Response to Abdullah

Submitted by GWK (United States), Jul 26, 2005 at 17:06

Abdullah: Your post isn't quite coherent, and I'll assume it's a language barrier, but that still means that the thoughts should be clearly logical.

Point # 1 suggests that Britain and France were "terrorist" countries? That's highly controversial. Yes, they were expansionist in their colonial period. Yes, this period of expansion was accompanied by actions that were garish under our view of right and wrong today, but according to the standards of their day, who knows? But the greater point is what about the support for the rights of man that they have advocated since WW2? Both Britain and France have given more than lip-service to the UN's Declarations on the Rights of Man. Would you also stand solidly behind that document, or is it immoral for you to support it?

Point # 2 is a bit of a reach. Remember, it was the West, particularly the USA that provided support for the mujahadeen and bin Laden to build an infrastructure from which these fighters could deter the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. From your point of view, was that so terrible?

In point #3 you ask groups who call themselves Mujahedeen to study Islam first under Ulama. Pretty good idea. Do ulama believe in a pluralistic and free society? Would ulama accept that in a free society that people can accept any religious belief of their choosing, even if that choice is not Islam? Would they allow a disaffected Muslim to recant his beliefs and to explore other religious theologies (al-kitb or otherwise) without fear of reprisal?

In #4 you want others to consider that Jihad in fighting the non-Muslims who took our land is a must. Ok, is there a statute of limitations on this rule? Why have a jihad and not a peace treaty? And what lands do you mean by "our lands". If carried to extremes, does that include poor little Portugal? What about southern France, Sicily or Malta? To whom do they belong? Are they included in the region you are disputing? Under what condition are lands considered "our lands"? This logic can get very sticky. For example, whose land is Darfur? The lands of the Arab muslims of Eastern Sudan, or the land of the African muslims who were born there?

In #5 you claim Muslims are weak because they don't know much about Islam. In all seriousness, how does knowing more about Islam improve one's ability to think? It is a tough process to become a religious scholar. Isn't it equally fair to allow a person to think about being a contributing member of a pluralistic national undertaking? Or does being a Muslim supercede being a citizen of a country? Is it possible for a Muslim to place country ahead of Islam and still enter paradise? If a Muslim places his faith ahead of the laws of his or her country, and breaks those laws, then should he protest when he is jailed for violating the country's laws?

Beyond your first 5 points, your points are murkier and less clear. Do you care to elaborate?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".