Dhimmi Watch: Bush: "I believe that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their behavior"

April 13, 2006

Bush: "I believe that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their behavior"

Bush sidesteps the arrant nonsense about Muhammad being the world's first Constitutionalist -- in which the questioner mentions his guarantee of "respect for all religions," but doesn't say anything about how this respect was grounded in a fundamental denial of the equality of rights and dignity of religious minorities. Nor does the questioner mention Qur'an 4:34 (the wife-beating verse) or other information pertinent to Muhammad's "championing the welfare of women." But while sidestepping all that, the President nevertheless comes up with a few other highly questionable statements while answering this question at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University on Monday. From "President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror," a White House press release (thanks to Jihad Watch News Editor Rebecca Bynum):

Q Morning, Mr. President. I have a more general question about the United States' work to democratize the rest of the world. Many have viewed the United States' effort to democratize the world -- especially nations in the Middle East -- as an imposition or invasion on their sovereign rights. Considering that it was, in fact, the Prophet Mohammed who established the first known constitution in the world -- I'm referring to the constitution he wrote for the city of Medina -- and that his life and the principles outlined in his constitution, such as the championing of the welfare of women, children and the poor, living as an equal among his people, dissolving disputes between the warring clans in Arabia, giving any man or woman in parliament the right to vote and guaranteeing respect for all religions, ironically parallel those principles that we hold most precious in our own Constitution. I'm wondering how might your recently formed Iraq Study Group under the U.S. Institute for Peace explore these striking similarities to forge a new relationship with Iraqis and educate Americans about the democratic principles inherent in Islam?
THE PRESIDENT: Great question. I believe that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their behavior. I thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will pass on your comments to James A. Baker, who is one of the chairmen of the group going to Iraq.

See, you said something really interesting. Initially, you said, people view America imposing its beliefs. And I hearken back to what I said earlier -- this fellow's question here -- that if you believe that freedom is not universal, then it could be viewed as an imposition of beliefs. I'm not saying to countries, you've got to look like us or act like us, but I am saying, you know, give your people a chance to be free. And I think it's necessary for America to take the lead on this issue. I think it is -- I think it is vital for our future that we encourage liberty, and in this case, the Middle East. And as you said, it doesn't necessarily run contrary to what the Prophet Mohammad said.

It doesn't necessarily? But what about when "the Prophet Mohammad" said that apostates from Islam should be executed (cf. Bukhari vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57, etc. etc. etc.)? If Islamic countries are going to give their people "a chance to be free," will that include freedom of conscience? If so, that will involving rejecting what Muhammad said. If not, then how free will they really be? Bush still hasn't confronted this dilemma.

It's a -- and so how do you advance freedom? I mean, well, one thing you do is you make sure that the Lebanese have a chance to self-govern freely without Syrian interference. It's one thing you can do. Another thing you can do is work for the establishment of a Palestinian state, which I'm doing. I believe that there will be a Palestinian state that is at peace with Israel. I believe it's going to have to be a democracy -- again, a Palestinian-style democracy -- to achieve that. But in my -- early in my presidency, I said it's in our interest that there be two states, side-by-side in peace, and we're working toward that end.
You know, part of the debate here that I'm sure you're discussing is whether or not the United States should insist upon elections before everything is right. You hear the -- the civil society has to be just right before you can have elections. I disagree strongly with that. I think elections are the beginning of the process, not the end.

And I found the elections that Hamas won very instructive and very interesting. It was -- to me, it was a final condemnation of the Arafat era, where people said, we're sick of corruption; we want better health care and better education; we want -- we actually want our leaders to focus on the people, not on their self interests.

All right. Even if we accept that as a correct assessment of the elections, what about Hamas' repeated and adamant vow to destroy Israel? How does that square with the President's belief "that there will be a Palestinian state that is at peace with Israel"? He discusses it here, but doesn't really address it:

And because I believe in two states, side-by-side in peace, and therefore expect the government of both to be peaceful toward each other, we're not going to deal with a government that has announced that they want to destroy Israel. On the other hand, we will help the Palestinian people. And I believe a democracy will eventually yield the state necessary to be side-by-side with Israel in peace.

So then is he saying that Hamas will eventually be defeated by this alleged overwhelming majority of Palestinians who want to live in peace with Israel? On what basis does he believe this?

The success of a democracy in Iraq -- and as I told you, I think we're going to succeed; as a matter of fact, I know we are if we don't lose our nerve -- will send a powerful signal. Imagine the signal it will send to people in Iran that are not free right now. I believe the women's movement is going to be the leading edge of changing the Middle East. I don't believe women want to live as second-class citizens. I believe -- I believe it's -- I believe there's a universal desire to be treated fairly and equally.

Here again, if he really believes this, he is going at some point to have to insist that Sharia not be part of the Iraqi Constitution. Or does he think the Iraqi voters will eventually vote it down on their own accord? On what basis does he think this, after Muslim voters have voted it up virtually every time they've had the opportunity?

And so I think -- look, I'm pleased with the progress. I was reading the other day where Kuwaiti women are running for office. It's a positive sign, you know? We've got to be realistic about what's possible, but we've got to be firm in our belief that freedom is possible and necessary. Otherwise -- I'll repeat to you -- a system that says, okay, let's just tolerate the tyrant so long as everything seems okay, didn't work.
That's one of the lessons of the attack on the United States. You know, the world seemed fine, didn't it? It seemed kind of placid -- there was a bubble here, a bubble there. But everything seemed all right. And yet, beneath the surface, there was tremendous resentment. And it's now come to the -- and so how do you defeat their -- now, if you don't think they have a ideology or a point of view, and/or a strategy to impose it, you're not going to understand why you think the United States ought not to be as active as we are.

And yet he has still not confronted their ideology and point of view.

But I believe differently. I believe they're bound -- these folks are bound by an ideology. I know that they have got desires. They say it. This is one of -- this is a different -- this is a war in which the enemy actually speaks out loud. You heard the letter I wrote -- read from -- they didn't speak out loud on this one, but nevertheless, it's a -- we've got to take their word seriously. When the enemy speaks, it makes sense for our military, our intelligence, the President to take the word seriously so we can adapt and adjust.
Anyway, very interesting question. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Yes, ma'am.

Posted by Robert at April 13, 2006 9:09 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)

This student was just getting in her daily da'wa.

Posted by: Borg

at April 13, 2006 9:36 AM

OT but couldn't resist.

This was from LGF -Ziggy'sgrammy
...
OT but, I thought that my fellow lizards would enjoy it.

Just got this from my son, he is going to school in San Francisco and can hardly wait to get the heck out of there.

The Plan!

Robin Williams, wearing a shirt that says "I love New
York" in Arabic.

You gotta love Robin Williams....
Even if he's nuts! Leave it to Robin
Williams to come up with the perfect
plan. What we need now is for our
UN Ambassador to stand up and
repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to
argue with this logic!)

"I see a lot of people yelling for peace
but I have not heard of a plan for
peace. So, here's one plan."

1) "The US will apologize to the world for our
"interference" in their affairs, past & present. You
know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega,
Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those "good 'ole'
boys", we will never "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the
world, starting with Germany, South Korea, the Middle
East, and the Philippines. They don't want us there.
We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed
sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their
affairs together and leave.We'll give them a free trip
home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up
and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where
they are. They're illegal! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and
limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!
No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If
you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't
hide here. Asylum would never be available
to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11
cashiers.

5) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones
are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they
get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort
to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will
include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but
will require a temporary drilling of oil in the
Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for
a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing
countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't
like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere
else to sell their production. (About a week of the
wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe
in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray
to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or
whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them
is stolen or given
to the army. The people who need
it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island
someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather
friends here. Besides, the building would make a good
homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school.
That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any
longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn
it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer
saying "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled
masses." She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling,
'you want a piece of me?' "
...
Thanks for that LGF's Ziggy'sgrammy!

Posted by: Borg

at April 13, 2006 9:40 AM

Anyway, very interesting question. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Yes, a very interesting question indeed. A softball -- stuffed with misinformation, distortion, errors of omission and commission -- that even a dhimmi-wit president could knock out of the park. Who was that masked reporter shilling for CAIR?

Almost 5 years after 9/11 -- with Iraq convulsing towards civil war, Iran within weeks of obtaining the Islamic bomb, and the Saudis pumping billions of recycled petrodollars into mosques, madrassas, and Arab-Islamic studies departments all around the world, Bush continues to regurgitate the "religion of peace hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists" mantra, gloats about leading the call for an Islamic terror state (though democratically elected) on Israel's doorstep, and has the unmitigated chutzpah to suggest that Mohammad's teachings are not inconsistent with democracy and the US Constitution.

Who can fault the yellow, politically-correct media for failing to name the enemy when our Commander In Chief has been providing such a shining example for the last five years?

Posted by: Charles Martel

at April 13, 2006 9:47 AM

President Bush should take a look at the Quran 4: 34 directs men to beat their wives up. In other words, Allah and Mohammed give their blessings to domestic abuse.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at April 13, 2006 9:55 AM

It hurts to read President Bush bumbling through his misinformed viewpoint and perceptions. Pretty bad.

Posted by: John Sobieski

at April 13, 2006 10:19 AM

President Bush just doesn't get it, and that's sad. Because that means his advisors don't get it either. We are at war with Islam. We the Americans know it. The Muslims know it. Why our President can't understand that is beyond me. It will be our downfall.

Posted by: Deborah Hamilton

at April 13, 2006 10:43 AM

This, Mr. President, is why your poll numbers are so dismal. I am your political base...and you have lost me. The open border, the apparent love affair with islam, you can't be that dumb.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at April 13, 2006 11:17 AM

he's not dumb,Carolyn2.Him and his whole familly are just to far into saudia of money.

Posted by: Patriot

at April 13, 2006 11:18 AM

Sadly, he is losing me also. This recent news posting with the stuff about women in Islam is the last straw. I am done with President Bush.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at April 13, 2006 11:45 AM

Sadly, he is losing me also. This recent news posting with the stuff about women in Islam is the last straw. I am done with President Bush.

welcome to the light,bigcatgirl

"It's not a whim anymore if you put on clean underwear." - Barney Fiffe

Posted by: AmericanPatriot

at April 13, 2006 11:53 AM

Bush is deeply, truly, madly stupid. But so are many in the Administration. The generals who attack his policy in Iraq -- for all the wrong reasons. The generals who support his policy in Iraq -- for all the wrong reasons. The assorted tongue-tied Democrats who are time-servingly incapable of discussing, even hinting at discussing, Islam itself, and many of whom, apparently, cannot dare to criticize the war in Iraq properly, for demonstrating both an ignorance of the sources, instruments, and nature of Jihad, and for refusing to say what should be obvious but apparently is not -- that by the end of 2003 the Americans had no more reason to remain in Iraq, that "democracy" in the etiolated Bush-Rice sense of mere head-counting of course would be eagerly participated in by the Shi'a, for they after all stood to win and did win, and of course the Sunnis, whose persecution of, and contempt for, the Shi'a did not begin with Saddam Hussein, did not begin with the formation of modern Iraq, did not begin during the time of the Ottomans or Hulegu's invasion of Baghad in 1258, but goes back to the first century of Islam, about a thousand years before the United States was founded.

So all the criticisms are false criticisms, while the real ones remain unspoken. And all the good reasons for leaving Iraq, to encourage and not discourage, division and demoralization within the camp of Islam (save for supporting the Kurds, not for sentimental reasons, but only so that other Kurds in Syria and Iran may be inspired, that other non-Arab Muslims -- e.g. Berbers -- may be inspired, and that Kurdistan, the population of which is friendly toward the Americans (not least for the protection given the Kurds since 1991), has had immediate experience of Arab supremacism, Arab indifference to Arab murderers of non-Arabs.
Kurdistan would be dependent on the United States for diplomatic and other support, especially in making Turkey an offer it cannot refuse: that Kurdistan will not make any territorial demands on Turkey, so long as the Turks themselves do not try to invade. An Administration that is determined to show Turkey, which in many ways is not the Kemalist Turkey that once was seen as an ally, and during the Cold War, was useful in fighting what we took to be Communism, and what they took to be their old enemy Russia.

Posted by: Hugh

at April 13, 2006 12:04 PM

Okay a lot of us have just thrown out the Commander in Chief here.

Let me play a little bit of a devils advocate.

1.Who might you suggest would make the best candidate to replace him at the helm of our US government?

2.And why would you choose that particular candidate over President Bush to conduct our foreign policies?

Outside of that; it is a beautiful day and I'm going out and play some golf.

Posted by: Mackie

at April 13, 2006 12:20 PM

Islam is ANYTHING
BUT....
a religion of peace...

Islam is a DEATH Cult...

Personally if you want to believe in it..
Thats your choice...

But I am Sick and tired of hearing how
The Islamo fasists religion is a religion of peace

It is a religion of Pieces..
Where ever Islam goes everything ends up in pieces..

Posted by: jingoist

at April 13, 2006 12:21 PM

1.Who might you suggest would make the best candidate to replace him at the helm of our US government?

2.And why would you choose that particular candidate over President Bush to conduct our foreign policies?

i have no idea,the whole administration gets my "NO Cofidence Vote"

Posted by: AmericanPatriot

at April 13, 2006 12:39 PM

The assorted tongue-tied Democrats who are time-servingly incapable of discussing, even hinting at discussing, Islam itself ...

Of course not - that would be "racist". Islam is not a "race", but what has logic to do with it? And if not that, then expressing doubts about Islam would not be "multiculturalist". But failure to be "multiculturalist" is just another bogeyman ...

This is a self-imposed prison of the mind. They must open the prison door - it's not locked - and walk out.

I think Serge Trifkovic said it best at Front Page Mag recently:

Both in America and in Europe the elite class deems such questions about the nature of Islam - illegitimate. On both sides of the ocean there also exists an elite consensus that de facto open immigration, multiculturalism, and the existence of a large Muslim diaspora within the Western world are to be treated as a fixed given and should not be scrutinized in any anti-terrorist debate. That imposed elite consensus, in my view, is morbid, ideological in nature, flawed in logic, dogmatic in application, and disastrous in results. It needs to be tested against evidence, not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who either do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.

This "imposed elite consensus" is, as he says, "morbid".

It would be funny if it weren't so serious. But it is.

This "imposed elite consensus" will get people killed.

Posted by: Yojimbo

at April 13, 2006 12:51 PM

Wow, Bill Gates is a dhimmi, too:

Bill Gates secretly paid for Gaza greenhouses

But it's not a secret any longer.

Says LGF:

High-tech greenhouses built by Jewish settlers in Gaza were purchased for the Palestinians by none other than Bill Gates of Microsoft—and the Palestinians repaid this generosity by stripping and looting the greenhouses.

I say, see Bill Gates get custard pied here.

Linux is looking better already.

Posted by: Yojimbo

at April 13, 2006 12:59 PM

Now President Bush is a dumb cowboy.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo

at April 13, 2006 1:05 PM

our way of life here in the West is under multiple assualts. sadly, most of our elected officials are complicit in this. whether the threat be islam or ILLEGAL immigration "we the people" have been sold out. our government has no intention what-so-ever to secure our borders. they also will continue to bury their collective heads in the sand to the constant march of islam throughout the world. our enemies repeatedly tell us their exact goals of the caliphate or atzlan. the communists who disguise themselves as socialists, democrats and anti-war protestors welcome the invaders as they will certainly grant the socialist democrats more power in the short term.

well, the jig is just about up because of that madman in iran. now that he has enrichment capability (and by the way who really believes that they haven't secretly enriched more and at a higher concentration?)how long will it be be before he starts armeggedon to usher in the 12th mahdi?

President Bush is not an idot as he is portrayed but he is getting bad advice on policy and he needs to take off the shackles of political correctness and see the threats as they are...before it's too late. iran will make it's move before 2008.

Posted by: viahj

at April 13, 2006 1:17 PM

President Bush is not an idiot as he is portrayed but he is getting bad advice on policy and he needs to take off the shackles of political correctness and see the threats as they are...before it's too late. iran will make it's move before 2008

HE'S NOT?
he can see,hear,watch on t.v,on the INTERNET,he doesn't need advisor's for that.We have came to the very logical conclusion that islam needs to be destroyed.So yes,even thought his advisor's are idiot's that don't let him off the hook.He is an idiot in his OWN right.

Posted by: AmericanPatriot

at April 13, 2006 1:29 PM

BTW, ignore my previous comment on Bill Gates - note to self read full article before posting.

Gates paid the people who'd built the greenhouses for them. I guess those people might've got nothing for them otherwise.

Still, the pie incident is funny. :-)

Posted by: Yojimbo

at April 13, 2006 1:46 PM

He he

Ya gotta love bush..straight speaking..Islam's best friend

Posted by: Naseem

at April 13, 2006 2:11 PM

Having spent 15 yrs in the Military; including 5 yrs overseas and 3 years working on Capital Hill; I have moved to FL to get far from DC and our failed government. Now I am thinking about moving to a remote country with zero Muslim Populace ! Every country in the History of the World that has more than 2 muslims has had bloodshed and misery for the infidels ! America has more than 2 muslims! Where Communism's quest for World domination failed, Islam will succeed. The Abomination of Desolation has arrived and the trumpets are being blown for those of us who can hear ! ICXC NIKA

Posted by: Hugh De Payen

at April 13, 2006 2:14 PM

I dont understand how bush started out so well then its like he lost his nerve or started believing his bad press. i am starting to agree with liberals who think bush is a moron.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian

at April 13, 2006 2:16 PM

Naseem;

You just maybe right!

Posted by: Ironman Hondo

at April 13, 2006 2:23 PM

If the problem is fanatics highjacking Islam ... then start killing the highjackers.

Every time some loud-mouth starts demanding american blood in a mosque, make him mysteriously disappear.

After enough of this, they will find some other hate target.

Posted by: Kristopher

at April 13, 2006 2:24 PM

Every country in the History of the World that has more than 2 muslims has had bloodshed and misery for the infidels ! America has more than 2 muslims! Where Communism's quest for World domination failed, Islam will succeed.

It will be bloody thats for sure,but islam don't stand a chance.They have never faced a country like th U.S.A,the government might fall(that might not be a bad thing)put the American people will not let islam live,once it comes home,its over for them

Posted by: AmericanPatriot

at April 13, 2006 2:27 PM

amercian patriot I agree. Thank god for the american heartland. I can picture the left coast disapearing into the caliphate but the rest of the us will fight back and kick ass.

I think I am more disapointed with American politicians than european ones. At least there is a chunk of america that gets it and the politicians still talk in PC terms. Who do they represent, who are they afraid of. While in Europe I guess there is a large part of the population that believes all the PC crap. Thats why I cant see a revolution at the grass roots level in europe that will force politicians to change their ways. Hopefully I am wrong.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian

at April 13, 2006 2:32 PM

American Patriot,

I like your call sign and your rah-rah, can-do spirit of optimism. Tell the Byzantines about how tough Americans are ! They held out for 700 years under constant war (talk about the "long war" !!) but have vanished from History sold as slaves to Turkish Masters ! Hey, I'm sure the Assyrians of Mesopotamia were tough, too !

Posted by: Hugh De Payen

at April 13, 2006 2:34 PM

I believe in pots of gold on the other side of the rainbow, your wish will come true on a shooting star, and yes, there really was a great and all powerfull wizard from the land of Oz. I'v given up on the bush man awhile ago.

Posted by: mustang65

at April 13, 2006 2:54 PM

you know you guys all fall for this crap everytime Bush says something that offends you. he is out killing more muslim terrorists than any other @$@$!@$@# democrat president , ie carter, clinton. look at gore and kerry, they are flipping weinnies! Yes l would love it for Bush to say you muslims have to change your religon or else, but he cant being the president of the US, this a major PC environment, everyone including his own are attacking him, what freakin politiican would keep up his stragedy with that! look at how Chirac backed down! he is playing the stupid muslims at their own game, and you guys are falling for it!

Posted by: Lulu

at April 13, 2006 3:01 PM

Islamic Democracy:

Every individual in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers as the caliph of Allah, and in this respect all individuals are equal. “Caliphate” as a term has frequently been used to describe an Islamic political system based on monarchy, while the authentic notion truly refers to the authority of every single Muslim in his human capacity and his right to enjoy dignity and respect.

The notion of khilafah expresses how Islam empowers human beings and also how the government does not enjoy any special rights apart from those delegated to it by the political community.

The Hobbesian conception of the necessity of the State and its priority and seeing it as a condition for civility does not conform to the Islamic perspective. Yes, the formation of a State is a historical process, but the community comes first. No authority may deprive any citizen of his rights and powers.

The agency for running the affairs of the state will be formed by agreement with these individuals, and the authority of the state will only be an extension of the powers of the individuals delegated to it. Their opinion should be decisive in the formation of the government, which will be run with their advice and in accordance with their wishes.

Whoever gains their confidence will undertake the duties and obligations of the caliphate on their behalf (in the form of political representation); and when he/she loses this confidence he/she will have to step down from his/her specific position and be accountable for his/her actions and decisions. In this respect the political system of Islam is a form of democracy, even if it is not a secular one as democracies are usually defined in contemporary political literature.

What distinguishes Islamic democracy from Western democracy, therefore, is that the latter is based on the concept of popular sovereignty, while the former rests on the principle of popular khilafah, mixing religious devotion with a notion of democracy and citizenship.

In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. The laws given by Allah through His Prophet ( Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.

Human Rights:

Contrary to popular belief, the struggle for universal human rights is not a modern one. Although some claim that the idea of human rights is a Western concept or ideology, Islam was the first institution to advocate and implement such human rights as universal equality and women’s rights. In fact, Islam promoted the universality of the human experience over 1300 years before the United Nations declared it to exist.

Human rights in Islam have been granted by Allah (God), and no individual or legislative assembly has the right to amend, change, or withdraw them. Every Muslim or administrator who claims to be Muslim must accept, recognize and enforce these rights. All those temporal authorities who claim to be Muslims yet violate the rights sanctioned by Allah are either disbelievers or wrong-doers.

Islam grants certain basic human rights to all people, Muslims and non-Muslims, and regardless of their race, nationality, ethnic origin or language. The first of these rights is the right to live and respect human life. Only a proper and competent court of law can decide to take a life in retaliation for murder or for punishment for spreading corruption on the earth. Only a properly established government can decide to wage war. No human being has the right by himself to take a human life for retaliation or for causing mischief on the earth.

Every human has the right to the safety of life. This means that if someone is ill, wounded, starving, or drowning, et cetera, he has the right to be saved.

Islam recognizes absolute equality between people

Islam grants every woman the right to have her chastity respected and guarded under all circumstances. Even in war, a woman who is of the enemy nation cannot be violated. All promiscuous relationships are forbidden to a Muslim, irrespective of the status or position of the woman, and whether or not she is a willing partner to the act.

All people have the right to a basic standard of life. Anyone who is suffering from deprivation has a right in the property and wealth of the Muslims.

Islam grants the individual the right to freedom. It is categorically forbidden to capture a free person and make him a slave or sell him into slavery.

Islam recognizes absolute equality between people. There is no superiority of Arab over non-Arab, white over black, or vice-versa. All people are descended from Adam and are as brothers and sisters.

Islam prescribes the general principle of the right to cooperate and not to co operate. Any person who undertakes a noble and righteous work has the right to expect the Muslims to cooperate with him or support him. The one who perpetrates vice and aggression does not have the right to the Muslims’ support and cooperation.

These are general human rights that Islam gives to all. There are other rights set down by Islam dealing with issues such as the rights of citizens in an Islamic state and the rights of enemies during times of war.

Treat them Kindly:

“Treat the prisoners of war kindly.”

No, this is not a statement in the Geneva Conventions summarizing the rights of POWs. This is the Prophet Muhammad’s instruction to his Companions more than 1400 years ago. Islam has set down rules for warfare, detailing when Muslims should fight, whom they should fight, and how they should fight.

In the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the Muslims set an unprecedented standard for the ethics of dealing with captured enemies. They treated prisoners of war in a manner that has yet to be imitated in history. Islam set the basic rule that the captive is protected by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.

Islam instructs Muslims either to free captives who cannot offer ransom (in the form of money or an equivalent number of Muslim captives) or to ransom prisoners of war.[1]

Prisoners of war are not to be humiliated or degraded in any way. They have the right to their human dignity and the right to be protected from sexual, emotional, and physical abuse. Sufficient health care should be provided for prisoners who need it. Proper food and clothing should also be provided, as well as sanitary facilities. The Prophet also instructed his Companions to shelter their prisoners from the summer sun and to provide them with water to drink.

Captives are invited to learn about Islam, but they are under no pressure whatsoever to convert. [There is no compulsion in religion] (Al-Baqarah 2:256) means that sincerity is an essential requirement of one’s faith, so, therefore, no one can be coerced to become a Muslim nor should anyone convert to seek some worldly benefit.

The Qur’an describes the righteous:

[And they, though they hold it dear, give sustenance to the indigent, the orphan and the captive. (Saying) we feed you for the sake of God alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.] (Al-Insan 76:8-9)

Relating how the Companions complied strictly with the Prophet’s instructions on treating POWs, one of the prisoners of the Battle of Badr[2], Huzayr ibn Humayr, said: “I was with one of the 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 compliance with the Prophet’s order to treat prisoners well.”

Another, Thamama ibn Athal, was taken prisoner and brought to the Prophet, who said, “Be good to him in his captivity.” When the Prophet went home, he asked that any food in his house be collected and sent to Thamama.

Each human being has inherent value and distinction as God’s creation.

Later, the Prophet approached him respectfully and inquired whether Thamama could ransom himself: “What have you, Thamama?” He replied, “Actually I have a lot going for me. If you kill me, you kill a man whose blood will surely be avenged. If you are generous, then you are generous to a man who knows how to be grateful. If you are after money, then ask of me whatever amount you like.”

The Prophet left him and on the second day when he approached him, Thamama said basically the same thing. On the third day, the Prophet said, “Let Thamama go.”

They unbound him and let him go. He went on his way, quickly took a bath and returned, declaring, “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and I bear witness that you are the Messenger of Allah. O Muhammad! I swear to Allah that there was no man on the face of the Earth whom I hated more than you. Now you have become to me the dearest of men. And I swear by Allah that there was no religion on earth more loathsome to me than your religion, but now it is the most beloved to me of all religions. There was no country on earth more despised by me than your country, yet now I love it more than any other country in the world.”[3]

The Islamic ethics of treating prisoners of war is part of the whole system of Islamic ethics, which places utmost importance on the preservation of human dignity and rights. This principle extends from the rights of the unborn child to the rights of women, the elderly, non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, to aggressive enemies captured as prisoners of war. Each human being has inherent value and distinction as God’s creation.

Women Rights:

1. The right and duty to obtain education.

2. The right to have their own independent property.

3. The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.

4. Equality of reward for equal deeds.

5. The right to express their opinion and be heard.

6. The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.

7. The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.

8. The right to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she simply can't stand him,or he beats her.(pls note that God deeply frowns upon divorce as a solution unless there is hardly any other alternative but it does not mean that men have more right to divorce their wives than women do.)

9. The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to maintain any relations).

10. The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.

11. custody of their children after divorce.

12. to refuse any marriage that does not please them

and more...
From (IOL)!

Posted by: cutedoctor

at April 13, 2006 3:09 PM

Islamic Democracy:

The notion of khilafah expresses how Islam empowers human beings and also how the government does not enjoy any special rights apart from those delegated to it by the political community.

Human Rights:

Every human has the right to the safety of life. This means that if someone is ill, wounded, starving, or drowning, et cetera, he has the right to be saved.

All people have the right to a basic standard of life. Anyone who is suffering from deprivation has a right in the property and wealth of the Muslims.

Islam grants the individual the right to freedom. It is categorically forbidden to capture a free person and make him a slave or sell him into slavery.

Islam recognizes absolute equality between people. There is no superiority of Arab over non-Arab, white over black, or vice-versa. All people are descended from Adam and are as brothers and sisters.

Treat them Kindly:

“Treat the prisoners of war kindly.”

Islam instructs Muslims either to free captives who cannot offer ransom (in the form of money or an equivalent number of Muslim captives) or to ransom prisoners of war.[1]

The Qur’an describes the righteous:

The Prophet left him and on the second day when he approached him, Thamama said basically the same thing. On the third day, the Prophet said, “Let Thamama go.”

Women Rights:

1. The right and duty to obtain education.

2. The right to have their own independent property.

3. The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.

4. Equality of reward for equal deeds.

5. The right to express their opinion and be heard.

6. The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.

7. The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.

9. The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to maintain any relations).

10. The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.

11. custody of their children after divorce.

12. to refuse any marriage that does not please them

and more...
From (IOL)!

Posted by: cutedoctor

at April 13, 2006 3:11 PM

Mackie-

Tom Tancredo and Curt Weldon in 2008.

Border security and national security.

Them I could support.

99.44% of the rest are hopeless panderers, pimps, pork-barrelers and prostitutes.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at April 13, 2006 3:15 PM

profitsbeard, I agree

Posted by: Rebecca JW

at April 13, 2006 3:29 PM

This battle needs to be fought in the primaries. Those of us who support the GOP need to make sure that any incumbant who's with the Bushies on Islam gets defeated in the primaries themselves. Similarly for Dems.

If we can get that much done, the rest shouldn't matter.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at April 13, 2006 3:31 PM

hey cutedoctor you must be in a parallell universe, what aspect of having your head blown off or sawd off by teaching girls to read you do not seem to remember happening?
this kind of tosses off your statement below":
1. The right and duty to obtain education.

you forget to mention all the other goodies in your koran as well. you see Western Democracy allows minorities full rights, something your koran does not! of course you need to pay up serious money.
l am sure others will fill in the blanks on your quest of lies.. you cant fool everyone!

Posted by: Lulu

at April 13, 2006 3:39 PM

profitsbeard, should we get the tar and feathers now?

yojimbo, hilarious video, should be watched regardless; but as for the people, completely unbelievable, they really are very savage and backwards. they can't figure out how to grow the vegetables like those darn jews, HA!! I wonder why, maybe it's because they spend all their time and money trying to destroy Israel instead of working on their infrastructure...hmmm oh well let's go blow something up.

Posted by: Erik

at April 13, 2006 3:51 PM

"...few other highly questionable statements while answering this question at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University on Monday."--from Robert's description.

This guy is the product of advanced international studies? Doesn't John Hopkins teach its students to rely on original source material? In this case, that would be Koran, hadith, and Sira.

This Nitze air-head sounds like he's been reading Karen Armstrong or John Esposito. It quite a lot of work to keep on top of the steady stream of lies in that "question" of his, and all the other propaganda like it.

Posted by: Archimedes

at April 13, 2006 4:02 PM

Dear Sweet CuteDoctor,

Name one country where more than 10% of the Muslims in that country recognize and carry-out your long list of "Islam-was-first" human rights!
Will you come with me to Mecca to hold a sign that lists these "rights" - what?! I can't go to Mecca because I am not Muslim?! I don't understand what about my human rights? Oh, they only apply to Muslims, not ape-pigs infidels!

And while your explaining things to us; what is Taqiya (sp?)? Thanks for trying ! I quess Quytb and Azzam and other Clerics just don't know the "real" Islam.

Posted by: Hugh De Payen

at April 13, 2006 4:10 PM

"the Companions complied strictly with the Prophet’s instructions on treating POWs..."
-- from a crazed posting above

This would have come as news to the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. But after they were all decapitated, some 600-900 of them, they were in no position to be receiving news. Nor were all the other captives slain, their women taken as sex slaves, their propertly divided as loot (with Muhammad reserving 20% for himself). See Safiyya, the Jewish concubine, whose husband, brother, and father were all murdered by Muhammad and then she taken by him. Read the whole Muslim version of the life of Muhammad, for god's sake.

Although there is hardly a word of truth in anything posted by the same poster, particularly incredible is her belief that women are well-treated in Islam. Here is what she posts:

According to her dreamy view, women in Islam possess:

"The right and duty to obtain education.

2. The right to have their own independent property.

3. The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.

4. Equality of reward for equal deeds.

5. The right to express their opinion and be heard.

6. The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.

7. The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.

What "right" to education for women in Islam? The more devoutly and firmly Muslim a society, the more women are denied the right to an education. See Afghanistan under the Taliban, whose members are even now destroying girls's schools, and killing the teachers in those schools. See the education of girls in Pakistan, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia --are those severely limited possiblities what you mean be a "right to education"?

The "right to property"? Property received how? Females inherit half of what men do; women are regarded as chattel, best kept ignorant and at home to produce child after child. If the ability to acquire property, through inheritance or through work, is severely limited, what does this "right to property" mean? Are Muslim women able to amass wealth, through work or inheritance, as non-Muslim women are? Perhaps "cutedoctor" is a Muslim living in the West, enjoying Western freedoms as a Muslim, possibly even a doctor, and mistaking her present life for what she would have to endure were she in a real Muslim society, and not one that, like Turkey or Tunisia, has deliberately suppressed or contained certain aspects of Islam.

The right to "express their opinion and be heard" -- well, yes, within some westernized or advanced families, and the less observant they are about Islam, the more likely a Muslim woman is to be allowed to offer a few opinions. But so what? Can women fully participate in political life, except where either outside pressure (as in Iraq, from the Americans) or internal pressure by a deliberate secularist (such as Ataturk or Bourguiba) has made it possible for some women to participate in public affairs -- or where being the rich child of a rich zamindar, as Pinky Bhutto is, gives one occasionally, in a non-Arab Muslim society, the possiblity of possessing power?

As far as being able to "negotiate marriage terms," this again is an absurdity. How many Muslim girls, right smack in the middle of England, are sent back to Pakistan to marry illiterate men, old and young, and how many are in despair, and how many attempt or commit suicide as a result? Are we supposed to ignore this scandal, and ignore all the evidence of this treatment of Muslim women even in the Western world, where the protections of an advanced and superior civilization should, one would think, be made available to them?

As for this "right to obtain divorce from her husband" -- surely the real right is that of the husband, who need only utter a phrase a few times to be, in the eyes of Islam, divorced, whereas a Muslim woman, as one more of the many aspects of her unequal and debased state, must go through a whole rigmarole which may or may not succeed -- for men will do the deciding.

Others may, if they wish, bother to answer each of the absurdities presented here about wonderful Islam and its sheer wonderfulness. But one hopes that "cutedoctor" will, since she is so keenly aware of how wonderful Islam is, upon receiving her advanced training in the West, promptly remove herself to one of those wonderful places where she can fully enjoy Islam, without any of the monstrous decadence and unsettling license of the benighted Western world.

Posted by: Hugh

at April 13, 2006 4:11 PM

CuteDoctor,

Nice cut and paste from Islam On Line (IOL) ! You can't even articulate your own thoughts - proof about Islam, Women, and Education !

PS: recommend you hide from the Islamic Family Doctor and his knife; you might find he has a different view on Islamic wives enjoying sex.

Posted by: Hugh De Payen

at April 13, 2006 4:22 PM

Is CuteDoctor female? When I think of a CuteDoctor, I think of George Clooney.

Also, does CuteDoctor agree with the nonsense posted from Islamonline, or is she or he just quoting it?

Posted by: Interested

at April 13, 2006 5:36 PM

I am sorry but due to the facts that
the Islamic so called faith requires that newer
and More VIOLENT versus are the latest and therefore must be obeyed what the cute doctor referred to are all the NICE versus..

You know all the stuff mohammed wrote down
to try and convince the jews that islam was peaceful..

Only when he fooled some of the people did mohammed change his tone and start screaming
Kill the Jews
Kill the Infidels
Kill, assasinate, rape and decimate all who are in your path...

So i am sorry
But I KNOW better...

A crocodile painted pink with a cute bow still will Kill you...

Posted by: jingoist

at April 13, 2006 7:13 PM

When I think of a CuteDoctor, I think of George Clooney. - Interested

Bleah!

I don't. :)

Posted by: Shinoliite

at April 13, 2006 7:14 PM

The director yells, "Get me Cary Grant!" then when the real deal is too old,, "Get me a Cary Grant type!" and voila we get somebody else in the "Cary Grant role" and then somebody else and then somebody else and then somebody else and then George Clooney, a pale, not so original copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original.

There are no movie stars anymore.

The men especially are so boyish, I mean common, Leonardo DiCaprio? Please.

Posted by: Rebecca JW

at April 13, 2006 8:40 PM

I can only guess what W really thinks. Is he dumm? Is he stupid as many think? I doubt it. He graduated with an MBA. He passed a tough business program. Intelectual lazziness. Maybe, but I think it's something else. While I think he's wrong on so many issues. I think he approaches faith from a personal perspective. I remember reading that W stuck up for a geeky frat brother who was made fun of. A democrat Lanny Davis was there and remembers this side of Bush. I think W is one who cannot believe that 1.whatever billion Muslims don't have the head on straight. He clings to the few bad apples myth corrupting a 'grand religion,' instead of the otherway around . . . human beings corrupted by a faith. His decency as a person perhaps cannot let him grasp the truth. His salvation from booze and a rudderless life through Christianity is key here: he believes that all religions are equally good. I've given up on him to make the right decisions, but, believe it or not, I was once one of his biggest fans. When you step back from your love(or hate) of the man, you can try to dissect his beliefs objectively. I think he truly believes all of it . . . man is good, freedom and democracy will serve as counterweights towards extremism(instead of enablers). He will go down in history as a failed president because of Iraq. Even the Katrina thing, I believe, was out of misguided goodness. He didn't want to immediately 'pull a Clinton' and tour the destruction--for he felt he would get in the way. Condi is but a reflection of her boss, giving no objective views of her own(if she has any). The perfect kiss ass. The empty suit. W may be the last neocon standing. I laugh when folks claim a cabal of neocons suckered him. Really? Just look at the words out of his mouth--both in prepared statements and off the cuff. One of his greatest weaknesses is an inability to think of another viewpoint on Islam or any other issue. Unlike Carter, another failure, W is a decent man. The kind of person you could probably count on in a personal situation, but not a good leader. Sad, but true. Nixon, for all his personal deamons, could think of another side(or three) to any issue. I've even heard his detractors claim he was the most brilliant guy ever in the White House. He actually liked foreign policy advisors to have dissenting viewpoints. This is why he admired Kissenger--even though he might not have liked him personally(he viewed him as a leaker), but he liked a guy with brains. I wish W would have more of that in him, but at his age, people rarely change. Sad for him, sad for us. Are the democrats any better. LOL. I wish he would pull a hail mary here and get some Iraqi stooge to ask us to leave. His poll numbers would go up 15 percent overnight. I really believe that. Instead of entertaining that option, he only clings to the long view of history to vindicate him. On the strong, strong positive, I cannot fathom seeing the GOP base nominating Condi. Not with her social views, single status ect. Lott strikes me as an empty suit. Newt strikes me as brilliant, but I doubt he could win(personal travails). I like Huckabee of Arkansas and the Senator from Virginia I think. Sorry for the lack of paragraphs!

Posted by: biorabbi

at April 13, 2006 9:33 PM

I think Mr. Bush is a dhimmi and he doesn’t even know it. I don’t even think he knows what the words mean, words like jizya, dawa, khilafah, and ummah. He doesn’t know, doesn’t care. It’s all about showing the world how civilized and enlightened we and our way of live are, and can be with others, any “others.” Alas, It’s just not so. Whether it’s greed or ignorance doesn’t really matter at this point. He’s made up his mind and that’s that. He doesn’t have time for someone to brief him on the truth. For a former supporter it’s quite maddening.

We have to vote awakened people into office, those who know what the words mean.

Posted by: butterfly

at April 13, 2006 10:23 PM

cutedoctor, evecuryone knows that the woman has custody of the children only until they are seven years old. The father wouldn't want to be bothered with changing diapers and other nasty child care chores. But when all the dirty work has been done, the father, who has "owned" them all along, assumes custody. He is free to do whatever he wishes to the children, including killing them if he so desires, assuming he lives in an Islamic cesspit where such heinous and barbaric deeds are not crimes.

You didn't mention the fate of a woman who chooses NOT to marry, or one who chooses her own husband.

You didn't mention the fact that women are chattel, owned by males their entire lives; first their fathers, then their husbands. Muslim women are NEVER FREE.

You didn't mention the penalty for women who deviate from traditional islamic practices, like refusing to participate in arranged, forced marriages to close relatives. You didn't mention that the family's "honor" is hinged on female behavior and and the slightest infraction, real or perceived, is grounds for killing the offending female to restore the family's "honor." You didn't mention that a female's virginity is her only source of value before she is married, or that producing male children and providing sex on demand to her husband are her only redeeming values after marriage. I guess islamic science has yet to discover who determines the gender of a baby, besides allah, of course.

You didn't mention that when a Christian woman marries a muslim man, the children belong to the man and must be raised muslim. Women are only vessels for carrying babies. Some muslims believe women have no souls, that they are not even human. Women are worth half as much as men and are considered inferior in every way.

We've all been to Islamonline and it is a pile of crap, but what else could it be, considering the subject matter? If you're a muslim woman, you're a slave to a slave, the lowest form of life other than infidels.

Posted by: Susanp

at April 13, 2006 10:53 PM

Bush is a jackass. He should stop trying to push this poison pill as if it's a sugar cube.

Posted by: Prickzilla

at April 13, 2006 11:47 PM

Bush is a jackass. He should stop trying to push this poison pill as if it's a sugar cube.

i dunno,i think a jackass is smarter.

Posted by: AmericanPatriot

at April 13, 2006 11:57 PM

Agreed: Bush is a jackass.

Then can we blame the Europeans for not wanting to follow a jackass?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at April 14, 2006 12:22 AM

On the strong, strong positive, I cannot fathom seeing the GOP base nominating Condi. Not with her social views, single status ect. Lott strikes me as an empty suit. Newt strikes me as brilliant, but I doubt he could win(personal travails). I like Huckabee of Arkansas and the Senator from Virginia I think. Sorry for the lack of paragraphs! Posted by: biorabbi

I don't think it's so much Condi being single or even pro-choice, as much as her painful to watch pandering to diplomacy and the international community. That's something that most Republicans can't stand to watch, even if they may not share our views on Islam. In fact, by now, one may be forgiven for beginning to forget why one disdained Powell. Also, the fact that it would be her first elected job, and that the White House isn't the place for on the job training.

As for Newt, he was an awesome speaker, but lacked the personal appeal, and what was worse, against the likes of Clinton, he took some of the worst image beatings. But he doesn't seem to harbor any illusions about Islam, and if he managed to pull off the nomination, I'd be solidly for him. I think George Allen looks promising, but I'd be interested to know what he thinks about Islam, for starters, and then whether and how it affects his views on items like Iraq, Iran.

I also like Giuliani. While it's true that he's paid his lip service to Islam by making statements similar to Bush, his track record shows that when confronted with reality, he faces it head on. As a result, if he were to be confronted with events that made it harder to escape the ugly facts about Islam, he'd come around. However, I doubt that he's going to run, given how well he's doing in the private sector.

While Condi is bad, McCain is unacceptable. Apart from all the compromises he's worked out with the Dems, he's also the one who's worked on the ban on torture at Gitmo, and has proven to be exactly the type that can be won over by taqqiya. Given all that, if he was the GOP candidate, I'd endorse whoever the Dems put up.

However, if immigration is still unresolved by this years election, don't be surprised if Tancredo finds himself so popular that he finds himself ahead of the GOP pack. Should that happen, there is a good chance of his running away with the Conservative support needed to nail the nomination. I doubt that Condi, should she run, would be able to beat him.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at April 14, 2006 1:39 AM

Rebecca of JW-

Maybe just printing up and applying one's own

TANCREDO-WELDON IN 2008

bumpstickers on cars nationwide would insinuate the idea into the Collective [Un]conscious?

OT-

The only actors I can think of who hold a candle to Grant, Gary Cooper, Gable, Tracy, Bogart, and the good guys of old (who actually lived lives before the became actors, and so had raw human experience to enrich their work and not just disembodied theatrical theories to draw on) would be Willem Dafoe -especially in the film on the making of the F.W. Murnau silent classic "Nosferatu"- and Liam Neeson, -although their career choices have been wildly erratic ("Body of Evidence" and "Nell", respectively).

The remainder of the general crop nowadays have the gravitas of tanked helium. (And often voices to match.) Although Johnny Depp can surely act like hell, even if somewhat fey out of the greasepaint.

There are a lot more fine women actresses lately than men.

(Just as there seem to be far more fine articulate, poetically-rich female songwriters at the moment.)

Back somewhat on topic-

Isn't it time for a remake of the 1976 Anthony Quinn film "Mohammed, Messenger of God"?

And this time tell the truth.

See the comments link arguing this at:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896/board/nest/38632735

Posted by: profitsbeard

at April 14, 2006 1:45 AM

Good points, but I think you guys got it wrong. How about Weldon--Tancredo, instead of the other way around. I like Tancredo, but the press will crucify him, and, although a good speaker and my kind of guy, he doesn't have the magic of a Gipper to withstand the nailing. He would have great gravitas on the VP side. I'm just worried, he'd lose it, debating Hillary and slap her face! He might win if he does that! LOL. Both Weldon and Tancredo seem to have solid, non W viewpoints on Islam. I cannot see either sticking around the tarbaby babylon for very long. One can see Allen in the list. He doesn't say too much about Iraq, yet, but he doesn't gush over the democratization of Iraq like Frist has. As for the democrats--it will be Hillary. I can't personally stand her, but I liked her position on Dubai--but even that is tainted by her Husbands financial dealings with them. I like Lieberman, but he may not even win his senate re-election.

Actually, my dream match up is Tancredo and Dr. Psycho Dean. Both seem to have hot tempers, maybe they could slosh it out in a boxing ring.

Posted by: biorabbi

at April 14, 2006 2:05 AM

What is Dr Dean's views on Islam? Remember, he was opposed to going into Iraq in the first place. Was it because he wanted Iraq to be a counterbalance to Iran (which it wasn't) and Saudi Arabia (which it was), and would he have withdrawn US troops from Iraq at that stage? Would he take on Iran? Would he defang Pakistan? If he did all that, I could hold my nose on all his other Liberal views.

Somehow, I doubt that's the case.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at April 14, 2006 2:20 AM

The more Bush says about Islam, the more stupid he sounds.

I would like to ask him to justify his ignorant statements on Islam. Some journalist needs to put him on the spot, and not just accept these statements and move on to the next question.

Somebody needs to ask him what basis he can state these things. Why? How? Where is it written?

It's all wishful thinking, ignorance and dhimmitude. But more than this: He lacks the courage and fortitude to confront Islam.

This man is a disaster for the future survival of the West.

Posted by: Mark Alexander

at April 14, 2006 8:37 AM

Agreed: Bush is a jackass.

Then can we blame the Europeans for not wanting to follow a jackass?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 14, 2006 12:22 AM
and sheik yer'mami, how do you compare Clinton and the peanut farmer Carter? you know Bush has to clean up the messes left over the decades from these two clowns!
what frreakin politician has ever said in public that islam has to go? not one! you are expecting too much, look at action and deeds, and Bush comes out ahead! not perfect mind you.. l think this Tancredo sounds perfect, along with Rudy Guiliani!!

Posted by: Lulu

at April 14, 2006 9:14 AM

This article only shows Bush's public stance. If you will, his world persona. Do you really think GB or any other politician would stand up and say "Let's go get 'em".

IMHO, I feel that we only hear about 10% of what goes on in the strategic planning sessions behind closed doors. If you were in his shoes, would you even whisper about your plans to the NYT, WaPo etc? Doing this would cause them to redouble their efforts to undermine our efforts.

Don't forget this shitkikkin, dumb ole cowboy now has bases on either side of Iran.

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer

at April 14, 2006 12:43 PM

A memo to President Bush: PLEASE READ THE KURAN BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND FURTHER BETRAY YOUR IGNORANCE ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC!

Posted by: pythagoras

at April 14, 2006 1:39 PM

Women in Islam do not need to give ANY money that they earn to anyone. A woman's money is the woman's, and a man's money is the woman's (that was not a typo). I think many of you have begun to confuse culture with religion. In true Islam, women have all the rights of men and more. The Taliban was not Islam. They subdued women, which is categorically prohibited in Islam. And hijab (the headscarf) is looked upon as oppression... why don't you speak to a Muslim woman about it. They are not forced, or at least should not be. Hijab is a symbol of liberation. The prophet's (saw) wife Aisha is one of the most important figures in all of Islam, as she related a good portion of the Ahadith we have today, and those ahadith shaped Shari'ah. Women have led prayers for both men and women since the time of the Prophet (saw). Women have a duty to become educated, as well. Unlike in Christianity, where women are not allowed to speak or learn in church (I Corinthians 14:34-35), women are encouraged to seek advice, and oftentimes men and women sought advice FROM them.

Posted by: bismillah

at April 14, 2006 4:53 PM

***And Allah knows best.

Posted by: bismillah

at April 14, 2006 4:55 PM

THE PRESIDENT: Great question. I believe that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their behavior. I thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will pass on your comments to James A. Baker, who is one of the chairmen of the group going to Iraq.

James A. Baker, senior partner of the law firm Baker Botts, the law firm which has three clients, the Saudi Royals, the Bush Family and Exxon Mobil, the law firm which is also the Lobbyist for the Saudi Royals,, the law firm which represented the Saudis against the Families of the Victims of 9-11.

Cluephone here: Anyone but me see the connection and why Bush keeps saying that Islam is a religion of peace. And by the way who has benefited from the invasion and continuing troubles in Iraq, with Oil now over $70 a barrel? None other than the Houston Oil boys (Bush family presiding) Baker Botts, Exxon Mobil, etc and last (maybe first) the Saudis and Iranians whose pockets are stuffed with our dollars and Euro's.

PS The major beneficiaries of the invasion were the Saudis and Iranians, coming up next was Cheney Haliburton, Bechtel and of course the oil companies and private contractors..whose paying the bill? Nitwit sheeple.

Posted by: Nariz

at April 14, 2006 5:00 PM

hat is Dr Dean's views on Islam? Remember, he was opposed to going into Iraq in the first place. Was it because he wanted Iraq to be a counterbalance to Iran (which it wasn't) and Saudi Arabia (which it was), and would he have withdrawn US troops from Iraq at that stage? Would he take on Iran? Would he defang Pakistan? If he did all that, I could hold my nose on all his other Liberal views.
Somehow, I doubt that's the case.
Posted by: Infidel Pride

Err, uhh, one of the major reasons we went into Iraq was to haul the Saudis irons out of the fire.

Not only to protect their oil, and bring their deficit budget back into the black, but to save their asses.

Have you forgotten that a major complaint and fatwa against the Saudis, issued not only by Osama, but reiterated by their own clerics, was that the Saudis were kufr for allowing the infidel military to pollute the land of Islam's two holy sites.

The US Army stationed at the inaccessible and highly secret King Khalid Military City, moved to Kuwait in the weeks before the invasion, and within two weeks of capturing Baghdad the Saudis "Kicked" the U.S. Air Force out of Prince Sultan Air Base.. problem solved no more kufr military defiling the land of Islam's two holy sites, not to mention the obscene windfall profits that the Iraq war has bestowed on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and the rest of the OPEC nations.

$70 a barrel, thanks to the "insurgency" and pipeline sabotage (hmmm, don't most of these Jihadi insurgents come from KSA and Jordan).

Cui bono.. the sabotage, cui bono the invasion, cui bono the occupation? Answer: The Saudis, Iran, Kuwait, OPEC and of course the houston oil boys, and Baker Botts, and the House of Bush House of Saud.

Posted by: Nariz

at April 14, 2006 5:40 PM

Hijab is a symbol of liberation
If it is so liberating, why do the religious police have to beat women with a stick to enforce the "portable house"? muslim women truly are not supposed to go outdoors, so the hijab is a substitute "house". Liberating, my a$$.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at April 15, 2006 11:46 AM

President Bush is right. Islam is not our enemy, we are at war with rabid fascists who twist the Koran around like atheist feminazis who twist Surah 4:34 into brutality even though the first thing it says is men are the GUARDIANS of women. Feminists deserve a good spanking. :-)

Posted by: gopchristian

at April 15, 2006 2:37 PM

Yes Iam A Young muslim girl ,
a(doctor) working here in USA , and I think my religion is the best religion despite all the misunderstandings about it !!!!
The Problem that you are mixing between extremism + old traditions and the "pure" islam !

Ok lets read what "Marmaduke Pickthall" wrote , He is a British Muslim convert who was well-known for his highly regarded English translation of the Qur'an.

lets take them one by one so you can understand.

First: WOMEN RIGHTS
"Marmaduke Pickthall" said

"Today I have to speak to you about a delicate subject -- the Islamic position of women -- a subject which is delicate, and to me painful, only because at every turn while examining it I am reminded that I am in a country [India] where, among the Muslims, a woman is emphatically not in her Islamic position, and where men are generally indifferent to the wrongs done to her. The state to which the great majority of Muslim women in India are reduced today is a libel on Islam, a crime for which the Muslim community as a whole will have to suffer in increasing social degradation, in the weak and the sickly, in increasing child mortality, so long as that crime is perpetuated. An unconscious crime on the part of the majority, I know, begun in ignorance, through pursuit of an un-Islamic tradition of false pride. But ignorance of the law is no excuse for anybody to escape its penalties -- least of all, in the case of the operation of natural laws can the mere plea of ignorance exempt a man from undergoing the natural consequences of transgression. The laws of the Shari'ah [Islamic Law] are natural laws, and the consequences of transgressing them are unavoidable, not only for Muslims, but for everyone. The fool who does not know that fire will burn him, is burnt by fire just like anybody else. And the excuse of ignorance, in the case of Muslims and the Shari'ah, is worse than the offence. Since they, of all mankind, should have that special knowledge which it is their mission to convey to all mankind.

Please do not, upon hearing me thus inveigh against the present pitiful condition of Muslim womanhood in India, think that I am judging it by any foreign standard for wishing to recommend foreign ways. I am judging it only by the Shari'ah and I wish to recommend only the way of the Shari'ah; and I judge the Western status of woman, as I judge her Eastern status, solely by the Shari'ah as I, following the most learned and enlightened Muslims of all ages, understand it.

"Thus have We set you as a middle nation that ye may bear witness against mankind and that the Messenger may bear witness against you." [Qur'an 2:143]
Surely the Messenger of Allah (may God bless and keep him!) bears witness against you today in this matter of the status and the rights of woman. Only recall his words: "Education is a sacred duty for every Muslim and every Muslimah." [Muslimah = Muslim female]
I know that an influential group of men among you have decided in their mind that knowledge [ilm] must be taken here in the restricted "theological" sense as meaning only knowledge of a "religious" nature. The Holy Prophet and the Holy Qur'an never made a distinction between the religious and secular. For the true Muslim, the whole of life is religious and the whole of knowledge is religious. So according to the proper teaching of Islam, the man with the widest knowledge and experience of life is the man best qualified to expound religious truths to resolve the problems which arise among Muslims in connection with the practice of religion. I deny the right of men with limited knowledge and outlook to exclusive interpretation. I deny their conclusions and I also deny their premises. I say that their claim to exclusive interpretation among them to their priestly intervention between the Muslims and the Messenger [the Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h.] whom Allah sent to them - a thing denounced in the Qur'an repeatedly as against religion and destructive to all true religion in the past. But I am willing to accept their restriction for the moment. Let us agree for the sake of argument that [ilm] means only what such people think it means, the knowledge which such men possess. Is every Muslimah [Muslim woman] in India encouraged or even allowed to seek such knowledge? Does every Muslim woman in India receive that sort of education? Does every Muslimah in India know even the Fateha or even the Kalima? Can every Muslimah in India say her prayers? How many Muslimahs in India know the passages of the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet which ought to govern the progressive evolution of woman's true position in the Muslim brotherhood? Let them all be given that education, in God's name! I ask no more as a beginning. All the rest will follow naturally.

Our Prophet (may God bless and keep him!) said, "Women are the twin halves of men." "The rights of women are sacred. See that women are maintained in the rights granted to them." Do Muslim women in India even know what their rights are? Equality with men before the law is theirs according to the Shari'ah. Woman have the right to own their own property, have the right to claim a divorce from their husbands under certain circumstances. How many Muslim women in India know that? And who is seeing that they are maintained in the rights granted to them by the Sacred Law? In India today, women have no legal protector or defender. Where is that woman Judge, who, according to our great Imam Abu Hanifa , ought to be in every city to deal particularly with cases touching women's rights? Where is the male Judge to whom they have free right and access to appeal? The Qadi used to be the guardian and defender of their rights. His position in India today is almost as pitifully below his true Islamic position as that of the woman herself; and one sees little reason why it should be.

Women have equal rights with men before the Shari'ah, and the Qur'an proclaims that they are equal with men in the sight of God. In the Holy Qur'an, God says:

"I suffer not the work of any one among you, whether male or female, to be lost. One is from the other." [Qur'an 3:195]
The heathen Arabs thought women were a separate and inferior race. The Qur'an reminds them that they are all one race, one proceeding from the other, the man from the woman and woman from the man.
There is no text in the Qur'an, no saying of our Prophet, which can possibly be held to justify the practice of depriving women of the natural benefits which Allah has decreed for all mankind (i.e. sunshine and fresh air and healthy movement). And there is no text in the Qur'an, or saying of our Prophet which justifies her life-long imprisonment in her home. This imprisonment, in turn, has lead to death by consumption or anaemia to thousands of women, and God knows how many babies, every year in this country! Decency and modesty is enjoined by the Qur'an, the circle of a woman's intimate relations is prescribed by the Qur'an. The true Islamic tradition enjoins the veiling of the hair and neck, and modest conduct - that is all.

The veiling of the face by women was not originally an Islamic custom. It was prevalent in many cities of the East before the coming of Islam, but not in the cities of Arabia. The purdah system, as it now exists in India, was quite undreamt of by the Muslims in the early centuries, who had adopted the face-veil and some other fashions for their women when they entered the cities of Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia and Egypt. It was once a concession to the prevailing custom and was a protection to their women from misunderstanding by peoples accustomed to associate unveiled faces with loose character. Later on it was adopted even in the cities of Arabia as a mark of [tamaddun] a word generally translated as 'civilization', but which in Arabic still retains a stronger flavour of its root meaning 'townsmanship' that is carried by the English word. It has never been a universal custom for Muslim women, the great majority of whom have never used it, since the majority of the Muslim women in the world are peasants who work with their husbands and brothers in the fields. For them the face-veil would be an absurd encumbrance. The head-veil, on the other hand, is universal.

The Egyptian, Syrian, Turkish or Arabian peasant woman veiled her face only when she had to go in to town, and then it was often only a half-veil that she wore. On the other hand, when the town ladies went to their country houses, they discarded the face-veil, and with it nearly all the ceremonies which enclosed their life in towns. In no other country that I know of, besides India, do the customs which were adopted by the wealthiest townspeople for the safety and distinction of their women at a certain period (i.e., adopted by people having spacious palaces and private gardens) derive from the practice of poor people (who had only small rooms in which to confine women). This is sheer cruelty. Not everywhere did wealthy adopt those customs. Umarah tells us that among the Arabs of Al-Yaman, in the fifth Islamic century, the great independent chiefs made it a point of pride and honour never to veil the faces of the ladies of their families, because they held themselves too high and powerful for common folk to dare to look upon their women with desiring eyes. It was only the dynasty which ruled in Zabid, and represented the Khilafat of Bani'l-Abbas in Yaman which observed the haram system with some strictness, no doubt in imitation of the Persianised court of Baghdad.

Thus the Purdah system is neither of Islamic nor Arabian origin. It is of Zoroastrian Persian, and Christian Byzantine origin. It has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, and, for practical reasons, it has never been adopted by the great majority of Muslim women. So long as it was applied only to the women of great houses, who had plenty of space for exercise within their palaces and had varied interests in life. So long as it did not involve cruelty and did no harm to women, it could be regarded as unobjectionable from the standpoint as a custom of a period. But the moment it involved cruelty to women and did harm to them, it became manifestly objectionable, from the point of view of the Shari'ah, which enjoins kindness and fair treatment towards women, and aims at the improvement of their status. It was never applicable to every class of society and when applied to every class, as now in India, it is a positive evil, which the Sacred Law can never sanction.

The general condition of Muslim women in Turkey, Syria, Egypt and Arabia has always been emancipated as compared with their condition now in India. For instance, the town ladies of the middle class, wearing their veils, were free to go about, doing their shopping and visiting other ladies. Indeed the world of women behind the veil was as free and full of interest as that of men, only it was separate from that of them, and largely independent of that of men. Women, duly veiled, were quite safe in the streets. Any insult offered to one of them was sufficient to rouse the whole Muslim population to avenge it. The women of the moderately well-to-do could come and go as they pleased and had no lack of social intercourse. The degree of freedom they enjoyed in diverse countries was regulated by racial temperament and local traditions rather than Islamic Law, which merely guarantees to women certain rights - and there is no law in the world so fair to women - and lays down the principle that they are always to be treated kindly and their rights held sacred. For instance, there was a difference between the Arabs and the Turks in this respect, the Turks having adopted more of the Byzantine customs. But all that I have said applies to both. In neither of those races would the women have put up with the conditions in which the majority of Indian Muslim women live today; and in neither of those races would the men have tolerated that condition for their women.

But even the condition of the Turkish woman of the past has been found to have become a cruelty in modern times. The reason for this is so curious that I must give it. When the Turks first came to Anatolia and Rumelia, they were a sallow complexioned race from Central Asia, with slanting eyes and thin black beards, as portraits of the early Sultans and their generals show. That type is found today among the peasantry around Adana, [a city in southern Turkey] but hardly anywhere else. Through centuries of intermarriage with the fair Circassians, Georgians, Syrians, Bulgars, Serbs, Albanians and other blonde races of Asia and Europe, the Turks have now become as fair as English people. The change was marked by a terrible increase in the mortality of Turkish women, particularly by an increase in the numbers of the yearly victims to consumption. So long as the Turkish woman was of a dark complexion, the languid, easy going life of the traditional Khanum Efendi did not harm her. But after she became of fair complexion, she suffered visibly from the confinement - much less than that imposed on Indian Muslim ladies, but still measure of confinement - of that life. The Turkish doctors then discovered that blondes were generally weaker constitutionally than brunettes, and required a great deal more fresh air and physical exercise. After the full significance of that discovery dawned upon the rulers of Turkey, they then became advocates of feminine emancipation and, with the ruthless logic of their race, abolished the face-veil and other unhealthy restrictions as soon as they could.

Turkish women in the towns now dress as they have always dressed in the country, wearing the close fitting bash urtu (head-veil) with a longer looser head veil over it. And a long loose mantle covering her form from head to toe -- a dress much less coquettish, though more healthy, than the former black charshaf and face veil. She is encouraged to take exercise and to play games in the open air, for which special women's clubs have been started. She is educated equally to men, though separately from them. She is allowed to do things which would have scandalized her great-grandmother. Yet it is all within the Shari'ah, since the changed conditions made this enlargement of the sphere of free activity absolutely necessary for women's health and happiness in these days. The changes were not revolutionary for the Turkish ladies since they had always the example of the Turkish country folk before them to prevent them from confusing the town dress and town restrictions with the Sacred Law of Islam. The Turkish peasantry are very good Muslims indeed. Nowhere does one see Islamic rules of decency more beautifully observed than in the Turkish villages of Anatolia. Yet the women in those villages and in Egyptian villages, and in Syrian villages and in Circassian villages and in Arabian villages and among the Bedawi and other wandering tribes enjoy a freedom which would stupefy an Indian Maulvi.

It is the great misfortune of the Indian Muslims that they have no peasantry; that they came into this land as conquerors, with ambitions and ideas befitting noblemen and rulers in Afghanistan and Turkistan and Persia in those days, so that now every Indian Muslim thinks it is necessary for his Izzat [honour/status] to treat his women in, perhaps, a wretched hut as the original Beg or Khan Sahib [people of a higher and noble social status] treated the women of his household, or as the Mughal Emperor treated the women of his palace in the vast Zenana quarters of the fort at Agra. It is the lack of a peasantry which had made them confuse the Purdah system of the wealthy townsfolk in the past with the Sacred Law of Islam. If there had been a Muslim peasantry in India, like the Muslim peasantry of Arabia, Egypt, Syria or Anatolia as the basis of the nation, the Indian Muslims could never have fallen into the error of supposing that the Purdah system should be practised by the poor who dwell in hovels, and the rich would never have applied both to town and country life. A peasantry has always common sense. It has no absurd pretensions, no false standards. The peasant judges a woman as he judges a man, by skill in work and skill in management. I have seen a woman govern an Egyptian village by sheer weight of practical good sense and character. The men obeyed her orders and were proud of her. That is no isolated instance. Yet the Egyptian fellahin [peasants] are ardent Muslims, and observe Islamic regulations pretty strictly.

The laws of Islam, with regard to the position of women as intended for the benefit of women, for their health and happiness and the improvement of their material and social position; and these laws are not static, they are DYNAMIC. They contemplate reasonable change as circumstances and conditions change. They can never sanction any custom that does injury or wrong to women. The Purdah system is not a part of the Islamic law. It is a custom of the court introduced after the Khilafat had degenerated from the true Islamic standard and, under Persian and Byzantine influences, had become mere Oriental despotism. It comes from the source of weakness to Islam not from the source of strength. The source of strength and of revival to Islam has always been the peasant's farm, the blacksmith's forge, the shepherd's hut, the nomad herdsman's tent. It was thence that fresh brains came to the schools, fresh blood to the throne, fresh vigour to the camp, not from the sort of people who enjoyed the purdah system. Far better let the traces of a worn-out grandeur go. And if the Muslims in India happen to be poor and forced to work for a living, let them no longer feel ashamed to earn it in the way that Islam considers honourable -- by cultivation of the land. No country can ever in truth be called a Muslim country of which the peasantry is non-Muslim. And Muslims settled anywhere without a peasantry are like a flower without a root -- they cannot draw fresh vigour from the soil.

I do not ask for any violent or sudden change. Educate women in obedience to our Prophet's plain command, and, in the conditions of the present day, you will see this un-Islamic purdah system vanquished naturally. It has nothing whatever to do with Islamic rules of modesty and decency for men and women. These will remain unshaken -- nay, they will be greatly strengthened -- if the education which you give to both men and women be a sound Muslim education.

The Shari'ah has nothing but benevolence for women -- it favours their instruction and development. But it does not wish nor expect them to assimilate themselves to men. Dr. Harry Campbell, lecturing before the institute of Hygiene in London recently said, "Women have smaller lungs and fewer blood cells than men. In women, the vital fire does not burn so quickly. It is thus obvious that women are not adapted like men for a strenuous muscular life. Mentally, men and women differ in the realm of emotions rather than of intellect. Intellectually men and women stand somewhat upon the same footing. While genius is more common in the male sex, so also is idiocy." There is therefore spiritual and intellectual equality, and physical differences, precisely as the Islamic law recognizes. There is nothing in the Shari'ah to give ground for the false idea concerning women's position in Islam which had prevailed long ago and st