Islamism, not Islam is the Problem
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Islamism, not Islam is the Problem
by M. Zuhdi Jasser, Pundicity, May 18, 2004
"We are doing our national counterterrorism efforts and Muslims a disservice if we assume that the ‘lowest hanging fruit,’ which comprise all currently Islamist organizations (CAIR, MPAC, or ISNA - to name a few) and their proportionally limited membership speak for all American Muslims. Their silence on the need for reformation and the need for Muslims to lead an anti-Islamist effort from within our faith community represents their own Islamist agenda of the members and donors but does not represent the general Muslim population."
Most of the attention, scholarship, and punditry in the United States given towards Islam and Muslims since 9-11 have focused upon problems with comparatively little attention toward solutions. Understandably motivated by a need to improve security and understand the enemy, American curiosity about Islam, Islamism, and militant Islamism continues to grow. Yet, comparatively American Muslims have offered few solutions except for the few rare voices of Muslim moderation (anti-Islamism) across America, Canada, and Europe.
At times there is only a binary choice in the public ether between the voices who say that “ Islam is the problem ” and the tired voices of the Islamists who provide endless apologetics, denial, victimization, and every deflection possible short of responsibility or actual ideological solutions for a counter-jihad and reformation. Certainly, the Islamists, no matter how peaceful, who look at the world through the lens of political Islam are at the core of the ideological problem. They knowingly and unknowingly feed the enemy’s central political construct of society—political Islam. Yet, we so need to separate political Islam (Islamism) from the spiritual faith of Islam as a faith. Is it easier said than done?
An anti-Islamist devout Muslim like myself - and so many others who believe we are in the majority - can only shout in the wilderness for so long, before there becomes a need to begin to address some of the most difficult but central questions, which many Muslims ignore either out of pride, self-righteousness, or impatience. Whether many pious Muslims acknowledge it or not, non-Muslims who believe that ‘ the religion of Islam is the problem ’ are growing in numbers. I can either dismiss their arguments as “Islamophobic” as so many do, including the Islamists, or I can begin to address some of the central issues raised positively in the spirit of understanding, logic, and most importantly in the spirit of American security.
We need the anti-Islamist Muslims
Most should understand that strategically, identifying ‘Islam as the problem,’ immediately alienates upwards of one quarter of the world’s population and dismisses our most powerful weapon against the militant Islamists—the mantle of religion and the pulpit of moderate Muslims who can retake our faith from the Islamists. The majority voices in the middle, the non-Islamist and anti-Islamist Muslims who understand the problem, have to be on the frontlines. They cannot be on the frontlines in an ideological battle being waged, which demonizes the morality of the faith of Islam and its founder, the Prophet Mohammed. We cannot win this war only on the battlefield. Political Islam has a viral recurrence in the form of an infection which needs a Muslim counter-jihad in order to purge it. Thus, we cannot win this ideological war without the leadership of Muslim anti-Islamists. The radical and political ideologies of Islamism, Wahhabism, Salafism, Al Qaedism, Jihadism, and Caliphism, to name a few, cannot be defeated without anti-Islamist, anti-Wahhabi, anti-Salafist, anti-Al Qaedist, anti-Jihadist, and anti-Caliphist devout Muslims.
So often, attempts by anti-Islamist Muslims to claim that our faith has been hijacked or our faith has been twisted are dismissed by non-Muslims. They simply take common interpretations of Wahhabis and say rather that, ‘it is the anti-Islamist Muslim who is deluded and who is misrepresenting the faith of Islam”. They use the citations of the militants from our Holy Qur’an’s scripture and from many authentic and questionable Hadith (discussions of the Prophet Mohammed) to marginalize moderate Muslims and claim that they have no theological framework from which to claim legitimacy.
The question remains-- who or what defines Islam, and under what authority ? Islam has no clergy and is represented only by a book, the Holy Qur’an (what Muslims believe in Arabic, is the communication from God to Muslims). Islam’s naysayers by accepting radical interpretations of scripture are thus handing the militants the mantle of religion with hardly the benefit of the doubt or patience toward long term opportunities for reform by anti-Islamist Muslims within the general Muslim population.
The process of theological renewal and interpretation in the light of modern day thought— ijtihad— as it is known in Islam is in many ways hundreds of years behind Western enlightenment today arrested around the 15 th century. This process can either be facilitated by non-Muslims or hindered by the belief that it is impossible. There is quite a bit to be said for the value of a necessary critical facilitation (nudging) of Muslim reform (as opposed to blind uncritical apologetics). But there is also a fine line between useful criticism of Muslims and especially of political Islam and the less than helpful alienation of all Muslims through criticism of the faith of Islam in general. Most of the same arguments targeting Islam can similarly be made against Muslims and their interpretations while just not blaming Islam as a faith, which needs to be part of the solution.
Too nuanced for practicality? Not necessarily when our most critical allies within the Muslim faith are those that are strong enough to love their faith enough to wake-up and want to take it back from the Islamists and their barbarians like Al Qaeda.
This is a long, but very important essay, written by a devout Muslim, and should be read, especially by those who are quick to criticize others as being Islamophobes, in its entirety.
Click either the link at the top of this article, or here to continue reading.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
To those who have slandered me as an Islamophobe, this DEVOUT MUSLIM speaks for me. I will continue to criticize Islamists, Radical Fundamentalist Muslims and Militant Extremist Muslims and I am not ashamed to say that, even if they are YOUR heroes. By being critical of me, or of Dr. Jasser, then it is assumed that you support this:
By the way, CAIR disparages Dr. Jasser, but he is intelligent and civil enough not to openly disparage them - but I think you can understand his feelings about them by his reference to them in his essay.
Not simple.
I know of no major Muslim organization that clearly distances itself from Islamist violence... and until such an organization exists, and speaks loudly for an end to savagery... I will see people like Dr Sasser as delusional at best.
I want very much to believe that most Muslims are peaceful. And I am aware of the hypocrisy of America, with tens of thousands of Middle Eastern deaths on the conscience...
Not simple...
You're correct in that there aren't enough or big enough Reformist Muslim Organizations, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. This is Dr. Jasser's Movement, which combined a number of diverse smaller reform movements, and I'm sure it will grow, at least I hope it does.
What really amuses me is that the progressives, the lefties, the liberals support Islamism and disparage reformers. Don't forget that the SPLC paid a big price for libeling Nawaz, and Anaan Hirsi Ali was named by them as well as haters, when they are in fact reformers, attempting to liberalize Islam.
Are you talking about me?
The first paragraph and the link were in response to your comment, but the rest of my comment was aimed at the few members who were attacking me on another article.
Ahmadi Muslims, see my comment below.
Belief in magical beings is the problem.
It's not the belief that's a problem, it's the blind devotion and misinterpretation.
So much for posting an article about a moderate peace-loving reformist Muslim. Look at all the liberals who bothered to comment. LOL
Individual Muslims, are like all other human beings, they can choose to act in any way they wish. They can follow the theocratic instructions found in the Quran, Hadith as Sira or not. How individuals behave, is of no consequence when we talk about Islam. As Islam is a codified set of beliefs or instruction on how to act in this world. Sunni and Shia make up between 99 or 98 % percent of the Muslims who inhabit the earth. One sect and one sect only, has rejected the verse of the sword. Ahmadi Muslims, many Muslim nations exclude them from even calling themselves Muslims. They are persecuted and attacked. Even in the west because they have fully rejected violence to advance the faith. The jihad by sword quote below is in reference the verse 9:5. I follow this sort of thing, and I have never, not a single time read about an Ahmadi Muslim committing an act of jihad. They are without a doubt, the sect of peace.
It is worth noting that not a single Muslim cleric since 9/11 has mustered the courage to say the doctrine of armed jihad is defunct and inapplicable in the 21st century. They rightfully denounce terrorism, but dare not denounce jihad.
On the contrary, we keep hearing the propaganda that "Jihad" has nothing to do with warfare. Here is what the "Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam" has to say about Jihad:
"DJIHAD(A), holy war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. It narrowly escaped being a sixth 'rukn,' or fundamental duty."
The only Muslim group that has come to this conclusion are Ahmadi Muslims , whose founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the nineteenth century had the wisdom to declare:
For uttering these words, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was deemed to have blasphemed and was declared an apostate by the orthodoxy in Islam; the same school of thought that provides intellectual sustenance to the Muslim establishment in the West today.
The armed jihad launched against the infidels , is clearly promoted by the 20th-century writings of such Islamists as Syed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the late Syed Maudoodi of Jamaat-e-Islami of Indo-Pakistan.
In his book Towards Understanding Islam , Maudoodi exhorts ordinary Muslims to launch jihad, as in armed struggle, against non-Muslims. "Jihad is part of this overall defence of Islam," he writes. In case the reader is left with any doubt about the meaning of the word "jihad," Maudoodi clarifies:
Maudoodi goes on to label Muslims who refuse the call to armed jihad as apostates:
Tarah Fatah, the author of the article, is a Canadian Muslim, as far as I am aware, he is still a Sunni Muslim. He does not participate in jihad because he, personally rejects the concept. Not because he belongs to a Sunni sect that has rejected Jihad.
I forget the link for the Tarek Fatah article? I thought it was there. Now I'm linking the article and I can not see it when I post it WTF?
Excellent link. Thanks for the info. I'll look into the Ahmadis.
Let me help, there is so much to sort through. I do have my complaints, however, as Ahmadi Muslims tend to talk like they are the only Islamic group in the world. When they are in fact, less than 1% of the total Muslim demographic. They rarely if ever make that distinction. And they do have a very bad habit of a blustery over the top, form of propagandizing only their view, misrepresenting that what they believe is shared by all Muslims, Sunni and Shia alike.
There was at one time a full Ahmadi tafsir online (it was a great source to understand their vision. It was undeniably peaceful and non-violent) it has since been removed, and the last time I looked there was a fake tafsir online made by Pakistan to discredit them. I believe that their Quran with footnoted commentary is still online, I will look after this post. It is similar in nature to Mahmud Muhammad Taha's understanding of the faith. (sort of, it's really complicated) the violent verses only applied to Mohammad's time, and they do not apply after the prophet's death.
When reading the link, try to remember they believe they are the only legitimate continuation of the "Rasidun" (righty guided caliphate) That claim, along with rejecting the verse of the sword, Quran 9:5 infuriates the other 99 or 98% of Muslims. Often to the point of murder. Logically, in an Islamic sense, that claim makes the other 99 or 98% of Muslims apostates for rejecting the one "true" caliphate. Unlike ISIS the reconstituted Sunni caliphate in Iraq/Syria, they don't kill or persecute apostates. The world Muslim Congress (Ummah) did issue a fatwa in 1974 declaring them not Muslim or apostates from the faith. That was the (largest?) gathering of Sunni and Sharia clerics.
(ps) when all of those African American jazz musicians became Muslims, it was mostly the Ahmadi sect they converted to
1. The true Caliphate was re-established exactly per Prophet Muhammad’s prophecy
Four consecutive rightly guided Khalifas led Muslims after Prophet Muhammad’s death. After the fourth Khalifa, Hazrat Ali, was martyred, spiritual caliphate was lost. Muhammad himself foretold what would happen next:
History records that after caliphate ended, Muslims eventually succumbed to monarchial rule, and to this day much of the Muslim world suffers under monarchical despotism. That caliphate that the Muslim Ummah could not re-establish for 1,300 years after Hazrat Ali was martyred, was finally re-established in 1908 exactly as Prophet Muhammad foretold 13 centuries prior. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community re-established the caliphate in 1908 upon the death of the Messiah and Mahdi Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
This incident is in fact the fulfillment of a grand prophecy and further attests to Prophet Muhammad’s truthfulness. It is impossible that he could have accidentally predicted an event 1,300 years in the future with complete accuracy. Yet, here we are in fulfillment of a divine prophecy.
2. The true Caliphate has withstood the test of time, and the test of trials
Further establishing Prophet Muhammad’s truthfulness is that the re-establishment of the Caliphate in 1908 has withstood the test of time and the test of trials. When the Messiah Ahmad died in 1908, critics claimed this would be the end of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and thus the end of Islam’s revival. Instead, caliphate was established, Prophet Muhammad’s prophecy was fulfilled, and the community of Muslims who accepted the Khalifa grew. In 1914 when some Muslims left the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and rejected Caliphate , critics once again claimed this was the end of the Caliphate. Instead, the community of Muslims continued to grow rapidly.
In 1974 when the entire Ummah declared Ahmadi Muslims outside the fold of Islam, critics claimed the Caliphate would now die off. Instead, the community of Muslims who accepted the Khalifa only grew. In 1984 when the fourth Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community left Pakistan under threat of arrest and death , critics once again claimed this was the end of the Caliphate. Instead, the community of Muslims who accepted the Khalifa grew exponentially. And now, as worldwide antagonism against Muslims grows, and worldwide antagonism by Muslims against Ahmadi Muslims increases, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community remains united under the Khalifa of Islam, celebrates 106 years of unity, and is the world’s fastest growing sect of Islam.
The true Caliphate continues to thrive peacefully without a single act of religious violence — ever. Despite the test of time, and despite the ongoing and increasing worldly obstacles it faces, the true Caliphate advances unhindered.
Here is another enlightening source.
A 2008 text released by the Federal Territories Mufti’s Office, under the Prime Minister’s Department, claimed that Mirza Ghulam was a British agent sent to divide the Muslims in 19th century India.
Entitled “Beware! Qadianis are out of Islam”, it also alleged that the Ahmadiyya movement received Zionist support, and printed its propaganda material within Israel.
What I do not understand is why so many Muslims persist in obvious dead-ends.
I have spent a little time discussing religion with Muslims, and was shocked by how little they knew about their own religion. Perhaps this is just another domain of ignorance.
Here is the Ahmadi Quran, see footnoted section on the verse of the sword and compare that with the commentary in the tafsir of Ibn Kathir. (Sunni Islam)
Linked to chapter 9 copy/paste spread out the words so much it was impossible to read, just scroll down to the footnotes. In their version, the verse is limited to certain tribes in Arabia and a single point in time. ( this understanding of the verse is pushed by the MSM Ad nauseam) less than 1% of Muslims accept the Ahmadi understanding or reading of the verse.
Sunni understanding of the verse, (Ibn Kathir) around 85% of the worlds Muslims are Sunni.(Shia have a similar understanding)
Here the verse is timeless, or until all people have accepted Islam.
Linked directly to the verse of the sword commentary.
(a very troubling and all-encompassing word) Mushrikin Singular: munafiq= (hypocrites Quran chapter 63 al-munafiqun). pagans (me) or those who a ssociate partners with allah, Christians and the trinity thing, and Jews with Ezra (Quran 9:30) also Hindus and Buddhists.
Only Muslims pay Zakah.
read more at link
That’s... ... pretty clear....
"Kill them until they declare for Allah."
Have ever seen the Saudi "noble Quran" and the footnotes on verse 1:90? It explains so much of the continuing conflicts in the world, also why peace between Israel and the Palestinians is highly doubtful. Eye opening it is!!!
No. I am quite ignorant of the text of the Quran.
It is this section here that relates to Israel, they lost the land now inhabited by the Jewish people because jihad was abandoned. Not enough Muslims sacrificed themselves to drive the Jews into the sea. it's "only by jihad that is will be regained". See Hamas charter, it mentions that.
That last part about the hypocrites reference my comment about the " Mushrikin Singular: munafiq" allah command they are fought as well in the Ibn Kathir commentary to verse 9:5, and the words of Moudoodi linked by Tarah Fatah, those who reject armed jihad are not Muslims, they are apostates who can be killed, it expands on the idea made in the meaning of Mushrikin, and who falls into that category.
Maudoodi goes on to label Muslims who refuse the call to armed jihad as apostates:
footnotes for verse 2:190
Here is an old video, one group (the first ones in the video) are Muslims who are just like you and me, (just trying to get by (they are the radicals ) the other group are Traditionalists, fundamentalists or, more accurately literalists , (not radicals, or extremists just jihadists) they believe the words in the Quran are a direct command from allah to act upon them. They are participatory literalists , they "jihad fi sabillialh" (Struggle in the way (or cause) of allah) they follow the words in the footnotes of 2:190 to the best of their ability.
I'm a logocentric lunatic, who has spent more time researching this than any good pagan should. This is the rabbit hole, jump down it at your own peril. It is only by understanding the words and concepts behind the words that we can grasp the full complexity of the problem we face in the secular west.
qātilū a simple word meaning fight in Arabic, or so I thought. Its eight derived forms are used 170 times in the Quran. It was that single word that stated me down the rabbit hole. If you click the link and then click the word. You will see it's "root" has many diferant meaning in the Quran. Many of them meaning kill.
In English fight and kill have distinct meanings, that is somewhat blurred in classical Arabic. The Quran was recorded before Arabic had diacritical marks, the marks were added much later by Islamic scholars. There was, and is, still some differences in various Arabic printings of the Quran, to harden, or soften the meaning or message conveyed. Are to starting to see the complexities involved?
That usage is Quran 9:29 "fight (qatilu) those who believe not in allah or the last day."
But it can also mean "kill those who do not believe not in allah or the last day"
It has to do with the diacritical marks making subtle changes in the meanings of a word. A native Arabic speaker (an apostate) pointed that out to me and turned me on the Quranic Arabic Corpus. in his Arabic Quran, he explained to me, the first word in 9:29 is kill, not fight. The way it is presented in the link is fight.
I happen to be bilingual (French/English), so I'm fascinated by all the details that render translation so difficult.
In this case, both meanings may be correct... sometimes. We'd have to know each context of the writing of each usage.
I love discussions about the Bible. The translation from koine to English leads to all sorts of craziness.
And ultimately, we must recognize that the New Testament took place two thousand years ago, in an pastoral society. Many of the basic concepts that were discussed have changed fundamentally, like the "soul".
We nevertheless have many inerrantists in Christianity, who apply anachronistic ideas without even knowing they're doing it... Why would we not have the same in Islam?
Ahmadi Muslims are consider apostates, or infidels
Just asJews ignore some of the harsh dictates of the Old Testament or the Torah (e.g. - putting to death anyone who works on the Sabbath) moderate peaceful Muslims ignore the ugly dictates in the Koran, and with those I have no bone to pick. But when I criticize Islamists, radical fundamentalist and militant jihadis I get shit on by the liberals on this site. I consider those who do to be vicious ignorant fools, but then how can you teach a pig to fly?
It's not just the harsh dictates. One of my friends who is Jewish, picks, the parts he follows. He eats bacon double cheeseburgers and lobsters and he has got lots of tats. He just has his tats where a normal shirt covers them. Because even though he's in his 50s, he still doesn't want his mother to know he has them. it is not a sect of Judaism that permits that stuff, it's just how he rolls. He still considers himself Jewish, he does the sabbath thing unless its really inconvenient and he raises his kids in the faith.
Myself I'm pagan, I built a little standing stone thing in my backyard, it's tradition, there are things you are supposed to do with it. I don't do any of them, they are just stupid superstitions. Sprinkling whiskey on it is a waste of good whiskey. (I hide the spare house key in the little hollow in the back of it.) But I do admit to talking to it sometimes when I'm drunk. (LOL) I just like how it looks. I'm no less pagan because of that. The only "real" pagan tradition I do follow, is every fall I take a young evergreen tree into my house and keep in inside till spring. Christians kill their tree before they bring it in the house, they just crazy yo!
What I was really thinking about by harsh dictates is what President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) said in the West Wing TV series:
Tell me if you can't open that.
It opened for me but the video did not play.
Try this link:
It brings me to a Chinese youtube. But all I see is a blank video screen. I waited for a moment and still blank. The video never played.
Okay let me explain what it was. Martin Sheen, playing President Jeb Bartlet on The West Wing TV series comes into a room, is introduced by C.J. Clegg (played by Alison Janney) where a number of people are waiting for him. He sees that one of them, seated, is a woman, a Dr. Jacobs who has a call-in TV show. Bartlet questions her about why she is called Doctor, then really starts to go after her beliefs, about Homosexuality being an abomonation. She says that's what it says in the bible. Bartlet then spouts off a list of Old Testament laws, asks if he should have his Chief of Staff killed because he works on the Sabbath, what price should he ask for his daughter who is fluent in Italian, always clears her dishes from the table, and should the community get together and kill his brother who grows two different crops side by side, etc.
You will most likely be able to see that scene on YouTube as a separate item from the actual episodes as it is quite famous.
I don't think that's true at all. You were criticized the other day because you were making totally bogus and slanderous claims about CAIR, and because you seeded a story from an anti-Islam site rather than a credible source. Most of that seed was Islamophobic right-wing nuttery rather than an accurate and rational report on what actually happened after a student was bullied because she's Muslim. Your seed was just an excuse for an Islamophobic rant and an excuse to vilify all Muslims including typical ones like Dr Jasser and the Californian student in question.
As far as the current seed is concerned the difference between the vast majority of Muslims and Islamists is well known by anyone paying attention. Also note that "Islamist" isn't synonymous with "Islamic terrorist"......ie, the current president of Turkey is an Islamist rather than the sort of secular Muslims who have dominated Turkey's politics since the era of Kemal Ataturk and the founding of the Turkish Republic. For a rough comparison, Islamist is somewhat comparable to a Haredi or Hasidic Jew, or even to a Southern Baptist or similar conservative Christian extremist who wants the state to enforce the sharia laws of their sect. However note that Jasser speaks from a far right-wing viewpoint......he's essentially a Faux News groupy and thus shares most of their Islamophobic nuttery like their opposition to the Park 51 project in NYC.
You haven't been on this site long enough to know that I have for many years despised and been critical of ALL extremism, whether it be the Haradim, or the jihadis, or the Westboro Baptists or whatever, and I'm getting fucking sick and tired of being labelled an Islamophobe by people like you. I'm really starting to despise "Holier than thou" people as well.
Okay, I admit I wasn't aware that WND was an extremist source - but I sure as hell know now and promised Perrie I would never post anything from that source again.
By the way, if you consider Erdogan to be a typical Islamist - that's ONE of the reasons I think he's a piece of shit as well. Add it to his backing of a flotilla that attempted to break through a LEGAL (as declared by the UN) Israeli blockade of Gaza.
Hey, Buzz I was going to do an article about that years ago, and have the legal documents saved somewhere. Do you want them? I'm not a lawyer so I did not know how to present it properly, and I just gave up
I got the conviction, sentencing and one or two of the various appeals. CAIR, ISNA the other multi-lettered group who's letters escape me, were all up to their eyeballs in that shit.
Yes, I'd like to see it. I'm constantly having to defend myself from being accused of Islamophobia, and it would support my defence.
07/05/07
A motion to declassify information gathered by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”)
11/25/08 defendants convicted.
The FBI’s fight against terrorism funding paid a big dividend yesterday when five former leaders of a U.S.-based Muslim charity were convicted of funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
Guilty verdicts on all 108 counts against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development were announced in federal court in Dallas, Texas, representing the largest victory against terrorist financing in the U.S. since the 9/11 attacks.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 guilty parties sentenced.
Today, in federal court in Dallas, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and five of its leaders following their convictions by a federal jury in November 2008 on charges of providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.
"Today's sentences mark the culmination of many years of painstaking investigative and prosecutorial work at the federal, state and local levels. All those involved in this landmark case deserve our thanks," said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security. "These sentences should serve as a strong warning to anyone who knowingly provides financial support to terrorists under the guise of humanitarian relief."
HLF was incorporated by Shukri Abu Baker, Mohammad El-Mezain, and Ghassan Elashi. Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh worked as fund raisers. Together, with others, they provided material support to the Hamas movement
The Canadian offshoot of CAIR changed its name in an attempt to distance itself from CAIR and its Muslim Brotherhood connections, so it would not itself be labelled a supporter of the terrorist-declared Hamas.
An extremely detailed examination of the historical documentation of the British diplomatic archives questions that narrative. I also provided Perrie with some overlook information ( see below) in the comments as she seemed to take offense at the article. You may find it interesting as there are many historical parallels with Israel. I source everything. No opinions, strictly well regarded academic sources like Japan's Kanda University of International Studies, and Oxford University. You know how the press is unfair to Israel. well, that is not the only nation they treat unfairly.
A comment from the article.
I suspected as much, and hesitated to add that reference, but unfortunately I did because of the reams of reports, so I'm deleting it.
I read Perrie article about the Myanmar "genocide" around 12 o'clock a few nights ago and forced myself to stay up till I finished writing it.
I had read Dr. Aye Chan's research for a few years and was just never motivated until I saw everyone just hating on Buddhists to do anything with it. There is without a doubt unconscionable acts of violence perpetrated on a regular basis, one side is committing them in defense of their population.The other is the continuation of a jihad declared in the 1940s to exterminate a religious and cultural tradition going back centuries. One side has a Noble Peace prize winner as a leader. The other side is supported by t he Pakistani ISI Inner service intelligence, Al-qaeda, Lashkar e taiba, Jamaat e Islami, and the Taliban.
I do not support violence against civilians on either side, but if forced to pick a side, to me, the choice is clear. I just wish I trusted what they are really doing more because even though I know why they are doing it, it does seem excessive. But then I have to stop myself, because I remember seeing this picture of the burning "Muslim" in the press, and then much later found this.
Erdogan is definitely a piece of shit as are all other Islamists and other religious extremists like the Haredi and the Southern Baptists.
.
I fully support what Turkey did in that case. Israel is in the wrong.
That statement about CAIR is a lie which gets repeated by right wingers who know nothing about the circumstances for the erroneous claim and are too lazy to read multiple federal district court and appeals court rulings. Here's some background to help explain how the district court and the DOJ committed a grievous error by smearing innocent parties with that claim.......innocent parties which weren't even party to the court case much less the actions being prosecuted.
.
John Bolton has a far more direct connection to Islamic militant groups than CAIR does.
you so funny yo. stop, you killing me with dat shit!!
And your point is what, exactly? The appeals court ruled that the DOJ's list should not have been made public in order not to harm innocent parties like CAIR.
As I noted up thread, right wingers are too lazy to actually dig through and understand what several courts ruled. That's why I gave the summary which the Washington Post made.
Thank you for making clear that you are on the side of the declared terrorist Hamas rather than Israel. With your attitude Iran can deliver as many and as much armaments and destructive artillery and missiles to Hamas as it needs to carry out its sworn objective, to obliterate Israel and massacre its people. What the fuck do you think the LEGAL blockade was there for?
One more point I would like to make and I don't ever want to dialogue with you again. Jasser may well have opposed the 13 story Islamic Centre towering over every other building in the area of 9/11 to be constructed, as so many New Yorkers and family and friends of the victims saw it, to appear to those who opposed it as being a "Muslim monument to celebrate its victory over America", but I don't think there is opposition to the construction of a building as a 3 story Islamic Centre topped only by condominiums, on the site of the existing Islamic Centre. Maybe YOU should do the research you accuse me of not doing - which at least I have been man enough to admit that I didn't do.
That I have read all of the documents I linked for Buzz to read. And I found your comment funny as shit.
As it is unconnected with reality in any way whatsoever, it is surreal in its disconnect.
if you want to troll me you seriously need to step up your game. That is Poppycock. See original Duch meaning.
pappekak , literally, soft dung , from Dutch pap pap + kak dung
Actually you admitted up thread that you didn't understand what the courts ruled:
And your subsequent comments here made it abundantly clear that you didn't understand it. What you're doing is spreading misinformation which harms a civil rights group.
It was an aid shipment. There were no armaments and the ships had already been inspected at multiple ports. Israel could have simply searched the ship and let it pass but instead they attacked it and murdered a Turkish-American and 8 other activists.
.
To harm Palestinian civilians and prevent aid shipments. Israel wants to keep up the pressure on Palestinian civilians and aid shipments undo that to a limited extent.
.
The notion that the Park 51 building would be a "Muslim monument to celebrate its victory over America" is complete right-wing Islamophobic BS. What's worse is that it buys into and enables the agenda of Al-Qaeda......to drive a wedge between Muslims and everyone else in the west. It's exactly the wrong thing to do, and it even ignores the fact that Muslims have been the primary victims of those terrorists. We should instead be celebrating religious diversity here rather than pissing our pants simply because there's a mosque on the corner. That's truly pathetic, Buzz.
In none of my comments, including the copy/pasted comment you show. Do I say, or infer, that I did not understand what I read.
It just looks like a bunch of misplaced anger, on your part, in search of an outlet.
Am I missing something? is this you stepping up your troll game?
Have you tried Marijuana, specifically the Indica strain, it may help with anger issues. It works like a chill pill.
You did say that you did not know how to present it properly.
I agree. It's clear that you couldn't present it properly because you didn't actually understand it. That's why the WaPo summary exists for you to read and become enlightened.
FEDERAL JUDGE AGREES CAIR TIED TO HAMAS
LOL. That's the part I debunked upthread at 8.2.10. You obviously either didn't read the link or understand it.
Thanks, Buzz...
Okay, okay, not YOU.
That was it test. I see the link now. But I still can not see it in my other comments.