, a christian palestinean neighbor back home. I have relatives as well.
The Jihad "ideology" is not an enemy to the palestineans, but the only capable enemy of Israel. Living for 30-35 years under occupation, a further 60 kicked out of our very home land, we have seen nothing. We have seen an enemy go stronger in military and economy, particularly in times of "peace". However whenever the palestineans resorted to their god/geneva given right of jihad/resistance, the enemy grew weak. He's economy destroyed, his people fleeing. To tell me, and palestineans alike that jihad is an enemy, i tell you this, it is not ours, but yours.
The only "decent" people who "could" not support the mujahideen are people like bush, sharon (2 mass murderers) Blair (another one) chiraq (secular fundamentalist) and quite a number of americans. And generally, israels allies. I assure you we do have support from many europeans. However, i am not sure wether you refer to the suicide bombers, or the general islamic resistance against the zionist enemy? The latter is what i speek of.
I do not support a 2 state solution, for a number of reasons
*. The land proposed is far less than that possible to support the palestineans
*.No right of return, further endorsed by american support.
*.No true independance
*.No constitution possible to that of our own liking
*.I think its a meathod to fool the world into thinking the palestineans do not want peace by proposing the 2 state solution, hiding all its faults, then showing the world palestinean refusal to the proposal.

The israli army claims that it demoloshis houses of those who fire on it. But take Jenin 2002 for example. Half the city became a pile of rubbel. House after house, hundreds destroyes. Get serious, there where 78 fighters, hundreds of homes, you dont excpect me to believe your tale (lie?)
Also, when i speek of israels human rights abusing, i also mean
*.Curfews for days on end
*.Invasions of cities, and remaining positioned in them
*.Road blocks within palestinean territory, making travel a torturous experience
*.Arresting 1000's without trials
*.Admitted torture by israels shin bet, with israeli high court approval, recently guised under "only moderate physiscal force"
Also, be reminded that your own extremely pro israeli government recognises israel as a human rights abuser.
So much for your "tedious fabrication"
"Mm-hmm."
I take it you do not recognise that
"Yes, but your assertion founders on Sura 4:34:
"beat them.""
For one, that is not oppression, for another the arabic term translated into "beat" is "adribahuna" better translated into hit. The beating is not to be anything serious. It was recorded that the prophet found a sort of disgust in one beating ones wife "how can one sleep with that whom he beats?"
It is purely to keep the marriage working, it is the final resort, and is not to be abused for unislamic reasons.
Also, how is it oppressing if the woman does not feel oppressed? Isnt the meaning of oppressed "To weigh heavily on", somthing the muslim women do not feel. I can ask my mom, sisters etc... but what you say only angers them. I assure you they do not feel you hypocritical sympathy.
"I respectfully invite you to read some genuine history."
Written by Ibn Warraq or err Daniel Pipes?
I read my part of history to challenge you on this anyday.
"Yes, but St. Paul never says "beat them.""
But didnt you say your self "In the first place, the existence of an evil done by one person does not excuse the evil done by another. "?! So how do you justify christianities views by showing islam to be "more evil" in that sence?
No, islam took women to be mans equivilent partner, it gave them rights. It did not ask them to shutup humiliated. It did not tell them that they are less superiour to men. One scripture is sexist, the other isnt, the other is islam. Islam details how to keep a working relationship. Its rules on beating can only prevent one from using excessive physical measures against his wife, as im sure youve read quite a bit about family propblems in America where the wife gets beaten half to death, ofcourse this happens everywhere. But when one strictly adheres to islamic law, i challenge he'll find an excuse to act in that manner.
"This is hooey. The Hamas Charter itself says that the struggle is universal. Al-Muhajiroun is forthright about wanting to subjugate the whole world under Sharia."
I said fight until the enemy is dead/pay jizya. I too would like to see a world of fellow muslims, because i too would not like to see people thrown into hell. I too would like to see corruption replaced with moral ethical codes, but strictly through conversion by means of placing it infront of them to choose. That cannot be interpreted as killing all enemies,forcing jizya.
"This is a dodge. The kharaj for non-Muslims is double that for Muslims. Paying zakat brings a blessing, while paying jizya is a sign of humiliation. There are numerous other rules enforcing the humiliation of the Christians and other dhimmis. These hang over in Islamic society. I have a friend who left Syria because he couldn't get a good job: his name gave him away as a Christian, and no one would hire him to supervise Muslims."
2.5%zakat
2.5%Jizya
Ive studied my islam well enough to know this one for a fact. Also, its money for protection, it makes no mention for humitiliation, nor is that the intent. I couldnt care less how people wish to interpret it.
And how is the story about your syrian friend relevant. Syria is the furthest thing from an islamic state. It may be true, but because of islamic reasons? cmon'
"Yes. I've also read Sayyid Qutb, who insists that there is no compulsion in faith, but that Muslims must wage war to institute Sharia, including the dhimmi laws. I don't find that reassuring"
1.6 billion of us out there and youve provided 2 names, 2 names. I swear this to you, i have never in the years ive speant in all the muslim world (particularly saudi arabia) heared anyone voice such views.
"As I say, you can call me anything you want, but the naming doesn't make it so. I have been very clear about what I am doing: I am resisting the jihad waged by Osama and people who think like him. Any Muslim willing to renounce violent jihad, khilafa, etc. is welcome to join us. If you want to call that Islamophobic, I say "shame on you.""
Its my view!

Regards
Ahmad

My dear Ahmad,

"1. Islam does not support the killing of innocents (woman,children, elderly, or even cutting trees)"

Unless they are fighting the Muslims. That's Sharia (see, for example, Mawardi). That was Osama's justification for the WTC.

"2. Islam does not wish of its people to conquer the world by means of the sword, but by means of ideology and belief. Islam does not ask of its followers to kill/enslave enemies till none exists. This was not the case, and will not be the case, except for a few."

See the quote from Umdat as-Salik, endorsed by Al-Azhar, in one of my messages above.

"I challenge Ibn Warraq's rubbish, that the proof i bring can be countered by texts that are 'exegetically, philosophically, historically far more legitimate.' This is more a lie, than it is an exageration. And what to excpect of another islamaphoia."

Bring your proofs, if you be truthful.

"Try the former grand sheikh of saudi arabia, sheikh bin baz, or the current sheikh of al azhar university"

Fine. I quote both at some length in my book. Tantawi has endorsed (and condemned, and endorsed, and condemned) suicide attacks against civilians.

"Hmm... the bit of news about the 16yr old suicide bomber. While you used it for your anti islamic rehtoric, that islam wants of him to blow him self up for 72 virgins, you ignored that Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (rahimahulah) gave a fatwa forbidding the use of children in suicide bombings"

Evidently I wasn't the only one who ignored it. Somebody sent this young man out. And that is precisely my point: that when people do this, they justify it by Islamic teachings. Thus these teachings need reform or at least their interpretations need clear refutation.

"There is more than enough evidence written on the internet, im sure you have come accross, know it is weak/forged, yet use it to proove your case. See why i used the word islamaphobic?"

I am familiar with these arguments. They are unconvincing. The story is in Ibn Ishaq, which is older than any of the sahih hadith collections.

"These mathahib/mannuals are not any muslims source for laws. And whenever you ask a muslim where he gets his laws from, he will tell you the qurran, hadeeth/sunnah, never a mathhab.
I did not say the manuals were not muslim, or did not exist."

Very convenient.

"No one targets babies, thats rubbish."

Babies have been murdered by jihadist attackers in Israel. Look at the record.

"For one, that is not oppression, for another the arabic term translated into "beat" is "adribahuna" better translated into hit."

This is just a dodge. Cf. Rania al-Baz.

"2.5%zakat
2.5%Jizya
Ive studied my islam well enough to know this one for a fact."

You don't mention kharaj. You don't mention this: "It is lawful to require twice as much of a dhimmi as of a Muslim." Hedaya, I.vii.

"Also, its money for protection, it makes no mention for humitiliation, nor is that the intent."

"...and feel themselves subdued." Sura 9:29.

From the Shafi'i jurist an-Nawawi: "The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax [jizya] must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks."

"And how is the story about your syrian friend relevant. Syria is the furthest thing from an islamic state. It may be true, but because of islamic reasons? cmon'"

Yes. That's the only reason why it's true. It doesn't derive from any principles of the secular state. It's a hangover from Sharia.

"1.6 billion of us out there and youve provided 2 names, 2 names. I swear this to you, i have never in the years ive speant in all the muslim world (particularly saudi arabia) heared anyone voice such views."

I guess you never went to a mosque in Saudi? In my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers" I quote numerous sermons from there that enunciate these principles.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Dear Robert,

"Unless they are fighting the Muslims. That's Sharia (see, for example, Mawardi). That was Osama's justification for the WTC."
Osama did not justify anything. He did not claim 9/11 was justified, he didnt even claim responsibility, as a matter of fact, he denied it in a statement issued on September 23, 2002.
Also, i will not make any judgment as to wether the tape (where he "chuckles over 9/11")
But care to take a second to visit this page
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
Scroll down, examine the pictures. Examine the hair, ears, nose, facial features, then tell me, was that really him?
Be specific about "fighting the muslims". Obviously if a child is firing at you, youd fire back, dont tell me that isnt the way anyone would respond, but i take it you may mean otherwise, for the mean time, here are 2 condemnations of WTC attacks, by 2 prominent sheikhs, one of whome, Sheikh Qaradawi, you condemn to be a radical:-
First, Qardawi
Truly, our hearts bleed for the attacks that targeted the World Trade Center (WTC) as well as other institutions in the United States despite our strong opposition to the American-biased policy towards Israel on the military, political and economic fronts.

Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers an attack against innocent human beings a grave sin. This is backed by the Qur’anic verse which reads: “Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had: saved the life of all mankind.” (Al-Ma’dah:32)

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said, “A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn’t kill another person illegally.”

Haphazard killing where the rough is taken with the smooth and where innocents are killed along with the wrongdoers is totally forbidden in Islam. No one, as far as Islam is concerned, is held responsible for the actions of others. Upon seeing a woman killed in the battlefield, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, renounced the act and said: “That woman shouldn’t have been killed anyway!”

Even at times of war Muslims are not allowed to kill anybody save the one who is indulged in face-to-face confrontation with them. They are not allowed to kill women, elderly, children, or even a monk in his religious seclusion.

That is why killing hundreds of helpless civilians who have nothing to do with the decision-making process and are striving hard to earn their daily bread, such as the victims of the explosions (in the U.S.) is a heinous crime in Islam. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have stated that a woman was qualified to enter Hell because of the cat she locked up and starved to death.

If this is the ruling applied in protecting animals, no doubt, aggression against human beings, deserves greater protection, for human beings are honored by Allah Almighty and are His vicegerents on earth?

We Arab Muslims are the most affected by the grave consequences of hostile attack on man and life. We share the suffering experienced by innocent Palestinians at the hands of the tyrannical Israeli entity who raze the Palestinian homes to the ground, set fire to their land, kill them in cold, and leave innocent orphans wailing behind.

With this in mind, the daily life in Palestine has become a permanent memorial gathering. When Palestinians face such unjust aggression, they tend to stem bloodletting and destruction and not claim the lives of innocent civilians.

I categorically go against any committed Muslim embarking on such attacks. Islam never allows a Muslim to kill the innocent and the helpless.

If such attacks were carried out by a Muslim - as some biased groups claim - then we, in the name of our religion, renounce the act and incriminate the perpetrator. We do confirm that the aggressor deserves the deterrent punishment irrespective of his religion, race or gender.

What we warn against - even if it becomes a reality - is to hold a whole nation accountable for a crime carried out by a small group of people, or to characterize a certain religion as one that supports violence and terrorism.

When the well-known Oklahoma incident was carried out by a Christian American who was driven by personal interests, neither Christianity, America or even the Christian world were accused of the attack because a Christian masterminded it."

Now Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi
Then comes the issue of hijacking civilian planes on board of which are women, the elderly, children, Muslims and non-Muslims. This act is completely forbidden in Islam. It is a form of terrorism. It is rejected in Islam unless staged against combatants during warfare. Allah says: "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad) , then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah; and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not." (At-Tawbah: 6)

Here, a link to islams view on killing innocents:-
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=90177

Say what you wish, it is clear as daylight that it does not.

"Bring your proofs, if you be truthful"
"i" in the responce i made was reffering to Ibn Warraq, i think he should bring proof, not me, i did not make the statement. Also, it is a huge topic, what can one bring as proof if there is nothing before him to disproove?

"Evidently I wasn't the only one who ignored it. Somebody sent this young man out. And that is precisely my point: that when people do this, they justify it by Islamic teachings. Thus these teachings need reform or at least their interpretations need clear refutation."
You know, all too well, fatah is not a religious organisation, rather a nationalist organisation. And your accusation that the one's who sent out this boy were acting on an islamic basis does not hold water, for a number of reasons
*. When Sheikh Ahmad Yassin made his fatwa, it had become clear to any one acting in the name of islam, that it is forbidin to send children out on suicidal missions. If then they truely acted according to islam, they would have headed his call. But they used islam as a means to persuade the boy to take on the suicidal task.
*. Nationalists care little about islamic values. Too them this is not a struggle for islam, this is a struggle to regain dirt. While islam may motivate a few (e.g. the prospect of a better life after death) it is not the driving force. Not in their desires, hopes, beliefs or anything else.
The teachings of islam are divine from Allah, any attempt to "reform" them will be met with hostility. Attempting to infiltrate one of the only morally, ethically, and god devouted societies under the guise of "reform" is somthing few will accept. We do not want anything from the corrupt west, your "reform" is meant only to establish a society favourable to your own people, and less to ours.

"Babies have been murdered by jihadist attackers in Israel. Look at the record"
Yes, they have, but .5-1 million iraqi children were murdered by American sanctions, and far more palestinean babies were murdered than israel could care to count.
I share with you some (very graphic) pictures of such examples:-
http://whatreallyhappened.com/TheTruth11_files/slide0028_image029.jpg
for the full list
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/TheTruth11_files/frame.htm
"You don't mention kharaj. You don't mention this: "It is lawful to require twice as much of a dhimmi as of a Muslim." Hedaya, I.vii."
Maybe because it is in neither the Bukhari,muslim, quraan?

"...and feel themselves subdued." Sura 9:29.

Yusuf Ali's Translation Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Pickthal's Translation Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Shakir's Translation Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Examine the context it comes within. You cannot quote any verse and use it as proof. Each surah came in its time, at times laws and dealings were meant for the people at that time, in other cases it is clearly meant to stand for all time.
In this case, the verse 1-37 were reveales at the time of hajj, where Abu Bakar had led muslims to mekka for pilgrimige. Ill have a bit more in my next post.

"From the Shafi'i jurist an-Nawawi: "The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax [jizya] must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks." "
Bad thoughts come to mind... Any sources on an nawawi, i must admit his teachings are unacceptable.
"Yes. That's the only reason why it's true. It doesn't derive from any principles of the secular state. It's a hangover from Sharia."
You block all possibilities, of either low demand for a job, or high unemployment rates, and claim with no proof whatsoever it is as a result of sharia. That is rediculous.
"I guess you never went to a mosque in Saudi? In my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers" I quote numerous sermons from there that enunciate these principles."
13 years, i could count the number of times ive mist a friday seremony on my hands. Dont give me this rubbish that i do not know my own people, that a man half a globe away is about to teach me who they are.
"I am familiar with these arguments. They are unconvincing. The story is in Ibn Ishaq, which is older than any of the sahih hadith collections."
As am i familiar with yours. The very fact Ibn Ishaqs book came before the hadeeth books prooves it not to be a reliable source. Bukhari traveled the world twice to authenticate his hadeeths, he selected from hundreds of thousands of hadeeth only a few thousand which he could proove where true. The fabricated hadeeth, the lie made about the prophet muhammed was not one of them. If your so sure, find the complete chain of hadeeths yourself, proove it to be authentic! I challenge you to do so!
"The US doesn't target civilians the way the suicide bombers do, although the Iraqis make this more difficult by hiding among the civilians -- cf. those who fired on troops from a mosque. When civilians are killed, the US holds inquiries and -punishes those responsible if the killings could have been avoided. In contrast, the Palestinians celebrate the suicide bombers as heroes."
How can one blaim the iraqi resistance for the civilian deaths, by claiming they are hiding among them?! It was America, who in the very first place choose to enter urban warfare, where hundreds of civilians will die, and did die, then you blaim the resistance? That is a sick way of thinking, extreme hypocricy.
There is not one shred of proof that anyone fired from the mosque, but there is a ton for the contrary, including statements from eye witnesses, and hospital records of those who died.
Im sure they do hold inquries, up to 50000 civilian deaths, and what? 5, maybe 6 inquiries? You truely make a respectable argument!
And their is infact contrast between americans and palestineans. While many palestineans condemn attacks against innocents, i have not once, not even from the most liberal voices in America, seen americans condemning their own terrorists abroad. However, wether its a gaming site (www.cheatcc.com) or a political one(im sure youve come across many) we find constant praises of US terrorists, killing far more innocents than Osama ever dreamt of (if you believe it his wish in the first place)
Their are testimonies from many in the vietnam war, that clear instructions were given to kill civilians. I read once that a general was ordered "to kill every man,woman, child he encountered" when on search and destroy missions, with they pettyfull excuse that they may be a vietcong. How do you now say they dont target civilians? What about the 2 WW2 nukes, they too are an example counter to what you earlier exclaimed. And there is a ton of evidence prooving America has little concerns whith regard to the life of innocents. For example its use of cluster bombs (20,000) and uranium depleted shells, which left huge deaths amongst iraqi innocents. So i challenge your remark that it does not target civilians, or anything of the like!

Regards
Ahmad

My dear Ahmad,

"Osama did not justify anything. He did not claim 9/11 was justified, he didnt even claim responsibility, as a matter of fact, he denied it in a statement issued on September 23, 2002."

That is false. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility in February 2002: "The organization is proud that it destroyed the pillars of U.S. strategic defense in the '11 September invasion (ghazwah)."

Also see this article: "Bin Laden voice on video, says TV channel: Al-Qaida tape finally claims responsibility for attacks"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,789253,00.html

"here are 2 condemnations of WTC attacks, by 2 prominent sheikhs, one of whome, Sheikh Qaradawi, you condemn to be a radical"

I have never claimed that all Muslims approved of the 9/11 attacks.

"When the well-known Oklahoma incident was carried out by a Christian American who was driven by personal interests, neither Christianity, America or even the Christian world were accused of the attack because a Christian masterminded it."

This is because IF McVeigh was a Christian at the time of the bombing, in any case he never used Christianity to explain and justify what he did. Osama, by contrast, has consistently declared that attacks on American civilians were justified by Islamic principles. He stated this as long ago as 1996.

"You know, all too well, fatah is not a religious organisation, rather a nationalist organisation."

I know nothing of the kind. Religion and nationalism are very closely intertwined in that area.

"And your accusation that the one's who sent out this boy were acting on an islamic basis does not hold water, for a number of reasons ... But they used islam as a means to persuade the boy to take on the suicidal task."

That last sentence of yours is precisely my point. And it contradicts your first sentence.

"Maybe because it is in neither the Bukhari,muslim, quraan?"

That's convenient, but the fact is that Muslims throughout history have acted upon such laws, which are derived from Bukhari, Muslim, Qur'an, etc.

"Examine the context it comes within. You cannot quote any verse and use it as proof. Each surah came in its time, at times laws and dealings were meant for the people at that time, in other cases it is clearly meant to stand for all time."

Yes, and numerous tafsir indicate that this "being brought low" is meant to stand for all time.

Bad thoughts come to mind... Any sources on an nawawi, i must admit his teachings are unacceptable."

There are many others who say the same kinds of things.

"13 years, i could count the number of times ive mist a friday seremony on my hands. Dont give me this rubbish that i do not know my own people, that a man half a globe away is about to teach me who they are."

The quotes are readily available. Or I suppose they have been fabricated?

"The fabricated hadeeth, the lie made about the prophet muhammed was not one of them. If your so sure, find the complete chain of hadeeths yourself, proove it to be authentic! I challenge you to do so!"

Sorry. I decline. All I am interested in is that Muslims believe these things and take them seriously. Not all Muslims, yes, but many.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Dear Robert,

"That is false. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility in February 2002: "The organization is proud that it destroyed the pillars of U.S. strategic defense in the '11 September invasion (ghazwah)."
I am not sure which tape you speek about in specific, however there is far more to the contrary. For example the interview with the currently imprisoned al jazeerah reporter 1 month after 9-11 where he denied it, and further denials that i already specified. The tape presented on this page is fake, i have already given you a link to photos of him on other tapes, and the fake "confession" tape.
As for the link you provided, it only airs the voice of an arab man. It shows pictures of men planning attacks on the Pentagon, mind you, wasnt that not a stated target prior to the attacks? And Osamas mother denies that the voice is that of her sons, as well as did many at the time. That is not hard proof, an interview with Al-Jazeerah is.
"This is because IF McVeigh was a Christian at the time of the bombing, in any case he never used Christianity to explain and justify what he did. Osama, by contrast, has consistently declared that attacks on American civilians were justified by Islamic principles. He stated this as long ago as 1996."
It was meant to push aside the cliche that every attack by every muslim is one for religion, rather personal reasons

"I know nothing of the kind. Religion and nationalism are very closely intertwined in that area."
Of course, it does not serve your purpose, painting islam as evil, as it is a "chief rival" to christianity, as you stated. Anything to the contrary would hurt your mission, to convince the non-muslim world islam is a religion bred out of violence, to keep them on the path of christianity. This is your mission.... no?

"That last sentence of yours is precisely my point. And it contradicts your first sentence."
I dont think so at all. You earlier said
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, a global network of Christian terrorists waging a war that they believed Christ had commanded in the Scriptures. Not even the Crusades had justification in Scripture or Tradition"
And i too made it clear that there was no justification in any scripture, and i too pointed out that a fatwah was made on the subject condemning using children in suicide bombing, but you defend christianity on the basis no such scriptures motivated the crusades, and i pointed out that no scripture justified using the child. However the reality is that during the 1100s popes justified, glorified the crusades. And today Bush call's he's war , once again a crusade, and on numerous ocassions brings god into his purpose. While you defend your religion on the basis of scripture, i did too, however you failed to recognise your own as contradictory...
"That's convenient, but the fact is that Muslims throughout history have acted upon such laws, which are derived from Bukhari, Muslim, Qur'an, etc."
Rubbish, no such proof that anyone used the faked hadeeth for their purpose.
"Yes, and numerous tafsir indicate that this "being brought low" is meant to stand for all time."
There is no such thing. I looked into it. It reffered SPECIFICALLY to the meccans. And brought low meant subjicating them to the islamic law, to the law of society. Please, show me you "numerous" tafsirs
"There are many others who say the same kinds of things."
Yes, there are mad people, "numerous" i say this is the first time ive read such, appaling, yes, surprising... considering im speeking with an anti islamist...
"Sorry. I decline. All I am interested in is that Muslims believe these things and take them seriously. Not all Muslims, yes, but many."
Unfortunately.... Glad to see it cannot be prooven.

I have been extremely busy, i may not be able to post soon again.
Just a few last sticking points.
About the US not targeting civilians, care to take a few minutes to read this.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-04/17/article04.shtml

Regards
Ahmad